Saturday, December 8, 2012

8 Discussion with David Kessler on youtube ( 2)




Wikipedia ????


Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Wikipedia is the messenger. I tried to check the message ( The Forward) but the article is no longer there. Nevertheless: I believe it , as I read it in another article too.
·         MrHansJanmaat
David, aren't there a few too many 'Maybe's'in your reasoning? Your logic is also wrong: if he did not trust the lie detector, he would have nothing to fear. That is what you tell me here. So his refusal came from the fact that he had something to hide. It's called a lie detector. Maybe it works by detecting a stress, but then this stress is only there in case the man tells a lie. For me its extra informative that he refused to take the test for 10 days.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You also make presumptions. It is your logic is wrong. The polygraph works by showing stress when the question is answered. A nervous person thinks "what if I the machine registers my stress?" He thus EXPERIENCES stress, which the machine then registers. But your assumption that the subject only experiences stress when lying is false. The name "lie detector" is a misnomer. If a person FEARS that the machine will/may return a false positive, then that fear will CAUSE stress which then registers.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
If a lie detector would work like that, I think it would be a worthless invention. I think that everyone who is a suspect, also innocent people, are still in stress for a test like that.
May I suggest that we stop discussing these 5 dancing Israeli's. There are dozens of facts that I offered on which you did not reply at all. You may also stop our discussion ( for a certain time) as it takes quite a bit of my time, and I should do other things (but I am addicted to this kind of discussions)
·         davidkesslerauthor
The polygraph (so-called lie detector) IS a worthless invention. Okay let's forget the five "dancing" Israelis. I note that your original video blamed the Jews for the presence of Muslims in England. I don't know about your country, but in the UK immigration from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh is a legacy of colonialism. Some residents of colonies had a connection with the UK and were allowed to live here, this then allowed the relatives to come.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
Again I have to remind you that you haven't offered any evidence that they found the spot where they were filming from within three minutes.You keep repeating the claim but haven't offered any evidence. The woman never said three minutes. That is your invention.
The claim that they were celebrating is disputed. She spoke about their demeanor being happy. That is a far cry from celebrating. And in any event it is a persons opinion as they watched from a distance.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
When Maria looked down, they were already there. Already on top of the van. Maria's friend heard a noise, felt a tremble and - of course- looked outside. Saw the smoke and called her friend Maria. Maria took her binoculars and looked outside. Then she looked down and saw the men on the van. I guess 3 minutes is a fine estimate. Maria could read the numberplate, so she could interprete their body-language. On one of the photographs a man is like lighting the Twin Towers with a lighter.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You are embellishing what these people actually said, paraphrasing it and putting your own spin on it. There's no indication of the time between the noise and the call, the call and Maria looking out the window, looking out and looking down. Maria said she looked down "after a few minutes" - no indication of how long it actually was. if she called the police immediately why were they only arrested four hours after the attack? Perhaps you should stop spreading hatred and get a life.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
----third continuation. If you go to wiki:--- September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Israel--- you see that one of the five, P. Kurzberg, was a Mossad agent who refused the lie detector test for 10 weeks, and when he did the test, he failed. The fact that the FBI stated later that Kurzberg had no foreknowledge of the 911 attacks is, for me, a little unbelievable. Why did he refuse the lie detector for 10 weeks if he had nothing to hide. What arguments did the FBI have...?
·         davidkesslerauthor
Maybe he had something to hide that had nothing to do with the attacks. Maybe he didn't trust the polygraph (remember it is only confidence in the polygraph that makes it "work"). Failure proves stress not dishonesty.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
Who was this friend and where can I see a video of the woman herself saying that she saw them two minutes after a plane hit? And which plane, the first or the second?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Look, David, I use a source that is called 911myths. They are on your side. They write that the woman is called Maria, and that she got a telephone from a friend. If this is not true, you must attack them. Here you can see Maria: Google Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 Look at the 2.50 min video from BlogginFor The Truth. If this were happening after the second plane, it would never make the news, of course. By then everybody in the world knew about it. This happened before any Media..
·         davidkesslerauthor
It says she got the call "shortly after the first plane hit the towers." It does not say how long after is "shortly" nor how long after that she saw the men filming. She said she saw the van "a few minutes" after watching the towers. Also when people are spellbound by a major event more time can pass than they realize. It certainly doesn't say two minutes - or even three.
Have the "witnesses" who saw the Israelis been checked out? Maybe THEY have an agenda?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
May I remember you that two out of the five 'dancing Israeli's' were Mossad agents. Mayt I remember you that they were dancing. Why were they happy to see an explosion, or a fire in the Twin Towers. How could they know it was a so called 'Terrorist attack'. How could they know that it would serve Israel's agenda by enabling the war against Iraq, and by enab;ing the muslim-bashing campaign. If you see a fire or explosion, you don't start high-fiving.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You mean that two of the five were "suspected of being" Mossad agents.It has not been proven that they were.
