If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
- 19 hijackers with box cutters (none whom could so much as fly a training plain by sworn affidavit of their instructors) hijacking four simultaneous aircraft and incredibly being broadcast by the administration spokesmen for the first time nationally a mere 13 hours after the incidents although "they had no idea such attacks could happen"...
- The fact that 8 of these alleged 19 "hijackers" (none of whom appeared on any flight manifest for any of the supposedly hijacked flights) subsequently turned up alive in several different countries and unrelated to any terrorist cells let alone being killed in suicide attacks.
- The fact that UAL put options spiked to 90 times normal between 6th and 10th September prior to the day and AA put options spiked 60 times above normal with no investigation ever forthcoming on the trades which amounted to some 12-15 billion dollars or those who profitted. Thanks to independent researchers it is at least conclusively known that the trades were conducted through Deutschebank/AB Brown, the firm which was headed until 1998 by Buzzy Krongard who was appointed Executive Director (3rd highest position) of the CIA by Bush in 2001.
- The fact that multiple air security drills concerning hijacked airline attacks on US targets were being carried out on the very day under Cheney's supervision. A bait and switch ruse if ever there was one.
and the list goes on.
There is every plausibility for a long planned and well coordinated attack requiring only a handful of key senior intelligence/Military planners to have full knowledge with all other actors simply playing their normal roles under the belief that it was all a drill (thus having no knowledge of any direct order to do anything out of keeping with such circumstances over which to "blow the whistle"). Notwithstanding this, the plausible deniability for those truly responsible would be already built into the plan via the multiple drills scheduled during the critical time period.
The only the naysayers refuse to acknowledge the far greater plausibility rooted in the FACTS that have been exposed by independent researchers is simply the unwillingness to admit that our own governing establishments would ever harm their own citizenries. This is nothing more than a long-running PR reinforced belief and a misplaced one at that when one truly grasps the depth of ideology that has hijacked Washington since the PNAC cabal seized power in 2000.
The ridiculous gaps and inconsistencies in the "official" conspiracy theory are backed by nothing more than:
- a few token blurry still photos of supposed hijackers going through a security check;
- claims of conveniently found korans and manuals in parked cars (and miraculously intact passports that allegedly survived the impacts and "inferno" which (allegedly) brought down three steel structures for the first time in the history of structural engineering);
- and an oft asserted narrative (without any body of concrete evidence provided) by the administration and the armies of vested interests who seek to maintain the astronomical budgetary allocations that have followed from it since shortly after 911 to the present and into the foreseeable future.
Yet that repetition, aided by a compliant and non-investigatory corporate media, has succeeded in "manufacturing the consent" of a sufficient majority of the public in full keeping with the sort of public perception manipulation for which Walter Lippmann first coined the term.
No, subject, you and others can mock and deride and call logically consistent and insitutionally capable domestic planning and orchestration "implausible", but your dismissal remains merely your own preferred disbelief, not an objective and substantive refutation of the plausibility of their involvement.
This would also explain much more plausibly why the standard Secret Service practice of whisking the president to safety in the event of an attack was not observed. Far too casual a response to lend any credence to the notion that foreign terrorists were attacking the country.
I can’t believe how gullible some people are. While I don’t agree with Holocaust denial being a crime you’re giving Irving far too much credit.
He revised his views about the Holocaust years and years ago? Lets think – why was he in Austria at the time of his arrest? To make a speech to a neo-Nazi group. And since he supposedly recanted his views 15 years what’s he been doing since then? Speaking to neo-Nazi groups about the Holocaust.
When was the first time that Irving publicly recanted his views denying the Holocaust? On trial for denying the Holocaust. Since he had no choice but to plead guilty I don’t suppose that could have been a ploy to get a lighter sentence? What book was he showing off at his trial? The book in which he denies the Holocaust.
Oh and when he sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel who correctly claimed Irving was a Holocaust denier he was soundly defeated by the defence (which included Richard Evans, one of the most authoritative historians of Germany).
And when Irving gets out and is back in London I doubt anybody that is even faintly familiar with his work will be surprised if he’s changed a bit. Whenever he gets out he’ll be talking to his neo-Nazi audiences in America, no doubt explaining that he truthfully stands by his work and was only retracting some of his views to get out of a spot of bother…not that anybody believed him.
