Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 01 2019, @07:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the Seckret-Codez dept.

Bruce Schneier has written a short piece over at Lawfare in response to ongoing calls to weaken encryption. Unlike during the cold war there is no longer a distinction between consumer grade encryption and military encryption. This is because customized encryption is both more expensive and less secure, because it is unique, non-standard, and untested.

In his keynote address at the International Conference on Cybersecurity, Attorney General William Barr argued that companies should weaken encryption systems to gain access to consumer devices for criminal investigations. Barr repeated a common fallacy about a difference between military-grade encryption and consumer encryption: "After all, we are not talking about protecting the nation's nuclear launch codes. Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, e-mail, and voice and data applications."

The thing is, that distinction between military and consumer products largely doesn't exist. All of those "consumer products" Barr wants access to are used by government officials—heads of state, legislators, judges, military commanders and everyone else—worldwide. They're used by election officials, police at all levels, nuclear power plant operators, CEOs and human rights activists. They're critical to national security as well as personal security.

Earlier on SN:
U.S. Attorney General William Barr Demands Backdoored Encryption (2019)
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Problem "Infects" Law Enforcement and Intelligence Community (2019)
The Crypto Warrior--Why Politicians Want a ‘Back Door’ into Your Devices—and Why it Will Never Work (2016)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:35PM (19 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:35PM (#888448) Journal

    So anti-Israel is anti-Semitic now? I guess that Jewish uncle I had who was a staunch anti-Zionist was also anti-Semitic somehow? Maybe a self-loathing Jew? Come on now, THINK: Israel itself exists because the British (mostly) decided to piss all over the existing tribal borders and carve out a homeland, Zionism was started by an atheist (Herzl, IIRC), and you know damn well the only reason the massively Christian powers that be allowed it was to attempt fulfillment of misunderstood end-times prophecy. THAT is why the hard right "supports Israel," because they're trying to cause the Battle of Arma-fucking-geddon in our lifetimes.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:44PM (1 child)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:44PM (#888452) Journal

    THAT is why the hard right "supports Israel," because they're trying to cause the Battle of Arma-fucking-geddon in our lifetimes.

    Er, we've changed stories. This has absolutely nothing to do with the hard right!

    • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 02 2019, @12:48PM

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 02 2019, @12:48PM (#888801) Journal

      Dude, there is such a thing as cultural hegemony. It's not all monolithic. You cannot separate Barr and Trump from the people who give them power, and if these are the people making decisions about encryption, how trustworthy they are is a central element of the discussion.

      Anyone with *any* ties to *any* spy agency, at all, will not be trusted with my cryptography as a civilian. Barr doesn't just have ties, he's one of the most currupt figures in american history. His dad didn't just know Epstein, he gave him his start. This guy has been corrupt since his birth, and the ties with untrustworthy israeli entities have only grown from there, and are only further reinforced by trump's inner circle picks like kushner.

      In an ideal world, the discussion of whether private encryption is a discussion that the encryption people still win, but we are not in this world, we are in a world of deep deep spy games, where some people clearly want to know everything in the world. And all the evidence on hand points to a big problem with Israel, that the alliance with this country is threatening the entire *existence* of the united states as such. If a country can't have secrets it can't exist.

      And yes the right wing christian stooges waiting for The End Times and their industrialist propagandists are a big part of how they are getting away with it.

      Every discussion of encryption starts with who you trust and who you don't, trying to trim this from the discussion because it's uncomfortable is reductionist and ultimately anti-intellectual.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @12:57PM (#888457)

    Well said.

    The most vocal supporters of Israel I know are all rabid Christians who are big believers that either everyone in the world must be Christian, or their work is not done yet. They believe Israel must exist because their interpretation of the bible says so.

    Besides, it's no longer acceptable to kill the Jews, so they'll need somewhere put them.

    What we're witnessing in America is the fear response of a cornered animal. The white evangelical population is in steep decline while the rest of the population is growing. And they know it. Watch this space. Dark times are coming.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:02PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:02PM (#888460) Journal

    Many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources take the view that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies.

