MovieChat Forums > Terrorstorm (2006) Discussion > One thing i didnt get..

One thing i didnt get..


In the start of this documentary Alex Jones claims that Germany in 1939, got hold of a body of a man an a rifle and uniform of a Polish Soldier. He claims that Germany staged an attack, and it was proclaimed as an attack - that it was a false-flag, that it was the single thing that lead to the German invasion of Poland that started World war 2. I don't doubt that it happened...

But started World War 2??? According to all history books I've read, it was not how WW2 started. WW2 started with Germany's hunger for land (Lebensraum). East-Prussia was cut off from Germany by a strip of Poland, with the City Of Danzig in front. Germany demanded the City of Danzig, but Poland refused to hand over the city. Germany after-wards declared war on Poland - Poland being in an Alliance with France and Britian, made Britian and France declare war on Germany, and World War 2 had started... that is how it happened - it is a historical fact. Alex Jones manipulates the facts to make people believe in his political motivated movies.

Also the USS Liberty attack stinks: The USS Liberty was 14 miles from Israel during a very hot war: the Six Day war. It is very likely that Israel attacked all war-ships in the area, who aren't Israels, very likely. And that USA was willing to stage a false flag in the middle-east, because it wanted to occupy the whole middle-east is simply a retarded idea, if you just know a little of history - USA was heavily entrenched in Vietnam at the time (1967), so it is simply OUT OF THE QUESTION that USA wanted to conquer Egypt, it is a very stupid idea, especially when USA and USSR had stopped Israel, France and Britian from conquering Egypt during the Suez-crises of 1956.

The facts of Terrorstorm does not add up, then why should any of the things in it be true??

reply

The facts of Terrorstorm does not add up, then why should any of the things in it be true??

Good question, any answers out there?

HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED...www.PressForDumptyTruth.org

reply

[deleted]

"That is exactly how I feel about the 911 Commission Report."

Good thing many do not confuse feelings with facts.

HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED...www.PressForDumptyTruth.org

reply

About the Gleiwitz incident:

Yes, Hitler was power-hungry and wanted additional territory. Poland denied him the city, and Hitler was left out in the wind. That's when the Gleiwitz incident occured, Hitler blamed the "attack" on Poland, saying "Look what they've done. We have no choice but to invade and forcibly acquire the land." This was the full-on firestarter that got World War II into high gear.

reply

That explanation does not add up with the USS Liberty explanation. You CT´s say that US told Israel to attack USS Liberty to make it seem Egypt attacked USA, so USA could invade and conquer the whole middle-east.

But that thought dosent add up with any sane logic. Why should USA do that, when they where bugged down in Vietnam already at that time??
Plus: USA had stopped Israel, France and Britain from attacking and conquering Egypt in the Suez-crises in 1956!!

Then why do you CT´s still think that it is a staged attack by the "born-evil" CIA and americans???

Why do you think that the Aircraft-Carrier was denied to intercept the fighter which attacked USS Liberty?? Because USA did not want to attack either ISrael, Egypt not Syria (because they werent 100% who attacked them, so it was smarter not to start an international incedent because of principle - like Vietnam). They would not start such a thing in 1967m because they where in a very bloody war in vietnam.

reply

[deleted]

What is PressForDumptyTruth.org?
Apprently it's not a valid domain name.


--
Don't make me take off my sunglasses!

reply

"According to all history books I've read"

If you are simply using the popular stories of history, then you are reading facts mixed with fiction - legends and folklore.

Plus, the claim from AJ is regarding a particular event which was the catalyst for the war. You are arguing it was due to "hunger for land." Hunger for land is not a particular event, it's a motive.

Personally, I take everything with a grain of salt. One of the best books that is somewhere between AJ and conventional history books is Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the US

reply

According to all history books I've read


Haven't you ever heard the phrase The victors write the history books?

reply

Haven't you ever heard the phrase The victors write the history books?

Sure, but if you consult egyptian, russian, german or polish history books, they say the same

reply

Then they're all wrong, as the Second World War didn't even start in Europe.

reply

Then they're all wrong, as the Second World War didn't even start in Europe.


Yes, the Second World War started in Thule, Greenland, during a barfight between two Eskimoes, one German and a pole.

reply

Exactly...

