I Did Not Think It Possible...

...but Justin Raimondo has sunk to a new low, even for him. Justin is now asking, with regard to the London bombings, "What did Netanyahu know, when did he know it, and how did he know it?" Because, clearly, the Israeli government was behind the bombings.

Not just the London bombings, mind you; the Israelis were behind -- or at least had foreknowledge of -- 9/11. In fact, Raimondo has even written a book expounding upon this conspiracy theory/blood libel.

My longtime readers know that the question of how much the Israelis knew about 9/11 before those planes ploughed into the World Trade Center, and how they knew it, has been taken up in this space on many previous occasions. My short book, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, shows that Israel wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, as many in the Arab world allege, but that they did have some knowledge that a terrorist attack was about to take place on American soil and somehow neglected to tell us about it...

Who benefits from the London attacks, aside from the obvious candidate, which is bin Laden?... Who loses? And who knew? Surely Netanyahu knew, either "days" or "minutes" before the blasts shattered all hope that the War Party might yet be defeated – and it wasn't Scotland Yard that tipped him off. In any case, the key question that must be asked, and answered, before the lesson of London's Terror Thursday can be fully assimilated and learned, is this: What did Bibi know, and when did he know it?

The way to tell that Justin is conspiracy theorizing and not doing actual journalism or even news analysis is that, when the evidence changes, Justin's story does not.

In subsequent versions of the same story, all references to the call from Scotland Yard have been scrubbed, and we are told that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts. This instant revisionism was duly noted by the blogosphere. It took them a while to get their story straight – and I'm not talking about the Associated Press.

No, this wasn't just a case of the news changing as more facts come in; this is a cover-up and thus more evidence of the broader conspiracy. There is no way to falsify a conspiracy theory because any piece of evidence presented against it is just more evidence of the cover-up.

And notice how Justin doesn't actually have the audacity to come out and say what he is thinking. Instead, he makes suggestive, open-ended statements about who he is not talking about, expecting his readers to fill in "The Jews" for themselves. "And it wasn't Scotland Yard that tipped him off." "And I'm not talking about the Associated Press." Who was it that tipped him off? (The Jews?) Who is Justin talking about getting their story straight if not the Associated Press? (The Jews?)

Tell me again why libertarians associate with this loon?

Share this

"Rightwatch," i.e. George

"Rightwatch," i.e. George O'Brien, doesn't know what he is talking about. The Bay Area Reporter, back in the 1970s, was a very minor publication that almost no one read: few gay prostitutes had ads in its back pages. The Berkeley Barb was the newspaper where the gay hustlers advertised. So my advice to all you amateur detectives out there: don't bother with the B.A.R. You're just wasting your time.

And on a final note to this fascinating, uh, conversation: I may be an Italian Stallion, but I doubt I'm the only one in San Francisco, either then or now.

Boy, if this is the best you and Auntie Palmer can do, then it's pretty pathetic. I might add that prostitution is a very difficult business that requires much more organization than I had at the time. And now that I have the organizational skills, alas, I don't have the, er, assets. Such is fate.

Justin I did follow the link

Justin
I did follow the link and, glancing, actually found the first third of the article quite good. While it may be useful to ask what Netanyahu knows, if the point is solely to uncover a source who may have special knowledge, there are undoubtedly implications in such a question, especially when the likely answer seems so much more intuitive. Namely that it was known a few minutes before and that major figures could be told such information but the general public cannot. There are always a few strange ends in nearly every story, which can be attributed to misprints, false leads, and so on, but in order to pursue such minor leads we need a relevant context in which they are plausible. Frankly, the idea that either
a. Israel attacked the UK
or
B. Israel has some special friendship with the other countries of the middle east and as such could be expected to be tipped off before an attack.

is completely ludicrous. Based on that simple fact, I see no reason to seriously follow such leads.

Matt

Jeff: Rightwatch (me) posted

Jeff: Rightwatch (me) posted the message that a member of the Radical Caucus had engaged in prostitution. You said you heard Justin banter with Roy Childs about the ad in question with the title "Italianj Stallion". Now I saw the ad. Some friends of the person who ran it showed it to me.

Others posted messages from SF who said they had heard Justin make the same claims in other circumstances. But I never listed Justin as the one in question because it was not a main point nor was it an attempt to smear the person for being a prostitute. In fact I was quite clear on that. My issue was this Rothbardian revisionism where it is now claimed that Saint Murray is leading libertarians out of the land of the couinter-culture into the land of Confederates, Reconstructionists and racists. I said that the people who the Rockwelian Rothbarians are now attacking were Murray's closest allies back then. The counter culture they attack now was something they were promoting (Murray's friends, not necessarily Murray).

And contrary to Justin's allegation I did not name him at him. His friends did. It was a supporter of his who blurted his name out and kept doing so even after several people said to him that the original mentioned no names. Now I know who I refer to. And I heard the person admit it himself. I saw the ad in question.

I know that past experience tells me that in general if Justin said the sun was shinning I'd stick my head out the window just to be sure. But that is a general observation. He may well be inventing things here as well. I know if he is or isn't but didn't want that to be a main point in my critique of the lunatics that are being attracted to libertarianism. I would suggest that if others wish to find the truth that they will find that the publication in question was the Bay Area Reporter (B.A.R). Archives of the paper exist and the ad should be there. It was the era before cell phones so the phone number listed would have to have been registered to someone at a home address. An old reverse directory will turn that up rather easily. The paper trail is there for anyone to follow if they want.

I'm confident of the results only because I heard it from the horse's mouth myself.

"Occam’s razor" is just a

"Occam’s razor" is just a word made up by the neocons to hide their zionist conspriracies. And yes, I know that Zionism (the claim the Jews deserve a state) is evil. Evil I tells you! Cleary MS. Kennedy is a neocon and lying about the fact the Zionists also control Scotland Yard. You queenie PC homophobe.

Patri: "I can imagine plenty

Patri: "I can imagine plenty of situations where I’d trade sex for money. And after that, of course, its all just haggling about the price."

Scott: "This is fantastic. Do you guys do parties?"

Apparently I do, if the price is right :kiss: