Protocol 12, Hasbara, Wikipedia and the CIA

Protocol 12: Control of the Press

anart said:
I find it interesting that you consistently look for discrepancies in any of the information presented here to 'disprove' things - in a very legalistic and surprisingly illogical manner
Perhaps "legalistic" would apply, but not "illiogical." If one is seeking to judge a question such as to what extent are the Protocols really more of an actual revelation of something or other than, say, Joly's Dialogues (or multiple other literary works by Dumas and similar authors which preceded Joly), then one should seek to identify the points which distinguish the Protocols. To do otherwise and then proclaim the Protocols as revelatory work unveiling a special hidden truth is indeed illogical.

For example, in the Twenty-First Dialogue Joly has Machiavelli preaching the idea that:

It [the state] can refinance all its uncovered debts in just the same way--treasury bonds, debts owed to municpalities and banks. This applies just to all debts that form a part of what is rather picturesquely called "the floating debt," that is, debts that have no fixed basis and which mature in the more or less distant future... Far from dreading a policy that sees the national debt increase and constantly refinanced, I would want the entire public fortune tied to government bonds... Every last cent in my kingdom would depend on my continued existence.

In contrast, Protocol 21 tells us that:

... nowadays all internal loans are consolidated by so-called flying loans, that is, such as have terms of payment more or less near... If left for long at the disposition of a government these funds evaporate in the payment of interest on foreign loans... When we ascend the throne all of these finances and similar shifts, as not being in accord with our interests, will be swept away so as not to leave a trace, as also will be destroyed all money markets... We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views.

Clearly the picture drawn in the Dialogues is much closer to our reality in the last 25 years, although I don't think that one can really understand the modern world by leaning very much on literary fictions from a century ago. Still, Joly's picture of a government to constantly refinance itself with an increasing national debt is much more related to what we've seen for a few decades now than is the image of drawn in the Protocols of money markets being abolished. These are exactly the types of discrepancies which a logical inquiry into the question of whether or not the Protocols were really a blueprint for the 20th century should address. Without that, we're just going back to the simple observation that literary authors such as Dumas, Joly, and others have often suggested dangers of public manipulation through public relations and, yes, of course, we have seen that realized to an enormous degree.

People seem to attach themselves to certain items like the Protocols based more upon a perceived ideological affiliation with the piece. I don't think that the overused charge of "anti-Semitism" captures that problem adequately, but the problem is real enough. People don't really approach such items according to the normal rules of logic by which one tests the authenticity or relevance of a document. Something about the Protocols touches an ideological chord in some people more strongly than do the Dialogues or other similar pieces which preceded them and consequently the rules of logic go out the window.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

Laura said:
The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation,
Actually, I don't remember saying anything taking offense against whatever. That says more about your own framework in which you place things than it does about me. I was simply noting that the Protocols clearly do not fit the description of "a blueprint for the 20th century." Too many important events of the last 3 decades leading up to our present time run in the reverse direction for such a description to hold. Those are historical facts. One very important background cultural influence in making possible the agenda of the Reagan administration was the fact that Right-wing voters had been influenced by such themes as:

Protocol No. 20

... A tax increasing in percentage ratio to capital will give a much larger venue than the present individual or property tax... The force upon which our king will rest consists in the equilibrium and the guarantee of peace, for the sake of which things it is indispensable that the capitalists should yield up a portion of their incomes for the sake of the secure working of the machinery of the State. State needs must be paid by those who will not feel the burden and have enough to take from.

This is diametrically the opposite of what the USA has seen since 1980. Many ordinary conservative voters who supported the cuts on capital gains carried out by the Bush administration were strongly influenced by cultural influences, some of whose message is derived from this theme in Protocol No. 20. If the Elders believe that they must set up taxes "increasing in percentage ratio to capital," then abolishing the capital gains tax will be a way of thwarting the Elders. Only now we have to deal with the mess that has been created by this.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

Patrick, have you noticed all your replies tend to be quoting one line, often from the beginning of a post, and then arguing that one tiny point while you disregard the rest of the posts content? I mean, you don't even acknowledge the entire content of the posts... this is characteristic of Subconscious Substitution and Selection of Information, quoting from above:

Information selection and substitution: The existence of psychological phenomena known a long time ago to pre-Freudian philosophical students of the subconscious bears repeating. Unconscious psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenomena possible: including those generally described as conversive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable premises.

