Not another 911 thread

meglome

Joshua Jones wrote: »

There's lies and then there's disinfo. Perhaps you should do your own research with the sort of depth your preaching.

Plenty of massively qualified people here.

So was your friend a pilot, cause obviously by your rational, if he's not then he's not qualified to say its a plane.

So a building damaged by another building collapsing, with fires burning on multiple floors for hours and with a well documented design flaw can't collapse? I don't need to be an engineer to believe it can. I mean if there was actual evidence of a controlled demolition that would be a start but instead we have people making up the existence of super thermite. Not to mention when you look at the footage it actually doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

Bog Warrior wrote: »

There are no theories that lead to my questions. My questions are a result of verifiable facts and evidence such as the recorded temperatures, blown out and melted cars, seismic movements, self-collapsing buildings etc

Blown out and melted cars?? Cars, fire tenders and other emergency vehicles caught fire and burned, what's off about that? Have you seen what burnt out cars looks like?

And as I've already said the seismic record does not show controlled demolition. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T.

Self collapsing buildings??? Em there were fires on multiple floors. Contrary to what the CT's say other steel framed buildings have collapsed just from fire. Just like WTC7 did.

Joshua Jones wrote: »

As the Russian dude says, a sub-sonic aluminium plane crashed through rows of re-inforced steel thicker than a tank. To take out a tank you need an artillery shell tip with depleted uranium(dense) trvelling at super sonic speeds to pierce a tanks armour. Hmmmm.

Again I don't need to be an engineer to believe otherwise. You've got the massive weight of an airliner flying into a building at about 500mph. The forces released here would be immense. I guarantee you if you flew an airliner into a tank at 500mph you'd have nothing but scrap. And his idea that a nuclear weapon was used is utter nonsense. A nuclear detonation cannot be contained and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were used... NONE. There's so much wrong with what he says that I wouldn't know where to start.


What amazes me is you guys jump on the bandwagon or any half assed totally unsupportable theory but refuse to believe the very detailed and evidence backed official reports. The official reports may not be perfect but they are about 5 leagues above basically all the CT's. Confirmation bias if I ever saw it.

Joshua Jones

meglome wrote: »

So a building damaged by another building collapsing, with fires burning on multiple floors for hours and with a well documented design flaw can't collapse? I don't need to be an engineer to believe it can. I mean if there was actual evidence of a controlled demolition that would be a start but instead we have people making up the existence of super thermite. Not to mention when you look at the footage it actually doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

So just your belief then. Thats cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Its what it comes down to at the end of rthe day anyway.

Again I don't need to be an engineer to believe otherwise. You've got the massive weight of an airliner flying into a building at about 500mph. The forces released here would be immense. I guarantee you if you flew an airliner into a tank at 500mph you'd have nothing but scrap. And his idea that a nuclear weapon was used is utter nonsense. A nuclear detonation cannot be contained and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were used... NONE. There's so much wrong with what he says that I wouldn't know where to start.


What amazes me is you guys jump on the bandwagon or any half assed totally unsupportable theory but refuse to believe the very detailed and evidence backed official reports. The official reports may not be perfect but they are about 5 leagues above basically all the CT's. Confirmation bias if I ever saw it.

You believe certain experts but dont believe other experts. Again just what you believe. Conformation bias if I ever saw it.

So the official report is imperfect. What parts in your opinion?

Also, I never metioned nuclear explosives or super thermite.

meglome

Joshua Jones wrote: »

So just your belief then. Thats cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Its what it comes down to at the end of rthe day anyway.

There is a very detailed official report which I believe so not my opinion. I haven't seen any believable evidence to the contrary.

Joshua Jones wrote: »

You believe certain experts but dont believe other experts. Again just what you believe. Conformation bias if I ever saw it.

I'm not against believing anyone, all they have to do is show the evidence, show the logic, show a consistent theory. Not a lot to ask for really. This doesn't exist outside the official report.

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Also, I never metioned nuclear explosives or super thermite.

Apologies... what do you believe happened?

Joshua Jones

meglome wrote: »

There is a very detailed official report which I believe so not my opinion. I haven't seen any believable evidence to the contrary.



I'm not against believing anyone, all they have to do is show the evidence, show the logic, show a consistent theory. Not a lot to ask for really. This doesn't exist outside the official report.



Apologies... what do you believe happened?

I believe what I believe. Not trying to be obtuse, I dont want to change your mind and you wont change mine.

meglome

Joshua Jones wrote: »

I believe what I believe. Not trying to be obtuse, I dont want to change your mind and you wont change mine.

