Slashdot Mirror

http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm

Most US citizens have no idea why anyone could hate them. This is not surprising considering their ignorance of US foreign policy. Citizens of many countries have been the victims of US subversion, US support for corrupt dictators, and US state terrorism. I'm definitely curious as to what level of conformity we're able conclude with the things listed on this page.

Many Arabs fled Israel when Israel was attacked, in no small part because the Arab kings and other thugs running the countries all around Israel told them that they'd be considered traitors if they stayed. That's a myth passed down by the Zionists. Show me evidence of that. As early as August 10, 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett informed U.N. Secretary-General Trygve Lie that the Palestinians had "left in obedience to direct orders by local military commanders and partly as a result of the panic campaign spread among Palestinian Arabs by the leaders of the individual Arab states." (source) Even if the Arab countries asked the Palestinians to leave, why didn't Israel stop them, and then why not let the people return to their homes?

Ooh, you're really good at those questions, Mr. Goebbels. The trouble is, you're ignoring the fact that when IDF troops commit crimes, they actually get tried and punished by Israeli courts. Care to fill us in on the last time an Arab was prosecuted by his own country for committing a crime against a Jew? Ignoring your invoking of Godwin's law and ad homenim attack, let's move on to facts. IDF investigations rarely ever turn up a conviction. There were many thousands of complaints filed, hundreds of investigations, and what, a dozen convictions? I don't have faith in them, and neither do human rights NGOs, and even IDF soldiers (ever heard of "Breaking the Silence"?).

Besides, killing a jewish person on account of their religion is murder, which is illegal both in those countries and in Islam (Note: Arab countries do not follow Islamic law)

BTW, which "undeniable, verifiable" crimes are you talking about? Staged explosions on beaches in Gaza that turn out to be hoaxes don't count, you know. NGOs disagree with you. Besides, why is the IDF firing on Palestinian land anyway (which they admitted to), during a ceasefire? Did Hamas know when they would be doing that bombing (which the IDF doesnt reveal when), then find the perfect time for a family to be in position on the beach at the same time as the shelling, and then blow it up and not have anyone spill the beans on this? Why is alleging Israeli or Jewish conspiracies anti-Semitic, but alleging Palestinian ones not equally racist?

My point is that the palestinians' misery is due primarily to two things: their vicious, insane leaders starting with Arafat and continuing with Hamas, and the other Arabs prodding them to continuously wage a war they can't win. Arafat pissed away their best chance at peace, because he was afraid that if he actually had to run a country, someone might ask him where all the money went. Why should Americans be angry at Al-Qaeda? I mean, Bush killed more people in Iraq and New Orleans, and the Americans kill each other daily in drug and gang wars, not to mention DWIs etc.

The agreement (albient not spoken) of good behaviour is not with the individual journalist but with the newspaper itself. If a journalist (TV, print,...) behaves in a way that annoys new sources, the producer/editor will fire/repremand the individual journalist. Just read http://www.doublestandards.org/rothschild1.html or google for "journalist fired". The editors do this because if they let it slide, their paper will be debnied sources that cost them scoops. The relationships that the papers build is valuable.

Bloggers report to noone. In some ways that makes them potentially more objective, but because they have no sword hanging over their head they are seen as loose cannons. Justifiably so.

Where do FIND this kind of stuff? HOW was Japan making serious moves to surrender? I call total BS, Japan wasn't willing to surrender.

How about this:

In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".

In July, before the leaders of the U.S., Great Britain, and the Soviet Union met at Potsdam, the Japanese government sent several radio messages to its ambassador, Naotake Sato, in Moscow, asking him to request Soviet help in mediating a peace settlement. "His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible", said one communication. "Should, however, the United States and Great Britain insist on unconditional surrender, Japan would be forced to fight to the bitter end."

Stimson, like other high U.S. officials, did not really care in principle whether or not the emperor was retained. The term "unconditional surrender" was always a propaganda measure; wars are always ended with some kind of conditions. To some extent the insistence was a domestic consideration - not wanting to appear to "appease" the Japanese. More important, however, it reflected a desire that the Japanese not surrender before the bomb could be used.

So basically, the atomic bombs were used on Japan to prove their effectiveness and to save face. It had nothing to do with making Japan surrender. Were all those civilian lives really worth making Japan give up the Emperor?