Anti-Semitism and the "New Jews"

[Lithos]

Anti-Semitism and the "New Jews"
March 21, 2005
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/06/052_bw.html

Recently while surfing the web, I clicked onto an essay by a widely-circulated internet author that was linked-to at a number of alternative-press websites.

I couldn't believe what I was reading: the essay was a long diatribe aimed, it seemed, at an amorphous Jewish conspiracy that according to the author is at the heart of what ails America and its policies.

Maybe I misunderstood, I thought - since the precise word "Jews" was not used - so I googled the author's name and read another essay by him. This one pulled no punches; it was a defense of Holocaust denial and a scabrous attack on "the Jews" as the evil villains of contemporary society...

Okay, this was accidentally removed. However, I think it useful to engage in a discussion of sources. However, I see two points to be made:

1) There is indeed a fair amount of anti-Semitism and bigotry which has entered into the 9/11 discussion.
2) Not all people who write about or comment on 9/11 are bigots.

Given point 1) It is incumbent on people to know their sources and take extra precautions to avoid association or citation.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

1. If Jews, Zionism, and Israel are coming up in 911 over and over

it's sure not the conspiracy theorists that are looking to make connections where there are not.

How can people see the AIPAC spying scandal, the massive influence AIPAC has on our elected officials, dual Israeli/US citizens at high levels of the government that make policy decisions for this country based on how it will effect Israel, every politician having to declare their support of Israel to get elected, etc, etc and not believe that there might be some undue influence on the American government by Israel? Seriously?

As for Israeli involvement in 911, that possibility came to my attention when I saw real news stories about 100's of Israeli spies being arrested around the country making diagrams of bases and nuclear plants. When I read about Israelis who had come to America to "move furniture" that were arrested the day of 911 for seeming to celebrate the destruction in NYC. Israelis who were later found to be ex-military and MOSSAD agents, the owner of the company fled to Israel and hasn't been seen since. An Israeli anti-terrorism commando who could kill a man with a credit card and whose unit specializes in infiltrating terrorist groups, was on one of the flights that hit the towers. Guess his training didn't pay off, huh?

So no, I don't search these things out and I don't much appreciate being called a bigot for daring to notice the reports of these things.

I don't know about these other conspiracy sites, but I have had association with Alex jones for years prior to 911 even and it really bothers me to see him put in this boat. He is fighting the New World Order and 911 is their latest attack on our democracy.

I see this anti-semitism charge being used to censor information

Edit for spell check/typos and to iterate that it is not my intention to be banned, but thought this was a good place to bring up these issues I have

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Daniel Lewin...

... the guy on American 11 who is supposed to have been killed, is supposed to have been stabbed from behind by an assailant he didn't know was there. In any case, there were five of them and one of him and they were armed. It's not really that surprising he got killed (assuming he really did get killed).

As for a US official putting the interests of another country before those of the US, this is hardly unique to Israel, is it?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

3. So I am a bigot for noticing these things and finding them strange?

No one knows what happened on these flights. For that matter there is no proof there even was any arab terrorists on these flights, but accepting this yet unproven "given", I would think an anti-terrorism commando, trained to think and act like an arab terrorist to infiltrate their units, could not have been oblivious to arab terrorists sitting all around him. Certainly it was fortunate that he sat directly in front of one on this plane that was only 1/4 filled to capacity. This is according to one flight attendant, according to the other flight attendant call, the person in Lewins seat number was identified as one of the hijackers. So there seems to be a discrepancy there.

As for other countries undue influence over our country's policies and politics, care to provide any examples or is that just a given as well? I sure don't see every politician in DC speaking before the Polish-American League spelling out how Poland has their undying support in anything they decide to do, for instance. I think it is unique to Israel and furthermore, if such a thing were to be happening concerning any other country it would be talked about, like the Dubai Ports deal for example. Compare that to how it is insinuated that if I even thought that about someone in our government and the State of Israel it would be used to imply I am just saying it because I hate jewish people. The fact is I don't think ANY foreign country should be setting or directing our country's policies or internal politics. Their ethnicity or religion has nothing to do with it.

Edit: When it gets to the point that it's said if you don't believe The Official Conspiracy Theory you're only doing that because you hate jews(anti-semite), then I have to call BULLSHIT.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. You must have confused me with someone else

I was rather under the impression that I had responded in a material manner to two of the (several) issues you raised. I don't recall calling you a "bigot".

What sort of "proof" do you think could be forthcoming?

"I would think an anti-terrorism commando, trained to think and act like an arab terrorist to infiltrate their units, could not have been oblivious to arab terrorists sitting all around him."
Why, specifically, should he have realised they were terrorists, rather than just some other first class travellers? Why would he expect to meet terrorists on a transcontinental flight, especially given the dearth of hijackings before 9/11?

"was only 1/4 filled to capacity"
There were over 80 passengers on the plane and the capacity was around 175. How did you get 1/4?

Yes, there is definitely a discrepancy between what one of the flight attendants said and the seating according to the manifest. However, there are innocent explanations for this, for example the flight attendant may have simply been confused and mis-stated the seat number, or the passengers may not have sat on their designated seats.

