"How Israel Caused 9/11" As it turns out, this is not what most people think it is. In fact, instead of one of those crazy people saying "Israeli pilots flew the planes into the WTC towers!", it is saying something 100 times more believable: the motivation between the 9/11 attacks is simple: US support for the terrorist nation that is Israel. While many of you still believe Israel to be a good nation and Sharon to be a man of peace, consider this: - Ariel Sharon is known to have sympathised with war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. He also participated in numerous guerilla attacks in his earlier days, in which many were killed, often innocent Palestinian women and children. These people are, of course, never counted in Palestinian death counts because it happened so long ago (maybe 20 or 30 years), but his basic political agenda hasn't changed since then. He has also asserted on Israeli national radio that Israel controls the US gov't. When he was a lower-ranking official, a member of the Israeli cabinet, he authorised the IDF to allow Lebanese Christian militias into Palestinian refugee camps in Southern Lebanon where they slaughtered many refugees, including thousands of innocent elderly people, women, and children (not to mention innocent men) - Instead of just retaliating against the headquarters of terrorist groups and their actual facilities, and actual terrorists, Israel pursues such inhumane paths for "punishment" as bulldozing the houses of the extended family of already-dead suicide bombers and letting hate-filled low ranking IDF personnel have their way with young Palestinian men. Also, they will go to unreasonable lengths to exterminate terrorists: bombing neighbourhoods known to be filled with hundreds of innocent civilians, often without reliable intelligence that the wanted person(s) is inside. - The unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, something that is well-documented and that even such reliable news sources as CNN and the BBC reported. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why is it that Bush so eagerly supports Israel, calling Sharon "a man of peace", while denouncing Arafat as a terrorist and saying that he is the impediment in the peace process? While I personally don't believe Arafat to be a terrorist, I know it is very well possible that he is, but I do know for sure that Sharon is one and does not deserve support from the US. Re-evaluate your viewpoint. Remember, Judaism and Zionism are not one. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org Being anti-Zionist is not being anti-Semitic, you are not being a neo-nazi just because you think Zionism is racism or because you think Israel is a terrorist nation. Don't be like Jerrek and offer unconditional support to a terrorist nation. Don't be a blue-faced purple-haired bastard. Think it through. If you don't reach the same conclusion as I have, I don't think you're stupid. I don't think you did it wrong, or that you need to keep re-evaluating until you get what I get. Just try it once, consider what is being said here.
I'd also like to mention the thread titled "Israel" in which pro-Israelis begin to loose their grasp and make statements against basic human rights.
Conspiracies was a word of the 60’s, now days they have turned into legitimate well organized “organizations”. A method to combine resources and suck like worms from one another. If you check New American Century you’ll find it a typical “patriotic” fundamentalist organizations covering their real intentions under love for the nation, for the family, education and don’t desire your neighbor’s wife. If you check the roster of members, you’ll find not only the next saviors of this world, but most are Jewish and have an impeccable record on Devil’s work. Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Microzoft what the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to make GB-GIL Trans-global seem more credable by being an even bigger lunatic with an even weaker and aimless argument? I mean at least GB-GIL had a point.
GB-Gil, I agree completely, but using David Duke as your source of info will make it hard to convince people.
Are you kidding? David Duke is as unbias as they come! But I can't find on the site Dave's evidence that all races are not born equal? Ohhhhh, he's an idiot! That solves everything! He's also never taken a politics or economics course in the last, about, 20 years, eh? Um. Yeah... He is, of course, aware that many more whites have admitedly done drugs, eh? You know, this is about the tenth time in one article he's said this - and yet I've not seen any proof whatsoever that this is the current mode of thinking. In fact, I've always been taught quite differently. No it's not. Though I admit it is more often highlighted in whites. Is he going to cite anything? So far I've seen one citation (with no quote or link or actual citation, it was just; "I once read a pamhplet..."), but tons and tons of claims. Any, um, proof? It appears I'm missing something here. Letting someone learn in their own language is wrong and forcing them to learn English is right? Hmmmmm. Yup, he's quite unbias.
