Ahmadinejad: Wipe out Zionism not Jews

There's a long history of people distinguishing between Zionists and Jews even though by one they mean the other.

In your paranoid imagination. Because everyone hates you, and that makes you special.

There are zionists in the states and all over the world.
Zionists believe in greater israel. Which would extend accross the entire middle east.
Many of the extremsists in israel desire this. This is one reason they still occcupy palistine, this is also why the gov got so much greif for giving land back.

basically ZIONISTS dont want egypt, lebbannon, syria, iraq, turkey to exist.. they just dont say so outloud, but ask them about greater israel.

I will say a majority of isrealis have no aspirations for greater israel.

All this bloodshed, the Iraq wars, the occurrence of 9/11, the devolution of the American democracy, and if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

I don't think that's a leap worth making.

If Israel were fighting a truly existential war, I would fight for them even if they started it in the worst way. But Israel doesn't really have a whole lot to do with 9/11 or the Iraq War. Israel isn't responsible for Bush's fascism.

Zionists believe in greater israel.

Joules, that's just not true. It's a nasty stereotype and nothing more.

I thought the terrorists central problem was Israel/Palestine and that is the root cause of the terror we have seen in most places in the Middle East?

No, the central problems are dealing with Western economic imperialism. globalization, and modernity. Terrorists do like to scapegoat Israel, but al Qaeda formed specifically in response to US troops in Saudi Arabia. Part of the problem, though is that antisemitic conspiracy theories posit Jews (or "Zionists") as the reasons for "why things go the way they do," which is what leads to scapegoating. But if Israeli dissolved tomorrow, none of the central problems would be gone.

I also thought one of the reasons for the Iraq war (well, at least the first one) was Israel's security because Saddam was a threat?

Maybe one reason among a million different reasons. Or maybe not at all. There are some antisemitic conspiracy theories that suggest such things, but they're no more than that. From at least the time of the plagues, Jews have been blamed for why things go wrong, and this is no different.

Guido: I think the evidence for Israeli secret service implication in the WTC is slim to none. In this case, ignoblus is right.

Religion should be wiped out because it forces people to be intolerant of others, right?

Think about that for just one second.

How can you call yourself tolerant, if you can't tolerate intolerance?

Whoa, dude, that's deep.

Zionist Commando Daniel Lewin Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

Guido, that's deeply offensive, and you really should be able to recognize that. It is every bit as antisemitic as when the Nazis blamed Jews for the loss of World War I. I'm going to point out a few phrases, and you can respond to them:

• "Zionist controlled media"
• "Zionist dominated Pentagon"

Read this and learn it well.

However if you read the article, you will see that the assertions in there are basically the same information as that coming from other sources.

Other completely antisemitic sources.

re: The Gulf War: that Israel and Iraq are enemies is no surprise to anyone, is it? That the U.S. considered its vital interests i.e. access to oil jeapardized by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is well understood. That the two are linked does not suggest that the U.S. went to war for Israel's benefit, notwithstanding a common interest against Iraq. You will also remember that several Arab states were also on the side of the coalition i.e. the U.S. led invasion, and in no way would they have participated had the war been seen as a war for Israel's benefit. That they did benefit is no coincidence, but it is does not suggest US became involve for Israel's benefit.

If anything, the first Gulf War was about protecting Saudi Arabia.

The US would never do to Britain what it does to Iraq, either. So?

And Israel's behavior with regards to spying really isn't much different than any other nation's. Friendly nations do spy on each other all the time, it just doesn't make the news unless it's Israel (though Pollard is, apparently, an exceptional case, but no one will tell us why). Why is that?

Look, if you want a simplistic narrative, if you just don't want to be bothered with the complexity of the real world, go with "It's all about the oil."

Ban Ki Moon didn't say Israel was responsible, did he? No, he said the conflict was at the heart of the Middle East's problems. But why might he answer that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is "at the heart of the problerm"? How about because Arabs believe that (even though it's nothing less than delusional to, for instance, blame bad schools in Morocco on Israel), and since Arabs have oil, others tend to adopt thier views.

