It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


You can spin it that way but rest assured that Israel would be dust. Not going to happen and if it did Israel would be feeling a military wrath unlike any before.

Are you positive it was not Israel which was behind the Kennedy assassination or even 9/11?

If your answer is yes, that is because you accept, in some fashion, the official explanation, whatever the facts. So if Obama is assassinated your belief in who was behind it will depend on the official explanation. If Israel can manage both the assassination and the official explanation, they are home free.

If your answer is no, what makes your think an Israel sponsored assassination of Obama will be any different, if the official explanation blames it on a "lone gunman" or "Iranian spy".

So the key will be what the official explanation will be. If the US administration decides it is useful to blame it on a "lone gunman" or "Iranian spy" that will be the case. If it is useful to blame it on Israel, that will be the case. Facts don't matter anyway.

In fact, Israel doesn't have to be involved in anyway for it to be blamed for it. The US government acts on what it determines are facts, not what they can convince others, including you and me.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


To generate anti-Israel sentiment. Perhaps it's his own agenda, or maybe he's working with another group which seeks to demonize Israel. Either way, I don't think he needs a financial incentive to demonize Israel, as it's most probably an ideological feeling he has.

Very often the people who demonize Israel are themselves Jews. Almost every single book to date which has suggested a controversial alternative history of either Jewish Ashkenazic origin, or Zionism's history in Israel, has been written by a Jew. Examples of the former being Arthur Koestler (the 13th tribe, which argues that Ashkenazic Jewry derives from the Kazhars, a 8th century eastern european kingdom) Shlomo Sands etc. With the latter you have Israel 'revisionist' historians, led by Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé etc..

Possible. I too noticed that most conspiracy theories against the Jews originate from Jews. However those that do so invariably claim to be those motivated against the conspiracy.

Now this guy is different. He isn't claiming to be outing an Israeli ploy, thinking or any such thing. He is suggesting something that places him amongst the "vile Jews". Had he been an Israeli Jew there wouldn't be much of a contradiction. Had he been claiming to be revealing an Israeli plan, that too would make sense. What doesn't make sense is his generating the antipathy towards himself while attempting to do that against Israel.

It's a local Jewish newspaper from Atlanta. Do you think he's really seeking increased circulation? Are there 'competing' Jewish newspapers in the city of Atlanta? Probably not.

I am not sure. Let us say some get the idea that he is reflecting what the Israeli elite or Mossad are considering and they are actually "revealing" their thoughts through this guy. After all if Israel does have such plans, wouldn't this be the best way for them to threaten Obama without being connected to it in anyway? Wouldn't that increase the circulation for the paper amongst everyone including non-Jews and those not living in Atlanta in the hopes of their getting a headsup on what Israel and Mossad are thinking?

The only word that truly captures the essence of what he did is Chutzpah. This is a perfect example of it.

Exactly. So either he is completely stupid, intends to exploit the notoriety for financial benefit (these are tough times) or is a revelation channel for what Israel/Mossad are thinking. Take your pick. I am inclined towards the second option, financial benefit because of being suspected of the third option


And what about the obvious fact of suggesting that in an American newspaper. Say Obama did get assassinated. EVERYONE would then know that Israel was behind it! And this in turn would be the catalyst for further anti-Israel sentiment, not to mention antisemitism, in both America and abroad.

I suspect the guy is betting on Obama staying safe and sound.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


What IF it did happen (God forbid!) and Israel was'nt behind it at all but is accused of it based upon an article in a small insignificant Jewish newspaper ???

This certainly is playing in the hands of all the anti-semites......perhaps that was the goal?

So you are betting on him being a stupid Jew acting like an arrogant Jew controlled by some anti-semites? Hell, that is a really complicated conspiracy!



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Still a bunch of spin and speculation. The process of elimination and singling out of one Nation to suit your take on these matters is subjective and baseless in absolute facts. Just conjecture based in conspiracy theories. I mean no disrespect but the rationality is greatly lacking. You are free to think what you will but I am not buying what you are selling.
edit on 1-23-2012 by Flint2011 because: Typos and mispellings.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 





Now this guy is different. He isn't claiming to be outing an Israeli ploy, thinking or any such thing. He is suggesting something that places him amongst the "vile Jews". Had he been an Israeli Jew there wouldn't be much of a contradiction. Had he been claiming to be revealing an Israeli plan, that too would make sense. What doesn't make sense is his generating the antipathy towards himself while attempting to do that against Israel.



That can be compared to the Rothschilds, Warburgs and other elite banker or industrialist Jews who give all other Jews a bad name. Although granted, it's not an exact parallel. These Jews have a bad name by virtue of their success and wealth, and not due to anything they've said or done.

