Is it common practice to accuse "truthers" of antisemitism?

Wooow Hooper against the woorld antisemites everywhere, run hooper run. They are all after you. All out to get you. You are probably right. You must be indeed the last sane person left.

In your world the state attorney is the truel villain, but I guess only if a jew is on the accused stand. All I did was present material and put it up for discussion. That only a minority share your sentiment about the material presented does not constitute antisemitism. If you believe this, you should look up what antisemitism is. If you are aware of it, then you of course know that your accusations of antisemitism against me are baseless and unfounded and clearly must be just that, a 911 deniers idea of "arguing" a point, as pointed out in the OP of this thread where a 911 denier unrelated to you attempted a similiar smear campaign against the founder of A&Efor911forTruth, falling hard on his face in the process I might add.

Example of false accusations of antisemitism as a smear tactic.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Oh for the love of FSM.

There is a very valid reason for accusing truthers of antisemitism, especielly when they seem very eager to tie any and all pieces of evidence to Israel.

Especially the OP seems to have very low standards, when it comes to "evidence" that attempts to turn Israel into being behind the 9/11 attacks.

So by your logic, Americans who find fault with America or the CIA are Anti-American or Anti-White men, or non Americans for that matter. Compelling logic the 911 deniers display indeed . For the record, it isnt MY evidence and nobody is trying to tie anything to anybody. I present the material, put it up for discussion and it is what it is. Is it my fault that the voice on the recording of flight 11 is that of an an native Hebrew speaker as multiple persons confirmed? Are they antisemites too?

From what I observed and what I concluded from my own research YES ! calling people antisemites IS a common tactic used by 911 deniers, especially if jewish people, or elements within Israel are implicated, their argument being somebody who follows the evidence to a jew or to Mossad, hates all jews, which is simply not true. Neither do I believe only jews or only Mossad was involved, based on the material presented by other people as well.

It is either a mental illness on the debunkers part, something that has become a popular tactic among the debunkers, or simply grasping at straws when they see no way to debate the material presented in a way they deem desirable to whatever E-War they perceive themselves on being on.

911 denier: What time is it?

Truther: its 10 am

911 denier YOU ANTISEMITE AAAARRRGGHH

Truther: :

reply to post by Cassius666

All I did was present material and put it up for discussion.

No, no, no, no. Don't sell yourself short. You did much more than that. Out of the literally billions and billions of potential choices for "material" you specifically choose lines of material that sought to indict Jews in general and the State of Israel for the events of 9/11. That is a conscious and personal decision. You are not a neutral observer here. You made the choice, you posted the material. Now you are trying to run away from your decision. As to your OP, if you look at my posting history you will note that I often debate many posters and I seldom accuse anyone of any kind of personal racial or religious bias unless they do something like try to pin 9/11 on some ethnic group without any basis in fact or reality.

Are you Anti-Semitic? Do you believe that the State of Israel, the Jewish homeland should exist?

Wooow Hooper against the woorld antisemites everywhere, run hooper run. They are all after you. All out to get you. You are probably right. You must be indeed the last sane person left.

Are you Anti-Semitic? Do you believe that the State of Israel, the Jewish homeland should exist?

Let me ask a counter question. Should America cease to exist, because of what the CIA did in Iran-Contra? Or eslewhere? You have a big huge mess in your head and are wildly mixing up topics. You are clearly thinking of what other people said, who debate whether Israel should exist or not. That is debate led by semites, which includes arabic semites but also orthodox jews who want to dismantle Israel. I doubt that makes them antisemitic, maybe anti Zionist.
As for me, to answer your question, whether Israel should exist or not is not a topic that interests me, nor do I follow it, but I certainly hope a peaceful resolution is achieved in the middle east that will end the violence in the region. While I do not root neither for the Israelis, nor the Palestinians on that topic, I wish none of them harm and hope they can live in peace in an environment they deem acceptable. What I said isnt swayed by what elements within Israel, like the Mossad, did in collaboration with other forces or on their own in the past or distant past.

In your world the state attorney is the truel villain, but I guess only if a jew is on the accused stand. All I did was present material and put it up for discussion. That only a minority share your sentiment about the material presented does not constitute antisemitism. If you believe this, you should look up what antisemitism is. If you are aware of it, then you of course know that your accusations of antisemitism against me are baseless and unfounded and clearly must be just that, a 911 deniers idea of "arguing" a point, as pointed out in the OP of this thread where a 911 denier unrelated to you attempted a similiar smear campaign against the founder of A&Efor911forTruth, falling hard on his face in the process I might add.

Example of false accusations of antisemitism as a smear tactic.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Oh for the love of FSM.

There is a very valid reason for accusing truthers of antisemitism, especielly when they seem very eager to tie any and all pieces of evidence to Israel.

Especially the OP seems to have very low standards, when it comes to "evidence" that attempts to turn Israel into being behind the 9/11 attacks.

