Of course, they are right when it suits you.
Couterpunch's article: What did Israel know about 9/11
- Thread starter busherie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- israel conspiracies
Of course, they are right when it suits you.
MaGZ
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,917
Israeli Art Students
The five dancing Israelis were just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the Israeli spies were using the cover of Israeli Art Students to monitor the AQ hijackers.
The Israeli Art Student files
http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
The five dancing Israelis were just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the Israeli spies were using the cover of Israeli Art Students to monitor the AQ hijackers.
The Israeli Art Student files
http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
Actually, the "navy guy" is probably NOT Arabic. Hassan Abujihaad is an Islamic convert who used to be called Paul R. Hall. Every news article I have seen mentions this fact.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Aww Jeez - didn't someone already mention Julian's rantings?
MaGZ - the art student/mossad spies has been thoroughly debunked already.
Justin Raimondo, at best, is a moron... At worst? Choose your own description.)
The first "crack" in the art students fraud case was when one of these brilliant Mossad agents knocked on the door of the DEA (IIRC-it was definitely federal agents of some sort - I'm too lazy to go googling) to try to sell some her bogus artworks. Raimondo took this well-documented event and described it as an attempted break-in!
Clear answer and analysis of the article
To Loss Leader and others, I think you need to actually READ the article if you want to answer other than politically.
Arrest of arabs and jews after 9/11:
My argument was that since most of the people arrested after 9/11 were arabs, the arrest of Israelis should draw our attention. That means that they were not arrested because of their origins (like Arabs) but because the Police had hints they had something to hide. I never said "they should have arrested more jews etc..." you're a bit paranoid here.
El al hijackings: one in 1968, one in 1970 etc... My point about Israel is it has had and still has to fight to survive. They have suffered and still suffer Palestinian attacks (no judgement here, just fact). Therefore they have a good knowledge about Palestinian neworks, and generally muslim networks. I encourage you to see "Munich" by Steven Spielberg.
Now let me go back to the article itself. Please note why I said that the article is not evidence. Let me sum the article here:
After the FBI concludes that Urban moving (the company employing the suspects) was indeed a Mossad cover, Tel Aviv confirmed the Mossad presence in the US and apologized (although they won't confirm it today):
"Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were "high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials", a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified "prominent New York congressmen" were lobbying heavily for their release"
What's interesting here is that apparently the investigation was not even finished before diplomatic pressure forced the FBI to hand the agents to Israel. So when you ask, what are your proof? I answer "I don't have any" but the investigation was not thoroughly completed. And that puzzles me. Note that the excuse for their return to Israel was visa violation. I was NOT the real reason for their departure (the reason was pressure).
"All five future hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which rammed the Pentagon, maintained addresses or were active within a six-mile radius of towns associated with the Israelis employed at Urban Moving Systems"
That isn't evidence, but that surely raises question. Mossad agents, close to 9/11 suspects, that deserved a real investigation. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, expressed a lot of regrets about this:
"what was "absolutely certain", according to Vincent Cannistraro, was that the five Israelis formed part of a surveillance network in the New York- New Jersey area. The network's purpose was to track radical Islamic extremists and/or supporters of militant Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad."
This is crystal clear! This does not say wether they had knowledge about 9/11 in particular, but you have to admit the existence of the cell, and its purpose. This is said by a CIA official. But more do you need at this point? (well, the source, I agree)
So the real questions are:
1. could they have heard about the incoming attacks?
The answer is yes, they could. They were undertaking electronic surveillance in the exact area where 5 of the 19 terrorists were living.
2. Did they have knowledge? That would help explaining why they were at WTC on the morning of 9/11, before or right after the first plane crashed. It would be understandable, because they thought that 9/11 would help the cause of Israel. (think about churchill and pearl harbor)
The answer is we don't know, because the US government (probably just for political reasons) decided there should not be an investigation.
Finally, you could say: "who cares, the investigation is out, we won't know, what's the point". Well it's not that critical. Foreign intelligence agencies are not supposed to prevent attacks from happening on your soil. They can send you warnings though, and many did prior to 9/11. They weren't listened (LIHOP or negligence, doesn't matter here), too bad for the 3000 innocent people who died that morning.
It's just accepting the facts (not backed by sources here, this is why I said it's not evidence, I was not clear i agree) not accusing me of being anti-semitic etc... cause you won't silence me with this kind of arguments.
Thx for your attention.
Busherie
______________
Conclusion:
This partial analysis shows you clear conclusions about the beginning of the counterpunch article. I would appreciate if you could debate this after having read the article for yourself.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html
To Loss Leader and others, I think you need to actually READ the article if you want to answer other than politically.
Arrest of arabs and jews after 9/11:
My argument was that since most of the people arrested after 9/11 were arabs, the arrest of Israelis should draw our attention. That means that they were not arrested because of their origins (like Arabs) but because the Police had hints they had something to hide. I never said "they should have arrested more jews etc..." you're a bit paranoid here.
El al hijackings: one in 1968, one in 1970 etc... My point about Israel is it has had and still has to fight to survive. They have suffered and still suffer Palestinian attacks (no judgement here, just fact). Therefore they have a good knowledge about Palestinian neworks, and generally muslim networks. I encourage you to see "Munich" by Steven Spielberg.
Now let me go back to the article itself. Please note why I said that the article is not evidence. Let me sum the article here:
After the FBI concludes that Urban moving (the company employing the suspects) was indeed a Mossad cover, Tel Aviv confirmed the Mossad presence in the US and apologized (although they won't confirm it today):
"Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were "high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials", a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified "prominent New York congressmen" were lobbying heavily for their release"
What's interesting here is that apparently the investigation was not even finished before diplomatic pressure forced the FBI to hand the agents to Israel. So when you ask, what are your proof? I answer "I don't have any" but the investigation was not thoroughly completed. And that puzzles me. Note that the excuse for their return to Israel was visa violation. I was NOT the real reason for their departure (the reason was pressure).
"All five future hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which rammed the Pentagon, maintained addresses or were active within a six-mile radius of towns associated with the Israelis employed at Urban Moving Systems"
That isn't evidence, but that surely raises question. Mossad agents, close to 9/11 suspects, that deserved a real investigation. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, expressed a lot of regrets about this:
"what was "absolutely certain", according to Vincent Cannistraro, was that the five Israelis formed part of a surveillance network in the New York- New Jersey area. The network's purpose was to track radical Islamic extremists and/or supporters of militant Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad."
This is crystal clear! This does not say wether they had knowledge about 9/11 in particular, but you have to admit the existence of the cell, and its purpose. This is said by a CIA official. But more do you need at this point? (well, the source, I agree)
So the real questions are:
1. could they have heard about the incoming attacks?
The answer is yes, they could. They were undertaking electronic surveillance in the exact area where 5 of the 19 terrorists were living.
2. Did they have knowledge? That would help explaining why they were at WTC on the morning of 9/11, before or right after the first plane crashed. It would be understandable, because they thought that 9/11 would help the cause of Israel. (think about churchill and pearl harbor)
The answer is we don't know, because the US government (probably just for political reasons) decided there should not be an investigation.
Finally, you could say: "who cares, the investigation is out, we won't know, what's the point". Well it's not that critical. Foreign intelligence agencies are not supposed to prevent attacks from happening on your soil. They can send you warnings though, and many did prior to 9/11. They weren't listened (LIHOP or negligence, doesn't matter here), too bad for the 3000 innocent people who died that morning.
It's just accepting the facts (not backed by sources here, this is why I said it's not evidence, I was not clear i agree) not accusing me of being anti-semitic etc... cause you won't silence me with this kind of arguments.
Thx for your attention.
Busherie
______________
Conclusion:
This partial analysis shows you clear conclusions about the beginning of the counterpunch article. I would appreciate if you could debate this after having read the article for yourself.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html
This shows how hopeless a discussion with CT'ist is.
They start from the conclusion, ignore the facts that don't suit them, and when needed add the odd lie.
You only rehash this stupid and meaningless incident BECAUSE THEY WERE ISRAELIS!
If exactly the same would have happened to "five dancing Arabs", you would have complained about Maria's paranoia and the "police state".
Who exactly was at WTC on the morning of 9/11?
For years antisemites have claimed that thousands of Jews/Israelis were absent from the WTC on 9/11, and that that proved Israeli foreknowledge.
Now you reverse that. You place the "five dancing Israelis" at the WTC, which is a lie, and claim that that may point to foreknowledge.
As usual, CT-arguments work both ways:
Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
No Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
You also repeat the baseless insinuation that the "five dancing Israelis" filmed or photografed the first impact. You have to do this, because that, and only that, could point to foreknowledge. Else, all you have is five Israelis, who, like hundreds of thousands of people in NY/NJ, saw the WTC in flames.
That you have to make up things to keep your story alive tells me something.
There is nothing in it. Except the pathetic willingness to involve Israel in the 9/11-attacks.
They start from the conclusion, ignore the facts that don't suit them, and when needed add the odd lie.
They were arrested because Maria thought they acted strange.
You only rehash this stupid and meaningless incident BECAUSE THEY WERE ISRAELIS!
If exactly the same would have happened to "five dancing Arabs", you would have complained about Maria's paranoia and the "police state".
One in 1968, one failed in 1970. The etc... is a lie.
Already answered.
So the real questions are:
1. could they have heard about the incoming attacks?
The answer is yes, they could. They were undertaking electronic surveillance in the exact area where 5 of the 19 terrorists were living.
This is absolutely outrageous!
Who exactly was at WTC on the morning of 9/11?
For years antisemites have claimed that thousands of Jews/Israelis were absent from the WTC on 9/11, and that that proved Israeli foreknowledge.
Now you reverse that. You place the "five dancing Israelis" at the WTC, which is a lie, and claim that that may point to foreknowledge.
As usual, CT-arguments work both ways:
Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
No Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
You also repeat the baseless insinuation that the "five dancing Israelis" filmed or photografed the first impact. You have to do this, because that, and only that, could point to foreknowledge. Else, all you have is five Israelis, who, like hundreds of thousands of people in NY/NJ, saw the WTC in flames.
That you have to make up things to keep your story alive tells me something.
There is nothing in it. Except the pathetic willingness to involve Israel in the 9/11-attacks.
Last edited:
This shows how hopeless a discussion with CT'ist is.
They start from the conclusion, ignore the facts that don't suit them, and when needed add the odd lie.
They were arrested because Maria thought they acted strange.
You only rehash this stupid and meaningless incident BECAUSE THEY WERE ISRAELIS!
If exactly the same would have happened to "five dancing Arabs", you would have complained about Maria's paranoia and the "police state".
One in 1968, one failed in 1970. The etc... is a lie.
Already answered.
This is absolutely outrageous!
Who exactly was at WTC on the morning of 9/11?
For years antisemites have claimed that thousands of Jews/Israelis were absent from the WTC on 9/11, and that that proved Israeli foreknowledge.
Now you reverse that. You place the "five dancing Israelis" at the WTC, which is a lie, and claim that that may point to foreknowledge.
As usual, CT-arguments work both ways:
Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
No Israelis at the WTC?-->foreknowledge
You also repeat the baseless insinuation that the "five dancing Israelis" filmed or photografed the first impact. You have to do this, because that, and only that, could point to foreknowledge. Else, all you have is five Israelis, who, like hundreds of thousands of people in NY/NJ, saw the WTC in flames.
That you have to make up things to keep your story alive tells me something.
There is nothing in it. Except the pathetic willingness to involve Israel in the 9/11-attacks.
I think this shows on the contrary how hopeless debating with debunkers can be sometimes.
They were arrested because a witness noted their strange behaviour. But then the investigation lasted a long time, they underwent lie detectors etc... and were only released because of political pressure.
Did you even read the article. Again: "what was "absolutely certain", according to Vincent Cannistraro, was that the five Israelis formed part of a surveillance network in the New York- New Jersey area. The network's purpose was to track radical Islamic extremists and/or supporters of militant Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad."
How can you go again this? It's just obvious. Read the article.
They were not at WTC, they were in a park from which they could see the WTC. Sorry for the imprecision. Same for the "etc.."
I never said, and will never say, that 4000 didn't show up to work. This stupid theory has been endorsed years ago by a minority of truthers (not necesarily the most discrete though). Stop bringing the anti-semitic argument, it's paranoid.
As for the foreknowledge, I'm gonna repeat myself:
"2. Did they have knowledge? That would help explaining why they were at WTC on the morning of 9/11, before or right after the first plane crashed. It would be understandable, because they thought that 9/11 would help the cause of Israel. (think about churchill and pearl harbor)
The answer is we don't know, because the US government (probably just for political reasons) decided there should not be an investigation."
(from my previous post)
Have you read this: I said "we don't know". So stop saying i said this or this. I said they might have (they were in the same area, doing electronic surveillance on islamist and/or palestinian radical groups.) They might. But we don't know because political pressure stopped the investigation!
So calm down, stop seeing holocaust deniers et and anti-semitic people everywhere. Consider the article itself, its content.
Busherie
MaGZ
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,917
The Israeli ‘Art Students' got themselves arrested and deported before 9/11. Once 9/11 happened the local FBI in Florida investigated where the hijackers lived and found they were being monitored by the Israeli Mossad who were using the cover of art students. The local FBI took what they learned to Carl Cameron; Fox News ran some of the information in December 2001.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You know, I take it back. Everything you've said is absolutely right. And I once saw a guy rescue the Ark of the Covenant from the Nazis which proves that extra-terrestrials exist and dinosaurs are real!!!!!!
Idiot.
Waow man, you are very far away.... Is it so difficult to read an article? I don't know in which world you live in...
I'd like to help.
Busherie
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You didn't ask me to read an article, you encouraged me to watch a fictional Steven Spielberg film. Your exact words were: I encourage you to see "Munich" by Steven Spielberg.
Now, when you first started posting, you approached the subject like someone with some misconceptions who had gotten some bad information but who was open to learning about the reality of the event. Instead, you have continued to insist that certain things are true without evidence and you have refused to move off of your positions. Now you have cited a fiction movie as evidence.
What evidence do you have that Steven Spielberg has any actual insight into what Israel knows and doesn't know about terror networks? What evidence do you have that anything in Munich after the opening credits is actually true? What evidence do you have that fiction, in general, is an appropriate source for learning anything about anything?
Did the US bring in the Red October? Was Roxie Hart actually found not guilty? Did Martin Brody really insist that they were going to need a bigger boat? Did Alvie Singer and Annie Hall really break up? Did Gaylord Fokker's fiance actually meet his parents? And can you really get home just by clicking your heals three times?
The fact that you think that a Spielberg movie is appropriate evidence is evidence of nothing other than how low you will stoop to reinforce your own preconceptions.
Hi Mike,
Glad you step in. I must confess I haven't investigated the "art students" part of the article. I was focusing more on the first part: the Urban Moving cell.
But again no definite conclusion about this since the investigation did not go to its end. Just another 9/11 coincidence....
Loss Leader, sorry to see you attach so much importance to this movie and more generally to Israel's knowledge of radical islamism groups. I don't know much about the Red october. It was not a proof, rather an illustration. But let me take a couple of examples to show you what I mean: the US intelligence has a good knowledge of far-right extremism (KKK, McVeigh etc...) and a good knowledge of far left activism (Black panthers). France knows a lot about Algerian radical groups. Why, because of history, because they particularly faced or still face this threat.
Why does the fact that Israel knows these networks better than others showk you so much?
Busherie
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Other than Raimondo's fertile imagination, please cite the source for the bolded part. They were never spying on the hijackers, they lived near the Mail Boxes Are Us (or whatever it was called), not the hijackers, and they were kids.... Would mossad send a bunch of lower-twenty-somethings to track dangerous jihadists? Not likely.
The feds in the USA had the same findings as the feds in Canada. Their crime was shucking bad art by appealing for sympathy, as hard-working and dedicated students trying to get by.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You're the one who keeps insisting that Israel had some special knowledge of Muslim terrorists that somehow implicates it in 9/11.
Hit me.
Not good enough, apparently, to prevent the murder of Medgar Evers.
Not good enough, apparently, to prevent him from blowing up a federal building.
Not good enough to prevent the Brinks robbery in 1981 New York.
Not good enough to prevent the murder of Ricky Leon Kinchen.
Not before they lost 5,000 civilians in the cafe wars.
You have not presented any evidence that such is the case. You presented an analogy to US domestic terrorism and French-Algerian terrorism which turns out not to support your point. When you present any actual evidence, I will be glad to consider it.
P.S. Nothing that occurred in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will be considered as evidence.
I did not conclude that Isreal had fore knowledge. Again I said that the evidence available shows that:
1. The Urban moving cell was operating in a neighborhood where 5 of the 19 highjackers lived.
2. They were doing electronic surveillance relative to radical islamist groups
--> Therefore, they MAY have intercepted information about the WTC attacks. That would explain them being in a place close to the WTC, looking at it, before or shortly after the first plane crashed. That would explain their behaviour.
HOWEVER, although they systematically failed all the lie detectors tests, they were sent back to Israel, due to high political pressure, before the investigation could be completed. Therefore, we do not have evidence proving they had foreknowledge.
I think my answer is balanced enough. If not, please indicate what is wrong in my analysis, I'd be glad to modify it.
__________
Lastly, the examples i've taken do show you these countries have a better than usual knowledge of certain topics, due to the threats they face. That doesn't mean however they can actually prevent attacks from happening. We can imagine that they prevent a certain number from happening, by using specific intelligence means and enhancing security.
