911 - Alex Jones Points To Jewish Owned Reuters As BBC WTC7 Foreknowledge

reply to post by Cassius666


If no one turned on the radio or TV, and no one voted, the powers that be wouldn't be able to claim a mandate.

What if they staged an election and no one came? How could they claim legitimacy? I am not saying AJ should be silenced, what I'm saying is to listen between the lines...pay attention to where AJ and the rest of the usual suspects are leading their audiences.

reply to post by Cassius666

Its about the information not about the source.

Wow, is that a telling statement. What you've done is basically confirmed the suspicion that you are willing to accept any source if the "information" fits into your agenda. Spoken like a true believer.

Its source first, that is what will determine whether or not what you are hearing, and repeating, is information or garbage.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Its about the information not about the source.

Wow, is that a telling statement. What you've done is basically confirmed the suspicion that you are willing to accept any source if the "information" fits into your agenda. Spoken like a true believer.

Its source first, that is what will determine whether or not what you are hearing, and repeating, is information or garbage.

You got it the wrong way around. You cant trust the massmedia and are well adviced to check their stories, as we have seen over and over. Apply the same to Alex Jones. Either the info he brings forward turns out to be breaking news reporting, hot air to fill his scheduled show, or either he, or somebody he is getting his info from is unto something.

Or are you saying Alex Jones is wrong when he said the BBC reported on WTC 7 in reaction to a newsfeed they got over Reuters?

reply to post by Cassius666

You got it the wrong way around. You cant trust the massmedia and are well adviced to check their stories, as we have seen over and over. Apply the same to Alex Jones. Either the info he brings forward turns out to be breaking news reporting, hot air to fill his scheduled show, or either he, or somebody he is getting his info from is unto something.

Consider the source. Then ignore everything and go to another source.

Or are you saying Alex Jones is wrong when he said the BBC reported on WTC 7 in reaction to a newsfeed they got over Reuters?

I don't know. And considering the source, I would ignore what he said and try another source. Its that simple.

If I were you people, I wouldn't trust a word out of Jone's mouth. I don't trust him to be telling you the truth, about who he is, or who he really works for.

reply to post by Lysergic


I don't hate the man. Not a fan of him either but he does what is in his heart I do believe. Any which way he wants to state things doesn't detract from what I stated prior though. If he means Israeli then he should note that in my opinion. It's stuff like this that damages his credibility and I hate to see people do harm to there objective and goals if it is with good intentions. I have never thought of Alex Jones as racists nor that his wife's ethnicity has any bearing on what he says and does personally.

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by Lysergic

 

I don't hate the man. Not a fan of him either but he does what is in his heart I do believe. Any which way he wants to state things doesn't detract from what I stated prior though. If he means Israeli then he should note that in my opinion. It's stuff like this that damages his credibility and I hate to see people do harm to there objective and goals if it is with good intentions. I have never thought of Alex Jones as racists nor that his wife's ethnicity has any bearing on what he says and does personally.

With the thing's he has said about Bill Cooper, to his famous. Y2K Broadcast were he was going on and on, that the Russians have landed on the east coast. And are attacking America speaks volumes about who he really is. His other problem it seems with other people, I myself find it. That his not talking about what the government of Israel, is doing to the Palestinian people among other things in the Middle East make him a questionable person.

reply to post by Evanvoid


I don't support the man for many reasons, but many do follow him. I hold him accountable, not those who support him. Dismiss the man if you must but never dismiss those who think freely of there own mind I say. He is an entertainer to some and a hero to others. It's all perception but he doesn't help his cause if he is as serious as he comes off with rhetoric like I noted prior. I know people who laugh at the man and people who swear by him. "Jewish Owned" is a deviation from Israeli agenda. I have great issue with those within our government and policy making process who have duel citizenship. It's a conflict of interest and I feel may merit violation of the constitution maybe but AI am no expert so I could be wrong. Expounding Jewish hate is not the same as making disparaging remarks about Israeli infiltration of our government which I believe has been going on for decades. I don't blame Jews though. I blame Israeli government/interests who use prominent Jewish people who support like minded government and policies for there own conflict of interests. He may just achieve a more intelligent following that currently existing if he learned the difference.

Israel does not equal Judaism.

I think the only way to put any sanity into the situation that is so focused on Israel is to separate the state of Israel from Judaism.

There has been a huge push, ever since the idea of establishing a European state in Palestine was created, to connect that state to Judaism with hardened steel chains. But plainly this connection in only an illusion. There are approximately 8 million Jews in the diaspora, and 5 million in Israel. Judaism itself obviously does not depend on the state of Israel for its existence. But what is obscured is the fact that Israel does not depend on Judaism for its existence, either. Zionism has always enjoyed considerable support from notable non-Jews, including our own President John Adams. This leads me to believe that there must be another reason, beyond simply protection of a religion, for the extreme actions taken to establish and protect Israel.

So I think we must separate these concepts in our thinking. Those who simply wish to argue and have no desire to understand can keep these two concepts confused with each other. Those who wish to understand must separate these concepts as a first step.

reply to post by l_e_cox


I understand them very clearly and that's what I have been going on about. Two different things entirely.