So by your logic, Americans who find fault with America or the CIA are Anti-American or Anti-White men, or non Americans for that matter. Compelling logic the 911 deniers display indeed . For the record, it isnt MY evidence and nobody is trying to tie anything to anybody. I present the material, put it up for discussion and it is what it is. Is it my fault that the voice on the recording of flight 11 is that of an an native Hebrew speaker as multiple persons confirmed? Are they antisemites too?

From what I observed and what I concluded from my own research YES ! calling people antisemites IS a common tactic used by 911 deniers, especially if jewish people, or elements within Israel are implicated, their argument being somebody who follows the evidence to a jew or to Mossad, hates all jews, which is simply not true. Neither do I believe only jews or only Mossad was involved, based on the material presented by other people as well.

It is either a mental illness on the debunkers part, something that has become a popular tactic among the debunkers, or simply grasping at straws when they see no way to debate the material presented in a way they deem desirable to whatever E-War they perceive themselves on being on.

911 denier: What time is it?

Truther: its 10 am

911 denier YOU ANTISEMITE AAAARRRGGHH

Truther: :

reply to post by Cassius666


Wow, all that and I have yet to see you say that you are not an Anti-Semite. You've accused me many times of calling you a nazi and I never have. You rail against the charge of Anti-Semitism yet you won't say that you're not an Anti-Semite. You give a heart felt speech about everyone living in peace but won't take a simple extra step and say that it is proper for there to be a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel. Peacefull wishes are all well and good but sometime you must take a stand, take a side. Are you on the side of those that want to end the State of Israel or not?

reply to post by Cassius666


Not all truthers are Jew-haters, I would never suspect that of say BoneZ, but then there is you.

Only poster I am aware of who has been known to collect every post from weeks, months back, mentioning Jew/Israel/Mossad and re-post them one after another.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Not all truthers are Jew-haters, I would never suspect that of say BoneZ, but then there is you.

Only poster I am aware of who has been known to collect every post from weeks, months back, mentioning Jew/Israel/Mossad and re-post them one after another.

Therein lies your confusion. You confuse debating trails which lead to Israelis, Zionists and Mossad, with allegations against ALL jews. Its like saying anybody who debates Iran-Contra and takes offense to the white Americans, the Americans secret service and the CIA is Anti-Caucasian, or Anti-American.

But of course you are not stupid. You know all that. You merely use the Antisemitism card to attempt to stiffle debate, an "argument" that has been used by truthers in the past. See the last link in my signature. And this of course.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure. But I do remember this incident from the Holocaust Museum Shooting. They were forcing it damn hard to tie in the shooter to the 911 truth movement:

Glen Beck Uses Shooting At Holocaust Museum To Smear And Lie About 911 Truthers

The big stuff starts at 2:30 and there is a little blurb around the 1:10 mark where he puts truthers on the same line as white supremacists. But the big rant starts at 2:30.

I also understand that when the shooting took place, the media was instructed to really ram home the fact the shooter was a truther.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Wow, all that and I have yet to see you say that you are not an Anti-Semite. You've accused me many times of calling you a nazi and I never have. You rail against the charge of Anti-Semitism yet you won't say that you're not an Anti-Semite. You give a heart felt speech about everyone living in peace but won't take a simple extra step and say that it is proper for there to be a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel. Peacefull wishes are all well and good but sometime you must take a stand, take a side. Are you on the side of those that want to end the State of Israel or not?

I am not an anti-semite. that is what I intended to say, with my reply to you. I thought that would be self implied, but apprently it wasnt, the idea being I am not any more antijewish, than people discussing Iran-Contra or even taking offense to it, are anti-American. I kept saying you are not dumb, but now I must say you do not seem that smart either, for somebody who has allegedly been educated at an university.

Why should I say it is proper for the jews to have an homeland or not? I do not have an opinion on it, it isnt a debate I followed. I didnt say it is proper for the jews to have a homeland, because I really do not have an opinion on it and do not whish to take part in that debate. However I do hope that the situation in the middle east is resolved peacfully, between the parties affected, without bloodshed and maybe even without a displacement or uprooting of any of the people living in the area. However I am going to say, that a peacful solution is more likely to be achieved if Israel is not dissolved, simply because if the state of Israel will be dissolved, such a dissolution is more likely to be carried out through violence, which will probably result in violence against the local population and the displacement of the Israelis, which number in the millions, than to be achieved in a peacful way by Orthodox jews which take offense to the founding of the state of Israel for reasons I loosely grasp.

Should the Americans return land to the American natives, should Australians dissolve Australia? Those are certainly interesting topics too, which I did not ponder however, therefore I dont have an opinion on those topics and wont claim I do, when it isnt the case.

reply to post by Cassius666


" debating trail " or your personal prejudice trail ? readers will judge.

Might be different if you had any evidence but you don't.

