The US: a colony of of Israel.

Sofa_King Good

Two instances in particular in recent times highlight the zionist control of America.

Here: http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=223617

Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert demands to speak by phone to President Bush, who is giving a speech. Bush leaves the podium mid-speech to revieve his orders

Here is how Bush reacted to the twin tower attacks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlgTE3y3MNc

- "Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.'"

The US then abstained from voting, despite the fact that the resolution was penned by U.S. Secretary Of State Condoleeza Rice.

" a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said."


The vote in question was the UN vote on Gaza which calls for "an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.".

The second issue is the cover up in the media, particuraly stateside of the fact that it was Israel who broke the cease-fire

Here is Mark Regev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev, Israeli Spokesperson/Propogandist admitting as such:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Here is how Bush reacted to the twin tower attacks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlgTE3y3MNc

-

This always bugged me. How was he meant to react exactly?

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

This always bugged me. How was he meant to react exactly?

Like a commander-on-chief I guess. It was to contrast his reactions, which demonstrate where his loyalties lay

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Like a commander-on-chief I guess.

What exactly would a commander in chief had done?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It was to contrast his reactions, which demonstrate where his loyalties lay

Seriously?

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly would a commander in chief had done?

More than nothing.

King Mob wrote: »

Seriously?

Seriously. Is the disparity not obvious?

todolist

The Jewish vote in Florida and New York is crucial to any aspiring Presidental Canditate.Obama got 80% of the Jewish vote.Hilliary Clinton the same.That's why Israel has a blank cheque to do as it pleases.Nothing will change with this "new" guy coming in on january 20th.Maybe the Palestinians should abandon gaza,head for new york and florida and maybe they can save the west bank!

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

More than nothing.

So then get up and leave, telling the kids that there's a terrorist attack going on? Was he meant to prime the nuclear codes before knowing what the hell was going on? Fly to New York like Superman and catch the other plane.

Or maybe he should wait till an appropriate time to leave that wouldn't have caused panic in the class room.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Seriously. Is the disparity not obvious?

Not really and hardly evidence of anything.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

So then get up and leave, telling the kids that there's a terrorist attack going on? Was he meant to prime the nuclear codes before knowing what the hell was going on? Fly to New York like Superman and catch the other plane.

Certainly not remain inactive. The school itself due to his presence was a potential target, putting all their lives at risk. This was the other plane. Bush claimed he had somehow seen first plane hit the other tower.

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe he should wait till an appropriate time to leave that wouldn't have caused panic in the class room.

"panic in the class room.", you for real? Hardly priority number 1.

King Mob wrote: »

Not really and hardly evidence of anything.

Other than it is evidence that the US are under the control of Israel. Bush acted on the command of Olmert; who was even arrogant enough to brag about this.

Sofa_King Good

todolist wrote: »

The Jewish vote in Florida and New York is crucial to any aspiring Presidental Canditate.Obama got 80% of the Jewish vote.Hilliary Clinton the same.That's why Israel has a blank cheque to do as it pleases.Nothing will change with this "new" guy coming in on january 20th.Maybe the Palestinians should abandon gaza,head for new york and florida and maybe they can save the west bank!

Something like 85% of Moslems voted for Obama too. In fact, there was a guy from occupied Palestine that was cold calling Americans to encourage them to Vote Obama, hope he was using skype. Wonder how he feels now? that is if he is still alive.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Certainly not remain inactive. The school itself due to his presence was a potential target, putting all their lives at risk. This was the other plane. Bush claimed he had somehow seen first plane hit the other tower.

You do know there was alot of confuse at the time and chances where that they didn't know how many planes were hijacked and certainly had no idea about the intended targets.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"panic in the class room.", you for real? Hardly priority number 1.

So then he should have just left in the middle of the photo opportunity with no explaination?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Other than it is evidence that the US are under the control of Israel. Bush acted on the command of Olmert; who was even arrogant enough to brag about this.

How is Bush's reaction to the news of the attacks evidence that the US is under the control of Israel?

Well when Kennedy told the Russians to move the missiles out of Cuba they did, therefore America was in control of Russia.

Also it's funny how when Olmert says something that doesn't support your beliefs, he's lying. But when he does his word is gospel truth.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

You do know there was alot of confuse at the time and chances where that they didn't know how many planes were hijacked and certainly had no idea about the intended targets.

So why stay in previously publicised location? Your a man of logic, where is the logic in this?

King Mob wrote: »

So then he should have just left in the middle of the photo opportunity with no explaination?

In the grand scheme of things, a handful of confused kids has no relevance whatsoever.

King Mob wrote: »

How is Bush's reaction to the news of the attacks evidence that the US is under the control of Israel?

Again, it was to portray the differing reactions.

9/11 Major homeland catastrophe - No response.

Olmert on the phone to demand the US vote on a UN resolution - drops everything and obeys.

King Mob wrote: »

Well when Kennedy told the Russians to move the missiles out of Cuba they did, therefore America was in control of Russia.

No. They did have the threat of WWIII to dissuade them. What influence does or should Israel have over the apparently more powerful US?

King Mob wrote: »

Also it's funny how when Olmert says something that doesn't support your beliefs, he's lying. But when he does his word is gospel truth.

So you agree what has been said supports my beliefs then?

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So why stay in previously publicised location? Your a man of logic, where is the logic in this?

There was no indication that there was going to be an attack on the presidents location let alone any where else.
Maybe you can tell me the logic of being in a public place, being taped, where his actions might suggest his culpability in the plot?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things, a handful of confused kids has no relevance whatsoever.

No but the video being released of him bolting out of the room with no explanation wouldn't have looked particularly good.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Again, it was to portray the differing reactions.

9/11 Major homeland catastrophe - No response.

Olmert on the phone to demand the US vote on a UN resolution - drops everything and obeys.

Seem to remember there being some kind of crisis ongoing somewhere.
And what did he drop exactly? When and where?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

No. They did have the threat of WWIII to dissuade them. What influence does or should Israel have over the apparently more powerful US?

Ahh so we can agree that one country can get another country to do something without being in control of it!

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So you agree what has been said supports my beliefs then?

Nope. You just want it to.
Chances are he's exaggerating.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

There was no indication that there was going to be an attack on the presidents location let alone any where else.

Eh...Yes there was. It explains it quite well here
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you can tell me the logic of being in a public place, being taped, where his actions might suggest his culpability in the plot?

Double-bluff. They didn't suggest culpability to me, just ineptitude.

King Mob wrote: »

No but the video being released of him bolting out of the room with no explanation wouldn't have looked particularly good.

You mean taking action? decisive or not. Why do you think it would look bad? I really don't get it.

King Mob wrote: »

Seem to remember there being some kind of crisis ongoing somewhere.
And what did he drop exactly? When and where?

“In the night between Thursday and Friday," - Olmert. Bush was giving a speech, which in the very least was of equal importance to a photo op in a school.

King Mob wrote: »

Ahh so we can agree that one country can get another country to do something without being in control of it!

Yes through coercion or concilliation. What has Israel to offer the US people or to threaten them with do you think?

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. You just want it to.
Chances are he's exaggerating.

Why would he do this?

And the fact remains that the resolution drawn up by Rice was abstained from by the same.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

When and where?

Philadelphia apparently

"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the U.N. resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech," Olmert said. - http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LD20229.htm

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Eh...Yes there was. It explains it quite well here
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

Fair enough.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Double-bluff. They didn't suggest culpability to me, just ineptitude.

Then what should he have done?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

You mean taking action? decisive or not. Why do you think it would look bad? I really don't get it.

To be honest any action he took would be interpreted by CTers as proof of foreknowledge.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

“In the night between Thursday and Friday," - Olmert. Bush was giving a speech, which in the very least was of equal importance to a photo op in a school.

What speech and to who?
I'd imagine that stuff like this isn't exactly uncommon.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Yes through coercion or concilliation. What has Israel to offer the US people or to threaten them with do you think?

They're an ally of the US? Could it be possible it was a demand but a request from a leader of a allied nation?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Why would he do this?

Should have said might be exaggerating. Dunno why he would exaggerate. Dunno why he would admit his secret control over the US either but hey..... ?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

And the fact remains that the resolution drawn up by Rice was abstained from by the same.

Didn't say this wasn't the case. Bet she was pissed off.

Ah here's a slightly more reasonable explanation for Bush's urgency.

Olmert said he demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a U.N. Security Council vote on Thursday on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for an immediate ceasefire.