I myself thought it was probably a terrorist attack by the time the second plane hit. By the time of the reports of the Pentagon attack I was sure.
It is disputed that they were high-fiving.
Who says they "know that it would serve Israel's agenda by enabling the war against Iraq"? Bearing in mind Israel's past experiences, it is only natural that they suspected Muslims.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Now suppose 5 men in a van hear on the radio that there is a plane that flew into the WTC. How long would it take them to find a relatively quiet place with a view on these towers. Nobody can do that in 3 minutes.
The witnesses had an agenda. They think it is very unusual if people see huge black clouds coming from a building and then start to celebrate this as a victory. Their agenda is: if people behave in a strange and hostile way, lets report them to the police. For our own protection.
·         MrHansJanmaat
.....second continuation. Maria saw the men sitting on top of the van. There is not too much room on a van. I suppose they went to the top of the van to have a better view. All this in a matter of 3 minutes: discovering the plane-impact, climbing on the van, taking each others photographs... all of this unprepared. Very quick ! Note that their van was from the Urban Moving Company, a company which is suspected to be a front for a spy ring for Israel. to be continued.......
·         MrHansJanmaat
...... Continuation. If you have parked somewhere and see smoke coming from one of the tallest buildings in the world, what is your reaction? Even if you see the plane flying into the building, what is one's reaction? How can you interprete this as a succes? ( If they were arabs celebrating we would all say: these arabs were in on Osama's plan) Maria and her friend reacted normal: stunned, in disbelief, not knowing what this was. But these Israeli's reacted as winners. To be continued...
·         davidkesslerauthor
I couldn't find the source/origin of your link, although I have just watched the video itself. I checked the SPC website. Fascinating stuff but no indication of what technology they had in 2001 and nothing to suggest that they could control an airliner - especially as the Truthers also claim that airliners couldn't be controlled at that speed at such low altitude. In other words we are asked to believe that the planes COULDN'T be controlled from the cockpit but COULD by remote control. Go figure
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
I think that the planes which flew into the Twin Towers did not do impossible things. As video's show us. But it would need a very good pilot to execute this. We know that drones fly in Afghanistan, piloted from Houston. We know that big airliners are landed by 'automatic pilots' for decades already. What is so impossible? The plane into the Pentagon may be something else, Is that why we never saw any video of it ? Is that why the destruction looked more like it was done by a rocket ?
·         davidkesslerauthor
It was the Truthers themselves who claimed that no one could control the planes at those speeds at that altitude. Drones are smaller, more maneuverable and 2012 is not 2001. We didn't see video the first plane hit the WTC either (although I heard that some footage later emerged. I don't know what you mean when you the destruction looked like a rocket. You're now an expert on rocket damage?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
The Israelis were not filming before the first plane hit. They were filming the smoke pouring from the buildings after the planes hit. That too was the "event". If a news crew are filming the aftermath of a car crash and one of them said "we were there to document the event" would you conclude that the news crew knew in advance that there was going to be a car crash?
It is upon this kind of willful misinterpretation of the facts that the "Truthers" build their false and dishonest theories.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Everybody was filming the towers after the plane hit. But these men were waiting with their camera's in place before the plane hit, and started high-fiving when the plane hit. They had installed themselves on a place that gave them a good free view. But there are many of these phenomena. For example a Dutch woman, Nina Storms, jewish, Goldman Sachs connections, who had earned two hundred million euro with a stockmarket scam, sold all her stocks a day before 911. Arab stockholders did not sell.
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) If you can prove that were filming before the planes hit, you've won the debate. Now all you have to do is prove it.
2) You have personally checked every single Arab stockholder and established that none of them sold any stocks in the days before 9/11?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
1. You keep misunderstanding me, deliberately I suppose. I did not say they were filming before the hit. I said they were waiting for the plane to hit the building, and then filmed it and were dancing. People saw this unusual gathering and called the police. Can you give me the example of a group of arab people who were waiting for the plane to hit, then filmed it and danced ?
2. Not necessary to check every arab stockholder. You give me a few examples of arabs that sold all stocks then.
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) I didn't see any reports of the people claiming that they were waiting for the plane to hit. The reports said they were filming the buildings after the planes hit and that their mood seemed to happy. Remember that the two witnesses were watching from a distance and hearing a foreign language. Their opinion of what they saw might be right, but puerile behaviour does not translate into prior knowledge.
2) I don't monitor thousands of Arab investors. I have better things to do with my time.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
When I read 911myths about the dancing Israeli's I read that this friend of Maria called her after hearing a noise and feeling s shaking. Then Maria looked outside and saw smoke above the Twin Towers. Two minutes later she discovered the Israeli's, sitting on their van, and already celebrating and taking each others pictures with the smoking building on the background.
Now suppose these 5 Israeli's happened to just have parked there: how could they celebrate? To be continued....
·         MrHansJanmaat
OK. Ghadaffi had the oil advantage. But he used it to serve the people, and Saudi's and Russians etc. don't. ---- I am not at all convinced about Ghadaffi's cruelty. 1. On a BBC doc. I saw a man who once plotted to kill Ghadaffi. He went to jail. That's all. 2. One of Ghadaffi's killers, Abdelhakim Belhadj ( see Wikipedia ) was liberated by Ghadaffi in 2010. 3.Did Ghadaffi kill 1200 prisoners at Abu Salim prison? The bones found in the grounds were from animals.. ( Wikipedia).
·         davidkesslerauthor
The two main towers didn't fall at free fall speed - even NIST were taken in by that claim. I've watched the videos that purport to prove that they fell at free fall speed. They do things like starting the clock late and fading it out early. You show me even one video with an accurate clock that shows them falling at free fall speed!
WTC 7 in fact DOES look A BIT like a controlled demo (inasmuch as it collapsed from the bottom). But there's no evidence of preparation or that it actually was.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Maybe you should tell NIST that they made a mistake. The free fall is for only part of the traject. This is how difficult it is to bring down a building, even with explosives: google: Oude kantoortoren Philips opgeblazen. Evidence? Why was there not a normal investigation after the collapse, as is commanded by the law? The evidence of this crime scene was immediately shipped out. Everything about 911 points to : inside job.
·         davidkesslerauthor
I would be more inclined to believe the "Truthers" if I didn't keep catching them out with lies (free fall collapse of WTC 1 and 2, exploding van, Israelis filming before first plane hit) and false science (e.g. projecting holograms into thin air, radio controlled planes).
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
I suppose that the real conspiracists, who have easy access to the Media, will promote all kinds of crazy Truther- theories. Don't take these serious. Read David Ray Griffin. Look at the 911 Experts video's etc. The Israeli's who were filming before the first plane hit did not deny this. They said, months later, on Israeli tv: "We were there to document the event." Big question: How did they know there was going to be 'an event." For the link: 'Dancing Israeli's" in the Description.
·         MrHansJanmaat
If we may believe the sales-people of SPC then 'radio controlled planes' is nothing new. They do it all the time. A very influential Neocon, Dov Zakheim, was the CEO at SPC.
No pilot believes that an arab who cannot fly a cessna is able to manoeuvre the planes as they did on 911. But with SPC technology this was possible. So the conspiracy version of 911 becomes much more credible than the Bush version. See link in 'Description'.
·         MrHansJanmaat
I hope that Brittanica is right I have my stats from: R J Rummel, Democide. About the 890% figure I was mistaken. This is the quote: During the 18th century, up to 80 percent of Jewish heads of households in rural areas were arendarz, that is, holders of an arenda (lease). Google: Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) Research Project, estate inventories. Note: all the links are Tiny URL's . You can just enter them in your browser. They will automatically go to youtube if it refers to a film.
·         davidkesslerauthor
He used noun & adjective together.
Destruction has good connotations not only with regard to evil, but also to the outdated and outmoded - e.g. the pocket calculator destroyed the market for slide rules. Would you call that villainy or progress?
Neocons didn't destroy American society. They destroyed its complacency and various tyrannies.
Hitler was very destructive. Auschwitz didn't create anything: it destroyed human lives. Who knows how many unknown Einsteins they murdered there?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Complacency like : old people who did not have to work anymore. Like: young people who could live of 1 job. The complacency of the times when the father worked and earned enough money for his wife and 5 children. Now pop and mum work and send the 1,4 child they have to child-care.
A Tyranny like Ghadaffi's, where there was free schooling, free medicine and where al the population moved from tents to houses. America goes the other way: less medical service, less education and moving to tents.
·         davidkesslerauthor
America's "prosperity" was based on excessive borrowing. The house of cards was bound to collapse sooner or later. You can blame many (including the neocons). But if it hadn't been for the excessive borrowing, they wouldn't have had the illusion of prosperity before that.
Gaddafi's Libya was a dictatorship which just happened to have large natural resources relative to its population size. He was not elected and anyone who spoke out against him ended up dead or tortured or both.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
People are in reality sheeple. When all the opinion leaders around them say that borrowing is normal and profitable - especially to buy a house that will forever increase in value - then they do the 'wise' thing. That's what evolution has brought to us: its better to blend in with people around us than to think for ourselves. Read some evoutionary psychology for that. I saw a documentary about some black reverends, going to Washinton and asking to stop these subprime-loan agressors. They lost.
·         MrHansJanmaat
If you read Alan Weiser ( I gave you the link in the Description ) you see that 80% of jewish housholds were Arendar, and that virtually every Arendar was jewish. The big rebellion of Khmeltnistky killed more non jewish than jews. The pogroms in Russia had very very few dead. The more famous Pogroms have like 49 dead jews. 49! The Gulag, under Jewish supervision, had 60 million Russians killed. David, please first study and then give your opinion.