As far as concerns influence in Washington:
(1) I'm not saying every other country has as much influence as Israel does. However, it is undeniable that they do have influence and that some of them are good at using it. Saudi Arabia, for example, made marked use of its influence after 9/11. In fact, it is known who recruited some of the 9/11 hijackers, but no action has been taken against them. How important do you think the influence of Irish-American politicians was in keeping funding for terrorism pouring into the IRA's coffers?
(2) You are exaggerating. Not every Washington politician has pledged undying loyalty to Israel.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

9. OK, only 1/3 full

Boy was I off! Just being smart. I read that all the planes on that day were about 25% capacity and never bothered to count. But still, it doesn't change what I was saying in any tangible way

Sorry, if my whole area of expertise was arab terrorists and how they operate, I think I would at least take notice if a whole group of arab terrorists sat down around me. Even if I didn't KNOW them to be terrorists, my guard would be up. But that's me.

Comparing citizen support of the IRA and Big G Government support of Israel to the tune of 10's of billions of dollars a year is like comparing apples to oranges to me. Also, I don't suppose many dual Irish/American citizens that used to hold positions in or work for Irish government exist either, but can name half a dozen in the Bush admin who are tied officially or unofficially to Israel off the top of my head. I don't deny at all that Bush is tied to the Saudis and therefore they may have some undue influence as well. I don't care for any of that, as I said.

Sorry if it sounded like my post was snarky towards you. I'd like to think I'm just a plain talker, just trying to make my point as unambiguously as possible. No offense was meant towards you at all.

[sabbat hunter]

12. still wrong

over 80 passengers on a 175 seat plane is about 45% capacity. a bit more than 1/3rd wouldnt you say?

[Kevin Fenton]

18. 45%

It was 45% full, and that's assuming all the passengers have been declared.

As far as Lewin is concerned, five armed men killed one unarmed man. I just don't find that remarkable. What else could this story mean?

It's not just citizen support for the IRA, it comes from all levels at Washington, especially those with Irish ancestry, like the Kennedy clan. Even Clinton met mass murderers Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness and there's no way Clinton can be described as just as citizen. The US funded a terrorist organisation in one of the US's biggest allies and the Washington establishment openly winked at and encouraged the funding.

As for the amount of US support for Israel (which IMHO is really not a good idea at all), it's USD 3 billion a year, not 10s of billions, and most of it comes with strings attached - i.e. it has to be spent on US products. So it's more of a subsidy to US defense contractors than Israel. In fact, it really pisses Israeli defense contractors off, because their government gets US hardware free, meaning that it spends less on domestic hardware.

[dailykoff]

21. You don't know what you're talking about.

Gerry Adams never murdered anyone, he heads Sinn Fein, not the IRA, and please tell me when a single politician in Washington including Senator Kennedy has EVER professed support for the IRA?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4346193.stm

[Kevin Fenton]

27. Gerry Adams

Has been an IRA member for decades and sat on its ruling body. He murdered stacks on people.

If Adams has no support in Washington, then what's going on here?

[dailykoff]

29. Adams has never been a member of the IRA

and has never claimed to be. He joined Sinn Féin in 1964.

He also had nothing to do with 9/11 and your allegations are ridiculous.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. IRA member Gerry Adams

Adams denies being a member of the IRA, but so what? He's a mass murderer, why should I believe him?

The British government says he's an IRA member:
"British and Irish state papers released under the "thirty year rule" named him as a senior IRA figure in the early 1970s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams

The BBC say he's on the army council:
"But to this day - and it is one of the more unfathomable aspects of the man - he denies ever being in the IRA, even though it would have been impossible for him to have risen to the position he now holds if that were not the case."
"Security force assessments contend he has held a number of senior positions within the IRA, including membership of its ruling army council..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1287262.stm

The Irish government say he's on the army council:
"Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris are members of the IRA's controlling Army Council, the Irish government declared yesterday."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article12210.ece

Adams, McGuiness and Ferris admit to attending meetings with the army council:
"in the past we have met with the Army Council"
http://sinnfein.ie/news/detail/8584

This is good too, from a theologian who mediated peace talks:
"The IRA was cagier about talking so, but it became very clear to me, during the many weeks that I mediated between their Army Council and the Northern Ireland Office in 1981 in the matter of the hunger strike, that they were in the same position and had been for just as long, since the early '70s. The Army Council members, in that year 1981, used to refer to Gerry Adams as their "pacifist," not that he was literally pacifist but in the sense that he was already working at a non-violent approach to the whole problem."
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/05/helmickira.html

I never said he had anything to do with 9/11 - that's just another of your inventions.

[sabbat hunter]

31. sinn fein

is merely an arm of the IRA

[dailykoff]

32. Don't let me interrupt your delusions.

:hi:

[sabbat hunter]

38. sinn fein and IRA

"The largest of the modern-day Sinn Féin parties, also referred to as Provisional Sinn Féin, is the only political party to have seats in the parliaments of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin is the largest group in the Republican wing of Irish nationalism and is closely associated with the demobilized Provisional IRA. The question of whether Sinn Fein is in fact the political wing of the provisional IRA remains in dispute. Although some party members have also been members of the IRA, both organisations maintain that they are independent from one other"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in

i believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein are seperate organizations as much as i believe that Fatah and Al-Asqa Martyr brigade are seperate and that the republican party is seperate from Faux news.

ie even if they arent directly together, they clearly work hand in hand with one another.