Which seems to be exactly what you're doing with your snip and nitpick replies.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

PSM said:
Perhaps "legalistic" would apply, but not "illiogical."
So you are consciously aware of what you're doing, and the fact that you're ignoring the crux of the matter? Do you understand what has been conveyed to you in the past couple of posts? It's like not seeing the parallels between Bush and Hitler simply because Bush isn't putting Jews in concentration camps. Lots of people use that exact one and other similar arguments to "prove" that there is no similarity between curren US regime and Nazi regime. If you can understand the problem with such a "proof", you may understand the problem with what you have said. But there is only so many times that the same point can be re-iterated to you, and only so many analogies can be drawn before it becomes apparent that it is going nowhere, as it seems to be now.

PSM said:
If one is seeking to judge a question such as to what extent are the Protocols really more of an actual revelation of something or other than, say, Joly's Dialogues (or multiple other literary works by Dumas and similar authors which preceded Joly), then one should seek to identify the points which distinguish the Protocols. To do otherwise and then proclaim the Protocols as revelatory work unveiling a special hidden truth is indeed illogical.
But the problem is the logic you are applying only works for a certain small subset of what is communicated by the Protocols, specifically to the "low level" technicalities. For example, consider these 2 sentences:

1) Your eyes are blue.
2) The vision instruments you've been given happen to be the color of the sky.

You can say that none of the words are the same so logically there is no similarity between those 2 sentences. That is absolutely correct, if you consider similarity by how many words words are actually the same, there are none at all, so those statements are entirely dissimilar - and this is perfectly logical. But if you consider the idea, the concept, the meaning - then those statements are exactly the same. You must understand that when it comes to language, it is not math. It is more abstract, you cannot really calculate accuracy of any one thing mathematically without considering the WHOLE and the meaning of it all together. Even the C's have expressed this before:

