Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Monday, January 12, 2015

The theater of hypocrisy

I've been known to draw a few cartoons, and I know that good gigs don't come along very often. Were I a young French cartoonist desperate for work, I might have become a Charlie Hebdo staffer. And I might have ended up as one of the corpses in that office.

That said...

Yesterday's display of "unity" in Paris seemed staged, manipulated, and -- ultimately -- quite unsettling. The right side of the media has castigated Obama and other top officials for not participating in this piece of theater. If you ask me, the President did well to stay home.

An anti-terrorist event that welcomes Bibi Netanyahu? Are you kidding?

CNN covered Bibi's arrival in Paris pretty much the same way they would have covered DeGaulle's post-liberation march into that city, had CNN been around then. When future historians watch the footage taken yesterday, jaws will drop.

The Islamic terrorists who committed that heinous deed in the Charlie Hebdo office are babies compared to Bibi. If the assailants had been allowed total freedom to machine-gun everyone they didn't like for three weeks straight, they still could not have compiled a body count to match that of Bibi Netanyahu.

"We don't shoot women!" shouted the terrorists. The IDF sure as hell does. I could fill this post with dozens, hundreds of photos of women and children murdered in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. They died to fulfill the genocidal ambitions of Bibi and his fellow racists.

The important thing to understand is that the Charlie Hebdo attackers had been part of the anti-Assad rebellion. That rebel force would not exist without us. Using the Saudis and others as cut-outs, we funded the insurrection. Seymour Hersh says that the CIA made sure that arms from Libyan stores went to the Syrian rebels. We allowed extremists who normally would be on the "no fly" list to hop on airplanes and head to the combat zone. 

Unfortunately, most Americans do not know that our government made a Machiavellian decision to side (in secret) with the Sunni extremists. ISIS and Nusra began life as our proxy warriors against the great Shi'ite powers.

(Frankly, most Americans are too damned dumb to know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite.)

Our rulers believe that the goal of undermining Syria and Iran justifies working (covertly) with the exact same maniacs who have beheaded journalists and attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices.

As we have demonstrated in previous posts, Israel has aided ISIS on many occasions. When Bibi showed up in France, he should not have been applauded; he should have been arrested and tried as a co-conspirator.

Free speech. The most appalling aspect of this exercise in political theater is the hypocritical embrace of "freedom of the press" by the very people who continually seek to restrict our range of permissible thought. As this perceptive writer noted a few days ago,
In the midst of this orgy of democratic hypocrisy, no reference is made to the fact that the American military, in the course of its wars in the Middle East, is responsible for the deaths of at least 15 journalists. In the on-going narrative of “Freedom of Speech Under Attack,” there is no place for any mention of the 2003 air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of Al Jazeera in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded.

Nor is anything being written or said about the July 2007 murder of two Reuters journalists working in Baghdad, staff photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh. Both men were deliberately targeted by US Apache gunships while on assignment in East Baghdad.

The American and international public was first able to view a video of the cold-blooded murder of the two journalists as well as a group of Iraqis—taken from one of the gunships—as the result of WikiLeaks’ release of classified material that it had obtained from an American soldier, Corporal Bradley Chelsea Manning.
We all know what happened to Manning and Assange.

Noam Chomsky also cites examples of the American military deliberately targeting journalists.
By the same token, we can readily comprehend the comment in the New York Times of civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, noted for his forceful defense of freedom of expression, that the Charlie Hebdo attack is “the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory.” He is quite correct about “living memory,” which carefully assigns assaults on journalism and acts of terror to their proper categories: Theirs, which are horrendous; and Ours, which are virtuous and easily dismissed from living memory.
Let us not forget the American assault on journalists during the Iraq invasion. The image to your right shows an American tank firing directly at the hotel where Al Jazeera newsfolk were known to be staying. Of course they were deliberately targeted; only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Why does no-one speak of the journalists killed in Gaza during last year's barbaric assault by the IDF?