But it's not that strange at all if you look at it from a higher perspective. Very often there are people who are willing to 'bite the bullet' and accept the negative consequences of a situation they deliberately put themselves into to affect a political or personal agenda. The larger agenda can be seen as a concentric circle that surrounds a smaller one - the sphere of the individual himself. Because the agenda he seeks to affect carries some greater importance (typically, in the realm of politics, there are metaphysical considerations that make certain 'negative' things necessary. Therefore, the 'negativity' is an inner circle of an even greater circle, the end that is sought. Thus, this would be an example of the dictum 'the end justifies the means') he is willing to do something that will generate for himself and his newspaper bad publicity - but publicity he may feel he can compensate for (and knowing the Jewish psyche as well as I do, Jews will surely forgive him if he apologizes "sincerely" enough) but would affect a perception that is indispensable to a larger agenda.

This may sound strange but I can assure you, these things happen, daily, all around the world, involving personalities and situations we as an otherwise ignorant public would interpret as 'negative', but whose purpose transcends the limited context in which it occurs.




I am not sure. Let us say some get the idea that he is reflecting what the Israeli elite or Mossad are considering and they are actually "revealing" their thoughts through this guy. After all if Israel does have such plans, wouldn't this be the best way for them to threaten Obama without being connected to it in anyway?


I don't think so. Why a public warning? Wouldn't you think that makes Israel vulnerable? When Israel/Mossad kills nuclear scientists, do they broadcast that before they do it? Or do they do it and then deny it, as all normal countries do?

There's a certain need for discretion, I would imagine, for things of this nature. And the less it's spoken of the better. Obama knows where he is at.



Wouldn't that increase the circulation for the paper amongst everyone including non-Jews and those not living in Atlanta in the hopes of their getting a headsup on what Israel and Mossad are thinking?


That's a lot of assumptions.

Jewish newspapers typically cover Jewish subjects, things that are totally uninteresting or irrelevant to non-Jews. Also, I don't think the general public has the sagacity to think as you do. In general, this is seen as a "slip up", and not a leak by the mossad into an American Newspaper.




Exactly. So either he is completely stupid, intends to exploit the notoriety for financial benefit (these are tough times) or is a revelation channel for what Israel/Mossad are thinking. Take your pick. I am inclined towards the second option, financial benefit because of being suspected of the third option


Why only two options? First, you haven't proved how this would increase circulation of his newspaper, either amongst the gentiles or the Jews. And I already pointed out that this newspaper, being a Jewish newspaper, has an inherently limited readership. It's not like he's writing for the Atlanta journal.

Another plausible explanation is what I earlier suggested, and have been speculating about throughout this thread: He wrote it with the explicit intention of generating anti-Zionist sentiment. There is no way he couldn't foresee where this article would lead. It's generally understood that Jews have to be more careful because as Jews they know that the spotlight is generally on them, which applies most of all to the Jewish state.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flint2011
Still a bunch of spin and speculation. The process of elimination and singling out of one Nation to suit your take on these matters is subjective and baseless in absolute facts. Just conjecture based in conspiracy theories. I mean no disrespect but the rationality is greatly lacking. You are free to think what you will but I am not buying what you are selling.

When no assassination has taken place, how can there be facts about it?

Anything other than the official narrative will be speculation/conspiracy theory. If you want to accept as facts only what comes from and everything that comes from the official sources, feel free. But then probably discussions of this type are not for you. I am least interested in a discussion with such types.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Very often there are people who are willing to 'bite the bullet' and accept the negative consequences of a situation they deliberately put themselves into to affect a political or personal agenda.

That is consistent and plausible. So you are positing that he is an anti-Zionist Jew, posing as a Zionist Jew, sacrificing his interests for the cause, anti-Zionism, he believes in.

I don't think so. Why a public warning? Wouldn't you think that makes Israel vulnerable? When Israel/Mossad kills nuclear scientists, do they broadcast that before they do it? Or do they do it and then deny it, as all normal countries do?

There's a certain need for discretion, I would imagine, for things of this nature. And the less it's spoken of the better. Obama knows where he is at.

If the objective is to kill Obama it would be silly to announce it in any way. However, if the objective is a change in policy, the "warning" is part of a negotiation process. It cannot, for obvious reasons, be delivered officially. Such warnings are useful when one party believes the incumbent can be convinced to change policy. Assassination would be needed only if he would not relent and his policy is not acceptable. I am not saying this is a warning from Israel. Only that it could be suspected as being one. Those in the real know will know whether it is or not. Others can speculate and wonder if it is. It is the latter category who could become the new subscribers for the paper


That's a lot of assumptions.