C's said:
Q: Good. Now, at some point you said when we asked about the Ra Material, you gave the number that it was 63 percent accurate. Do you confirm this now?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, I want to know exactly how you got this number 63, how you computed it, why is it 63 and not 62 or 64?
A: The divination process always breaks down to mathematical processes, as this is the only true universal language.
Q: But, I want to know what mathematical process you were using to get this number 63?!
A: Add the total number of words published; divide the sum total by the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations.
Q: Okay, if we have 100 words, and 25 are used in the description of a concept that is accurate, is that what you mean?
A: Close.
Q: Okay, how do you determine an accurate conceptualization? (A) How do you determine if a given word is accurate?
A: By the verity of the issuer.
Q: So, words, even though words can mean different things, the verity of the speaker can give...
A: Yes, because if monitored in a state of pure non- prejudice, the accuracy level will be perceived correctly.
Q: (A) Can we go, word by word, through Ra material, remove the incorrect words and leave only what is correct?
A: Not necessary for reason just given.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to read a sentence: 'The first, the Great Pyramid was formed approximately 6,000 of your years
ago.' I want to go through this word by word. The word 'the,' accurate or inaccurate?
A: Accurate.
Q: 'First.'
A: Inaccurate.
Q: 'The.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Great.'
A: Accurate, in this case because of conventional agreement.
Q: Now, you describe a word as neutral, but in the mathematical algorithm you gave for computing the numbers, you didn't mention neutral words, so, what do you do with neutral words?
A: They belong to the 37 percent as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate.
Q: 'was'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'formed'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'approximately'
A: Accurate.
Q: 6,000
A: Accurate.
Q: 'Of.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Your.'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'years.
A: Accurate.
Q: Okay, if we apply the same formula to the C's, your material, what percentage would you give?
A: Not up to us to measure.
Q: Okay, you gave, concerning the pyramid the following sentence: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlantis 10,643
years ago.' Is it accurate?
A: Not as you state.
Q: The question was: what year was it built, and the answer was 10,640 years ago. And it is inaccurate? Is it also
inaccurate when we read original transcripts? (L) Yes, I think there is a problem. You confirmed the Ra material on a point that contradicts what you gave yourselves!
A: Problem is not with "us," problem is trying to compare to different frames of reference.
Q: Okay, let's read the sentence word by word...
A: Not point, as you have not even achieved an accurate reading as pertains to literacy. Remember!! "Frames of
reference." Look for clues in terms of definition.
Q: I don't understand what you are saying. Either it was built 10,643 years ago or it was built 6,000 years ago.
A: Stupidity is enhanced by haste.
Q: (A) In this material...
A: Formed/built... you think it means the same thing, eh???
Q: It was built before it was formed? (A) According to this Ra material, was never built at all, it was formed by
thoughts... Well, we are talking about facts, numbers.
A: If your house at 5555 Malibu Avenue is remodeled, then it takes a new form. Now, reread sentences in question carefully.
Q: 'The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this
performing by thought of the building or architecture of the great pyramid, using the more local or earthly material rather than thought form material to build other pyramidal structures.' Now, C's say: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans 10,643 years ago.' The problem with this sentence is, we are not specific - we know we mean the Great
Pyramid at Gizah. Okay...
A: No, Laura, no no no no!!!!!
Q: If your house is remodeled in 1998, is that when it was built?
Q: No that is not when it was built. Did the sentence you took out of the text say Atlanteans? (A) Yes, first you asked when and then by whom...
A: Atlantean Descendants, not Atlanteans!!
Q: (A) No, once it was said by descendants, and once it was said by Atlanteans. (We check and find that it did say
'Atlantean descendants and NOT Atlanteans.) Can we use this process to analyze all the material?
A: You can, but senior citizenhood awaits its completion.
Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracy that needs to be addressed? One main thing is: the
presence of certain persons. Some sessions were more accurate than others depending upon who was present...
A: You got it!!!
Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy rating for the C's themselves...
A: Bingo!
Q: But, we CAN assess the material itself, keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than others...
A: 71.7.
Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different people, typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same applies to the Ra Material... (A) Okay, suppose I have a sentence that the Great Pyramid was built 10,000 years ago, but really it was built yesterday, and you would give 70 per cent accuracy to this statement.
A: No.
Q: But only one word is inaccurate...
A: You are searching for a concrete formula within a vacuum of abstraction. The only way to get an accurate
measurement is to wait until you can include the sum total of all the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of the total. With the total of all words, and each individual word as the unit of measurement. And on that note, until the next time, Good Night.
Let me please repeat. You are looking for a concrete formula within a vacuum of abstraction. There are many different ways to be logical, and while certain logic may be correct within its own perspective, it may be entirely irrelevant and incorrect from a different perspective. And I don't mean subjective perspectives, I mean a perspective that is useful for particular situations. And here the situation is life, the world itself - understanding the power structure, understanding ourselves, and understanding how manipulation and control is performed. The Protocols describe exactly this. But there is a billion kinds of "logic" you can use to make it seem like the Protocols are gibberish that have no relevance to reality, and yet, just as with those example sentences I suggested, this "legalistic" logic simply does not apply to understand the meaning in any useful way. You're digging a hole of irrelevancy under the confusion that you're "criticizing" something. And personally, from my perspective, I find it difficult to imagine how someone who seems to possess intelligence is unable to grasp something so simple as that, I would be more inclined to think you're playing a game with us here. Either way, I really cannot express this in any other way, I'll have to sit this one out.

PSM said:
Clearly the picture drawn in the Dialogues is much closer to our reality in the last 25 years, although I don't think that one can really understand the modern world by leaning very much on literary fictions from a century ago.
I'm sorry, did you even read the post sleepyvinny made? Did you READ the protocols? Ok just for fun let me spell one of them out:

Protocol 7 - Armaments

Protocol 7 describes the increase of armaments among national armed forces, the police force, and the general population. This is achieved by the instigation of hostilities, violence and warfare, via manipulation of public opinions on one side or another. It can be prolonged and agravated by the simultaneous support of both sides of a conflict. [note: find a source to ref here, re: Zionist WWII funding of Nazis]

As well as conventional warfare, the document also describes the use of terrorism as a means of manufacturing a threat, instigating violence, and justifying increased armaments.

