Wikipedia ????
·
Wikipedia is the messenger. I tried to check the
message ( The Forward) but the article is no longer there. Nevertheless: I
believe it , as I read it in another article too.
·
David, aren't there a few too many 'Maybe's'in your
reasoning? Your logic is also wrong: if he did not trust the lie detector, he
would have nothing to fear. That is what you tell me here. So his refusal came from the fact that he had something to hide. It's
called a lie detector. Maybe it works by detecting a stress, but then this
stress is only there in case the man tells a lie. For me its extra informative
that he refused to take the test for 10 days.
·
You also make presumptions. It is your logic is wrong.
The polygraph works by showing stress when the question is answered. A nervous
person thinks "what if I the machine registers my stress?" He thus
EXPERIENCES stress, which the machine then registers. But your assumption that
the subject only experiences stress when lying is false. The name "lie detector" is a misnomer. If a person FEARS that the machine
will/may return a false positive, then that fear will CAUSE stress which then
registers.
·
If a lie detector would work like that,
I think it would be a worthless invention. I think that everyone who is a
suspect, also innocent people, are still in stress for a test like that.
May I suggest that we stop discussing these 5 dancing Israeli's. There are
dozens of facts that I offered on which you did not reply at all. You may also
stop our discussion ( for a certain time) as it takes quite a bit of my time,
and I should do other things (but I am addicted to this kind of discussions)
·
The polygraph (so-called lie detector) IS a worthless
invention. Okay let's forget the five "dancing" Israelis. I note that your original video blamed the Jews for the presence
of Muslims in England. I don't know about your country, but in the UK immigration
from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh is a legacy of colonialism. Some residents
of colonies had a connection with the UK and were allowed to live here, this
then allowed the relatives to come.
·
Again I have to remind you that you haven't offered any evidence that they
found the spot where they were filming from within three minutes.You keep
repeating the claim but haven't offered any evidence. The woman never said
three minutes. That is your invention.
The claim that they were celebrating is disputed. She spoke about their
demeanor being happy. That is a far cry from celebrating. And in any event it is a persons opinion as they watched from
a distance.
·
When Maria looked down, they were already there. Already on top of the van. Maria's friend heard a noise, felt a
tremble and - of course- looked outside. Saw the smoke and called her friend
Maria. Maria took her binoculars and looked outside. Then she looked down and
saw the men on the van. I guess 3 minutes is a fine estimate. Maria could read
the numberplate, so she could interprete their body-language. On one of the
photographs a man is like lighting the Twin Towers with a lighter.
·
You are embellishing what these people actually said,
paraphrasing it and putting your own spin on it. There's no indication of the
time between the noise and the call, the call and Maria looking out the window,
looking out and looking down. Maria said she looked down "after a few
minutes" - no indication of how long it actually was. if she called the
police immediately why were they only arrested four hours
after the attack? Perhaps you should stop spreading hatred and get a life.
·
----third continuation. If you go to wiki:---
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Israel--- you see
that one of the five, P. Kurzberg, was a Mossad agent who refused the lie
detector test for 10 weeks, and when he did the test, he failed. The fact that
the FBI stated later that Kurzberg had no foreknowledge of the 911 attacks is,
for me, a little unbelievable. Why did he refuse the lie detector for
10 weeks if he had nothing to hide. What arguments did the FBI have...?
·
Maybe he had something to hide that had nothing to do
with the attacks. Maybe he didn't trust the polygraph (remember it is only
confidence in the polygraph that makes it
"work"). Failure proves stress not dishonesty.
·
Who was this friend and where can I see a video of the
woman herself saying that she saw them two minutes after a plane hit? And which plane, the first or the
second?
·
Look, David, I use a source that is called 911myths.
They are on your side. They write that the woman is called Maria, and that she
got a telephone from a friend. If this is not true, you must attack them. Here
you can see Maria: Google Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 Look at the
2.50 min video from BlogginFor The Truth. If this were happening
after the second plane, it would never make the news, of course. By then
everybody in the world knew about it. This happened before any Media..
·
It says she got the call "shortly after the first plane hit the
towers." It does not say how long after is "shortly" nor how
long after that she saw the men filming. She said she saw the van "a few
minutes" after watching the towers. Also when people are spellbound by a major event more time can pass than they realize. It certainly doesn't say
two minutes - or even three.
Have the "witnesses" who saw the Israelis been checked out? Maybe
THEY have an agenda?
·
May I remember you that two out of the five 'dancing
Israeli's' were Mossad agents. Mayt I remember you that they were dancing. Why
were they happy to see an explosion, or a fire in the Twin Towers. How could
they know it was a so called 'Terrorist attack'. How could they know that it
would serve Israel's agenda by enabling the war against Iraq, and by enab;ing the muslim-bashing campaign. If you see a fire or
explosion, you don't start high-fiving.
·
You mean that two of the five were "suspected of being" Mossad agents.It has not been proven
that they were.