Perhaps its just coincidence , perhaps it all would be completely different if even one thing was changed but still : As you clicked the link , I did see that it was placed on a website representing david duke . I thought , since he's obviously southern (dukes of hazard) and has a jewish first name , he must be one of them Christians , he probably even hates blacks , perhaps there lies the reason of his Jew hate in the first place . But did I know who david duke was ? No I didnt know who he was and i didnt care for my psychological-depending reasoning much either, I just read the bitch and checked out some logics . What mostly was obviously biased in his reasoning , was the confusal of Jews and Israeli's (not that it would matter much for his conclusion anyways) , and his love of America , this lets feed the Jews to the Arabs mentality , one dispise more than everything . During the reading It came into my mind dave duke would probably be some wannabe internet self-supporting journalist who went to palestine to write a story) , and then I saw house of representatives thing , and I checked out the website : A fucking neo nazi . WHO CARES ? I understand nobody wants to identify himself with a nazi (or a socilaist or some nationalist arab) when it comes to a certain opion , but get the fuck over it people . Refutation depends on cricizement of the content not the criticizement of the source . So tyler , why do u bother to use this thread dealing with zionism to share your views on davey duke's retardedness , who cares ? He is retarded as fuck , but he's right concerning subjects dealt with here . Who cares what corner he is from ? Why are you spending so much space to prove he is an ass , and biased , while u probably havent even read the damn article . Many things he said he can back up , since he is not the only person coming with this kind of information . The reason he has for bringing it up is something that shouldnt even be thought about , merely in the sense that you are conscious of his background . From that article I could see a bit of background , but as far as patriotic-anti zionism goes , for sure we end up with some nazi's , all other patriots in amerika are pro Israel . These guys hate Jews because some Himmler antropologic fantasy denying originality as some untermenschen in damn caves eating raw meat , but WHO CARES ? Again I will repeat : Refutation depends on CONTENT . Background only matters to put the content in perspective , THATS ALL .
Well...... For one, criticizing a source is actually a valid way of arguing. It does not disprove the point, but can make it rather invalid. For instance, if I quoted a neo-Nazi on the number of deaths in the Holocaust, it would be invalid. Tell me, Allahs, if I quoted a top member of Likud on the treatment of refugees in Israel, would you tell me I have a valid source? Nein. As for refuting the point, I simply hate anything that says ".....Caused 9/11". Looking at what influenced the men to do what they did is fine. To say that anything "caused" 9/11 is slightly ridiculous. Definition of Cause: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result Nobody is responsible for 9/11 except for those individuals who planned, orchestrated, and carried it out. If a poor man kills a wealthy man to take his money in a capitalist nation, can we say the wealthy man is the cause of his own death simply if the poor man would not be poor were it not for the wealthy one? Let me put it to you this way, if we blame Israel for 9/11, why can't we go back a notch? I mean, were it not for the stagnation of the majority of Arab nations, would not this situation ever have arrised? And what of the causes of stagnation? Can we blame the Crusades for 9/11? And then the cause for the Crusades? It goes back and back. In the end, however, it is the decision of individuals. And I wonder; why not blame the Holocaust on Jews? I recognize that saying this would label one a Nazi, but besides the sheer numbers, I don't see the difference. The Jews were overpowering Aryan Germans (and yes, I'm oversimplifying all this) and so the Aryan Germans fought back by killing. How's this any different than the Arabs being overpowered by the Jews (or Americans/Europeans, depending on how you see it) and fighting back by killing?