Ok, are you completely unaware about the current use of terrorism by Bush? Are you unaware that US is manipulating public opinion about the war in Iraq, about terrorists, and justifying militarization and takin away our rights and increasing theirs? Are you unaware that US is creating a civil war in Iraq and pitting 2 sides against one another? That US funded and armed Saddam? That US and Israel work together to create and fund fake terrorist groups to create a fake global threat to create a fake global conflict? I'm frankly fascinated by your seeming ability to write a coherent sentence and simultaneously show no ability to comprehend the most obvious and embarrassingly simple things. And I'm just being frank here, I know we've seen this on this forum time and time again, but it doesn't make it any less mind boggling each time, it's really amazing how a seemingly intelligent individual can have some psychological distortion that totally blinds them to a whole realm of thought. You just go on with your old argument like we've just said *nothing* to you, like a record player that reads everything we just said and goes "so anyway, as I said, there's really no connection between some fictional silly protocols and reality". I mean, huh!?

In the immortal words of Chris Tucker, "DO..YOU..UNDERSTAND..THE..WORDS..COMING..OUT..OF..MY..MOUTH!?!?" :P
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

SAO said:
But the problem is the logic you are applying only works for a certain small subset of what is communicated by the Protocols, specifically to the "low level" technicalities.
and not only that. even these low-level technicalities don't stand up to scrutiny:

PatrickSMcNally said:
But that is a very specific item which distinguishes the Protocols from the Dialogues. In the Dialogues it is asserted that the government may just endlessly print more money like there's no tomorrow. The Protocols do not take that view. So which is closer to our reality?
that is wrong. the Protocols DO make quite a detailed discussion of fiat currency (ie based on thin air), along with the removal of the 'gold standard' (something that didn't happen for many years after the protocols were written, and was widely assumed to be impossible, until it happened), which can be understood with a careful examination of the full text of protocols 20 and 21.

I was going to quote the text of protocols 20 and 21 in full here, but I think there is a large dose of "don't want to see it", so I shall refrain. for anyone who is genuinely interested, the texts are freely available on the web with a little effort.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

PatrickSMcNally said:
beau said:
They are a blueprint for the entire 20th Century.
No, they really are not.
Did you even read the rest of my post, specifically what I quoted from Controversy of Zion? Talk about a glib response :/
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

I think that about more or less a year ago, I would have fought anyone claiming that The Protocols are the blueprint for the 20th century. I wold have answered like PatrickSMcNally. I guess it's some kind of defense mechanism against seeing the ugly truth, combined with internalisation of the harsh propaganda that we are subjected to, propaganda that identifies people who see truth in the Protocols to neo-nazis and Far Right groups. Here we can see how disinformation makes a lot of damage in our relationship of reality and specifically in historical study.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

baklavatsky said:
people who see truth in the Protocols to neo-nazis and Far Right groups.
Well I never said anything about that so I don't see why you're suddenly attributing that to me. I've been accused by others of being neo-Nazi for pointing out that the story of the alleged Holocaust is a fraud. That doesn't bother me at all.

What I had pointed out was that the world of the last 30 or so years clearly has not followed the Protocols. If we're just going to back to the stuff about media control, all of that appears in Maurice Joly's DIALOGUES. The Protocols do not have anything new to add to what Joly produced with regards to comments about controlled opposition. All of that is Joly already and I'm told that Joly's material was lifted from Alexander Dumas, though I haven't searched it that far back yet.

Just to pick out another passage from the Protocols which describes the social scheme laid out there, and easily contrasted sharply with what exists at present, let's look at Protocol 20:

From this follows that taxation will best be covered by a progressive tax on property. In this manner the dues will be paid without straitening or ruining anybody in the form of a percentage of the amount of property. The rich must be aware that it is their duty to place a part of their superfluities at the disposal of the State since the State guarantees them security of possession of the rest of their property and the right of honest gains. I say honest, for the control over property will do away with robbery on a legal basis. The social reform must come from above, for the time is ripe for it -- it is indispensable as a pledge of peace. The tax upon the poor man is a seed of revolution and works to the detriment of the state which in hunting after the trifling is missing the big... State needs must be paid by those who will not feel the burden and have enough to take from.

