Support 911Blogger


ZIHOP as Limited Hangout by Danse

The controversial issues of Israeli/Zionist/Jewish involvement in 9/11 and influence on U.S. policies and public opinion; the exploitation/misrepresentation of the evidence by Judeophobes; and the use of these issues to disrupt and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, are all 100% on topic in this thread. Have at it- while observing the Rules http://www.911blogger.com/rules - loose nuke

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2906&sid=cb97162f1539bab4642fab0983a224f5
ZIHOP as Limited Hangout by Danse

In 1982, the Israeli strategic planner Oded Yinon penned a policy report calling for the balkanization of the entire middle east. He wrote:

"Iraq is first. Rich in oil, and internally torn, it is guaranteed as the
initial target. Its dissolution is even more important than of Syria. Egypt will then be torn apart, like a second Lebanon. ...The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural for dissolution. The matter is inevitable, especially in Saudi Arabia."

A few years earlier, an American strategic planner named Miles Ignotuis detailed
the "rapid deployment and strike force" prepared to seize "Saudi oil fields, installations and airports." He argued that a “real boogeyman” was necessary to frighten the American populace before such a scheme could be put into practice.

“The London Sunday Times confirmed:

"The National Security Council compiled a detailed review of a top secret Department of Defense plan to invade Saudi oil fields. The plan code, named Dharan Option Four, has been drawn up by the Pentagon and provides for a U.S. attack on oil fields that contain 40 percent of the world’s known reserves."

“Intelligence and military analyst Robert Tucker addressed the feasibility of seizing Arab oil fields by direct military intervention in Commentary in January 1975, in his article entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention": "Without intervention," he concluded, "there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing more than a superficial resemblance to the disaster of the 1930s."

He described secret U.S. plans of long standing for "intervention in an area which, if effectively controlled, would contain a sufficient portion of present world oil production and proven reserves to break the present price structure by breaking the core of the cartel, politically and economically.

"The Arab shoreline of the Gulf," he concluded breathlessly, "is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." (Schoenman)

We can go back indefinitely, but let’s stop at 1958 for the time being:

“In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year).” (Chomsky)

The American state does not require “Zionist infiltration” to engage in imperialism. If a particular state reaches a critical quantity of power in relation to other states it will attempt to expand that power. As Napoleon famously said, “Ambition is never content, even on the summit of greatness”.

This thesis is confirmed by the entire history of civilization. Indeed, of the eight recently developed primary states, six were created by conquest.

The Military Industrial Complex did not arise from some flaw in the American character, nor indeed from Zionism. It arose, simply put, because capital requires more capital, power more power still. Powerful states act out. “Small states are virtuous only because of their weakness.” (Bakunin).

Israel did not create this juggernaut; she is indeed an essential partner and participant in the war on terror myth and obviously benefits from it to no end, but the MIC will keep on humming along regardless. Israel’s goals, or at least the goals of the hardcore Jewish supremacists who formulate Israeli policy, gel neatly with that of the American power elite at present. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that American policy in the middle east (with the exception of Palestine) would be drastically different in the absence of a Zionist state. This is crucial to understand. If we concentrate all of our attention on Zionism we will ignore the roots of the problem.

There was an interesting controversy in Leftist circles (especially amongst Leftist Jews) in the wake of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay "The Israel Lobby". Having struggled for so long to bring light to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, usually to no avail, the majority of leftists welcomed the paper as a ray of sunshine. A few voices, however, attempted to put things in a broader perspective. Joseph Massad wrote:

“While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full of awe-inspiring well- documented details about the formidable power commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by these studies let alone explained.

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies. Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not.”

Finkelstein more or less agreed, arguing that it was not a question of either/or. (this “either/or” thing seems to be a major problem – some truthers seem incapable of entertaining to ideas in their heads simultaneously, even when the two ideas compliment each other).

The "either-or" framework -- the Lobby or U.S. strategic interests -- isn't, in my opinion, very useful:

(1) Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. If for different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis -- and Israelis projected themselves as -- experts on the"Arab mind." Accordingly the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years (months?) this or that Arab country needs to be banged up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.”

The Israeli influence making things worse. There is certainly no doubt about that. Israel does not have a “right to exist” in its present form any more than a serial killer has the “right” to enter my home, steal all of my possessions and kill my family. I do not believe in a “two-state” solution. I believe in a directly democratic “state” in “Israel” and “Palestine” where religion and race have no bearing on individual and collective rights. The same applies to my home country.

Ultimately, however, the Mearsheimer/Walt piece is actually an excellent example of the sort of elitist, backward nationalism that characterizes Israeli policy itself. It does not concern me whether Israel is a liability for the US “national interest”. The “national interest” has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of 90% of the population. In the case of Israel, I’m far more interested in the rights of Palestinians than whether American support for Israel negatively affects her image on the world stage. If soft-imperialist critiques from the establishment help end US support for Israel – more power to them. Brzezinski warning of a potential false flag attack on Iran was a welcome development even though we all know he’s human slime.

What is often missing in similar soft-imperialist critiques of Israel is the same sense of perspective. Any perspective at all.,

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that I’ll be viewed as an Israeli apologist for writing this thread. But you’d be wrong to think I’m trying to shield Israel from the wrath of the 911 truth movement. Quite the contrary, those familiar with my posts know that I have long tried to highlight the Israeli role in 911, both in my writing and my video work. The problem I see is that the pendulum appears to be swinging so far in the other direction that the arguments are no longer rational. Atta’s pork chops – meet the wandering Jew. If you don’t agree with the premise that Israel and alleged “dual-loyalty” Jewish people are responsible for nine-tenths of the world’s ills you’re a “disinfo shill”.

In many ways I’m reminded of Eric Hufschmid and Wing TV, though I won’t stoop to labeling people “disinfo agents” simply because I disagree with their tactics or ideologies.

“ZIHOP” – our “outside job” by Mossad in conjunction with “dual loyalty Jews” and (perhaps) some otherwise decent upstandin’ Murikan folk in the upper echelons caught with their pants down thence blackmailed by Jews – is an absurd premise. It’s cartoon stuff.

I’m supposed to forget about the countless non-Zionist false flag operations prior to 911? I’m supposed to think Andrew Marshall is cowering in fear of Binny Netanyahu, wringing his hands over his failure to stop the attacks? I’m supposed to think Mossad would go up against her sugar daddy’s 14 plus alphabet agencies without a green light? All those strategists itching for conquest and ongoing Keynesian support in the wake of Glasnost needed Zionists to yank their chain? Really? Is Dick Cheney a crypto-Jew? He’s not interested in oil or geopolitics or suppressing dissent in the homeland but glorious Zion?

Not. Bloody. Likely.

Zionism is quickly becoming every bit the boogeyman as Al-Qaeda and the “NWO”. Instead of turbans and all-seeing-eyes we have skull-caps and menorahs. They hate our freedoms. I think that’s the allure – blaming an “alien” or “other” allows one to keep faith in one’s own governing institutions. It’s comforting, just like the official myth. When you’ve become this ugly anything is better than looking in the mirror.

Zihop is a limited hangout.

I AM NOT A ZIONIST!!!

I AM A HUMAN BEING!!!

BTW... If it isn't obvious to anyone else at this point, it is to me. A certain site that we all know and hate are currently in a "battle for blogger" by using their sock puppets that they probably created a long time ago to vote down everything good, and vote up everything bad, and to promote the nasty Zionists, etc... they heard that Reprehensor gave up the site, and are trying to re-establish themselves. Eleusus/Keenan who was caught is just one example. Clearly he is not the only one.

Thanks for writing this danse (though I despise any reference to "hop").


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

"Let's go to the HOP"

i interpreted the 'HOP" reference is as a commentary on false distinctions and bogus labels, and one that illustrates the paradigm of those that attempt to portray 9/11 as a "Zionist inside job" where the US MIC is either an unwitting, witting and helpless and/or witting and willing pawn of the "nasty Zionists" (aka Jews)

Jon, your comments frequently go into both positive and negative teens. Your "conspiracy theory" may be on target, but it's speculation at this point. Intent is difficult to establish, and not necessary; disruption needs to be identified and moderated, period. If people persist in posting comments that violate/infringe on the rules, they need to be banned. The rules create an environment conducive to constructive discussion, and make it hard for disruption to succeed. http://www.911blogger.com/rules

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Well...