It is not valid , it is called AD HOMINUM , and its a logical fallacy . Funny how u try to prove my biasedness as many others attempted by mentioning Israel : Would you haver a valid source ? Nope . Would you have an invalid source ? Nope Figure it out . It doesnt matter WHO says it , it matters WHAT they are saying . And unlike you perhaps , I research validity in logics in the CONTENT of theiur argument . Lets say on day X there are 100 palestinians killed . This is a TRUE FACT . Now because the Likud thinks 100 is way to much , they say 5 . But what if there are 5 killed , what if 5 was a TRUE FACT . Perhaps the Likud says , hell....why lie , we're happy enough with the truth . Is it then false that there are 5 Palestinians killed just because Likud says so ? Sam with the nazi's , and same with everybody else . Davey here speaks of true facts , that are backed up by others . Those facts cant be proven false by determining the person who is saying them is an idiot . U only show your own biasedness in here Its because your personal interpretation of who's fault it is , equals the "cause" . You wish to fingerpoint so that the reasons are degraded to "influences" , perhaps later they will be degraded as "coincidences" . Well , the stagantion leads back to your own policy , and ofcourse Israels , but thats off the point u try to make . I agree with you when it comes to fingerpointing it is difficult to locate a situation , and say THAT was the cause . But technically it IS the cause , within the laws of cause and effect , simply not the ONLY cause . And some causes are more relevant than others (time is a nice tool) , ultimatly we can distinguish DIRECT causes , and ofcourse the most direct cause was the Hijacker flying the plane in the building . The "Aryan" Germans (how nice of u to take over Himmler terminology , can u define me the Aryan people please , or do we simply speak of the Germanic tribes?) had no business in Poland , Chegia etc etc etc . And there is also a difference between this "overpowerment" idea of yours . The Jews had influence and most certainly they had cash and they did run some things (more in Austria than Germany as far as I know) , but they did not massmurder the Germans chasing them out of their hauses with militant groupings . And when it comes to the Eustern Euro Jews , they didnt even had money , it was them who were degraded by the natives , living in those Yiddishe Ghetto's under circumstances more disgusting even than the Western way of living just before the plague . So Id say blaming the Jews for the holocaust is kinda bullshit , rather blame the Euro's not giving a fuck about the holocaust before Hitler started actually taking land . And blame the Euro's as well for the "gift" they gave the Jews as a maker-up . And when thinking of the holocaust , no way the nazi's could ever justify it by everything the Jews did to them , the Jews did shit , they just started for real after they got their own state . Before that it was the Jews who were chased and murdered and forced to converse to Christianity . Just because the Germans didnt get what they wanted for once (after losing ww1) , and then blame it all on the Jews (who indeed had alot more then they did) , is pretty sad , when u think of the Jews being brutalized some years before . The score was 10-0 for the Germans , but when the Jews make a goal its holocaust time , and lets get ALL Jews as well while we're at it . Sick shit man , I wondered many times about the lies of the holocaust by the Zionists , and how they used the holocaust to get their own little state , while they even sold out their own to gain that land ...... no way could the holocaust be justified . Only if it appears to never have happened at all , but in the most absurd situation Hitler must have killed a million , and thats more than enough for me .
