-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Pamela Olson
- Eleanor Kilroy
- Alex Kane
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Blurring the distinction between allegations and facts is how we wound up in the Iraq quagmire and various other misguided adventures, the vast majority of the population having believed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and the like. Another dangerous distinction to ignore is that between nuclear capability and nuclear weapons capability: Iran has unabashedly been developing the former, but only allegedly have they ever worked on the latter.
Google only filters out words like naked if you have your safe search setting on strict.
Reminiscent of what Netanyahu said here:
Perhaps you are being facetious here, but the photo Shmuel linked isn't actually from Ynet. He was joking.
Google didn't turn up anything else on the topic from the named author, Rafael Castro. Put me down for Onion.
That's basically my point. The war profiteering faction of our corporate establishment has always been happy for conflict wherever they can find it, and the rest of the people with the money/power to actually intercede aren't bothered enough to do so. Take the Israel lobby out of the picture and our war machine might still be more focused on South America or South East Asia rather than the Middle East, but it would still be getting it's war on all the same. While I disagree with Chomsky in many regards, he is right about this.
Strawman much? I didn't claim "agitating for", "quietly going along with" is a more fitting characterization.
No, not a "hardon for", but I've yet to see any opposition to it from the corporations you mention, and I certainly don't expect to see any from corporations like Boeing, Mcdonnell Douglas, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
Sure, but the American cooperate establishment doesn't, and their the ones with all the money/power, and most of them aren't Jewish.
Some of the Talmud is considered to be revelation, the Mishnah sections, while the Gemarah is comparable to Muslim legal opinions. See The Oral Law over at Chabad's website for more details. But yeah, there is a lot of selective quoting of Talmud and outright fabrications used to bash Jews, and comparable misrepresentations of Qur'an and Hadith used to bash Muslims. Granted, such texts have their share of things that many will find distasteful even when understood in context, but apparently bigots can't help but embellish when demonizing their targets.
I've long been baffled by the many people who are committed to exposing how flagrantly dishonest our establishment's position on Israel and Palestine is, yet treat things like our establishment's position on 9/11 as if it were sacrosanct. I hope to find the answer to that some day, and am disappointed to find that Mondoweiss has now become yet another place where exploring the question is verboten.
I'm also disappointed with the new rule on Shoah and Nakba denial. Not because I condone such ignorance, but rather because I'm a strong believer in the old adage that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
I can see how many people wouldn't want to fund vulgarity like this. ;)
The thing is, the region was referred to as Palestine long before the period which the fictional story of Ben-Hur was set in, as explained here.
The surprising part is where Santorum suggests that Mexico is US territory.
"Exactly the argument the Zionists make "
Nonsense, their argument is that Israelis treatment of Palestinians isn't really a problem, while I've no interest in excusing any form of bigotry.
"I believe Donald raised the form of bigotry that he believes is a problem on Mondoweiss and that should be addressed."
He did that in his point 4, while I was adressing point 5.
"But why should we not still say it is serious enough if people get hurt because of it?"
Nobody suggested that. The issue is that you singled out one form of bigotry and labeled it serious, while neglecting to even mentioning any of the other forms of bigotry which far more people get hurt because of on a far more regular basis. On a side, your attempt to link to this article was thwarted by mangled code.
And another.
No, all the investigators need not be in on a cover-up, just the few in charge of the investigation can limit access to the evidence to that which supports the official line and quash anyone who dissents from that. Besides, considering the radar data presented at the site Phil linked, it's the official story which is far-fetched.
...and Lieutenant Colonel, not Lieutenant.
...and retired, not former.
The 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh was just as bad, this video being one notable example.
Tariq Ali did a better job of making this point on Democracy Now:
Granted, considering the fact that our government never even produced enough evidence to indict bin Laden for 9/11, there's no reason to suspect they could have actually convicted him for the attacks.
"The choice issue," aka abortion.
Heh, Mooser, I get the impression you don't even know the half of it. I recommend listening to Dr. Seymour Pollack and Dr. Bernard Diamond attempt to hypnotically implant Sirhan with motive and memory of the murder in his jail cell, which can be found starting around 37:40 in the documentary Evidence of Revision part 5, which can be found here:
link to archive.org
Notably, "that's the picture I've gotten from you, the feelings about you; this intense Arab nationalist who feels the American polical figures are letting the Arab world down", "if you really want the world to see the Arab suffering and to see that American policy has helped that suffering, why I say don't you remember all this", and "to you, at that time, Kennedy was the biggest bastard the biggest in the world, he was the biggest son of a bitch." There's some Zionist justice in action.
It seems most likely to me that attacks were masterminded by some faction of corporate fatcats in the global banking cartel and military industrial complex. They undeniably benefited most from the attacks, of course have connections to people in governments and intelligence agencies all through the world to set the stage, and can easily scrounge up a few handfuls of Arab mercenaries to set up as patsies.
"...so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.
hmm"
Yeah, it's a shame we haven't been made privy to how that investigation turned out.
I've seen that discussion, and yes he says "inside job," which is blaming people within the US establishment for 9/11, not Mossad. Granted, he goes on to suggest the people behind the attacks had assistance from intelligence agencies including Mossad, but in contradiction to what Western Sky and the Jewbashers who titled that video you linked claim, O'Keefe clearly refutes the suggestion that Israel was behind 9/11.
"Ken O’Keefe blames 9/11 on the Mossad."
From what I've seen of O’Keefe, that's not his position on the matter. I don't suppose you can quote him to support your claim, can you?
300 lbs is a rather light gorilla. 800 lbs gorilla is the traditional expression.
"if someone came onto your property and started erecting a pro-Yesha sign"
Nobody tried to erect any sign, though I do understand why you had to resort to such hyperbole, as your line of argument falls flat on it's face without it.
I figure Markos thinks of Daily Kos much like he thinks of the CIA, "a very liberal institution... interested in a stable world... as an organisation our heart is in the right place."
William Blackstone founded the movement for political Zionism a couple of years before Herzl came on board.
Is that true? I'm no expert on who is Jewish or otherwise, but glancing through the list at the list left I'm doubting it's anywhere close to half Jewish, right-wingers and otherwise.
It says "largely Christian," obviously referring to the fact that around 36% of American Christians "believe that Israel fulfills the biblical prophecy about Jesus' second coming." In regard to "chiefly," sure the majority of the Zionist chieftains of the are Jewish, but they wouldn't have accumulated their money and connections without that massive Christian Zionist voting block from the beginnings of the Zionist movement, nor can the Zionist chieftains (both Jewish and otherwise), retain their control of policy without that massive Christian Zionist voting block. I contend it's irresponsible to not acknowledge as much.
Nah, that's just tea partyer fluff music. Abe needs to listen to this:
link to youtube.com
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if Wikileaks is controlled opposition, damage control for the establishment, as they seem to only release details on issues many people are already well aware of at least in general sense.
Keith,
Since you admit you aren't capable of comprehending the technical arguments in favor of the official story for how the WTC buildings came down, I can't rightly expect you to comprehend technical explanations of how wrong the authorities you appeal to are. So, instead I'll defer to the authority of Paul Craig Roberts to explain how sites like Counterpunch wouldn't even let him report simple facts in dispute of the official story of how the buildings came down:
link to youtube.com
Now, surely you can understand that people interested in the truth have no need to suppress descending arguments, and rather welcome open discussion of the facts so that misconceptions can be exposed as such? To further drive this point home, try looking around for 9/11 related articles and post an innocuous comment suggesting you have some doubts about official conspiracy theory, and so do many people who have far more qualifications for doing so than yourself, while linking to the following site to prove as much:
link to
I've had such innocuous comments blocked or deleted from all sorts of sites, most recently the Huffington Post. I'm not suggesting they're all in on the conspiracy though, and rather figure they are simply in denial of what is an ugly yet irrefutable truth, much like yourself.
That said, you can watch a civil engineer demonstrate how wrong the official story is with simple experiments here:
link to youtube.com
Please note what he suggests at the video; don't believe people just because they can employ equations you don't understand to tell you what you prefer to believe; ask them to try to prove as much through experiments. They haven't because they can't, because what they are telling you can't happen in physical reality, or even a computer simulation thereof.
Yep, that's the a logical hypothesis, and the only logical hypothesis when considering the video evidence of the rate and scale of the destruction of the WTC buildings with respect to the laws of physics. But again. it's not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who planted the explosives.
Well, only the second of your three proclamations of faith is reasonably supported by the publicly available evidence, while the third is tenuous at best, and the first stands in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics.
The publicly available evidence simply can't be squared to support the notion of a lone gunman, there's no solid evidence to suggest Oswald was among the shooters, and the notion that it could have been pinned on Oswald absent a high-level conspiracy is patently absurd.
I suspect you are correct on both counts there, though one can't rightly rule out such possibilities, as he allowed the cover-ups of both.
No, conspiracy theories are theories of two or more people conspiring together to commit a crime, like "al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11" or "the Bush admin was behind 9/11," or whatever. On the other hand, the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings is a scientific theory, constructed from the available evidence and the laws of physics. People just dismiss the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings by falsely branding it "conspiracy theory" because it debunks the "al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11" conspiracy theory which people such as yourself have ignored the laws of physics to misplace your faith in.
As for JFK, there was most certainly more than one gunman, as evidenced most notably by a proper analysis of the medical/autopsy evidence. However, again it's not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who the conspirators might have been.
Avnery was talking about the Israeli population there, as they were surprised. On the other hand, the establishment knew damned well that the Arab states didn't have a chance, as Avnery explains here.
All good, but I believe an important but commonly overlooked fact is that Jews have always been a minatory of the Zionists in the world, while the vast majority are Christians, as that completely undermines the misguided notion that anti-Zionism is an expression of Judeophobia. Also worth considering is the support from robber barons like J.D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, as such individuals have always been the real source of power behind the Zionist movement, and again most of them not Jewish by any stretch.
Regardless, I thank you much for your report.
The Nazis' preferential treatment of Zionists played a part, as did Zionists' disregard for Jews who didn't share their ethnic-nationalist ideology, evidenced by the quotes listed here.
My bad, I'd meant "nary a Jew in the world wanted anything to do with taking control over Palestine."
Actually, organized Jewry was so opposed to Zionism from the start that:
It wasn't until after the Shoah that Zionism gained mainstream support amongst Jews, the Nazis having murdered much of the opposition while letting Jews who embraced Zionism immigrate to Palestine.
Actually, "for the Greater Good" implies that some evils can be justified in the service of an assumed "Greater Good," as this collection of clips from Hot Fuzz sums up well, and which explains their deferring to U.S. foreign policy. That said, I hope they see the error of their ways.
It's not just the neocons, as H.W. Bush evidenced when he said:
Being familiar with how the minds of Zionists work, I'm guessing his "an ancient terror” was a reference to Amalek.
Rather, that band of hothead Jews went so far as to object to the way other Jews chose to conduct themselves, and it was the baseless hatred of those hothead Jews which inspired the Romans to destroy the temple, much as the baseless hatred of hothead Zionists today seems likely to cause the current state of Israel to implode in the near future.
That video is a masterpiece.
People should be committed to insane asylums for calling Israel's decades long colonization of the West Bank a "peace process."
Keith,
Your inability to comprehend why the buildings were brought down with explosives does nothing to change the fact that it's physically impossible for them to have come down anything like they did without explsoives. At least in the case of the towers that is, the way WTC 7 came down could theoretically be done though some elaborate means other than explosives, but the fact remains that explosives were used. The final sequence of explosions which brought down WTC were even faintly recorded by an interview mic four blocks away.
Donald,
Do you comprehend the fact that while one could come up with a bunch of math and diagrams to explain how Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind, that wouldn't prove he does? I didn't dismiss the equations Bazant used, only his fudging them around to support a story which has no basis in reality. Furthermore. Bazant only vaguely references the physical properties of the towers, while making declarations of crush-down before crush-up which would be easily demonstrable with a simple model of any scale, were it not for the fact that his claims have no basis in reality.
Besides, these wonderful computers we have provide a means of full scale testing of physical phenomena which can also be used to produce a reasonable semblance of experimental conformation of real world behavior. This video shows some examples from one of the most impressive of such simulation programs I've seen. Also, you can find some info on a simulation of a fire-induced progressive collapse here, though as the researchers note:
That's about the best you could ever hope for in the contrast of the official story, as one can't get anywhere close to the ~2/3 free fall acceleration and saturated speed of the towers with fire while respecting the laws of physics, as many experts will tell you.
Anyway, while I'm no expert, you're only further deluding yourself my imaging me as ignorant on such matters as you. You're also fooling yourself by mistaking this as a partisan issue, as there are many who speak out against the 9/11 cover-up across both sides of the political spectrum, and I'm a libertarian who has no allegiance to either side. Finally, much of the arguments made by those so-called "debunking sites" are completely bunk.
Donald links yet again to something else I've already read. Anyway, one can find a collection of comments from demolitions experts who aren't in denial of the fact that explosives were used on 9/11 here. I wonder if Donald will bother to read that.