    From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

    I know about the British role in establishing Israel. Remember, I am British. We still get taught history at school. But Israel, anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism has nothing at all with a discussion about encryption. That is the point that I was making. Now, with your permission, I would like to get back to the topic in hand.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:05PM (#888461)

    Nitpick: as far as I understand it, the rank and file hard right support Israel because they seek the end times. The upper class right support Israel because it's an excuse to sell weapons, and to stoke regional conflicts where they can sell even more weapons to our own military. The Trump supporter in the Baptist support down the street love Israel because he can't wait for the rapture. The Trump supporter who has lunch with Pentagon staff loves Israel because she can't wait for her next yacht.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by RamiK on Sunday September 01 2019, @02:36PM (7 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Sunday September 01 2019, @02:36PM (#888481)

    Israel itself exists because the British (mostly) decided to piss all over the existing tribal borders and carve out a homeland

    No. There were no exiting tribal borders. Only Ottoman administrative divisions and a whole lot of rebels and tribal conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Egyptian_period [wikipedia.org]

    More importantly, large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine predates the British:

    The rise of Zionism, the national movement of the Jewish people started in Europe in the 19th century seeking to recreate a Jewish state in Palestine, and return the original homeland of the Jewish people. The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of Zionist immigration.[citation needed] The "First Aliyah" was the first modern widespread wave of Zionist aliyah. Jews who migrated to Palestine in this wave came mostly from Eastern Europe and from Yemen. This wave of aliyah began in 1881–82 and lasted until 1903.[278] An estimated 25,000[279]–35,000[280] First Aliyah laid the cornerstone for Jewish settlement in Israel and created several settlements such as Rishon LeZion, Rosh Pina, Zikhron Ya'akov and Gedera.[citation needed]

    In 1891, a group of Jerusalem notables sent a petition to the central Ottoman government in Istanbul calling for the cessation of Jewish immigration, and land sales to Jews.[281][282]

    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Restoration_of_Ottoman_control [wikipedia.org] )

    The British's part in the establishment of Israel starts with the Sykes-Picot Agreement [wikipedia.org] and the Balfour Declaration [wikipedia.org] as the realization of Sykes-Picot. What it comes down to is that they didn't want the French there so they left the region to the Jews as a third neutral party.

    If the Zionists weren't around and interested, the region would have been placed under international administration like how the Saar Basin [wikipedia.org] was handled in Treaty of Versailles and carved up for the neighboring Arab nations to take following WW2. And to this day, we would still hear about this or that war in the region but with more nostalgic headlines discussing the Holy Land and such.

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 02 2019, @12:39PM (6 children)

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 02 2019, @12:39PM (#888799) Journal

      You are really super-quibbling with the point you are attempting to refuse.

      She is absolutely correct, the british mandate pissed all over the existing borders. You just want to play games with what the word 'border' means, just like israel does to this very day.

      If you cannot define your borders, maybe you aren't a nation? Or maybe your country is built on the principle of aggression, it's very existence means you will fight wars to get bigger until someone stops you?

      The hypacrisy of your response is astounding, a true feat of faux-intellectual gymnastics.

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday September 02 2019, @06:16PM (4 children)

        by RamiK (1813) on Monday September 02 2019, @06:16PM (#888908)

        You just want to play games with what the word 'border' means, just like israel does to this very day.

        What games? What borders? It was all part of the Ottoman empire. Same laws. Same papers. Just different tax brackets. You could take a train from Damascus to Medina that stopped at Haifa without passport checks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hejaz_railway [wikipedia.org]

        The region was Ottoman. The people were Ottoman Arab Muslims, Christians and Jews. The term "Palestinian" wasn't national in nature since Muslims couldn't accept a concept of nationalism beyond the required pan-Arabic caliphate under the one and only sharia law (that's to be determined by killing anyone that disagrees on the interpenetration): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism [wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state [wikipedia.org]

        It's not to say Palestinian nationalism isn't legitimate just because it's a response to Zionism. Zionism in itself is a response to the failure of Jews to assimilate in Europe. But you can't just make up some Palestinian nation, borders and identity that simply wasn't there at the time and blame the British and Zionist for conquering it. The Ottomans joined with Germans in WW1, lost and fallen apart. There was nothing there to conquer. It was up to the winner to decide what to do with it. They gave self-determination where they saw capacity for self-governance. And they saw it with the Zionist. Israel is still around so clearly they weren't wrong.

