Jim Traficant on Fox News

Post Reply New Topic

Here's a clip of Jim Traficant on Fox News telling the truth about who controls the foreign policy of the US. Sean Hannity does his best for his Masters.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gLosf9tH3w[/youtube]

It has been suggested that his ending up in prison and his opinions on Israel are not coincidental.

Are there really americans who believe the usa invaded afghanistan and iraq because of 9/11?

The population is much more stupid than you can ever imagine.


Afghanistan/Iraq links to 9/11 is an easy one for them to go for.

But what is the news about this? Everyone knows the usa's foreign policy is dictated in Tel Aviv.

Let me guess...


Probably right that their lobbying groups hold too much power, though.

I have to wonder how much of that is actually of the interests of the Israeli people and how much of that is other influences acting through Israel and the Israeli lobby. I mean the whole course of action hasn't done much of anything to actually improve the quality of life in Israel. All it does is keep the region destabilized.

But the Jews have always been the scapegoat for the elite's greed.

Trafficant spent seven years in prison. Scooter Libby, who is known to be an Israeli agent, was convicted of a worse crime and didn't spend a day in the hoosegaw. It is interesting to me that they are unusually severe with this Trafficant... Let's not forget Larry Franklin who also spent very little time in prison. What about his boss, known Israeli spy Douglas Feith, who was not even touched at all, just as he was not touched when the FBI caught him spying for Israel during the Nixon years as described in Seymour Hersh's Nixon book.

Agents of Israel do very little for the people of Israel.

My theory is that rather than Israel itself, a big part of the blame lies with the Christians of America who have taken it upon themselves to support Israel, and the only reason they support Israel is because the bible says that the apocalypse will come when Israel is restored. Doesn't seem like a good reason to support or lobby for the interests of a country, does it? - Support the Jews in order to make everyone burn in hell forever.

It's the same problem with Islam - The more you pander to something, the more power it will gain.

But if you look at the structure, it's not that. The ADL and other such agencies are very active in protecting the Israel PR campaign in America and Israel has it's hands elbow-deep up the US's arse with spies and dual citizens and yet none of those people and none of the policies do much to protect Israel so much as constantly stir up hornets' nests in the Middle East and continue to make life suck for the average Israeli. The fat, couch potato middle America Christian does little more than instructed by a very well-connected Israeli PR campaign.

But none of it benefits the Israeli people. So one has to ask: who is really controlling Israel and their policies and, by proxy, many American and UN policies.

I'd venture a guess that you'd have to look beyond the countries and much farther down the line...probably back in England or the Netherlands or maybe even the giant Palace in Italy (but I'm none too sure about that one).

We invaded Afghanistan pretty directly in response to 9/11. No one really has much clue why we invaded Iraq- I suspect Rumsfeld et al are also unsure of what the cause of that was.

That one never really made much sense. There's been other terrorists who have hidden in countries who would refuse to extradite them....why invade that one? Especially considering that it wasn't the country who attacked, the specific region has a nasty history of prolonged, costly wars, and it's nearly impossible to find anyone in those mountains.

That's the Bush Doctrine- there is no distinction made between terrorists and the governments of countries where terrorists are able to operate.

I never said it made sense.

EDIT: The invasion of Iraq was an expansion of the Bush Doctrine. The other point is that America can unilaterally invade anyone it thinks might eventually be a threat. Yes, such a policy is in direct violation of international law, as well as any sense of morality or human decency, but that's what it is.

Terrorists are able to operate anywhere. Oklahoma City found that out in 1995.

Guess we're ruled by irrationality.

I'd say insanity but, as you should know, sanity is a condition that is subjective and defined by consensus.

Is rationality objective? Is it ruled by consensus? If not, then what is it ruled by and how do we make (and agree upon) a determination of rationality or irrationality?