aletheia

aletheia

54p

31 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

8 years ago @ Information Clearing H... -    Why Is Th... · 2 replies · +4 points

@Jack: "Much like the noise about building 7 is designed to focus attention away from the real purpose behind killing nearly 3000 people at once."

Me: OK, *exactly* why is WTC7 a distraction, and *exactly* what was the real purpose of 9/11? As well as acceptable substantiation, any/all further explication(s) welcome. Thanks in anticipation.

9 years ago @ Information Clearing H... - The Fateful Triangle: ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Objection, your honour; the supporter/pushers of 9-11thology, chemtrails & morgellons and their ilk-cloud of sycophants have generally dispensed with your "appearing," ("maniacal" is pretty-well spot on) and with all due respect, it's not too cool to slur the majority(?) of decent, honest, truth + justice = peace proponents.

9 years ago @ Information Clearing H... - The Fateful Triangle: ... · 0 replies · +2 points

@Sandra: "You post comments about Nephlium but delete ..."

Me: Yes. ICH has also published comments about 9-11thology, chemtrails & morgellons, say. I posit that this may be some sort of back-handed interpretation of some 'free speech' variant, and the proponent/supporters of such *untenable* rubbish and lies, a) claim the right to repeatedly spruik those lies into any thread, and b) 'report' off any post they don't like. Apropos, I'm supposing that your post has been reinstated, since I see the 'bullshit' word occurring below. Since you mentioned Jews, your post could have fallen victim to an hasbarat.

Apropos the I/J/Z-plex, their crimes began looong before WW2, here a little summary; each item can be (and has been) properly substantiated.

The I/J/Z-plex's 10 steps (there are lots more) to utter, criminal ignominy:

Charged with premeditated ethnic-cleansing of approaching the entire 'Mandate Territory' (a trust designed to protect natives' inalienable rights); totally violated by Zs using genocidal methods. Proof:

1. Herzl; coveting, expropriation
2. Balfour; aid Zs, no consult Ps
3. Jabotinsky; colonise by force
4. Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs ... own the land"
5. UNGA181: "an area ... shall be evacuated" (invalid + no UNSC action)
6. Meir; $US50mio for arms + Plan Dalet&Co = premeditated aggression
7. When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's *not* civil war but Nuremberg-class crime
8. Z-terrorism; down to today; aliens' highest-tech vs. besieged & blockaded natives
9. US-support & vetoes; also down to today
10. Z-hasbarah = mostly lies, designed and deployed to deceive

Note that 2, Balfour = UK support, which extended to 'managing' Zionist immigration into pre-WW2 Palestine. Immigration is a form of invasion, and since the natives resisted, the immigration must be seen as aggressive. Recall Lebensraum by force = Nuremberg supreme international crime.

Note that 9, US-support includes a) $s for arms collected by Meir from US residents (mostly Jews), US-recognition (from recall, 11mins after Z-UDI, itself meaningless in law), then ever-more $s, military 'aid' (effectively gifts) and the 100+ UNSC vetoes on Zs' behalf, etc..

The 1st 4 points are all pre-WW2, proving my 'looong before' assertion. sorry - but not too sorry, for the long post - but it is not easy...

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Thousands of Israeli T... · 0 replies · +1 points

@ Thomas L. Knapp: "No, I didn't know whom David was thinking of."

Me: Perhaps it's not so much 'who' but more 'what.' I don't mind explaining something in simpler terms.

David's topic was 'someone' accepting "this half a loaf," where David got the 'someone' and possibly the time-frame wrong.

Since David mentioned Herzl and Balfour, I supplied *appropriate* quotes from them.

You may call the Jabotinsky quote a 'hobbyhorse,' but Jabotinsky's colonisation by force behind an 'iron wall' is the recipe for permanent war, as adopted by the Zs = exactly what the world is confronted with - hardly some peccadillo.

Then the BG-quote starting "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective" encapsulates exactly what David seemed to be trying to say.

Any time I can help you, just give me a call.

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Thousands of Israeli T... · 0 replies · +1 points

@Mike K: "Chaim Weizmann."

Me: Kindly give a proper reference (available, reputable); unsubstantiated assertions may be worse than useless - i.e. misleading and/or a pointless waste of otherwise useful time. Insults help no one.