        --
        compiling...
        • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday September 03 2019, @04:38AM (3 children)

          by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Tuesday September 03 2019, @04:38AM (#889112) Journal

          "It was up to the winner"

          Your argument eats itself, your saying the people who were actually living there didn't have a state with borders, so the UK made a state with borders for a set of people who hated them and thought they were sub humans, and these new borders are super official even though they have divided the entire world in violent conflict for the entire time?

          Have you ever heard of the word arbitrary? Or a bootstrap argument? Even in your bizarre world where the british get to play 'legitimate' god and give land away, with the help of the backing of huge european banks and a mountain of arms shipments, the palestinian people have rights and can't be forced to live in apartheid or have *even more* land taken by continuation of fiat on an ongoing basis. This is how we can know that Israel does not care one bit about the chance for a negotiated settlement, and they know palestinians can never accept a jewish state in jerusalem, so they do exactly those things.

          israel should define its borders if it wants to be a legitimate state, and if it wants to investigate iran for weapons, it needs to be honest about its own. Do you think such a state should have weapons of mass destruction? They just bombed four countries 'pre-emptively,' which is nuts.

          What you describe as the creation of israel is the definition of illegitimate, some people from somewhere else arbirarily drew these lines because it was profitable for them to do so and in the process a racist state was born out of blatant aggression, setting a precedent which continues to destabilize the entire world. I'd say with the money they had access to, they could have just bought it, but for some reason they thought continual war would be less expensive. And some people simply only do business with people in distress, even if they are the ones who have to generate the distress.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by RamiK on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:43PM (2 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:43PM (#889266)

            your saying the people who were actually living there didn't have a state with borders,

            No court sends troops. The only people who have a say about any border are those with the ability to guard or attack it. The local Arabs weren't organized. They were largely composed of farmers, a few urbanite and intellectuals and the odd land owner. They had no engineers to setup infrastructures. No resources to develop the land. And no allies willing to aid. Only friendly [wikipedia.org] neighbors eyeing the lands for themselves. The British mandate wasn't a colonial "lets civilize them" effort. It was about getting into the region, putting together a self sustaining government that wouldn't implode upon them leaving or be so weak as to be rendered a proxy to the French, and get out. They made a judgement call that history proved accurate as even now the Palestinian leadership is divided between at least two camps that are shooting at each other whenever they get the chance.

            people who hated them and thought they were sub humans

            Sunni vs. Shia... Muslims vs. Christians... Jews vs. Muslims... To this day the region is sunk neck deep in tribal warfare with everyone hating and killing everyone. Death toll vs. refugees wise, so far the Zionists been the least bloodthirsty of the lot.

            the palestinian people have rights and can't be forced to live in apartheid or have *even more* land taken by continuation of fiat on an ongoing basis. This is how we can know that Israel does not care one bit about the chance for a negotiated settlement, and they know palestinians can never accept a jewish state in jerusalem, so they do exactly those things.

            No they don't. At least, not the rights you have in mind. The "post" in post-conflict property restitution rights denotes the conflict must come to an end first. So if the Palestinian leadership "can never accept a jewish state in Jerusalem" and bring the conflict to an end, they will never have such rights in the same way children don't have the right to vote until they reach a certain age. And while Israel is under no obligation to concede to the Palestinian terms of surrender, the Palestinians are free to declare unilateral surrender just like so many European nations has done over the centuries. That's the intent of the law: To bring conflicts to a close and force the parties to sign honest peace treaties acknowledging each-other's existence. Which unfortunately, the Palestinians are not willing to do.

            israel should define its borders if it wants to be a legitimate state,

            Why bother? What do they have to gain? Unless the conflict comes to an end, the annexations could never be contested in international courts since borders are an open question to be determined in peace settlements. Again, it's not some error in international laws. It's the intent: To force the losers to surrender and prevent a perpetual war cycle.

            and if it wants to investigate iran for weapons, it needs to be honest about its own.

            No it doesn't. Israel hasn't signed on any nonproliferation treaties. Iran did.

            Do you think such a state should have weapons of mass destruction?

            Should any?

            They just bombed four countries 'pre-emptively,' which is nuts.

            It can't be only just four. Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are an obvious six. Turkey and Saudi Arabia probably got a few Hizbullah and Hamas recruitment centers bombed too. Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the Emirates should have had a few Mossad agents bombing apartments and assassinating terrorists over the years too? I'm sure they did the same in most if not all of Europe.

