Jewish protest

[jigaro]

Originally Posted by Dannyell

hmm tell me m8...whats is the point of flying a jet into a most likely evacuated white house...because I am pretty sure it's not to kill as many civilians as possible...

Well probably ther is a point, since the White House is a symbol of America, and It's the most popular and most politicized nuilding on the planet, it's not so much the demage that would be done, its more of a statement for terrorists i guess

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by jigaro

Well probably ther is a point, since the White House is a symbol of America, and It's the most popular and most politicized nuilding on the planet, it's not so much the demage that would be done, its more of a statement for terrorists i guess

Exactly. The 9/11 attacks were of the same variety. In the case of the WTC towers, the planes hit the towers prior to 9am when most people were not yet at work. A total of about 2500 people were killed in the WTC. If the planes had hit one hour later, that figure would have easily been 10 times as large. And in the case of the Pentagon, the planes targeted the one small area of the Pentagon that was closed for renovation, and thus fewer than 100 people in the Pentagon were killed. If the plane had hit any other spot in the Pentagon, the casualties would have numbered in the thousands. Whoever was directing the 9/11 attack was clearly trying to minimize casualties while making a statement. The purpose of a terrorist attack is to "terrorize" the people, not to kill them. 9/11 clearly succeeded in doing that.

Now ask yourself "who benefits from a terrorized American population?". And what actions are the direct results of the 9/11 attacks, and who benefits from those actions? Answer those questions and you have solved the case.

[jigaro]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Exactly. The 9/11 attacks were of the same variety. In the case of the WTC towers, the planes hit the towers prior to 9am when most people were not yet at work. A total of about 2500 people were killed in the WTC. If the planes had hit one hour later, that figure would have easily been 10 times as large. And in the case of the Pentagon, the planes targeted the one small area of the Pentagon that was closed for renovation, and thus fewer than 100 people in the Pentagon were killed. If the plane had hit any other spot in the Pentagon, the casualties would have numbered in the thousands. Whoever was directing the 9/11 attack was clearly trying to minimize casualties while making a statement. The purpose of a terrorist attack is to "terrorize" the people, not to kill them. 9/11 clearly succeeded in doing that.

Now ask yourself "who benefits from a terrorized American population?". And what actions are the direct results of the 9/11 attacks, and who benefits from those actions? Answer those questions and you have solved the case.

I exactly know what you are hinting at, and let me tell you, there are lot of people who believe in this theory.

However i'am not goint to say this or that, i think it's kind of strange that the plane in Pennsylvania ended up like it did.
Clearly when Boeing 737 crashes, it does not become ashes, instead there is a lot of wreckage involved, at least thats the case in houndreds of commercial plane disasters, but for some add readon, this particular plane was nothing but ashes, so this bring us to a though.
What if it was shutdown?
Well we should ask the following questions.
1. If it was planned by the authorities why would they shut down the plane that was planned to terorrize people? Maybe they did not have enough cohones to crash the plane in to the white house? and that would just have been ridicilous?
2. If it was in fact hijecked and then SHUT DOWN BY THE UNITED STATES JETS, F16'S AND SUCH, WHY WAS IT HIDDEN FROM THE PEOPLE AND WHY WAS NOT THE TRUTH TOLLED?
So there are lot of things that don't go with each other.
I have a very brief opinion about this but i would like to keep ot to myself at this moment, thank you very much

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by jigaro

I exactly know what you are hinting at, and let me tell you, there are lot of people who believe in this theory.

However i'am not goint to say this or that, i think it's kind of strange that the plane in Pennsylvania ended up like it did.
Clearly when Boeing 737 crashes, it does not become ashes, instead there is a lot of wreckage involved, at least thats the case in houndreds of commercial plane disasters, but for some add readon, this particular plane was nothing but ashes, so this bring us to a though.
What if it was shutdown?
Well we should ask the following questions.
1. If it was planned by the authorities why would they shut down the plane that was planned to terorrize people? Maybe they did not have enough cohones to crash the plane in to the white house? and that would just have been ridicilous?
2. If it was in fact hijecked and then SHUT DOWN BY THE UNITED STATES JETS, F16'S AND SUCH, WHY WAS IT HIDDEN FROM THE PEOPLE AND WHY WAS NOT THE TRUTH TOLLED?
So there are lot of things that don't go with each other.
I have a very brief opinion about this but i would like to keep ot to myself at this moment, thank you very much

There were two purposes to the official cover story. Purpose #1 was obviously to get support for an invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban.