I thought it would be good to point out the obvious change in commenting, and topics on this site. The anti-Jon Gold/Zionist schtick seemed awfully familiar to me.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

"conspiracies happen"

it would be cool if you made that into an article with links...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

US MIC, Jews, Judeophobes and 9/11 Truth Movement disruption

Danse: "The Military Industrial Complex did not arise from some flaw in the American character, nor indeed from Zionism. It arose, simply put, because capital requires more capital, power more power still. Powerful states act out. “Small states are virtuous only because of their weakness.” (Bakunin).

"Israel did not create this juggernaut; she is indeed an essential partner and participant in the war on terror myth and obviously benefits from it to no end, but the MIC will keep on humming along regardless. Israel’s goals, or at least the goals of the hardcore Jewish supremacists who formulate Israeli policy, gel neatly with that of the American power elite at present. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that American policy in the middle east (with the exception of Palestine) would be drastically different in the absence of a Zionist state. This is crucial to understand. If we concentrate all of our attention on Zionism we will ignore the roots of the problem."
------
"I’m supposed to forget about the countless non-Zionist false flag operations prior to 911? I’m supposed to think Andrew Marshall is cowering in fear of Binny Netanyahu, wringing his hands over his failure to stop the attacks? I’m supposed to think Mossad would go up against her sugar daddy’s 14 plus alphabet agencies without a green light? All those strategists itching for conquest and ongoing Keynesian support in the wake of Glasnost needed Zionists to yank their chain? Really? Is Dick Cheney a crypto-Jew? He’s not interested in oil or geopolitics or suppressing dissent in the homeland but glorious Zion?"

Does anyone have any evidence the above observations- or any other statements in the article- are inaccurate?

To be sure, there are many sites portray 9/11 and US policy in the Middle East as primarily/entirely the work of Zionists (Jews), and if the US MIC and certain Caucasian Christians are noted, they're generally portrayed as puppets, either unwitting, witting and helpless, or witting and willing, but still puppets. This interpretation requires ignoring/discounting/misinterpreting a great deal of other evidence. http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Certainly, the evidence of an Israeli role in 9/11- Odigo, the high fivers, the art student spy ring, Urban Moving Systems, PNAC Jews and other Jews in power positions- plus the influence of the Israel Lobby- have provided fodder for Judeophobes to justify their prejudices to themselves. However, it's an open question of who is really behind some of these sites; considering they're providing fodder the Establishment has used to portray and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement as 'anti-semitic', I'm not convinced that 'anti-semitism' can explain all of it.

Reprehensor's review is an interesting case study:
"Missing Links" provides the critics of 9/11 Truth with ample ammunition.
http://911blogger.com/node/17469

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

ZIHOP

I largely agree with the fine article by Danse. If we were going into this issue in more detail, we'd want to say more about "terrorism," however, and the role of Israeli elites in helping formulate the concept as we now have it. Nafeez Ahmed has done some good work on this. The "war on terror" is intimately connected to alliances between US and Israeli elites. Ahmed has especially pointed to the "Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism" of 1979 as a key event. Participants and organizers will be familiar to us. Benjamin Netanyahu was key organizer. Shimon Peres and George Bush Sr. were among the participants. (See Ahmed, The War on Truth, chapter one). At this early stage, the Soviet Union was taken as the source of "international terrorism." This was convenient given the Cold War. Later, it proved possible to retain the notion of international terrorism as a unitary evil while jettisoning the source (SU) that had earlier been the alleged link.

There's a slight disagreement I have with Danse about how we structure the argument. I've never found it all that helpful to say: even if x didn't exist, y would probably still happen. In the present case: even if Israel didn't exist, the US would still have essentially the same policy in the Middle East, propping up whatever corrupt authoritarian regime might be helpful in the essential task of maintaining control over the oil. This could be true, but we have to do with an actually existing state of Israel and actually existing imperial collaboration. We have to study it as it is.

I believe I agree with Danse and others that there is strong evidence the Israeli MIC was involved in 9/11 in some fashion. Others have set out the case so I don't think I need to repeat it here. I think it goes without saying that we have to research this and not let anyone stop us.

At the same time, anti-Semitism (I'll use this old term here, though I don't like it much) is not only repugnant but also a great threat to the 9/11 truth movement. There appear to be some full-fledged anti-Semites in the movement as well as, probably, assorted agents whose job is to appear as anti-Semites in order to discredit us. I want to make 3 points about our situation:

1. You cannot kick people out of a social movement. But you can marginalize and, where necessary, expose and denounce them. And you can certainly kick them out of an organization with a formal membership. This is one of the reasons Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice drew up statements on violence and on racism: those who violate these principles are out.

http://stj911.org/nonviolence.html

2. But since attacks on Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, represent one of the low points in human history (along with assorted other genocides, wars of aggression, etc.), calling someone anti-Semitic and associating them with this great evil is a very serious matter. People can be destroyed by this name-calling, so if we engage in it we'd better make sure we've got it right.

3. Loose Nuke: I assume when you say "Zionists (Jews)" you are referring to right-wingers who use the term "Zionist" when they really mean "Jew"? If so, please make this clear. Because otherwise we play into the hands of those who wish to identify Zionism with Judaism, Zionists and Jews. Zionism is an ideology and political movement that started in the 19th century and aimed at creating (or as it sees it, re-creating) a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Since 1948 Zionism has focused on developing the Jewish state that was created. This state and the particular form of Zionist ideology that supports its present activities are, in my view, systemically racist. So it's ironic, to say the least, when we are called racists for criticizing Zionism and Zionists.

Sorry, I've got more to say but I've run out of time. Hope we can continue the discussion.

I think it's important to note...

The Christian Zionists who believe Israel needs to be "fruitful and multiply" in order for Jesus to return. From what I understand, they outnumber the Jewish Zionists. It makes sense because there are certainly more Christians than Jews, and the further south you go (there are exceptions, I met a Christian Zionist recently) where the more "radical" wing of Christianity exists, the more Christian Zionists exist.

Edit: I believe this is also relevant to the conversation.

Jon Gold: Nafeez... I have a question for you... what are your feelings about individuals who try to say there is no evidence of "hijackers" or "Muslim involvement" with regards to the 9/11 attacks, and say that if you promote information regarding that, you are promoting the "Islamofascist Myth", and are being a racist? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since that is a focus of your research, and you are a Muslim. Thanks.

Nafeez Ahmed: Jon, mostly these people largely lack a broader political or historical consciousness. obviously i think this is a ridiculous position to take. it comes from a total lack of familiarity with the politics of the muslim world, as well as with the development of us-uk unconventional warfare doctrines after ww2. in particular, the anomalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers - the problem is people like easy simple answers. they divide things up into simplistic binary choices, either 'this' or 'that', 'us' against 'them', etc. ironically, it's a very neocon like mentality that does us no favours...

Jon Gold Thank you Nafeez for your input. Here is something I wrote on the subject.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94555&postcount=1

Nafeez Ahmed: i've seen that post. i like it. :)

Jon Gold: Nice. Thanks.

Edit: Take a look at this. How many times have I said how easy it would be to paint us as "terrorists" if we go around saying Zionist this, Zionist that? Thanks Barrett.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

well said

"Loose Nuke: I assume when you say "Zionists (Jews)" you are referring to right-wingers who use the term "Zionist" when they really mean "Jew"?"

That is exactly how I meant it; case in point is this 'Missing Links' statement, which Rep quoted in his review:
"The reality is, that Neocon is just another layer of the onion that covers up the existence of the "Jewish criminal network" So long as they keep calling the network anything other than specifically, a Jewish criminal network, then their greatest strength which is their racial cohesion, goes undetected.. PNAC, the Project for the New American Century, was not a Neocon or even a Zionist thinktank, but a Jewish criminal thinktank. .This crime network existed long before Zionism was ever codified.. Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate and necessary for us to refer to it as the Jewish criminal network, as opposed to merely using the term Zionism. Although that term is sometimes employed."
http://911blogger.com/node/17469

Valid point by 911SATYA: "We have to study it as it is."

One thing we know that is, and has been historically, is that the US supports tyrants in energy-rich or energy-strategic regions- when they're interested in working with US corporations who want to exploit their nation's resources. Regimes that are not amenable in this way have been overthrown- Obama recently admitted this was done with Mossadegh in Iran in the 50's, though I don't recall he noted that this was connecdted to Mossadegh's nationalization of Iran's oil industry. So it seems intuitively obvious that the US would continue to seek ways to maintain influence and control in the Middle East- if it can't be done through profitable trade relations, that it might intervene directly, covertly or thru proxies- in whatever ways were judged to be the most expedient, possibly with the help of allies- Britain has also long meddled in the Middle East, including the staged coup against Mossadegh.

