Kinsella ~ Idiot Proof or Better Idiots?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Kinsella ~ Idiot Proof or Better Idiots?

Post by Jarhead on Tue Apr 16 2013, 11:33

The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
Vol: 139 Issue: 16 - Tuesday, April 16, 2013

If We Make it Idiot-Proof, They'll Just Invent a Better Idiot

During the Second World War, historians tell us, it wasn't the Germans who perpetuated the Holocaust -- it was the Nazis.

So it wasn't something rotten at the heart of German culture that prompted it to start two world wars in the space of two decades after all.

World War I and its aftermath sowed the seeds of Nazism-- it wasn't -- repeat, wasn't -- the German culture or its people that was behind the systematic murder of 12 million Jews, Poles, homosexuals, gypsies and Russian POW's.

It was the Nazis.

Need proof?

Once the Nazis were defeated and their leadership was all dead or imprisoned, Germany became a model world citizen.

The mere possession of Nazi-era memorabilia can be a crime -- speaking warmly of Hitler's regime or its goals IS a crime.

Nazism, historians carefully explain, was not merely a political ideology -- it was a religion. Schoolchildren prayed their nightly prayers to Hitler. Grace before meals was directed at Hitler.

The Nazi Shutzstaffel (SS) was a religious organization that swore a blood oath of worship to Adolf Hitler. The Nazi doctrine was a mixture of Aryanism, Thulism and Theosophy covered by a thin veneer of Catholicism.

The war against the Imperial Japanese was not a war against the Japanese people. It was a war against the militaristic Shinto religion that spawned it.

Like the German people, the Japanese were forgiven for their part in wartime atrocities -- it wasn't the people, but the evil religious ideology of Japanese Imperialism.

Once the Nazis were gone, Germany became one of America's most reliable allies in Europe. After MacArthur had Emperor Hirohito renounce claims of deity, post-war Japan became America's most reliable ally in the Far East.

It wasn't the German people that were the enemy -- it was the Nazi ideology that the Allies smashed to rubble. Similarly, the Japanese people were not the enemy, but the Shinto-inspired emperor-worship that inspired Japanese fanaticism.

World War II wasn't fought to smash a people. It was to smash the ideology that inspired them to make war.

The Cold War raged between the US and Soviet Union from 1948 through to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet system. It was a war between East and West; between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, but NOT a war between people.

America was never at war with the Russian people, or with the people of Eastern Europe. When the Wall came down, the people from both sides embraced like long lost relatives, not as conquerors or the conquered.

No sanctions were imposed on the victims of Soviet ideological domination. It wasn't a war against the Soviet people.

It was against Soviet ideology.

There is a good reason why the US separated the ideology from the people in past wars. If the war is between a people, no peace can be possible, ie, the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Making the war one of ideologies allows the people who fought it room to make peace by renouncing their ideology. Germans couldn't renounce being Germans or Japanese renounce being Japanese.

But if they didn't have Nazism or Shintoism to renounce, we would still be at war. The North Koreans lost the Korean War, but maintained their ideological worship of Kim il Sung and his successor, Kim Jong il.

We defeated North Korea's army, but never made peace with North Korean people. The Korean War never ended -- no peace treaty has ever been signed.

Assessment:

Some brainwave in Washington has issued a memo advising US officials to avoid linking al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to Islam and not to use Islamic terms like "jihad" or "mujahadeen" which, according to this government genius, might "unintentionally legitimize' terror.

"There' s a growing consensus [in the Bush administration] that we need to move away from that language," said a 'former senior administration official' quoted in the Washington Times.

What 'language' is that?

"Avoid labeling everything 'Muslim.' It reinforces the 'U.S. vs. Islam' framework that al Qaeda promotes," according to "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication," produced in March 2008 by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

Instead, in two documents circulated by the NCTC officials are urged to use terms such as 'violent extremists', 'totalitarian' and 'death cult' to characterize al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Instead of calling terrorist groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist — "widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy."

By employing the language the extremists use about themselves, the guide says, officials can inadvertently help legitimize them in the eyes of Muslims.

"Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' ... to describe the terrorists," the guide says. "A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war."

"In Arabic, jihad means 'striving in the path of God' and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions," the memo says.

Where do we get such idiots? Do they come in a box or something? Shouldn't some -- at least peripheral -- grasp of history be a requirement for government service?

It is as retarded as divorcing the Irish Republican Army from Catholicism or declaring Northern Ireland's Protestantism irrelevant.

What you are left with is a war that cannot be won by either side because there ARE no sides. Just Irish national suicide.

America is not fighting a war against terrorism -- it is fighting a war against Islamic-inspired religious terrorism based on an ideology that is central to Islamic history and basic religious doctrine.

Islamic ideology demands either conversion to Islam or submission to Islamic authority. There are but three acceptable conditions of existence under Islamic law.

One is as an observant Muslim, the second is that of dhimmi and the third is as guest of honor at an execution.

If Islamic ideology is removed from the equation, then WHO is the war against? The Arab people? Iran is not an Arab country -- it's Persian.

The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, not Saudi Arabia. The Chechens are neither Arab nor Persian.

The 9/11 hijackers were not "Saudi" -- even though most of them were Saudi nationals, they weren't acting on behalf of the Saudi government -- they were acting on behalf of Islamic jihadist ideology.

Remove Islam from those three planes and September 11, 2001 was just another warm and pleasant late-summer day.

Take Islam out of the rubber dinghy and the USS Cole would never have been attacked, and our embassies in Africa would still be intact.

Remove Islam from the equation and the Iraq War would have ended five years ago. Without the Islamic Taliban, who would we be fighting in Afghanistan?

What is there about Pakistan having nuclear weapons that makes it more disturbing than the fact that India has nuclear weapons?

Why is the West more worried about Iran obtaining nukes than the fact Israel has had nukes for at least thirty years?

WHO are we at war with? If you ask the brainwave in Washington that authored this memo, then the answer is as simple as it is terrifying: "I dunno."

As to the idea of 'victory' how will we know when we've achieved it? What are you asking me for?

I don't even know who we're fighting.

This brief was originally published May 7, 2008; it summarizes how facts can be twisted based solely on the word usage. There is a lot of spin circulating concerning the Boston Marathon bombings. Jack’s insight to the way things are trending helps to clear up the ‘doublespeak’. Our prayers go up for those victims and their loved ones of yesterday's terrible tragedy.

Today's Featured Commentary: Wendy Wippel [i]Dry Bones Revisited[/] http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7581
avatar
Jarhead
Admin

Posts : 2154
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile http://narrowroaddepot.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Kinsella ~ Idiot Proof or Better Idiots?

Post by Tryphena on Tue Apr 16 2013, 19:11

America is not fighting a war against terrorism -- it is fighting a war against Islamic-inspired religious terrorism based on an ideology that is central to Islamic history and basic religious doctrine.

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33
avatar
Tryphena

Posts : 2563
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Kinsella ~ Idiot Proof or Better Idiots?

Post by Jarhead on Tue Apr 16 2013, 19:17

(Adjusted the quote colors ~ more readable, eh?)
avatar
Jarhead
Admin

Posts : 2154
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile http://narrowroaddepot.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Kinsella ~ Idiot Proof or Better Idiots?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum