Near London Bombings

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.[/quote]

YEAH, some of them DID get caught – and then the story was buried.

Here’s Dan Rather on the evening news on 9/11 reporting about the truckload of explosives stopped on the George Washington bridge.

Here was an article from the Jerusalem Post:

Car bomb found on George Washington Bridge
Jerusalem Post
September 12, 2001
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge connecting New York and New Jersey.

The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge.

Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jpost.html

The only people busted on the George Washington Bridge in a van were ISRAELIS.
http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2004/israel/09/0409141656.html

So if the van packed with explosives wouldn’t have been stopped and it ended up blowing up on the GW bridge – it would surely have been another part of the “al Qaeda plot” of 9/11.

In fact, thats why ALL these reports from 9/11 were quickly disappeared…

The Mystery Of The 9/11 Car Bombs
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/230407vans.htm

They were ISRAELI and they GOT CAUGHT.

82

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
stuff
[/quote]

Dude, you’re our very own X-Files Mulder and Scully. Fantastic!

83

[quote]kroby wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
stuff

Dude, you’re our very own X-Files Mulder and Scully. Fantastic![/quote]

Cause’ when you can’t refute the facts, the only thing left is the personal attack.

As if the “official 9/11 story” is so damn credible…

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
“Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it’s not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

84

Just the facts, I read through your first set of fifteen links and I am now thoroughtly convinced that you and my roommate would get along very well. I also realize that I wasted a good amount of time just to be able to respond to you with out being completely ignorant of what you were talking about.

I have already been heavily bombarded with your Israelis in a van story. You fail to point out that they were extensively interogated for over a month then released. You are interpreting that story to suit your world view. Even if the story is completely true it does not prove the theory that the Israelis were responsible for 9/11.

The whole Israelis did it theory flies in the face of logic. If they were caught in the act they could kiss their most important ally good bye.

I also have to wonder if you bother to read any of the links you provide. Some were editorials that make a good case for stopping Iran from aquireing nuclear weapons, one was a paid advertisement, one of the videos was Dan Rather talking about god knows what, I think it was supposed to be another Israelis in a van story but it was hard to tell.

Also some stories that the Israelis have spied on the US which do nothing to explain intent. But I can see how they would help to provoke your world view.

Then after I have finally gotten through the first set of links, I read further into the thread and see you have thrown a couple dozen more out. At which point I said fuck it I’m not reading through twenty of thirty pages of links and sitting through half an hour of youtube in order to be able to reply to your your post that you took all of two minutes to copy and paste while throwing in a sentence or two of remarks.

At this point I have a much higher regard for Lixy. Who at least takes the time to engage in a dialogue instead of pasting a bunch of links.

85

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

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”.[/quote]

I did find it interesting to read what a former British Jihadist has to say about the movement in Britain. Just like I found the PBS’s Son of Alqaeda interesting. The views of people who have been on the inside can be educational. I certainly think they have a lot more relevance than JTF paranoid rant.

I don’t think Palestinians should pay for the holocaust, though they (and a lot of other Muslims) did play a significant role in it.

I don’t think US foreign policy has been perfect. I think Clinton’s do nothing that will hurt the polls policy was a failure. Certainly President Bush has done a piss poor job of bringing poeple over to his point of view, he’s not a good speaker and didn’t do the best job of justifying his decisions.

It’s unfortunate that some innocent people have died getting rid of Sadaam. There was no way Sadaam was going to come out peacefully and assasinating him just would have put his sons in power. Bush the first, has said that he was assured by leaders in the region, that there was no way Sadaam was going to hang on to power after the defeat he suffered in the first gulf war. That is why he didn’t take him out. We needed to get rid of Sadaam quickly before he did pull something off. Anyone who thinks Sadaam wasn’t a dangerous person is just delusional.

I don’t pay much attention to fox news. Watching Bill O’riley makes me want to put my foot through the tv. However I wouldn’t call some of JTF’s sources fair or unbiased.

86

[quote]lixy wrote:
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”?

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.[/quote]

Your shelf life ideal is wrong. It can still be deadly to go digging around in Flanders Fields and ww1 was a long time ago.