Gee Tyler, you're soooo smart and soooo handsome, I don't think I can take you on! This post is soooo sophisticated, I can't even understand it totally, so please excuse me if my responce is incompetent! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well...... For one, criticizing a source is actually a valid way of arguing. It does not disprove the point, but can make it rather invalid. For instance, if I quoted a neo-Nazi on the number of deaths in the Holocaust, it would be invalid. Tell me, Allahs, if I quoted a top member of Likud on the treatment of refugees in Israel, would you tell me I have a valid source? Nein. Those aren't valid comparisons. That would be like if somebody quoted the US Census group on the number of Hispanic people that are homeless in the US, and you replied by "proving" that the US Census group is pro-Hitler and hates black people. Now while DD does spew a lot of crap, this is not crap, when I read it it all made honest sense and none of it said stuff like "Jews are bankers and are thus responsible for the extinction of the dodo bird and the formation of the Eurasian continent," like most of the crap he spews. As for refuting the point, I simply hate anything that says ".....Caused 9/11". Looking at what influenced the men to do what they did is fine. To say that anything "caused" 9/11 is slightly ridiculous. No. Take two alternate realities (in both of them 9/11 never happens). In one reality, Mohammad Atta is watching television and he sees Bush saying that Arabs are "stupid, motherfscking, false-god-worshipping bastards". 1 years later he flies an airplane into the Empire State Building. In the other reality, Bush never says this, but everything else happens exactly the same, except Mohammad Atta never flies an airplane into the Empire State Building. Now, given these two alternate realities, what would you say caused him to fly an airplane into the Empire State Building in the first reality described? I would say the Bush comment on Arabs. Now, let's take ones that actually relate to this situation, where we decide whether or not 9/11 happens. Reality 1: The US supports Israel with millions of dollars of aid, and has the same crappy foreign policy history we have in our current reality. Israel does all the same things it has done in our current reality. Everything else is the same. Reality 2: The US supports Palestine with millions of dollars of aid, or stays totally neutral (ie equal or no aid). The US has a foreign policy that considers "blowback" (aftereffects of events, like retribution for a US-aided coup or something) and really tries to be nice to other nations. Everything else is the same. Reality 3: Modern Israel never exists, the UN votes to not allow the Jews a homeland in Palestine. Everything else is the same. Now, what do you think would happen here? I say: Reality 1: 9/11 happens for sure. Reality 2: 9/11 probably never happens. Reality 3: 9/11 probably never happens but it might. Now, from *my* choices, we can draw the conclusion that Israel and US foreign policy caused 9/11. Now can you see my train of thought? You may come to a different conclusion here, please share with us your choices. Definition of Cause: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result Nobody is responsible for 9/11 except for those individuals who planned, orchestrated, and carried it out. If a poor man kills a wealthy man to take his money in a capitalist nation, can we say the wealthy man is the cause of his own death simply if the poor man would not be poor were it not for the wealthy one? How about a better example: I murder your mother, and you murder me for revenge. Was it not my fault you murdered me? My answer here would be yes. It was my choice to murder your mother. It was your choice to murder me in return. But in essence it was me that caused you to murder me. While the US and Israel may not be *directly* responsible, they are the cause of 9/11. They caused 9/11 to happen. Because of them, men flew planes into the WTC towers. I learned about cause and effect in 2nd grade. Did you? Let me put it to you this way, if we blame Israel for 9/11, why can't we go back a notch? I mean, were it not for the stagnation of the majority of Arab nations, would not this situation ever have arrised? And what of the causes of stagnation? Can we blame the Crusades for 9/11? And then the cause for the Crusades? No. I'm talking one-layer-deep causes. If you ask the terrorists why, what will they say? What I said is what bin Laden said in a television interview (I think it was by ABC?) Not if you ask the people responsible for the reasons the terrorists say what will they say, that's not what I'm talking about. If you can conclude that their thoughts on why they are doing it are logical (ie, this is revenge for the US's actions against my people, as opposed to this is revenge for my next-door neighbour from childhood inviting me over for dinner and making something yucky) Israel caused 9/11. Period. And I wonder; why not blame the Holocaust on Jews? I recognize that saying this would label one a Nazi, but besides the sheer numbers, I don't see the difference. No, what the Nazis said made no sense based on modern knowledge. Remember, a lot of it was based on the Elders of Zion crap, which they thought was true at the time. If you assume it the Protocols are nonfiction, then it makes sense. But we know now they are not true... The Jews were overpowering Aryan Germans (and yes, I'm oversimplifying all this) and so the Aryan Germans fought back by killing. How's this any different than the Arabs being overpowered by the Jews (or Americans/Europeans, depending on how you see it) and fighting back by killing? uhh... because the Aryan Germans weren't really overpowered by the Jews? And because the Americans were aiding the Israelies in their terrorist activities? Had America not sponsored Israel, I'm willing to bet the attacks would've been on Israel instead of the US.
the motivation between the 9/11 attacks is simple: US support for the terrorist nation that is Israel. Well duh
