Good lord, dude. Learn how to properly quote already.

Quote:In the interview one of the suspects says they were sent to America for the "purpose to document the event." Now the only way it is possible for them the document an event is for them to know ahead of time that the event was to happen.

I have yet to hear them say the first part of the quote where he says they were sent to document it. All I have heard is that their purpose was to document it. You have yet to show evidence that they were told to in advance, other than you adding onto their quote. And again I have to ask, what were Israel's top spy's doing celebrating when they should have remained covert as you seem to think?

Quote:He said the "purpose was to document the event." How can you possibly go somewhere to document an event that you are unaware is going to take place.

Again show me where the purpose was designated in advance. The quote can be interpreted to mean that what they were doing after the attack was to document the attack, not that they were sent into America by the Israeli government. Stop repeating yourself and show me where he says he was informed about the attack in advance, not a quote that can be misinterpreted, which is what I believe you have done here.

Quote:What I have listed is exactly what he said. Go back and listen for yourself. I would also urge you to do some research on your own. Even if you must use right-wing sources to uncover mainstream sources. There is a great deal of dishonesty involved in the entire scope of Israeli relations, but it is not a waste of time attempting to uncover the truth.

I did listen for myself multiple times, thanks. He says nothing about being instructed to document in advance. He says "We come from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." Nothing like "Our mission laid out in advance was to document the event." You are choosing to add on the idea that the Israeli government instructed them to go to America, watch the event, and then come back and go on talk shows and tell the world what they were doing. Show me the part where he says the part about being employed by the government.

You came on here and made a claim, apparently you think that it is my job to prove your claim correct. You are wrong; The burden of proof is on you. I have yet to see any compelling evidence for your claim that these gentlemen were involved with the 9/11 attacks other than being witnesses.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Good lord, dude. Learn how to properly quote already.

Quote:In the interview one of the suspects says they were sent to America for the "purpose to document the event." Now the only way it is possible for them the document an event is for them to know ahead of time that the event was to happen.

I have yet to hear them say the first part of the quote where he says they were sent to document it. All I have heard is that their purpose was to document it. You have yet to show evidence that they were told to in advance, other than you adding onto their quote. And again I have to ask, what were Israel's top spy's doing celebrating when they should have remained covert as you seem to think?

Quote:How could it be "their purpose was to document it" if they did not know beforehand that it was going to happen? And, I added nothing to their quote. Everything I entered into quotation marks is on the tape. And what makes you think they had to be top spies?


He said the "purpose was to document the event." How can you possibly go somewhere to document an event that you are unaware is going to take place.

Again show me where the purpose was designated in advance. The quote can be interpreted to mean that what they were doing after the attack was to document the attack, not that they were sent into America by the Israeli government. Stop repeating yourself and show me where he says he was informed about the attack in advance, not a quote that can be misinterpreted, which is what I believe you have done here.

Quote:I think that is a reach. Measure the comment with the fact that they were "happy" the attack occurred as witnessed by the lady. Then recognize the company they were supposed to be working for shut down immediately after their arrests. It may not be conclusive, but it certainly is very suspicious. Plus, there is many more references to the incident on the web. Look them up yourself.

What I have listed is exactly what he said. Go back and listen for yourself. I would also urge you to do some research on your own. Even if you must use right-wing sources to uncover mainstream sources. There is a great deal of dishonesty involved in the entire scope of Israeli relations, but it is not a waste of time attempting to uncover the truth.

I did listen for myself multiple times, thanks. He says nothing about being instructed to document in advance. He says "We come from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." Nothing like "Our mission laid out in advance was to document the event." You are choosing to add on the idea that the Israeli government instructed them to go to America, watch the event, and then come back and go on talk shows and tell the world what they were doing. Show me the part where he says the part about being employed by the government.

You came on here and made a claim, apparently you think that it is my job to prove your claim correct. You are wrong; The burden of proof is on you. I have yet to see any compelling evidence for your claim that these gentlemen were involved with the 9/11 attacks other than being witnesses.

I have no interest in you proving what I say is accurate. I listed several incidents ( a very small portion of evil events) to offer proof that Israel has been involved in many more evil acts than the attack on the Liberty. You asked for links to the Corrie murder and the WTC spy incident. I provided a couple of links. You refuse to follow the links, or nay other, to their conclusions. Fine. That's your perogative.

