5 Similarities That "American Sniper" Has With Nazi Propaganda

     Seth Rogen likes being controversial. It's good PR. Just weeks after almost starting WW3 with his movie "The Interview," Rogen is back in the news, for some comments made about the movie "American Sniper."
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/01/19/seth-rogen-michael-moore-blast-american-sniper/21988391/
     This is the phrase I'm going to be analyzing: "American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglorious Bastards."
     The movie he is referring to is Nazi propaganda. So he's comparing American Sniper to Nazi propaganda. Before even sitting down and researching as to whether he was right or wrong, many pro-military zealots, (who support the military no matter how many democracies they topple or how many puppet governments they install or how many civilians they kill on purpose), started bashing Rogen for being unappreciative of the military, a traitor to his country, a liberal Nazi, etc, etc.
      It's really sad that people jump down each other throats without even thinking. They deem any criticism of the military as unpatriotic and untrue automatically 100% all of the time, without even stopping, calming down, sitting down, and figuring out if it is valid criticism or not. In their eyes, the military can literally do no wrong. They are angels. As soon as you show a valid, clear example of a service member doing something wrong, they yell in your face "YOU'RE UNPATRIOTIC. YOU'RE UN-AMERICAN. YOU'RE A TRAITOR. IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR MILITARY, THEN JUST LEAVE THIS COUNTRY." Because when you really look at the facts, you actually see that Rogen is right. So let's go through this slowly, with rationality and logic, one step at a time.

     First, let's look at the similarities between the Iraq war and the wars the Nazis started to gain territory before WW2 started. In the Iraq war, we had the American government fabricating tens of thousands of pages of fake intel to mislead the American people. They claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, (which we never found), that Iraq was helping Al-Qaida, (they weren't), that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, (they weren't), that Iraq was a threat to America, (they weren't), etc, etc, I mean this was a massive effort. Hundreds of people at the head of the Bush Administration and various government agencies were in on it. The U.S. did this so that the American people would support their invasion and occupation of Iraq.
     Germany did the exact same thing in their wars of aggression and territory grabbing just prior to WW2. They lied time after time to the German people, and the world, making up lies as a pretense to invade Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc. Hitler said that German people were being persecuted and oppressed there, (they weren't), so it was okay for Germany to invade to help them, that land originally belonged to Germany in the first place so it was Germany's right to have that land, (it wasn't), that the Jews were masterminding to destroy Germany, (they weren't). I mean this was a massive effort. Hundreds of people at the head of the Hitler Administration and various government agencies were in on it. Germany did this so that the German people would support their invasion and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc.
     Okay, so that's one similarity, but one similarity is not enough to associate anything with anything. Hitler drank water, and you drink water, so that means you're a potential mass murderer!! No, that's not how it works. We need more similarities.