·         davidkesslerauthor
The 60 million figure for the Gulag was a massive exaggeration propagated by right wing Americans. The true figure is between 15 and 30 million (see Brittanica). The bulk of the deaths were ordered/caused by Stalin after he had purged most of the key Jewish figures.
Links don't come through in Youtube. I checked out a long article by Weiser online but couldn'r find the 80% figure.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Ledeen uses the word 'destruction', not change. You are a liar.
No, there is no unitary jewish opinion. What I say is this: IF you see a country destroyed, you will always find SOME jews who started the destruction.
I.e., jews are so influential in the financial world and in deregulation and in risky derivatves that it is safe to say that IF jews were banned from financial hegemony, there would have been no 2008 crisis. Same for many other catastrophes.
Jewish liberalism lost its influence.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Actually you yourself noted that he used the words "CREATIVE destruction" - in other words supplanting the old with the new - in other words CHANGE. But you then willfully disregarded the word "creative" in order to arrive at a false conclusion. Subtle nuances my friend.
So Jews destroyed ancient Rome? Tibet? Biafra? Yugoslavia? Or are you again using the word "destruction" when what you are actually referring to is change?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
The word is destruction. The adverb is 'creative'. Destruction does not have any good connotations, except when you use it referring to a thoroughly evil subject. Was the American society evil ? You put the spotlight on the word 'creative' which has good connotations, but in itself does not have value. Hitler-Germany was highly creative. Goldman Sachs is very creative. Same with 'Change'. I.e.: This crisis brings a lot of change, just like Auschwitz did for those who were sent there.
·         davidkesslerauthor
What he really said:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
and the rest:
"they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
·         MrHansJanmaat
Amazing how you can read the same as I and see it as a positive thing. I read it and think about how America went into wars that served Israel and killed millions of Iraqi's and Libyans and Syrians. I read it and think of this globalisation that serves the rich and leaves the poor without a job. I red it and think of the Financial bussiness that grew with the speed of a cancer and has the same effect on the state-organism.
·         davidkesslerauthor
If by "not by very small minorities" you mean no one should have an hereditary or automatic shoe-in to power, I agree. But do you mean that there should be proportional representation of religions/races/genders/body shape/hair colour? If not, then why should not Jews over-achieve in politics? As long as there are free-elections to grant the final decision to the people and freedom of the press to allow debate? And we have all these things in western democracies.
So you like Stalinist Russia ;-)
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Why don't you try to find out about 'The Israel Lobby' ? See link. Just to have some idea how democratic the USA is ( not ! ) . Show me one scientific thesis that explains how a building can collapse with the speed of free fal. Does not exist, But it happened with WTC7, even officially NIST concedes to this. Study 911 and you will find out: there is no real free press. Ther is a subtle censoring. People have no clue about what is reality in this world. Not in The West.
·         MrHansJanmaat
I need more time for this. I do not have this in my notes. I may post it later when I find some good source.
·         MrHansJanmaat
You mix it all up. The jewish witnesses who speak about theater and music and football - for the link look in the description of the video, above - were speaking about Auschwitz. At the end of the war, when the Russians came from the east, Wiesel, Anne Frank etc. fled to the west to Bergen Belsen. It was over-crowded, almost no food, people were weak from the long marches. They died in the hundreds from Typhus and who could cremate or bury them in these last days? Hence walking skeletons.
·         MrHansJanmaat
Yes, communism in the beginninh of the 20th century was dominated by jewish people. About neo-liberalism it may be the same. I am not in the know. In conservatism the jews were never important. They want to destroy, not to conserve. The Neocons want to destroy also. Read Michael Ledeen. , “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day . . . ." You may google it.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You confuse change with destruction.
You misunderstand the subtle nuances of Ledeen.
You persist in the myth that there is a unitary Jewish opinion.
You persist in the false belief that because Jews are prominent that makes them monopolizers.
You fail to give credit to non-Jews for their achievements in movements in which Jews are prominent.
You ignore Jewish liberalism (except social liberalism which you demonise because of your support for racial homogeneity).
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Jews created and implemented communism. It was a way to get rid of the existing elite, who were excluding the jews from this elite. They used the power of the masses to kill every aristocrat or person with some intelligence. All together 60 million people were killed for this. Kaganovic - jewish - claimed he was responsible for 20 million dead. Read Andrey Diky or Andrey Burovski or Solzhenitsy
·         davidkesslerauthor
That's just another antisemitic lie. Jews CONTRIBUTED to Communism because they wanted to end the persecution that they were suffering at the hands of Tsarist autocracy. Not all Jews were Communists: neither Lenin nor Stalin were. (Strictly speaking neither was Marx.)
Maybe you think that Jews should just allow people murder them in Pogroms, but it ain't gonna happen anymore. We fight back and we don't kowtow either to those who kill us or to those who condemn us for fighting back.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Maybe you should read a little more. Read about the Arendar system in Poland. How jewish people formed a jewish state and Nation there, in a huge part of Europe. They leased everything, including the peole who lived there. The Polish were like slaves to the jews. And the Polish were treated in a terrible way. Of course there was a rebellion, as the rabbi's had warned to their fellow jews. But the only thing jews remember is: there was a pogrom. They never see how they are the cause of evil.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Again the old blame the victim scenario. The pogroms were not directed against Arendars; they were directed against Jews. Very few Jews were Arendars and the Jewish Arendars were quite low in the pecking order and took the flack for the cruelty of their gentile "noble" masters.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
So you hate Neocons, neo-liberals and Communists. Can you tell us what economic system you do advocate?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Any system where the government is composed of people of that country, and not by very small minorities - like 2 to 3 % - and where this government tries to have a good balance between the interests of the lower classes and the higher classes, makes me happy enough. It may even be a communist government. Looking back life in Russia also had some appealing characteristics, from the fifties onward, like: stability, predictability, social support.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You only start to wonder if you're trying to blind yourself to reality. Let me get this straight, the camp was full of lice and typhus (the alternative "reason" for the gas chambers). But at at the same time it was a holiday camp where the inmates were having a good time watching plays and listening to concerts?
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         MrHansJanmaat
Like I said: how bad was Auschwitz really? You start to wonder, when you see that these prisoners prefer to stay with the German 'killers' instead of staying and waiting for the Russians. I saw many films with perfect looking Auschwitz prisoners. I saw jewish prisoners who speak about concerts in Auschwitz, music and plays. Look at the link.
·         MrHansJanmaat
Yes, Saddam was a friend. The pragmatic reasons were that he killed 1 million Iranians, using American and Israeli weapons, which he paid for. Double benefit for Israel: dead Iranians and profit. But that is not all. Through a secret deal the USA was also selling weapons to Iran, to kill Iraqi's. Double benefit for Israel: dead iraqi's and profit.
My conclusion: these Neocons and Israeli's are the barbarians of our world. About Saddams WMD's : we speak about 1992-1997.
·         davidkesslerauthor
What were these Israeli weapons? I don't see your links because Youtube automatically removes external links. But can you say in words the URL of a reputable news site (not a conspiracy site) where the specific weapons systems are named with quantities. Israeli weapons I mean, not American ones.
Do you really blame Israelis for what the Iraqis and Iranians chose to do to each other. Are you now telling us that only Jews have volition and others don't? How far out of touch with reality are you?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
An Israeli author wrote what is really the agenda of Israel: Oded Yinon. Read his Yinon Plan. See link: Yinon Plan. I will quote two paragraphs here:-- 22. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target
23. Iraq is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. --
Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians is the reason for arab animosity. Arab animosity is precisely what Israel needs ! Read Livia Rokach.
·         MrHansJanmaat
I can give you an analogy. Rumsfeld and Cheney are well known Neocons. That does not make the Neocon movement to be a neutral movement. It is and will always be a jewish movement. They started it, they controlled it, and they found some goyim like Rumsfeld and Cheney who could benefit enormously by becoming a Neocon. Halliburton got very rich, but the American people got poor and the Iraq's got killed. See: Massimo doc on Iraq.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Your logic is flawed. The Neocon movement is not "controlled" by anyone. It is a movement of people and it develops as it develops.
However you are now paying Jews a lot of complements. You imply that we are the prime movers in pretty much everything: Communism, liberalism, conservatism. I accept the flattery. We are people of considerable achievement. And I will not apologize for that. But give credit to non-Jews for their achievements too. We wouldn't want to hog ALL the credit :-)
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) No one is arguing against the proposition that some Jews have been active in Communism and some Jews active in free enterprise. My point is that you seem to regard these differing endeavours as exclusively Jewish.
2) The Tsar didn't just exclude Jews from power, he persecuted them with pogroms and denial of human rights. No one likes being treated like that. So yes Jews resisted.
3) Again with "neo" liberalism, it has nothing to do with banking. Those believed in it advocated it eloquently.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
I repeat the quote I gave an hour ago, from Bertrand Russel, a well known philosemite. He wrote in his autobiography which came out around 1960: " an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. " So the jewish people who were emigrated to the USA years before, came back with money from NY banker Jacob Schiff, and controlled the Russian Revolution. Look for the links in the Description, above: Russia and the jews. It is in Dutch, but the links are all in English.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Russell was wise but not infallible. He was wrong in calling them "AmericanIZED." Had they been so, they would not have been Communists.