I myself thought
it was probably a terrorist attack by the time the second plane hit. By the
time of the reports of the Pentagon attack I was sure.
It is disputed
that they were high-fiving.
Who says they "know that it would serve Israel's agenda by enabling
the war against Iraq"? Bearing in mind Israel's past experiences, it is
only natural that they suspected Muslims.
·
Now suppose 5 men in a van hear on the radio that there is a plane that
flew into the WTC. How long would it take
them to find a relatively quiet place with a view on these towers. Nobody can
do that in 3 minutes.
The witnesses had an agenda. They think it is very unusual if people see
huge black clouds coming from a building and then start to celebrate this as a
victory. Their agenda is: if people behave in a strange and hostile way, lets
report them to the police. For our own protection.
·
.....second continuation. Maria saw the men sitting on
top of the van. There is not too much room on a van. I suppose they went to the
top of the van to have a better view. All this in a matter of 3 minutes:
discovering the plane-impact, climbing on the van, taking each others
photographs... all of this unprepared. Very quick ! Note that their van was
from the Urban Moving Company, a company which is suspected to be a front for a
spy ring for Israel. to be continued.......
·
...... Continuation. If you have parked somewhere and see smoke coming from
one of the tallest buildings in the world, what is your reaction? Even if you
see the plane flying into the building, what is one's reaction? How can you
interprete this as a succes? ( If they were
arabs celebrating we would all say: these arabs were in on Osama's plan) Maria
and her friend reacted normal: stunned, in disbelief, not knowing what this
was. But these Israeli's reacted as winners. To be continued...
·
I couldn't find the source/origin of your link,
although I have just watched the video itself. I checked the SPC website.
Fascinating stuff but no indication of what technology they had in 2001 and nothing to suggest that they could
control an airliner - especially as the Truthers also claim that airliners
couldn't be controlled at that speed at such low altitude. In other words we
are asked to believe that the planes COULDN'T be controlled from the cockpit
but COULD by remote control. Go figure
·
I think that the planes which flew into the Twin
Towers did not do impossible things. As video's show us. But it would need a
very good pilot to execute this. We know that drones fly in Afghanistan,
piloted from Houston. We know that big airliners are landed by 'automatic
pilots' for decades already. What is so impossible? The plane into the Pentagon may be something else, Is that why we never saw any video of it ?
Is that why the destruction looked more like it was done by a rocket ?
·
It was the Truthers themselves who claimed that no one
could control the planes at those speeds at that altitude. Drones are smaller,
more maneuverable and 2012 is not 2001. We didn't see video the first plane hit
the WTC either (although I heard that some footage later emerged. I don't know what you mean when you the destruction looked like a rocket. You're now an
expert on rocket damage?
·
The Israelis were not filming before the first plane hit. They were filming
the smoke pouring from the buildings after the planes hit. That too was the "event". If a news crew are filming the aftermath of a
car crash and one of them said "we were there to document the event"
would you conclude that the news crew knew in advance that there was going to
be a car crash?
It is upon this kind of willful misinterpretation of the facts that the
"Truthers" build their false and dishonest theories.
·
Everybody was filming the towers after the plane hit.
But these men were waiting with their camera's in place before the plane hit,
and started high-fiving when the plane hit. They had installed themselves on a
place that gave them a good free view. But there are many of these phenomena.
For example a Dutch woman, Nina Storms, jewish, Goldman Sachs connections, who
had earned two hundred million euro with a stockmarket scam, sold all her stocks a day before 911. Arab stockholders did not
sell.
·
1) If you can prove that were filming before the planes hit, you've won the
debate. Now all you have to do is prove it.
2) You have personally checked every single Arab stockholder and
established that none of them sold any stocks in the days before 9/11?
·
1. You keep misunderstanding me, deliberately I suppose. I did not say they
were filming before the hit. I said they were waiting for the plane to hit the
building, and then filmed it and were dancing. People saw this unusual
gathering and called the police. Can you give me the example of a group of arab
people who were waiting for the plane to hit,
then filmed it and danced ?
2. Not necessary
to check every arab stockholder. You give me a few examples of arabs that sold
all stocks then.
·
1) I didn't see any reports of the people claiming that they were waiting
for the plane to hit. The reports said they were filming
the buildings after the planes hit and that their mood seemed to happy.
Remember that the two witnesses were watching from a distance and hearing a
foreign language. Their opinion of what they saw might be right, but puerile
behaviour does not translate into prior knowledge.
2) I don't monitor thousands of Arab investors. I have better things to do
with my time.
·
When I read 911myths about the dancing Israeli's I read that this friend of
Maria called her after hearing a noise and feeling s shaking. Then Maria looked
outside and saw smoke above the Twin Towers. Two minutes later she discovered
the Israeli's, sitting on their van, and already celebrating and taking each others pictures with the smoking building on the background.
