The Tacitus Principle: How Israel and its Apologists Defend the Indefensible

Tom Usher wrote or added | This is an excellent effort to lay out the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

"The evidence for the claim that the IHH was "involved in planning an Al-Qaeda attack againstLos Angeles [sic] International Airport in 1999" is that a French magistrate by the name of Bruguière "testified that IHH had played '[a]n important role'" in the plot.

"The "French intelligence report" supporting the remainder of the claim turns out to be a motion filed in a French court: "Requisitoire [sic] Definitifaux [sic] aux Fins de Non-Lieu. De Non-Lieu partiel. De Requalification [sic]. De Renvoi devant le Tribunal Correctionnel, de mantien [sic] sous Controle [sic] Judiciaiare [sic] et de maintien en Detention [sic]" (Final Motion Concerning Dismissal, Partial Dismissal, Reclassification, Remand to the Criminal Court, Continued Judicial Supervision, and Continued Detention). This is, it bears emphasising, the only source cited for these claims in the Danish think tank's report.

"In other words, apart from grossly falsifying a press report, the press release cites the website of a think tank connected to the Israeli intelligence community, which itself cites no sources except for a Danish think tank's report that bases the claims on an unsupported assertion by a French judge and moving papers filed in court, which the press release helpfully misrepresents as an "intelligence report". QED."
"the first question is: Is Israel under armed attack? The only thing that could potentially be considered an armed attack within the meaning of Art. 51 are the attacks with crude, homemade rockets emanating from Gaza, which have, between 2001 and 2008, altogether claimed fewer lives within Israel (16) than an average month's traffic fatalities (37 based on 2008 figures). Thus, for our purposes, Israel can be considered to be under armed attack, ineffectual as it is."

That's an honest answer; however, the first question actually is as follows: "Is Israel a legitimate state?"

The answer is that it is not. A legitimate state cannot come into being via lies, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, war crimes, and other illegalities; however, those are exactly the tactics the Zionist regime has employed. Facts on the ground, as they call them, do not thereby make a legally recognized state. What other people has grabbed such large chunks of land since the end of WWII via such means? Would Tibet and/or Kashmir even qualify at this level of evil? Huge areas of the world have been at least nominally returned from a state of overt colonialism. The fact that there are remaining disputes in no way relieves the Zionists of the burden of proof concerning their legal ownership of the lands they occupy or possess.

I also commented on this story here:

Tom Usher

@ Jennifer Sullivan,

Your heart is in the right place!

The Zionists want everyone else to agree with the proposition that anyone delivering anything to the Gazans is aiding and abetting the "enemy," whom the Zionists also want everyone else to consider terrorists.

What the Zionists want least of all is 1) for the world to look directly at the fact that those Zionists are on stolen land for the most part. Very few Zionists actually purchased land under circumstances you or I would call fair or honest and 2) that we all stop thinking of them as being as moral as, or more moral than, average non-Zionists.

Victimization is always to be stated in terms of a one-way street where only "Jews" are victimized and never the victimizers.

David Kopelman above is a prime example of a screeder of false-propaganda all bent upon taking the focus off where it belongs. Of course, he's completely wrong about all the other issues he's raised in terms of where people of good conscience stand. He also knows that settling the Palestinian issue at least as much as the South African issue has been settled (still needs work), all the other sore spots he mentioned will get plenty of attention. It takes time and perseverance to swing a generation and the mainstream.

He wants us distracted and in a state of self-doubt over the rightness of the cause of liberating Gaza, which doesn't mean that any of us want the Gazans turning into abusers of Jews afterwards just as we would have been outraged had the Zulus and others conducted a reign of terror after the sanctions regime had worked against those of the Afrikaners who were White supremacist (as the Zionists are Jewish supremacists and the Nazis were "Aryan" supremacists, etc., etc.).

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but it bears repeating until it has overwhelmed the Big Lie tactics of the Zionists. We need to up the use of the Big Truth, not cave into Kopelman's tactics that the Zionists are spreading behind the scenes and even in the open all via their networks funded by very deep, greedy pockets.

Peace to all.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.