Part of the largely unconditional support Israel receives from the US can be traced to the beliefs and sympathies of right wing Christian fundamentalist 'Zionists'. However, Israel's physical location, as well as the values it shares with the US corporate/elite class, certainly have much to do with why it's so valued as an ally. Wikipedia is known to be compromised in favor of US Establishment versions of reality; the quotes cited in the criticism section for the entry on 'The Israel Lobby' are telling, in that they consist largely of spin, insults, false statements and ad hom, w/o refutation of fact or evidence that contradicts Mearshimer and Walt's work. It's also telling that Israel's strategic value for US interests does not figure into the criticism- for instance, Madeline Albright sums up her dismissal by saying, "There are other lobbies that are very strong, and Washington is full of lobbyists. So I would not, in fact, stress that as much as I would stress the fact that the U.S. does have an indissoluble relationship with Israel that is based on history and culture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy#Cr...

Jonathan Freedland provides a much more balanced critique in The Guardian, saying, among other observations, "The naive assumption at work here is that the American dog has no interests of its own, leaving it free to be wagged by the pro-Israel tail. It's a convenient view, casting the great superpower as a hapless, and essentially innocent, victim. But guess what: the US emphatically does have its own strategic interests - oil chief among them - and it guards them fiercely. Support for Israel as a loyal, dependable ally - ready to take on Arab and other forces that might pose a threat to those interests - has served America's purposes well. That's why the US acts the way it does, not because Aipac tells it to." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/jonathan-freedland-i...

Freedland also points out that Israel does not always get its way. There are many wealthy Jews in the US, and there are many Jews in power positions, and they work for their own perceived interests, including Israel's- but the US has many interests, and many other wealthy and powerful people who are not Zionists. Israel is dependent on the US; it receives a few $billion/yr in economic and military aid from the US- but Egypt, with a large Muslim population, is a close 2nd.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

The US has over 700 military bases in over 150 countries http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564 and the vast majority of evil US foreign interventions have nothing to do with the interests of Zionism- Steve Kangas' incomplete but useful summary of the last century: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html which Rep linked in his Missing Links review

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

9/11, Neocons, Israel Lobby, Iraq, Iran and the War on Terror

Freedland also notes: "Perhaps the most powerful example [of how the Israel Lobby does not control the US] - if only because so many believe the reverse to be true - is the Iraq war. Plenty of Mearsheimer-Walt followers reckon it was the "Lobby" wot done it: it was Israel that pushed for war. But as Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and others have explained, Israel's leaders in fact repeatedly warned against an attack on Saddam, fearing it would distract from, and embolden, what it regarded as the real threat, namely Iran. As it happened, they were right." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/jonathan-freedland-i...

Philip Zelikow is one of those who professed to believe this: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

It is true that Neocons/Zionists in the Bush Administration were pushing the attack on Iraq first and foremost. Perhaps they believed their own propaganda about cakewalks and being welcomed with flowers- and thought that the regime in Iran could be toppled shortly after.

Some statements by Zbigniew Brzezinksi, a Bilderberg-CFR level power broker who has been critical of hardline Zionist policies and Israel's influence on the US, are worth noting:

Jan 15-21, 1998: Quoted in the Counterpunch post- "How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen" http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

Jan 21, 2003: "President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote that the entire enterprise [in Lebanon] was misconceived, in that the administration, with very little appreciation for local realities, had permitted itself to become "a proxy of Israeli foreign policy" in Lebanon and a patsy for Likud's aim of diverting international attention to Lebanon and away from Israeli's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The more militant (Likud) leaders bent on incorporating the West Bank into Israel certainly welcome developments that have the effect of making the United States a direct military antagonist of the Arabs," Brzezinski complained in the Times in an argument that he has made more recently with regard to invading Iraq." http://www.albionmonitor.com/0301a/copyright/aftersaddam4.html

Aug 3, 2006: Nathan Gardels: "Doesn't military superiority as a blunt instrument lead to eternal enmity, not security?"
Brzezinski responded: "These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well". http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14371.htm

Feb 2, 2007: "A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski: Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran" http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02.shtml

Sep 20, 2009 - "Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-ad...