     The second similarity is that America invaded Iraq on false pretenses, set up an undemocratic government there that would do anything America says because America controlled it, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, stole their natural resources, most notably oil, broke dozens of different universal human rights that the Iraqi people are entitled to have, kidnapped thousands of innocent people during their occupation, raping and torturing them for seemingly no reason at all other than to brutally force the population to submit. They did all of this, while the media made America out to be the victim! That's right, the media twisted just about everything to make it look the aggressor, the liar, was the victim.
      For example, an American patrol would be on their route, and come under attack by Iraqi insurgents. Some American soldiers would die in the fight. The media would make it out to be like the Americans were doing nothing wrong, that they were just innocent victims just walking along minding their own business, and the evil savage Iraqi terrorists killed them just because they are American Christians!
      This charade of making the aggressor look like the victim is portrayed in "American Sniper." Just look at the trailer. You're supposed to feel for the wife who is listening to her husband's convoy being under attack. Chris Kyle was just a pure American hero when he came under attack by those evil savages!
      Completely devoid in the trailer, or in the movie for that matter, is any context or scenario/location information. Kyle in an occupying soldier. He is a foreigner on someone else's land. Kyle is a foot soldier in the oppression of the Iraqi people. He is the muscle that is protecting the American occupation and the puppet Iraqi government. He is a small part in the big reason why the Iraqi people are dying over lies, why their universal human rights are being repressed by the occupation and the puppet Iraqi government. His patrol, trying to control the Iraqi people, is enforcing the torture, the kidnappings, the rapes, the oppression, the denial of basic human rights. Without his presence on the streets, the Iraqi government would collapse.
      The Iraqi insurgents are portrayed as savages. They are not humanized. They are not given depth, character, reason, etc. They are one faced, one dimensional monsters that only exist to kill Americans. The movie completely leaves out the fact that it is completely logical and rational to take up arms against a fascist corrupt government and a foreign occupation that is supporting it. In fact, it is an American value. Our country was born out of our fighting a corrupt puppet government and a foreign occupation that supported it. The pro-military crowd regularly spout that it is their right to use force in self-defense or when their rights are being violated. But, exposing their double standard, they don't believe every person, regardless of race or creed, gets to enjoy that right. White Christians enjoy that right, in their mind, but brown Muslims do not. That's why they demonize the Iraqi insurgents, even though they are doing the exact same thing that they would do if America was invaded by another country, and a puppet government was set up in Washington D.C.
      Everyday Americans from all backgrounds would employ the same tactics used by the Iraqis (i.e. roadside bombs, suicide vests, urban warfare, women/children, etc...) against any foreign aggressor. Why should Iraqis tolerate American tanks rolling down their streets when the very same Americans wouldn't tolerate Iraqi (or any foreign military's) tanks rolling down theirs?
      Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests." Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence. Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.
     Compare that to Nazi propaganda. Nazi Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia on false pretenses, set up an undemocratic government there that would do anything Germany says because Germany controlled it, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, stole their natural resources, broke dozens of different universal human rights that the Austrian and Czech people are entitled to have, kidnapped thousands of innocent people during their occupation, raping and torturing them for seemingly no reason at all other than to brutally force the population to submit. They did all of this, while the media made Germany out to be the victim! That's right, the media twisted just about everything to make it look the aggressor, the liar, was the victim.
      For example, a German patrol would be on their route, and come under attack by Austrian or Czech insurgents. Some German soldiers would die in the fight. The Nazi media would make it out to be like the Germans were doing nothing wrong, that they were just innocent victims just walking along minding their own business, and the evil savage Austrian or Czech terrorists killed them just because they are blonde and blue eyed Germans!
     See, word for word, it happened exactly the same in both cases. All I changed was the identity of the actors. But the actions were exactly the fucking same. "American Sniper" practically elevates invading US soldiers to civilian status and natives who target the armed invaders are evil terrorists. Okay, so that's two major similarities down. Let's keep going.

     Pro-military zealots often use the phrase "The military is over there, dying to protect our freedoms, which were under threat." What a load of complete and utter fucking bullshit. No one has been able to answer my question "What American freedoms did Iraq threaten or break? What oppression did Iraq lay unto us? What rights of yours were being infringed on by Iraq?"
     No one has ever been able to answer that question, because the answer is NOTHING. FUCKING NOTHING. Iraq was doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to us at all. So the zealots continue to spout lies. Lies. Lies! LIES!!
     Nazi zealots did the exact fucking thing. Hitler ranted on about how neighboring countries were oppressing Germany, and how the rights of German people in Austria were being threatened, therefore, he had an obligation to invade Austria. ALL FUCKING LIES.
     Wow, that's 3 similarities now. We're on a roll.

     The 4th similarity is that America had an overwhelmingly more powerful military than Iraq. We had tanks, jet fighters, artillery, satellites, APCs, the most powerful military in the world. What do the Iraqi insurgents have to combat this? AK47s. RPGs. Homemade bombs. Grenades. It's not even comparable firepower. It's like comparing a gnat to an elephant. And yet through this seemingly incredibly one sided fight, "American Sniper" makes it out to be that Kyle and the Iraqi insurgents are fighting on equal terms, that he is in just as much danger as the insurgents are, that he is fighting against overwhelming odds, that he is the vulnerable good guy going into danger for the greater good, etc, etc. Michael Moore called snipers cowards. He's right. It's not brave to go after people with pea shooters when you have artillery and jet fighters and stealth bombers and attack helicopters to back you up in case you get your ass whooped. The other guy doesn't have any of that to back him up. He just has the gun in his hands, maybe a grenade or two, and that's fucking it. Oh, what danger you're in! That's why we only lost less than 5,000 troops in 8 years of fighting, when we killed over 26,000 of them in the same time frame.
     Do you know what is brave though? Going against the powerful military in the world, going up against APCs and tanks and radar artillery armed with only an AK47 and an RPG. That's courage. That's dedication. It's the Iraqi insurgents that were brave, not Kyle. They didn't flinch going into battle knowing that against such overwhelming odds that they were most likely going to die. An American going into the same battle wasn't most likely going to die. Most likely he would live. 
     Guess what? Nazi Germany did the exact same thing. They had the most powerful military in Europe. They had tanks, artillery, bombers, etc, etc. What did Austrian and Czech insurgents have? Bolt action rifles. Submachine guns. And yet through this seemingly incredibly one sided fight, Nazi propaganda makes it out to be that Germans and the Austrian and Czech insurgents are fighting on equal terms, that the Germans is in just as much danger as the insurgents are, that he is fighting against overwhelming odds, that he is the vulnerable good guy going into danger for the greater good, etc, etc.   