How does show any resemblance to the policies followed from Washington since Reagan took office. In a much earlier era, when Democratic administration in the first half of the last century actually were advocating taxes on the rich and funding of social services, people used to point to the Protocols as a way of arguing that such taxation and social service policy was serving a hidden evil end. But since this has not been an issue since the steady trend for these last few decades has been to remove taxes on the rich and shift social costs steadily down onto the lower levels of society. That clearly is not what the Protocols present as their hypothesized social construction.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

Patrick - something is amiss here. You are clearly an intelligent person, yet you continue to stare at a knot in the bark of the tree nearest you, instead of being even vaguely aware of the forest. You have consistently focused on this one aspect of taxation to rather vehemently attempt to disprove that the protocols outline, very clearly, the course civilization has taken to its current point.

I keep coming back to the question of why? Why would such an intelligent man be so incapable of seeing the big picture - be so incapable of putting pieces together and a higher level of thought than 'the words don't match up'. At this point, I clearly have no answer to this question, but it logically comes down to two main possibilities. It would seem that either you are incapable of this level of abstract thought (which, while possible, is rather difficult to believe) or it serves your agenda to 'not see' what is right before you.

At this point, you've not responded to several direct questions about whether or not you have read entire posts or just their initial sentences, and you continue to wholly miss the crux of every matter on which you have commented. For an intelligent man, very strange indeed.
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

anart said:
You have consistently focused on this one aspect of taxation to rather vehemently attempt to disprove that the protocols outline, very clearly, the course civilization has taken to its current point.
Taxation is just one part of a whole program which clearly advocates a set of socialist measures to be used as the foundation for a future society in such a way that will guarantee that the ordinary laborer has no reason to grumble and therefore will accept that society. The final section of the Protocols begins with Protocol 20 and this is where such ideas are clearly emphasized as the foundation for the future society. If we remove these items which begin with Protocol 20 onward, then the main difference between the Protocols and Maurice Joly's Dialogues or other earlier versions disappears. The Dialogues contain everything which one can find in the Protocols with regards to such topics as media manipulation, fake opposition and the like. The place where the Protocols and the Dialogues may actually be distinguished from each other is in their descriptions of the financial basis of the future society. In that area, the Dialogues are clearly much closer to, and the Protocols are very far removed from, what we've seen in the real world in the last 3 decades. One would have to have a dogmatic fixation on treating the Protocols as a blueprint to not see the enormous discrepancy between the way that the Protocols discuss the need to avoid running up debt and simultaneously insure that the labor force is contented versus what has been enacted in the USA since Reagan.

The contrast with trends in the late 20th century is particularly important insofar as the Protocols carries some comments about events from the early 20th century which anyone could have predicted (and many did). Predicting the occurrence of a revolution in Russia did not require a crystal ball for someone in the late 19th century. If you knew anything about European history and the state of things in Russia at that time then you could readily forecast that a revolution of some kind would occur there sooner or later. But predicting that a Hollywood B movie actor would one day take the presidency of the United States and begin cutting taxes on the rich while running up an enormously inflated military expenditure and doing the exact opposite of what the alleged program laid out in the Protocols suggests, that would have been a real blueprint prophecy. But there's no sign of any predictions being made that far ahead. We have some statements in the Protocols which suggest the possibilty of a future war among the major powers. But again, many people predicted this long before 1914. There predictions usually weren't listened to, but the coming of general war was something open to prediction without needing any special insider knowledge.

That seems to be about the content of the parallels which people have tried drawing from the Protocols. We have a number of assertions about media manipulation which were copied from Maurice Joly and carry a clear analogy to the real world. We have some assertions in the Protocols which suggest the eventual occurrence of some rather predictable historical events. But when we focus on the place where the Protocols differ from the Dialogues, that means in regards to finance, and move ourselves to a time-period late enough in the 20th century that straight predictions can't be easily drawn the way someone could have predicted the revolution in Russia, that could mean looking at the final two decades of the 20th century, then the discrepancies separating the Protocols from reality are obvious. Anyone who doubts that should attempt a detailed analysis of the history of the US government's financial and economic policies since 1980 and methodically compare and contrast them to what appears in the Protocols.
Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services

Here is a site with a good tool. I thought about creating a new topic for it, but I dont know if its really necessary.