Originally posted by Enkii
Israel was created by the US some 60 yrs ago for a strategic point in the middle east whilst obliterating Palestine (Jesus Christ was born in Palestine) and empowering Jews worldwide. Nazis exterminated Jews. NWO exterminates muslims. One tribe, two wings.

the nazis exterminated more than ten times more europeans than jews and this NWO has flooded european countrys with manly fighting age muslims so i think both groups are aimed at ruining europe and its people. why does the euro parlament have the rape of europa as the focal point at the entrance? because there job is to rape europe

as for calling a person who does not accept the OS of 911. its ether grasping at straws hopeing to silence people with a scary name or the person saying it thinks it was done by some jewish group and supports it

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666

 

" debating trail " or your personal prejudice trail ? readers will judge.

Might be different if you had any evidence but you don't.

Readers DID judge. So far the crazies who throw around the antisemite card on here I can count on one hand. Its you, hooper and roboe. I am not the only one who sees yours and their "arguments" for what it is, grasping at straws, when you are too lazy to debate the material presented.

It didnt just happen to me, see the link in my signature.

And of course.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure. But I do remember this incident from the Holocaust Museum Shooting. They were forcing it damn hard to tie in the shooter to the 911 truth movement:

Glen Beck Uses Shooting At Holocaust Museum To Smear And Lie About 911 Truthers

The big stuff starts at 2:30 and there is a little blurb around the 1:10 mark where he puts truthers on the same line as white supremacists. But the big rant starts at 2:30.

I also understand that when the shooting took place, the media was instructed to really ram home the fact the shooter was a truther.

The jig is up alfie. Your Antisemite Yaaarrrgghhhll wont convince anyone, NOT EVEN AN ISRAELI !!!

Originally posted by Cassius666
Just curious, is this a common practice?

Yes, it does seem to be fairly common practice. A few aspects that often come up with the 9/11 discussion are the "dancing Israelis" who were detained, and the Israeli "art students" who had what some deem to be "unusual" access to the towers. There's also the "pull it" quote by the man who leased the towers, Larry Silverstein, and who took out special terrorist attack insurance coverage just before the event. There are other circumstantial ties as well, but generally speaking, any discussion regarding someone of Jewish faith being remotely, or directly, attached to that day, and/or to the lead up, is usually met with some accusations of antisemitism, and such aspects have received much discussion.

reply to post by redmage

The Dancing Israelis who appeared after the towers had been hit.

The Art students who had secret access to a minimal area in a part of the towers that weren't hit (as far as I can remember).

And Silverstein who took out an insurance that was mandated by his lease contract.

Yawn.

Originally posted by roboe
Yawn.

Yes, "yawn".

Those are only the three most commonly discussed circumstantial ties to that day, and although you feel they're yawn-able, some foolishly feel that any mention/discussion of these "yawn-able" aspects constitutes "antisemitism".

Also, the unprecedented "terrorist attack" coverage was in no way, shape, or form "mandated by his lease contract". It was an entirely new request, regarding the property, that went above and beyond the standard coverage mandated by his lease.

reply to post by redmage

Because he initially lowballed the insurance figure, which the tenants objected against, since they didn't believe he would be able to rebuild the property with such a low amount of money.

He he then suggested a high figure (US$5 billion iirc), which the tenants also objected to since they feared a rent hike.

They finally agreed on the US$3.5 billion figure.

If Silverstein was such a dirty jew, you would have figured that he would have stuck to his guns and stayed with the $5 billion figure.

reply to post by roboe


What the hell are you talking about, and why do you feel the need to bring slander like "dirty Jew" into the discussion?

If you can't discuss matters like a civilized adult, then take your opinions elsewhere.

if you say anything about israel

you are wrong

israel is the most corrupt illegal occupying force ever to exist

zionism is satanism

Originally posted by Truther9111776
if you say anything about israel

you are wrong

israel is the most corrupt illegal occupying force ever to exist

zionism is satanism

Israeli occupation is one issue but involvement in 9/11 is totally another .

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Truther9111776
if you say anything about israel

you are wrong

israel is the most corrupt illegal occupying force ever to exist

zionism is satanism

Israeli occupation is one issue but involvement in 9/11 is totally another .

Your point being?

reply to post by Cassius666


You should apologize to Nancy Reagan for abusing the image of her husband and using it to put a friendly face on idiocy.

reply to post by redmage

Also, the unprecedented "terrorist attack" coverage was in no way, shape, or form "mandated by his lease contract". It was an entirely new request, regarding the property, that went above and beyond the standard coverage mandated by his lease.

So you're stating that the terrorism rider on the insurance policy was not required by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but was wholly and completely at the request of the leasee?

reply to post by redmage

Larry Silverstein, and who took out special terrorist attack insurance coverage just before the event.

As usual facts are WRONG.....

Considering fact that terrorists had attacked the WTC in 1993, buying insurance would be prudent

Silverstein tried to skimp on it first trying to buy only 1 Bill in coverage

The banks putting up the money demanded 5 Bill on each building to protect investments

Settled on 3.5 Bil for each building

Wonder why consider truthers as anti-semetic ?