James Corbett Interview – The War On All Palestinians (Not Just Hamas) & The False Flag Possibility

5 Replies to “James Corbett Interview – The War On All Palestinians (Not Just Hamas) & The False Flag Possibility”

1. Thank you again Ryan for your very fair coverage of this horrific, very one-sided war, where civilians are the real victims on both sides. Propaganda has become a virus in this conflict. The truth is difficult to pin down.
   You mentioned in the last post how Lehi attempted to collaborate with Facists and Nazis, and that is very true. And, here is proof of that from a Jewish source:
   “Because it never had more than a few hundred fighters at one time, the Lehi frequently used extremist actions, considered by some acts of terrorism, to achieve its goals. Its most infamous actions include the assassination of British Minister of State in the Middle East Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944 and the joint attack with I.Z.L. on the village of Deir Yasin on April 9, 1948, in which 100 Palestinians, including some civilians, were killed. The primary target of the Lehi’s actions, however, were the British; during World War II the organization even attempted to form an alliance with Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Due to its extremist tactics, Lehi members were condemned by multiple groups: the British police, the leadership of the Yishuv, and erstwhile comrades-in-arms. Some Lehi members left the organization because they could not withstand the danger to their lives and the possibility of imprisonment.” Source: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lehi-lohamei-herut-yisrael .
   The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women.

   Reply

2. https://youtu.be/3cPeRSVgUpQ?si=TOwznl7pinTgJ9iy
   Plz listen

   Reply

3. ryan – rightly so – refers to “this suspicious event” (the alleged hamas attack that started this whole round of stupidity.) bingo!
   for my money, by not focussing on all of the details of that suspicion, this discussion is merely furthering the stupidity/insanity of the story.
   911 was also a (beyond!) “suspicious event”, yet it seemed no-one really focussed on that suspicion: that a thin skinned aluminum airplane could never, ever, in a million years slice (wing tip to wing tip, according to the photo op) through 36 x 14 x 4 inch thick steel I-beams. (if you really need help here, try imagining the steel building being thrown AT the aluminum airplane – fixed, nose up, on a hypothetically impenetrable surface: do ya really think the thin aluminum airplane would slice through the 36 x 14 x 4 inch thick steel?? wing tip to wing tip??? no, the plane would crush like a soda can. which is exactly would happen if said thin skinned aluminum airplane did in fact crash into said steel I- beams. )
   ( if what “they” claimed happened happen, we would have had to burn every high school/university physics text book in the world.)
   my point here is that every 911 journalist researcher could have/should have been hammering on this point: this attack could never, not in a million trillion years, ever have happened.
   but no, the narrative immediately went off into all kinds of wild directions when all discussions should have went as follows:
   _ who did this attack?? the attack never happened., not like they said. period.
   – should we retaliate against al-queda? the attack never happened, not like they said.. period.
   – should we suspend our freedoms for safety?? the attack never happened, not like they said.
   – should we investigate intelligence failures?? the attack never happened, not like they said. period.
   – were dicky or George boy in on the attack?? the attack never happened.,not like they said. period.
   etc, etc,etc.
   so fast forward to now and we have another similar event with a narrative all based on another very suspect event. (and I apologize because i have not gotten to the bottom of the suspiciousness here – tho a cursory glance at the photo ops screams of staging.) yet here we have our hero independent journalists chasing down the AFTER narrative and AVOIDING (purposefully? one shudders to think) the one thread that if pulled on could dismantle the entire narrative at it’s core: it never really happened, not like they say it did.
   end of any discussion not focussed on the implausibility of the original event.

   Reply

   1. ps: so, I did post my above comment a little too early: james and ryan do in fact take a solid look at the implausibility of the narrative around this “attack”. good.
      that said, I still contend that running off into the many tangential issues here is either an “accidental” or (again, shudder to think) purposeful propagation of the original lie: that hamas carried out a surprise brutal attack against israel.
      and I do want to express my gratitude for ryan and james being on the scene.
      yet, I still find it maddening that all telescopes are not focussed on – and refusing to budge from – the original lie here: what happened (down to the tiniest detail)? who was involved? etc, etc.
      such a focus makes any and all other topics absolutely irrelevant.

      Reply

4. James is always brilliant!

   Reply