As I said I suspect confirmation bias from many people in here. Just my observation of what I see posted. However I am very willing to be proved wrong and since this is a discussion forum I thought that might be a realistic possibility. The fact that I learn new things is one of the main reasons I post in here.


I'm constantly amazed that people who appear to have such strong opinions of what happened on 911 or at least who was behind 911 won't share what they actually believe happened.

Joshua Jones

meglome wrote: »

As I said I suspect confirmation bias from many people in here. Just my observation of what I see posted. However I am very willing to be proved wrong and since this is a discussion forum I thought that might be a realistic possibility. The fact that I learn new things is one of the main reasons I post in here.


I'm constantly amazed that people who appear to have such strong opinions of what happened on 911 or at least who was behind 911 won't share what they actually believe happened.

I've made no claims which require backing up. As I've proved you're a victim of conformation bias yourself. I'm constantly amazed how people wish to discuss the same points over and over again in a game of one upmanship. Wonder what Freud would say.

bonkey

Joshua Jones wrote: »

I'm constantly amazed how people wish to discuss the same points over and over again in a game of one upmanship. Wonder what Freud would say.

You say this, after you've posted links and content which amounts to "the same points" that have been discussed time and time again over the past years.

Why are you amazed that other people behave in a manner similar to yourself?

Joshua Jones

bonkey wrote: »

You say this, after you've posted links and content which amounts to "the same points" that have been discussed time and time again over the past years.

Why are you amazed that other people behave in a manner similar to yourself?

Exactly.

seannash

Joshua Jones wrote: »

There's lies and then there's disinfo. Perhaps you should do your own research with the sort of depth your preaching.

Plenty of massively qualified people here.

So was your friend a pilot, cause obviously by your rational, if he's not then he's not qualified to say its a plane.

ill hold my hand up and say i was wrong to say not 1 structural engineers supports the theory.

however this mistake doesnt discredit my whole argument.it shows im willing to accept i have made a mistake.

as for my friend needing to be a pilot,it does not take qualifications to spot a plane,unlike a controlled demolition.(which is debunked in the video i posted)
ill post up what i think about the russian fellas video when i get a chance to look at it properly but im already dubious because my personal experiences and conversations with people have led me to believe the planes hit so for me his opening arguments are on shakey ground.

but ill hold off my judgment til i see the entire video.

id just like for it to be noted that if one bit of your story is wrong does it mean your whole argument is wrong.

like the pentagon,what do people believe there and if they are right about that why would they need to take down the towers.
the pentagon attack alone would be reason enough for them to act.

Joshua Jones

seannash wrote: »

ill hold my hand up and say i was wrong to say not 1 structural engineers supports the theory.

however this mistake doesnt discredit my whole argument.it shows im willing to accept i have made a mistake.

as for my friend needing to be a pilot,it does not take qualifications to spot a plane,unlike a controlled demolition.(which is debunked in the video i posted)
ill post up what i think about the russian fellas video when i get a chance to look at it properly but im already dubious because my personal experiences and conversations with people have led me to believe the planes hit so for me his opening arguments are on shakey ground.

but ill hold off my judgment til i see the entire video.

id just like for it to be noted that if one bit of your story is wrong does it mean your whole argument is wrong.

like the pentagon,what do people believe there and if they are right about that why would they need to take down the towers.
the pentagon attack alone would be reason enough for them to act.

Apologies if my reply seemed snipy. The whole matter is is objective anyway.

bonkey wrote: »

And finally, I would like to share some advice that a work colleague recently gave me:

There's only two rules you need to follow in life:

1) Never disclose everything you know.

Good advice.

Bog Warrior

meglome wrote: »

Blown out and melted cars?? Cars, fire tenders and other emergency vehicles caught fire and burned, what's off about that? Have you seen what burnt out cars looks like?

The amount of energy in these two plane crashes is phenomenal. They brought down three buildings and blew out and melted cars in the block around the world trade centre leaving 50 metre cavities under the trade centres and hotter than burning kerosene temperatures at the site for MONTHS afterwards. Reality denial anyone?

meglome wrote: »

And as I've already said the seismic record does not show controlled demolition. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T.

Oh good, but the only evidence I've seen says it does. Have you got a reference to any analysis which says it 'simply doesn't' so I can compare logic and likelihood and determine in my own mind which is more plausible?

meglome wrote: »

Self collapsing buildings??? Em there were fires on multiple floors. Contrary to what the CT's say other steel framed buildings have collapsed just from fire. Just like WTC7 did.

Really? more evidence missing from my picture of reality. I have only ever heard direct contradictions to your statement. I am sure you will list these steel framed buildings for us so we can reference them and investigate and put this conspiracy/reality-denial to bed.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

As I said I suspect confirmation bias from many people in here.

I'm sorry but you are not in a position to be critical about confirmation bias; not since you posted the joint BBC/IDF productions spin as the "what happened" account when the IDF massacred a bunch of civilians on a boat.

You were suckered hook-line-and sinker by that documentary replete with distortions, omissions and outright lies.

With respect, you couldn't tell fact from fiction then, what makes you think you have the ability to now?

seannash

The amount of energy in these two plane crashes is phenomenal. They brought down three buildings and blew out and melted cars in the block around the world trade centre leaving 50 metre cavities under the trade centres and hotter than burning kerosene temperatures at the site for MONTHS afterwards. Reality denial anyone?

okay the cars arent melted,you seriously must realise by now that they are just typical results of what fire does to a car.
im only linking this site because it has visual example on this page of fire damaged cars for you to look at.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread611936/pg3
the molten metal is touched on in that video i posted but can you(in the interest of fairness)show us the credible recording of the temperature of the metal.
now the cavity i dont know about,infact if im bonest i only heard about it in this thread.im not saying its not true im more saving how does this make your claim of nuclear demolition concrete when you fail to take into account that there is very little additional evidence to support this theory.

Oh good, but the only evidence I've seen says it does. Have you got a reference to any analysis which says it 'simply doesn't' so I can compare logic and likelihood and determine in my own mind which is more plausible?

the video i posted shows this evidence,can you(again in the interest of fairness)show us your reports.i apologise if you have posted them already but id like to see them again.

Really? more evidence missing from my picture of reality. I have only ever heard direct contradictions to your statement. I am sure you will list these steel framed buildings for us so we can reference them and investigate and put this conspiracy/reality-denial to bed.

again the video i linked shows this,if you have heard contradictions can you link us this info.

now im not making demands im just asking for the same eveidence you want from the other side which ive tried to present to you in that video

Divorce Referendum

Joshua Jones wrote: »

As the Russian dude says, a sub-sonic aluminium plane crashed through rows of re-inforced steel thicker than a tank. To take out a tank you need an artillery shell tip with depleted uranium(dense) trvelling at super sonic speeds to pierce a tanks armour. Hmmmm.

You see there is no point in him commenting on the construction of the WTC because he isnt a structural engineer and doesnt know how they were built:

The structural steel used in the exterior 14-inch by 14-inch columns that were spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center around the entire periphery of each of the WTC towers

He declines to note that 14 by 14 inch steel columns are in fact hollow and had this thickness:

Column plate thickness varied from 1/4 inch to 5/8 inch in the impact zone of WTC 1 for floors 89-101, and from 1/4 inch to 13/16 inch in the impact zone of WTC 2 for floors 77-87

Armour in a tank is generally about 4 inches thick and its 7 inches on the Tiger II for example and is not the same as the steel used in buildings its much stronger

Rolled homogeneous armour is strong, hard, and tough (does not shatter when struck with a fast, hard blow). Steel with these characteristics is produced by processing cast steel billets of appropriate size and then rolling them into plates of required thickness. Rolling and forging (hammering the steel when it is red hot) irons out the grain structure in the steel, removing imperfections which would reduce the strength of the steel. Rolling also elongates the grain structure in the steel to form long lines, which enable the stress the steel is placed under when loaded to flow throughout the metal, and not be concentrated in one area

The other thing to note about the perimiter columns is the bolts that join them together. This is another weak point that wouldnt exist in a tank.




Note the black box hole in the column alongside the window frame. This hole was used in the construction stage so the steel erector could put in the bolts. Shown here at 2:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7B1vvkXnQ

meglome

Bog Warrior wrote: »

The amount of energy in these two plane crashes is phenomenal. They brought down three buildings and blew out and melted cars in the block around the world trade centre leaving 50 metre cavities under the trade centres and hotter than burning kerosene temperatures at the site for MONTHS afterwards. Reality denial anyone?

I'm confused here a little. Two big planes hit two big buildings at high speed which is resulted in uncontrolled fires. Given that several steel framed buildings have collapsed just from fires it's somewhat surprising they didn't fall sooner.
I'm at a total loss with your point about burning cars, the cars in the pictures look like burned out cars. And as to how you think this high temperature was possible for months. Maybe you can explain?

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Oh good, but the only evidence I've seen says it does. Have you got a reference to any analysis which says it 'simply doesn't' so I can compare logic and likelihood and determine in my own mind which is more plausible?

http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_record.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

So if you don't choose to believe the detailed explanation here maybe you can tell me how people didn't hear the obvious sounds of these explosives? Because it seems to get forgotten in the mountain of misinformation that the sound of controlled demolition is very distinctive.

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Really? more evidence missing from my picture of reality. I have only ever heard direct contradictions to your statement. I am sure you will list these steel framed buildings for us so we can reference them and investigate and put this conspiracy/reality-denial to bed.

There was been other info posted in the threads too but this will do for starters. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are not in a position to be critical about confirmation bias; not since you posted the joint BBC/IDF productions spin as the "what happened" account when the IDF massacred a bunch of civilians on a boat.

You were suckered hook-line-and sinker by that documentary replete with distortions, omissions and outright lies.

With respect, you couldn't tell fact from fiction then, what makes you think you have the ability to now?

You've lost me again on this BBC propaganda stuff. I don't recall saying anything positive about Israel. I just don't automatically assume they are bad or are wrong even though I disagree with a lot of what they do. Sorry but you start most of your threads about Israel or the Jews, as a simple forum search will demonstrate.

TalkieWalkie

bonkey wrote: »

I'm quite happy to believe that there are holes in every theory.

But here's the thing...

You believe that this is especially true of the official version.

Can you pick one and only one aspect of the official version where there is unquestionably a hole?

Holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGa7tPbXMo

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

You've lost me again on this BBC propaganda stuff. I don't recall saying anything positive about Israel. I just don't automatically assume they are bad or are wrong even though I disagree with a lot of what they do. Sorry but you start most of your threads about Israel or the Jews, as a simple forum search will demonstrate.

First of all I have never started any threads about "The Jews" so lets clear that false smear up straight away. I'd ask you to apologise but there is no need as I understand that many people are conditioned to confuse legitimate criticism of Isreal with anti-semitism. It's how they get away with murdering innocent civilians and committing various atrocities. Something you have actually defended here (see below)

Secondly,
If you are going to position yourself as a champion of logic and rationale and present yourself as the wise man amongst children you need to not be fooled so easily yourself by lies and deception, that was my earlier point, and the question you didn't answer was if you were so easily misled then, what makes you so sure you haven't been misled now and reached the wrong conclusions?
I don't want to take this thread further off topic so go here if you like:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68207624#post68207624

Divorce Referendum

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGa7tPbXMo

There is only one hole related to this video and thats the empty cavernous one in judy wood's skull. Half burnt cars oh you would never see anything like that anywhere else




Judy notices that the handles were all removed. They are plastic and they melted ffs

King Mob

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

There is only one hole related to this video and thats the empty cavernous one in judy wood's skull. Half burnt cars oh you would never see anything like that anywhere else

<Image snip>


Judy notices that the handles were all removed. They are plastic and they melted ffs

Oooh that must have been a nuclear blast that caused that car to melt.

enno99

meglome wrote: »

Again I don't need to be an engineer to believe otherwise. You've got the massive weight of an airliner flying into a building at about 500mph. The forces released here would be immense. I guarantee you if you flew an airliner into a tank at 500mph you'd have nothing but scrap. And his idea that a nuclear weapon was used is utter nonsense. A nuclear detonation cannot be contained and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were used... NONE. There's so much wrong with what he says that I wouldn't know where to start.

"Having witnessed the collapse of the second tower on television, I noticed brilliant white flashes on the lower floors immediately before collapse. Why was that? Why was that film clip never seen on TV again?

During clean up at site zero, there was radioactivity detected, radionuclides that could only be present from a fission event. But due to the general public lack of understanding of nuclear "stuff", this was passed off as a result of the intense heat of the fire, a scientifically impossible scenario. I would, as a nuclear chemist, like for this particular anomaly to be properly explained."


http://www.ae911truth.org


http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=981847

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

First of all I have never started any threads about "The Jews" so lets clear that false smear up straight away. I'd ask you to apologise but there is no need as I understand that many people are conditioned to confuse legitimate criticism of Isreal with anti-semitism. It's how they get away with murdering innocent civilians and committing various atrocities. Something you have actually defended here (see below)