Now suppose these 5 Israeli's happened to just have parked there: how could
they celebrate? To be continued....
·
OK. Ghadaffi had the oil advantage. But he used it to
serve the people, and Saudi's and Russians etc. don't. ---- I am not at all
convinced about Ghadaffi's cruelty. 1. On a BBC doc. I saw a man who once plotted to kill Ghadaffi. He went to jail. That's all. 2. One of
Ghadaffi's killers, Abdelhakim Belhadj ( see Wikipedia ) was liberated by
Ghadaffi in 2010. 3.Did Ghadaffi kill 1200 prisoners at Abu Salim prison? The
bones found in the grounds were from animals.. ( Wikipedia).
·
The two main towers didn't fall at free fall speed - even NIST were taken in by that claim. I've watched the
videos that purport to prove that they fell at free fall speed. They do things
like starting the clock late and fading it out early. You show me even one
video with an accurate clock that shows them falling at free fall speed!
WTC 7 in fact DOES look A BIT like a controlled demo (inasmuch as it
collapsed from the bottom). But there's no evidence of preparation or that it
actually was.
·
Maybe you should tell NIST that they made a mistake.
The free fall is for only part of the traject. This is how difficult it is to
bring down a building, even with
explosives: google: Oude kantoortoren Philips opgeblazen. Evidence? Why was
there not a normal investigation after the collapse, as is commanded by the
law? The evidence of this crime scene was immediately shipped out. Everything
about 911 points to : inside job.
·
I would be more inclined to believe the
"Truthers" if I didn't keep catching them out with lies (free fall
collapse of WTC 1 and 2, exploding van, Israelis filming before first plane
hit) and false science (e.g. projecting holograms into thin air,
radio controlled planes).
·
I suppose that the real conspiracists, who have easy
access to the Media, will promote all kinds of crazy Truther- theories. Don't
take these serious. Read David Ray Griffin. Look at the 911 Experts video's
etc. The Israeli's who were filming before the first plane hit did not deny
this. They said, months later, on Israeli tv: "We were there to document
the event." Big question: How did they know there
was going to be 'an event." For the link: 'Dancing Israeli's" in the
Description.
·
If we may believe the sales-people of SPC then 'radio controlled planes' is
nothing new. They do it all the time. A very influential Neocon, Dov Zakheim,
was the CEO at SPC.
No pilot believes that an arab who cannot fly a cessna is able to manoeuvre
the planes as they did on 911. But with SPC technology this was possible. So
the conspiracy version of 911 becomes much more credible than the Bush version. See link in 'Description'.
·
I hope that Brittanica is right I have my stats from:
R J Rummel, Democide. About the 890% figure I was mistaken. This is the quote:
During the 18th century, up to 80 percent of Jewish heads of
households in rural areas were arendarz, that is, holders of an arenda (lease).
Google: Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) Research Project, estate inventories.
Note: all the links are Tiny URL's . You can just enter them in your browser.
They will automatically go to youtube if it refers to a film.
·
He used noun & adjective together.
Destruction has
good connotations not only with regard to evil, but also to the outdated and
outmoded - e.g. the pocket calculator destroyed the market for slide rules.
Would you call that villainy or progress?
Neocons didn't
destroy American society. They destroyed its complacency and various tyrannies.
Hitler was very destructive. Auschwitz didn't create anything: it destroyed
human lives. Who knows how many unknown Einsteins they murdered there?
·
Complacency like : old people who did not have to work anymore. Like: young people who could live of 1 job. The complacency
of the times when the father worked and earned enough money for his wife and 5
children. Now pop and mum work and send the 1,4 child they have to child-care.
A Tyranny like Ghadaffi's, where there was free schooling, free medicine
and where al the population moved from tents to houses. America goes the other
way: less medical service, less education and moving to tents.
·
America's "prosperity" was based on excessive borrowing. The
house of cards was bound to collapse sooner or later. You can blame many
(including the neocons). But if it hadn't been for the excessive borrowing,
they wouldn't have had the illusion of prosperity before
that.
Gaddafi's Libya was a dictatorship which just happened to have large
natural resources relative to its population size. He was not elected and
anyone who spoke out against him ended up dead or tortured or both.
·
People are in reality sheeple. When all the opinion
leaders around them say that borrowing is normal and profitable - especially to buy a house that will forever increase in value - then
they do the 'wise' thing. That's what evolution has brought to us: its better
to blend in with people around us than to think for ourselves. Read some
evoutionary psychology for that. I saw a documentary about some black
reverends, going to Washinton and asking to stop these subprime-loan agressors.
They lost.
·
If you read Alan Weiser ( I gave you the link in the
Description ) you see that 80% of jewish housholds were Arendar, and that
virtually every Arendar was jewish. The big rebellion of Khmeltnistky killed more non jewish than jews. The pogroms in Russia had very very few dead.
