QUOTE (KP50 @ Feb 23 2010, 07:10 AM)
Can somebody explain that picture to me please!
I did post it, so I feel I can explain why I did so. I posted in the section concerning the books the one of Greg Felton "The host and and the parasite". I am french and live in France where the Israel Lobby is very active.
For many reasons I do think IsraŽl is behind 9/11. I am so convinced of that, and was so schocked when Gaza occurred that I followed the proposition made by Leila Chahid to write to all the french representatives at the european Parliament, in the hope they act against that war. I was also angry because I thought that if 9/11 had been investigated, Gaza would not have happened. So I wrote on both subjects, and told them I would post my collective e-mail on my blog. It was a way to show how deep I felt concerned as a citizen.
Then I thought to the ICC and tranfered my e-mail to the same persons and to the ICC, adding I agreed with Michel Warschawsky's point of view. It was the 29th of december 2008. I completed this action (I received a number of affair) on the 25th of january 2009 and the 3rd november.
The 17 february I posted another e-mail with information on Greg Felton's work.
The point is all that is on my blog which is quite visited. You can read it if you desire HERE
. It is in french but most of the links are english).
I received no opposition from no one, and had answers from some representatives.
If I follow my conviction that 9/11 would never have occurred without IsraŽl, I must think to the Clinton time, because it was prepared during quite a time, and one question is the way the criminals which are involved obtain the lack of opposition and the silence. Sex is a way.
You have probably red "up in smoke" in which Ha'aretz evocate the runway69 action in which Larry Silverstein was concerned (finally the NYT wrote the owner of the runway69 was a Lawrence Silverstein (accident) and this man ignored which kind of activities were praticed there (lack of curiosity).
"Path to 9/11" has been cut, and shows how John O'Neill was impeached to make his job correctly. Democrats made a very strong opposition to this movie.
You have this other picture :
I think that when such a tragedy occurs with so many consequences, we do have the moral obligation to face the problem and question every act, every speech...all what can help to understand.
The picture with Bill Clinton, in my opinion, is a way to tell quite a lot of things, and to go through the censoring use we have.
I apologize for my english.