Am I the only one who recalls what happened to Mother Agnes, a voice for peace in Syria? She was silenced. The denial of her right to free speech was nothing short of scandalous:
Mother Agnes has been subject to a vicious internet campaign of character assassination, smears and defamation. We’ve been told that she is an ‘Assad apologist,’ ‘Assad‘s favourite nun’- she has even been called ‘the Syrian equivalent of one of Hitler’s brown priests’.
The reason she has been attacked – and why it was so important to stop her speaking at the Stop the War event- is because her first-hand account of what has actually been happening in Syria challenges the dominant western narrative.
What was this woman's sin? She tried to warn the world about the extremists now known as ISIS. That's right: Mother Agnes was defamed, marginalized and silenced because she spoke out against the same maniacal movement that produced the Charlie Hebdo assault.

How many times have we heard defenders of Israel arrogantly inform us that we don't have the right to speak unless we say what they want us to say?

Consider the villification of Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem and Gary Oldman. Whenever anyone in Hollywood speaks of the oppression of the Palestinians, the truth-tellers are threatened with being blackballed. How dare the blackballers invoke "freedom of speech"?

Until recently, I had contacts with people in "the industry." I can tell you for a fact that a lot of people (including some Jews) would love to speak out against the things Israel has done. They dare not. They keep their mouths shut in order to continue to work.

Professor Schlomo Sand, one of the most interesting historians Israel has produced, has infuriated many with his claim that modern Palestinians -- not European Jews -- are the true offspring of the Jews of the Bible. I'm not sure that I buy his thesis, although the argument is fascinating. (Despite his endearingly terrible English, Sand is riveting in this YouTube video.) Because his ideas undermine a beloved myth, Sand has been muzzled.

When Norman Finkelstein wrote a book offering a point-by-point critique of a pro-Israel work by Alan Dershowtiz, Dershowtiz and the powers-that-be did everything they could to squelch publication. It's an amazing story, told at length in the video embedded above.

The people who shot up the offices of Charlie Hebdo took up the gun only because they lacked more subtle -- and more effective -- means to silence their opponents. The people who control our media (usually) don't need guns. They have more powerful weapons.

Welcome to the theater of hypocrisy.
Apparently Netenyahoo was not welcome at the unity event, in fact was pointedly asked *not* to attend by the Hollande administration. Huffpo has a link to the story by Barak Ravid of Haaretz at the website. Apparently Bibi attended in spite of France's request because his political rivals were there and it's campaign season. He insinuated himself into the middle of the front row. Hollande was pissed.
Re; The gunmen-

Le Figaro is reporting that the gunmen were being tracked up to the time of the attack by French Intelligence

And McClatchy News is reporting that they are apparantly connected to a French Intelligence asset that "defected" to Al Qaida

For what it's worth, my round-up of the current alternative theories to the attack, including google translation of Le Figaro article:
You should distinguish between Ancient Israelites of the Bible and Jews as "Jew" is used in modern terminology.

I certainly hope Abbas did nothing to give credentials to Netanyahu.
Did you see Netanyahu's long speech at the Paris grand synagogue (complete with reference to Entebbe)? When has a government leader ever made such a speech before in a foreign country?

Quote: "Israel stands with Europe, and Europe must (sic) stand with Israel". And they talk about Eurostan and Eurabia!!!

What has happened to the left, to the principled anti-racist left?

Netanyahu talked about French Jews being welcome to leave France and settle in "the land of our forefathers". Even Hitler didn't call lebensraum his vaterland.

Clearly the terror attacks in Paris are all right for some in more ways than one.

Some fascist Jews take the view 'So what if Jews get scared outside of Israel? The worst that can happen is they make aliyah'. Some also take the view that the Jewish victims of the Nazis were 'soap', most of whom were too pathetic to put up a fight. It's about time people faced up to these fascist views which are by no means held only by a few dozen people.

The speech ended with the crowd being geed up to chant "Am Israel Chai" and "Bi-bi, Bi-bi!"