Schiff hated the Tsar (because of the pogroms) and did actively work against him, but he certainly wasn't a Communist. The claim that Schiff financed the revolution is not supported by any primary sources, only secondary sources quoting each other. Not best evidence.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
3. When the Tsar kept the jews out of government and out of power, the jews were fanatic communists. They mobilised the masses and thus they drove out the Tsar and existing elite: all very good for the Jews. Read Yuri Slezkine: The Jewish Century.
When the jewish bankers and elite were in charge, they started to favor neo-liberalism: freedom for the most powerful. Good for the Jews. In both cases they were succesfull, as they had the money-support and the Media-support and thus the influence.
·         MrHansJanmaat
1. The Russians and the Americans liberated us from the Nazi's A person who is released from a camp is liberated. Even if he lives in a communist state. 2. Correct: Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi did choose to go with the Germans guards to Bergen Belsen, instead of waiting for the Russian army that would soon liberate Auschwitz.
·         davidkesslerauthor
The fact that you see that as liberation doesn't mean that they did. They knew that the Western Allies (UK and USA) were advancing from the west and they wanted to get behind those lines. It may have been a dilemma for them, but ultimately they made the choice that enabled them to get to the free world. Maybe you would have decided differently. Maybe you would have chosen the USSR. But it wasn't your call to make.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Conbtinue 3. It's always you who comes with the easy 'He is a liar', but no facts to proof your statement. I bring factual info for every thing I say. About the sacntions: a diplomat who was involved in these sanctions, Carne Ross, has declared on camera that there were no reasons for the sanctions: Saddam did NOT have WMD's, according to the Brittish. Why then the sanctions? Because there were some unanswered questions regarding the way het had done away with the WMD's.! Link Carne Ross
·         davidkesslerauthor
As I said in my other reply, Sabrosky mixed truth and lies. The five arrested while filming WERE Israelis. I can find no credible source for the claim that any other Israelis were arrested that day. He also said the Israelis were filming before the planes struck. That is lie. The witnesses didn't claim it and no footage of the first plane striking was found in the video.
Okay ONE diplomat has expressed the opinion that there was no reason for sanctions. Does ONE diplomat outvote all the others?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Sabrosky's facts on which his opinion is based, are true facts. Where is the lie or mistake? Tell me. 2. The non-jews wanted only European immigrants, the jews wanted immigrants from all countries. Compare this to the Israeli's who cannot live together with the Palestinians.
3. Is Ostrovsky a liar? He wrote that the Mossad would make a villain of Saddam who was then still a friend of the West. And that is exactly what happened a year after Ostrovsky's book came out.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Sabrosky's claim that the Israelis were filming before the planes struck is a lie. The claims about their demeanour were the OPINIONS of two witnesses who didn't speak Hebrew and may have associated loudness and brashness as happiness. The claim that other Israelis were arrested on that day was false. Sabrosky mixed fact, opinion (of others), his own opinion and false claims of fact to build his "case".
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
Re Ostrovsky, again we're talking the old truth and lies mixture (that's what intelligence people do). Saddam was a "friend" of the west for pragmatic reasons - on both sides. The Israelis foresaw that he was a fairweather friend but would be a source of trouble in the long-run. They were right. No, he didn't have WMDs. But if he'd been allowed to, he would have got them.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
Jewish Zionists didn't want to destroy Iraq. But they DID want it to be less hostile to Israel.And if that meant a change of leader, then I can understand that too. But are you any different? If a country's leadership was hostile to your country, wouldn't you want that leadership to change? (Either a change of heart or a change of leadership?) Does that make YOU unreasonable?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
I am well aware that SOME Jews played a prominent role in the Russian Revolution. So did some non-Jews. I am also well-aware that many Jews oppose Communism. So do many non-Jews. That doesn't make Communism Jewish. Please try to get a grip on reality my friend.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) No, I think Alan Sabrosky is a liar.
2) Who were the JEWS who advocated "uncontrolled" immigration? I don't mean liberal immigration policies, I mean no control at all? (Remember YOU used the word "uncontrolled"). Oh, and give your sources.
3) I have read Ostrovsky - another liar. He claims personal involvement in all the HIGH PROFILE events - a well-known warning sign. 500,000 dead because of Saddam Hussein's policies and practices - not the sanctions.
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         davidkesslerauthor
Some Jews DIDN'T do 9/11. That's a lie that appeals only to idiots. I keep watching the "Truthers" videos and I see through their lies every time.
Are you saying that ONLY Jews advocated letting immigrants stay? Are you saying that their arguments were wrong yet couldn't be refuted?
Do you proof that ONLY Jews advocated sanctions against Iraq? Do you have proof that the sanctions killed 500,000 dead children (even though food and medicine was exempt from the sanctions)?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
1. Do you think that prof. Dr. Alan Sabrosky is an idiot? Look: 9/11 AND ISRAEL: ALAN SABROSKY'S SHOCKING PRESS TV INTERVIEW. 2. Who were the non-jews that advocated uncontrolled immigration? 3. The whole demonising of Iraq was a Mossad ploy. Read Victor Ostrovsky, 1979: By way of...pag 117: Mossad chief: 'Iraq and Saddam are the next target." . About the 500.000 dead children: Madeleine Albright did not dispute the number. Read wikipedia: Sanctions in Iraq.