No, I'm not actually claiming a conspiracy theory of any sort (even though I could easily trump any antisemitic conspiracy theory with an anti-Arab one). This exemplifies one of the problems with conspiracy theories, though. No matter what you give me, no matter how much it tends to disprove the conspiracy theory, I can pretend it doesn't matter one bit because it's a part of the conspiracy. Either a "black flag operation" or someone part of (or beholden to) the conspiracy. My gosh, If Ban Ki Moon is part of the Arab oil conspiracy, what couldn't they do? And, of course, Iraq is nothing but a black flag operation. We know the US is beholden to Arab oil interests, so the Arabs could easily manipulate the US into doing their bidding. But then this is taking facts and making them fit the conspiracy theory rather than looking at the facts objectively and then determining some sort of conclusion.

So if I'm not advocating a conspiracy theory, what then am I advocating? Different groups of people, each with their own perspectives, resources, and interests acting separately in a way that sometimes looks chaotic. If you're trying to find the one thread that holds it all together, you're on the wrong track already. History doesn't work in such neat narratives, with everything tied up neatly in the end, like prime-time television.

But if you insist on one neat narrative, on one ring to rule them all, go with the oil.

Blogspot seems to be down (good work shamelessly shilling your own page in someone else's discussion), but I'd be interested to see someone "blame bad schools in Morocco on Israel."

Notice that iggy hasn't substantiated his wild claim yet. He has a certain tendency to drop those insane sort of statements into conversations, and then slink away.

When you get away from Israel, he's very clearheaded, but when it comes to tribal politics, he's completely unable to step back and look at what he's saying.

Kudos for your conspiracy theory to counter my conspiracy theory.

You missed my point, Guido. All conspiracism is flawed.

Notice that iggy hasn't substantiated his wild claim yet.

It's in the above link, which works just fine.

but when it comes to tribal politics

I've said before to stop calling Jews "tribal." It is simply racist. If you want to keep it up, you can take it over to the Jewish Tribal Review.

Supporting Jews simply because they are Jews is racist, and that's what I see you doing.

That's what you see because you can't see beyond me being a Jew. It's plain racist to stereotype Jews as tribal.

What does tribal mean?

I do think it's wrong to always take the side of Israel just because you're a Jew. I don't think that's racism though.

Well... no it's not. It's something-ist, but not Racist

Killfile, it was a linguistic shortcut. Some Jews are re-embracing a partially racial definition of Jewishness for simple linguistic convenience, and that's just one example. But thank you for noting that stereotyping is wrong.

Oluseye, if you want to know what tribal means, go here. Thanks to the new "nofollow" thingie, I don't mind linking there so much.

It's plain racist to stereotype Jews as tribal.

True enough. However, I recognize that there are many, many Jews who don't engage in tribal politics, so I am not doing that. There are also many who do engage in tribal politics, and I recognize the source of their blind spot, and regret what it does to their moral positions.

You wear your Jewishness on your sleeve, and calling me racist because I don't ignore it is just playing the victim.

If you think "tribal" means "primitive," maybe you are a racist.

I recognize that there are many, many Jews who don't engage in tribal politics,

And then you measure me by whether I meet the stereotype or not. Google the phrase "I don't hate blacks" and you might see what I mean.

Or this.

And then you measure me by whether I meet the stereotype or not.

It's an odd stereotype that doesn't pretend to be universal. I'd say that it is one that exists only in your paranoiac imagination, one that exists only so you can avoid having to think about whether critiques of your moral position are valid or not.

ignoblus is not one of the bad Israel supporters. I think he is one of the good ones, in fact.

His consistent demonization of Arabs/Muslims tells me that no, he's not one of the good ones. The same with his insistence that everyone hates the Jews, and that Zionism and Jewishness are inseperable.

His argument is the mirror of the antisemitic one that holds all Jews responsible for Israeli atrocities.

Except that I don't demonize Muslims or Arabs at all. You're depiction of me is flat wrong and based on nothing but your own stereotypes.

The problem is that by "Zionist regime" he means a lot more than just Israel.

The voices in ignoblus' head assure him that this is true.

According to Juan Cole, the first time this phrase was used (zionist regime) it was by Ayatollah Khomeini, the late hero of the Iranian revolution. He says it was interpreted at that time as advocating the 1-state solution.

He says Ahmadinejad uses it now in the same way. At some level it makes sense to me that this can be so. Main reason is that Ahmadinejad can not advocate the violent destruction of Israel, he'd be advocating the destruction of Palestine too and of the Muslim Arabs there. The second reason this could be true is that if what Ahmadinejad wants is the destruction of Israel, he can simply say so. By phrasing it as "zionist regime", I am inclined to think he means something else.