Dieudonné, where are you?
Have there been any press reports about the scale of the Israeli armed security presence in Paris?

Barak Ravid's article is here.

I'm not convinced by what Ravid says. He pins his version onto the Israeli story that Netanyahu didn't want to go but only decided to when Lieberman and Bennett said they were going.

That misses three points. First, Netanyahu is head of the government and his ministers don't have the right to defy his instructions. Second, government leaders can't just travel to foreign countries at whim. Third, and most importantly, before any such visit details regarding security have to be agreed between the two countries.

If the French had said 'Sure, come, but we'll handle the security on our own, thanks', the Israelis would have stayed at home - and I doubt the Israelis would have pursued the matter in the press. ('Yes, they told us we could come, sure, but when we told them we'd need 100 armed goons on the streets and a couple of dozen more along the Boulevard Periphérique, those anti-Semitic garlic-eaters told us we could only have 10 all told. Obviously we couldn't accept being pushed around like that just because we stand up to terrorists' - wouldn't play well in many markets.)
Thanks for the info, Jon. As far as "we don't shoot women." Please. They drape them. Rape them. Acid burn them. Whip them. Child rape them.

There is hypocrisy to spare in this, number ONE are the idiots in our so-called "reality-based" so-called "progressive" community who are preening and posturing and tripping over themselves not to be "racist" in denouncing Islamic demonic fucktardness.

Are we gonna REALLY leave Fox News to champion women? Seriously?

"Police Commissioner Helric Fredou, Number Two Police Officer of the Regional Service of France’s Judicial Police (JP), Limoges, (Haute-Vienne), “committed suicide"".
He had previously met with the family of one of the victims, and then met and debriefed a team of investigators. After the debriefing he was at his desk preparing a report when he "shot himself" with his own police issued weapon at around 1 AM Thursday morning.

Apparently there is a news blackout on this event.
@Prowlerzee - Good point. But many of those who denounce Islamic demonic fucktardness do do it in a racist and pro-war way. Anyone who is in any doubt about that should head over here and gen up on the attitude that's rife in the British army. Some of these types think it's the same enemy in Bradford as in Afghanistan and would love things to get more militarised and corpse-heavy in the former. In defence of little more than their own sick hyper-masculinity.

As far as the idiotic pro-Islamic fucktardness bits of the left in Britain go, it's not always fear of being 'racist' that makes them do it. Following leaders who are likely to be state assets is more it...helping bring as many in the target area as possible into as clear a view as possible.

Once upon a time the main targets were Irish communities, trade union members and officials, and to some extent leftwing long-haired students, but that's all in the past.

Agreed that having any time for those who are apologetic towards raping-and-headchopping fucktards is not on.

I'd like to see more reviling of hypocrisy all round. (Some people I know are too 'shy' even to use the concept of hypocrisy, and when I say 'OK, so you're saying people who hold such and such a combination of views are hypocrites', they wriggle about and say they wouldn't say that. It's as if the phenomenon of a person holding mutually contradictory views, or views that contradict their behaviour, doesn't feature much in their take on stuff at all.)Aslce
One more time. Not a comment, but a question. If Israel is the most vile, despicable country that exists, why is that? Is it A. Because Jews as a race are inherently evil and inferior (the Hitler approach), B. Because Judaism itself is inherently evil (the Shahak approach), C. The culture of Israel is evil as a result of the persecution visited upon them throughout history, sort of an abused child syndrome theory (in which case, of course, it should not ever allow Palestinians power over them since the Palestinians, having been tormented by the Jews, would no doubt be overly cruel to them) or D. Something else, which would be...what?
small j, one more time. Who has stated that Israel is "the most vile, despicable country that exists"?? There is no point in answering a question that is based on a non-existent assumption on your part. Perhaps Joseph will have a better reply for you, but I suspect he is also wondering who has made these claims you are asking about.

