Near London Bombings

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sifu wrote:
For over a year I was bombarded by a daily stream of paranoid stories from rense.com about how the zionists are plotting to take over the world. Much of what I was bombarded with was lifted straight from the protocols of the elders of zion.

I don’t know if you have ever heard of rense but they present a point of view that every bit of trouble in the world has the zionists behind it. Alqaeda is zionists, George Bush beating John Kerry the zionists, the London bombings the zionists, the cold war the zionists did it, 9/11 the zionists it goes on and on and on.

This is why I am attacking the use of the term zionist. The misuse and abuse of the term has taken on a life of it’s own. There are entire conspiracy sites dedicated to the zionists and their evil plots to take over the world.

If you want to criticise the Jews or the Israelis go ahead, freedom of speech is very important. Just don’t go using code words that have ambiguous and extended meanings.

I have freinds who are Palestinian, so I do have sympathy for their plight. However I also realize that there have been a lot of bigots who have manipulated the situation to persue their predjudice. There is a lot the arab world could have done to make the situation easier for everybody.

Instead they have done everything they can to attack the Jews, while at the same time doing everything they can to keep the Palestinians in a fucked up situation. Just so they can say look at how awful the Jews are for what has happened to the Palestinians.

The Arab world covers an area that is bigger than the United States. But because a bunch of Arab muslim bigots can’t let the Jews live in peace in an area the size of Delaware, we almost had world war three between the US and the USSR in 1973. The entire human race was been endangered because of this. [/quote]

Guess who ALWYAS benefits from terrorism?

Two Jews walk into a bar…

Chertoff: ‘Lieberman Is Dead Right’ In Calling For Increased Wiretapping
CHERTOFF: I’m concerned about losing the tools that I can tell you we use every single day to catch the kind of plotting which we’ve just seen, obviously, give rise to the attempted bombings in London. I think Joe Lieberman is dead right.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/02/chertoff-lieberman-wiretap/

Lets look at the map and see how the Israelis’ have been brutalized by the Palestinians…
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/maps/landloss.html

Its the “Arabs”… wink, wink

Global Unease: Anti-Americanism on the Rise
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-7-2/57148.html

Special THANKS goes out to - Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kissinger, Chertoff, Zakheim, Bolton, Libby, Lieberman, Abrams, Podhoretz, Muravchik, Kristol, etc, etc…

Nooooo, its not the Jews… yet it always is…

http://www.cnionline.org/nyt4.jpg

Lieberman: U.S. Should Weigh Iran Attack
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070610/D8PM5HEO0.html

Israel Losing Patience for Iran Talks
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/06/national/w142146D51.DTL

Kristol Suggests People of Iran Would Embrace U.S. Attack, Triggering Regime Change
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/

Bomb Iran
Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.

The Case for Bombing Iran
As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he [Bush] will.

But hey, no worries…

All 9/11 Airports Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html

The Dancing Israelis Arrested On 911
Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city’s bridges and tunnels from New Jersey…

When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious “middle-easterners” were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Truckload of explosives stopped on George Washington bridge - CBS News

Israelis detained on George Washington Bridge on 9/11 sue Department of Justice
http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2004/israel/09/0409141656.html

Fox News - 9/11: Massive Israeli spy operation uncovered in US
“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified”

Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

Israeli Security to Protect London’s Underground
Sept 21, 2004
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/69208

London bombings - July 7, 2005

Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry calls

The real definition of an anti-Semitic is someone Jews hate.

62

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Guess who ALWYAS benefits from terrorism?

Two Jews walk into a bar…

The real definition of an anti-Semitic is someone Jews hate.[/quote]

While I couldn’t really follow what all the links are supposed to be for (hint: some sort of narrative thread helps when posting a bunch of links where some are related and some aren’t) are you really implying that Israel benefits from terrorist attacks? Are you a complete idiot? I mean this seriously, just from that I think that I can make an educated guess about you, correct me if I’m wrong… you believe:

Americans are to blame for the issues in the Middle East

Saddam wasn’t that bad

9/11 was a conspiracy between our govt. and the ‘zionists’

Jews run the financial and media industries

Am I hitting the nail on the head so far?