The more famous Pogroms have like 49 dead jews. 49! The Gulag, under Jewish
supervision, had 60 million Russians killed. David, please first study and then
give your opinion.
·
The 60 million figure for the Gulag was a massive exaggeration propagated
by right wing Americans. The true figure is between 15 and 30 million (see Brittanica). The bulk of the deaths were ordered/caused by Stalin
after he had purged most of the key Jewish figures.
Links don't come through in Youtube. I checked out a long article by Weiser
online but couldn'r find the 80% figure.
·
Ledeen uses the word 'destruction', not change. You are a liar.
No, there is no
unitary jewish opinion. What I say is this: IF you see a country destroyed, you
will always find SOME jews who started the destruction.
I.e., jews are
so influential in the financial world and in deregulation and in risky
derivatves that it is safe to say that IF jews were banned from financial
hegemony, there would have been no 2008 crisis. Same for many other catastrophes.
Jewish liberalism lost its influence.
·
Actually you yourself noted that he used the words "CREATIVE
destruction" - in other words supplanting the old with the new - in other
words CHANGE. But you then willfully disregarded the word "creative"
in order to arrive at a false conclusion. Subtle nuances my friend.
So Jews destroyed ancient Rome? Tibet? Biafra? Yugoslavia? Or are you again
using the word "destruction" when what you are actually referring to is change?
·
The word is destruction. The adverb is 'creative'.
Destruction does not have any good connotations, except when you use it
referring to a thoroughly evil subject. Was the American society evil ? You put
the spotlight on the word 'creative' which has good connotations, but in itself
does not have value. Hitler-Germany was highly creative.
Goldman Sachs is very creative. Same with 'Change'. I.e.: This crisis brings a
lot of change, just like Auschwitz did for those who were sent there.
·
What he really said:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and
abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science,
literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies
have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and
shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional
societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.
·
and the rest:
"they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there,
for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their
legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy
them to advance our historic mission."
·
Amazing how you can read the same as I and see it as a positive thing. I read it and think about how America went
into wars that served Israel and killed millions of Iraqi's and Libyans and
Syrians. I read it and think of this globalisation that serves the rich and
leaves the poor without a job. I red it and think of the Financial bussiness
that grew with the speed of a cancer and has the same effect on the
state-organism.
·
If by "not by very small minorities" you mean no one should have
an hereditary or automatic shoe-in to power, I agree. But do you mean that
there should be proportional representation of religions/races/genders/body
shape/hair colour? If not, then why should not Jews over-achieve in
politics? As long as there are free-elections to grant the final decision to
the people and freedom of the press to allow debate? And we have all these
things in western democracies.
So you like Stalinist Russia ;-)
·
Why don't you try to find out about 'The Israel Lobby'
? See link. Just to have some idea how democratic the USA is ( not ! ) . Show
me one scientific thesis that explains how a building can collapse with the
speed of free fal. Does not exist, But it happened with WTC7, even officially
NIST concedes to this. Study 911 and you will find out: there is no real free
press. Ther is a subtle censoring. People have no clue about what is reality in
this world. Not in The West.
·
I need more time for this. I do not have this in my
notes. I may post it later when I find some good source.
·
You mix it all up. The jewish witnesses who speak
about theater and music and football - for the link look in
the description of the video, above - were speaking about Auschwitz. At the end
of the war, when the Russians came from the east, Wiesel, Anne Frank etc. fled
to the west to Bergen Belsen. It was over-crowded, almost no food, people were
weak from the long marches. They died in the hundreds from Typhus and who could
cremate or bury them in these last days? Hence walking skeletons.
·
Yes, communism in the beginninh of the 20th century was dominated by jewish
people. About neo-liberalism it may be the
same. I am not in the know. In conservatism the jews were never important. They
want to destroy, not to conserve. The Neocons want to destroy also. Read
Michael Ledeen. , “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our
society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day . . . ." You may
google it.
·
You confuse change with destruction.
You
misunderstand the subtle nuances of Ledeen.
You persist in
the myth that there is a unitary Jewish opinion.
You persist in
the false belief that because Jews are prominent that makes them monopolizers.
You fail to give
credit to non-Jews for their achievements in movements in which Jews are
prominent.
You ignore Jewish liberalism (except social liberalism which you demonise
because of your support for racial homogeneity).
·
Jews created and implemented communism. It was a way to get rid of the existing elite, who were excluding the jews from
this elite. They used the power of the masses to kill every aristocrat or
person with some intelligence. All together 60 million people were killed for
this. Kaganovic - jewish - claimed he was responsible for 20 million dead. Read
Andrey Diky or Andrey Burovski or Solzhenitsy
·
That's just another antisemitic lie. Jews CONTRIBUTED to Communism because
they wanted to end the persecution that they were suffering at the hands of
Tsarist autocracy. Not all Jews were Communists: neither Lenin nor Stalin were.
(Strictly speaking neither was Marx.)