Have you been reading this blog? Mr. Cannon, if that's who he really is, has been very clear Israel is such an evil country that it needs to be destroyed. Not the leaders, the country. He has repeatedly said that he "hates, hates, hates, Israel." There is no other country upon which he piles his vitriol He has declared Israel a genocidal, apartheid country which doesn't deserve to exist. I fail to see what country could be worse, or what country he doesn't see as better. Take a look at his review of Joan Peters' book and then look at a reasoned review by Martin Kramer. He doesn't go over the top, recognizes the deficiencies with the book, but also its assets. As the purported Cannon is so filled with loathing, he cannot see straight nor can he see nuanced views as regards Israel. Lydda has been a serious issue for years among historians. Kramer is able to sit with contrary views and at least appreciate other analyses. The alleged Cannon can't.
small j, I've been reading the blog for years. Please show me where Cannon says Israel should be destroyed. I can't recall such statements ever being printed on the blog. Otherwise, you are putting words in his mouth. As to the loathing, suffice to say that the Israeli government (and certainly some of the citizens themselves) have done much to inspire such feelings. Again though, I don't recall Cannon ever stating that Israel needs to be destroyed or that it is the most vile, despicable country that exists. There are, to be sure, far worse nations on the earth. Most of them are failed states, however, and not self avowed democracies. Certainly, nations like Yemen and Saudi Arabia receive no love from Cannon (among others). Your constant defensiveness about Israel is plain for everyone here to see, and the fact that you bring it up constantly, when the topic is not even Israel, says quite a lot.
Gus, the truth is, I have called for the military conquest of Israel -- for the same reason that, if the year were 1944, I support the military conquest of fascist Italy.

How is that racist? I'm largely of Italian heritage myself. Sometimes a government goes rotten. Sometimes a large group of people gets driven mad by an idea -- and the idea become so all-consuming that people believe that all sorts of atrocious behavior is justified. This disease has hit other people -- including, as noted above, folks to whom I am related in Italy.

small-j is a small person who wants to believe that anyone who opposes Israel's racism, anyone who punctures the myth that the land was empty before the Jews came there, must be motivated solely by anti_Jewish animus. It's the old "Holocaust justifies the Nakba" argument. Won't fly anymore.

The point to keep in mind is that the opponents of Israel do not have to justify themselves. The Israelis are murderers and racists. THEY are the ones who can't justify themselves. Deep down, they know this fact, and thus constantly seek to turn the argument around.
Joseph, I posted too hastily. I still don't think your call for the military conquest of Israel is the equivalent of "destroying" the country, however. Since I would assume small j means "wiping Israel off the map". If any nation is in need of regime change, however, it's Israel. Anyway, I stand corrected, yet still stand by the rest of my comment.

The answer to small j's question is undoubtedly D. Which would be a long list of human rights violations, international law violations, and war crimes. I'm sure he is aware of most, if not all, of these, but because of the special eternal victim status of the nation of Israel, all is justified.
Well Gus, I go back to my use of Italy as a metaphor. No historical parallel is ever exact, of course, but I would note that the number of victims of the Nakba was 750,000 and the number of victims of the Italian war in Ethiopia was also 750,000.

At any rate, the military conquest of Italy was not the destruction of the country -- it was a liberation. However, during the Mussolini years, many Italians would not have SEEN the prospect of such a conquest as a liberation.

The appalling thing about fascism is that you can't combat it through democratic means. When a country goes fascist, it must be conquered from without. As simple as that.
I asked, "Dieudonné, where are you?"

He's been arrested and is being held as a supposed "apologist for terrorism".

His misdeed? He posted the following words on Facebook: "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." ("Sachez que ce soir, en ce qui me concerne, Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly".) The plan is to try him on the grounds that this act constituted a glorification of terrorism.

Meanwhile, a French fucking aircraft carrier heads towards the Middle East.


Why I asked where he was was because he is one of the few public figures in France who I'd expect to say something sensible about the recent attacks.

Clearly those who run the French state hold the same view - that's why they've locked him up.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic