I didn’t “read” your inner thoughts nor put you in any “box”. I only FIRMLY critiqued what you wrote.

1. My article on “democrazy” was a try to deconstruct this concept that everybody use in their own way. I am sorry if it was not god enought. The contenta of it is that there r many different rouling systems that in praxis may be good or bad for “peoples power”.

So why suggest that the Arabs need “Democracy” when for 40 years a workable form existed in Libya. The West could take a page out of the Green Book.

2. Did I smear Iran? I wrote earlier what I support and what I critizise. But I admire Iran as a nation in many ways.

So why are you even equating Iran to Zionism? This is the second time that you’ve equated Zionism to the regimes that are standing against it. Like I stated before this is kind of rhetoric you’d see from the “Progressives”.

3. It could be desputed to what extent the beginning of the uproars in the Arab spring were genunie or orchestrad by Zionism, but I think, so far, it is quite clear that they were taken over, in different ways, by USrael, Nato et alt. Do I have to say I am opposed to that? And we have not seen the end yet.

Here’s what you wrote in your article …

[The Uprisings in the Arab World] is about freedom and human dignity and doing away with oppression, corruption and insensitive leaders, especially those who are puppets of Anglo-American imperialism and its Zionist masters.

Apparently you wrote that with CERTAINTY that the uprising are for freedom and human dignity rather than for subversion and Zionist advancement. Your response now is more in line with doubt regarding the nature of the uprising. What we do know is that Qaddafi is dead and the Libyan Jamahiriya destroyed while the Left aligned themselves with Zionists cheering on the “uprising”.

What we do know is that Syria is in a life and death struggle against “rebel” forces standing up against International Jewry and the REGIME who has been in the front line protecting Syria for 40-some years deserve our FULL support and not some muddle and wishy-washy stance.

4. Did I “stain” those u name as “Zionists”? Come on DB, its all in u own eyes.

No you “stained” those who are RESISTING Zionism by equating them to Zionism. Unfortunately that is in your text which is why I reply within the context of your commentary.

5. Now when u specify what u mean by “supporting a regim”, I can see that u mean something similar to what I tried to say, even if we do not make exactly the same conclusions.

When I support a regime standing against International Jewry I certainly won’t equate them to Zionism.

6. I think that my experiances from the vietnam movement in Sweden, I described earlier, is worth a thought

Kudos to you for taking the proper stance against the Vietnam War. I hope you didn’t equate those Vietnam resisters and the North Vietnamese regime to Zionism.

Q: How can you tell if someone is an Assad supporter?

A: Wait for them to incite violence against Alawites!

Or so Ali Abunimah (bookburner) appears to think ………

More here and here.

I have no idea whether the intent is intentional or not and never spoke to it. My observation, comments and analysis are based on what is being conveyed by his writings.

The greatest threat to humanity is Jewish Power. Therefore Lesse’s attempt to equalize Zionism to NSDAP Germany and to Islam if not insulting is rather careless, reckless and ahistorical. It is the kind of comparison that is common of the pseudo-Left and what you read on ICH. It is the same tactic used by the hasbara to smear their opponents. So to see that being conveyed here needs to be firmly rejected.

My rejoinders, are based on Lesse writings which is why I italicized his comments before commenting so that they are not taking out of context in my response.

People who say “I don’t necessarily support Assad but I am dead set against foreign intervention in Syria” are not zionist tools. They merely make a point that EVEN IF you may not be a fan of Assad (as you did not need to be a fan of Saddam Hussein) you have to support SYRIA against USrael’s assault against it.

You’ve misread what I have written and my critique of Lesse. What I said is that such rhetoric is MUDDLED THINKING. I never accused anyone of being a “Zionist tool”. What I also said is that such rhetoric is common of the pseudo-Left. What I said is those who support Syria in their struggle against Jewish power are DEFACTO in supports of the Assad regime therefore one cannot be on the knife edge with such fallacious middle ground rhetoric but must take a firm stance in support of the regime’s survival.

The Assad regime has been fighting against the West and Jewish encroachment and power for more than 40 years while Saddam Hussein was a tool of Zionist power (see photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein who took Iraq to war against Iran at their behest.) betraying her citizens and when Zionists was done with Hussein disposed of him and ruined Iraq.

I’m sorry Ariadna but perhaps Lesse is the one here who should rethink his rhetoric.

There are numerous examples. Google “site:deliberation.info ariadna israel 9/11″:
http://tinyurl.com/b9nbs9o etc. My favorite is
http://tinyurl.com/bb2r8cc – which is funny, at least.

I don’t know if I’ve ever said “I can’t think of any explanation of Jewish success except they must be ‘better at it’” – but I didn’t need to – it’s a tautology!

When I said Ariadna attempts to discourage having a serious discussion about evolutionary psychology, I referred to her comments (see above): “No, he will tell you he got it from Kevin McDonald: it’s all about evolutionary psychology, you see” and “We are favored by evolutionary psychology. `No, shit! What’s that?` Something a goy said but it made sense to me.” Ariadna is trying to use sarcasm to discourage readers from finding out about evolutionary psychology for themselves, and seeing if MacDonald, despite his far-right views, has anything to contribute to our understanding of Jewish power. This is unhelpful.

I’m not accusing Ariadna of lying, but she has no hesitation of accusing me of deliberately promoting falsehoods. This self-confirming cult-talk sabotages debate. Stalinism was an extreme version of this.

You want to insult but you lack even the most basic imagination so you come back to the same hackneyed echolalic inanity. (Even that you borrowed from your sharper cohorts)
I would not say that being deadly boring is your worst problem but it ranks pretty high up there with your inability to embarrass yourself.