By the way, interesting read about a reformed terrorist

63

[quote]holifila wrote:
By the way, interesting read about a reformed terrorist

[/quote]

The fact that you’d call a Daily Mail’s piece “interesting” helps to make an educated guess about you. Correct me if I’m wrong, you believe that…

  • Palestinians should pay for the Holocaust.
  • US foreign policy is impeccable.
  • Removing Saddam was well worth the countless deaths.
  • The transformation of Iraq into a haven for terrorists has absolutely nothing to do with the 2003 invasion.
  • Fox News is “fair and balanced”.
64

[quote]lixy wrote:

Saddam pro-Western? Where the hell did you get that notion? Saddam was as secular a leader come in the middle east. Twisting that into “anti-Islamist” is quite a long shot."

All I (and the majority of people on Earth) asked for in 2002/2003, is that you refrain from waging an unnecessary war that caused so many deaths. That is, we didn’t say “support Saddam”, we said “don’t bomb Iraqi kids and create a safe haven for terrorists”.[/quote]

Wow, you changed your arguement. You said that there were no al-qaeda in Iraq prior to the war because Saddam was secular and their enemy. You have said this many times. If he was their enemy, then he was anti-islamist. Not anti-Islamic, but anti-al-qaeda. (if we can agree that al-qaeda are indeed islamists.) If this is not so, then how can you claim that there were no al-qaeda in Iraq prior to the war?

I would have to agree with the last bit. I was against the war in Iraq as well.

65

[quote]lixy wrote:
Absolutely. Arab leaders didn’t give a damn about the plight of the Palestinians. They just used it to further their own interests.
[/quote]

A profound quote. Very true.

66

[quote]lixy wrote:
holifila wrote:
By the way, interesting read about a reformed terrorist

[/quote]
Well, I see that you didn’t actually respond to what I asked but I’ll go ahead and answer your assumptions.

I said it was interesting, not that I place great value in it. Considering some of the sources that you used I can’t see how this could possibly be an issue for you anyway.

No but I think something should have been done for the Jewish people so that they could have an opportunity to defend themselves. That, and its a little too late to go back now. Aside from that do you honestly believe that this is what leads to terrorism? Yeah, those other muslim countries really seem to care what happens to the Palestinians, thats why they haven’t let the refugees to settle in their countries.

Not at all, but its also not one huge mistake.

Yes, but the only reason why countless gets to get used here is because estimates are all over the map.

Well, it has a lot to do with it. For example, if we hadn’t invaded then countries like Iran wouldn’t have had to opportunity to spend so much time and money suppling terrorist cells in Iraq.

[quote]

  • Fox News is “fair and balanced”.[/quote]

I wouldn’t know, I don’t get Fox News.

I suppose thats enough for now, I think that I’ll drop this unless you see fit to address my questions.

EDIT: Whoops, I didn’t really look at who posted that, I just assumed that the ‘facts’ guy responded to it. Sorry about that.

67

[quote]lixy wrote:

[/quote]

Did you read the article? I wonder who is more afraid of retaliation from al-qaeda, the gentleman in the article, or you, who claims to fear retaliation.

Perhaps if you were really against islamic terrorism, we would be reading articles about you…

about the validity of the story:

I saw a story about this on 60 minutes, so it’s not bogus.

68

lixy,

do you even get Fox News in Sweden?

I am not an Israel apologist but I sure as hell think that anyone who thinks that they are behind (or hope for) terrorist attacks (which seems to be what ‘facts’ was implying) has had all logical reasoning leave them.

69

[quote]holifila wrote:
do you even get Fox News in Sweden?[/quote]

Welcome to the digital age.

Agreed.

My post wasn’t meant to back JTF usual anti-Semitic conspiracy rant. I just didn’t like your use of the Daily Mail’s piece that seemed to absolve warmongers from any responsibility. And seriously, how much credit can one grant to such passages as “I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers”.

In case you didn’t know, that “paper” provides nothing more than “daily hate” (to quote it’s founder). It’s notorious for publishing anti-Semitic junk (e.g: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and for its support for Hitler and Mussolini.

Granted, going to Iraq didn’t create Al-Qaeda. But it sure exacerbated the problem.