     The 5th and last similarity is that the films conveniently omit any flaws, any negatives, any bigotry, about the soldiers that they elevate to God like status. Kyle is shown as fully human, likable, complex, multidimensional, etc. There is absolutely no negative aspects about him shown on camera at all. He is, like the pro-military zealots believe, perfect, flawless, utterly impossible to do wrong. The movie conveniently leaves all these parts out about how Kyle was:      

Substitute "Koran" for "Bible." Would you like someone who said that about your holy book?

     Likewise, no Iraqi is shown as likeable, complex, multidimensional, capable of showing anything but hate. But the Iraqi insurgents are people just like you, me, and Kyle. They have jobs, they have families, they have problems, they have lives, they have little quirks in their personality, etc. But no, the movie paints them as all, one tracked minded killers.
     The same thing happened in Nazi propaganda. The Nazi soldiers are shown as likeable, human, complex, capable of thought, opinion, etc, even though they, in reality, are murdering civilians by the millions. And the Jews? No, they're subhuman. Rats. Greedy rats. All they do is scheme and plot against the poor innocent blonde Germans. That's all they do. The French resistance? Terrorists, killers, unhuman, evil, etc. 
    Look at some of the reactions people had after the film:

 

    Now, substitute the words "ragheads", "Arabs," and "Muslims" with any other religion or any race. 

• "Teared up at the end of American Sniper. Great fucking movie and now I really want to kill some fucking Jews."
• "American Sniper makes me wanna go shoot some fucking Christians."
• "Nice to see a movie where the white people are portrayed for who they really are- vermin scum intent on destroying us."
• American Sniper made me appreciate soldiers 100x more and hate black people 1,000,000 more." 

     In conclusion, there you have it. A step by step analysis of why Rogen's comments are actually true, and that the only reason why people see them as "incendiary" or "offensive" is because they want no one to criticize the military no matter what they do. People will counter with "Well, it's the politicians who started the war, the military didn't start it at all, they were just following orders." That is true, but that simply dodging the subject. The military still committed crimes. They should've said "No, that is against my American values. I took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not the current government, administration, or president. Attacking a country based on lies is against the Constitution. Installing a puppet government is against the Constitution. Killing innocents is against the Constitution. Killing people who are simply protecting their lands against foreign occupiers is the against the Constitution."
     But they didn't. Some soldiers refused to go, but not a lot. The ones who refused to go are the heroes. But the majority of American soldiers still followed their traitorous orders without question. The politicians would not have been able to put in a puppet government if they troops didn't invade Iraq and overthrow the government.    
     The pro-military zealots will say "Not all American service members have killed innocents." True. I never said otherwise. But there were plenty of Nazis who never killed an innocent either. They were either an office worker or a soldier who got wounded before he shot anyone else. That doesn't mean the Nazi party, as an entity, is not an evil and despicable organization. 
     It's not insulting to say that the military doesn't fight to protect our freedom. The pro-military fanatics want us to believe that, as to shut down as criticism of the military's actions before the criticism can even be stated. We are not allowed to explore the topic because it is "offensive" to suggest anything otherwise. I'm not saying it to offend anyone. I researched the topic, and I can find no freedom that Iraq was taking away from us or that was even under threat from Iraq, that the American military got back for us. If it's offensive for me to simply ask the question "What freedom did the American military fight for in Iraq" then you have to seriously ask yourself what type of society we have created here. Certainly doesn't sound free to me, we can't even ask questions.

Disproving the media's blatant lies about Israel and Palestine

      With Israel continuing its slaughter of Palestinian civilians, (with the occasional Hamas fighter here and there), the war between the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel supporters in the media and on social media is also getting extremely nasty. Any hope for a rational, logical discussion on this issue is soon thrown out the window in any confrontation because one side calls for the death of the entire other side, or calls each other terrorists, or completely rewrites history to blot out deeds done by the side they support, etc, etc, and all the other usual political bullshit. People no longer wish for the truth, but for the information that makes their side look right and the other side wrong. Who cares about reality when you have a political agenda at hand?!
      What will happen in this post is that I will lay out the bullshit claims, one by one, and clearly explain why each claim is wrong, using logic and facts.

       1. Israel was forced to launch this invasion in self-defense.
       Reality: Israel started this current flare up in hostilities by breaking the 2012 ceasefire in three ways: One: Restricting the fishing waters of Gaza to three nautical miles when they had agreed to put it at six nautical miles. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/israel-violates-ceasefire-attacks-gaza-fishermen-who-is-holding-israel-accountable.html
       (This is all the while international standards put it at 12 miles and in the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed to put it at 20 nautical miles, so that's another Accord Israel broke). Two: By lying, saying Hamas murdered three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, while providing no proof that Hamas did so. When asked for proof, Israel said the information was a "matter of national security," and therefore, could not be released. This is while Israeli authorities knew the teenagers were already dead, but they didn't say so, prevented the media from reporting so, so they could whip up public hatred of Hamas. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/israel-hamas-palestiniansconflictunitedstatesinternationallaw.html
     Also, this is while Hamas has denied killing the teenagers, and a Egyptian group has claimed responsibility. http://www.vocativ.com/world/israel-world/egyptian-group-claims-killed-3-israeli-teens/?utm_campaign=June1&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain
     Notice how mainstream media sources are reporting none of these three actions committed by Israel, nor have they reported about the Egyptian group claiming responsibility for the murders. Why? Because that would show Israel is responsible for instigating this latest round of violence, and that Hamas is innocent of killing the three teenagers.
      I get hate messages all the time simply for writing what I wrote above. Apparently, I am a "anti-Semite, a Jew hater, (even though some of my family is Jewish), and radical Islamist terrorist, (even though I'm not Muslim)," simply for reporting what has been documented by American, Israeli, Palestinian, U.N., and other international organizations. A great case of shoot the messenger, not the message. They are trying to frame the discussion to be that any criticism of any Israeli action is not actual criticism of that action, but because that critic hates Jews. Suddenly, in the world of pro-Israelis, Israel can literally do no wrong, because any criticism of it is automatically and without question anti-Semitism.

      2. Hamas uses human shields, and therefore, they are to blame for each and every Palestinian civilian death.
     Reality: There is no evidence that Hamas uses human shields. This was not said by a radical Islamist organization, but a liberal, mainstream U.S. media outlet, the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-hamas-is-using-civilians-as-shields-in-gaza.html?_r=0 But according to the pro-Israelis, the New York Times did not report this because this is what their reporters found out, they published it because they are radical Jew haters.
     All I'm saying, is that if Hamas uses human shields, which they must do pretty often because Israel is killing an average of 40 Palestinian civilians a day, then show me the evidence. Where's the evidence? Back up your claim. Show me the facts. Because the only fact I have is that "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law." (from NYT article).
      On the contrary, the only side that I've seen documented using human shields...is Israel. That's right, the very side that is constantly lying saying that Hamas is using human shields, is actually the side that is fucking using human shields. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/survivors-massacre-palestinians.html
     Quote from Palestinian survivor Ayman Abu Toaimah “As Israeli invading troops advanced to the village they besieged it and used residents as human shields. When the Israeli army arrested people and then released some of them, they were told they are free to go back to the village, but as they were fleeing they came under fire and some of them shot dead. These people were used as human shields.”
      How fucking fucked up is that?! Doesn't that make your blood FUCKING BOIL?! This isn't the only time Israeli forces have done this, this is only the most recent time they have done so, hence, why I choose that particular source. There are countless other instances of Israel doing so, you only have to type "Israel using human shields" in a Google search, and you will get all the examples you could possibly want.

     3. Fighting in civilians areas is the same as using human shields.
     Reality: Guerrilla groups, like Hamas, by nature, HAVE to fight in civilian areas. They have no other choice because they do not have the funds nor the infrastructure to have a conventional country's military like the U.S. and Israel do. By saying that fighting in civilian areas is using human shields and/or terrorism, you are taking away the poor peoples' of the world right to self-defense, because that is the only way that they can fight. If Hamas had the money and the territory to have military bases totally separate from civilian areas, then they would do it. But they don't. 1.7 million people are squished in a 26x6 piece of coastline. There is no room for that.
     Throughout history, guerrilla groups have fought in civilian areas, because if they were to meet their state enemy on the open battlefield, then they would be annihilated in two seconds because they don't have jet fighters, artillery, tanks, APCS, the likes. So they are doing the logical, rational thing. The Republican rebels during the Spanish Civil War, the French under Nazi occupation, the Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War, the Finnish during the Russian invasion during WW2, the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, and the American Patriots during the American Revolutionary War all fought using civilian disguises because that was the only way they could fight their enemies. They operated in the shadows of towns, in the underground of cities, in the fields of farmland, etc, etc, because that was the only way they could fight.
      Were they terrorists for doing so? Of course not, you wouldn't call George Washington a terrorist, but at the time, the British certainly did. Were they using human shields? Of course not, you would never say George Washington did that, but at the time, a British officer said something that pro-Israelis say all the time about Hamas: "The Americans are the most absolute cowards on the face of the Earth," "The Americans do not fight us like a regular army, only like savages behind trees and stone walls, out of the woods and fields," "The Americans never engage us properly," "We are enraged at the suffering from an unseen enemy," (Invisible Armies by Max Boot, page 66).

     4. Hamas doesn't get to enjoy the right to self-defense.  
     Reality: Every people, regardless of race or creed, has the right to self-defense. There's no negotiations on this right. I've already explained in a previous post why it is logical and rational to use force to defend yourself when you are physically being attacked, and that if you believe that a certain group doesn't have the right to self-defense, then you are condemning that entire group to death, solely for belonging to that group: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/07/every-person-has-right-to-life-and-self.html But the U.S. government does not believe that the Palestinians have the right to self defense, in fact, they call the idea "offensive": http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm      
     Critics of this idea will say "Oh, because Hamas is a terrorist organization, they don't get the right to self-defense." There are two things wrong with that statement. One: If you believe that, then you must believe it for every other terrorist organization. You have to apply the rule fairly to everyone, otherwise, there is the double standard in your logic. Using this logic, then the American military and the IDF do not enjoy the right to self-defense, because they are, by all standards, terrorists. Well, of course pro-Americans and pro-Israelis do not want their own logic applied to themselves the same way they apply it to the Palestinians! Oh no! They certainly couldn't have that! The problem is, anyone can call anyone a terrorist. So that's no criteria for having the right to self-defense.
     Two: Just because someone is a terrorist doesn't mean that suddenly they're not human, and therefore, do not enjoy all the human rights that each and every person is born with. I know everyone likes to dehumanize their enemy, but of course, that is an application of a double standard. The truth is, a person can be a terrorist in the morning, and then in the afternoon, run a soup kitchen for the homeless, and then in the evening, go back to his loving family and be a good father, and then at night, go back on another terrorist raid. Enemies are people, and people have human rights, simple as that. If we used the dehumanized logic, then all someone would have to do is to call a certain group a terrorist organization, and then proceed to slaughter them all. If anyone tried to stop them, the person could say "Oh they're terrorists, so it's okay for me to kill them all." This dehumanization tactic was used in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in Syria today, etc, etc, and is not something that I want my country to use.

      5. Israel only targets Hamas soldiers and Hamas targets Israeli civilians.
     Reality: Let's look at actions, not statements, because anyone can say they do anything. Judge a person by their actions, and not their words. That way, we can tell who is lying in this case.
     Israel has killed around 1,200 Palestinians at the time of this writing. 80% of those are civilians http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10967279/UN-80-per-cent-of-Palestinians-killed-in-Israeli-offensive-are-civilians.html
    So, that is:
    Israel has killed 960 civilians and 240 fighters.
    Hamas has killed 3 civilians and 53 Israeli soldiers.
    Those are the numbers, plain and simple. You be the judge as who is to targeting combatants and who is targeting civilians. 

