Obama and Israel

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

there you go into ethical relativity realm.

there's a concrete, usually empirical reality. deal with it.

If someone suggests some conspiracy that sounds to crazy to be true, and uses false or falsely attributed quotes to support it - it is probably false.

I had a small share of "inside" info one some events. I have also seen how stuff works inside a large system, such as the IDF. I can tell you this - most things that could be explained as a mistake/coincidence , usually are. Conspiracies on a large scale are basically scientifically impossible. That's why conspiracy theories are usually false.

Very few people are talented enough to execute conspiracies. It requires an awesome amount of coordination and a huge amount of dedication and secrecy. Things usually go bad and don't go as planned. Beyond X people, things don't coordinate, don't work as planned, and information leaks. A major scale conspiracy is simply not possible.

That said, organizations like the mossad are responsible for covert and clandistine operations. To think that you know everything they do is worse than nuts. Even to call someone nuts who believes in things that they may have done is wrong.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Never has any site except Slaughter's loony sites have suggested Israel's involvement in spying on the US or involvement in 9/11.

Although it arguably falls into the category of "loony sites," FOX NEWS covered Israeli 9/11-related espionage and reported that all evidence connecting Israelis to 9/11 was classified by the FBI.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v552406rYaXEFgw

I doubt though any of the quotes on TakeOverWorld.Info are legitimate.

Here's a site which I think even someone like yourself would find credible that has the exact same quotes:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That said, organizations like the mossad are responsible for covert and clandistine operations. To think that you know everything they do is worse than nuts. Even to call someone nuts who believes in things that they may have done is wrong.

i don't claim to know what everyone does. especially mossad. far from it.

i just have the hang of how things go, especially how decisions work in large organizations, and how things go in real-politic relations.

large scale conspiracies are impossible to fulfill without malfunction and without breaking secrecy. only conspiracies with a very small amount of participants are possible.

Israel had its government fall over the 1953 failed fiasco, and Ben Gurion was pre-occupied with its legacy till his death.

That's why false flag operations are very very rare. they are very difficult and almost impossible to keep cover. secrets blow out. and when they explode, their effects are disastrous to perpetrators.

had israel had anything to do with 9/11 the US would have got that. so would have dozens of other countries spying on Israel.

had CIA something to do with 9/11, the governments spying on the US would have got that. You'd have lots and lots of beaurocrats and operatives that would have opened their mouths.

these kinds of things are really impossible to keep a secret in modern age.

[Kidlicious]

Well you're pretty sure about what you believe. However, I think the easy thing to do is to think 9-11 would happen just as the government/s say that it did, despite the fact that agencies are operating in secrecy. I just suggest that we don't really know for sure what happened. So, whether or not Slaughtermeyer is nuts or not, I still listen to what he has to say.

[Zevico]

Isn't his name a not-so-subtle racial slur?

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Zevico
Isn't his name a not-so-subtle racial slur?

I got it from the Monty Python skit about the joke that won World War 2.


(fast forward to the 4 minute mark for the German language version of the joke).

[Zevico]

My mistake.

[Zevico]

The vid's pretty funny too.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


True. But they also had enough explosive to do great damage to my scrotum. That doesn't mean my family jewels were being targetted.

The truth is out there.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


True. But they also had enough explosive to do great damage to my scrotum. That doesn't mean my family jewels were being targetted.

With that kind of logic, I wouldn't be surprised if you conclude that the unexploded bombs which were found inside the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City had enough explosive to do great damage to your scrotum and therefore does not mean that they were intended to blow up that building.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
large scale conspiracies are impossible to fulfill without malfunction and without breaking secrecy. only conspiracies with a very small amount of participants are possible.

Israel had its government fall over the 1953 failed fiasco, and Ben Gurion was pre-occupied with its legacy till his death.

That's why false flag operations are very very rare. they are very difficult and almost impossible to keep cover. secrets blow out. and when they explode, their effects are disastrous to perpetrators.

these kinds of things are really impossible to keep a secret in modern age.

Everything you wrote can be applied to Operation Northwoods, yet nevertheless all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave their approval to that conspiracy.

And what you wrote was obviously not enough to keep Putin from going ahead with his 9/11-style conspiracy.