I have a couple of questions for you: Do you think there was no other choice but to invade Iraq? Do you think the US is unbiased on its position on issue of Israel? Shouldn’t Israel accept the international consensus to resolve the conflict?

70

[quote]lixy wrote:

I have a couple of questions for you: Do you think there was no other choice but to invade Iraq? Do you think the US is unbiased on its position on issue of Israel? Shouldn’t Israel accept the international consensus to resolve the conflict?[/quote]

  1. Sure there were other choices, but it seems that most of them had been used without any progress. Another UN resolution sure as hell wouldn’t be worth anything.

  2. The US is not unbiased, but do you think that most of the rest of the world is unbiased on its position of Israel (particularly being anti-Israel)?

  3. International consensus? Well that can kiss my ass. International consensus is what allows the slaughter in Darfur to continue because International consensus refuses to speak out against Muslims (we can’t allow muslims to be called genocidal can we). International consensus reveres mass murderers like Castro and Che. International consensus chooses to elect countries that stone children to head up the Human Rights committee of the UN. International consensus thinks that there is some vast conspiracy of Jews trying to run the world. International consensus can’t be in a car accident without blaming Israel for it. So again, International consensus can kiss my ass. Really when you try to see the shit that Israel has to put up with from the UN and the European countries, can you blame them for not wanting them to ‘solve’ the problem.

Oh and admit it, you thought that pic was just a little bit funny.

71

[quote]holifila wrote:
While I couldn’t really follow what all the links are supposed to be for (hint: some sort of narrative thread helps when posting a bunch of links where some are related and some aren’t) are you really implying that Israel benefits from terrorist attacks? Are you a complete idiot? I mean this seriously, just from that I think that I can make an educated guess about you, correct me if I’m wrong… you believe:

Americans are to blame for the issues in the Middle East

Saddam wasn’t that bad

9/11 was a conspiracy between our govt. and the ‘zionists’

Jews run the financial and media industries

Am I hitting the nail on the head so far?

By the way, interesting read about a reformed terrorist

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.
[/quote]

And your map proves that if Arabs REALLY wanted to wipe out the Jews, they would have already.

Since all Muslims are suicidal maniacs, obviously a nuclear armed Israel is no deterrent. So why is this little speck EXPANDING while surrounded by a billion crazy jihadists, who aren’t afraid to die?

And how does Israel NOT benefit from terrorist attacks?

If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have FAKED Arab terrorist attacks so often. Look how many times they got CAUGHT – if it didn’t benefit them, WHY WOULD THEY DO IT SO OFTEN?!

Israel’s Failed Assassination Attempt on U.S. Ambassador Documented (as one example)
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405013.html

Every time a little mortar rocket flies into Israel, it becomes an excuse to bulldoze a hundred more Palestinian homes or end a peace summit.

Actually when it comes to any peace agreement, rockets ALWAYS fly in like clockwork and then the big news is always – see, we tried, Palestinians, etc. don’t want peace…

Mortar mishap sparks security scare ahead of peace summit
Three mortars, apparently fired by a private Israeli defense contractor accidentally, exploded in northern Israel near the Lebanese border Monday. The explosions, which Israeli police initially blamed on the Lebanese resistance group Hizbullah, caused a security scare ahead of today’s Sharm el-Sheikh summit.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=12482

And some times they get caught – thank god for a whistleblower in that case.

And all my links are congruent in that they point out that terrorism DOES NOT benefit Arab Muslims, AT ALL… AT ALL.

Terrorism has become a growth industry, thats why there is much more of it. For some reason people have a hard time seeing this correlation… there is NO INCENTIVE to STOP terrorism. Terrorism is very beneficial for a lot of people – just not Muslims…

Handouts For The Homeland
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/31/60minutes/main684349.shtml

Billions Needed to Finish War on Terror; Wolfowitz Asks for Congress’ Support
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/09/mil-030909-afps01.htm

Homeland security–Throwing money at technology
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5414724.html

Homeland security: Profiting from fear
“People said, ‘Oh boy, they are going to throw money at this.’”