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LD20229.htm

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

Fair enough.

Thank You Kindly!

King Mob wrote: »

Then what should he have done?

Evacuated the school, for everyone's safety. Liased with his security advisors and implement what contingency plan was in place. Above anyone else it was his resposibilty to take decisive action

King Mob wrote: »

To be honest any action he took would be interpreted by CTers as proof of foreknowledge.

Why would he care? and what would it change? He wasn't even eliglbe for reelection. Alex Jones get a couple of extra listeners, a few more warm bodies at ground zero chanting crap? No big deal.

King Mob wrote: »

They're an ally of the US? Could it be possible it was a demand but a request from a leader of a allied nation?

Contrary to the principles and by eztension the point of existence of the UN if that is the case.

King Mob wrote: »

Should have said might be exaggerating. Dunno why he would exaggerate. Dunno why he would admit his secret control over the US either but hey..... ?

To be honest, in my eyes it is not a secret, or concealed.

King Mob wrote: »

Didn't say this wasn't the case. Bet she was pissed off.

I'd imagine so. But the question I am asking is why it happened.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Evacuated the school, for everyone's safety. Liased with his security advisors and implement what contingency plan was in place. Above anyone else it was his resposibilty to take decisive action

A bit extreme to evacuate a school I think. But still any would have interpreted badly for him. Evacuate the school, people would say it was too extreme and worried people unnecessarily. Wait for a good moment to leave, people say he was indecisive.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Why would he care? and what would it change? He wasn't even eliglbe for reelection. Alex Jones get a couple of extra listeners, a few more warm bodies at ground zero chanting crap? No big deal.

You're right doubt he pays too much attention to conspiracy theories.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Contrary to the principles and by eztension the point of existence of the UN if that is the case.

Yea the US is dicks to the UN. Not unusual or fantastic to be honest. The resolution was passed by 14 of 15 member of the council and still no ceasefire.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

To be honest, in my eyes it is not a secret, or concealed.

And yet you've a hard time proving it. Weird.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I'd imagine so. But the question I am asking is why it happened.

Dunno probably better off asking in the politics forum. Doubt you'd get anything other than baseless speculation in here.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

Ah here's a slightly more reasonable explanation for Bush's urgency.


http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LD20229.htm

Ok, from that article Bush wasn't urgent about the situation, "not familiar with it" He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'. Ridiculous in itself, but that aside:

10 mins to vote...The US set to support a resolution they helped draft...Olmert phones Bush...suggests/demands withdrawl of US support of resolution...A resolution Bush has not seen...Within this same 10mins..."He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it"...The US abstains...Olmert Gloats.

"He said, 'Listen, ", I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'" Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.' "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Ok, from that article Bush wasn't urgent about the situation, "not familiar with it" He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'. Ridiculous in itself, but that aside:

10 mins to vote...The US set to support a resolution they helped draft...Olmert phones Bush...suggests/demands withdrawl of US support of resolution...A resolution Bush has not seen...Within this same 10mins..."He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it"...The US abstains...Olmert Gloats.

"He said, 'Listen, ", I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'" Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.' "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.

Yea and because it was fairly urgent Bush decides to interrupt his speech to deal with it. And Bush decides to tell Rice to abstain.
Them's the facts. The whole Olmert "ordering" him is fairly unsubstantiated, and to deduce from this that Israel in fact control the US is way out there.


So why are you taking Olmerts word for it exactly?

Mahatma coat

whoa, brakes on here for a sec Mob, it was Urgent that Bush 'deal With' Condi tryngto stop Israel.

However it wasntUrgent that Bush Deal with terrorists attacking America on what is argualby the biggest event of this millenium



I'm gonna send you a PM shortly

<edit>

Mob, PM Sent, think about what I said please

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and because it was fairly urgent Bush decides to interrupt his speech to deal with it. And Bush decides to tell Rice to abstain.

</p></p>"fairly important"? What was important was that the US were set to not tow the zionist line. It must have come as a great surprise to the Israeli's, judging by the fact that Olmert only called with 10 minutes to spare.

King Mob wrote: »

Them's the facts. The whole Olmert "ordering" him is fairly unsubstantiated, and to deduce from this that Israel in fact control the US is way out there.

There was a US secretary of state there, who better briefed on the subject. For arguments sake each call lasted 5 minutes, less the time it took for bush to relieve himself from the podium. So that leaves at most a few brief minutes to convince an idiot of the merits of not voting on a resolution essentially drafted by your own repesentative. On the basis of this, and the fact that it took a brief phone call from one of the main protagonists to order abstention. It is not in the best interests of the American poeple, his government, or the people of the world to behave in such a manner - So why do you think Bush made the order? What convinced him? Surely it was not possible to convince him one way or the other in a couple of minutes, so there must be other forces at play.

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you taking Olmerts word for it exactly?

[/quote]Because there is no rational reason for him to lie, except at a stretch to raise his profile before the elections.

If he is lying then it would call into contention everything else he has said, rocket fire from the roof of the UN school, Hamas violations of the cease-fire etc.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

less the time it took for bush to relieve himself from the podium

Ha. No wonder he gets shoes thrown at him

toiletduck

Oh the school issue, wasn't it a case of the Secret Service telling him not to leave straight away? Can't remember offhand where I heard/read that.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

</p></p>"fairly important"? What was important was that the US were set to not tow the zionist line. It must have come as a great surprise to the Israeli's, judging by the fact that Olmert only called with 10 minutes to spare.

So if Isreal controlled America why was the resolution drafted at all?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

There was a US secretary of state there, who better briefed on the subject. For arguments sake each call lasted 5 minutes, less the time it took for bush to relieve himself from the podium. So that leaves at most a few brief minutes to convince an idiot of the merits of not voting on a resolution essentially drafted by your own repesentative. On the basis of this, and the fact that it took a brief phone call from one of the main protagonists to order abstention. It is not in the best interests of the American poeple, his government, or the people of the world to behave in such a manner - So why do you think Bush made the order? What convinced him? Surely it was not possible to convince him one way or the other in a couple of minutes, so there must be other forces at play.

I don't know why exactly made Bush order Rice to abstain. Maybe you should go to the political forum and someone with a better idea.
Still haven't found out exactly what speech and to who?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Because there is no rational reason for him to lie, except at a stretch to raise his profile before the elections.

If he is lying then it would call into contention everything else he has said, rocket fire from the roof of the UN school, Hamas violations of the cease-fire etc.

Well I don't think he's going for re-election what with being done for corruption and all. And yea I tend not to take one guys word for stuff like that anyway.

humanji

toiletduck wrote: »

Oh the school issue, wasn't it a case of the Secret Service telling him not to leave straight away? Can't remember offhand where I heard/read that.

Does anyone actually know what he was told? Like was he told that a plane hit the world trade centre, that there was a terrorist attack, or was he just told there'd be an "incident" or something?

thecommander

Also, you're assuming that he makes the exact decisions on his security plans. I would have thought there is a security team that decide for him on what to do minute to minute, and he goes along with what they've assessed to be the best option.

parsi

Whatever about Comspiracy Theories I would have expected Bush to say something like:

"Kids, there's something big happening and I've gotta go do Presidential stuff.."

Mahatma coat

Peace in our time!!!!

After a brief PM discussion I have decided to Ban "King Mob" for a fortnight.

Any further discussion of this DECISION will also result in a 2 week ban

Mahatma


Parsi, dont push yer luck

parsi

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Peace in our time!!!!

After a brief PM discussion I have decided to Ban "King Mob" for a fortnight.

Any further discussion of this will also result in a 2 week ban

Mahatma

Any further discussion of what ?

Aye Matey!

parsi wrote: »

Any further discussion of what ?

How can MC tell you what you're not supposed to discuss without he himself speaking of that which is not supposed to be discussed? :P

Mahatma coat

Right so, Back on Topic please

So Olmert can call bush wherever he is an make him dance to the Israeli tune, kinda like the behaviour o a puppet to me, however I'd be more interested to know if he could do the same to Cheney.

Aye Matey!

Cheney and Olbert met last March to discuss peace negotiations regarding Palestine. While Olbert desribed Cheney as a 'signifacant player' Cheney in kind declared his full support.

"America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel's right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction... ...(The United States) will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security."

Cheney

Food for thought.

Mahatma coat

interistin article about the apointment of an Iraqi ambasador
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/02/10/whither-zinni/