Graffiti in Belfast calls 9/11 a 'Jew Job'

Border-Rat

On a wall in the heart of the Cathedral Quarter (leading showcase of our new, tourist-friendly Belfast) someone has daubed a Star of David. '9/11' it reads. 'Jew job'.

A blunt summing up there of the perverted argument, routinely sucked up by internet idiots, that Jews (Israel, of course, specifically) were behind the Twin Towers massacre.

The graffiti may not be as in your face as those TV documentary scenes of Ukrainian football fans (joint hosts of the Euros) chanting Sieg Heil. Or as wordy as much of the anti-Jewish commentary that currently gushes forth from both right and left across Europe.

But like a gross little boil oozing bile it is a reminder that, here too, anti-Semitism in all its many forms, spreads like an infection.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/lindy-mcdowell/no-wonder-jews-fear-the-writing-on-a-belfast-wall-16171629.html#ixzz1xzOoyEYU

Is this crude trolling or signs of a growing belief? My personal opinion is that its actually more plausible than Arabs doing it, but somehow an 'Arab Job' slogan would not generate half the uproar.

Or since Arabs are held responsible by the status quo version (I.e. the same establishment which told us of an Iraq/Niger conspiracy to kill us all), it wouldn't be taboo for example for someone to accuse Arabs of killing JFK. kooky, yes. But not downright heresy if someone would to accuse Israelis of doing it. One would get a laugh, the other would get you jailed.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

Is this crude trolling or signs of a growing belief? My personal opinion is that its actually more plausible than Arabs doing it, but somehow an 'Arab Job' slogan would not generate half the uproar.

This could be because some Arabs have loudly proclaimed that they would do exactly this sort of thing and worse if they could.

Border-Rat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This could be because some Arabs have loudly proclaimed that they would do exactly this sort of thing and worse if they could.

Right then. Nothing to do with the old War on TerrorTM and all the ceaseless propaganda that comes with it? They make us hate them, thats it! :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

Right then. Nothing to do with the old War on TerrorTM and all the ceaseless propaganda that comes with it? They make us hate them, thats it! :rolleyes:

So before the Fox News-sponsored war on terrorism, who was bombing the USS Cole etc.?

Do you think (along with one or two other people here) that all terrorist attacks are actually false flag affairs? If not, how do you distinguish the genuine ones from the fake? Considering that you presumably do not have the resources to investigate these things yourself...

By the way, I'm not sure you answered my previous question as to how Lufthansa figured out the entire 9/11 false-flag plot shortly after the attacks happened.

Border-Rat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So before the Fox News-sponsored war on terrorism, who was bombing the USS Cole etc.?

What do you mean by etc. One example is hardly enough to go on.

Do you think (along with one or two other people here) that all terrorist attacks are actually false flag affairs? If not, how do you distinguish the genuine ones from the fake? Considering that you presumably do not have the resources to investigate these things yourself...

Some are, some aren't. Common sense is required to distinguish the two.

By the way, I'm not sure you answered my previous question as to how Lufthansa figured out the entire 9/11 false-flag plot shortly after the attacks happened.

Well I'm not going to because you're quoting a statement I never made. I said they removed the remote recovery system completely, a quite frankly incredible coincidence.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

What do you mean by etc. One example is hardly enough to go on.

But you didn't answer the question?

Border-Rat wrote: »

Some are, some aren't. Common sense is required to distinguish the two.

Occam's razor suggests that most aren't. Can you imagine the fallout for a democratic government if it emerges that they have been murdering their own people? You'd need a lot of people kept quiet forever somehow.

Border-Rat wrote: »

Well I'm not going to because you're quoting a statement I never made. I said they removed the remote recovery system completely, a quite frankly incredible coincidence.

So you are saying it wasn't a coincidence. Why do you think they did it due to the 9/11 attacks?

Undergod

Border-Rat wrote: »

Common sense is required to distinguish the two.

Common sense would dictate that governments are not so foolish as to plan false-flag attacks that can be exposed with the mere application of common sense.

Monty Burnz

Undergod wrote: »

Common sense would dictate that governments are not so foolish as to plan false-flag attacks that can be exposed with the mere application of common sense.

How would they do that, and how would they do it without anyone ever revealing it in any circumstance?

Basically your statement just says 'their plans are foolproof' without explaining how.

Undergod

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How would they do that, and how would they do it without anyone ever revealing it in any circumstance?

Basically your statement just says 'their plans are foolproof' without explaining how.

No it doesn't.

I'm saying "common sense" alone is not a sufficient heuristic to correctly assess world events as conspiracies or otherwise. I in no way implied they were foolproof, or could not be exposed in other ways.

Monty Burnz

Undergod wrote: »

No it doesn't.

I'm saying "common sense" alone is not a sufficient heuristic to correctly assess world events as conspiracies or otherwise.

I'm not so sure. That 'false flag' attacks fail the common sense test - as most do - demonstrates that it's a perfectly acceptable heuristic. If it makes no sense, and there's way too much that can go wrong from the imagined plotters' perspective (and this is already accepting the unlikely premise that our elected representatives happily blow us up), then I think common sense has demonstrated its worth.

Undergod

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not so sure. That 'false flag' attacks fail the common sense test - as most do - demonstrates that it's a perfectly acceptable heuristic. If it makes no sense, and there's way too much that can go wrong from the imagined plotters' perspective (and this is already accepting the unlikely premise that our elected representatives happily blow us up), then I think common sense has demonstrated its worth.

I think we're agreeing here.

My second post I should possibly have said

"common sense" alone is not a sufficient heuristic to correctly assess specific world events

to be a little more clear. Maybe I could rephrase this.

Common sense tells us that elected representatives aren't going to take the risk of blowing us up. But what Border-Rat seems to be saying is that common sense tells us which events are false flags and which are not.

Given that he believes in false flags, I am saying that common sense would not distinguish true attacks from false, as governments would probably not be so foolish as to undertake actions which would expose them as blowing up their own citizens, if such actions could be distinguished by common sense alone.

Monty Burnz

Undergod wrote: »

Common sense tells us that elected representatives aren't going to take the risk of blowing us up. But what Border-Rat seems to be saying is that common sense tells us which events are false flags and which are not.

Fair point. A recent 'terrorist attack' that common sense tells me was a false flag affair was the subway bombing in Minsk. They have the 'culprits' executed and all already.

Undergod wrote: »

Given that he believes in false flags, I am saying that common sense would not distinguish true attacks from false, as governments would probably not be so foolish as to undertake actions which would expose them as blowing up their own citizens, if such actions could be distinguished by common sense alone.

Yes, certainly not a rational democratic government operating in an open society with free speech.

Undergod

Dictatorships and stealthtatorships like Russia are different stories altogether.

EDIT: Minsk is in Belarus. Minsk =/= Omsk. Woops.

christmas2012

I think it is a total mark of disrespect calling 9/11 an inside job,notice most of the people who say this also allege that the planes never even EXISTED,that the hijack was a false flag and that there were bomb detonated explosions as opposed to the jet fuel from the plane igniting the explosion on the two wtc towers..??!?!
Anybody who alleges this is probably a) trying to up the anti trying to wind people up or b) hillbilly or arab nutters trying to convince naive people otherwise or c) demented deluded paranoid individuals
take your pick.

Brown Bomber

christmas2012 wrote: »

I think it is a total mark of disrespect calling 9/11 an inside job,notice most of the people who say this also allege that the planes never even EXISTED,that the hijack was a false flag and that there were bomb detonated explosions as opposed to the jet fuel from the plane igniting the explosion on the two wtc towers..??!?!
Anybody who alleges this is probably a) trying to up the anti trying to wind people up or b) hillbilly or arab nutters trying to convince naive people otherwise or c) demented deluded paranoid individuals
take your pick.

I'm gonna go for a demented, deluded, paranoid, hillbilly, Arab nutter who is trying to wind people up.

Wait a minute...I've just described...myself... :eek:

HamletOrHecuba

Undergod wrote: »

Common sense would dictate that governments are not so foolish as to plan false-flag attacks that can be exposed with the mere application of common sense.

This is the thing though; if you do something on that scale that is quite obviously an inside job and get away with it you will succeed in making a big enough portion of the population feel other powerless. Also in another portion you will create a split between what the know to be true but cant face or allow themselves to admit.

Monty Burnz

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

This is the thing though; if you do something on that scale that is quite obviously an inside job and get away with it you will succeed in making a big enough portion of the population feel other powerless. Also in another portion you will create a split between what the know to be true but cant face or allow themselves to admit.

And why would you do this? And why risk it, seeing as you control everything already anyway it seems?

HamletOrHecuba

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And why would you do this? And why risk it, seeing as you control everything already anyway it seems?

http://www.whale.to/b/hoffman3.html

They do not control everything- that is impossible.

But it will seem like that soon.

Monty Burnz

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

http://www.whale.to/b/hoffman3.html

They do not control everything- that is impossible.

But it will seem like that soon.

Who are they? And why risk everything on a huge terrorist attack where so much could go wrong and so much evidence be left behind to point to them?

HamletOrHecuba

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Who are they? And why risk everything on a huge terrorist attack where so much could go wrong and so much evidence be left behind to point to them?

So much evidence does point to the fact that people within the US establishment carried out, yet there are still plenty of idiots and cowards who refuse to see that starring them in the face, infact those idiots are in a majority it seems in the western world- this gives such a rush of power to the elite and also allows them to show off to the not so stupid how much they have the mainstream in the bag which is going to make them feel totally powerless.

Monty Burnz

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

So much evidence does point to the fact that people within the US establishment carried out, yet there are still plenty of idiots and cowards who refuse to see that starring them in the face, infact those idiots are in a majority it seems in the western world-

So you are saying that I am an idiot?

asherbassad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This could be because some Arabs have loudly proclaimed that they would do exactly this sort of thing and worse if they could.

Right. So just because they said the would do it means that they and they alone are the only ones who would do it. :rolleyes:

I certainly have no problem in believing that the Israelis would quite easily do such a thing. They've done it before blatantly. Ever hear of the Lavon Affair? Israel's campaign to bomb western targets and blame it on the Egyptians. The attack on the USS Liberty.
Other operations like the USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, attacks by US service personnel ON fellow US servicemen and blaming it on Panamanian forces in order to justify military action...the list goes on.

Why do you have such a phobia in contemplating that governments would kill innocent people to further their agenda? It happens all the time.

Don't look for a conspiracy theory when human nature provides a perfectly viable explanation

asherbassad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Who are they? And why risk everything on a huge terrorist attack where so much could go wrong and so much evidence be left behind to point to them?

It doesn't matter if all the evidence in the world is left to point to them. People will refuse to believe something as uncomfortable as this no matter what the evidence suggests because they can't handle it. They'll be even more likely to reject the irrefutable evidence if there's a possibility that they'll be called tinfoil nutjobs for doubting the "official" explanation.

A lot of evidence was destroyed. Removed illegally from the biggest crime scene in US history and still you don't raise an eyebrow.

That's why it was a little child who stated that the emperor had no clothes in the famous story. He had no fear of being called silly. It was the adults who couldn't think for themselves.

Monty Burnz

asherbassad wrote: »

Right. So just because they said the would do it means that they and they alone are the only ones who would do it. :rolleyes:

No, but if the say that they will do it, then it happens, and they claim they did it, and there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that they did it....then they probably did it.

asherbassad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, but if the say that they will do it, then it happens, and they claim they did it, and there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that they did it....then they probably did it.

Pretty shaky wording with which to go anywhere near an investigation, let alone convince any doubters. You can't even convince yourself.

asherbassad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, but if the say that they will do it, then it happens, and they claim they did it, and there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that they did it....then they probably did it.

Really?

Who exactly said they would do this?
If you say you're going to send a bag of dog**** to the US president you are automatically on some list and under surveillance, yet someone comes out and says they're going to attack the country and they aren't lifted?
Who claimed they did it? And who said that this person/these people claimed to have done it?
You talk about mountains of evidence. All I see is talk, rumour, hearsay, conjecture and downright fabrications.
What mountain of evidence?
Again all I have from you is suggestions and "probably". And that's good enough for you?
I can probably stomach these weak little stocks if it were a case of a kid vandalising a school toilet. But not when it involves thousands of deaths and then a war resulting in 100s of 1000s of deaths.

Monty Burnz

asherbassad wrote: »

Really?

Who exactly said they would do this?
If you say you're going to send a bag of dog**** to the US president you are automatically on some list and under surveillance, yet someone comes out and says they're going to attack the country and they aren't lifted?
Who claimed they did it? And who said that this person/these people claimed to have done it?

Who claimed they did it? Well Bin Laden, for a start:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background.

Who said they were going to do it? Perhaps there's a clue here:

Just days before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, a videotape of previously unaired footage of Osama bin Laden and two of the hijackers surfaced Thursday.

The videotape, believed to have been shot in Afghanistan in the weeks before the attack, was shown on the Arab television channel Al-Jazeera.

It includes scenes of men handling weapons and box cutters, and training to overpower others physically.
In one scene, bin Laden addresses the camera, calling on followers to support the hijackers.

"I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful, aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their hearts," bin Laden said.

While the images aren't new, it's the first time bin Laden has been seen with two men identified as being among the 19 who carried out the attacks.

They are Wael al-Shehri and Hamza al-Ghamdi. Both helped provide the muscle on their respective planes — al-Shihri on American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and al-Ghamdi on United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the South Tower.

They are shown videotaping their living wills.

"Don't be afraid, he says, if you're going to glory," al-Shehri says.

Do I need to prove that the towers fell too? :rolleyes: