WHEN IS ASSASSINATION CALLED SOMETHING ELSE?
Jewish Assassination and Jewish Doublespeak
by Michael A. Hoffman II
The New York Times, liberal voice of obsessive Holocaustianity, uses
Orwellian doublespeak to describe Jewish assassinations of Arabs. The Times
minces no words about German crimes, but when it comes to Jewish assassins,
the Times sanitizes the Jewish murders. When is assassination not
assassination? Why, when Jews do it, of course; then it is merely "targeted
Assassination is too harsh a word for the NY Times to use with regard to
the actions of God's Master Race: "The Israeli pattern in recent months of
targeting specific people for death has outraged Palestinians." -New York
Times, August 1, 2001, p. A6.
Nowhere in the Aug. 1 article does the NY Times term what the Israelis did
"assassination." That word is only used in connection with reports of
allegations: "...Palestinian charges of assassination."
On Aug. 2 the Times reported, "In a five-hour session ...the security
cabinet of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affirmed the policy of picking out
targets for killings."
Again, nowhere in the Aug. 2 article does the NY Times term what the
Israelis did "assassination." That word is reserved for accounts of
allegations: "...what Palestinians call cold-blooded assassinations."
The Times even reports on the Jewish search for a means to make palatable
the assassinations: "...Israeli officials recognized that they had a
problem selling their tactics elsewhere in the world. (Israeli) Ministers
at the security cabinet meeting were reported to have debated what to call
their policy. 'Liquidation' is one word the government has frequently used.
So is 'interception'...Neither word pleased some ministers today, according
to Israeli radio reports. A new phrase said to have been proposed was:
'actions to prevent the killing of Jews." -New York Times, Aug. 2, 2001
What the Times does not say (though it reveals as much by its journalistic
practice), is that the the newspaper itself conforms to this Israeli
doublethink "selling tactic."
"Targeted killings" and "picking out targets for killings" are Big
Brother's preferred phraseology for Israeli assassination. The NY Times has
self-censored its reporting to eliminate the word assassination as its own
description of what the Israelis are doing. The assassination word is too
obviously freighted with moral evil to be used in a Jewish context. It
represents too much of a potential wake-up call to the goyim. Cosmetic
terms must be substituted by the Times, a newspaper that reports at least
weekly and often daily on a 56 year old "Holocaust." As it shrilly demands
that the "Holocaust against the Jews" must never be minimized by one iota,
the NY Times minimizes Israeli crimes against the Palestinians right in
front of our eyes, and does so with an arrogant contempt for the chilling
parallels to thought control that is its lingua franca.
Furthermore, if an Arab, German or white Christian government were to adopt
a policy of assassination, the NY Times would immediately and boldly
headline the word "assassination" in its report of any such a policy,
without qualification of any kind.
Moreover, the New York Times, liberal voice of obsessive
actually advocates assassinations of Palestinian leaders:
" ...Israel's military response to further attacks should be measured and
targeted directly at those responsible for the violence." -New York Times
editorial, June 5, 2001
What if the Arabs decided that their 'military response' to 'further
attacks' should be to 'target directly...those (Israelis) responsible for
the violence' against Palestinian civilians? Would the N.Y. Times endorse
assassinations of Jewish war criminals? Or does the N.Y. Times push the
monster of assassination out of Pandora's box only on Talmudic terms--okay
to assassinate the goyim, but not the Chosen?"
The preceding column is posted online with many graphic photos of Israeli
assassinations - http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine7.html