Just did a search for you... there are 156 posts by you with words jew or jews in them out of 1,368 posts. I have 77 out of 4,775. I could keep going if you like.
I can try this again though... I do not like what Israel often does. But I'm not naive enough to think that Israel bad, Palestine good. Both are well capable of doing terrible things to each other. I didn't defend their actions with the flotilla, I did however seek to bring balance to the discussion. It looks like they didn't try to hurt anyone, at least initially. Then the operation went to ****. This is NOT support of Israel, just a observation of the facts. It doesn't change the fact they had no right to board a ship in international waters, it doesn't change the fact they should be punished.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Secondly,
If you are going to position yourself as a champion of logic and rationale and present yourself as the wise man amongst children you need to not be fooled so easily yourself by lies and deception, that was my earlier point, and the question you didn't answer was if you were so easily misled then, what makes you so sure you haven't been misled now and reached the wrong conclusions?
I don't want to take this thread further off topic so go here if you like:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68207624#post68207624

I have no issue with the fact I look for balance, that I look for evidence, that I look for logic. Looking for these things should mean I don't get fooled but I'm very willing to learn something new.

seannash

enno99 wrote: »

"Having witnessed the collapse of the second tower on television, I noticed brilliant white flashes on the lower floors immediately before collapse. Why was that? Why was that film clip never seen on TV again?

During clean up at site zero, there was radioactivity detected, radionuclides that could only be present from a fission event. But due to the general public lack of understanding of nuclear "stuff", this was passed off as a result of the intense heat of the fire, a scientifically impossible scenario. I would, as a nuclear chemist, like for this particular anomaly to be properly explained."


http://www.ae911truth.org

can you tell me where that is on the site or who said it.

enno99

I edited the post to show better link sorry the first was so vague

the_monkey

It would be nice to see a video on the other side, debunking the "September Clues" film, just to see if there is other explanations - esp. with the different flight paths and colours of the 767.

seannash

the_monkey wrote: »

It would be nice to see a video on the other side, debunking the "September Clues" film, just to see if there is other explanations - esp. with the different flight paths and colours of the 767.

i just started watching this now.

Its beyond ridiculous the opening arguments in that video.
they focus on a very bad video of the 2nd plane hitting the towers and say that the nose of the plane pertrudes out of the building so it cant be a real plane.

a quick look at all the other videos of the plane hitting that day easy debunks this.

im continuing to watch but its a very poor start.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Just did a search for you... there are 156 posts by you with words jew or jews in them out of 1,368 posts. I have 77 out of 4,775. I could keep going if you like. .

Can't see the point, unless your objective is to prove that we both use dictionary defined words which in this case describe a person/culture/religion/ethnic group.

I mentioned before that people are conditioned to automatically equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, the mere mention of the word "jew" causing offense (somehow ) is an extension of this brainwashing.

What you should have done is listed examples of me using the term "jew" as a perjorative. Unfortunately you wont find any because they don't exist. Much like my history of bans, infractions or cautions for anti-semitic remarks they don't exist. Have a little think about that next time before you start mud-slinging.

meglome wrote: »

I can try this again though... I do not like what Israel often does. But I'm not naive enough to think that Israel bad, Palestine good. Both are well capable of doing terrible things to each other. I didn't defend their actions with the flotilla, I did however seek to bring balance to the discussion. It looks like they didn't try to hurt anyone, at least initially. Then the operation went to ****. .

Look you really seem to be missing the point. Nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. The point is: If you claim your criticial ability through your self-proclaimed logic, reasoning etc etc is superior to those that don't hold your views and you are going to accuse others, again who don't hold the same view of confirmation bias etc you actually have to be then judged by your own standards. Which is how you fell flat on your face because that BBC documentary was easily the most biased twisting of the truth from a group who claim impartiality I have witnessed.

Now you were clearly taken in by these easily debunkable lies (confirmation bias at play?) so therefore you did not apply logic/reasoning/evidence based approach etc etc to this situation.

Why? And why now and not all of the time?

meglome wrote: »

This is NOT support of Israel, just a observation of the facts. .

No, it was actually a misinterpretation of the facts. You claimed the IDF didn't kill indiscrimately, the UN investigation demonstrates otherwise. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/c...flotilla-raid/

You seem to have based your opinion solely on a heavily biased documentary, without fact-checking What kind of logic is that?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I mentioned before that people are conditioned to automatically equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, the mere mention of the word "jew" causing offense (somehow ) is an extension of this brainwashing.

