An Open Response to Julian of TruthMove

gretavo's picture

In re: Taking Out The Trash - "Jews did 9/11"

Julian, there is a very big difference--a chasm in fact, between Jewishness broadly defined and Zionism. Yes there are those who try to blur that distinction, and in my experience it is the extremes on both sides: first, naturally, the bigots who say that with or without Zionism, Jews qua Jews are the problem. Then there are Zionists who bully and intimidate Jews all over the world into unconditionally supporting their political program--the insinuation of course (when not overtly stated) that Jews who don't believe in the necessity or legitimacy of Israel are not just bad Jews but bad people, period.

Whether the evidence, circumstancial or otherwise, suggests an important Zionist role in 9/11 is certainly up for debate, and that is what we endeavor to do at provide a forum for that debate that does not censor itself based on the political considerations that preoccupy many in the movement, and for which I among others have been unceremoniously banned from sites like 911Blogger despite consistently high comment and blog ratings. I understand full well the need for outreach to be as non-controversial as possible and I have no problem (and spend most of my time and money in fact) promoting groups that make absolutely no mention of Zionism or Israel, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The fact that so many of the anti-Zionist 9/11 sites out there are pretty obviously over the top, and like Eric Williams likely disinfo (I was the first to point out that Williams plagiarized parts of his book on the holocaust from Jewish researcher David Cole,) I would hope that we could agree that villifying anti-Zionism based on these examples is as unfair as villifying 9/11 truth with them.

Finally, it would be great if you and others who feel as you do would acknowledge the fact that Israel is not the only country that people in the movement speculate about based on an incomplete picture--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey--all muslim countries, note--are routinely accused in and out of the movement of being involved in the attacks, and all too often it appears that those most actively promoting such allegations are those who most object to speculation on Israeli or American Zionist involvement.

UPDATE 7/16/2010: Copying my follow up comment to Julian, which he didn't allow to be published...

my next response to Julian awaiting his moderation...
Submitted by gretavo on Thu, 2009-06-18 23:09.

"I've looked at the evidence and I don't find it convincing."

I'm paraphrasing not just what you just said, Julian, but what is said over and over by numerous individuals who dismiss (or claim to anyway) the evidence for explosive demolition of the twin towers and building 7, the lack of evidence for AA77 hitting the Pentagon, and pretty much any claim that runs counter to the "official" version of events of 9/11.

I don't know of anyone who would describe the evidence suggesting Israeli or militant Zionist involvement in 9/11 as anything but circumstancial. Now, circumstancial evidence is often incorrectly judged to be "bad" evidence. While the whole point of being circumstancial is that it does not prove a suspicion--only supports it--circumstancial evidence should not be dismissed as irrelevant. In fact, not single aspect of the official story proves the official account implicitly--it is based entirely on circumstancial evidence, some planted, some invented, and some simply irrelevant (like the existence of Mohammed Atta and his presence in a Portland, Maine airport on the morning of 9/11.)

Based on the flimsiest of such evidence the first accusations were made on TV the morning of 9/11 against bin Laden, and most of us bought into it because indeed, the whole thing seemed to just REEK of "islamic terrorists". It was DESIGNED to after all. Then when we learned more about the concept of false flag attacks and how they are actually very common in history, combined with learning of the circumstancial evidence linking militant Zionists to 9/11, many of us realized that as much as most people believe 9/11 reeked of "Islamic terrorism" what it in fact reeks of is "militant Zionist psyOp" which is something that unlike "Islamic terrorism" we have not been conditioned by popular culture to believe not only exists but is ubiquitous.

Is it possible that there is a TRIPLE bluff going on such that someone has made it only SEEM to reek of militant Zionist involvement? I guess that's possible, but we will never know, and I will suspect otherwise, if we cannot have reasonable discussions without being accused of being bigoted.