Mike Rago Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) One of the reasons why so many people believe in the JFK assassination conspiracy is that it is open-ended enough to include anyone across the political spectrum. Whatever your political orientation, you can find some sort of evidence that your own political enemies were involved. Therefore there is something for everyone and different conspiracy theories appeal to different political groups: right-wing (Soviets, Castro), left-wing (oil millionaires), Republicans (Lyndon B. Johnson), Democrats (George Bush), racists (Jews), pacifists (Military Industrial Congress Complex), libertarians (CIA or FBI), etc. If you are completely non-political you can always opt for the Mafia. Your statement above exposes the way you think not the way I think. The associations that you have made are your associations not mine or anyone else's associations. That is what you have in your mind not what I or anyone else who investigates this case has in their mind. Not everything is about political enemies. Frankly I never think about things in that framework. I did not make the facts in this case. I do not think that Mordecai Vanunu is a racist against Jewish people. Mordechai Vanunu (Hebrew: מרדכי ואנונו; born 14 October 1954) is a former Israeli nucleartechnician who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction, revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986.[2][3] He was subsequently lured to Italy by aMossad agent, where he was drugged and abducted by Israeli intelligence agents.[2] He was transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial that was held behind closed doors.[2] ... In July 2004 Vanunu claimed in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that the State of Israel was complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He claimed there were "near-certain indications" that Kennedy was assassinated in response to "pressure he exerted on Israel’s then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona’s nuclear reactor".[31] [32][33] [34] The problem we face is actually the opposite to what you claim above. We cannot let the fear of the label "anti-semitic" prevent us from investigating this case. http://en.wikipedia....ordechai_Vanunu Edited October 9, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I do not think that Mordecai Vanunu is a racist against Jewish people. Why not? "In late 1985, Vanunu took a backpacking trip through the Far East, eventually settling in Australia and taking a job as a taxi driver in Sydney. He renounced Judaism and converted to Christianity, joining the Anglican Church of Australia.[1][17][19]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I do not think that Mordecai Vanunu is a racist against Jewish people. Why not? "In late 1985, Vanunu took a backpacking trip through the Far East, eventually settling in Australia and taking a job as a taxi driver in Sydney. He renounced Judaism and converted to Christianity, joining the Anglican Church of Australia.[1][17][19]" Converting to Christianity makes someone a "racist" against Jewish people? Considering the years of suffering Vanunu went through at the hands of the Israeli government, is it really that surprising that he abandoned the Jewish faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'm not supporting Rago's theories here, Jim. But Vanunu was given extraordinarily harsh treatment by the Israelis, for being a whistleblower about their nuclear program. He was made a political prisoner in a supposedly free country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I do not think that Mordecai Vanunu is a racist against Jewish people. Why not? "In late 1985, Vanunu took a backpacking trip through the Far East, eventually settling in Australia and taking a job as a taxi driver in Sydney. He renounced Judaism and converted to Christianity, joining the Anglican Church of Australia.[1][17][19]" Converting to Christianity makes someone a "racist" against Jewish people? If some one converts away from a religion it's quite possible they have 'issues' with that faith. Considering the years of suffering Vanunu went through at the hands of the Israeli government, is it really that surprising that he abandoned the Jewish faith? Look at the date, he converted BEFORE he was arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I didn't know when he converted from Judaism, Len. It's not an issue of primary concern to me. However, I don't think anyone can contest the fact that Vanunu was punished excessively for being a whistleblower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I didn't know when he converted from Judaism, Len. You didn't have to have known, it was in my post that you were replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 David Josephs: and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes LOL I love that one, yes the USG orchestrated this giant conspiracy to murder thousands of people and fake huge amounts of evidence but were unwilling or able to include 9/11 on his wanted poster! It was not listed because he had not been indicted. He wasn't indicted presumably because it was unlikely he would every be brought to trial. Such bs. You do not have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list. Aren't lawyers supposed to have decent read comprehension skills? Where did I ever say you "have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list"? OBL was already on the list on 9/11. His wanted poster never listed 9/11 because he was never indicted for it. But perhaps Ms. Meredith can list people who made "on the FBI's most wanted list." without being indicted. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted EDIT - Added FBI link for Dawn Bumped for Dawn Bumped for Dawn Can you "list people who made it "on the FBI's most wanted list." without being indicted"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 David Josephs: and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes LOL I love that one, yes the USG orchestrated this giant conspiracy to murder thousands of people and fake huge amounts of evidence but were unwilling or able to include 9/11 on his wanted poster! It was not listed because he had not been indicted. He wasn't indicted presumably because it was unlikely he would every be brought to trial. Such bs. You do not have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list. Aren't lawyers supposed to have decent read comprehension skills? Where did I ever say you "have to be indicted to be on the FBI's most wanted list"? OBL was already on the list on 9/11. His wanted poster never listed 9/11 because he was never indicted for it. But perhaps Ms. Meredith can list people who made "on the FBI's most wanted list." without being indicted. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted EDIT - Added FBI link for Dawn Bumped for Dawn Bumped for Dawn Can you "list people who made it "on the FBI's most wanted list." without being indicted"? Colby I do not and will not EVER respond to you, so you can bump all you like and add in new threads. This is my one and only reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Colby I do not and will not EVER respond to you, so you can bump all you like and add in new threads. This is my one and only reply. LOL Translation: "I realize my claim was false but will attack the person calling me on it rather than admit error." You replied to me Oct. 6 but all of a sudden are philosophically opposed to doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 At risk of being accused of thread necromancy, I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views. I have sometimes seen the excuse that someone is not who they claim to be, etc... who cares? If your position is solid then you don't give hoot who argues because you know you can counter their arguement. The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 At risk of being accused of thread necromancy, I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views. I have sometimes seen the excuse that someone is not who they claim to be, etc... who cares? If your position is solid then you don't give hoot who argues because you know you can counter their arguement. The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position. If you ran into a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk at your local bar or pub and after a few minutes it became clear that any efforts on your part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier.....and it was also apparent that the drunk actually enjoyed seeing you get irritated at his behavior....... at what point would you dispense with the conversation, walk away, and let him puke all over himself? Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 At risk of being accused of thread necromancy, I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views. I have sometimes seen the excuse that someone is not who they claim to be, etc... who cares? If your position is solid then you don't give hoot who argues because you know you can counter their arguement. The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position. If you ran into a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk at your local bar or pub and after a few minutes it became clear that any efforts on your part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier.....and it was also apparent that the drunk actually enjoyed seeing you get irritated at his behavior....... at what point would you dispense with the conversation, walk away, and let him puke all over himself? Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question. LOL so now I'm analogous to “a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk...[with whom] any efforts on [Dawn's] part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier”? Except that I'm neither foul-mouthed, ignorant or drunk and it's debatable if I was being overly belligerent, in fact it was Dawn who initiated the belligerence as well as the one who is demonstrating ignorance. As Greg said not long ago “analogies are supposed to actually be.... analogous”. She made a false claim and has proven unable or unwilling to provide evidence in support of it or admit error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now