Finally, the way this is interpreted, it means that the area that includes Israel shoud no longer be ruled by the Jewish minority but by Majority Arabs under their rule as a Muslim state. I understand this is almost as good as asking for Israel to no longer exist afterall a great part of its essence is as a Jewish state.

I remember I once asked you why people oppose the 1 state solution. My idea of such a solution is different from Iran's.

My one-state solution depends on majority rule in a SECULAR country with plurality established and no special treatment of any "race".

As you pointed out, this is not desirable to either side of the dispute but it has its merits. The strongest merit is to get rid of the religious causes of this conflict. And I also want it to be enforced from outside.

Juan Cole is usually worth paying attention to, but not in this case. Not only did he ignore the massive amount of evidence outrside the text that the speech was hostile, but he also ignored quite a bit from within the same speech as well.

Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime...

For over 50 years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it....

Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.

In other words, Israel is only the "heart" of the "world oppressor" and his intentions go beyond merely eliminating Israel. And so who is this "world oppressor"?

Of course his speeches have been hostile. The question is the content of his hostile speeches. Especially since people have concluded from them that he wants to nuke Israel to non-existence. Nobody has said how this would please his Palestinian allies since it is quite obvious, and quite elementary that nuking Israel would be nuking the Palestinians.

I think it is reasonably prudent to conclude he is not saying that.

And so who is this "world oppressor"?

No thanks.

I think I'll keep my faith in the Iranian system of government/constitution, and thus keep my faith in the people of Iran. Iran is not a dictatorship, they don't need our "help" (seems how that's the way we define destroying the infrastructure of another country). They hold elections, seats in the Majlis are held by elected officials, elected officials can be removed from office by the people. They have a constitution and a system of laws.

Whether we like it or not, Iran is an Islamic state. It's going to be an Islamic state until the people decide otherwise.

....And as far as military action by Iran against Israel- the Iranian people would never allow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

They hold elections, seats in the Majlis are held by elected officials, elected officials can be removed from office by the people.

So does North Korea. In North Korea, these legislators have no real power. In Iran they have minimal power. Hate to break it to you (why do I feel like I'm telling someone Santa doesn't exist), but Iran is a totalitarian state, and it's currently getting worse.

No Ignobus they do have some power. I remember reading 2 weeks ago that they were debating pulling Iran out of the NPT. That sounds a bit significant to me.

I don't know what other power they have but the power to determine foreign policy is not irrelevant.

The Supreme Leader has about eighty to ninety percent of all power. The Assembly of Exprerts vets all political candidates. Debate, to the extent that it happens, is mostly over pre-approved topics and entirely by pre-approved people. This is pretty much like when Bush puts together a panel of experts.

Given that the Supreme Leader has complete control of the military, discussions of the NPT by the majlis are fairly irrelevant. They have zero power to force the Supreme Leader to live up to the treaty.

So does North Korea. In North Korea, these legislators have no real power.

Where did i mention DPRK?

Iran is a totalitarian state, and it's currently getting worse.

The current system of government in Iran is outlined in their constitution, which the populous installed and has approved of for the past 4 decades. Trust me, when the citizens of Iran decide they don't want Sharia law, they'll make the change. They're no stranger to revolutions against a government they don't approve of - America knows that first hand.

They don't need us & Israel to destroy their country to do it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: our attitude toward Iran has nothing to do with 'international security'. It's purely political, nothing more. It's about developing forward bases in the region to secure our own personal economic interests. The dollar is growing weaker by the day, and the PNAC says the Middle East is the solution to that problem - so that's where Georgie boy is looking.

A little PNAC love to spice things up:

"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region"

It doesn't matter how angelic the Iranians are, Washington is out for blood.

Amnesty:

Iran has one of the highest number of recorded executions of any country in the world. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the execution of children and individuals who were minors when their crimes were alleged to have taken place.

HRW:

Human Rights Watch called on Iran to immediately revoke bans on students from attending university because they hold political beliefs not to the government's liking, and to allow registered students to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and association.

The Iranian Judiciary should prosecute officials responsible for the arbitrary detention and alleged torture of several bloggers in 2004, instead of prosecuting the bloggers for expressing their opinions, Human Rights Watch said today.

