Interesting..."we now have plenty of money - our new backers are Jews - as soon as 'we' (or 'they) take care of Kennedy
(media.greatawakening.win)
🇮🇱 ISRAEL F✡R LAST 🕎
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (121)
sorted by:
The government lied about essential information during the Covid fiasco. That's not "addressing" anything.
Whatever dispute might have been between the U.S. and Israel was settled between them. There was no state of war. The evidence is that the U.S. was complicit. This is old news for me; I read an analysis article on this, decades ago, in the Journal of the Naval Institute. No one has explained a reasonable rationale for making old news a cause celebre. Other than holding a grudge against certain people.
In the same way, Israel lied about their “mistake” and the US government lied about being complicit. In your own words, that’s not really addressing or settling anything, is it?
In both scenarios, you have people who want investigations into the truth - not the official “truth” from the government - and justice. You want to frame this as anti-Semitic just like liberals framed us questioning the vaccine as “anti-Science”.
What can’t you understand about making old news controversial again?? Hello, we’re looking at the NEWLY released un-redacted JFK files showing the connection to ISRAEL. The CIA literally redacted Israel from the public. Shouldn’t we be looking at the thing they tried to cover up?? Lmao. In doing so, it behooves us to re-examine whether they are our “greatest ally”. I just gave you a perfectly reasonable reason why we’re making “old news” controversial again.
It’s like if you found out your wife has been lying to you for years and cheated on you a second time. You’re going to question “well I thought you said you ended it with so-and-so” and she’s going to pull the “that’s just old news, I don’t know why we have to make old news a cause for celebre“. And then you give some reasons why it’s perfectly reasonable to question that first “mistake” and she’s like “seems like you’re just judging me because I’m Jewish”. That’s you right now. You’re the wife.
Americans want the truth about the relationship between Israel and America, NOT the official “settled” narrative.
When the conversation opens with "the Jews," then, yes, it is anti-Semitic If the subject is re-opened to investigate the perfidy of the U.S. side, then we might learn something. It inspires the thought that someone on the U.S. side wanted an incident that could be used against Israel. But, for some reason, it didn't work. It might have to do with the fact that the LIberty was not sunk and there were a plentiful number of living witnesses. Better to hush it up.
I haven't seen any JFK connection to Israel emerging from the material, but kindly inform me what it would be. Is it more reasonable for the CIA to obscure a connection that would reveal what IT was up to? You are walking into this with a foregone conclusion.
And if it turns out that Israel is innocent of all the things you imagine, you would swallow nicely and let it go? I do not for a moment think that your side is coming from a viewpoint of objective curiosity.
The jews own the American government, and most governments around the world. Why do you think North Korea and Iran are our "enemies?" They don't have a globalist central bank. Who owns the central bank?
Well, you start out assuming what you need to prove. Why bother asking me questions, when you already know the answers?
The conversation didn’t open with “the Jews”. The guy you replied to opened with “our greatest ally” and never once said “the Jews”. Your bias is the one being shown, clearly. You’re either purposely conflating the words or you actually believe that the word “Israel” = Jew. In either case, you’re using a logical fallacy in an attempt to make a stronger argument. If you don’t wittingly or unwittingly interpret “Israel” or “our greatest ally” as Jew, then you can’t make the anti-Semitic argument. It’s not racist to criticize or question a country, and you know this. Otherwise criticizing China is racist, criticizing Ukraine is racist, criticizing Canada is racist. And that’s just absurd liberal reasoning.
And if you’re referring to the title of this post when you type the conversation opened with “the Jews”, it’s a word for word copy of the document. The document is using the word “Jews”, not OP.
And that’s the connection I am referring to. Previously redacted material is now unredacted, and it appears that Israel and Israeli intelligence service were terms that were heavily redacted. The CIA printed on the documents “CIA has no objection to declassification and/or release of CIA information in this document. Except brackets” the words in brackets? Israel and the Israeli intelligence service. They literally covered it up. The question is why? All I know is that it was previously redacted and now it isn’t and we deserve to know why. You’re basically looking at that and saying, “nothing to see here” because you have a clear bias favouring Israel. You need to stop pretending that you have an objective view point.