One thing I take from this is that even in the realm of the 'elite' class there are competing interests, disagreements, and battles over policy. No one faction is in control, though they will usually choose to close ranks to prevent exposure and disruption of the systems that support their existence.

I think Michael Green summarized well what was likely at the root of the 9/11 operation- it wasn't 'Zionism':
"The ruling class of the United States responded to threats to the U.S. dollar and U.S. global hegemony by generating a pretext for war in the Middle East in an attempt to shore up both the dollar and the hegemony by obtaining a stranglehold on the oil in that area that constitutes roughly 60% of the world's known reserves. To the rulers of the United States, the sacrifice of 3,000 civilians means nothing more than a form of involuntary conscription that they feel fully entitled to impose. The "endless war on terror" was a pronouncement by the neocons and their allies of their confidence that military might sufficed to intervene against "terrorism" wherever they felt seizure of scarce resources and geopolitical gain were to be found. The need to defend ourselves against an existential enemy of the rulers' own creation served as the pretext to build a domestic police state for use against its own citizens should they mobilize against the rulers' preferred allocation of resources when oil and other scarcities could no longer be profitably found to preserve the standard of living to which the people of the United States, and the advanced western democracies generally, had become accustomed."
------
"These persons [the ruling class] are united in keeping their deeds secret from the vast number of Americans even when they strongly disagree amongst themselves about the wisdom of a particular covert action like 911." http://911review.com/articles/green/PardonOurDust.html

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

OCT motive is a lie

Motive- "they hate your freedoms"

There probably wouldn't have been a 9/11 if terrorists didn't drive out the British in Palestine in the 1940s with terrorist acts. Those terrorists were zionists, and Israel was founded by zionist terrorists and is still to this day terrorizing Palestinians. The Balfour declaration of 1917 was not intended to make a Jewish/Zionist state. And the British made this very clear in 1939 when they said this.....

"His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

So Zionist terrorists attacked the British and when they left they attacked the Arabs and declared their state. They did it with terrorist groups such as Lehi (group)
"The British called it the Stern Gang, after its founder, Avraham Stern."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

and Irgun..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Future Presidents of Israel such as Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin were members of these terrorist groups, so forgive me if I find it a bit of a double standard when Hamas is elected by it's people but it doesn't count because the earlier "terrorists" don't approve of the latter day "terrorists".

In 1980 Israel even came out with a military ribbon celebrating these terrorists that founded their racist state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LehiRibbon.jpg

Does anyone really believe the Zionists want a two state solution and peace with the Palestinians? It's pretty obvious they want no state but an Israeli state. The biggest supporters of this are evangelical Christians who don't know how to read their own Bible and were a big support base for the Bush Administration.

This is a fact. If you really want to discuss the root and cause and therefor solution to "Islamic terrorism" the Israeli- Palestinian issue has to be discussed and settled. But in America we are not allowed to discuss it. And I think that is what rubs some people "in the movement" the wrong way. They (and we) are already stiffled enough by the MSM.

According to what we've been told ever since the day of 9/11 until now was "we were attacked because they hated our freedoms". This is outrageous, and is clearly ALSO an attempt to stifle the real cause of this type of terrorism. Every one of the so called hijackers made a video and they made it to say, very clearly, why they wanted to attack America, and they all said the same thing, because of the imperialist actions of the U.S. Government and it's unwavering support of Israel. Think Bush(or his advisors) never saw those videos? Come on. So they tell you they attacked because of you. You like freedom, and they don't. Better than telling the truth. "America was attacked today because your Government interferes in the affairs of other countries and supports a racist terror state in the middle east". They want to keep us uninformed and stupid so the American people can continue to be pawns in this Israeli- Palestinian fight.

I believe some people realize all this and then fall into this particular rabbit hole and don't crawl out. Because yes, 9/11 benefitted Israel, yes we have those "dancing Israelis", and the mossad tracking the hijackers, but you have to be pretty blinded by racism to ignore Saudi Arabia and their involvement. There is much much more evidence on the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Bandar Bush was sitting right next to the President just before and just after 9/11 and was paying the hijackers babysitters, then helped get the Saudis out of the country. The American Government is to blame for 9/11, not Israel. Israel isn't going to stop it, why should they? It would benefit them. And it would benefit the Military Industrial Complex as well, and is the new "Pearl Harbor" mentioned a year earlier by the PNAC boys. There is enough blame to go around including some on us for not paying attention before 9/11 happened.