Maybe you think that Jews should just allow people murder them in Pogroms,
but it ain't gonna happen anymore. We fight back and we don't kowtow either to
those who kill us or to those who condemn us for fighting back.
·
Maybe you should read a little more. Read about the Arendar system in Poland. How jewish people formed a
jewish state and Nation there, in a huge part of Europe. They leased
everything, including the peole who lived there. The Polish were like slaves to
the jews. And the Polish were treated in a terrible way. Of course there was a
rebellion, as the rabbi's had warned to their fellow jews. But the only thing
jews remember is: there was a pogrom. They never see how they are the cause of
evil.
·
Again the old blame the victim scenario. The pogroms
were not directed against Arendars; they were directed against Jews. Very few
Jews were Arendars and the Jewish Arendars were quite low in the pecking order
and took the flack for the cruelty of their gentile "noble" masters.
·
So you hate Neocons, neo-liberals and Communists. Can you tell us what economic system you do advocate?
·
Any system where the government is composed of people
of that country, and not by very small minorities - like 2 to 3 % - and where
this government tries to have a good balance between the interests of the lower
classes and the higher classes, makes me happy enough. It may even be a
communist government. Looking back life in Russia also had some appealing
characteristics, from the fifties onward, like: stability, predictability, social support.
·
You only start to
wonder if you're trying to blind yourself to reality. Let me get this straight,
the camp was full of lice and typhus (the alternative "reason" for
the gas chambers). But at at the same time it was a holiday camp where the
inmates were having a good time watching plays and listening to concerts?
Reply·
·
Like I said: how bad was Auschwitz really? You start
to wonder, when you see that these prisoners prefer to stay with the German
'killers' instead of staying and waiting for the Russians. I saw many films
with perfect looking Auschwitz prisoners. I saw jewish prisoners who speak
about concerts in Auschwitz, music and plays. Look at the link.
·
Yes, Saddam was a friend. The pragmatic
reasons were that he killed 1 million Iranians, using American and Israeli
weapons, which he paid for. Double benefit for Israel: dead Iranians and
profit. But that is not all. Through a secret deal the USA was also selling
weapons to Iran, to kill Iraqi's. Double benefit for Israel: dead iraqi's and
profit.
My conclusion: these Neocons and Israeli's are the barbarians of our world.
About Saddams WMD's : we speak about 1992-1997.
·
What were these Israeli weapons? I don't see your links because Youtube
automatically removes external links. But can you say in words the URL of a
reputable news site (not a conspiracy site) where the specific weapons systems
are named with quantities. Israeli weapons I mean, not American ones.
Do you really blame Israelis for what the Iraqis and Iranians chose to do
to each other. Are you now telling us that only Jews have volition and others
don't? How far out of touch with reality are you?
·
An Israeli author wrote what is really the agenda of Israel: Oded Yinon.
Read his Yinon Plan. See link: Yinon Plan. I will quote two paragraphs here:--
22. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target
23. Iraq is
guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. --
Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians is the reason for arab
animosity. Arab animosity is precisely what Israel needs ! Read Livia Rokach.
·
I can give you an analogy. Rumsfeld and Cheney are
well known Neocons. That does not make the Neocon movement to be a neutral
movement. It is and will always be a jewish movement. They started it, they
controlled it, and they found some goyim like Rumsfeld and Cheney who could benefit enormously by becoming a
Neocon. Halliburton got very rich, but the American people got poor and the
Iraq's got killed. See: Massimo doc on Iraq.
·
Your logic is flawed. The Neocon movement is not "controlled" by anyone. It is a movement of people and it
develops as it develops.
However you are now paying Jews a lot of complements. You imply that we are
the prime movers in pretty much everything: Communism, liberalism,
conservatism. I accept the flattery. We are people of considerable achievement.
And I will not apologize for that. But give credit to non-Jews for their
achievements too. We wouldn't want to hog ALL the credit :-)
·
1) No one is arguing against the proposition that some Jews have been
active in Communism and some Jews active in free enterprise. My point is that
you seem to regard these differing endeavours as exclusively Jewish.
2) The Tsar
didn't just exclude Jews from power, he persecuted them with pogroms and denial of human rights. No one likes being treated like that. So yes Jews
resisted.
3) Again with "neo" liberalism, it has nothing to do with
banking. Those believed in it advocated it eloquently.
·
I repeat the quote I gave an hour ago, from Bertrand
Russel, a well known philosemite. He wrote in his autobiography which came out
around 1960: " an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of
Americanised Jews. " So the jewish people who were emigrated to the USA
years before, came back with money from NY banker Jacob Schiff, and controlled
the Russian Revolution. Look for the links in the Description,
above: Russia and the jews. It is in Dutch, but the links are all in English.
·
Russell was wise but not infallible. He was wrong in calling them
"AmericanIZED." Had they been so, they would not have been
Communists.
