I saw it on Redacted earlier today, if that helps. But no individual video that I’ve come across
And how do you know?
If this is anything like operation warp speed, no thanks
Lmao yeah thanks. How about that space phone call on a land line with no lag lmao shit is crazy
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.
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?
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.
Lmao no shot the moon landings were real as shown.
Governments addressed the safety of the vaccine many times. You just didn’t like what they said.
You’re poor at logic, which is what I was pointing out. “The government addressed it so it’s settled”. But clearly you don’t feel that way for all issues.
Governments worldwide addressed the vaccine. It was good and necessary. You agree, right?
Oh shit I never thought of that
Oh I’m a big shot if I think Trump’s own appointments stifled his first term? Lmao
I also think that Trump thinking the vaccine was the greatest invention ever made didn’t help him either. Does that make me a big shot too?
I do, but I’m not under an illusion that Trump is the president of peace as though he’s not a president of war.
Lmao I’m saying Trump was the one who molotoved his first term with his dog shit appointments
You really think Pam Bondi is going to arrest Trump?
The Israelis need their blood
Peace through war* lol so not peace
Is this all it takes to trick people into thinking someone is America first?
Wow this University is really out of hand
They (govt) use to have one. They stopped updating it I think
War with Iran. You can’t have someone opposing war with Iran (massie) or opppos spending $ in Gaza while in govt or students protesting Israel on campus when they cleanse all of the Palestinians
But only if he doesn’t protest Israel
But the video demonstrates that conservatives affiliated with The Wellness Company could be controlled opposition.
Did you watch it?
Lots of people here do (or did) though because of the Q drop “AJ is Mossad”
This cycle can only occur a limited number of times though, since white liberal women create more immigration, which eventually produces just liberal women