Jewish newspapers typically cover Jewish subjects, things that are totally uninteresting or irrelevant to non-Jews. Also, I don't think the general public has the sagacity to think as you do. In general, this is seen as a "slip up", and not a leak by the mossad into an American Newspaper.

Any new readership expected is from conspiracy-minded folks. Wonder what percentage of folks think Israel controls the US and is arrogant enough to dictate and even publicly threaten the US with consequences for not doing what Israel wants it to. Isn't there a chance of some of these people taking this as an arrogant waring and not a slip up? If they do, wouldn't they like to know what other warnings Israel is giving out before the others do? Wouldn't they then be willing to buy a subscription to the paper? I know I would, if I believed that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Well Now What ?

Atlanta paper owner quits over Obama hit article


The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times has resigned and is seeking a buyer in the wake of a column he wrote speculating that Israel would consider assassinating US President Barack Obama.

Andrew Adler, in an email obtained by JTA, announced Monday that he is "relinquishing all day-to-day activities effective immediately" following the publishing of his opinion piece saying that Obama's assassination was among Israel's options in heading off a nuclear Iran.


The Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta said earlier Monday that it would suspend its relationship with the Atlanta Jewish Times until Adler removed himself from the newspaper's operations. The federation also called on Adler to sell the weekly.





"While we acknowledge his public apology and remorse, the damage done to the people of Israel, the global Jewish people, and especially the Jewish Community of Atlanta is irreparable," the Atlanta federation said in a statement issued Monday to constituent groups.


Hmmm.

A-N-D

The Anti-Defamation League and the National Jewish Democratic Council also condemned Adler for his column. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, also called on Adler to resign from the newspaper.

CNN reported that the Secret Service is investigating Adler over the column.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 





That is consistent and plausible. So you are positing that he is an anti-Zionist Jew, posing as a Zionist Jew, sacrificing his interests for the cause, anti-Zionism, he believes in.


Yes.

A similar situation prevails in Israel, but it's referred to as 'post-zionism'. These Jews make no qualms about what their desire is: the dismantlement of the state of Israel in favor of a truly 'democratic' state which advertizes itself neither as Jewish or Arab. However, if you look at other Arab countries in the greater middle east, it's patently clear that there can be no dominant culture other than Arab. For instance, the Kurds of Iraq and Syria are not allowed to give expression to their own unique culture/customs or language but rather, are forced to embrace the wider Arab culture. This is a long drawn out situation that could have been remedied if the British honored their agreement to the Kurdish leadership before creating the state of Iraq. The same situation exists in morocco, Algeria, and Libya with Berbers, and the Copt's in Egypt. In fact, one Copt leader recommended to the Jews of Israel to embrace Arabization if they wanted to save themselves endless turmoil.

What these Jews seem to want is not the elimination of 'nationalism' per se, but first and foremost, before the abrogation of ordinary nationalism (which is an imperative of all socialist "democratic" movements) they want the "Jew" gone. Gone with it's religio-ethnic connotations. It's separateness and isolationism.

An example of such a Jew is George Soros:


“As I looked around me for a worthy cause, I ran into difficulties. I did not belong to any special community… I never quite became an American. I had left Hungary behind and my Jewishness did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led me to support Israel.”

- Soros, Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging free enterprise and democratic reform among the soviets and in eastern Europe, 3-4




If the objective is to kill Obama it would be silly to announce it in any way. However, if the objective is a change in policy, the "warning" is part of a negotiation process.


But why a Public warning? A warning means nothing if the threat isn't very real, meaning, that the threat wouldn't be followed through. And what then? That would merely galvanize greater anti-Israel sentiment if America balked Israels demands and Israel decided to kill Obama.

I don't think Obama needs to be warned through a local Jewish Atlanta paper to "get the message". Such a message can be sent many other ways.




It is the latter category who could become the new subscribers for the paper


Do you plan on getting a subscription? No? If not, then I don't think your argument carries much weight.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That's interesting....


But I still feel a bit curious. How could he be so stupid to write that article and not perceive what the consequences would be???

You know what would be funny? If he already had another job lined up somewhere else, and already intended to leave his post as editor for the Jewish Atlanta newspaper. That way he could start a raucous before leaving, achieve a political end (incite a perspective i.e. anti-zionism) and then go to his new job...

You never know... Man is a wily creature.
edit on 23-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That's interesting....


But I still feel a bit curious. How could he be so stupid to write that article and not perceive what the consequences would be???