[catbert836]

43. Other way around

The Irish Republican Army is the paramilitary wing of Sinn Fein.

[Rlaub44]

34. Lewin

It isn't remarkable that five armed men could kill one unarmed man. But how did they know to start the attack by killing the only man on board (that we know of) who was a former member of Sayaret Matkal? It was earlier suggested that perhaps he didn't recognize them as terrorists, so how did they recognize him?

The official story holds that he was attacked from behind by Satam Suqami and had his throat slit. Or was shot, if you believe the FAA memo that was released. Either way, it hasn't been suggested that he was killed after standing up to them.

Besides, with the revelations of some of the Israeli art student spies living in many of the same neighborhoods as the 19 alleged hijackers, isn't it possible that Lewin had good reason to be seated in the midst of the five terrorists?

[Kevin Fenton]

36. I can't really see it

We don't know the circumstances exactly. I imagine he stood up from his seat after some hijackers in front of him made their move, then Al Suqami killed him from behind. There's no proof either way.

As for the art students, why would they send one guy up against five? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Kevin, just something to throw out....

The military exercises underway that day waere also involved with hijacking scenarios. If 11 was part of the simulation, wouldn't that be a time to test counter-hijacking tactics? Could Lewin have been involved from that perspective?

[Kevin Fenton]

28. That's a big if...

I think I'll file it in the "possible, but not very likely" file for now. Why would they only have one guy there?

[Old and In the Way]

37. Why only 1 guy?

One that we know could have been. If you consider the backstory of Israeli's tracking terrorists before 9/11, it's an interesting coincidence...as is the 4 employees of Ratheon's Electronic Systems business being on that flight.

[Kevin Fenton]

41. OK, it is an interesting coincidence...

...but if there was more than one guy on the flight, then what happened to the other ones?

As far as concerns Mossad monitoring the terrorists before 9/11, that is actually what Mossad should be doing (although it shouldn't really be doing it in a friendly country without permission).

Who are the Raytheon people?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. Nation states do not exist in self-contained bubbles

The very nature of the patriarchal nation state requires that there be diplomacy, international agreements and relations to conflict. The amount of which one nation can influence and affect change in the policies of another country are extremely varied, for better or for worse.

The influence that Israel holds on the United States is greater than say Poland because of the different circumstances in which the relationship built up by both US and Israel during the Cold War to counterweight the growing post-colonial Arab socialist-nationalist regimes in the Middle East and north Africa. Israel represented American interests in the middle east as well as being a free market economy. Israel gained via US military backing and financial subsidies that kept the national economy going. Many Jewish-Americans feel an attachment to Israel for obvious reasons, and this is another compulsion for US administrations to keep Israel going. The very idea that Israel is the dominant force in the relationship is as farcical as suggesting that Britain is the dominant partner in its relationship with the United States. During the 1960s LBJ subsidised the Pound Sterling to keep its high value and to avoid Britain running into large Balance of Payments deficits. Harold Wilson offered little in turn except vague diplomatic support for the Vietnam War but without actually getting involved. The reason for America's financial support for Britain was that Britain was seen as a vital ally in a divided Europe, and it was necessary to support her.

What I'm getting at is that it's easy to examine one facet of relations between two countries and then jump to erroneous conclusions. Everything needs to be scrutinised, applying high scepticism to what a government says is all well and good, but this high scepticism must also be applied to every other source. The manner of analysis must be thorough, and must not be made up of pure conjecture and quick to conclude.

Conspiracies happen, but it's easy to see them everywhere and in places where they aren't. The world is a hugely complex network of social, cultural, biological and philosophical interactions. The world cannot be controlled by a small number of Elders/Reptoids/Bush Family members working from a darkened room. The danger of conspiracy circles is to not weigh in everything and simply see anything that casts doubt on highly-held beliefs as 'in on the conspiracy'. From week-to-week I see articles posted from CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and other sources commended whenever they've reported any story supporting their opinion but then decried as shills, and as part of the NWO whenever the opposite is true.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

11. Israel represented American interests in the middle east

How so, pray tell?

I can't see any plus that the US has gained in its support of Israel other than doing something nice for a persecuted people.

Our support of Israel has cost us; financially, militarily, socially, and cost us in our reputation with the rest of the world.

This will be my last post on this thread. I said my piece and think it is only going to progress into a flame fest from here on out.

Since it mainly seems to be one poster on the "conspiracists are anti-semites" bandwagon, perhaps placing him on ignore will take care of the situation.