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Thousands of Israeli T... · 2 replies · +1 points

@Thomas L. Knapp: "... given that Herzl died 13 years before the Balfour Declaration."

Thomas, David just messed up the details - as I expect you know.

Here's one from Herzl, 1897: «... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.»

One from Balfour: «For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ...»

Then Jabotinsky, 1923: «Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.»

Ben-Gurion(1936-39): «We must see the situation for what it is. ... we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ...»

Here's one more apposite to David's topic «... Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. [...] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal.[25] In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."»

The point of these quotes is to show a) that the Zs exhibited clear premeditation to commit ethnic cleansing by force = using genocidal methods = murder for spoil, here soil. It's part of the case against the Zs' wicked crimes against humanity, and the Zionist Congress-quote demonstrates b) that the Zs will lie for advantage = say one thing then do another = break promises (see Z-accepted UNGA273 (cites 181&194, still not Z-honoured), say). Proof is what we see today; Zs illegally squatting upon improperly alienated land/property *still* belonging to the hapless ELO/Os of Palestine.

10 years ago @ Information Clearing H... - Post · 0 replies · +1 points

Some *caution* may be advisable here (ready, bigots or not...)

In any criminal investigation, one should consider means, motive, and opportunity, but a more complete list includes premeditation, presence, any modus operandi and cui bono?

Sooo #1, starting at the last; Q: Cui bono?

A: The 'usual suspects;' namely US/Zs & F+UK rogue-regimes (recent rape of Libya, Syria now underway, Iran in waiting for "All options!")

Intro: Since latest pre-WW1, as the British navy began converting from coal to oil, the ME has been 'of interest,' and the now referred-to 'arc of instability' (otherwise known as the 'oil-sands of the planet,' aka 'greatest strategic prize') has been coveted, equally as ferociously as pre-Mandate Palestine, both of which have been subjected to 'murder for spoil' (both soil and oil) as the primary acquisition methodology. Next Q: Who are the true owners of these coveted resources? A: Mostly Arab/Muslims (= A/Ms). But everyone should know all this, end intro.

Now Fisk seems to have a 'questionable' reputation (thnx marcus), but more worrying is a recent item from Blum; paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, having one item attack Muslims may be regarded as coincidence; but multiples may indicate a coordinated (propaganda) campaign.

More, some *sense of proportion* may be advisable here; although executions are on the whole considered barbaric, one could consider three comparisons, namely a) the US is a mass-executioner (compared to more civilised climes, say), and b) the US has killed massively more mainly innocent civilians in its illegal wars. (I estimate over 2.5mio in Iraq alone, starting from ca. 1991. Q: Recall Ms Albright's price of ½mio dead kids? A: "Worth it.")

Q: The 3rd comparison? A: c) The alien Zs' aggressive invasion of Palestine (via UK 'allowed' migration, much 'illegal' = aliyah bet) and subsequent ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods, ~700,000 ca. 1948 and ~300,000 ca. 1967, plus bouts of murdering violence intermittently ever since, right down to the 'current moment.'

Sooo #2, who is more to be condemned, A/Ms or US/Zs & F+UK?

Oh, I should'a known: propaganda-shocker give-away: "Women, Decapitated, Hanged or Shot in the Muslim world" - outrage! Shoot the messenger!

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Kerry Demanding PA Con... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thomas L. Knapp: "... more than 70% of the Jews in Israel ... were BORN THERE."

Me: No need to shout, and looks like a repeat of yet another red herring/non sequitur.

Unless that 'more than 70%' were born on the ~6% that the Zs managed to wangle off the natives before 1948, they were born on land which the Zs have *no* right to occupy, since control over all but that ~6% was acquired by, and is only being maintained by, force of arms = the Zs illegally squat upon land improperly alienated = ethnically cleansed by genocidal methods, from the 'pre-aggressive alien-invasion' rightful native = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (ELO/Os).

Outside of that ~6%, the whole Z-show is 100% illegitimate as well as being viciously and vilely immoral - oh! - in my considered judgement, based on publicly available, reputable evidence + close observation. (i.e. not what is said, but what is actually going on = murder for spoil, here soil, say.)

Not so BTW, you still have not satisfactorily a) substantiated, nor b) justified your claim: «Not even close to 22%. Israel, Gaza and the West Bank combined are about 12% of Palestine. The other 88% is called "Jordan."»