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) They fled the Russians because they didn't want to live under their tyranny either - i.e. they fled to the western lines. Auschwitz was a death camp, Belsen a concentration camp. They fled the former (and the Russian Communists) to be liberated by the Anglo-Americans (i.e. democratic forces). What's wrong with that?
2) Sunni and Shia are religious differences, not racial. Tribes sometimes do fight, but it doesn't make things better for them. Do you think tribalism helps sub-Saharan Africa?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
So how bad was Auschwitz if the inmates judged life was better in a German concentrationcamp than as a liberated person in Russian society? And another thought comes to mind then: Why were all these communist revolutions of the 1920s (Berlin, München, Vienna) done by 'some' jews? Why were communist parties all over the world seen as 'a jewish initiative' ? How come the jews thought Communism was fine and why did they think different once they were in the concentrationcamps?
·         davidkesslerauthor
1) "a LIBERATED person in Russian society"? Russia was a dictatorship under Stalin!
2) Chose Auschwitz? Before you said they fled to Bergen-Belsen!
3) Sure people of Jewish origin have been active in Communism (e.g. Marx, Trotsky). They have also been proponents of free enterprise (Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mieses). It depends which Jews. Same goes for non-Jews. Stalin and Lenin were not Jewish. Neither was Friedrich Hayek. As I said, there are Jews & non-Jews on both sides of most debates.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
There is a lot of good information that shows us that the Russian Revolution was a jewish initiative, and controlled by jews. Read Bertrand Russels autobiograpy:, pag. 354. Letter of 25 juni 1920: “Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar's, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action.” Russel was in St. Petersburg just before.
·         MrHansJanmaat
Some more answers: 3. Yes, jews can àlways be found on the two sides of any argument. Lets llok at facts.. Stephen Jay Gould wrote 'Mismeasurement of Man' and made us all believe that IQ was a fantasy concept from some racists. Richard Lewontin showed us that races do not exist. Its all nurture. And anyone who thinks different is a racist. So even if a politician said: 'Who benefits of mass-immigration' he was ostracised as a racist. End of career. End of discussion. Thats how they did it.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Both Jews AND non-Jews can be found on both sides of most arguments. That's why it's silly to say that an argument is a Jewish argument. If some one presents an argument you don't agree with, it is surely better to present a counter-argument than to try to attack the person who presents the argument on grounds of his/her race or religion.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
The only relevant thing is: what does really happen. If an Eskimo wants to destroy Iraq,we can all be unalarmed. If jewish zionists want to destroy Iraq, we know there is a big chance that it will happen. Their -unpronounced- motive invariably is: 'because it is good for the jews/ Israel'. Jews are very intelligent and very influential. Also in positive things for humanity. I appreciate that. Lets expose and battle those 'jewish engagements' where they are destructive for humanity.
·         MrHansJanmaat
'A natural process' is that a people will always prevent 'outsiders' to invade their territory. But jewish professors, pundits and Media made us all believe that it now was no longer natural, but evidence of racism. Racism had become - due to the holocaust-industry- the most enormous sin that existed. Jews did not invite the Moroccans. The first were invited. But jews prevented the stopping of chain-immigration, in the way described above: by demonising everyone who wanted to stop it.
·         davidkesslerauthor
People don't always prevent outsiders. Australia, the USA and Canada were built by immigrants. The world has been shaped since time immemorial by mass immigration. Mass immigration is a response to local oppression and population pressure. If the first Moroccans were invited why blame the Jews? You have proof that the Jews invited them? How did the Jews "demonise" those who wanted to stop it? You mean SOME Jews expressed a certain viewpoint?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
If you have an empty country it is beneficial for the inhabitants to have influx of people. But never people that are genetically and culturally very different from the existing population. Indians were killed, whereas Europeans were invited. 'Different' people are very rarely invited to immigrate. That was the 'immigration battle' between 1924 and 1970, roughly, in the USA: No non-Europeans. The jewish won: in came the Latino's. Read Steinlight. Read: Kevin MacDonald
·         MrHansJanmaat
As I wrote before: jews did not invite the Moroccans. Around 1973 all Moroccan guest workers were out of work, but instead of being sent home, they got the right to bring their families to Holland. Why? Because 'Some' jewish people started a campaign in the press accusing everyone who wanted to prevent this of Racism. A deadly qualification in those days. Yes, 'Some jews' as in : 'Some jews' did 911. 'Some jews' got the USA into Iraq. 'Some jews' caused 500.000 dead children in Iraq (sanctions).