I have no issue with criticism of Israel as such. They deserve plenty of criticism. I have a problem when it's one sided though. And lets be fair here there are plenty of sites on the internet with valid criticism of Israel but you often don't have to go far on those same site to find rampant antisemitism. Often 'the jews' are to blame for almost everything bad that has happened in history. That I have a problem with.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look you really seem to be missing the point. Nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. The point is: If you claim your criticial ability through your self-proclaimed logic, reasoning etc etc is superior to those that don't hold your views and you are going to accuse others, again who don't hold the same view of confirmation bias etc you actually have to be then judged by your own standards. Which is how you fell flat on your face because that BBC documentary was easily the most biased twisting of the truth from a group who claim impartiality I have witnessed.

Sorry I'm confused again... I've never even thought that I had superior logic never mind posted it. I'll have another go... the Israelis didn't just attack the ships and shoot people. They attacked the ships with paint-ball guns and were beaten back. At this point the commander in the video says they should have stopped. However they didn't and in the melee of the second attack they shot people. Attacking this ship in international waters was wrong and illegal, but all I'm saying is it doesn't look like they set out to kill anyone. They obviously did kill people and hopefully people will be punished for it. My point is in the intent not the final result.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now you were clearly taken in by these easily debunkable lies (confirmation bias at play?) so therefore you did not apply logic/reasoning/evidence based approach etc etc to this situation.

But i don't like a lot of what Israel does, how can i be biased for them? It's funny you'd think i said I agreed with the killings, i really don't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You seem to have based your opinion solely on a heavily biased documentary, without fact-checking What kind of logic is that?

What exactly is biased about the documentary? It's based on the information they had at the time.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

What exactly is biased about the documentary? It's based on the information they had at the time.

If it doesn't demonise Israel it's biased silly!

I'm the last person to stand over Israeli policies, but I know a tunnel vision propagandist with an undoubted obsession with one set of co-religionists when I see one. The dynamic with anti-semites is much the same as that of islamophobes.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

If it doesn't demonise Israel it's biased silly!

Afraid you have it the wrong way round. If it legitimately criticises Israel it is anti-semitic. Case in point the UN report into the humanitarian and war crimes committed by Israel (and Hamas) against the civilians of Gaza. Headed by respected jurist and observant "anti-semite" Jew Richard Goldstone.

alastair wrote: »

I'm the last person to stand over Israeli policies, but I know a tunnel vision propagandist with an undoubted obsession with one set of co-religionists when I see one. The dynamic with anti-semites is much the same as that of islamophobes.

I've been called many things in my life but never that. That actually made me laugh, thanks!

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I have no issue with criticism of Israel as such. They deserve plenty of criticism. I have a problem when it's one sided though. And lets be fair here there are plenty of sites on the internet with valid criticism of Israel but you often don't have to go far on those same site to find rampant antisemitism. Often 'the jews' are to blame for almost everything bad that has happened in history. That I have a problem with.

That is all well and good but any sites or information published in these sites have nothing to do with me or your problem with me using the word "Jew". Don't know why you brought it up.

meglome wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused again... I've never even thought that I had superior logic never mind posted it. I'll have another go... the Israelis didn't just attack the ships and shoot people. They attacked the ships with paint-ball guns and were beaten back. At this point the commander in the video says they should have stopped. However they didn't and in the melee of the second attack they shot people. Attacking this ship in international waters was wrong and illegal, but all I'm saying is it doesn't look like they set out to kill anyone. They obviously did kill people and hopefully people will be punished for it. My point is in the intent not the final result.

Look your understanding of events is completely wrong, but that is not what I am trying to discuss with you. You put yourself forward as a beacon of logic and reason in this thread and others, claiming you are guided by evidence only, a true skeptic if you like. The point I am trying to get through to you, and I really wish you understood it the first time because now it feels like I am harrassing you is: you completely bought into the transparently biased and skewed version of events put forward by the BBC/IDF for the massacre of civilians on the Mavi Marmara to the point that you defend mass murder. Now, that is not sceptical at all, to be frank it is naive. My question to you is what makes you sure you aren't actually being just as easily fooled by lies and deception regarding 911 and related events?

meglome wrote: »

But i don't like a lot of what Israel does, how can i be biased for them? It's funny you'd think i said I agreed with the killings, i really don't.

This goes the same for me as much as anyone but perhaps what we think we are is not in fact what we really are.

meglome wrote: »

What exactly is biased about the documentary? It's based on the information they had at the time.

I've started another thread on it. It's not based on the information at the time. They BBC had all the resources and information of the UN report linked above plus access to the IDF. It is not possible that I knew more than the panaroma team and it's team of researchers at the time is it?