He shouldn’t be in jail but lets not pretend for a moment that this guy is someone who denied the Holocaust decades ago in an off-the-cuff remark and has since completely disavowed that view. Cos that's not the case.
One might say that.
Yet the quest for Zion is a much incorporated idea within Judaism. Prayers for Zion, and directions of prayers always being made towards Zion.
So no, turlough is not right here. In some cases the two are not connected - all dependent on context, and history of statements really.
The fact that deeply religious orthodox Jewish organisations such as JewsNotZionists (along with more academically inclined scholars) equally condemn Zionism for its fundamental ideological betrayal of Jewish religious precepts, let alone the history of its injustices toward the Palestinians, is further testament to the distinction between the political ideology and the religion.
Therefore, it is not so stupid when people in some instances connect the two.
As said, it depends on context. At times it could be completely irelevant, at others it is a strongly speaking factor.
Sorry, had to post this, as it goes through my head everytime I read the title. Please say I am not alone.
Ahem. As for Zionism? Renzo is right on the traditional sense of the word, but now it is often used in reference to the Cland style conspiracies and also for the belief held by some of Jewish having a right to the whole world.
The root of the ideology is more an exploitation of the religious aspiration for the restoration, albeit one based on a secular militant notion instead of the religious messianic version. Its attempt to paint itself as one and the same with the religion is wholly a matter of carefully crafted PR which has achieved widespread acceptance regardless of the historic falsehood of such propaganda.
It isn't notions of global dominance that concern me, its the maintenance of the same sort of group exceptionalism and superiority inherent to other former ideological movements/states stemming from the same 19th/early 20th century colonialist mentality which intentionally began and has continued to perpetuate the neverending conflict. The only hope for all involved is the rejection by Israelis of the governing ideology and the embracing of a state model of true pluralistic democratic equality of rights and involvement for all the peoples of the region, Jews and Muslims alike in one state.
The exceptionalistic presumptions of Zionists, however, will not allow such cooperative reconciliation to ever occur. It is one of the most deep seated prejudices of the ideology from its inception as a movement to keep the eternal victim card in play at all times, even as they victimise others with impunity decade after decade, generation after generation.
Death and taxes arent the only certainties in life!
From Clandestine? He talks more sense than anyone on this board. I actually respect him more than anyone on this site because he knows what he's talking about.
And I really do despise disillusoned insinuations that all oppositions to Zionism are somewhow related to anti-semitsism....get a fucking life you dick...here's a good analogoy...they say all muslims aren't terrorists but all terrorists are muslims...just like all Jews aren't Zionists but all Zionists are Jews...well it's a load of shite that all terrorists are muslims just like it's a load of ahit that all zionists are Jews, now step out of the fucking shadow Dissilusioned (indeed) and have a fucking proper debate instead of hiding behind the tired rhetoric of "they all hate the Jews so they do" Fucking prick :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What mainstream media presents is simplistic and all too often intentionally misleading since it seeks to compartmentalise all events into unrelated snippets.
Unfortunately the march of global political history and the agendas which are determining its direction are not so compartmentalised in their worldview. It's tedious, time consuming, and dare say potentially quite disturbing to open yourself up to the broader reality behind the non-investigatory headlines and 1 minute tv news soundbites, but that's the rub for anyone who desires to be better informed.
Wish it were other, I assure you.
When have I ever stated that all opposition to Zionism is intrinsically anti-Semitic? However, many people of differing political persuasions; people within Labour, the Conservatives and even some critics of Israel have recognised that some extreme groups use anti-Zionism as a mask for their true anti-Semitic agenda. Spearhead magazine is an example I can immediately recall.
There’s an interesting article too here from the Guardian that looks at the issue.
Oh and it’s quite reassuring that a thick chav thinks I’m a dick.
I have not once suggested that all Jews are Zionists. Many Jews in America and Europe would not call themselves Zionists. – However it’s indisputable that the vast majority of Jews support Israel’s existence. Indeed almost the entire international community along with moderate Arab states support Israel’s right to exist.
And only an absolutely tiny minority of mainly ultra-Orthodox Jews oppose the very existence of Israel – and lets remember that Jews are actually a small minority, there are only 13-14 million Jews in the world.
Oh and can you find me a post where I said anything like ‘they all hate Jews so they do’? Didn’t think so. So stop talking shit and learn to spell while you’re at it.
Being the violent purveyors od fiction themselves, this is hardly surprising, is it?