      6. Israel isn't occupying Gaza anymore.
      Reality: If a team of thugs step one inch from your property, guns pointed at your house, and prevent you and your family from leaving, no, they're not on your property, but they're still occupying your house. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8807/is-gaza-still-occupied-and-why-does-it-matter. The same goes for the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israel controls all movement around the Strip. Israel prevents building materials for homes and hospitals. Israel prevents potato chips and chocolate from entering the Strip on security conditions, can't have the terrorist children having a snack! Israel prevents fuel, medicine, and food from entering the Strip. Israel shoots anyone who gets "too near" to their "security fence."
      Sounds like occupation to me.  

     7. Hamas's tunnels are only used for terrorism against Jewish civilians.
     Reality: First of all, we've already debunked the first part of this statement in #5. Hamas targets Israeli soldiers, not Israeli civilians. Look at this video: Hamas dug a tunnel specifically to attack an Israeli army outpost. Not a Jewish neighborhood, not a synagogue. AN ARMY OUTPOST:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAhozItSq0
     Second of all, the tunnels have a lot of other practical, rational, logical uses due to the Israeli blockade. They bring in goods banned by Israel. They provide jobs for Palestinians in Gaza, which they desperately need, as the unemployment is around 50% http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/07/26/335332220/the-long-history-of-the-gaza-tunnels. They allow for Palestinians to actually enter and leave Gaza, since it is next to impossible for them to complete all the requirements needed to leave. And yes, Hamas uses them for sneak attacks. ON ISRAELI SOLDIERS. A guerrilla group has to be adaptive. Hamas changes its tactics. There's nothing wrong with that. It is rational and logical to use tunnels for sneak attacks because Israel hasn't adapted to counter them yet. They're a good way to fight.

     There you have it. All bullshit arguments, laid out one by one, and each one logically picked apart. I have these opinions, not because I hate Jews, not because I'm an Islamic terrorists, but because my opinion is the result I have reached through the analysis of all of the facts.
     
     

Make people uncomfortable by calling out double standards, that's how you bring change

     The media and the majority of Americans' blatant, disgusting, absolutely ridiculously fucking stupid double standards concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been well documented for decades now. And with the newest story of 3 Israeli teens being kidnapped in the West Bank, the double standard is once glaringly in the open for all the world to see.
      The only way to change someone holding a double standard is to call out quickly and decisively, using logic and reason, not preconceived notions or thinking "that's how I was raised."
      Let's start this post by establishing some truths. One: kidnapping any non-combatants for any advantage in combat or for terrorist purposes, of any race or religion, should be abhorred, not tolerated in our society, punished, and called out for what is truly is: a terrorist activity. This means that:

• Any Palestinian combatant who kidnaps an Israeli non-combatant is a terrorist, as you are using force and the threat of violence against a non-combatant. 
• Any Israeli combatant who kidnaps a Palestinian non-combatant is a terrorist. 

     Simply stating this fair, logical statement will get you branded a Jew-hater, an anti-Semite, a radical Muslim terrorist, and a hater of America. You will get threats of deportation by force, violence, and death simply by stating that it's the action that is wrong; it shouldn't matter the race or religion of the perpetrator or the victim. Don't believe me? Look at my post "Some hate Muslims get on a daily basis," and you'll see what people spew out on the Internet. That shows how fucked up most Americans' views on this issue is. To preach equality and against racism is to be a hating American terrorist. Meanwhile, people who preach inequality and racism are accepted in mainstream American society and politics.
     Now that we've established this truth, let's move onto the double standard. In a nutshell, this story of the 3 kidnapped Israeli teens is gaining a lot of attention in the media and in America. So much significantly more attention than any of the documented thousands of times Israeli soldiers have kidnapped Palestinian children. One must wonder: why? Why are people so much more concerned with Jewish people getting kidnapped, but when Muslim children get kidnapped, significantly less people are concerned about it? The actions are the same; the only thing that has changed are the actors. And this how we can determine that is because of racism that this imbalance has happened. People are judging that, depending on the race of the perpetrator and/or the victims, that determines how they will react to such an action.