Not finding WMD’s doesn’t mean he didn’t have them. It only means they haven’t found evidence to prove their case. You conveniently ignore the fact that he had a good amount of time to hide them. Iraq is the same size as Texas after all, finding something in that big of a space is an impossible task. Plus he could have just shipped the whole lot to Syria.

87

[quote]kroby wrote:
unbending wrote:
lixy wrote:
The same crap as always.

Tell me lixy, with all these rantings about politics, and only politics… do you ever set foot in a gym?

You ARE on a bodybuilding site after all.

Actually, unbending, it would please you greatly to find out he follows a Waterbury TBT regimen. So you two have a great thing in common.

TBT… LOL[/quote]

WTF? What is that?

88

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
kroby wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
stuff

Dude, you’re our very own X-Files Mulder and Scully. Fantastic!

Cause’ when you can’t refute the facts, the only thing left is the personal attack.

[/quote]

Personal attacks? Hell no! I want more. It’s highly entertaining.

89

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The whole Israelis did it theory flies in the face of logic. If they were caught in the act they could kiss their most important ally good bye. [/quote]

Exactly. The conspiracy theory doesn’t take into account the opportunity-cost.

90

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I don’t think Palestinians should pay for the holocaust, though they (and a lot of other Muslims) did play a significant role in it. [/quote]

Significant role in the Holocaust? Do you even know what significant mean?

Arabs were next on the list in case you didn’t know.

From the standpoint of the MIC or the numerous companies contracted in Iraq, Bush evidently did a hell of a good job. What’s worth noting is how gullible and scared the average American is.

Count me in the lot then. Saddam was dangerous to his own people. Beyond that, he was a harmless and even Israel could have taken out in a matter of days.

91

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Not finding WMD’s doesn’t mean he didn’t have them. It only means they haven’t found evidence to prove their case. You conveniently ignore the fact that he had a good amount of time to hide them. Iraq is the same size as Texas after all, finding something in that big of a space is an impossible task. Plus he could have just shipped the whole lot to Syria. [/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t enough high-ranking officials already debunked that?

Your theory relies on the assumption that absolutely no trail has been left. Surely, other people than Saddam would have been aware of their new location (he didn’t move them himself, now did he?). In which case, why didn’t anyone reveal their place? Why didn’t the Ba’athists unearth them and include them in their arsenal?

92

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The whole Israelis did it theory flies in the face of logic. If they were caught in the act they could kiss their most important ally good bye.

Exactly. The conspiracy theory doesn’t take into account the opportunity-cost.

[/quote]

No, because the opportunity costs would have been all the other buildings they could have blown up with their resources.

I think you mean what would have happened had Israel had a hand in this and it was ever revealed to the public.

For someone allready allegedly having an enormous influence on US foreign policy that one stupid move could risk it all.

Na, JTF, are they evil masterminds or a or taking big risks for little rewards?

93

[quote]lixy wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I didn’t claim that Fatah or Hamas had strong lobbies, I claim that there is an anti-Israeli bias in many European countries.

As to the question of ‘majority’ take a look at the makeup of the UN commission on human rights:

* 15 from African States:
      o Burkina Faso, Congo (Brazzaville), Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe
* 12 from Asian States:
      o Bhutan, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka
* 5 from Eastern European States:
      o Armenia, Hungary, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine
* 11 from Latin American and Caribbean States:
      o Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru
* 10 from Western European & Other States:
      o Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America

Big surprise that they spend most of their time criticizing Israel. In this list, I would MUCH rather be in the minority. I mean, come on, they elected the SUDAN to be in the commission. This was 2004, after the genocide started. I feel very comfortable living in a country that doesn’t stick with the majority of this lot.

[quote]
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.

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

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?[/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply that I thought that a vast conspiracy to destroy the Jews. My only point was that throughout history the Jewish people have put up with a lot of periods of people playing lets beat up the Jews. Come on, they’ve been like gremlins: times not that great, something goes wrong, well its probably the Jews fault.

I don’t think that there is a conspiracy to wipe them out, but I wouldn’t think that a Jew who did believe that would be a crazy level of paranoid.

94

[quote]Valentinius wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
Really? I saw some terrorism expert tonight who said something about the bomb being an incendiary device as opposed to an explosive device(?)and would have fucked up anyone in the car but would have a relatively small blast radius as well as small amounts of shrapnel.