And that they did. Federal agencies are expected to pay $84 billion toward homeland security this year, up from $5 billion in 2000, according to figures from Homeland Security Research, an analysis firm that covers government procurement.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5416893.html

But apparently the government isn’t all that concerned about your safety, since they haven’t declared a “war on peanuts” yet…
Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/050107peanutskill.htm

Meanwhile a car burns up overseas and as I pointed out, two JEWS immediately insist that this is a reason for expanding the draconian domestic spying program. They didn’t have to be Jews… but THEY WERE. (and btw, so is Libby) Apparently this is how they ‘represent’…

And lastly, if the “New World Order” or “One World Government” is supposed to be an anti-Semitic myth from the “Protocols” – is it really a good idea for a top Jewish, US advisor/war criminal to be openly discussing why this needs to come about?

Kissinger Talks about the New World Order

72

[quote]lixy wrote:
My post wasn’t meant to back JTF usual anti-Semitic conspiracy rant. [/quote]

Who are you, really?

Israelis were involved in 9/11 in some way, shape or form, this is no ‘conspiracy’ – just not widely known to the average Joe. Anybody with Google can verify this easily.

As it was, I included the link to the FOX News video detailing the depths of the Israeli spy operation that penetrated US military bases and compromised high level law enforcement and intelligence communications.

You are also well aware of how many times over the decades that Israeli Mossad have been actually busted/exposed trying to pull off terrorist acts under guise of being Arab Muslims.

Its obvious they benefit from doing this or else they would never have done it SO OFTEN before. And THEY, unlike Arabs, always seem to be in a position of easy access.

Hmmm…

73

[quote]holifila wrote:

  1. Sure there were other choices, but it seems that most of them had been used without any progress. Another UN resolution sure as hell wouldn’t be worth anything. [/quote]

Wouldn’t be worth anything to achieve what exactly? Topple Saddam? Get rid of (non existing) WMDs? Starve even more Iraqi kids? Please clarify.

The US and Israel stand virtually alone on that position. It seems appropriate to put the burden of proof on them rather on the crushing majority of the world.

Are you suggesting that the whole world (with the exception of the US) is somehow anti-Semitic? Or is it that the Arabs control the UN? Is there some grand conspiracy to destroy the Jews?

Which is it?

Not the least bit.

74

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Who are you, really?

Israelis were involved in 9/11 in some way, shape or form, this is no ‘conspiracy’ – just not widely known to the average Joe. Anybody with Google can verify this easily.

As it was, I included the link to the FOX News video detailing the depths of the Israeli spy operation that penetrated US military bases and compromised high level law enforcement and intelligence communications.

You are also well aware of how many times over the decades that Israeli Mossad have been actually busted/exposed trying to pull off terrorist acts under guise of being Arab Muslims.

Its obvious they benefit from doing this or else they would never have done it SO OFTEN before. And THEY, unlike Arabs, always seem to be in a position of easy access.

Hmmm…[/quote]

I am well aware of the tactics of the Mossad. Israeli intelligence is arguably the best in the world. I can’t deny that 9/11 profited to neo-cons and Zionists. But to say that they planned it is ludicrous. Israeli intelligence may have been aware of the attacks, but there’s no way they would have taken the risk of orchestrating it and getting caught. Too much at stake. They weren’t exactly underdog pre-2001, now were they?

Your case is shaky at best.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:

Wouldn’t be worth anything to achieve what exactly? Topple Saddam? Get rid of (non existing) WMDs? Starve even more Iraqi kids? Please clarify.
[/quote]

I’ll go with the first two.

No I don’t think that there is a conspiracy to destroy Israel. I think that there are a lot of countries who openly include the complete destruction of Israel as one of their main goals. And then I think that there are plenty of European countries who suffer from the same apologist dementia that infects a lot of the left wing politics in the US.

Do you honestly believe that the large European countries don’t have an anti-Israel bias? And if they’re biased does that make their opinion correct? I don’t understand how the US’s opinions are invalid because we have a pro-Israel bias and yet since more countries have an anti-Israel bias that everyone should listen to them.

And actually, now that I think about it, would it really be that strange if there was a large movement to destroy the Jews. I’m not saying that there is, but you know what, movements with that as their focus have appeared throughout history at an alarming rate.

[quote]
Which is it?
Oh and admit it, you thought that pic was just a little bit funny.