Lemma:

1. As previously noted, UK excluded Jordan as 'non-Z-coveted,'

2. Substantiate = provide publicly available, reputable evidence,

3. Justify = explain *why* this curious 'factoid' may be relevant.

Can't, won't or what else and why not, Thomas, eh? Like, credibility?

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Reports: Israel Would ... · 0 replies · +1 points

@lydia476: "You guys are bat sh*t c r a z y!"

Me: No, and bad manners, to boot. Further, I am not "You guys" but a person, and I do not respond well to rude US-speak. The sort of debate I'm interested in is one restricted to 'the facts of the matter' + opinion rationally based on facts, mutual respect between participants, and preferably NO SHOUTING.

@lydia476: "Israels acceptance of the UN181 is well documented and includes Israels UNILATERAL declaration of Ind as well as the acknowledgement by the Jewish Agency for Palestine that the resolution is binding."

Me: Proof, please; "well documented" = no argument. Try this:

"On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan. While this was supported by Rosen and Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, it was opposed by Ben-Gurion and Zisling, with Ben-Gurion stating, "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?"[9] The inclusion of the designation of borders in the text was dropped after the provisional government of Israel, the Minhelet HaAm, voted 5–4 against it.[10] The Revisionists, committed to a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River (that is, including Transjordan), wanted the phrase "within its historic borders" included but were unsuccessful."
[wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence]

Me: So no borders in their UDI, and as UNGA181 specifies a Palestinian state, IF Israel 'accepts' UNGA181 THEN why is Israel *still* resisting the creation of that state?

More: One sees *why* the Zs do not declare borders; they hope to grab even more land in 'final status negotiations' = (in Zs' minds) Palestinian surrender.

My point in quoting Ben-Gurion is to show that the Zs exhibited clear premeditation to commit murder for spoil, here soil. It's part of the case against the Zs' wicked crimes against humanity, and the Zionist Congress-quote demonstrates that the Zs will lie for advantage = say one thing then do another = break promises (see UNGA273, say). Proof is what we see today; Zs illegally squatting upon improperly alienated land/property (*still* belonging to the hapless ELO/Os of Palestine) - and as lydia476 claims, in violation of some "250UN resolutions."

As for "US attempting to play 'onest Injun,'" that's not even a sick joke, but rather an incredible negation of reality.

10 years ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Reports: Israel Would ... · 0 replies · +1 points

@lydia476: "UNGA181 is not invalid because Israel in acknowledging the rights and powers of UN, ..."

Me: No. Whereas Israel *did* agree to abide by the UN Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular (as prerequisites to UNGA273), AFAIK, a) UNGA resolutions are not binding unless actioned by the UNSC (which *rejected* actioning UNGA181), b) Israel's 'agreement' is offset by its wholesale violations of the Charter in general and UNGA181 & 194 in particular, so c) IF Israel were to wish to benefit from *any* part international law THEN it must first conform to the *whole* of it, and d) unilaterally declared independence has no significance in law.

@lydia476: "Thus Israel borders are etched in stone, ..."

Me: No. AFAIK, not even Israel has defined its own borders.

In any case, your assertions do not constitute valid arguments (NO MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT); to be effective, assertions must be amenable to substantiation, which I now call upon you to provide.

What land/property Israel may control (outside of the ~6% Zs 'legally' acquired by 1948) is only accomplished by the force of arms, and as UNSC242 makes clear, such control does not constitute legitimate acquisition (refer to 'improperly alienated, illegitimately squatted upon,' then to Amanda's bank robber analogy.)

Discussion: In a nutshell, any wishing to 'legitimate' Israel must list the valid legal steps that might convert illegitimately squatting on land/property enabled by murdering violence (from 1948's Plan Dalet, say, to the current-moment's illegal settlements) into legal ownership of same, and not so BTW, how all of RoR+R*3 = Right of Return + Revest, Recompense and Reparation - see UNGA194[*] - is to be implemented.

[*] "11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

Backing up a bit: «... Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. [...] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal.[25] In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."»

Me: The amazing thing is, how often the Zs convict themselves.

Israel's plans for 'peace' require Palestinians to surrender parts of their inalienable rights - what mugs ever would?