Berthe,
Edna Cintron was surely getting a nice cool breese from the air sucked in by what little fires were there near the center of the buiding at that point. By the way, some pre-911 info on how strong the towers were. Most notably, the lead structural engineer, John Skilling:
Note that believing the official story doesn't just require believing the man who built the towers and his team was wrong, but completely wrong, as the buildings structures were not "still there" by any stretch. On the other hand, one only has to look to how steel-frame high-rises are typically brought down to see the truth, though of course the top-down destruction of the towers was an atypical form of explosive demolition.
Bandolero,
I assure you that WTC 1, 2, and 7 couldn't have come down as they did absent explosives, lots of explosives in the case of the first two. As Mooser's approach seems so effective, see this video explanation of WTC 1 & 2 in that style, and another for WTC 7.
Syvanen,
A particularly keen scientist by the name of Richard Feynman once said:
With that in mind, the official story total destruction of the WTC buildings is so very wrong that neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to support it. If you insist on contending otherwise, please take the time to put your beliefs to the test, as that is the day you will learn some basic physics which currently eludes you.
Berthe,
I'm simply saying that the WTC buildings were not cast iron by any stretch, and rather were framed with steel. But again, you are correct in your general argument, the buildings would have held together just fine if it wasn't for all the explosives.
RoHa,
The official story of the alleged hijackers is arguably as full of holes as that of the destruction of the WTC buildings.
By the way, the grammatical mistakes like my "his" and "he" are the results of dyslexia impaired proofreading after paraphrasing myself. Please don't take them as anything but that.
Berthe,
Syvanen was referring to the fact that pure iron is somewhat heaver and far more brittle than steel . Granted, his was just nitpicking the trivial matter of your mistakenly referring to steel as iron to avoid addressing your point.
Sure, but that couldn't have happened without the mass amounts of explosives which blasted multi ton chunks of the steel supports loose, many flying hundreds of feet laterally, lodging some into the surrounding buildings. Absent explosives all the way down the towers, the top section would've ground to a halt before hitting the ground.
Calculating the PE of a free standing structure as a point mass to claim has enough energy to crush itself is absurd, and it's around triply use the height of the building rather than it's center of mass, and that is just the big stuff. Please take the time musings to the test of experimental confirmation, as you'll find you can no more do so than those who proclaim belief in psychic spoon bending.
Note the fact that WTC 7 had no jet fuel in it, and according to the official story came down primarily due to office fires. Again, you defenders of the official story keep telling me there’s gold in them thar hills, but I ain't seein' no prospectin’.
Donald
What matters is the fact that removing the supports tales a lot of force, far more than what one can expect or will ever see accomplished by fire, regardless of if a building is hit by a jet (WTC 1 & 2) or otherwise (WTC 7). Furthermore, traditional controlled demolitions, as WTC 7 was, kick out the support from the bottom ~ 1/3 to allow the upper ~2/3 to build the acceleration to crush itself on the ground. Blasting out the top ~1/4 - 1/6 (WTC 2 & 1) respectively, would result top section shredding itself into the bottom and grinding to a halt well before it hit the ground. This is a simple matter of Newton's Third Law.
Please think this through. If the official story had any basis in reality, I'd refine and patent fire-induced demolition to make a fortune. You're telling me there's gold in them thar hills, but where's all the prospectin'? This is the reason demolition companies haven't cut their overhead in response to the supposed discovery of fire-induced demolition, saving money on explosives by starting fires; the official story has no basis in reality.
Syvanen,
While you are correct in explaining the difference between iron and steel, you're living in a fantasy world in imaging that nobody calling it out is the same as nobody spiting it. Rather, I simply didn't care to nitpick that misconception, as the pseudoscientific spiel which is the official story for how the WTC buildings came down is far more deserving of attention.
Tell me, did you read through the comments from structural engineers which I linked previously above? If you'd to take issue with anything said by them, or by me, I'd be happy to explain how you're wrong. Until then, you are just picking at low hanging fruit to fallaciously defend your own misconceptions.
Also, for those who might think I replied to Donald too soon to have read the paper he linked. It's not that I didn't take the time to read it, but rather that I'd read it long before he posted it here. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if Donald ever read it himself, as he seems completely incapable of addressing the physics of the matter in his own words.
Donald.
Bazant and his congregation can fudge equations around and scrawl out pictures while rambling on about what an expert he is from here to oblivion. However, neither him nor anyone else will ever provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to back his arguments, because they have no basis in reality. On the other hand, anyone with a clear head and at least a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics can understand reality.