We'd never seen anything like 9/11. Except we had, and didn't recognize it. We needn't go back to Operation Northwoods, the Lavon Affair, or the other false flags of suppressed history. Just two summers before, nearly identical mechanisms of terror and control were deployed upon the Russian people to consolidate the transfer of power to Vladimir Putin, who was facing his first election, and to provide the pretext to invade Chechnya.

Four apartment complexes had been bombed and 300 killed. Putin promised to ‘liquidate all terrorists.’ He proclaimed Russia was facing a war between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ ‘It’s our boys,’ said Putin, fanning war fever and hysteria, ‘against terrorists’ belonging to an ‘international Islamic conspiracy.’

Residents in the city of Ryazan discovered a huge bomb in their basement and called the local police. Initially, federal authorities claimed terrorists had been thwarted, but when the perpetrators were apprehended shortly thereafter by Ryazan police, and found to be agents of Russia's security service FSB, the story changed: it was now claimed to have been an "exercise," and the sack of explosive hexogen was said to have contained nothing but "sugar." In 2002, an incurious Duma voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the bombing campaign.

The war in Chechnya is on-going. 10% of the Chechen population is dead. Thousands of Russian conscript soldiers are dead.

Disbelief, a documentary regarding the bombings and the revelation of state guilt, may be viewed here.

Not only by history's precedence, but by current events, 9/11 isn't really that extraordinary.

It's interesting to note how Western pundits who would likely dismiss as nonsense the mere suggestion of a 9/11 conspiracy have no problem at all assessing the Russian apartment bombings as state terror. David Satter, a fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute and former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London, wrote "The Shadow of Ryazan" with funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation, an abbreviated version of which was published by The National Review.

It's funny how easily the generalized dismissals of conspiracy, such as how it meets a "psychological need," or that "these kinds of things are really impossible to keep secret in a modern age," vanish into one's political blind spots. That is, to the opinion makers, conspiracy can be the most reasonable explanation of events, so long as it's over there, and it's something they do. Satter finds the FSB guilty of waging a false-flag terror campaign against the Russian people and pronounces the Putin regime illegitimate, but don't expect him to be called a loon in a tinfoil hat for it.

[Sirotnikov]

*sigh*

Operation Northwoods never occured. It was a paper that suggested lots of different ideas for consideration, and none of them was accepted. Most of them, while problematic, would not endanger US civilians.

There's a reason why nothing of this sort was performed - because it is unrealistic, and it doesn't work. And the american leadership was sensible enough to understand that.

The spectacular failure of the Lavon Affair proved it once and for all for Israel.

The Russian state is very different because Russia is not a democracy. It has not got a free press. It does not have free movement. It has a 90 year old tradition of secrecy and conspiracy, and uber-powerful, almighty state security apparatuses.

Like I said before, totalitarian regimes are able to stage conspiracy for inside consumption. This is easy, because it is a completely controlled environment. And it is very difficult for prying western eyes to get intel on the workings of inter-state conspiracies. What's more - there is little interest in it.


On the other hand - The US is not a controlled environment. New York is not a controlled environment.
You have free press, you have freedom of speech, you have national records and you have freedom of information acts.

Foreign countries are also not a controlled environment as well, which is why covert actions are usually dead simple, and require minimal amount of people.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

With that kind of logic, I wouldn't be surprised if you conclude that the unexploded bombs which were found inside the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City had enough explosive to do great damage to your scrotum and therefore does not mean that they were intended to blow up that building.

(a) the explosives were being transported; they were not -- as in your example -- already planted. This implies they were meant to go elsewhere.

(b) the explosives were only sufficient to "do great damage," not to destroy, which implies that the carriers were not intending to destroy the bridge.

Admittedly, both implications could be rebutted by additional facts....but so far, I have seen none.

[Slaughtermeyer]

The Jerusalem Post reported that "Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/jpost.html

Apparently something tipped off the authorities to suspect that the GW Bridge was the target. The van that was stopped on Route 3 had "maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." Therefore if there was a map with the World Trade Center and the bridge highlighted, it would be reasonable to conclude the bridge was targeted. Perhaps it was some other piece of evidence that led the authorities to conclude that the bridge was the target, but we can't know for sure because the FBI classified all evidence connecting Israelis to 9/11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011108025936/http://www.bergen.com/news/2bombvan200109125.htm

[Naked Gents Rut]

And here I thought we had lost Sarkozy to Obamamania...

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West.

According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html

He's exactly right.