Freedom House:

Political and civil liberties in Iran continued to deteriorate in 2005. The ruling clerical establishment engineered the election of a conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting in motion a purge of reformers throughout the executive branch.

In October [2005], the head of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, announced that "anyone who disseminates information aimed at disturbing the public mind through computer systems" would be jailed. The government also launched a crackdown on "social corruption," sending thousands of morality police and vigilantes into the streets to enforce Islamic dress codes and prevent public mingling of men and women.

The June 2005 presidential election swept away the last bastion of reformist political power in Iran. While the Council of Guardians ensured a reactionary outcome by rejecting the candidacies of popular reformers, the victory of Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over other approved candidates in a two-round runoff election reflected popular desires for a change in the status quo... Ahmadinejad signaled his intent to further erode political and civil liberties by awarding the powerful ministries of Information and the Interior to hard-liners who have been implicated directly in the extrajudicial killings of dissidents and other egregious human rights abuses. He quickly began a wide-ranging purge of the administration, including sacking 40 of Iran's most experienced diplomats and 7 state bank directors. The new president and many of the new faces are veterans of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), inspired more by militant anti-Western nationalism than by strictly theological dogma. His government tightened restrictions on foreign films and announced plans to impose more stringent controls on books, local films, and theater; however, it did not initiate a major rollback of the social liberalization Iran has witnessed over the past eight years.

Iranians cannot change their government democratically. The most powerful figure in the Iranian government is the Supreme Leader (Vali-e-Faghih), currently Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei; he is chosen for life by the Assembly of Experts, a clerics-only body whose members are elected to eight-year terms by popular vote from a gov-ernment-screened list of candidates. The Supreme Leader is commander in chief of the armed forces and appoints the leaders of the judiciary, the heads of state broadcast media, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Expediency Council, and half the members of the Council of Guardians. Although the president and parliament are responsible for designating cabinet ministers, the Supreme Leader exercises de facto control over appointments to the ministries of Defense, Interior, and Intelligence.

All candidates for election to the presidency and the 290-seat unicameral parliament are vetted for strict allegiance to the ruling theocracy and adherence to Islamic principles by the 12-person Council of Guardians, a body of 6 clergymen appointed by the Supreme Leader and 6 laymen selected by the head of the judiciary chief (the latter are nominally subject to parliamentary approval). The Council of Guardians also has the power to reject legislation approved by parliament; disputes between the two are arbitrated by the Expediency Council, another non-elected, conser-vative-dominated body, currently headed by former president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani.

The legitimacy of the June 2005 presidential election was undermined by the Council of Guardians' rejection of all but 8 of the 1,014 candidates who registered to run. Numerous irregularities, such as intimidation of voters by the military and hardline vigilantes, were reported in both rounds, but there was little evidence of systemic fraud.

Corruption is pervasive. The hard-line clerical establishment has grown immensely wealthy through its control of tax-exempt foundations (bonyads) that monopolize many sectors of the economy, such as cement and sugar production. Iran was ranked 88 out of 159 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Freedom of expression is limited. The government directly controls all television and radio broadcasting. Satellite dishes are illegal, though widely tolerated, and the authorities have had some success in jamming broadcasts by dissident overseas satellite stations. The Ministry of Culture must approve publication of all books and inspects foreign books prior to domestic distribution. The Press Court has extensive procedural and jurisdictional power in prosecuting journalists, editors, and publishers for such vaguely worded offenses as "insulting Islam" and "damaging the foundations of the Islamic Republic." The authorities frequently issue ad hoc gag orders banning media coverage of specific topics and events. The government systematically censors internet content by forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to a growing list of "immoral sites and political sites that insult the country's political and religious leaders."

At least eight newspapers were suspended or closed by the authorities in 2005, and those that remained open were intimidated into practicing self-censorship. At least a dozen journalists and bloggers (writers of internet journals known as "weblogs," or "blogs") were indicted or convicted of press offenses during the year, and many more were summoned for questioning about their writings. In January, the authorities closed down one of the country's leading ISPs for violating filtering restrictions. In October, the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, a body of clerics handpicked by the Supreme Leader, issued a ban on foreign films that promote immorality, violence, drug usage, liquor consumption, secularism, liberalism, anarchy, or feminism.

Religious freedom is limited in Iran, which is largely Shiite Muslim with a small Sunni Muslim minority. Shiite clerics who dissent from the ruling establishment are frequently harassed. Sunnis enjoy equal rights under the law, but there are some indications of discrimination, such as the absence of a Sunni mosque in Tehran and the paucity of Sunnis in senior government offices. The constitution recognizes Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians as religious minorities and generally allows them to worship without interference so long as they do not proselytize. However, they are barred from election to representative bodies (though a set number of parliamentary seats are reserved for them), cannot hold senior government or military positions, and face restrictions in employment, education, and property ownership. Some 300,000 Baha'is, Iran's largest non-Muslim minority, enjoy virtually no rights under the law and are banned from practicing their faith. Hundreds of Baha'is have been executed since 1979. In February, a military officer was discharged and sentenced to three years in prison for "deceiving the armed forces" about his conversion to Christianity.

Academic freedom in Iran is limited. Scholars are frequently detained for expressing political views, and students involved in organizing protests often face suspension or expulsion by university disciplinary committees. In the months following his election, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replaced the heads of at least a dozen major universities. The appointment of a conservative cleric, Ayatollah Abbasali Amid Zanjani, as head of Tehran University in November touched off a protest by hundreds of students.

The constitution permits the establishment of political parties, professional syndicates, and other civic organizations, provided they do not violate the principles of "freedom, sovereignty and national unity" or question the Islamic basis of the republic. The Iran Freedom Movement was banned in 2002 on such grounds. In 2005, at least three prominent dissidents were prevented by the authorities from traveling abroad, and at least two such dissidents were attacked and severely injured by unidentified assailants. Abdolfattah Soltani, a prominent human rights lawyer and co-founder of the Center for Defense of Human Rights, was arrested in July and detained throughout the year without formal charge.

The 1979 constitution prohibits public demonstrations that "violate the principles of Islam," a vague provision used to justify the heavy-handed dispersal of assemblies and marches. Hard-line vigilante organizations unofficially sanctioned by the conservative establishment-most notably the Basij and Ansar-i Hezbollah- play a major role in dispersing public demonstrations. In July, police forcibly dispersed a demonstration protesting the continued imprisonment of dissident Akbar Ganji, beating dozens of people with batons.

Iranian law does not allow independent labor unions to exist, though workers' councils are represented in the government-sanctioned Workers' House, the country's only legal labor federation. While strikes and work stoppages were not uncommon in 2005, the authorities forcibly dispersed demonstrations that criticized national economic policies. In April, an employee of the Iran Khodro automobile plant involved in protesting its labor policies was arrested and remained in prison without charge at year's end. In September, seven leaders of a Tehran bus workers' union were arrested during a strike and charged with disturbing public order. In November, five labor activists in the city of Saqqez were sentenced to two or more years in prison for involvement in illegal union activities.

The judicial system is not independent, as the Supreme Leader directly appoints the head of the judiciary, who in turn appoints senior judges. General Courts ostensibly safeguard the rights of defendants, but in practice suspects are frequently tried in closed sessions and without access to legal counsel. Political and other sensitive cases are tried before Revolutionary Courts, where due process protections are routinely disregarded and trials are often summary, lasting as little as five minutes. Dissident clerics are tried before the Special Court for the Clergy. The penal code is based on Sharia and provides for flogging, stoning, amputation, and death for a range of social and political offenses; these punishments are carried out in practice.

Although the constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, these practices are very common and increasingly routine. Suspected dissidents are often held in unofficial, illegal detention centers, and allegations of torture are common. Although legislation banning the use of torture in interrogations was promulgated in 2004, allegations of torture persisted in 2005.

Ok, but there are internal checks on everyone's power aren't there? Honest response needed. Not to say that you are not usually.

Ok, but there are internal checks on everyone's power aren't there?

Not really. Though none of the other government officials or branches has anywhere near the power of the Supreme Leader, who holds about 80 to 90 percent of power, there are other groups with some power. Mostly, that just devolves into Machiavellian fights between different political players, with every gambit reinforcing the totalitarian tendencies of the regime. I wish I could remember the name of the Persian-Canadian filmmaker who got arrested in Iran. Most of her story was about petty squabbles over whether the President's police and prisons or the clerical police and prisons got to torture her. Then when Canada inquired about her body, it was about who was responsible for torturing her to death. The struggle between the two in that case could never be called something like a check and balance system.

