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 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.
Your engineer story is irrelevant here. You might have an open mind while working, but a closed mind when it comes to Israel. And that’s clearly the case. One isn’t a predictor of the other. How can you tell me you’re trained to deal with evidence when you didn’t even bother to look at the document? You know, the evidence?
The evidence AKA the document you didn’t bother to look at leads us to conclude that Israel had at least some involvement. You asked how we leapt to that conclusion? It’s right there, in the document/evidence you clearly haven’t read: “we now have plenty of money - our new backers are JEWS - as soon as we, or they [meaning the Jews - their words not mine] take care of Kennedy”.
Now we can’t say to what extent Israel was involved. But we have more evidence to suggest that Israel was involved in some way, than you have evidence they weren’t involved in any way. Prior to the words “Israel” and “Israeli intelligence service” and “Jews” being redacted - at the request of the CIA no less - you could’ve said “there’s no evidence in the files linking this plot to Israel” and you would’ve been right. But now these words, which the CIA requested be redacted and hidden from the public, are now unhidden for the public, which means you cannot make the argument that Israel had no involvement. And yes, that means something. The most obvious meaning is that the CIA wanted it hidden. How do we know this? Because they hid it lol. The question is why? The second meaning is what we derive from the text, which is that Israel is now connected to this plot in some way. We don’t know the why yet or the degree. But we don’t need to know that to simply link them to the crime. We might not know their entire role regarding the crime, but we know their fingerprints are there. The documents reveal that.
This calls into question their innocence, as it would with any actual crime scene. We have evidence that suggests they are not innocent with respect to meddling in our affairs. For example, the victims of the USS Liberty claim that Israel knew they were Americans. We know Israel exerts influence over our politicians through AIPAC. There is evidence that Israeli spies have stolen classified information from the US and given it to Israel. We now have evidence that Israel is connected to the JFK assassination in some way. I am not saying they are automatically guilty. I am saying there are evidences that make them look worthy of investigating. You are saying “no it’s settled”.
As for the end state, with respect to prosecutions, I am not sure what this means. What I know is that Americans should have all the information to make up their mind as to whether Israel is “our greatest ally”. The CIA covered up the mention of Israel in the JFK files. It is not far fetched to think our government would lie to us on behalf of Israel as it relates to the USS Liberty or 9/11. Governments regularly engage in false flag attacks to sway public opinion and to carry out unlawful activities on its citizens.
But back to you. Even if you were trained to look at evidence - which is clear you’re not - you’re obviously not trained in logic. You can be biased through ignorance or volition. Whether your favourable bias toward Israel is done through ignorance or on purpose, it’s still ignorance. I didn’t claim it was either one. And it could very well be both. Did you not read the document because you’re ignorant? Maybe. Or did you not read the document because it challenges deeply held beliefs? Who knows.
No, I have an open mind on Israel, and it starts out with the assumption of innocence. If you are talking about the "document" where someone alleges (hearsay) that someone alluded to where the money was coming from, there wasn't much to read. And even less to draw from it. You don't even know if the alleged remark was at all true. Or credibly believed by the speaker. ("That's good enough for me! Let's hang 'im!"
So, according to your interpretation of "the Jews", Hyman Roth in Godfather 2 was an agent of Israel? That's about as absurd as your "connection" gets. Who are these "Jews"? Indeed, where is Israel? I have an open mind, but not so open that bats fly in and out.
The reason we can't say "to what extent Israel was involved," is because we can't even say that Israel WAS involved. All we can conclude is that the CIA wanted their interest in Israel hidden. It does not imply a "connection" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Nevertheless, in the context of a problem where a rocket motor had an ignition DELAY, I was able to figure out that the problem was igniters that were TOO FAST. Not a terribly obvious conclusion, but one based strictly on the only thing that had changed from past experience. That is logic at work in the world of nuts and bolts.
I'm pointing out your errors in logic and you look down and deny them. You slip easily into your assumptions about the extent and perfidy of Israel's "connections." You think that someone who calls out insufficient evidence is "biased." No defense attorney would every accept you on a jury.
The JFK files were some of the most closely guarded documents in the past 100 years. Now it's been released in its entirety, unredacted, implicating israel, and for you it's automatically thrown out.