13-glenn-no-beauty-in-the-beast-israel-without-her-mascara-zionism-exposed

REASONS 27series of questions. “Why” is simply a smokescreen that many of them use to disguise the fact that theyare on a seek-and-destroy mission, (whether they know it or not) individuals who are disposed towardsthe “shoot first and ask questions later” approach that has come to typify the American mindset. Thisseek-and-destroy mission is the attempt to silence a message that conflicts with something that theseindividuals may prize and as such is oftentimes camouflaged within the context of an interrogation ofsorts which I have experienced now dozens (if not hundreds) of times in the last 2 years and which is avariation of that “charity begins at home” theme that introduced this discussion:“Where is your concern for those at home? Where is your consideration for your own blood, being that you are(whether you like it or not) an American? Where are your tears for those who lost their lives on September 11?Where is your loyalty for those men and women in the service who have lost their lives in fighting for our “freedom”in Afghanistan and Iraq?”And of course, the predictable accusation-framed-as-a-question from those whose agenda lies in seeingto it that the well-being of the state of Israel is maintained above all other issues, “Where are your tears forthe innocent Jews who are being killed by suicide bombers? Where are your tears for the victims of the Holocaust,whose survivors today are only doing what any group of persecuted people would do were they faced with similarcircumstances?”On a superficial level of course all of these questions appear to have hit the bulls eye, and for those who(in what is the most generous of terms) employ a level of thinking that is shallow, it would appear thatthey have made a good point. What we must remember though is that, intellectually speaking, this is theage of professional wrestling and other types of gladiatorial games that easily amuse an unthinking mob.Therefore, we should not let these questions take on the intellectual equivalent of mortal blows withinthe context of this debate, for in truth they are only fancy maneuvers with no real substance behind them.In the first case, let us be frank by saying that these “questions” are not questions at all, but are insteadcharges and accusations. By implication what is being stated here is that I am neither a patriot nor a loverof freedom, that I know no loyalty to those around me, and worse still, that I am one of those detestable“mentally deranged bigots” who has nursed a certain amount of unwarranted animosity for the Jews, asentiment which today is the only remaining unpardonable sin. The individuals who engage in this typeof interrogation vary between the clever and the not-so-clever; the clever being those who know thatthere is nothing to gain for their position in an honest, substantive discussion of the facts surroundingthis issue, and the not-so-clever being individuals who know that they do not have enough informationor gray matter necessary to manage such a debate without looking like a fool.In either case, what should be remembered is that this technique at debate and discourse is nothing new,as the individuals who engage in this type of interrogation (whether they realize it or not) are merelymimicking that which they have seen take place everyday in America on her radio and television talkshows as of late. It is the process (even if done within the confines of what appears to be an air of civility)of shouting down the person and his message, and by so doing, making an example of him or her so as todiscourage others from aligning themselves with that position. The difference between those who ask (inthe more muffled tones) the previous questions and those who eventually lose all sense of composureand become like rabid dogs is only a matter of degrees. The point is that they are not individuals interestedin any kind of intellectual discourse, but rather are interested in silencing a message which happens tocomplicate or thwart some idea or agenda that they have constructed for themselves for whatever reason.For the most part, these people are not, in the strictest sense, ideologues. The truth is that they simply donot know what they are about, at least not in America. In the larger sense, their support for America’spresent involvement in the Middle East did not come into being as a result of careful consideration andresearch of the facts. They are individuals who have, after being given the option of choosing chocolate orvanilla, chosen one as a result of their distaste for the other, while being unaware that there were other