_ said:

In order to compute text trust, we first compute the reputation of all Wikipedia authors at all points in time. The goal is to be able to answer all questions of the kind "at 7:04 am UTC on Jan 23, 2006, what was the reputation of the user with ID 3546?". See below for the computation of author reputation.

Once the reputation values for all authors for all times are available, we compute the trust of each word of each revision. We compute the trust value of each word of a revision according to the reputation of the original author of the word, as well as to the reputation of any authors that have edited the page, especially if the edit is in the proximity of the word. We are still fine-tuning the algorithms, which will be described in a forthcoming publication.
Re: Protocol 12: Control of the Press

I would have to say that, even though they have been mostly proven as a hoax, written in 1921, most of the "forgery" has come to fruition.

Pretty good luck, if you look at it well enough.

Someone either knew something, or staged things to coincide.
Interesting observation on other forums - Agents who deliberately post misinfo?

I think that you guys might be interested in this.

Sometimes I post articles on a forum to kind of spread the word.
And it's interesting what kind of people ''pop up'' out of nowhere and what they say. Sometimes there's a person who tells something like the ''truth'' or close to it and then out of nowhere there's a guy that spreads the biggest misinfo ever. Almost as if there is some kind of balancing occurring.

The funny thing is; In a forum, you have people who already made some posts and then participate in a debate, but the post from these three people (that I'm going to mention now) was their first.
I find that interesting.

There is this thread about Israel and Palestine.
First there was this new guy saying the most absurd things about Israel and said things like this:

If you look at the history of that region, you'll find that the British originally meant for the Transjordan to be the Jewish homeland. What the Jews ended up with was a small fraction of that, and they built a viable country from what little they had. They irrigated the land, built industry, etc. The Palestinians were demied existence in all of the rest of the Arab lands, for a purpose: without the issue of the displaced Palestinians, the whole Arab/Islamic argument accusing the Jews of that very displacement would lose it's supposed legitimacy. Then look at the Israelis, have allowed Arabs to be citizens. Any objective view would then conclude that the mass of Arabs should just grow up and accept that tiny country's right to exist, and let the Palestinians move into the comparatively HUGE lands they already have. It's so obvious, yet the world at large stomps all over the Jews. Hey, if other countries all over the world hadn't demonized the Jews and instead accepted them, there would be no need for that small country, yet there they are.

Now don't think that I'm Jewish; I'm not. And yes, I've come across some nasty Jews who think we Goyem are all lesser beings. At the same time, I understand the contributions they have given the world, especially in music and science.

While I'm at it, why don't the Arabs and Islamists just accept the fact that this is the modern world, and not some old-fashioned potential caliphate? All the haters in the Middle East do is to just egg we Westerners on, giving us the urge to just be done with the problem, and use the enhanced-radiation (neutron) bomb, and eliminate the problem once and for all. and don't doubt that, if Iran or Pakistan ever bomb a western country, that millions of Arab/Islamists will indeed be wiped out. And forget the 72 virgin thing. That's cruel to the virgins, is it not? What loving God would do such a thing?

Can you believe it?

Well after a few posts he didn't post anymore.

Then some days later another person (also new) posted this:

Ever since the end of the Israeli offensive on Ghaza, I’ve read and have been bombarded with numerous news stories that just break my heart. Civilians without limbs and sometimes even without a face, continuous cries for help after the loss of a loved one, even to the extent the children that had suffered (from the war) wish death upon themselves so that they may leave this torturous life on Earth so that they can live in peace with those they have lost before. To me, it hits especially hard because I am a Palestinian that was able to move away from a country with a bloody history and was given a new beginning, while they suffer quietly in what some people in the United States consider the only ''democratic'' state in the whole Middle East.

In my opinion, there wouldn’t even be a fight if the Israelis treat their Arab neighbors as equal. Once we are treated equally and have full rights as citizens, the war will end. Until then, if Israel keeps treating us like dirt and continues to take occupied territories for their settlements, these attacks will continue.