Schiff hated the Tsar (because of the pogroms) and did actively work
against him, but he certainly wasn't a Communist. The claim that Schiff
financed the revolution is not supported by any primary sources, only secondary
sources quoting each other. Not best evidence.
·
3. When the Tsar kept the jews out of government and out of power, the jews
were fanatic communists. They mobilised the masses and thus they drove out the
Tsar and existing elite: all very good for the Jews. Read Yuri Slezkine: The
Jewish Century.
When the jewish bankers and elite were in charge, they started to favor
neo-liberalism: freedom for the most powerful. Good for the Jews. In both cases
they were succesfull, as they had the money-support and the Media-support and thus the influence.
·
1. The Russians and the Americans liberated us from the Nazi's A person who is released
from a camp is liberated. Even if he lives in a communist state. 2. Correct:
Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi did choose to go with the Germans guards to Bergen
Belsen, instead of waiting for the Russian army that would soon liberate
Auschwitz.
·
The fact that you see that as liberation doesn't mean that they did. They knew that the
Western Allies (UK and USA) were advancing from the west and they wanted to get
behind those lines. It may have been a dilemma for them, but ultimately they
made the choice that enabled them to get to the free world. Maybe you would
have decided differently. Maybe you would have chosen the USSR. But it wasn't
your call to make.
·
Conbtinue 3. It's always you who comes with the easy
'He is a liar', but no facts to proof your statement. I bring factual info for
every thing I say. About the sacntions: a diplomat who was involved in these
sanctions, Carne Ross, has declared on camera that there were no reasons for
the sanctions: Saddam did NOT have WMD's,
according to the Brittish. Why then the sanctions? Because there were some
unanswered questions regarding the way het had done away with the WMD's.! Link
Carne Ross
·
As I said in my other reply, Sabrosky mixed truth and lies. The five
arrested while filming WERE Israelis. I can find no credible source for the
claim that any other Israelis were arrested that day. He also said the Israelis
were filming before the planes struck. That is lie. The witnesses didn't claim
it and no footage of the first plane striking was found in the video.
Okay ONE diplomat has expressed the opinion that there was no
reason for sanctions. Does ONE diplomat outvote all the others?
·
Sabrosky's facts on which his opinion is based, are true facts. Where is
the lie or mistake? Tell me. 2. The non-jews wanted only
European immigrants, the jews wanted immigrants from all countries. Compare
this to the Israeli's who cannot live together with the Palestinians.
3. Is Ostrovsky a liar? He wrote that the Mossad would make a villain of
Saddam who was then still a friend of the West. And that is exactly what
happened a year after Ostrovsky's book came out.
·
Sabrosky's claim that the Israelis were filming before
the planes struck is a lie. The claims about their demeanour were the OPINIONS
of two witnesses who didn't speak Hebrew and may have associated loudness and
brashness as happiness. The claim that other Israelis were arrested on that day was false. Sabrosky mixed fact, opinion (of others), his own opinion and
false claims of fact to build his "case".
·
Re Ostrovsky, again we're talking the old truth and
lies mixture (that's what intelligence people do). Saddam was a
"friend" of the west for pragmatic reasons - on both sides. The
Israelis foresaw that he was a fairweather friend but would be
a source of trouble in the long-run. They were right. No, he didn't have WMDs.
But if he'd been allowed to, he would have got them.
·
Jewish Zionists didn't want to destroy Iraq. But they
DID want it to be less hostile to Israel.And if that meant a change of leader,
then I can understand that too. But are you any different? If a country's leadership was hostile to your country,
wouldn't you want that leadership to change? (Either a change of heart or a
change of leadership?) Does that make YOU unreasonable?
·
I am well aware that SOME Jews played a prominent role
in the Russian Revolution. So did some non-Jews. I am also well-aware that many Jews oppose Communism. So do many non-Jews.
That doesn't make Communism Jewish. Please try to get a grip on reality my friend.
·
1) No, I think Alan Sabrosky is a liar.
2) Who were the
JEWS who advocated "uncontrolled" immigration? I don't mean liberal
immigration policies, I mean no control at all? (Remember YOU used the word
"uncontrolled"). Oh, and give your sources.
3) I have read Ostrovsky - another liar. He claims personal involvement in
all the HIGH PROFILE events - a well-known
warning sign. 500,000 dead because of Saddam Hussein's policies and practices -
not the sanctions.
Reply·
·
Some Jews DIDN'T do 9/11. That's a lie that appeals only to idiots. I keep
watching the "Truthers" videos and I see through their lies every time.
Are you saying
that ONLY Jews advocated letting immigrants stay? Are you saying that their
arguments were wrong yet couldn't be refuted?
Do you proof that ONLY Jews advocated sanctions against Iraq? Do you have
proof that the sanctions killed 500,000 dead children (even though food and
medicine was exempt from the sanctions)?
