Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 302 (since 2009-08-01 02:42:02)


Showing comments 302 - 301

  • 'New Yorker' says Scarlett Johansson's relationship with SodaStream may hurt her image
    • Apples and oranges. The musicians you mention, and Berber, are all doing business in Israel, while Johansson has chosen to shill for an Israeli business operating under the apartheid regime in the West Bank. Sure some people oppose both activities, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

  • Don't let the Islamophobes take over atheism
    • So if you do see the bigotry in the prominent leftist atheist voice as well as those on the right, who exactly do figure atheism is being taken over from? Again, it seems to me that it is what it is.

    • Page: 3
    • Notions such as "atheism is true and all religion and related forms of superstition, other-worldlyness, and magical thinking are false" are absolutist, and hardly difference in substance as proclaiming some particular religion is true and all claims to the contrary are false. Both inherently require imagining oneself some omniscient seer of ultimate truth, which is patently absurd. As for your opinion on Islamophobia, would you make the same argument in defense of those who insist atheism is "the greatest evil in the world", or Judaism, rock & roll?

    • Do you not realize that Dawkins is an islamophobe, as is Maher, or is there some reason you give them a pass? Regardless, I'm fine with letting bigots have atheism, theism, and every other form of absolutist ideology, and would prefer more people take on the humility to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge rather than imagining themselves bearers of ultimate truths, divine truths or otherwise.

  • Israel's new political face on Palestinian refugees: 'we have been waiting... for more and more of them to die'
    • To that she responded with a rhetorical question of whether any of us are really free

      Leonard Cohen did a fine job of mocking such superficial reasoning with his line "give me Christ or give me Hiroshima", shame he seems happy to give Zionists a pass on it.

  • Both Massad, and 'Open Zion', ignore the experience of Middle Eastern Jews
    • Massad didn't "identify Jews as as Ashkenazim only" in his article, nor did he suggest anything along the lines of "Jews never lived in the Middle East". Rather, he wrote about "European Jews" in particular, which implicitly acknowledges the fact that only some Jews are Ashkenazi.

      A person can only address so much in single article, and Massad's focus was on those who control the Zionist native, those who determine which Sephardi are "permitted to speak in the name of the community", and who do the same with Mizrahi who you barely give mention to. If you want to speak for Sephardi against Zionism, why are you joining with Zionists in reading things into and attacking Massad for what he didn't say rather than addressing what he actually has said?

  • Latest Geller ad seeks to mute criticism of Israeli apartheid
    • Yeah, the notion of forcing a woman to marry her rapist dates back to at least the Torah, but that doesn't make it any less sick and wrong.

    • It's not a matter of Muslim countries in general, but in Islamic states there is apartheid in the sense of unequal rights and protections between men and women under their laws. I'm not one to agree with Geller, and certainty not one to condone her support for Israeli apartheid, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • Right under "stop US aid to Islamic states", perhaps someone could add: as it only serves to prop up brutal dictators in exchange for their complacency towards Israeli apartheid.

  • 'The policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster': Stephen Hawking pulls out of conference hosted by Shimon Peres, backs academic boycott of Israel (Updated)
    • Bah, next you'll be denying that Israel invented the cherry tomato. /s

      Seriously though, you're question can basically be reduced to why do hasbarists hasbara?

  • The three whoppers of Alan Dershowitz
    • Thank you David and Tree. Considering the fact that Morris cites a book from '92 rather than a document from '67, I'm figuring there's probably not any really substantiation for the claim.

    • Any chance you can tell me what source Morris cites for his claim that "Withing days both countries had rejected the offer"? I see the sentence is marked as being derived from footnote 120, but I'm just working with a Google Books preview which doesn't give me access to the actual footnotes to determine the source.

    • Dersh has tried to debate Finkelstein, it didn't go well.

    • Morris does claim... the Israeli cabinet secretly offered to give up the Sinai and Golan Heights for peace with Egypt and Syria, who rejected the overture.

      The story goes that the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to make such offers, and asked the the US to relay it to Egpyt and Syria, but Avi Shlaim notes on p 254 of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World:

      The American record of the meeting confirms that Rusk considered the Israelis terms as not ungenerous, but it makes no mention of a request by Eban to transmit these terms to Egypt and Syria. Nor is there confirmation from Egyptian or Syrian sources that they received a conditional Israeli offer of withdrawal through the State Department in late June 1967. One is left with the impression that Eban was more interested in using the cabinet decision of 19 June to impress the Americans than to engage the governments of Egypt and Syria in direct negotiations.

      Also, while the article implies that Egypt and Jordan had rightful claims to the Gaza Strip and and the West Bank respectively, they never actually did, just like Israel doesn't to this day. Both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have been Palestinian territory since they were carved off from the Ottoman Empire as such.

  • Sen. Boxer is on the defensive over legislation OK-ing Israeli discrimination against Arab-Americans
    • Rather, you omit the fact that the visa privilege is reciprocal in the case of those other countries, while Phil simply noted the fact that this bill would have it otherwise with Israel.

  • Anonymous sources in the Israeli US Embassy don't like what they see on television
    • House of Cards is actually Netflix's second original series, Lillehammer came first. Both are excellent, while the third isn't worth mentioning.

  • Close Guantanamo now
    • If any other country were treating prisoners the way we are treating those in Guantanamo we would roundly and rightly criticize that country.

      Nonsense. Other countries do treat prisoners similarly with little criticism from our establishment, Israel and Saudi Arabia being two notable examples.

  • Ben & Jerry's free-cone day is greeted by Free Palestine demos
    • Good stuff. Hit the settlers where it hurts: in the taste buds. I rarely eat ice cream, but just had some Ben & Jerry's the other day, and I'll make that my last until they start living up to their Social Mission.

  • In 'Haaretz,' Hass says Palestinians have a 'duty' to throw stones, Levy cites Passover story in support
  • Fiona Shaw says Jesus's martyrdom has resonance in Middle East (but NPR doesn't explore that)
    • Perhaps this is true for some of the small minority of Middle Easterners who are Christians. However, it doesn't make any sense regarding the vast majority who are Muslims, as the Qur'an doesn't support the claim that Jesus was martyred. See An-Nisa 157:

      That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

  • In enforcing DOMA, and in doing nothing against settlements -- Obama lacks 'courage of his convictions'
  • Debating BDS in midair
    • From the second paragrpah of the Daily Beast article:

      Her organization frequently bashes Reut, claiming that we are an "extreme organization"

      Googling for "extreme organization" on turns up not a single use of the phrase, in reference to Reut or otherwise. Googling for the prhase along with the names Reut and BDS movment only turns up links back to the Daily Beast article, copies of it, and "extreme orignization" being used to describe the BDS movment, the IHH, and the Iraqi government, nothing from the BDS movment using the phrase to describe Reut. So, did Eran Shayshon start his article off with a fabrication?

  • Yet another Zionist logo combines US and Israeli flags
    • "The logo looks like an Iron Dome missile battery. "

      I get the impression they were going for a handshake/heart look, but the Israeli hand only has three fingers and a thumb, while the American hand has for fingers but isn't wide enough for a thumb. It's fitting in that respect though, a poorly thought out logo for a poorly reasoned cause.

  • Latest NBC/WSJ poll shows American sympathies with Israel at lowest point since 1989
    • Seafoid didn't claim the boost was instant, and the 2006 and 2010 polls show an increase of 9 and 13% respectively over 2002, culminating in 10% higher than ever before.

  • Dov Hikind dons blackface for Purim party (Updated)
    • Not quite as tasteless as whoever dressed up these kids as the Twin Towers (complete with flaming jets sticking out the sides), but tasteless non the less.

  • '5 Broken Cameras' loses out to 'Searching for Sugar Man' for best doc Oscar
  • Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography
    • What ethnic criteria for citizenship in Spain, France, and Britain are you referring to specifically? I'm fairly sure there aren't any.

    • Virgule, making all Palestinians under Israeli control voting citizens of Israel would effectively reverse the Zionists' acquisition of territory by force, not just what they've taken since '67 either, but everything since they started in late '47, as less that half the electorate would be Zionists.

  • Dan Rather says Israeli missile defense saved Palestinian lives in Gaza
  • Who funds Pamela Geller? In 2010, it was a former Israel Project board member
    • I suspected the quote was less than authentic, so I looked it up, and sure enough, Geller put a period where there should be a comma, and left off the rest of the verse. Given the whole verse, it obviously isn't declaring a plan to "cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers" in general as Geller would have us believe, but rather only ones who've "joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Furthermore, the capitalized "We" and larger context make it obvious that it's supposed to be God speaking in in the majestic plural about His own intentions rather than a call to action for Muslims.

  • Meshaal arrives in Palestine, calls for unification
    • Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.

    • Well I'm still curious to know what assigning of land you are referring to exactly, as I'm quite sure there never actually was anything of the sort.

    • Eljay, I'm at a loss to make sense of your talk of granting of land. Are you under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, or what are you referring to exactly?

  • Israeli refusenik: 'I refuse to erase people from the world who might be right' (IDF officer: We don't erase people!)
  • US opposes 'world heritage status' for Jesus's birthplace. Guess why
    • There was no mass migration of Arabs to Palestine, nor anywhere else for that matter. The existing populations simply adopted Arabic and Islam after Muslims ran the Byzantines out.

  • Aaron David Miller: After a short 'peace process,' look for war with Iran in 2013
    • 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.

  • Aaron Sorkin's anachronism
  • Political farce
    • Reminiscent of what Netanyahu said here:

      Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It's the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: "What would your father say?" I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father's position?

      ...He's not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: "Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that's the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent." The trick is not to be there and be broken. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.

  • Hasbarapocalypse at Ynet: 'Zionism will only cease being demonized when the West stops demonizing colonialism'
  • Three harsh critiques of the lobby
    • 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.

    • Name some leading members of the “American corporate establishment” who are agitating for an Iran War.

      Strawman much? I didn't claim "agitating for", "quietly going along with" is a more fitting characterization.

      Do you really think that Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Bank of America and other Fortune 1000 companies have a hardon for attacking Iran?

      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.

    • The American military and national security establishment *opposes* a war with Iran

      Sure, but the American cooperate establishment doesn't, and their the ones with all the money/power, and most of them aren't Jewish.

  • Israeli soldiers drive tractor over worker's legs to stop Palestinians from building a house on their (occupied) lands
    • The Talmud, if I understand correctly, is not a book of revelation.

      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.

  • New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy
    • 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.

  • US Congress stomps on Palestinian 'Sesame Street' but funds Israeli version
  • Was the Palestine question on 'Jeopardy' last night for real??
    • 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.

  • Santorum's pulp hasbara
  • A regular commenter on this site seeks a more temperate comment board
    • "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.

  • Uniformed corporal's criticism of Iran attack breaks off on CNN mid-sentence
  • Murdoch scandal demonstrates that scores of people can maintain a conspiracy of silence for years
    • 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.

  • America is fed up with the 'old man's commiseration club'
  • Move Over AIPAC flashmob @ D.C. Union Station
  • Hamas officials condemn bin Laden killing
    • Tariq Ali did a better job of making this point on Democracy Now:’s far better when these things are done legally, because to show that state terrorism is more powerful than individual terrorism is bizarre. I mean, everyone knows that the United States is more powerful than virtually the rest of the world put together, so we don’t need a demonstration of that. What we needed, which Obama didn’t talk about, was: why wasn’t he captured alive—they could have done that if they knew where he was; the Pakistanis could have been told to do that—and tried in a court of law? That would have been genuinely educative and revelatory. To try him, to prove him guilty, and then to imprison him, or whatever.

      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.

  • Joan Walsh discloses her religious investment in a political issue
  • From Arrigoni to Bernadotte to RFK to 9/11-- how much global damage has this conflict produced?
    • 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

      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.

  • Jewish left continues to take on the Simon Wiesenthal Center
    • 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.

  • Samouni family members respond to Goldstone, say attack was not accidental
    • " the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.


      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?

  • Corporate media erase U.S. role in Hamas-Fatah split
  • We have received complaints about the words on your T-shirt so we have called the police --Gagosian Gallery
    • "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.

  • 'Daily Kos' banned me and smeared Rachel Corrie, but we can't give up on the Democratic Party
  • He willed it but it's still a dream
  • A Jordanian complains about his king and the Zionists
    • "half of the Fortune 400 billionaires are... rightwing Jews"

      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.