If The Allies would have lost WWII the Japanese American Internemt Camps would have somehow turned into an extermination camp where USA was mass exterminating Japanese people...

But America and the Allies win... And somehow everything America does is all right and mighty...

Don’t trust everything you read. Any system which depends on human reliability is by nature unreliable.

“The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper.” —Thomas Jefferson

“Truth is never pure and rarely simple.”
—Oscar Wilde

reply

History is written by the victors not the vanquished!

reply

you need to re-watch the movie...It says that the attack on the Reich stag (or whatever) was for the sole purpose of creating marshal law.

and this

It is very likely that Israel attacked all war-ships in the area, who aren't Israels, very likely.

that is a false statement and don't you think that Israel would know if an ally ship was in their waters..

reply

you need to re-watch the movie

And you need to go back to school and get some brains.

It says that the attack on the Reich stag (or whatever) was for the sole purpose of creating marshal law.

What does hitler have to do with the USS Liberty-incident, and martial law of 1967???

It is very likely that Israel attacked all war-ships in the area, who aren't Israels, very likely.

Could be, or not.
Depends on the situation.


that is a false statement

Oh, yeah, sure, random guy on the internet, you can pass judgement on military affairs from 1967, [sarcasm]sure, random guy on the internet, sure![/sarcasm].
Ive been in the military, not navy, but it is mostly the same:
In a high-intensity-conflict, it is better to attack first, instead of doubt, doubt kills.
The slogan always is: if you are in doubts - shot.
That is the doctrine the Israelies work with, why they also make so many wrong bombings, like in Lebanon.

and don't you think that Israel would know if an ally ship was in their waters..

ISrael does not have any real allies. USA or nato is not directly allies with ISrael, like with the ISrael-hizbollah-conflict of 2006, it showed that that they had no allies.

Also you know nothing of war: friendly fire incident happens within the same navies and armies all the time during war, why could it not have happened then?


Back on subject:
I seriulsy doubt it was a false flag operation.

use your head, instead of jumping to conclusions to make it fit your theories.

Your theory is (which you unquestiongly copy from Alex Jones) that USA made Israel attacks its own ship, to make it look like Egypt had attack, so that USA could invade all of the Middleeast and take control of the oil.
That is what all you CT´s blindly believe.

But try some reasoning:
USS liberty incident happended during the 1967 six-day war. The USS liberty was in a war-zone, only 14 miles of the coast of Israel, during the most headed battles.
The US does not use the same radio-frequencies as ISrael, because Israel only wants its own ones. So they could not speak to each other. ISrael found a ship in the water that they knew that werent theirs, so they attacked it. The US should not be there, so they attacked. The ship was marked with english letters and had an american flag, but israeli pilots could think that it was a trick, for the Syrians or Egyptians not to attack their boat.
Also that the Israelis attacked with Mirage-3 airplanes says alot: they where the only ones in that area who uses those distinkt aircraft - so kinda stupid from a military point of view (but then again thinking is not part of the every day conspiracy theory mind). If it was a false flag opertation the Americans and israelies would have gotten hold of some russian or british airplanes, which the arabs used an attack the liberty. So there was no false flag operation.
Then you CT´s (according to what i learned from watching "Terrorstorm") claim that the Liberty called for help from an Aircraft-carrier to attack the planes attacking USS liberty, but that they were denied but presiden Lyndon Johnson, because he had planned this false flag all along with the isralies, and he would not allow his navy to interfeer. That is your take on it, using the fact that you WANT it to be a false flag. Here is my theorym using logic and reasoning (which Alex Jones lacks): Could it not be that Israel attacked that vessel because it was in a warzone, and also it could be an enemy-vessel? Could it not be that it was a FRIENDLY-FIRE episode (they happens ALL THE TIME in real wars, google it). Could it not be that Lyndon Johnson denied them acces to attack another country BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO DRAG USA INTO A DOUBTFULL WAR IN THE MIDDLEEAST AT THE TIME.
You CT´s claim that the only reason that the False-flag didnt work was that there was a russian-vessel near the site.... But the russian vessel was just so much away that they could not have seen who attacked, and what was attacked - you got to be close to see it is israelies, you know. But then again all you CT´s lack logic and reasoning.


Also the biggest thing of it all: It was 1967!!!! USA was in Vietnam. They were bogged down in Vietnam. They were already loosing hundreds of troops a day. They
where loosing the whole war. While the American Puplic was going more anti-war.

