You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Fake News - Sky News Exposed - Lying To Mislead About Child Rape Activist 'Tommy Robinson'!

in #news • 6 years ago

I of course disagree that Israel is in anyway an Apartheid state, but let's leave that for some other time, I am actually stating that Tommy Robinson has principles and stands with all victims of the supremacist aspects of that ideology

6 years ago in #news by
$0.00
    Reply 4
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago (edited) 

    The reason people question him is that to them it is very clear that Zionism is often used in association with a supremacist mentality (even if some do not use it in that way) and that they see 'tommy' as hypocritical to be aligning with such a movement when it appears on some levels to be no better than that which he is aligning against. This raises concerns that he is, in fact, involved in the kind of power struggle that has, in the past, given rise to characters such as Hitler - or in Britain - Oswald Mosley. To deny this about zionism in Israel is to deny a mountain of video and written evidence from people all across Israel.

    I actually share the concern that ANYONE who seeks to build power based on aligning against particular groups of people - regardless of whether it is in self defense or not - needs to be scrutinised for their total integrity, since the imbalances within the minds of humans can often lead to unexpected outcomes where such power bases turn destructive horrifically.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       6 years ago  

      While Nationalism of any stripe can be extreme to reach the level of supremacism a country needs to cross some serious lines, such as the mass killings perpetrated by the Janja Weeds in Sudan.

      • needs to be scrutinised for their total integrity,

      Nobody self-criticizes more than Jews, can you show me an example of the PA or Hammas investigating any of its own actions?

      Have you ever listened to the Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid?

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         6 years ago  

        I do not have a need to assess groups of people only in relation to other groups of people. There may be many groups of people far more dysfunctional than those operating the zionist agenda, but that does not change the reality of their own state of being and intent. Perhaps all that self criticism (lack of self acceptance) is part of the cause of the missing balance here. Supremacism starts in the heart (or lack of heart) and doesn't really require much more than a deep lack of self acceptance, combined with denials that twist the truth. What can start as a fear of being less than worthy can be turned around into an over compensation of 'definitely being extremely worthy' to the point of being 'god's chosen people'. This combination of ideological belief and lack of stability at the core of the being is enough to sow seeds that can grow into supremacism in the right conditions.

        There are those who claim that there is no such concept within judaism that relates to a supremacist atttiude, however, I have seen myself that there are (alleged) jews in Israel who act every bit as supremacist as certain Germans did when Hitler was around - this is well known by many. It is of no use to lump together millions of people and treat them all as if they are the same, this is unfair and inaccurate and I am certainly not saying that all people who identify as Jews or who live in Israel are this way, since they are not. However, the government there certainly has contained people who are that way - including the well known minister 'Ayelet Shaked' who so unwisely called for what amounts to genocide - citing other evil actions carried out by Britain and America previously as justification. It is fine to point out the causes for people's heartlessness and twisted logic, but nothing can excuse it.

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           6 years ago (edited) 

          Ayelet Shaked quoting Uri Elitzur

          The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

          I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

          And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

          And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

          Seems like a rational approach to war not "called for what amounts to genocide" .

          $0.00
            Reply