Reagrdless, Isarel does not now, nor ever will, exist except in the confines of your head.
Clandestine may know facts, but he struggles to put them in any sort of context and his love of long words I'm afraid doesn't disguise that.
Aye. Pot and kettle are both black, a point missed by most.
It’s important to distinguish between criticism of Israel and genocidal anti-Zionism; fatwas, public calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people – covenants from Iran and Hamas for Israel's destruction do translate into anti-Semitism. And I don’t know how even Clan could defend Arab states promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Criticising Israel and individually singling it out for unique sanctions are also two different things; the former is perfectly legitimate. The latter, sometimes is but does frequently have anti-Semitic overtones.
For instance MPACUK, a Muslim group leading the campaign here to boycott Israel has definite anti-Semitic elements to it. For that reason it was subject to a No Platform order by the NUS, it’s also vilified supporters of Israel as being Jews – labelling MPs who aren’t Jewish but happen to support Israel as Jews prior to elections last year. There’s a good blog that keeps an eye on MPACUK, especially interesting are MPACUK's links with the far-right. Link.
odd thing i saw was a picture of neonazi outside protesting for david irvings release, what i don't get is, somehow that isn't covered by their anti-nazi laws
It’s irrelevant. Israel has existed for over 50 years, most people support its right to exist and even if they don’t Israel isn’t going away.
Also, Zionism as a political movement advocating a homeland for Jews began before WWII and the modern Zionist movement began in the late 1800s and was largely fuelled by the Russian pogroms.
And the Royal Peel Partition Plan in 1937 also proposed creating a smaller Jewish state and a larger Arab state in the region and was accepted by the Zionists and rejected by the Arabs.
Its certainly an interesting comparison. Even allowing for the fact that there are still plenty of Jews in Europe, I'm not sure Jews voluntary leaving European countries where they'd been persecuted for centuries can be truthfully compared to the mass murder of 6 million of them.
it's reckoned though, that the nazis racked up their bad treatment, as you can see from how german law developed from 32-39 before onset of war
and that initially they wanted to just expel the jewish people (and the other groups they disliked) from 'greater germany' but as by 1942 they covered most of europe it was informally decided mass killing would be better
Gullible? I'm stating fact FFS. Irving hasn't denied genocide took place since the late 80's. As for giving Irving too much credit...where have i given him any credit?
As far as i'm aware, he disputes certain aspects which are accepted as truth by mainstream historians (such as the numbers killed, whether Hitler himself planned a concerted attempt at genocide...at one point he offered a monetary prize for any scholar able to prove that he did).
Not every 'Holocaust denier' disputes that genocide took place, illogical as it may be to call such people Holocaust deniers. The term is also used for people who deny the extent, the number of people killed etc.
I never suggested that was the case.
You sound like an absolute twat, with no clue whatsoever of what he's talking about.
Might be wrong though.
No it wasn't the answer to the atrocities. But it was a step in the right direction. Not even a Jewish home-state can justify the horrific events that haunted Europe in the late 30s-early/mid 40s.
And just for the record, it wasn't only European Jews which were treated like crap, hence why there's such a small amount of Jews left in the Arab world.
Oh - and just a general thought. How come we ended up talking about Zionism, if Zionism and anti-semitism are so clearly unrelated? :yeees:
I had a similar response some time ago when I asked the same of "muslim".Do you think some people don`t know what they are talking about ?
Oh I think they know what they are talking about, I just don't think they are communicating it to me. There is little general awareness that words aren't things.
All nominalisations are like that ime. The person concerned usually hasn't made the realisation (theres one!) that the same word means a different thing to every single individual who encounters it.
Even a simple word like "rock" might conjure up a great big bit of granite for you and a small piece of sandstone for someone else it might even let you think of tight wearing mullet adorned 80's guitar monkeys Iron Maiden. And rocks actually exist! :yippe:
It might takle half an hour of patient questioning to discover what you were thinking about by the word "rock". you saw a picture, where did you see it "in space", what colour, what size, glossy or matt, one or two etc etc etc.
One person mught see a picture of a rock, another might feel the texture of it and so forth. When we move onto the words like "muslim" we are in a world of ideas almost entirely unconnected with the real world. Again, there is little awareness that this is so. :shocking:
I've said this before but I'll say it again - theres no problem with using fiction as long as everyone understands that they are using fiction.
Idiot.