Purpose #2 was to make sure that the 9/11 attacks never see the inside of a public courtroom EVER in any respect. No public trials for anyone involved, and NO LAWSUITS. So there could be no admission to any wrongdoing by anyone at the airlines or the government.

So to protect the airlines, there could not have been any banned weapons brought aboard the flights. Box cutters were not a banned item. So thus, the terrorists must have used boxcutters. Nevermind that the FAA's official transcript of communication with the flights has discussion of guns and bombs. The terrorists used boxcutters, end of story!

To protect the government, the planes all crashed. No planes were shot down. If a plane is shot down and innocent civilians are killed, there can be lawsuits against the Air Force or Pentagon. But the plane crashed, so nobody is at fault except those hijackers who are all now dead.

And just to further make sure that nobody sues, the government offers money to all the family members of victims. In order to get this money, you have to sign a waver that you will never sue any parties for anything related to the attacks, including both the airlines and the government. As the amounts of money paid out were rather large, over a million dollars per family average, the large majority of families took the money and signed the waver.

[B-Line]

How about this.. How about both of you stop disgracing the memory of lost Americans and the worst tragedy in the history of the United States by furthering this asinine conversation.

You should both be ashamed of yourselves... and your collective stupidity just goes to show that two half a brains doesn't equal one brain..

I'd appreciate it if you would please take your "THE US GOV'T planned and executed 9/11" bullshit and continue it in private. But dropping it into a thread regarding Israel and Palestine is even more offensive.

[jigaro]

Originally Posted by B-Line

How about this.. How about both of you stop disgracing the memory of lost Americans and the worst tragedy in the history of the United States by furthering this asinine conversation.

You should both be ashamed of yourselves... and your collective stupidity just goes to show that two half a brains doesn't equal one brain..

I'd appreciate it if you would please take your "THE US GOV'T planned and executed 9/11" bullshit and continue it in private. But dropping it into a thread regarding Israel and Palestine is even more offensive.

So let me guess, just because i'am doing something you do not aprove off, if you where a U.S. Government and me some other small country, you would attack me? Just for having a different thought, thats exactly my point.
Thats how simple this shit is when it happens, by the way, ask for half brained people amongst you.

[StanF18]

Originally Posted by B-Line

Eric always loves to bring up videos, news clips, etc. of Hasidic, Anti-Israeli protestors.

They have biblical reasons for not wanting to accept Israel as a state. Has something to do with Israel being granted to the Jews at the end of the world vs. the United Nations doing it..

It's a complicated issue for the ultra religious..

Eric,

Maybe the newbies don't realize this tactic that you try to use to attack the position of Israel, but I've been here long enough to know you were going to bring it up sooner or later.. That's a low blow. You want me to find videos of Muslims suggesting that Israel should be left alone, in peace, etc.. Cause I can if you really want me to. YOu know that argument doesn't hold water.. Those Hassidic are devout in their own right.

Pretty sad when one of "our own" (i.e. Eric) goes out on a limb to foster dis-unity and attack the right of Israel to exist or to defend herself. But then again, every family has its proverbial black sheep. The good news is that the overwhelming majority of Jews know better. They have a deep appreciation for the importance of a state which was not an option back when their parents and grandparents were sent to the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Treblinka.

[sleepless]

As Rodney King would say "can't we all just get along" ? ........

[jigaro]

Originally Posted by sleepless

As Rodney King would say "can't we all just get along" ? ........

Oh my god, i don't know if we all can just get along, but who is that on your avator?
Don't do that man, hot hot hot

[Eric5273]

Whether or not you agree with him, a lot of information is in here that you may or may not know....

An Unnecessary War
Thursday 08 January 2009
by Jimmy Carter, Washington Post

I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.


Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.
The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.