·
1. Do you think that prof. Dr. Alan Sabrosky is an idiot? Look: 9/11 AND ISRAEL: ALAN SABROSKY'S SHOCKING
PRESS TV INTERVIEW. 2. Who were the non-jews that advocated uncontrolled
immigration? 3. The whole demonising of Iraq was a Mossad ploy. Read Victor Ostrovsky,
1979: By way of...pag 117: Mossad chief: 'Iraq and Saddam are the next
target." . About the 500.000 dead children: Madeleine Albright did not
dispute the number. Read wikipedia: Sanctions in Iraq.
·
1) They fled the Russians because they didn't want to live under their
tyranny either - i.e. they fled to the western lines. Auschwitz was a death
camp, Belsen a concentration camp. They fled the former (and the Russian
Communists) to be liberated by the Anglo-Americans (i.e. democratic forces).
What's wrong with that?
2) Sunni and Shia are religious differences, not racial. Tribes sometimes
do fight, but it doesn't make things better for them. Do you think
tribalism helps sub-Saharan Africa?
·
So how bad was Auschwitz if the inmates judged life
was better in a German concentrationcamp than as a liberated person in Russian
society? And another thought comes to mind then: Why were all these communist
revolutions of the 1920s (Berlin, München, Vienna) done by 'some' jews? Why
were communist parties all over the world seen as 'a jewish
initiative' ? How come the jews thought Communism was fine and why did they
think different once they were in the concentrationcamps?
·
1) "a LIBERATED person in Russian society"? Russia was a
dictatorship under Stalin!
2) Chose
Auschwitz? Before you said they fled to Bergen-Belsen!
3) Sure people of Jewish origin have been active in Communism (e.g. Marx,
Trotsky). They have also been proponents of free enterprise (Milton Friedman,
Ludwig von Mieses). It depends which Jews. Same goes for non-Jews. Stalin and
Lenin were not Jewish. Neither was Friedrich Hayek. As I said, there are Jews & non-Jews on both sides of most debates.
·
There is a lot of good information that shows us that
the Russian Revolution was a jewish initiative, and controlled by jews. Read
Bertrand Russels autobiograpy:, pag. 354. Letter of 25 juni 1920: “Bolshevism
is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and
terrible than the Tsar's, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty
remains, in thought or speech or action.” Russel was in St. Petersburg just
before.
·
Some more answers: 3. Yes, jews can à lways be found on
the two sides of any argument. Lets llok at facts.. Stephen Jay Gould wrote
'Mismeasurement of Man' and made us all believe that IQ was a fantasy concept
from some racists. Richard Lewontin showed us that races do not exist. Its all
nurture. And anyone who thinks different is a racist. So even if a politician
said: 'Who benefits of mass-immigration' he was ostracised as a racist. End of
career. End of discussion. Thats how they did it.
·
Both Jews AND non-Jews can be found on both sides of
most arguments. That's why it's silly to say that an argument is a Jewish
argument. If some one presents an argument you don't agree with, it is surely
better to present a counter-argument than to try to attack the person who presents the argument on grounds of his/her race or religion.
·
The only relevant thing is: what does really happen.
If an Eskimo wants to destroy Iraq,we can all be unalarmed. If jewish zionists
want to destroy Iraq, we know there is a big chance that it will happen. Their
-unpronounced- motive invariably is: 'because it is good for the jews/ Israel'.
Jews are very intelligent and very influential. Also in positive things for
humanity. I appreciate that. Lets expose and battle those 'jewish engagements' where they are destructive for humanity.
·
'A natural process' is that a people will always
prevent 'outsiders' to invade their territory. But jewish professors, pundits
and Media made us all believe that it now was no longer natural, but evidence
of racism. Racism had become - due to the holocaust-industry- the most enormous
sin that existed. Jews did not invite the Moroccans. The first were invited. But jews prevented the stopping of
chain-immigration, in the way described above: by demonising everyone who
wanted to stop it.
·
People don't always prevent outsiders. Australia, the
USA and Canada were built by immigrants. The world has been shaped since time
immemorial by mass immigration. Mass immigration is a response to local
oppression and population pressure. If the first Moroccans were invited why
blame the Jews? You have proof that the Jews invited them? How did the Jews
"demonise" those who wanted to stop it? You mean SOME Jews
expressed a certain viewpoint?
·
If you have an empty country it is beneficial for the
inhabitants to have influx of people. But never people that are genetically and
culturally very different from the existing population. Indians were killed,
whereas Europeans were invited. 'Different' people are very rarely invited
to immigrate. That was the 'immigration battle' between 1924 and 1970, roughly,
in the USA: No non-Europeans. The jewish won: in came the Latino's. Read
Steinlight. Read: Kevin MacDonald
·
As I wrote before: jews did not invite the Moroccans.
Around 1973 all Moroccan guest workers were out of work, but instead of being
sent home, they got the right to bring their families to Holland. Why? Because
'Some' jewish people started a campaign in the press accusing everyone who
wanted to prevent this of Racism. A deadly qualification in those days. Yes,
'Some jews' as in : 'Some jews' did 911. 'Some jews' got the USA into Iraq.