Not the least bit.[/quote]

oh well, can’t amuse everyone, but did it offend you?

76

[quote]holifila wrote:
I’ll go with the first two. [/quote]

Toppling Saddam could have been achieved by other means. He was pretty crippled already. Tactical strikes could have done the job. There was also the possibility of an assassination.

Similarly, last week, the United Nations has disbanded its weapons inspection unit in Iraq. Officially giving up on the WMD search.

�??We’ve all learned lessons in hindsight. One would have hoped to have had in both cases more precise information. We have to recognize this took place in the context of post 9/11 where concerns were heightened about the potential of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.�?? – U.S. Ambassador to UN Zalmay Khalilzad

[quote]No I don’t think that there is a conspiracy to destroy Israel. I think that there are a lot of countries who openly include the complete destruction of Israel as one of their main goals. And then I think that there are plenty of European countries who suffer from the same apologist dementia that infects a lot of the left wing politics in the US.

Do you honestly believe that the large European countries don’t have an anti-Israel bias? And if they’re biased does that make their opinion correct? I don’t understand how the US’s opinions are invalid because we have a pro-Israel bias and yet since more countries have an anti-Israel bias that everyone should listen to them. [/quote]

Nonsense!

AIPAC’s influence on the US is no secret. You’ll have a harder time proving that Fatah or Hamas have a similar lobby in Europe.

I believe in granting the benefit of the doubt to the majority.

Large movement to destroy the Jews? You must be kidding me. Who exactly is behind it?

I don’t think anyone will tamper with a people with nuclear capabilities. The vulnerability of Israel is a myth.

No. Why would it offend me?

Now I’m feeling left out. Maybe I didn’t understand it in the first place. Care to fill me in on your interpretation of it?

77

[quote]
lixy wrote:

Wouldn’t be worth anything to achieve what exactly? Topple Saddam? Get rid of (non existing) WMDs? [/quote]

Once again, an interesting senario. When it is the correct propaganda, the US backed Saddam and “turned on an ally.” An ally which bombed the USS Stark while keeping the oil lanes open in the Gulf.

But getting back to my main point, when it is useful to your propaganda, the US was an ally of Saddam and provided him with WMD’s.

When it is useful for your propaganda you also say the US went into Iraq looking for “non-existant WMDs”.

So, which is it? Did we give Saddam WMD’s or not? If we did, where are they? If we didn’t, why do you insist we did? Or did we give him “non-existant WMD’s”?

78

[quote]lixy wrote:
Toppling Saddam could have been achieved by other means. He was pretty crippled already. Tactical strikes could have done the job. There was also the possibility of an assassination.
[/quote]

Apparently from what I read, this guy was set to do just that…and was stopped at the last minute. He was indicted on criminal charges for trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation and ended up resigning.

It is a shame, seemed like an easier way to topple a government. But then again, it didn’t work for Syria.

79

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
But getting back to my main point, when it is useful to your propaganda, the US was an ally of Saddam and provided him with WMD’s.

When it is useful for your propaganda you also say the US went into Iraq looking for “non-existant WMDs”.

So, which is it? Did we give Saddam WMD’s or not? If we did, where are they? If we didn’t, why do you insist we did? Or did we give him “non-existant WMD’s”? [/quote]

A few points you shamelessly overlook:

  • Saddam killed plenty of people. And he’s no Darth Vader. That is, he needed weapons to do that.

  • The shelf life of most chemical and bacteriological weapons is quite short.

Are you challenging the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Are you challenging the association of Reagan with Saddam? The fact that Iraq was taken out of the “terrorist countries list” in the 80s? You sound like someone who’s just fishing. Try to regroup your thoughts.

80

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Apparently from what I read, this guy was set to do just that…and was stopped at the last minute. He was indicted on criminal charges for trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation and ended up resigning.

Robert Baer - Wikipedia [/quote]

Funny. The Wiki fails to mention that particular incident.

Better yet:

when asked by Thom Hartmann in 2006 whether he was “of the opinion that there was an aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the U.S. government?”, Baer responded, “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.”

Yep. I don’t think getting rid of Saddam mattered so much for US policy makers. The real deal was to get your troops on the strategic location and surround Iran. An assassination wouldn’t have achieved that.