Critizing the Government of South Africa for it's treatment of native people doesn't make one a racist anymore than critizing the government of Israel and their treatment of native people. There are some who want to blame the Jews for 9/11. There is nothing we can do about that, other than point them out and say "they don't speak for me".

good points, relevant history

The US's generally unqualified support for Israel despite it's human rights violations against the Palestinians (as well as US support for tyrants in the Middle East) have long been cited by Islamic radicals as justification for terrorist acts. This was the thesis for Ray McGovern's recent article, "Shining Light on Roots of Terrorism" http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/111509a.html

These polices have worked well as a recruiting tool for 'terrorist' patsies for use in 'false-flag' attacks. Israel supported the rise of Hamas, has used Hamas to justify hard-line policies, and Israelis have even been caught posing as Hamas. http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

In addition, the development and organization of the 9/11 plot is most readily explained in that context- scroll down- see "Possible Al-Qaeda-Linked Moles or Informants", "Other Al-Qaeda-Linked Figures", "Geopolitics and Islamic Militancy", "Pakistan / ISI: Specific Cases" and "Terrorism Financing: Specific Cases" http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

It should be noted that while some Zionists are essentially Jewish supremacists, not all are- and certainly not all Israelis and Jews. And among the Palestinians, there is also a wide range of opinions: http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p33ejoint.html
http://www.kas.de/proj/home/pub/19/2/year-2009/dokument_id-15978/index.html

Wikipedia defines Zionism merely as "the international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. ... Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

jimd3100: "There are some who want to blame the Jews for 9/11. There is nothing we can do about that, other than point them out and say "they don't speak for me"."

911SATYA: "1. You cannot kick people out of a social movement. But you can marginalize and, where necessary, expose and denounce them. And you can certainly kick them out of an organization with a formal membership."

Point out, expose, denounce, isolate, marginalize those who are bringing discredit on the 9/11 Truth Movement, and who are disrupting it. The vast majority of activists are not causing problems.

As I noted in my above comment, some of the blaming is likely being done by Judeophobes, but I'm really skeptical ALL of it is, seeing as how it- and Holocaust revision-claims- have been used to disrupt and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, and prolong the cover up- in much the same way 'no planes', 'space beams' and the controversy over 'what' hit the Pentagon have been used.
http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html
http://911review.com/denial/antisemitism.html

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I don't think there are

I don't think there are major disagreements here. I've never argued, for example, that Israel is able to control the U.S. (wag the dog). On the other hand, I've become convinced that Chomsky oversimplifies when he says that US elites will simply discard Israel with a flick of the wrist the moment they find they can attain their goals without it. I think this does not recognize the depth at which the two sets of elites have become entwined.

We in the 9/11 truth movement have the chance to show just how they are entwined. Part of it has to do with the "war on terror" (still existing, despite Obama's protests). This highly convenient concept allows you to say your enemy is mobile (not tied to a particular state) and that you have to pursue and destroy this enemy wherever it goes. Today it may be in Iran, tomorrow in Saudi Arabia, and the next day in Venezuela. It may even be living among you. Terrorists will, by some strange magnetism, tend to gravitate to areas where there are fossil fuel resources...

And this terrorist enemy is so vile, so inhuman, that all the old laws, rules of engagement, etc., are irrelevant. Torture, massacre, anything goes.

Israeli elites have used the terrorist threat to justify one crime after another as they expand and consolidate their territory and their dominance of the region. And they aren't finished yet. More settlements, and perhaps eventually mass transfer of Palestinians. Meantime, Iran has for many years been considered a major threat to Israeli hegemony in the region--even more so now that Iraq is destroyed.

US and Israeli elites understand fraudulent trigger events such as false flag ops and how to use them to provoke military conflicts and to keep their own home populations in line.

And there's another confluence that many commentators seem to miss. Israeli and US elites have the goods on each other. They both know who carried out 9/11, to take one obvious example. Will US elites discard Israel with a flick of the wrist? What would happen? What documents might suddently begin falling off trucks?

They've got the goods on each other, and this means this is a marriage that isn't ending anytime soon.