  • 'Every Democrat assumes the biggest discernible group giving money is Jews'
    • First, I don’t know where those ‘large numbers of christian zionist” are.
      They are all over the place, plenty here in Kansas, and I just recently met a Catholic Zionist from D.C. Yes they are generally poor and stupid, but the latter is what makes them such a powerful voting block, and why Bush and McCain played so heavily on them.

    • Finally, isn't it interesting that the Wikipedia entry on the Israel lobby describes it as chiefly Christian?

      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.

  • Foxman plays Holocaust card
  • Wikileaks blows the cover off the war in Afghanistan
    • 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.

  • Israel destroyed the USS Liberty, OK. But what was the motive?
    • 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

      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:

      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

      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.

    • If there were controlled demolitions, then there must have been people who planted those explosives...

      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.

      I truly believe that there were no controlled demolitions, that it was a plane and not a missile that struck the Pentagon, and that the 19 hijackers were properly identified.

      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.

      I think Oswald was a gunman, and that if he had help, there might have been one other as well who was never caught.

      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 don’t think LBJ was involved either in that or in the Liberty planning.

      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.

    • Conspiracy theories... controlled demolitions bringing down the WTC

      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.

  • Presbyterian engagement on Israel/Palestine creates 'new rules' for relationship with the Jewish community
    • 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.

    • It may be true that those who ended up in Palestine survived and those who escaped to the Netherlands (for example) ended up dead, but that was not because of the Nazis preferential treatment of Zionists.

      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:

      The first Zionist Congress was called by Theodor Herzl as a symbolic Parliament for those in sympathy with the implementation of Zionist goals. Herzl had planned to hold the gathering in Munich, but due to local Jewish opposition he transferred the gathering to Basel, Switzerland.

      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.

    • For their part, Christians set about developing a revised theology that renounced the notion that Christians had replaced the Jewish people as God’s chosen, and that granted implicit and in many cases explicit theological justification for political Zionism.
      Actually, Christians gave birth to political Zionism back when nary a Jew in the world wanted anything to do with Palestine.

  • TIAA-CREF is the most ambitious divestment campaign yet
    • The first directly contradicts TIAA-CREF’s motto...

      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.

  • Israel lobby targets another CNN correspondent
    • It's not just the neocons, as H.W. Bush evidenced when he said:

      I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are.

  • Israeli report on shootings of '4 civilians' fails to state that they were three sisters, 3, 5, and 9, and their grandmother
    • Being familiar with how the minds of Zionists work, I'm guessing his "an ancient terror” was a reference to Amalek.

  • Israel on Tish'a B'Av, 2010
    • A small band of hothead Jews objected to the way Jews were treated...

      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.

  • Obama aide dodges Syrian ambassador on Israeli nukes and Medea Benjamin on 'special relationship'
    • Shapiro: "I will say just a quick response, the US.... has been committed to a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians that will lead to a two-state solution."

      People should be committed to insane asylums for calling Israel's decades long colonization of the West Bank a "peace process."

  • 'The world won't say a thing'-- Netanyahu on ongoing Israeli expansion
    • 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:

      And furthermore, the collapse speeds were much slower than the free-fall or saturated speed in these cases, which does not explain the high-speed collapse of the WTC towers.

      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:

      Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

      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.

    • Like Wile Coyote kyle keeps on coming back for

      Seeing Syvanen say that only to go on to quote and dispute another part of a post he had already responded to previously, while ignoring my more recent reply to him is sheer comedy. As I said in that last response to him, if he ever bothers to put his beliefs to the test of experiment, that's the day he will learn some basic physics which currently eludes him.

    • 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:

      It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

      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.


      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.

    • Actually the force that brought down the WTC was gravity.

      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.

      In any case if you consider the height and the mass of the WTC, once the thing started to fall was no force that would stop it accept the ground (as was duly noted by the seismographs in the the NY area that recorded the resulting shock waves).

      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.

      Compare the price of 40,000 gallons of jet fuel with the cost of 50 pounds of plastique.

      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.

Showing comments 302 - 301