I'm tired of reading that and other names like Bushbots they use for people like myself. It's not justified and uncalled for and completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

Last time I checked, Democrats need every vote they can get, even from the crazy old aunts and uncles you keep in the attic. If not, let me know and I won't bother pissing it away anymore.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. Israel's Cold War role was to act as a client state...

and to balance (perceived) Soviet influences in the Arab states. This was not a straight forward process. In the immediate post-war period, Israel was somewhat pro-USSR and the US pro-Arab, however this was switched after the pro-British Egyptian monarch was overthrown by socialist nationalist coup with Nasser quickly emerging as thew leader.

Although initially taking the Arab side in the Suez Crisis, the US began to see Egypt as a threat, and because Nasser was any socialist Washington tied him to Moscow, as their thinking at the time saw anything socialist as linked to a worldwide communist conspiracy headed by Moscow.

Israeli actions in Suez had also upset the Soviet Union and it sought closer ties with the Arab states. The US' opposition to Arab socialism caused Nasser and general Arab sentiment to gradually move towards a pro-Moscow position, despite Nasser just wanting non-alignment (such neutrality was taken by the US as opposition, 'you're either with us or against us'). This led to the closer ties of the US the Israel, supplying it with arms and proping up its capitalist system.

The US used Israel as its proxy to limit Soviet involvement in the middle east. From this point on the US felt it could not let its pro-American capitalist ally be overrun by pro-Soviet Arab socialists and/or nationalists and would support the state.

This is quite representative of the contemporary historiography. You could see texts by Cold War specialist historians such as: R Levering, G Kolkov, J Gaddis and others. The middle east is covered in their texts as a major flashpoint. You'll also find Noam Chomsky's writings on US-Israeli relations in the context of the Cold War to be compatible to the above too.

[adriennui]

46. perhaps our support of israel

is the moral thing to do. where are the other democracies in the middle east, all i see are murderous dictatorships. should we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by hundreds of millions of haters into discarding 5 million israelis?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

4. I've notice that when one begins to get closer to the truth

more drastic steps need to taken to stop that from happening. Tha fact that anyone who questions the "official"9-11 reports is now being labeled an "anti-semite", shows how desperate someone is getting.


"I see this anti-semitism charge being used to censor information


I agree with this and I agree with your post(s). Thank you.

DR

[Lithos]

15. Anti-Semitism

If Jews, Zionism, and Israel are coming up in 911 over and over it's sure not the conspiracy theorists that are looking to make connections where there are not.

So, if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true? Isn't that the issue behind Bush's claims of WMD? Isn't this the primary complaint by the 9/11 truth side the government and media are repeating a lie? Your comment is absurd given your basis of assumption.

What was Goebbel's quote?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The focus on AIPAC and Israel has always been interesting in that people place such singular focus on AIPAC as being an influential lobbying group, but make no mention of other groups with far more influence on US foreign policy, namely the energy and defense concerns? Why the focus when the ties, corruption and conspiracies to Iraq, Afghanistan, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Bin Ladin have far more to do with these groups than with Israel or AIPAC? If you want interesting connections, google Jack Philby, Aramco (or most any oil company), Allen Dulles, George Bush Sr. and the CIA. Note: You will NOT find AIPAC in there.

If you look at the money and power connections between the US and the rest of the Middle East, you will find it dwarfs that given to Israel. 1953 - you've got an Iranian coup. Saddam was the child of the defense and energy powers and brought down by the same when he threatened one of their allies (Saudi Arabia); Afghanistan - the Taliban went down for the oil pipeline ("carpets of bombs"). About all Israel seems to be guaranteed by US policy is an existance which results not from Jewish influence, but rather that of the Millineal Dispensationalist crowd.

Also, you find no issue that the original sources claiming Israeli involvement came from sites and operation well known and heavily associated with holocaust denial activities and the proponents of it? This singularity and commonality by these groups leads to my second Goebbel's quote:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

Apropos given their fascination to Nazism.

These points are heart and soul to the discussion at hand. If the 9/11 truth movement wishes to be honest, then it needs to be honest with itself else it will look extremely foolish and become nothing more than a tool for others.

[seatnineb]

44. Lies that are repeated over become the truth but what are they covering?

For instance the assertion that 4000 Jews did not turn up for work is obviously a lie.

But the above lie in fact masks and distracts attention away from incidents like these.........

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces.They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me.I thought it was very strange," she said.

http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/whitevan.html

This seems to be a powerful truth.....and one that the official story and even some 9/11 skeptics seem afraid to elaborate on.

The fact that 3 Israeli nationals are happy,filming and not shocked as they stand on the roof of a van is in fact so powerful and intimidating , that even when a British documentary crew visited Israel in 2004 to interview these same happy Israelis............

They NEVER asked these same Israelis WHY they were happy on 9/11/01!

Instead all we get from this interview is disinformation:

In the words of Yaron Shmuel(1 of the happy Israelis):
"The story that the Feds built is a very good story...when you hear the story.....you start to believe it inside...O.K maybe I am a spy....I assure you I am not....but the story is so good....so maybe I am!"

Channel4
9/11 Conspiracy Theories TV documentary(UK)
9/9/04

[rman]

22. Americans and Arabs are coming up in 911 over and over,

yet that very rarely causes accusations of anti-americanism or anti-arabism.