            Anyhow, standard practice in and out of the region.

            What you describe as the creation of israel is the definition of illegitimate

            How so? The Zionists bought the lands fair and square under both Ottoman and British rule. The local Arab oligarchs didn't like losing status and control as demography shifted and land prices inflated while the local farmers left with the money not entering circulation so they riled up a civil war to kick out the Zionists. The British observed and determined the Zionists have a right for self-determination and a need for their own country and borders around the lands they've purchased legally. They also saw the other party doesn't have capacity for self government and would end up a proxy... See above.

            Maybe it's the annexation you're not fine with? The world war winners decided Israel has a right to exist but the locals saw fit to attack despite it. Do you really think the British and French would side with them in matters of refugee rights and annexations after that kind of betrayal? Look, to this day, whenever someone comes attacking the legitimacy of Israel based on this or that UN resolution, every single first world member nation representative is reminded how the Arab world keeps betraying them by ignoring their rulings and arbitration while collaborating with the Soviets / Chinese. Matters of the law are mostly a question of procedure at those levels. What matters to them is that Israel is, generally, an ally when and where it matters. And rarely if ever, a violator of human rights when it comes to its own Arab population. So, just like back then, they look at the neighborhood and conclude the locals are better off under Zionist rule. So they'll pass some inane toothless resolution here and there. Maybe talk about a sanction to appease their Arab members and voters when they know the US will step in and veto it. But they'll never bother doing anything. They've learned their lesson.

            --
            compiling...
            • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:43PM (1 child)

              by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:43PM (#889500) Journal

              "The only people who have a say about any border are those with the ability to guard or attack it. The local Arabs weren't organized."

              As an answer to my question, this is flat out saying 'I admit israel is evil and a land created from outright theft, and is according to me an exception to all moral laws and this is why I think I am allowed to rewrite history to suit my delusions, financial concerns and religious fantasies."

              If your response was any less morally idiotic, or conversely, showed any moral sense whatsoever, I would read the rest of it, but your first sentence was so awful, I don't have the time to read any more tripe today.

              Still waiting for an israeli argument that isn't outright propaganda, I'm not going to hold my breath.

              Rethink your life, rethink thinking even, because you are not doing it.

              • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:32PM

                by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:32PM (#889543)

                As an answer to my question...

                How did you come up with that conclusion? Property rights over land aren't perpetual nor universal. The moral justification for society to secure them is to provide "incentives for investment in land and sustainable resource management" [worldbank.org]. The locals failed both while the Zionists just kept investing more and more.

                The legal aspect doesn't hold up either. When the Ottoman empire collapsed, the party doing the leasing collapsed and the locals lost the rights to the lands. The British intervened and ratified the old contracts under their own laws and the newly emerged international laws. But that meant accepting their decisions, rules and laws while paying them taxes. The alternative is putting together a government, army and police via taxes and guaranteeing the rights yourself by protecting the borders and such. But they didn't do it. They couldn't. Their society was too poor. The vast majority of people were farmers that could barely afford the utility bills for the few acres under their names much less their development and protection. The rich didn't feel like paying for it too so they sold out to the Zionist, packed their bags, and migrated to find a better life elsewhere.

                So, when a tenant can't afford the rent or paying for utilities, you kick them out. Doubly so when there's another person willing to buy the whole place and renovate it top to bottom.

                This is why the Bedouins and Druze joined up with the Zionists against the other Arabs. Unlike the other locals, they weren't delusional and entitled. They understood lands aren't some god given right. Property isn't what you own. It's what you deprive from others. It's inherently immoral to own anything and the only means to justify it is with a commitment to life through its development and the willingness to shed blood to protect it. For the former, the Zionists just kept investing nonstop. For the latter, they saw the Zionists didn't run away while the locals did and that sealed the deal.

                Throw in hospitality and that's all the moral and legal justifications anyone could have to hold property.

                --
                compiling...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @11:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @11:16PM (#889018)

        this will blow your mind:
        http://mileswmathis.com/iran.pdf [mileswmathis.com]

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:20PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:20PM (#888612) Journal

    So anti-Israel is anti-Semitic now?

    Why else mention "Israel First-people"? It is after all completely irrelevant to the topic. Suppose instead he had been ranting about "Africa First-people"?