     And this is the double standard. It shows that they really aren't against kidnapping children, as long as it's a race and/or religion they don't like, then they're fine with it. They're only pushing this kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teens for political purposes; if they were truly against kidnapping, then they would push Israel every time Israel kidnaps or mistreats a Palestinian child. But they don't.
     But, some might say, Israel doesn't kidnap or mistreat children. What are you talking about, they would ask, you radical anti-Semite? All you have to do is a simple Google search, which takes approximately 0.2 seconds, and you will get literally hundreds and hundreds of reports and cases about Israel kidnapping and mistreating Palestinian children by Israeli, Palestinian, American, European, and international NGOs and organizations. Here are some examples:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-government-tortures-children-by-keeping-them-in-cages-human-rights-group-says-9032826.html 
• http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/remember-israels-abuse-of-palestinian-kids/. "Pointing out that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children violates international law, the UN report cited terrifying night-time arrests, physical and verbal abuse, painful restraints, denial of access to food, water and toilet facilities, solitary confinement, coerced confessions, lack of access to lawyers and family members, shackling during court appearances and transfer to prisons outside the occupied Palestinian territories." 

     Critics will say that "oh, these Palestinian children were throwing stones at Israelis, so their treatment is justified." I'm sorry, since when that is a rule? Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Guess not, its an old American value that most Americans don't believe in anymore. Even if the Israeli military courts convicted these children of throwing stones, as I said above, many confessions were coerced through torture and threats. That means the conviction is no good, because the confession came through a illegitimate way. Give me a hammer and a few nails, and I can coerce anyone in confessing that they hijacked a Martian spaceship and landed in Washington D.C.
      Don't think that these Israeli "arrests" are kidnapping? What else would you call a bunch of masked men breaking down a door to a family's house in the dead of night, grabbing a child from his/her bed, whisking them off away to an undisclosed location, holding them without charges, and not allowing his/her parents, lawyers, etc, from seeing him/her?          

      The media has a blatant double standard about reporting Israeli children deaths and Palestinian children deaths. The evidence is just completely overwhelming: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html
     "In the first year of the current uprising, ABC, CBS, and NBC reported Israeli children’s deaths at 13.8, 6.4, and 12.4 times the rate of Palestinian children’s deaths. In 2004 these large differentials were also present, although they decreased in two cases, with deaths of Israeli children covered at rates 9.0, 12.8, and 9.9 times greater than the deaths of Palestinian children by ABC, CBS, and NBC, respectively. Given that in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, this category holds particular importance. We could find no basis on which to justify this inequality in coverage." 

    Not only that, but the major media outlets repeated coverage of the same Israeli children deaths, to make it look like there were more causalities than were actually were, while, at the same time, omitted reports on Palestinian children's deaths, to make it look like there were less casualties than were actually were. How fucking fucked up is this?! People are using children's deaths for political purposes. Fucking sick!!

    The same thing is happening in the media right now concerning the three kidnapped Israeli teens. All major news outlets have multiple articles about this one kidnapping incident, it's all over the Internet, pundits can't stop talking about it, how it shows that all Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel is the victim, etc, etc. Yet when hundreds of Palestinian children get kidnapped by Israeli terrorists every year? Nothing, maybe a short little blurb here and there, but basically nothing. Not a word of speaking out. Which means they're perfectly fine with it. As long as it's Arab children getting kidnapped, the sick disgusting media outlets are fine with it. 

     One vital piece of information that the media outlets conveniently leaves out when talking about the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds the Palestinian government responsible for the kidnapping: the kidnapping took place in a section of the West Bank that Israeli forces have complete control over and Palestinian forces cannot govern at all. It occurred in Area C of the West Bank, in which Israeli law clearly states that Israeli forces are the security forces of this area, and Palestinian forces, under no circumstances, are allowed to do anything in Area C. How fucked up is that? Stealing someone's territory, and then blaming them for not preventing a kidnapping on that stolen territory that you won't allow their policemen to go onto?  

     In conclusion, this double standard will continue to happen until people like you and me counter it. If you see it in the newspaper, write a letter to the editor calling out this disgusting double standard. If you see it on an online article, write a comment, (if it has a forum), calling it out. If your stupid greedy rich fuck of a senator says something about it in Congress, write a letter to them. If one of your so called friends, (wait, you have friends that support double standards based on religion and race?!), writes about it on any social media forum, counter it, call it out. That is the only way we can bring around change, by showing people, through logic and reason, that they are fundamentally wrong. If you're against kidnapping, then you're against kidnapping no matter the race or religion of the victim and perpetrator. If you make exceptions to your so called morale, then its not a real morale. You can't be against rape, but then think rape is okay against a certain race because you hate them.