You can't even mention "international bankers" without being accused of using a code word for "jews" and being anti-semitic. Apparently Big corporations can be discussed, but those institutions that are more powerful still then big corporations can not.
According to some even the term "neocon" is code for "jew", and the mere utterance of the word can be taken as ground for accusations of anti-semitism.

Is there any actual evidence of anti-semitism in the 9-11 discussions on DU?

[CJCRANE]

45. True, there are elements involved

with the Bushco agenda from not only Israel but muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE.

I think it's important to stress that Bushco is an unholy alliance of various factions in America and various other countries, that's prob the easiest way to disarm the kneejerk "anti-semite" yelling crowd.

[salvorhardin]

5. Conspiracism, antisemitism and the left

I don't want to play that game of "leftier than thou". I don't think that's useful. If you read some of the articles I've linked to in the past few days (like the one in the OP and Esther Kaplan's Antisemitism After 9-11) you'll see that there's a general agreement that it's gotten hard to define antisemitism for a couple of reasons. There are legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government and their treatment of Palestinians in the settled territories. That's a legit beef but Israel and some pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC have played the antisemitism card.

As can be expected, the bigots have used those legitimate criticisms to further their own agenda and this is one vector of antisemitism on the left. Zionist is a loaded word with many meanings and the bigots take advantage of that ambiguity. So, as Bernard Weiner notes, it's often hard at first to tell what's going on if you've never encountered an antisemitic or neonazi author before. They leverage ambiguity and cloak their bigoted message. A good example of this are David Icke's Reptoids.

But the conspiracist narratives are a dead giveaway. Conspiracism is nothing more than scapegoating -- scapegoating of race, of ethnicity, of sexual-preference, of religous belief and disbelief. It's that easy. I think between myself, Taxloss and a couple others that we've shown hands down how the 9-11 conspiracism originated in and promotes antisemitism and neonazis. That's not saying everybody who believes in MIHOP or LIHOP is antisemitic or a neonazi. It's not saying that they're a bad liberal or progressive. What it is saying is that they're mostly unknowingly helping to promote the agenda of people like David Irving, and worse, they're legitimizing a dialogue of hate on the left.

And did you expect the right not to notice that certain segments of the left are embracing antisemitism? Of course they have, and they're going to exploit it for all its' worth. They noticed it as early as a couple of years ago and they've held workshops and symposiums on the topic (see ref. below). Which is another reason why conspiracist thinking is maladaptive. It becomes a tool which the right can use against the left. The irony of course is that conspiracist thinking used to be a vice primarily of the far right. Like I said, we can let antisemitism and conspiracism sit there in the corner rotting, and festering and stinking up the left or we can take a stand and clean the place up.

Symposium: Anti-Semitism - the New Call of the Left
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 14, 2003
(PM me if you need a link)

[reprehensor]

7. Despite the fact that this thread was "removed"...

..."accidentally", as it were, and then reposted by Lithos with some pretty clear parameters, you have chosen to repost this inflammatory rhetoric.

All of your previous points are moot when you conclude with this;

"...we can let antisemitism and conspiracism sit there in the corner rotting, and festering and stinking up the left or we can take a stand and clean the place up."

Antisemitic links are identified, locked, and bagged at DU before you can shake a stick.

The majority, the overwhelming majority, of 9/11 skepticism is directed at the myriad anomalies that just keep popping up regarding the events on, and events leading up to, 9/11.

Since you are eager, nay insistent, on conflating antisemitism/conspiracism, I have to conclude that your interest lies in quelling open discussion about 9/11 skepticism, and not, (despite your prior qualifiers), in quelling "antisemitism".

Frankly, you seem to be exhibiting signs of "conspiratorial thinking" yourself.

To wit, "A big bad antisemitic conspiracy is the secret driving force behind 9/11 skepticism."

The real enemy, if I may scapegoat, (although it's not a tradition for me), may indeed be fascism, including "Islamofascism"; but if it is, we are caught up in a Dialectical Synthesis which pits different belief systems against each other, as well as different nationalities.

At least, that's one, not very popular theory.

[seatnineb]

8. Reprehensor......brilliantly said!

:toast:

[Lithos]

17. 9/11 Skepticism is hypocritical

And intellectually dishonest if it does not honestly address issues such as those raised by Mr. Salvorhardin. I disagree with him when he seemingly implies the whole of 9/11 skepticism is bigoted. (Correct me if I've read incorrectly).

The lack of self-honesty and consistant application of standards is extremely appalling. The comment in the DU rules about speculative theories specifically addresses the fact of these shortcomings and how they are viewed by the majority of membership. From my understanding and observation, the rule was a case of Vox Populi. It also is a matter of consistency. If people here object to threads about "Chemtrails" and "Weather Manipulation" constantly being thrown down here, then why do they also not object to using sources which are usually no more than one recommended link away from sites which espouse such things?

Also, do I think people here are bigots? For the vast majority, no. What I see for the most part are people who are genuinely disaffected with government and people who disagree as to the nature of the story the government is not telling. Oh yes, it has been definitely shown the government has lied about 9/11 to further it's agenda and the personal fortunes of several of it's membership. There is definitely a story not being told. The issue of course here in the forum is if it is theft after the fact, gross incompetence (either criminal or negligent), LIHOP or MIHOP.