Anyways, just to keep things in perspective…when you put terrorism in perspective it kills only a TINY fraction of people every year and is completely overshadowed by deaths from car accidents, drugs, murders, etc…

Interesting, I’m not sure how compressed propane in a tank is considered incendiary. Maybe I missed something in class. I’m not sure where you saw this expert at, but things are called Improvised Explosive Devices for a reason. You may want to take note of the Explosive part of that description.

And thanks for keeping things in perspective for me, maybe it’ll be like lightning and strike you next.

Allahu Akbar
[/quote]

Some explosive expert you are…

95

Propane in a tank can be used as a quasi ‘bomb’.

But really its not that effective. There is only propane in the tank under pressure. Propane is simply a fuel, no oxidizer inside, under pressure in a container.

A real bomb has both the fuel and the oxidizer mixed together in the container or compound (could be solid or liquid). Much more deadly since when it goes off, it goes of REALLY FAST. The fuel and the oxidiser are already together and the chain reaction is really fast. Lots of pressure produced inside the container its held in and then… BAM! shrapnel everywhere.

A propane ‘bomb’ (I use this very loosely, not even considered a bomb), not so much, but still dangerous if in large quantities or really close to people.

96


Sorry to burst your bubble lixy but the historical record does not support the notion that the Muslims and Arabs were threatened by the Nazi’s.

The whole idea of sytematically exterminating the jews originated with Yasser Arafat’s uncle and PLO founder Muhammed Amin al-Husseini a.k.a. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Here is an excerpt about him

In the 1920s and '30s, the leader of the Arabs in Jewish Palestine (pre-Independence Israel) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. He came to power by organizing systematic murders of Jews starting in 1921. Establishing relations with the Nazi Party of Germany in 1933, he devised an alternative to Hitler’s plan to rid Germany of Jews by sending them to Jewish Palestine.

At a meeting in Berlin with Hitler himself on Nov. 21, 1941, al-Husseini persuaded the Führer that such a plan would result in a powerful independent Jewish state, and that a far better solution would be a Final one: Kill all Jews, in the millions, at extermination centers set up in Europe.

Two months after this meeting, the Holocaust had begun. Al-Husseini was granted his wish. It was a Moslem Arab who originated the idea of the Holocaust. At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. … He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

Here is his wikipedia entry

Here is a report from the Bayerischer Rundfunk. It is in German but it does have subtitles. One of the interesting points this video raises is how the Mufti organised muslim waffen SS divisions that were actively involved in wiping out Jews, Gypsies and Serbs in Yugoslavia. The Bosnian SS Handzar division alone had over 21,000 soldiers. If you want to understand what happened in Kosovo in the 90’sthis is an important peice of history.

It is also worth pointing out that when Mein Kampf was published in Arabic Hitler had his racial ladder theory removed so as not to offend the arabs.

Another important piece of the Mufti’s history is the man who the Mufti chose to be Hitlers representative in Iraq was Khayrallah Tulfah. Khayrallah Tulfah was one of the leaders who attempted to install a pro nazi government in Iraq in 1941.

Khayrallah Tulfah’s biggest contribution to Iraqi history however was his nephew who he raised, Saddam Hussein.

97

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble lixy but the historical record does not support the notion that the Muslims and Arabs were threatened by the Nazi’s. [/quote]

Well, one wonders why they considered them untermenschen then.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
…[/quote]

Hitler was manipulated by that cunning Mufti? Your rhetoric is surreal.

98

[quote]lixy wrote:

Hitler was manipulated by that cunning Mufti? Your rhetoric is surreal.[/quote]

No, Himmer considered the Mufti an Aryan. There was also a high ranking Arab SS man who aided Eichman in the final solution, though right now, his name eludes me. I need to look it up, but I haven’t the time.

Your rhethoric is revisionary propaganda.

99

[quote]lixy wrote:

Funny. The Wiki fails to mention that particular incident.

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.[/quote]

saw an interview about it on a tv talk show.

yep, that’s actually what he said.

100

[quote]lixy wrote:
What’s worth noting is how gullible and scared the average American is.[/quote]

Sadly, this is very true.

Ah, another sympathy for good ole’ Saddam. We know you’d invite him over for tea, but it never ceases to amaze me each time you say it.