    Still I think the complaint has considerable merit despite the add-ons above.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:07PM (#888638)

    The anti-semitism is in two phrases:

    if I were trying to take over a country or disintegrate it from the inside

    with a doctor that has no ties to israel of course

    These are not anti-Israel, but anti-semitic, because clearly Israel as a country is not trying to dismantle the USA, and doctors in the USA (where GP resides) who have Israeli ties are not going to provide better or worse care than other doctors. On the other hand, the dogwhistle is reeeelatively clearly that we should all be afraid because jews are trying to X Y and Z the world.

    THAT is why the hard right "supports Israel," because they're trying to cause the Battle of Arma-fucking-geddon in our lifetimes.

    Can we not paint the hard right with one brush? Just say "some in the hard right" and we're cool. Because there are atheist hard-right, and you've made your position look pretty weak by so grouping the hard right uniformly. If we're going to get upset when hard-righters call everyone more "left" than they a communist, and if that weakens their claims because they're clearly misrepresenting their opponents, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standards?

    Azuma, let me be clear - I think you're one of the most useful and interesting contributors here. I quibble with you here because I know you act in good faith and wish to engage with reasonable priors and correct logic, and because the whole community profits when you are being insightful and not ... I guess this post and a few others give the impression that you feel besieged and need to defend your political opinions, and are taking potshots without aiming carefully.

    • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 02 2019, @12:35PM

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 02 2019, @12:35PM (#888797) Journal

      You can't say every statement you don't like is a dogwhistle. You can but it has no credibilty.

      The question is whether there are some jewish people contributing to taking the United States over from the inside, not what is or is not anti-semitic.

      This minefield, that protects people like Epstein and Weinstein, is batshit insane and anti-intellectual.

      The question is whether or not these people can be trusted with my encryption and to effectively work for the american people in their positions of government.

      Do you deny that literally dozens of jewish people with tiest to israel have been caught betraying america in high up positions of power?

      If you cannot prove that point, then the problem is yours. Antisemitism isn't just a slur but a proven fact, you should be anti-semitic because a lot of jewish people are actually involved in subverting your country for their own interests.

      Otherwise outlawing anti-semitism simply permanently legalizes the corruption of jewish people, which I would say is much close to where we are actually at than some kind of nazi takeover. Oddly, the most nazi president we have ever had, the current one, is giving Israel everything on its wishlist while appointing dozens of jewish people to positions of high power, including the guys who are letting epstein get away with it.

      fwiw you are using anti-stemitism as 'anti-jewish', anti-semitic would include all semitic people only a minority of whom are israelis are jewish. But jewish people themselves argue over what it means to be jewish, so people like myself who simply want to say something intelligent about the problem and save my country from a pointless civil war, are dragged into the minefield and then pounced on by people like yourself who are looking for one slip-up so you can label me and disregard everything I have to say.

      So please stop, it's intellectually disgusting, and you are just protecting epstein and his friends at this point. idk maybe that's the side you want to be on? If you're israeli, it might mean a new parcel of land on which you can build a house and in which you can be as racist against palestinians(read: antisemitic) as you want.

  • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday September 02 2019, @12:24PM (2 children)

    by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Monday September 02 2019, @12:24PM (#888795) Journal

    Thank you (again) for this.

    Two historians that have helped me understand these things are Tom Suarez and Allison Weir.

    https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/political-zionism-the-us-connection-alison-weir-375 [soundcloud.com]

    http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/92664 [radio4all.net]

    Also, actual:
    http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/103548 [radio4all.net]

    In a conflict like this where there are two clear sides, and both are claiming persecution, you really need to look at the details.

    Epsetin got away with mega crimes for 30 years while operating a famous company, he claimed he deserved the privilege of a second fraudulent passport because jewish people are persecuted. (because they are accused of doing exactly what epstein was doing, but leave that for now...)

    I, on the other hand, as a public BDS supporter, get the algorithms of all zionist operated softwares configured against me, FB, googl, etc. No one in all of hollywood or new york will even consider working with a comedian or writer who supports BDS. I have been harassed at my job, in the bus and train, my friends and neighborhood have been vandalized, and the country I live in made a law in June that my viewpoint is specifically outlawed.