That said, it is also a fact there are groups of people who are preying upon the 9/11 issue with "easy" answers, consisting mostly of rehashed memes of one sort or another repurposed to take advantage of 9/11, in order to further their agendas and/or enrich their pocket books. Many of these groups are bigoted. I can guarantee you that this is not the story and due diligence must be taken to avoid enriching or legitimatizing these people who are definitely not progressive and are not our allies. The real story lies elsewhere.

As for the deletion, it was honest. I had hoped to re-focus and salvage the original thread from being strongly unilateral and accusatory to bilateral and open in its questioning, but it was deleted before I could do that.

[salvorhardin]

19. No, I most certainly did not intend to imply that...

...all of 9-11 skepticism is bigoted. In fact, I thought I went to great lengths to say so, repeatedly. Obviously I failed.

And if you think this is me trying to save face, if you search you will find myself asking on DU at an earlier time many of the same questions the frequent posters in the 9-11 forum ask. I came to different conclusions, but I understand the need to ask these questions and I don't think anyone with half a brain takes the 9-11 Commission report 100% at face value.

What has, quite frankly, repulsed me is when I started to look to the origins of many (notice I did not say all) 9-11 conspiracy theories. And I think if one is honest with themselves they will come to the same conclusion that I did. Restating my post above, there are many despicable characters that are using the 9-11 Truth movement as a vehicle to propagate antisemitism and that to some degree these antisemitic conspircy theories are gaining acceptance in the larger liberal/progressive community. To be sure, I do not think this is a huge problem -- yet. But we all need to be critical of and speak against bigotry, even when it is among our own.

To be clear, not everyone spreading these bigoted ideas is antisemitic, not everyone is a bigot. In fact, as the author of the article referenced in the OP notes, it can be hard to tell at first. This is precisely because the bigots have a habit of soft-peddling, and cloaking their bigotry by deliberately using words that have multiple meanings such as Zionist. There is also the dynamic I stated in my post above that the Israeli government and some pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC have attempted to cast all criticism of Israeli policy and actions as antisemitic. That is unfortunate because it also leaves room for the bigots to further manipulate the conversation.

In any case, I do not mean to restate my whole thesis here. My point being that I do not consider all people who question the events of that Autumn day as bigots. I do however think everyone needs to be as equally skeptical of their sources as they do of 9-11.

FWIW: I agree 100% with everything Lithos has said.

[greyl]

24. Unfortunately, there're some technical issues to be dealt with....

The balking at your argument has at least one piece of solid defense: Yours is an ad hominem argument. All of it is true, yet it doesn't deal with the specific issues and arguments that some people concentrate on. Technically, it's poisoning the well.


scraps>>>
to stand on, and that is that some of the alt.911.theories aren't routed in bigotry.
However, if all you are arguing is that care should be given toward

It's an easy sell that purveyors of bigotry should be considered with diligent skepticism, but

[salvorhardin]

35. I'm not sure how it is poisoning the well...

...To ask that people consider their sources to be tainted if that source is bigoted.

For instance, if you were seeking medical information and found a page on Hulda Clark's site referencing her cure-all, would you not consider that an illegitmate source of medical information since Clark has been shown repeatedly to be a quack?

Similarly, if you are seeking information on the events of 9-11 and happen across Mike Rivero's site then given Rivero's past claims ("the Clintons murdered Vince Foster") and associations ("proud member of Free Republic"), would you not then consider information on his site to be suspect?

Now, going further, if a website is parroting the same information as a website that is run by demonstrated bigots (i.e. the bigoted website is the original source of the information), and that website supports other dubious sources, then should that website be treated as a trusted source?

[greyl]

47. It's technically a poor logical argument.

What you say is true, yet it can't address the specific details of the conspiracy theories that people are obsessing over. From their perspective, you aren't arguing with the particular aspects of their theories as much as you are arguing "ad hominem" against the theorist. It's actually a blend of ad hominem and poisoning the well. Mind you, I'm in total agreement with you that sources should be given weight based on their roots, but the general argument of "racist 911 conspiracies" doesn't address the ridiculous specific arguments that are floating around.

poisoning the wells This entry comes from an article by Albury Castell titled "Analyzing A Fallacy," which was included in the book Readings In Speech, edited by Haig Bosmajian (Harper & Row, 1965). Here is the full quote: "During the last century a famous controversy took place between Charles Kingsley and Cardinal Newman. It began, I believe, by Kingsley suggesting that truth did not possess the highest value for a Roman Catholic priest; that some things were prized above truth. Newman protested that such a remark made it impossible for an opponent to state his case. How could Newman prove to Kingsley that he did have more regard for truth than for anything else, if Kingsley argued from the premiss that he did not? It is not merely a question of two persons entertaining contradictory opinions. It is subtler than that. To put it baldly, Newman would be logically 'hamstrung.' Any argument he might use to prove that he did entertain a high regard for truth was automatically ruled out by Kingsley's hypothesis that he did not. Newman coined the expression poisoning the wells for such unfair tactics...The phrase poisoning the wells exactly hits off the difficulty. If the well is poisoned, no water drawn from it can be used. If a case is so stated that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, no arguments against it can be used."
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#red-herring

To be clear, what you say deserves considered weight indeed, yet it doesn't win specific arguments. :)

[salvorhardin]

52. But you know that is not my intention

At least if you've been following my bloviating in the usual places on DU.