You are the one walking into this with a foregone conclusion, brother. You are concluding, incorrectly, that me and the person you’re replying to are anti-Semitic which is why we’re criticizing Israel. It’s why you interpreted the words “the Jews” where there were no such words.
You are also coming to the conclusion that people who are critical of Israel would be incapable of changing their view point if Israel is innocent of all the things we imagine. That means we need to be able to have the freedom to examine whether Israel is in fact innocent, but you are the one shutting down that conversation as anti-Semitic. On one hand you say “would you change your view if you were wrong” while on the other hand saying “you can’t actually look into the matter to determine if you were wrong because it’s anti-Semitic to do so”.
Further to my point, many survivors of the USS Liberty are actually calling for an investigation into whether Israel really knew whether they were American. That is a current thing happening today. They - the actual victims - believe Israel knew as did the US government and it’s being covered up. But here you are saying “nope it’s been settled”. It clearly hasn’t. This is the same as a someone being injured from the COVID vaccine and saying “hey we need to investigate this” and liberals saying “no it’s been settled, the government said vaccines are safe”. You’re literally using liberal arguments - “it’s been settled”.
If it comes out that Epstein and Maxwell are NOT connected to Israeli intelligence but say instead Chinese intelligence then I have no problem believing otherwise. If it comes out they ARE connected to Israeli intelligence, will you acknowledge that Israel was operating against the US?
The OP picked the headline, regardless of what he picked. That sets the stage. Interesting that you wait this long before walking that back. Of course the original quotation could have referred to people unaffiliated with the Israeli government. (Remember, the whole plot of "Godfather 2" hinged on Hyman Roth's revenge for the murder of Moe Green. Plenty of "those people" in the world of crime and assassination, having nothing to do with the Israeli government.) So, why do you leap to the conclusion that the Israeli government was involved?
Something was redacted and now it isn't, and you think that means something? I hadn't seen it; this is news to me. Thanks for awarding me bias rather than ignorance. Why was it redacted? That's a new question, and you don't have an answer for it.
You fail to listen to yourself. "We need to be able to have the freedom to examine whether Israel is in fact innocent." Innocent of what? The usual standard of legal probity is to assume innocence unless proven otherwise. You seem to be inverting that, to assume guilt unless proven innocent. I'm just watching your method.
If there is new information about the LIberty, such as the U.S. GOVERNMENT directing them into harm's way, I'm fine with reopening the case. Otherwise, how does this get "settled", if not with an agreement between the governments? Or criminal charges against those in the Navy who gave the directions? You tell me what that end state is and how we get there. What I see is mostly a desire to continue a grudge based on prejudice, with no resolution in mind.
Of course if it comes out that Epstein and Maxwell were WORKING for Israeli intelligence, then they share culpability for their crimes. But you use the weasel-word "connected." As meaning what? They have Israeli pen-pals? Or what?
See, here's the thing. I"m trained as an engineer to go with the actual evidence, not the popular suspicion. Once upon a time, we were faced with a rocket motor test that failed from a sustainer motor ignition delay that was too long. Big problem, as we were in the middle of production. The propulsion staff was working up a lather about the strength of the weather seal that had prematurely separated, all going down that road. But the thing that was different about that test was the installation of sustainer igniters that were measured to have about half the burn time as usual. It reminded me of the rapid pressurization of a Ludwieg tube, where a shock wave is formed...and bounces off the end. In the bounce, the pressure ratio is squared. So, the fast-acting sustainer igniter could have created a stronger shock wave down the tube to reflect with an overpressure that would pop the weather seal, and depressurize the sustainer, causing an ignition delay. I managed to get the attention of a senior engineer to explain my theory and he took it seriously. A senior expert was tasked with running a gasdynamics computation to see if it could happen. Yep, it could. Then management went to the trouble of instrumenting a test motor to capture the predicted pressure pulse. We fired the motor---and found the pulse. The problem had nothing to do with the seal. It was a problem with allowing too lose a specification on the igniter performance. So, it wasn't what everyone was looking for at the outset. Because I kept my eyes and mind open.