    You tell me, who is the one being persecuted? Who is conducting a witch hunt? Whose ideas are being dismissed and labelled with slurrs prior to consideration? Am I, a proud supporter of a jewish candidate Bernie Sanders, the nazi here?

    What's that quote, 'I pray that I may never feel I am persecuted simply because I am contradicted.' I think that's what our friends in Israel are abusing, they are claiming every criticism is evidence of a vast plot against them because of their ethnicity, while they are DOING WORSE to their opponents.

    And anyone who does this gaslighting manipulation bullshit is on my shitlist, call me whatever you want but I don't want anything to do with Israel or any jewish people incapable of grasping the true twisted nature of this situation and their role in it. Any jewish people who are silent at this point, have already told us what side they are on.

    One more thing, my heritage is northern european, dutch etc although one of my great grandma's was probably german yiddish, but whatever. If when I was in high school I learned there was a cult of Hudson's who had been involved in numerous, century's long scandals all over the world, I would not for a second consider doing any of the things that would ever risk me being so labelled. In fact, my grandma told me one side of my familiy was always arguing about money. So I never ague about money. (try it, it works)

    Yet epstein knew he was proudly jewish and while he was trafficking and raping dozens of 13 year old girls, claimed that with a straight face he deserves a second passport so that he could evade persecution while flying around with Ehud Barak and his harem of children. And other jewish people right now are trying as hard as possible to prevent the fact of his jewishness from ever being mentioned in the mass media, not because they are scared for their safety, but because it will affect their plans to steal land and grab ever more power.

    I could not describe anything more demonic and illegetimate. Demonizing israel and saying israel is illegitimate are the two exact things that Netanyahu himself says will result in Israel targetting you with their mean tricks brigade. They won't define their borders, they won't admit they stole and possess nuclear weapons, the only UN mandate they accept is the one of their own creation. They are literally integrated with the Mafia via casinos and the drug trade etc. Israel is the single country who does all these things, and so this is logically the third thing you are not to do regarding Israel, single it out.

    I have encountered in my extensive studies of this world and human history no greater source and purveyor of evil than the state of Israel, so no, I do not trust them or their american stooges with anything, at all, whatsoever, least of which to design my iphone, program my encryption, produce my processor or decide what I can and cannot say.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 02 2019, @07:46PM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday September 02 2019, @07:46PM (#888935) Journal

      Come on now, Nazi Germany was a lot worse than Israel. Personally if the entire Middle East were to be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow with no discrimination between religions and ethnic groups I would breathe a sigh of relief, but let's be real here.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday September 03 2019, @04:54AM

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Tuesday September 03 2019, @04:54AM (#889116) Journal

      By comparison the actual 3rd reich was much more straightforward, I'm inclined to see the more perniciously deceptive infiltrator as the more evil in any situation.

      The zionist thing is now going on for a much longer time, and I can only see it as actually a war against all of the islamic religion itself. China is piling on.

      The israelis are just giving the usa targets to attack at this point, finding any point of any strength in any of the cultures that has land it wants or which opposes it, and eliminating that strength through actual offensive terrorism, often unattributed, while claiming by definition to be on the side fighting against fear itself and that they aren't even at war. Blurring the definitions of war, soldier, borders, offense, defense and actually a lot of words. The gradual escalation like they are gauging how much war we can handle, but always dialing it up, always leaving us on the brink of a much bigger conflict.

      I'm so sick of it. I would rather they get it over with than all of this dangling their limp wrists in front of iran's face and saying 'dare you to touch me' like a sociopathic 12 year old bully.

      By comparison the 3rd reich was hamhanded, shortlived and localized. And direct.

      Zionism is global, and has demonstrated a much longer term plan, with much more infiltration of 'key positions'. I do not think humanity has seen anything like it, and the death toll of the war on terror is getting really up there, and it is so extremely lopsided, and at this point they have nearly succeeded in eliminating the category of 'civilian' so the invitation to this one can't be declined, it's coming right for us.

      But they are going to keep trying to invade their neighbors forever, they think their race is superior, and they don't care one bit about human rights, and they lie about everything they do, so that's no ally of mine and has all of the aspects I most hate about nazis so I don't see reason to quibble about the comparison unless someone is going to pay me to, but even then my views on totalitarianism that threatens me are not for sale.