'Some jews' caused 500.000 dead children in Iraq
(sanctions).
·
'A natural process' is that a people will always
prevent 'others' to invade or occupy their space/country. Unless those people
are demonised. That is what jewish professors, pundits and Media did: everyone
who pleaded to stop mass-immigration was accused of racism. Racism was - due to
the holocaust-industry- the most enormous sin that existed back then. Jews did not invite the Moroccans. The first were invited. But jews
prevented the stopping of chain-immigration, in a way described above.
·
David, my IQ is 135. Read Elie Wiesels book 'Night'
where he asks his father: "shall we stay in Auschwitz or fly for the
Russian army (and end up in Bergen Belsen) ?" Primo Levi writes about the
same choice in his book "Survival in Auschwitz." Jews have always
pressed for mass-immigration. A multi-ethnic society is very vulnerable: a few
snipers can cause a civil war. No, Condell is a moslim-basher, and probably
well funded.: See Video Description: Moslim-Bashers LINKS.
·
You seem to be conflating two questions. The
"quote" makes no grammatical sense. When you say "fly" do
you mean "flee"? When you say "for the Russian army" do you mean "from the Russian army" or
"to the Russian army"? Until you can explain in proper English I
can't answer. A multi-ethnic society is no more vulnerable to civil war than
any other. Civil wars are usually about ideology rot ethnicity. When have Jews
"pressed" for mass immigration?
·
1. Elie Wiesel as well as Primo Levie preferred to
flee- away from their liberators, togehter with their assasins, to the west, to
Bergen Belsen. You could read this yourself, if you took the trouble. 2. Recent
examples: Iraq, Libya and Syria: civil cruelty between religious groups and
ethnicities. 3. I repeat: once mass immigration was happening, jews blocked
normal discussions about it by accusing those who opposed immigration of
racism. See link: Steinlight in video description
·
Thank you for clarifying your confused position, albeit belatedly.
1) So they fled from the Russians because they preferred the freedom of the West
to Soviet tyranny? I'm not sure what you think you're proving here.
2) The civil
wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq were over ideology, not ethnicity.
3) Jews didn't block discussions on immigration. They PARTICIPATE in the
ongoing public debate. Why shouldn't they? And I have known Jews on both sides
of the debate. There is no single "Jewish" opinion.
·
Some answers. 1) Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi were prisoners in Auschwitz.
Their liberators, the Russians are coming. Yet Wiesel and Levi prefer to flee
with the terrible Germans, away from the Russians. Do we have a wrong
impression of Auschwitz?
2. Libya fights along ethnic lines: Benghazi tribes were always rebelling
against Ghadaffi. In Syria its the Sunni's who revolt, mainly. All religions
prefer more democracy, but do not revolt. In Iraq we have
the Shiites, Sunni and Kurds.
·
More clues to Hans' intelligence: The convoluted explanation of whether they
"ended up" in Bergen-Belsen or stayed there. The belief that the Jews
on Bergen-Belsen could "fly" to the west. The belief that it was the
Russians who got to Belsen (actually it was the British). The claim that the
Jews removed immigration laws. The belief that a multi-ethnic society is bad.
The belief that Pan Condell CLAIMS that multi-ethnic society is bad (he claims
no such thing).
Reply·
·
Does this guy seriously think he's not recognisable ....and I don't mean as a
general twat!
Reply·
·
This has been
flagged as spam show
Reply·
·
You are the one that have to show evidence !! YOU IDIOT.
Reply·
·
Look at the links in the corresponding blog.
·
WHAT AN IDIOT
Reply·
·
Any evidence?
·
The inability to pronounce a simple name? The belief that a handkerchief can hide ones
face? The belief that one NEEDS to hide ones face? The belief that armies were
used to keep out immigrants? The belief that mass immigration is a new
phenomenon? The failure to recognize that it was imperial expansion that
brought immigrants (from the empire and former empire) into the country?
·
David, here are the answers: I can pronounce the name,
but was very unfamiliar with it when I made the video. A handkerchief helps.
Any cover of the face helps, as most people know. As I expose the most powerful
crooks in the world, I NEED to hide my face. Armies used to keep out
immigrants? Did I say that? Yes, never so many immigrated in such short time.
In Holland the immigrants come from Morocco and Turkey, and these were never colonies of Holland.
·
Hans, PLEASE, you DON'T expose powerful crooks. You say the same thinks that loads of other people
say on the internet, all copying from each other. Armies did not keep out
immigrants. They kept out invaders (or conducted invasions themselves). Mass
Immigration is a natural process caused by many factors of which colonialism is
one. The only thing that has changed is that populations as a whole are bigger
and there is more mass transport.How did Jews make Morrocans and Turks go to
Holland?
·
