How do you characterize someone who betrays? A "betrayer"? No, the commonly used, and just as commonly accepted term, is "traitor".
A number of social commentators have tried to make the case that the meaning of "traitor" is illegitimate when extended beyond the legal meaning. But the meaning conferred by common usage is far more frequently intended, and consequently not just legitimate, but more legitimate.
The American Jewish community has been hoodwinked by the Zionist leadership into unwittingly betraying the US. The US is the country of their citizenship, the country that gave them the right to live and act and prosper, free of prejudice. Yet they have turned away from loyalty to the US in favor of a foreign country, Israel, which has pursued its own interests at the expense of the US.
If Israel is not an enemy of the US, it is most certainly a ruthless predator, willing to comprehensively victimize an "ally", an ally so subverted that it has become paralyzed, unable to acknowledge its predicament and too helpless to defend itself.
This is simply the latest example in the 5000-year cultural practice of using the Goyim as "cattle" for the benefit of God's "chosen" ones.
When 270 million non-Jewish Americans -- I leave out 50 million evangelicals -- finally realize what has been done to them, that The American Jewish community has betrayed them in favor of Israel, how do ***YOU*** think they will feel? How do you think they will react?
This is not a threat to either Israel or the American Jewish community. Rather, it's a warning. Loyalty to Israel over the US -- even unrealized and unintended -- is a mistake, a perilous mistake.
[Go ahead Thomas, "moderate" this out of existence.]
From The Next Big Future, which I believe is Brian Wang's website/blog (I'm new at this stuff) , I find a piece entitled Terrorism is a subset of Murder http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/terrorism-is-subset-of-murder.html (asserting, if I get it right, that Terrorism is illegitimate by virtue of being criminal). One commenter, Gigi, responded: As I have already tried to say before, I consider any use of the word “terrorism” more or less pointless. In fact, reading much of the western media about “terrorism” there is almost nowhere any clear definition of the word “terrorism”, for the simple reason that for any kind of such definition many of the military actions taken by the West against unarmed civilians in, say, Iraq or Vietnam may well fall in this definition. Is this an action of terrorism? http://boingboing.net/2010/04/... Simply put it, if Hamas kills one Israeli civilian it is terrorism, if the US or Israel directly kill 10 or more Palestinian it is
Comments