I did not ask for the Corrie links that was someone else.

I did watch your video multiple times and I found it to be very suspicious in the manner presented. Things were left out and you continue to assume things which are not in evidence. Because I point that out to you, you think that I'm in some sort of denial. I'm in denial because I want to see some evidence for the claims that they knew about 9/11 in advance, and for the claims that they worked for Israeli Intelligence? What a terrible denialist life I must live! Why won't I just jump to conclusions?

I've done some research because you refuse to do it and this is what I found.

Quote:Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

As to what they were doing on the van, they say they read about the attack on the Internet, couldn't see it from their offices and went to the parking lot for a better view. But no one has been able to find a good explanation for why they may have been smiling with the towers of the World Trade Center burning in the background. Both the lawyers for the young men and the Israeli Embassy chalk it up to immature conduct.

Sounds to me that they were taking pictures of the event, just like everybody else with a camera on that day. Taking pictures of a crime does not make someone an accomplice. Otherwise there should be a lot of arrest warrants out for co-conspirators. One witness thought what they were doing was suspicious, reported them, and the police followed up on the lead. After a thorough investigation they couldn't tie these guys to any wrong doing.

Also, you should check out this video which replays your video (with one scene that was edited out that is more explicit about what people saw, apparently they want you to think that these guys were dancing, now they are just smiling. If these guys were so guilty why exaggerate?). They make the same criticisms that I make, jumping to conclusions is dangerous. Interestingly, the video that you posted is a recut of this movie, but it is cut in a manor that seems to imply that the narrator is advocating the position that Israeli is involved. That's quite dishonest on the recutter's part.

And since you refuse to answer my questions about how you know that these guys knew about the attacks in advance, I'm guessing that you admit you don't know that and you are just assuming it.

Looking at this page one would gather that when the Israeli's were stopped the van was packed with explosives.

Quote:It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14).

If you click on the 14 you are led to a link to a story published on the day they were arrested and the news was breaking. If you go and look at the related stories, 7 minutes later there is a story retracting the bit about explosives being found.

Quote:NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike.

However officials denied any explosives were found in the van.

Officials declined to say why exactly the men had been arrested.

How can I take seriously a website that so obviously cherry picks their sources and data to support their position? A position that has been debunked by the FBI.

So riddle me this, why is whatreallyhappened.com leaving out some key evidence? If they were being honest they would have addressed the issue of why the explosive story was retracted, but they just move on letting you continue to believe that the Israeli's had explosives in their van. They are, flat out, lying to the reader.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I did not ask for the Corrie links that was someone else.

I did watch your video multiple times and I found it to be very suspicious in the manner presented. Things were left out and you continue to assume things which are not in evidence. Because I point that out to you, you think that I'm in some sort of denial. I'm in denial because I want to see some evidence for the claims that they knew about 9/11 in advance, and for the claims that they worked for Israeli Intelligence? What a terrible denialist life I must live! Why won't I just jump to conclusions?

I've done some research because you refuse to do it and this is what I found.

Quote:Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

As to what they were doing on the van, they say they read about the attack on the Internet, couldn't see it from their offices and went to the parking lot for a better view. But no one has been able to find a good explanation for why they may have been smiling with the towers of the World Trade Center burning in the background. Both the lawyers for the young men and the Israeli Embassy chalk it up to immature conduct.

Sounds to me that they were taking pictures of the event, just like everybody else with a camera on that day. Taking pictures of a crime does not make someone an accomplice. Otherwise there should be a lot of arrest warrants out for co-conspirators. One witness thought what they were doing was suspicious, reported them, and the police followed up on the lead. After a thorough investigation they couldn't tie these guys to any wrong doing.

Also, you should check out this video which replays your video (with one scene that was edited out that is more explicit about what people saw, apparently they want you to think that these guys were dancing, now they are just smiling. If these guys were so guilty why exaggerate?). They make the same criticisms that I make, jumping to conclusions is dangerous. Interestingly, the video that you posted is a recut of this movie, but it is cut in a manor that seems to imply that the narrator is advocating the position that Israeli is involved. That's quite dishonest on the recutter's part.

And since you refuse to answer my questions about how you know that these guys knew about the attacks in advance, I'm guessing that you admit you don't know that and you are just assuming it.

Looking at this page one would gather that when the Israeli's were stopped the van was packed with explosives.

Quote:It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14).

If you click on the 14 you are led to a link to a story published on the day they were arrested and the news was breaking. If you go and look at the related stories, 7 minutes later there is a story retracting the bit about explosives being found.

Quote:NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike.

However officials denied any explosives were found in the van.

Officials declined to say why exactly the men had been arrested.

How can I take seriously a website that so obviously cherry picks their sources and data to support their position? A position that has been debunked by the FBI.

So riddle me this, why is whatreallyhappened.com leaving out some key evidence? If they were being honest they would have addressed the issue of why the explosive story was retracted, but they just move on letting you continue to believe that the Israeli's had explosives in their van. They are, flat out, lying to the reader.

You apparently missed some of the info on the two men arrested in the truck with explosives. Follow that video link associated with footnote 14. It refers to the tv release by Dan Rather. Nothing for whatreallyhappened.com to explain. And the reference by the one witness to the smiling Israelis does not refute the other witness. The Israelis could have been celebrating when witnessed by the woman and simply smiling (quite odd under the circumstances) when observed by the man.

You may also want to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

I was really looking forward to your response. After taking over a week to respond, I expected lots of documentation to refute my last post. Looks like I'm gonna be disappointed.

Observer Wrote:You apparently missed some of the info on the two men arrested in the truck with explosives. Follow that video link associated with footnote 14. It refers to the tv release by Dan Rather. Nothing for whatreallyhappened.com to explain.

So, your answer to my accusations against the whatreallyhappened website that they are selecting only evidence that supports their position is to point me to another link on their website? That is not a strong argument.

[edit]Here's a Link that says Rather later backed off on his reported story. You're "evidence" further crumbles.[/edit]

Quote:And the reference by the one witness to the smiling Israelis does not refute the other witness. The Israelis could have been celebrating when witnessed by the woman and simply smiling (quite odd under the circumstances) when observed by the man.

Your case has been reduced to "these guys were smiling, and possibly looking like they were celebrating, how odd, they must have been in on the attacks." I've already addressed the point that these guys' actions may have been misinterpreted. Their dress had them misinterpreted as Muslims, why not their reactions? I'll tell you why, because that doesn't fit in with your conclusions.

Quote:You may also want to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

Wow, the popups on that video are horribly obnoxious.

OK, so Saddam was an early target of the administration. That's not news. You do realize that Iraq was violating the treaty for the 10 years up to that point?

Also, Bush went back on some of his campaign promises, OMFG! Who knew that there was such a vile politician!

And then... A Ron Paul ad! What!? I thought this was going to be about how the Jews planned 9/11. You sure got me... What a waste of the last 7 minutes. In the future, please don't waste my time by completely changing the topic.

Observer,

I found the perfect politician for you, former US Senator and Democrat from South Dakota....on Hezzbollah's propaganda outlet in Syria a few days ago.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?...V#comments


what exactly do you have to do these day's to be prosecuted for Treason?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I was really looking forward to your response. After taking over a week to respond, I expected lots of documentation to refute my last post. Looks like I'm gonna be disappointed.

As if you would not claim to be disappointed regardless of what evidence I offered. You would resort to your spin and minimalization. But I didn't respond earlier because I did not have time. You and I both know there were reams of media blurbs on the issue of the Israelis. Much of which disappeared soon after reporting. Don't expect me to do a thesis level research to support what is already known. I simply do not have time.

Observer Wrote:You apparently missed some of the info on the two men arrested in the truck with explosives. Follow that video link associated with footnote 14. It refers to the tv release by Dan Rather. Nothing for whatreallyhappened.com to explain.

So, your answer to my accusations against the whatreallyhappened website that they are selecting only evidence that supports their position is to point me to another link on their website? That is not a strong argument.

No. That reference was in the link you sent to me. I offered it to show you that it was one of your acceptble sources making claims you were accusing of others.

[edit]Here's a Link that says Rather later backed off on his reported story. You're "evidence" further crumbles.[/edit]

So what?

Quote:And the reference by the one witness to the smiling Israelis does not refute the other witness. The Israelis could have been celebrating when witnessed by the woman and simply smiling (quite odd under the circumstances) when observed by the man.

Your case has been reduced to "these guys were smiling, and possibly looking like they were celebrating, how odd, they must have been in on the attacks." I've already addressed the point that these guys' actions may have been misinterpreted. Their dress had them misinterpreted as Muslims, why not their reactions? I'll tell you why, because that doesn't fit in with your conclusions.

Weak attempt to minimalize. Two seperate reports observing Israelis at differet moments. There was no mention of their dress. And if their actions led to them being misinterperted as Muslims, could that not be a result of the media bombardment describing the perps as Muslim? There were many other witness reports. You can look them up yourself.

Quote:You may also want to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

Wow, the popups on that video are horribly obnoxious.

OK, so Saddam was an early target of the administration. That's not news. You do realize that Iraq was violating the treaty for the 10 years up to that point?

Oh, that's important.


Also, Bush went back on some of his campaign promises, OMFG! Who knew that there was such a vile politician!

So you don't see a problem with him lying to gain votes?

And then... A Ron Paul ad! What!? I thought this was going to be about how the Jews planned 9/11. You sure got me... What a waste of the last 7 minutes. In the future, please don't waste my time by completely changing the topic.

What a crock. You and I both know the info I was relaying was contained in the same vedio tailed by the Ron Paul ad. So, now you want to discard any other reference because you see Ron Paul's name at the end? How absurd.

Observer Wrote:What a crock. You and I both know the info I was relaying was contained in the same vedio tailed by the Ron Paul ad. So, now you want to discard any other reference because you see Ron Paul's name at the end? How absurd.

Have you lost your mind? What the hell did that video have to do with your original statement of "Middle Easterners hate us because of Israel"? and that "Jews are Evil"? This video was solely about GWB, his supposed pre-9/11 agenda for Iraq, and how Ron Paul would change all of that. It is no wonder you are so racist, you can't even decipher a message when it is clearly laid out for you.

What info did you want me to see? I watched the whole thing, and I failed to see anything related to the celebrating Jews on 9/11 which is what this whole conversation was about. Maybe you can point to the exact time where whatever point you thought that video was making about the 9/11 dancing Jews. Obviously I don't have a clue what specific information you wanted me to see in that video. Reading my post, I addressed everything in the video (Iraq as a target pre-9/11, Bush lying during his campaign, and the Ron Paul ad). So don't claim that I discounted the video only because of the Ron Paul ad, clearly I did not.

Unless your intent is to change the subject to how Bush's invasion of Iraq was planned since day one. If you want to do that, let me recommend starting a new thread, or better yet digging up an old one where that has been discussed before.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:What info did you want me to see? I watched the whole thing, and I failed to see anything related to the celebrating Jews on 9/11 which is what this whole conversation was about. Maybe you can point to the exact time where whatever point you thought that video was making about the 9/11 dancing Jews. Obviously I don't have a clue what specific information you wanted me to see in that video. Reading my post, I addressed everything in the video (Iraq as a target pre-9/11, Bush lying during his campaign, and the Ron Paul ad). So don't claim that I discounted the video only because of the Ron Paul ad, clearly I did not.

Unless your intent is to change the subject to how Bush's invasion of Iraq was planned since day one. If you want to do that, let me recommend starting a new thread, or better yet digging up an old one where that has been discussed before.

You presented the video on the link you provided. I pointed out that you misrepresented what was contained.

The thread was not about celebrating Israelis. It was about why others hate us. Another referece to that point;
http://www.rense.com/general78/api.htm

And more;

dallasnews.com.

Story: Ex-U.S. diplomat testifies on behalf of Holy Land

Jewish Atrocities Revealed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ex-U.S. diplomat testifies on behalf of Holy Land

03:03 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 4, 2007

By JASON TRAHAN / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

A former U.S. diplomat described the effects of the harsh Israeli military rule on the Palestinian people as he testified Tuesday as the defense's first witness in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a former Richardson charity accused of supporting terrorists.

Edward Abington, a retired U.S. consul general in Jerusalem who is a former advisor for the Palestinian Authority, described how the Israelis bulldoze Palestinian homes with little or no notice, usually claiming they were a security risk. He testified that the Israelis also forced Palestinians to endure hundreds of military checkpoints, making the transporting of goods to market difficult.

"The net effect has been to severely damage the Palestinian economy." Mr. Abington testified.

Of the 3.5 million Palestinians packed into a space the size of Rhode Island, up to one quarter are without sufficient food, he testified.

He described the charity committees that Holy Land Foundation is accused of illegally sending money to as staffed by "pious Muslims."

He said that they gather religious contributions, or zakat, and help the needy in various ways, including "buying a cow, setting up a small business, or giving money so that people can buy food."

The government contends that these charity committees are staffed by Hamas activists, and that the Holy Land's financial support amounts to encouraging terrorist activities. Israeli government agents testified that they found Hamas posters and keychains praising suicide bombers inside the committees' offices.

The government finished presenting its case against the Holy Land Foundation and five of its organizers last week.

Relying on six weeks of testimony and hundreds of pieces of evidence, prosecutors hope to convince the jury that the defendants were sympathetic to the militant Hamas movement, which calls for the destruction of the state of Israel through suicide bombings.

To convict, jurors will also have to believe that the defendants sent money to the region knowing that it would benefit Hamas, which the U.S. has classified as a terrorist group since 1995.

Before Holy Land, once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., was shut down by U.S. government regulators in 2001, it had sent more than $12 million to the Palestinans through zakat committees.

The defense case was expected to last several weeks and several witnesses were expected to testify about the moderate views of the Holy Land's organizers and the need for their assistance overseas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo126.html

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...2392.shtml

Observer Wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM

Wow, a drunk raving lunatic who happens to be Jewish. Definitely the proof I was looking for.

Psst....Jews don't think Jesus was anything more than a man, hence killing him wouldn't be a big deal.

In case you forgot, I have reprinted your premise for the entire thread below....


Q: Want to know why most in the middle east hate us?

A: U.S. finalizes deal on unprecedented military aid to Israel

None of the above support your original statement....

1. Drunk Jew claiming "they" killed Jesus.

2. Muslims don't like U.S. because of involvement in Middle East. Although the article quickly dissolves into a Ron Paul-esque rant on Neocon bashing.

3. America hates Muslims.

All of the above do not support your original statement.

Why not just re-title the thread to "I hate Jews" and then you can really go where you want.

Observer Wrote:You presented the video on the link you provided. I pointed out that you misrepresented what was contained.

No, actually that was me showing you that the video that you presented was just a re-edit of another video spun in a manner that would make the original video look like it supported your premise.

Quote:The thread was not about celebrating Israelis. It was about why others hate us. Another referece to that point;
http://www.rense.com/general78/api.htm

I was responding to your claims that the dancing Jews were in on the attack. I think I have sufficiently shown that anyone who believes that is assuming the conclusion. There is no hard evidence that these Israelis were anything but in the wrong place at the wrong time. After an intense investigation they were released. If you want to continue to believe that they had anything at all to do with 9/11, then you have to take the next step and admit that the FBI and the US government were also in on it. I have yet to hear you admit that you believe that. If you can't admit that, then you have to admit that whatever conspiracy theory website you got your information from is misleading you by presenting only the evidence that supports their claims.

As for your new video, what were the drunk Israelis in the video responding to? I'd be interested in seeing the uncut version. I guess your theory is now "Drunk Israelis danced as they flew their remote controlled airplanes into the World Trade Center and fired missiles from their white van into the Pentagon?"

As for the other two articles, you don't have to convince me that some conservatives and some extremists among the religious are dangerous. I don't like the fact that our civil liberties are being stepped on in this country, and I know that there are religious nuts in every religion and sect in this world. Currently, Islam is the largest threat among the religious. But you continue to ignore the fact that you are being misled by another form of extremist, the conspiracy theorist.

You post snippets of videos edited down to only the parts that support your views, you post articles that leave out crucial details that would negate the thesis, and you ignore the evidence when it is presented to you. I suggest that you read your nom de plume and start observing reality for a change.