Also: why should USA want to invade Egypt all of the sudden? If any of you CT´s knew just a little history, you would know that England, France and Israel had tried to occupy Egypt in the 1956 suez-crises, BUT THE USA HAD STOPPED ISRAEL AND ENGLAND AND FRANCE FROM DOING IT!!! how does that add up with you theory?

And you Conspiracy Theorists think that the American president, Johnson, was willingly to sacrifice a ship, to get bogged down in two or three new countries in the middle-east just for some oil? Oil, which they could get easily from Iran and Iraq. You still think that??
If you think that, Then you really need to wake up from the fantasy world and smell the real world.

ctspectator: your reply to this should at least be half as big, and not something copy-pasted, to even challange me. If you cant, then stop talking about CT´s all along, because you apparantly dont know anything about history, reason and the real world.

reply

Its been awhile but I was just trying to answer the question. If you listen to US politicians they publicly defend Israel. So what if the USS Liberty incident was an accident. We didnt go to war with them becuase they were at war with our enemys. And yes I think we are in Iraq for oil it was publicly stated that it could pay for the war but hasnt at all. Terrorstorm had way to much info.

reply



If you listen to US politicians they publicly defend Israel

Not all US politicians, only them who are sponsored by the Israely/jewish-lobby.
Just like the US politicians who defend smoking, they are sponsored by the tobacco-lobby.

It is also this: there is a generel sympathy for israel in the US. Because Israel is the country that are most like the US in way of the society.
Also Israel is almost the only country in the middle-east that dosent have daily demonstration where "Death to USA" is shouted.
Also: there are 7 million jews in USA, and 6,7 mllion jews in israel. There is a natural sympathy there.

Why should they not defend Israel?
Also: Russia supported Syria and Egypt from the mid 1950ties. Egypt and Syria hated USA, so why should they support those regimes????

So what if the USS Liberty incident was an accident.

Why should not be an accident???
Why should Israel attack it greatest and almost only supporter???
Why should they even need help in the six-day-war?? They smashed the arab armies well without help.

Why should USA even want to go to war with Egypt and Syria, when they had hundre-thousands of troops bugged down in Vietnam???

USS Liberty was an accindet, friendly fire, it happens in wars all the time, get used to it.


We didnt go to war with them becuase they were at war with our enemys.

No, USA did not want to go to war in another continent, when they already was in a very heavy war in Vietnam.
USA did not want to potentially start WW3, not with russia still at strength.

USS Liberty was not a planned incident, get over it.


And yes I think we are in Iraq for oil it was publicly stated that it could pay for the war but hasnt at all.

Sure i agree with that.
And Iraq is a very good example: Bush stated that Iraq had Weapons of Mass-Destruction, but they where never found...
But seriusly, Conspiracy Theorists claim that the Evil George Bush can plan 9/11 - the biggest attack on a civilian target in us-history - get away with it, make it seem that Arabs did, make the whole world and all of the millions of journalists believe it, make the whole world support USA and go to war with Taliban and Afghanistan.....
If George Bush or those who control him can do all that, then why cant they plant Weapons of Mass-Destruction in Iraq????

If they can fake the biggest terrorattack in the world, why cant they fake Weapons of Mass-Destruction?????

They where in full control of Iraq 2003 - 2004, until the iraqi army came into action. They had so long to ponder the desert, to bury fake Weapons of Mass-Destruction, make grunts dig them up some months later, then blame Saddam Hussein, and make the whole war legitemate...... but they didnt.
This prooves that all that the CT´s say about 9/11 is more or less false.


Terrorstorm had way to much info.

My point too.
I checked so much of the information.
Very little of it is true or adds up (if you check many neutral sources).

If only few of the facts of Terrorstorm are true, then why should we even believe in the whole movie???

reply

My point too.
I checked so much of the information.
Very little of it is true or adds up (if you check many neutral sources).

If only few of the facts of Terrorstorm are true, then why should we even believe in the whole movie???


Bingo, when the motive for a inside job on 7/7 is false on it's face, it's all downhill from there.


