Anees writes from Jerusalem (where alas, he is a second-class citizen):
I usually avoid reading Thomas Friedman, but I was intrigued by the title, "In the Age of Pirates". He does not specifically say it, but what he writes can easily be used to make the case to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran:
"The only thing that could change this [failure to make Iran and North Korea aquiesce] is a greater exercise of U.S. and allied power."
He cites "four problem countries at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today," namely Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Neither Israel nor Iraq are on the list, presumably because Iraq is "solved" and Israel is an "ally of the free world." When will this pundit be deposed?
This is getting ridiculous. Don't editors and publishers have an ethical obligation to disclose the religo-political motives of this army of Jewish Zionist ideologues masquerading as journalists?
This is what is so infuriating about the MSM. It presents itself as representative of a cross section of American perspectives, but all it's really a cross section of is Jewish Zionists, left-liberals, Big Government conservatives, and Neocons/Neolibs. And it has constructed a false consciousness in Americans that that's the entirety of our choices, take it or leave it.
This country is getting more Soviet by the day.
The Israel supporters almost make me admire the 9-11 hijackers. The Al Qaeda guys at least took it upon themselves to learn to fly planes, and did their own hijacking and dying on their organization's dime. The Al Qaeda men at least were willing to fight against great odds.
When will this pundit be deposed?
Posted by Philip Weiss at 12:28 PM
Long after you are but dust. And then it will be his retirement.
It is not unusual to see people like Todd treat the murderers of American citizens as heroes and martyrs
Chris, I consider both Zionists and Al Qaeda to be enemies of America. I just realize that Al Qaeda has a reason to hate the U.S. government. Why Zionists chose to be undermining parasites is beyond me.
Todd wasn't glorifying Al Qaeda, he was comparing its tactics to the tactics employed Jewish Zionist jihadists, aka The Israel Lobby. And the Jewish Zionist jihadists have murdered far more Americans than Al Qaeda, by engineering the Iraq war on behalf of Israel.
Of course, they don't consider it murder, because the Talmud says if a gentile falls in a pit, dragging a rock over the pit isn't the equivalent of killing him. Same goes for all those dead gentile soldiers lied into war by the Jewish Zionist jihadist lobby. It was their own fault for joining the U.S. Military, right Berel?
It is a pleasing thing to post comments to your own blog saying "when will this pundit be deposed". But then I have an odd sense of humor.
Good news. Jeremy Bowen the far left anti Israel BBC presenter was found to be too biased, even for the BBC.
link to telegraph.co.uk
/>
Great, Julian! What does that mean for the sane people who hate being robbed blind to support Israel?
Julian always posts twice, evidently unaware of the fact that his posts do not gain from the effort, but become doubly inane.
far left
Terror, schmerror.
It's the Reds got hasbara's knickers in a twist, not terror, not even anti-semitism.
Friedman is batshit insane.
Between his articles extolling the virtues of 'educating' the Arabs on deterrence and this stuff, he clearly belongs in a straitjacket.
I love how he calls Israel an ally to the 'free world' and refers to our business partners as the 'allied powers'.
We will move on from one weaker enemy to the other, evoking the memory of the Nazis and WW2 to justify our own evil.
BBC: the hand-wringing persuasion of Zionist arrogance;they weep copious alligator tears but ultimately accept the whole ugly package.
The BBC, ever since Mark Thompson became Director General, has taken an ugly, pro-Israel turn. There goes one of my primary sources for unbiased reporting.
The fact that they couldn't even air a charity appeal for Gaza tells me all I need to know about them
They've always been biased. It's just easier now to see past the glamour and prestige to the sleaze beneath.
Here's a good response to Friedman the clown:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/another-freidman-special_b_187255.html
Phil,
If you haven't noticed, your "audience" derives most of their comment points from your headlines. If they are misleading, then you end up fueling the rancorous rumor mill.
Your use of the term "when will this pundit be despised?" is itself despicable.
Why use such language about anyone? Why not propose an alternative perspective rather than the character assassinations?
It says "DEPOSED" not "Despised" Witty, you crazy, transitional hominid!
"Deposed" has more than one meaning. Maybe Friedman will be deposed in a civil suit. Who has standing to sue the guy?
I read in Harper's a month or two ago that Friedman's wife had lost 99% (or was it 95%) of her $3 billion fortune in stock in a shopping center firm. Still would leave a hefty sum, but I wonder how much more she has lost by now.
The poor woman has to spend her life married to Thomas Friedman. Surely, that's punishment enough.
The pundit is already despised by those able to recognize humane values, and he does need to be deposed from his high position as NYT Op-Ed columnist for his despicable opinions.
Witty apparently reads what he wants to read, his mind inserting whatever words infer the most virulent anti-semitism, and then he extrapolates a worldwide conspiracy against the Joos from what he thinks he read.
Honestly, can anyone have a rational debate with those whose minds have been conditioned by pharisaic Zionists to insert dark and murderous forces into slightly critical sentences?
The problem is, it's not only Jewish Zionists who have been thus conditioned, and not only Jewish Zionists doing the conditioning.
Why would the MSM want to condition Americans similarly? Why would the US Establishment from Left to Right as well? Because they don't want an involved citizenry, but a cattle citizenry that can be herded into all manner of directions and conclusions at the smallest suggestion, and used to trample whomever the pharisaic Establishment happens to be pointing their fingers at today.
I see our tag-team is back together. Ed, Todd glorified the murderers of Americans.
Todd, there are too many things beyond you to mention. Perhaps you could go to a school with real educators. It might help you, but based on your posts, you're pretty hopeless. Just like rykart, or is that go-kart?
I see Chris Berel is back, pretending to give a hoot about Americans not of his own treasonous ilk.
We all know Chris Berel's & Stools' leifmotif: God gave the land to the Jews & gentiles must sacrifice
everything to cement the holy jewish delegation. Only the Jews deserve an insurance policy, and the gentiles' job is to pay the premiums. Period.
In his column Friedman is basically calling for a neocon-style ban on diplomacy as a foreign policy tool. This is not about zionism, as some commenters above have been concerned with; it is about neo-conservatism's (hopefully) last breath.
weinak yatamer, your comment is much to the point. I wish one could lol at seeing Friedman's view portrayed as a neo-con style of ban on diplomacy as a foreign policy tool. Elegant, that.
Unfortunately, one can't enjoy a chuckle. There are many people actively campaigning against diplomacy, offering munitions, shock and awe instead. The controversy regarding counter-insurgency IMO is important; more people need to be involved in the debate.
People have got to follow the money, to show where the connection is between commerce and our wars…
With adequate ballistic defense, we do not need to go elsewhere to defend ourselves militarily, IMO. The money used to pay for war, like the billion dollar bonuses of Wall Street, are draining the economy of the many for the benefit of the few. We do, as a nation-state, need defense. But as a nation-state, we would be powerful indeed in a posture of "Boycott, Divest and Sanction."
I would like to re-purpose counter-insurgency as a matter of criminal law, rather than military activity. As I am largely uneducated (and I do mean largely) in the field, I hesitate to comment on any of the COIN blogs.
Does anyone have an opinion about whether doing would be contra-indicated by laws for spheres of influence within the US government?
You're right, I did read "despised". I guess I also presume.
You guess?
Sorry if this seems off-topic. My thesis is that our foreign policy is being directed to follow "Israeli rules," as presented by Lieberman. I advocate identifying the premise for such rules as counter-productive to peaceful life and contesting the promulgation of war-purposed state policies.