ToT stands for Tool of Terrorism.
If we define 'approval of terrorism' as the acceptance of
horror such as pain, death or destruction – inflicted on the innocent,
deliberately or inadvertently, by design or by collateral damage – only if the
horror is committed by some people and not by others; it must be said that the
“left leaning” New York Times and a number of “right wing” publications in
America, are tools of terrorism.
That's because the editors of those publications are choosy
when it comes to who they believe are allowed to defend their people against
terror, and who are not. In fact, for some time now, they have been
countenancing the kind of “defensive wars” which are conducted by the people
they approve of, such as the Israelis, and the people who collaborate with America . Guess
what else those editors do; they cheer for the terrorists when they score
against the regimes that decide to defend their people without obtaining
permission from America .
The New York Times, together with a number of right wing
print publications, and such audio-visual giants as Fox News and CNN, have been
playing that game insidiously for a while. They started playing it when a
number of Arab countries decided to take care of the troublemakers in their
midst such as Libya and Yemen – and did it without consulting with America or
asking it to lead them.
The Times has now come out and shown its true colors. Its
editors wrote a piece under a title that reads: “Doubts About Saudi Arabia's
Antiterrorism Coalition” published on December 19, 2015. As can be seen, the
editors did not want to break the news gently to the readers; they hit them in
the face with the first word they put down: “Doubts,” they wrote. They go on to
say there are doubts about a Saudi Coalition that does not include Israel (which they did not name this time), and
is not led by America .
To them, this is intolerable infamy!
Written from end to end in that frame of mind; reading the
Times editorial is like watching sewage run along the gutter. And the stink you
must put up with is so overwhelming; you know it can only be Jewish. You know
this much because right off the bat, the editors complain that “there is no
clarity about what the [Arab coalition] will actually do.”
Of course there is no clarity; the information is not all in
yet … and will not be till it's time to release it. The plan has just been
announced by the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia who nevertheless
declared that “nothing is off the table.” This means that Arab troops will
eventually be sent to Syria ,
and a massive effort to counter the IS propaganda will be mounted. Stay tuned,
and you'll get the details in due course. This is how professionals do things.
No, no, no, say the editors of the Times; you people have no
idea what you must do to be effective. Let America conduct the military and
propaganda wars, and do two things yourselves. First, do the mea culpa, not
just in words but in deeds. That is, admit you are at the root of the problem
by ending your financing of “the Wahhabi religious schools and clerics that are
spreading the extremist doctrine at the heart of the IS ideology.” Second, do
the only thing you can be good at doing; give your money away. That is, “help
weak countries in North Africa that are battling extremists, like Tunisia and Mali , pay soldiers and security
experts.” Other than that, you should partner with Israel
or partner with America
or sit down quietly and shut up.
Now that you, my friend, have gotten used to the stench of
the Times editorial, you go over it once more to see if you can determine how
those who wrote it might have acquired the stream of stinky ideas they are
propounding. Rereading the piece, you trip on some clues in the first three
paragraphs – exemplified by the way that each one is ended. In the first
paragraph, the editors talk about Saudi Arabia 's new project, ending
it like this: “there are many reasons to doubt how effective the plan will be.”
That's typically Jewish baseless negativity.
In the second paragraph, they talk about the Security
Council resolution which calls for a cease-fire and talks to end the civil war
in Syria .
They end it like this: “whether that can pave the way to end the conflict is
also highly questionable.” That too is typically Jewish baseless negativity.
In the third paragraph, they talk about the 'inexperienced'
defense minister of Saudi
Arabia who said he will establish a joint
operation center to fight terrorism across the Muslim world. They end the
paragraph like this: “Just what that means is unclear.” This is also typically
Jewish baseless negativity.
To understand what makes these people spawn all that
negativity, we need to know something about the word 'essay.' It is derived
from the French word 'essayer' which means to try, to test, to weigh. Thus, an
editorial about a project that has just been revealed cannot be an opinion
piece. It can only be an essay through which the writers probe the
possibilities and talk about them in tentative terms ... Unless … Unless the editors
prepare themselves for something each time that they are summoned to sit around
the editorial table.
From the looks of it, the editors of the New York Times seem
to prepare themselves by getting their skulls filled with ejaculated moral
syphilis of the Jewish kind. The reality is that when it comes to the Middle
East and North Africa , those dickheads go to
the editorial table with skulls that brim with Jewish ejaculated morality.