This Post Will be deleted by Stewart-18 or his socks in the next 24 hours, LOL!

reply

I'm not defending the claims made by Jones, but to answer the OP's questions. The false-flag claim about the alleged Polish soldier was supposedly a ploy to get the backing of the people of Germany behind the invasion of Poland, to say it started ww2 is over reaching for sure.

The USS Liberty incident could have been a false flag by Israel with or without collusion by Johnson, in spite of 1956 events because Eisenhower was president in '56. Remember, Eisenhower was the one who warned us about, and coined the phrase military-industrial complex. He was probably not as interested in starting new wars as Johnson was.

Having a ship sunk could have been a (more credible than Tonkin) pretext and justification for invading Egypt. Read the documents on it that are linked elsewhere on these boards, there's no way the Israelis didn't know it was a US ship. Their boats were close enough to light up with .50 cal machine guns on the deck. I've been looking around for documents quoting the alleged conversation where Johnson says he wants the Liberty going to the bottom.

reply

To ckelly8, There would be no official documents or government reports. The claim that Israel knew that the ship was US and the claim that Washington brass knew it was Israel & "called off the guards" were made by members of the ships crew. Some of them were the ship's high commanders. Some of them worked in the proverbial boiler room.

http://www.rense.com/general26/ally.htm


It is really far reaching to believe that a well trained pilot (from any Air Force) could possibly mistake one of the most well decorated ships in anyones navy. Especially after 2 hoursof atacks. Their job is to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Fighter Pilots are precision equipment. Anyone with wings will tell you that. They are not subject to their own misguided interpretations...they are highly trained to look for certain & specific things tha allow them to determine the origin of the ship/base/field army they are about to attack above and beyond the normal signals, such as flags. Of course, nobody has ever hailed these particular pilots as the "cream of the crop". Even still, fighter and bomber pilots have numerous opportunities to gaze directly into the eyes of those they are about to kill. That means discerning race and uniform. Two tell-tale signs they were American would have been a "Whites Only" deck crew (As in the 50's minorites or non-whites in the US navy were only allowed in the galley, the brig, and the laundry, but never the Deck) and no other ship in the region (Aside from Russian) would have looked that way. The second tell tale sign would have been the uniforms the crew had on. Pilots should be well versed in what the enemy ship and uniforms look like. But, nobody is saying they were the "cream of the crop".

I figure it is a combination of ignorance and fear. Ignorant of the Israelis to start the attack, then becoming fearful if ship's crew are allowed to live and tell the story of their attack. Bad for the pilots and bad for the Israeli Air Command. Also fearful, were those in Washington. Fearful that this would be taken out of context or difficult to explain to the US population therefore, forcing the top brass to take military action against a military friendly, turning them into an enemy. At the point in time this took place, there was so much political heat all over everyone concerning Democracy or Communism. The American people would have forced the President to retaliate (in one form or another). Even reparations being called for could have flipped the relationship between the budding (as well as ONLY) democratic government in the region, Israel, and the Budding World Superpower, The US.

Things could be drastically different today if we had held Israel accountable for their heinous mistake. It is simple global strategy that had to be employed during a time of incredible political pressure. Perhaps the people in the past thought they were doing the right thing. You can also blame them for the CT's as their collusion in the subsequent cover-up only served to make the actual events about as clear as a stomped puddle. It's only human nature to let the mind wander to places that are normally inconceivable after finding out you've been lied to.

reply

Hitler didnt just attack poland without the support from the people. He needed their support to be able to lawfully attack. Just as the Marinus van der Lubbe-incident in Berlin; people need support befiore they can just oust or attack other factions, that why the scapegoat tactics; enfuriated people are easier to be pulled into a posse. If you want everything to add up to YOUR maths, better make sure they are the right maths.
Funny, actually, think about this; if bush told the truth once, then why should the rest of what he says be lies...hahahahaha that logic doesnt really work, mate.


People born in slavery do not know that there is any other state than unfreedom...they will even defend their masters against those who would
free them.

reply

Basically, though it didnt start the war itself, it gave Hitler and the Nazis the excuse to invade Poland in turn starting the war.

reply

It's interesting to note that everyone is so quick to jump to the conclusion that a single dead body could not start world war II when it is exactly what caused the first world war. Has everyone forgotten the shot heard around the world when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in Sarajevo? I'm not saying that all the statements made in this film were correct, but with like all arguements, biases are best left at the door and theories approached with a clear head and even concious.

reply