"The Day That Didn't Change A Thing"-
The Day That Didn't Change A Thing
By Michael Robeson
Terrorism, after all, can only involve acts of violence committed by people who don't look and dress the way we do and be committed against people whose ideologies are friendly to the US government and its friends, no matter how unfriendly they might often be.
But the biggest wrinkle in the Breivik saga involved his pro-Zionist, pro-Israel beliefs. In his online manifesto he revealingly wrote, "So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists."
Considering that he bombed the center of Norway's government, which has been highly critical of the Israeli occupation, and that he targeted for his massacre a political youth group that actively promotes an economic boycott of Israel and that was, on the day of the massacre, hosting the nation's foreign minister to persuade him of their views, should raise red flags when looking for Breivik's ideological motives. Mad it may be, but it is hardly white supremacy; otherwise he would have simply killed lots of the dark-skinned immigrants he claims to despise. This is a feeling, by the way, that he shares with all too many Israeli "settlers" who are inspired, in part, by the early Zionist theoretician Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Breivik's manifesto was littered with quotations from respectable hardline pro-Israelis, including one who was a foreign-policy adviser to a US presidential candidate at the time, the obsequiously pro-Israel Michele Bachmann. So the wrinkle of Breivik's allegiance to the very principle of the existence of the Zionist state of Israel, something that George W Bush and Barack Obama along with the majority of the US Congress and Senate have pledged allegiance to, was never ironed out, it was simply ignored. If that allegiance includes a US military performing daily acts of violence in non-white nations (that are not fighting together for Israel) and doing so if without Breivik's single-minded purpose, then with no less a systematic result, it would be best to ignore that too.
The two words strenuously avoided in media discussion about Breivik are "Christian Zionism", with the emphasis not on the adjective but on the noun. Breivik, in his single-mindedness, represents a very awkward honesty rarely found among those he counts himself to stand shoulder to shoulder with. From the hardline pro-Israeli columnists like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney whom he favorably quoted in his manifesto, to the Republican and Democratic politicians regularly pledging militant fealty to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Israel, to the tens of millions of Bible-thumping Americans sending their dollars to James Hagee and the other televangelists, to the Likudniks in Israel who invite them to Tel Aviv and gleefully accept those dollars, the cement that binds them together is a biblical belief that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews and not to anyone else.
None of them, of course, would publicly espouse Breivik's method to achieve their ends and only the least educated of them would admit to being a fundamentalist with all that entails. But their overall support of the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Israeli militancy of the past 11 years shows that, like Breivik, they are fundamentally at one in promoting a Zionist expansionist agenda, justified by Old Testament scripture.
Oh is that right, well maybe you should talk to these kids that had to grow up without a parent.
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3157810.... !/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/deri vatives/display_600/image.JPG
or maybe ask the 3,000 children under the age of 18 that lost a parent on Sept 11 and see if it didn't change a thing.
Well things changed here, we all look at you lot more closely, your muslim hatred didn't do yourselves any favors here .