You know what would be funny? If he already had another job lined up somewhere else, and already intended to leave his post as editor for the Jewish Atlanta newspaper. That way he could start a raucous before leaving, achieve a political end (incite a perspective i.e. anti-zionism) and then go to his new job...

You never know... Man is a wily creature.
edit on 23-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


Or,

perhaps he is retiring ?

this may have been a golden parachute.

can't seem to find any bio info on the guy.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That's an even better explanation.

He seems old enough.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Or better yet , the exact words he wrote is exactly what he meant!!!

It is no secret that Obama is seen as not being a friend of Israel.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


And so he thought it would be wise to suggest assassinating him?

When stuff like that happens, you either accept the nominal reality, or you probe deeper to make sense of the the entire predicament.

Generally, most people wont suspect complicit intentions because they don't understand the dynamics of the situation Jews find themselves in today. On one side you have post-zionist, liberal, Hellenist "Jews", who have long outgrown an interest in the Jewish state (or Judaism, or Jewish culture etc). These people, as can be culled from any radical political activist handbook (for instance, Saul Alinsky's 'rule for radicals', being the standard) will resort to whatever means necessary to discredit the established position. This could mean pretending to be a Zionist and inserting ideas here and there that will either misrepresent Zionism in a negative way, or lead followers to a position contrary to the interests of the movement.

This appears to be the case here. He said something that MOST JEWISH Americans would not agree with. And he probably knew that. He also knew how fragile the Zionist image is here in America. But still decided to go ahead with publishing that article. The last thing needed was for someone, clearly identifying himself as a Zionist, to suggest murdering the president in order to better Israels political relationship with America. But that's what he did. To show how completely shameful his stance was, he immediately recanted his obviously flagrant views the instant he was condemned for them.

There was simply nothing to gain, politically, by writing what he did, and everything to lose.. He tarnished further the already battered image of Zionism by arrogantly deciding that it would be good for Mossad to kill Obama.

Given his age, he looks to be in his 60's, I'm suspecting he was approaching retirement, as xuchen astutely pointed out, and this was his way to affect a political end without concerning himself with the aftermath.
edit on 23-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Sometimes Sir, things are just as they seem.

He wrote a a article that had 3 options. The third option was to use Mossad to get rid of the problem, kill Obama.
You must remember , the people in power in Israel see themselves above the law. You can bet , this guy wasn't the first to suggest this option, he may have been the first to put it in public print. Not all people of Jewish faith are Einsteins.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


So you have to be of an einsteinian intelligence to be able to ascertain the likely consequences of an action?

Wow. This guy ran a newspaper. As anyone with a modicum of political knowledge understands, prospective consequences of any action are always taken into account. This is one of the main jobs of an editor - to filter out those things which shouldn't be published. So you think he just momentarily lost his mind and decided to write what he did?

I don't believe it. You do because you already have your mind made up about Israel, and this article suits your political bias.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
I don't believe it. You do because you already have your mind made up about Israel, and this article suits your political bias.

This isn't about me, I didn't write the article.
It is a well know fact, that the current admin of Israel are not fond of Obama.
One of the dogs got loose and bite someone.
You as usual , try to clean up the mess.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


A similar situation prevails in Israel, but it's referred to as 'post-zionism'. These Jews make no qualms about what their desire is: the dismantlement of the state of Israel in favor of a truly 'democratic' state which advertizes itself neither as Jewish or Arab.

Makes perfect sense.

However, if you look at other Arab countries in the greater middle east, it's patently clear that there can be no dominant culture other than Arab.

Perhaps. But that is irrelevant to Palestine. Palestinians have long accepted that the Jews are there to stay. So if Israeli Jews are ready for a secular non-racist state, Palestinians are. Extremist Palestinians hold popularity only because of Zionism, which makes them second class people in their own land.

But why a Public warning? A warning means nothing if the threat isn't very real, meaning, that the threat wouldn't be followed through. And what then?

Is the US government reacting as if it were a public warning from Israel? A warning is only intended to convey how important a policy is for them.

That would merely galvanize greater anti-Israel sentiment if America balked Israels demands and Israel decided to kill Obama.

The expectation is that US won't balk at Israel's demands. Since it was not an official threat there is no need to follow through with it. However, if the US position is unacceptable for Israel even after they convey their seriousness, they may then warn or threaten officially, not to assassinate Obama (which would be silly), but with some other action that they expect would be unacceptable to the US, like launching an attack on Iran themselves and wait for the US response. They would then be forced to go through with it if their demands are not met or lose face.