But on top of everything, there is an incestuous relationship where the Supreme Leader is appointed by but also appoints members of other branches of government. So, the Assembly of Experts are elected and responsible for appointing (and dismissing) the Supreme Leader. But candidates for the Council are approved by the Guardian Council. Half of the members of the Guardian Council are selected by the Supreme Leader. The other half are selected by the head of the judicial branch, which is, in turn, selected by the Supreme Leader. (No wonder corruption has been worsening, huh?) I guess a good analogy would be the Supreme Court, with members selected by Bush's father and Reagan basically selecting Bush to be President. But in Iran, that's what the Constitution says ought to happen. Instead of checks and balances it's more a backscratching system.

I'm curious. How many Iranians do you think we should kill in order to solve this problem?

Look Ignoblus please your 80-90% of power thing. I don't get how you delineate power by percentages.

I don't get how you delineate power by percentages.

It's a common approximation that I'm just quoting, but the Supreme Leader isn't called that for nothing. He sets all policy, is directly in command of implementing a good bit of it as well, and is the supreme judicial authority. Further, he directly appoints half the Guardian Council and appoints the person who then appoints the other half. This Guardian Council then vets all elections and can block any legislation.

Jimmy, what makes you presume to know what policies regarding Iran I would support?

Dancing Israelis? Based on other accounts, I can accept that this occurred, but I certainly don't draw the same conclusions as you. These are overzealous guys jumping around, making noise, and being @!$%#s, like other young guys torching cars after the Super Bowl or the World Series...the winners torch cars, and the losers torch cars. Maybe you want to connect the dots between mysterious relationships that must exist between winners and losers. Perhaps the car manufacturers are in collusion with the car torchers. This actually makes quite a bit of sense. Who stands to gain? The car makers, therefore... Except that someone with a less simple mind would know that is nonsense. It makes more sense that the Israeli guys would be jumping around if they had NO knowledge at all. Hey, isn't that cool, a building being hit by a plane, wow, or we could do something else stupid like torch cars, paint grafitti, ring people's doorbells, or get pizza delivered to the guy next door, and see what happens. Bunch of thoughtless @!$%#s, that's all.

Box cutters? Wow. Let me see. They worked for a moving company. Now what would a company that deals with boxes need with box cutters? That's a tough one; let me get back to you. Oh, I see, the hijackers had box cutters, so therefore. Maybe they just shopped at the same Ace Hardware you do.

I can just imagine the debriefing by Shin Bet or the Mossad back in Israel. "Guys, we are really ashamed of you. After all that training, the spy courses, the commando training, the assassination, plotting, and misdirection techniques you mastered, it really bothers us. Tell us this: why in the world didn't you use the noise makers, Roman candles, and fireworks we packed for you? You call jumping around attention grabbing? Next time we send you on a secret mission, we want you to really publicize your presence. We want the whole world to know this is an Israeli operation. Okay, now go tell Bin Laden we want to work with him again. Pssst, don't forget to tell him we love fundamentalist Muslims. He's stupid that way."

Really? Jeez, don't you have even a molecule's worth of skepticism in your body?

re: what did Israel know?

I'm pretty sure you and others do not actually follow the links cited and read critically to ascertain the likelihood that these reports are reasonable. When I first read the Fox News Cameron reports years ago, my first impression was that they were nonsense, the absolute worst reporting that no journalist should engage in. Bloggers, ok, there are no standards, write anything, say anything, accuse anyone, as long as the words flow and the site looks nice, it MUST be true. Except that Cameron's report did not cite a single source. Not one. It was a link up of hearsay told to others from yet other unidentifiable others. Garbage "reporting" to be discounted.

And you've got some nerve asking: "How come the Mossad operation trailing the hijackers didn't result in intelligence reaching the US?" where the Der Spiegel link you want us to read tells the story that info was given to CIA and CIA didn't do anything. Israel's fault? Your question implies that it is. That's called BIAS, and you are soaking in it.

Try some skeptical thinking. Critical thinking. Ask yourself if a report may be false or incorrect. This is especially true in the connect-the-dots relationships the conspiracists want everyone to believe. You know the craters on the moon did not conspire to place themselves in positions that would cause you to see a face up there. It's not a face; it just looks like one.