I've stated numerous times that it is pointless to argue specifics with someone who is a true believer. Rather, I would like those people who are still somewhat in possession of their critical faculties to examine the origin of the 9-11 conspiracy theories and the underlying structures of the narratives. The theories themselves are always vaporous, always shifting and changing but the structure and style of the arguments for 9-11 conspiracism remain the same as they do in all conspiracist narratives. And to be sure, all conspiracist narratives are rooted in scapegoating of one group of people or another. On the 9-11 conspiracist side it just so happens that scapegoating often takes the form of antisemitism.

[salvorhardin]

40. Hmm... Rereading this it seems really angry to me

That's unfortunate because I wasn't angry at all when I wrote this and it seems as if I am directing anger at Lithos. That's also not the case.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. Thank you Lithos

I can't retrieve what I wrote (and it was very well thought out). I just wondered why, when there was finally someone who posted who had an issue with the thread that, all of a sudden, it was deleted -- even before I could read the response I got to my post.

I also want to ask you this: Why did you not say that "that there is a fair amount of reverse discrimation in the 9/11 discussion" -- in item number 2?

From what I see, this is quite the case.

That is all.

[theSaiGirl]

16. Sheepdipping 9/11 with strictly peripheral issues

Efforts to conflate "9/11-Inside Job", with diversionary and \peripheral arguments about anti-semitism, Israel, Zionism, "holocaust denial", and various associated matters of interest ...
.... are actually rather artful examples of what is known colloquially ,in psy-ops tradecraft, as "sheep dipping".

SHEEP DIPPING, often employs elements of "false-flag" masking or cloaking, along with reverse psychology, red-herrings, muddying-the waters, and sometimes subtle appeals to conflicted emotions or loyalties.

A classic example of "sheep dipping" an individuial, for use as an intelligence cover-story, infiltrator and potential provocateur; would be retired right-wing FBI official Guy Bannister (working on behalf of the CIA and Cuban exiles) setting up a dummy office of the ostensibly pro-Castro "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" on Camp Street in New Orleans, around the corner from ONI Hq.
This allowed Bannister, and those sponsoring his operation, to "sheep-dip" ex-Marine ex-Soviet "defector" Lee Harvery Oswald as a "pro-Castsro communist" on the streets of New Orleans.
In this case, a series of staged public media events helped build Oswald's "legend", setting him up to be used for a variety of purposes.
There were staged arrests, photo-ops and programmed appearances by Oswald. on local television and radio talk shows, and in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, where Oswald was loudly advertised as the "#1 pro-Castro" celebrity in New Orleans.
Which made him the perfect patsy for staging any subsequent provocation to set-up or frame the Castro regime.

But ideas and concepts can be "sheep-dipped" as well
.
For example, one way of shutting down a critical and ruthless evaiuation of the history and role of PRIVATE institutions like the Federal Reserve, World Bank, IMF, WTO, GATT .. and so forth ... would be to burden such discussions with the excess baggage of ethnic profiling ("Jews own the world"), or mystical mumbo--jumbo (it's all the Illluminatii/Freemasons/Jesuits....)..., or some other basically irrelevant association.
It may ,in fact, be true, that Israel, Mossad and their assets at DoD or in the media have significant involvement in the crimes and aftermath of 9/11.

But that is not necessary or essential to iindicting and arresting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Myers, Eberhart, and a host of other officials ... whose relationship to the elements discussed above would not be considered best or even essential evidence in civil or criminal proceedings against the 9/11 perps.

If the perps are paid or registered foreign agents of another nation-state, or corrupted by bribes from the private sector ... that would constitute evidence.
But their ethnic or religious affiliations are really not relevant, when it comes to trying them and hanging them for their crimes.

So why introduce material that would be ruled "out of order" or "prejudicial" in a court proceedng anyway.
It serves to protect the perps by diverting the effort to expose and try their crimes, into tracks that are designed to be well off-the-beaten path.

In this manner, simple self-evident gangsterism (as old and banal as compost), is "sheep-dipped" by mystifying it, or weighing it down with extraneous and often diversionary irrelevant "issues" , so as to conceal the everyday ordinary character of theft, fraud, murder, money-laundering, bribery, corr;uption, and abuse of power .... that is manifest ... with our witout the baggage and cloaking of the sheep-skin.

[Jose Diablo]

33. I googled "sheep dipping" and look what came-up

Sheep Dipping CFR Style: The Kerry and Ellsberg Cases

Sheep Dipping: CIA parlance for blurring the links to the CIA of an intelligence officer, agent or asset, by placing him within a legitimate organization for the purpose of establishing false, clean credentials that can be used later to penetrate or subvert adversary groups or organizations.