So yes, Isreal has a particularly good knowledge of Palestinian radical groups (Hamas in particular) but also Hezbulah. Concerning Saudi groups, or Al Qaida in general, I wouldn't say they are THE specialists, simply because it is the Palestinians who pose the biggest threat.
If you answer this part of my post, please also answer seriously to the other one (or say you agree
)_______________
Thx for your attention
busherie
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I'm really not sure what's wrong with you. You keep repeating the same thing. When I ask for evidence, you just repeat your assertions with conviction. You still have provided no evidence of anything. However, you claim that the "evidence" shows certain things without explaining what that evidenc is.
Simply calling it the "urban moving cell" reveals your bias. You have already decided that they were an Israeli intelligence cell. Even so, what is your evidence that they were in a "neighborhood" where five of the nineteen hijackers lived? They were in the same radius as some of the hijackers but so were hundreds of thousands of other people. They were in one of the most densely populated areas of the country.
What is your evidence of this?
If by "electronic surveillance," the only evidence you have is that they were filming the World Trade Center, so were thousands of other people. NBC News was also doing electronic surveillance relative to radical islamist groups. Do you have any evidence that their "electronic surveillance" extended to anything other than filming the huge burning skyscrapers? Do you have any evidence that they were studying the movements of radical islamist groups BEFORE the planes crashed?
I believe you MAY have intercepted information about the WTC attacks. I am going to call the FBI and report this new lead.
Actually, they were across a river and in another state. They were nowhere near the airport from which the planes took off, the flight path of the planes or their final destination. The towers were one hundred and ten stories tall; they were visible for miles and miles. Something on the order of ten million people were "close" to the WTC by your definition. I was. So was my mother. Where were you that day?
What evidence do you have that these Israelis were filming the WTC BEFORE the first plane crashed? I'd like to know because I have never seen any information that anyone spotted them behaving oddly before the crashes. Even so, do people really have to explain why they looked at a huge New York City landmark? I looked at the twin towers all the time. So did my friend Mike. Have YOU ever looked at them? If not, why not?
Now I know you're crazy. Are you really arguing that these men needed an explanation for why they were looking at the towers AFTER a 757 crashed into one of them? I defy you to find me anyone who could see the towers who didn't look at them. The building was on fire. it was the largest terrorist attack on US soil in history. People were going to look.
This statement more than any other convinces me of your prejudice. An explanation why they looked at the exploding building? Give me a break.
Please provide evidence of high political pressure. Please provide evidence that the investigation was not completed. Please provide anything other than your bald assertions.
No, you do not.
Your analysis is wrong in that it prejudges the guilt of these men. Your analysis is wrong in that it ascribes malicious intent to behavior from these men while excusing that behavior in others. Your analysis is wrong in that you have no evidence from which to build your theory.
You have not shown this. You've just guessed it. Unsurprisingly, I am reluctant to accord your guess the weight of actual evidence.
Once again, your imagination is not evidence. Do you have any evidence for your assertions? Do you have any evidence that enhancing security in general wouldn't prevent as many attacks?
Assuming this is true, none of the 9/11 terrorists belonged to either of these groups. What reason do you have for generalizing Israel's knowledge of these groups to Al Quada? What evidence do you have that any knowledge of terrorist groups operating inside Israel would lead to knowledge of terrorist groups operating in the US?
Oh, they are not THE specialists but you still believe they have some special knowledge. Please provide evidence.
If you answer this part of my post, please also answer seriously to the other one (or say you agree
I won't answer you again until you present evidence of any of your assertions. Simply repeating them over and over does not make them more true. Those things which you believe are simply common sense are in fact your own preconceptions and prejudgments. Your refusal to move away from them marks you as a person who hates first and finds reasons later. Since there is no way to convince you not to be anti-semitic, I will no longer try.
Loss leader, I can't read th article for you. I'm sure you haven't read it or at best you just skimmed throught it. So take the time to read it (at least the first part about the "hight fivers", and then come back to this thread. Otherwise, you certainly can't undestand what I'm talking about:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html
As for the specific point you mentionned, remember that before the seonc plane crashed in the WTC, very few people realized this was a terrorist attack. Even some of the US leaders only understood after the second plane crashed.
That these spies were acting strangely (waving a lighter like in a concert, according to the photo the FBI later developped, but again, read the article) right after the FIRST crash is indeed a strange behaviour, that actually justified a FBI BOLO and their arrest.
Read the article.
Thx
Busherie