·         MrHansJanmaat
'A natural process' is that a people will always prevent 'others' to invade or occupy their space/country. Unless those people are demonised. That is what jewish professors, pundits and Media did: everyone who pleaded to stop mass-immigration was accused of racism. Racism was - due to the holocaust-industry- the most enormous sin that existed back then. Jews did not invite the Moroccans. The first were invited. But jews prevented the stopping of chain-immigration, in a way described above.
·         MrHansJanmaat
David, my IQ is 135. Read Elie Wiesels book 'Night' where he asks his father: "shall we stay in Auschwitz or fly for the Russian army (and end up in Bergen Belsen) ?" Primo Levi writes about the same choice in his book "Survival in Auschwitz." Jews have always pressed for mass-immigration. A multi-ethnic society is very vulnerable: a few snipers can cause a civil war. No, Condell is a moslim-basher, and probably well funded.: See Video Description: Moslim-Bashers LINKS.
·         davidkesslerauthor
You seem to be conflating two questions. The "quote" makes no grammatical sense. When you say "fly" do you mean "flee"? When you say "for the Russian army" do you mean "from the Russian army" or "to the Russian army"? Until you can explain in proper English I can't answer. A multi-ethnic society is no more vulnerable to civil war than any other. Civil wars are usually about ideology rot ethnicity. When have Jews "pressed" for mass immigration?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
1. Elie Wiesel as well as Primo Levie preferred to flee- away from their liberators, togehter with their assasins, to the west, to Bergen Belsen. You could read this yourself, if you took the trouble. 2. Recent examples: Iraq, Libya and Syria: civil cruelty between religious groups and ethnicities. 3. I repeat: once mass immigration was happening, jews blocked normal discussions about it by accusing those who opposed immigration of racism. See link: Steinlight in video description
·         davidkesslerauthor
Thank you for clarifying your confused position, albeit belatedly.
1) So they fled from the Russians because they preferred the freedom of the West to Soviet tyranny? I'm not sure what you think you're proving here.
2) The civil wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq were over ideology, not ethnicity.
3) Jews didn't block discussions on immigration. They PARTICIPATE in the ongoing public debate. Why shouldn't they? And I have known Jews on both sides of the debate. There is no single "Jewish" opinion.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
Some answers. 1) Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi were prisoners in Auschwitz. Their liberators, the Russians are coming. Yet Wiesel and Levi prefer to flee with the terrible Germans, away from the Russians. Do we have a wrong impression of Auschwitz?
2. Libya fights along ethnic lines: Benghazi tribes were always rebelling against Ghadaffi. In Syria its the Sunni's who revolt, mainly. All religions prefer more democracy, but do not revolt. In Iraq we have the Shiites, Sunni and Kurds.
·         davidkesslerauthor
More clues to Hans' intelligence: The convoluted explanation of whether they "ended up" in Bergen-Belsen or stayed there. The belief that the Jews on Bergen-Belsen could "fly" to the west. The belief that it was the Russians who got to Belsen (actually it was the British). The claim that the Jews removed immigration laws. The belief that a multi-ethnic society is bad. The belief that Pan Condell CLAIMS that multi-ethnic society is bad (he claims no such thing).
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         Skinny Bob
Does this guy seriously think he's not recognisable ....and I don't mean as a general twat!
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         Rick Metdedikkepik
This has been flagged as spam show
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         ye32
You are the one that have to show evidence !! YOU IDIOT.
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         MrHansJanmaat
Look at the links in the corresponding blog.
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to ye32(Show the comment)
·         ye32
WHAT AN IDIOT
Reply·Vote UpVote Down
·         MrHansJanmaat
Any evidence?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to ye32(Show the comment)
·         davidkesslerauthor
The inability to pronounce a simple name? The belief that a handkerchief can hide ones face? The belief that one NEEDS to hide ones face? The belief that armies were used to keep out immigrants? The belief that mass immigration is a new phenomenon? The failure to recognize that it was imperial expansion that brought immigrants (from the empire and former empire) into the country?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat
David, here are the answers: I can pronounce the name, but was very unfamiliar with it when I made the video. A handkerchief helps. Any cover of the face helps, as most people know. As I expose the most powerful crooks in the world, I NEED to hide my face. Armies used to keep out immigrants? Did I say that? Yes, never so many immigrated in such short time. In Holland the immigrants come from Morocco and Turkey, and these were never colonies of Holland.
·         davidkesslerauthor
Hans, PLEASE, you DON'T expose powerful crooks. You say the same thinks that loads of other people say on the internet, all copying from each other. Armies did not keep out immigrants. They kept out invaders (or conducted invasions themselves). Mass Immigration is a natural process caused by many factors of which colonialism is one. The only thing that has changed is that populations as a whole are bigger and there is more mass transport.How did Jews make Morrocans and Turks go to Holland?
Reply·Vote UpVote Downin reply to MrHansJanmaat(Show the comment)
·         MrHansJanmaat