The Vietnam war has become an important issue for American voters to decide this November which members of the Council on Foreign Relations will control the U.S. government during the next four years: the ones in the Republican Party or the ones in the Democratic Party.

Although CFR members usually send other people to die in wars, but keep themselves out of the actual fighting, John Kerry and Daniel Ellsberg are notable exceptions: CFR members who went to Vietnam and came back to protest against a war they considered cruel, unnecessary and unjust. Like in a Hollywood movie, their stories are beautiful, moving, and have a happy ending in which the hero, against all odds, wins the final battle and destroys the evil doers. The problem with this is that Hollywood films are fiction.

...snip

On September, 1939, less than two weeks after the outbreak of WWII, some senior CFR members met with Assistant Secretary of State George Messersmith, himself a CFR member, and outlined a long-range project called the War and Peace Studies Project. The project consisted in several study groups to analyze the problems of the current war, and the eventual peace. The groups met regularly between 1940 and 1945.

So here we see an example of a 'conspiracy theory' about the CFR. But the real question about the CFR and Vietnam was, 'did a conspiracy exist to create a war in SE Asia?'. As we know now, you bet.

With all this said, maybe a better question would be, does the CIA work toward the benefit of the the USA? From what I can see, the answer to that question would be no. Though they undoubtably consider themselves to be uber patriots, their techniques they us in conducting their jobs shows them for what they are. And that would not be a patriot working to uphold democratic principles.

Thus to take this to another level when contemplating sites that are really 'just looking for truth' about 9/11.

If those sites also push a fascist, nazi, or even a hard left authoritarian agenda, then I think this undermines any plea they may have for 'seeking truth' about anything.

The truth is, even the meme 'seeking truth' is a self seeking endeavor. Is there ever a single 'truth'.

The longer I live, the less noble I find all efforts to seek truth.

Seeking Justice though, that is still a noble endeavor I think. If we cannot have truth, at least give us Justice.

[file83]

20. I'm an "Equal Opportunity Conspiracy Theorist"...

I don't discriminate against any "suspect" based on race, religion, creed, color, political affiliation, nationality, or sex.

Almost 3000 people died from all over the world on 9/11.
The people that benefitted from 9/11 are all over the world.

9/11 involves every country, every race, every religion, every creed, every color, every political affiliation, every nationality and every sex.

Because of this fact,
there is no reason for anyone to freak out if a Christian Republican Politician's name is brought up as a suspect.
There is no reason for anyone to freak out if a Chinese business woman's name is brought up as a suspect.
There is no reason for anyone to freak out if an Israeli Mossad Agent's name is brought up as a suspect.

No stone will go unturned.
No one can focus blame exclusively on one "group" because no "one group" is soley responsible.
No one can hide behind claims of discrimination.

Let's not sterotype. Let's find the truth. Everyone is a suspect.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Lets certainly add Saudi Arabians to this stew.

Hard to deny their place in the OCT or the benefits they have derived from the GWOT that 9/11 enabled.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

39. That was mine isn't it?

I'd like to know if it was "otherwise inappropriate" or lack of respect for moderators.

[Lithos]

42. See your inbox

n/t

[RBHam]

49. I only dare to enter the fray with this....

Alex Jones conclusively proves that Israeli Intelligence DID warn their counterparts in the USA, as did the French, the Germans, etcetera...

I'm pretty sure NWO operatives of every religion are represented.

These people worship wealth, power and control. They don't care which religion they use to hide behind to conduct their nefarious activities. And I'm SURE AS HELL they do everything they can to keep us all at each other's throats.

Screw God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/Etecetera.

We have to fix this ourselves.

[savemefromdumbya]

50. shouldn't lump all Jews with criminals

you know there are criminals like Perle, Wolfy etc who are linked to other criminal organizations, mafia, in other countries' mafia and who knows what evil lurks in Israel. However, plain Jews who go about their ordinary business get labelled along with that lot and that is not fair.

[RBHam]

51. Exactly...

I'm pretty sure Muslims know that feeling. How would you like to live in a country where the fanatics of another religion view you as the enemy, even if you've lived there all your life.

to clarify

i was alluding to Canada and the US,

I lived in Calgary when 9-11 happened. A week later, I saw a car stalled in traffic. Inside was a Muslim woman, burkha present, and her three youg children. They looked terrified. Many cars went by, with the driver's glaring at them like they were poison...I jumped out and opened her hood, jiggled her corroded battery connection, got her to fire the engine up, it worked...told her what the problem was and how to clean it with a wire brush. You should have seen her face. The relief and gratitude displayed thereon damn near hit me like a brick.

I'm an English WASP who's Grandpa was right from the old country...hell, when he was Mayor of Hanley, SK back in 1954 when Queen Liz Almighty the Second visited...and I grew up with the tradition of Anglo Superiority etched in the literature I read, the music I heard and the stories I was told...I can understand how easy it is to be indoctrinated...

But a free mind can unchain your heart.

[Lithos]

53. Thank you for sharing

And for clarifying. What you discussed is unfortunately a universal problem and thankfully what you did was one of the best ways an individual can make a difference.

L-