I don't think Obama needs to be warned through a local Jewish Atlanta paper to "get the message". Such a message can be sent many other ways.

It is not as much a warning to Obama as revealing the options being considered. The purpose is to convey their seriousness about a particular policy to influence it. Yes, there are sure many other ways of doing it as well but this is one such too. The warning doesn't even have to be from Israel, it can be from Zionist interests within the US administration.

Do you plan on getting a subscription? No? If not, then I don't think your argument carries much weight.

I don't qualify, since I do not believe that Israel controls the US



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





It is a well know fact, that the current admin of Israel are not fond of Obama.


Which means they would kill him?

It's also a fact, though unfortunately not as well known, that Israeli's leading diplomats, such as its PM - Natanyahu, have told America "Let us run our own affairs" i.e. Butt out. Which America of course will not do, since it has control of Israels government by virtue of it's financial support.




You as usual , try to clean up the mess.


I'm trying to make sense of something that is otherwise inexplicable. The Job of an editor is to filter the information that comes through to him. For instance, if something comes to him that seems flagrant, his job is to discover whats wrong with it, EDIT out the pernicious aspect of it, and then publish it. Why didn't he do it here? Why? My explanation is probably most right on but because, alas, almost no one here knows a thing about Zionism, Post Zionism and the various camps the vie for leadership of the Jewish people (and it's only state) you take the bait and take part in forming, or strengthening the perspective that such a mindless suggestion was designed to elicit.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 





Palestinians have long accepted that the Jews are there to stay.


In what dimension are you referring to? Is this a parallel dimension where Jews and Arabs aren't fighting to the death for sole control of the land of Israel?

The Palestinians, not in the slightest bit, have come to terms with Israel. That is, I'm sorry to use such strong language, idiotically absurd. Look at the PLO/Fatah and Hamas. These two groups 'represent' the Palestinian people, and NEITHER acknowledges the Jewish state in its constitution.




o if Israeli Jews are ready for a secular non-racist state, Palestinians are


You're talking to someone with ample knowledge of this subject. So don't try to pull this crapola on me. If any party is willing to make peace, it's Israel. Simply look at the abominable PA education system and it is clear as day which party is interested in peace.




Extremist Palestinians hold popularity only because of Zionism, which makes them second class people in their own land.


Well, this right here will derail the entire thread. One can argue from multiple perspectives who 'the land' belongs to. If the Jews have no right to it, neither should the Palestinians. For 2 millenia the Jews have wandered throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern and Western Europe, landless, without a nation, because of the sins of today's temporal powers, which derive it political, religious and cultural institutions from ancient Rome and Greece. Has this been remedied? Has anyone sought to rectify what was done to this people that has gone landless for 2000 years? It's astounding how ignorant some people here are. READ theodor Herzl's "the jewish state". The founding premise of the Jewish state is the fact that Jews have NEVER been able to live in peace, aside from the rather placid, though misleading last 70 years, in their entire existence. Thus, Herzl argued that Jews, like all people, needed a land. The people of France live in France. The people of Germany live in Germany. The Speakers of Hebrew, and followers of Judaism and carriers of Jewish custom, which despite geographical disparity, are still so much alike, don't deserve to be reunited with their ancestral home and place of their formation and birth? That is nonsense to me. I don't care how long it is. In fact, by virtue of their continued reflection and devotion to returning to the land of Israel, i.e. praying 3 times a day towards physical Jerusalem, while Muslims pray towards Mecca (and have their asses facing Jerusalem, if they live in the city) the Passover and Yom Kippur benediction "next year in Jerusalem", all this justifies the fidelity and and sincerity of their claim to Israel.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. Factually, they didn't exist before 1947. But even post '47, which many argue when the national consciousness was formed (thanks to a lie) is no where near strong enough or legitimate enough to compete with the Jewish conviction which is 4000 years old, and rests in biblical prophecy.

I stand by the Jews because I believe they have a clear right to the land. Arabs can live anywhere in the middleast and have little to no problem assimilating in their new countries. But they decry "nationalism" - that would hated by liberals, yet ironically supported by them, in their crusade against the Jewish state. And what when they get their state? Will they be any different from the 22 other ARAB states in the region? states which drown cultural diversity i.e. the copts in Egypt which deal with bombings of their churches by radicalist's, or berbers in North Africa which are refused the right to practice their culture or teach their children in the Berber language...Or of course the classic example, the Kurds of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, which fight till this day for their own state?

Arabs have shown themselves time and again completely unwilling to embrace the authentic democratic spirit, because Islam, contrary to popular belief, is anti-democratic.
edit on 24-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join