One cannot simply blame any side unless they have a full understanding of the conflict. News channels such as Fox 13 are absolutely unreliable for they publish biased news making it seem as though the Israelis were the victim in this whole conflict. Sometimes people have some of the most pathetic excuses to support a government that uses tactics such as banishment of the native people. Two of the worst ones I’ve read were 1) “I support Israel because they agree with our western ways” and 2) a woman had used the excuse of religion for this one; just because she saw a picture of the Shiites Muslims during Ashura, she was almost hell bent on making Muslims look like they were a menace to themselves and society. Little did she know that the Palestinians are predominantly Sunni with a Christian minority.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually know how the Palestinians are treated in their own homeland. Do they know that we are restricted in where we can travel in our own land to the point where none of us know how the rest of our country looks like let alone know other cities other then the ones we live in ? Do they know that we are needed to carry around IDs and go through humiliating/grueling checkpoints? What about finding a decent job to support the family which is almost impossible because you are simply Palestinian? Neighborhoods slums in which are considered legal for us to live by the Israeli authority while they live in luxury? Homes and crops in which they lived on, destroyed for no reason? Basic human rights taken away simply, again, because they are Palestinian? And much, much more.

People need to know that Israel had broken the ceasefire first. Doesn’t the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves also?

How come Israel can kill a mass amount of innocent civilians, mostly women and children, and call it ‘defending themselves‘, while Hamas can’t shoot a rocket without being called a terrorist organization?

If this was truly a war on Hamas, how come the IDF isn’t pinpointing where exactly the militants are instead of risking the lives of the innocent? I’m sure a child of a mere three years is one of the many faces of a Hamas militant. (Que in the sarcasm there)

What about the White Phosphorus bombs used by the IDF? Do you know what it does to person?

Israel has occupied Palestine for 60 years. And you know for every occupation, there will always be a resistance.

Ever since Israel came to occupy the Palestinian’s land, many massacres have been committed. Recall Dar Yaseen in Palestine; Qana, Sabra and Shatela in Lebanon. Those massacres were just a few of many. Back then, Hamas and Hezbollah never existed and Israel still committed these acts of terror against the defenseless.

I’m not a citizen of my birth country. They had taken away my citizenship because I have an American passport. It shouldn’t matter if I have an American Passport, I have the same right as any Israeli or person to live in that country and be a citizen. Jews have the right of return, what about me? What about the thousands of Palestinian refugees scattered all around the world? The thing that angers me is that a Jew from Florida that has never stepped foot in the Holy Land nor have family overseas would automatically have more rights over my grandparents who were born and continue to live there!

Please answer these questions for me:
Do you think that it’s okay for someone to take another persons homeland, destroy their homes, and kill their family just for the sake of another person?
What would you do if this were to every happen to you? Would you be willing to leave the place you call home? The same place you’ve been born and raised in?

Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are, in our religion, the people of the book who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (PBUH), to be respected and protected.
Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

To those who support Israel: try all you can to justify what Israel is doing, but everyone knows the truth. A person can only fool another for so long.

Book suggestion: Peace Not Apartheid by former president Jimmy Carter

In the war, I have lost three girls that I have known and have considered as my younger sisters (ages 5, 7, and 13). My family was and is still continuously harassed by the IDF and authorities of Israel. I have had uncles beaten for no reason, a cousin who was taken and beaten until he admitted to a crime he never committed, an uncle's home that was bulldozed down because he didn't have a "building permit" for it, my mother's family was attacked by the IDF (at a refugee camp) where I had almost lost my baby cousin (the youngest child in the home was 4 months while the oldest was 14 years and the oldest adult was 52 while the youngest was 34 in which was my mother).

Recently I had visited this summer and whenever I had tried to pass the checkpoint, I was constantly harassed so that they would make sure I would never come back to this country and during that same time an IDF soldier had beaten a visibly mentally retarded man even though he had cleared him to pass on (even through our continuous cries saying he was ill, the soldier never stopped). But guess what? THIS IS MY BIRTH COUNTRY AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM COMING BACK!

People never hear these kinds of things. Why? so that people would not side with the true victims of this occupation.

I think s/he makes some good points, right?

A day or two later another new registered member posted this! :

hi my name is tom

i read the thing written here...and i really dont think there's more to say politicly wise.
what i can tell you guys is my story

i am a israeli citizen. also until about a month ago i was a israeli soldier. and i was in the war in the gaza strip. also i would like to say that i am not a right wing. i do not think that all arab are bad, and i do not think that they are all to blame.

when i fought in the war i was suprised to see the humanitarian help from the israeli army to the palestinien people. for example: before a place was bombed palastiniams that lived there wound acually get sms messages to get out!. there were letters dilivered by air before bombings, we the soldiers had spasific and i thing extreme rules against times of fire. i saw hammas standing behind people and shooting. my friend also in the army told my that when they were in houses of palestiniens, they were glad. they hate the hammas. they terrorise there own.

i have a lot of storys...i'll keep some for later

Later he said this as well:

after i wrote the last message i talked to one of my friends...he to was in the war in golany. he told me a little story. he was in a palestinian house. inside was a family. a hammas at this time were shooting at the house knowing there were Palestinians and israeli army inside. at this point my friend and and his unit put the family in the most protected room in the house while on fire to protect them.

Could some of these guys be agents that spread misinfo deliberately? It sure does sound like it.
Especially the last person.

I've also observed what these people are really trying to say, which reminds me of what Laura once said :
everything is backward, black is white, good is evil, up is down,

It's so interesting that the guy who wrote the last two posts is saying he or his friend are eyewitnesses to some things, just like the new member who wrote before him. But you can see clearly a difference between the two.

What do you think?
Re: Interesting observation on other forums - Agents who deliberately post misinfo?

Oxajil said:
Could some of these guys be agents that spread misinfo deliberately? It sure does sound like it.
Especially the last person.

I've also observed what these people are really trying to say, which reminds me of what Laura once said :
everything is backward, black is white, good is evil, up is down,

It's so interesting that the guy who wrote the last two posts is saying he or his friend are eyewitnesses to some things, just like the new member who wrote before him. But you can see clearly a difference between the two.

What do you think?

If you remember what Laura says at the beginning of the podcasts:

Laura said:
There is a disinformation program literally for everyone. No matter who you are - what your interests are, what your beliefs are, which way you're focusing - there is a website set up just for you to take you in and to vector your thinking and your attention into thinking the way that they want you to think. - Laura Knight-Jadczyk

So they are agents of disinformation everywhere and they are for sure trying to infiltrate lots of forum.
Re: Interesting observation on other forums - Agents who deliberately post misinfo?

Oxajil said:
Could some of these guys be agents that spread misinfo deliberately? It sure does sound like it.
Especially the last person.

This is most likely the case. Remember, there are Zionist groups who are paying good money to anybody who will spread disinfo around about the Israeli/Palestinian horror that is being played out. The Hasbara PR group is getting its workout.

Here are just three articles from Sott that explains what they are doing.

Hasbara spam alert! Zionism's PR machine swings into action
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Extra! Extra! Hasbara inserts in US newspapers
Video: Former Israeli minister confirms Hasbara tactics: Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust™ are 'tricks' for silencing dissent

With all of the truth coming out about the atrocities being done to the Palestinians by the rabid Zionists of Israel, they had to kick some really good PR programs into action.

So, yeah, I'd say that you have seen the fruits of this labor of psychopathic clean-up. That last one was particularly good at making it sound like the soldiers had no choice of what they were doing, when, in fact, the soldiers have been using Palestinian youths as shields as they go from house to house, have been kidnapping innocent children and young men for, what I would suggest is torture and/or stealing of organs for blackmarketing, and the list goes on and on.

Reading some of the Sott articles on Israel and/or Palestine is a very eye-opening experience. Not necessarily a pleasant experience, but sometimes, the truth is not pleasant, but it is the truth, and that's what we need to be looking at.

But, then, you already know that so sorry for rambling. This whole Palestinian/Iraq/Afghanistan thing really disgusts me. And that includes the lies that are being propagated by those such as the Hasbara group, mainstream media and whoever else is diligently working on covering up the atrocities that are being done.
Top Bottom