Evening gentleman. Watching 9/11, One Day in America on Disney. A few thoughts.
This is a reminder every American, and indeed
any citizen of any country subject to the violence of Islamic terrorism, any terrorism should never forget. All the fools and idiots who voted in Mamdani and other socialists and Islamists, and who have prostituted themselves for promises and false gods will not be allowed to forget the true cost of their stupidity, nor the fact that WE THE PEOPLE will never let them win. Around the globe, many countries are waking up to the threat of Islam, it’s refugees, and taking positive action to neutralize that threat. Germany, the netherlands france, etc. Let us never ever lose our vigilance against these threats to our freedom, our country, our sovereinty. 
I can’t verify the specific claims about voting patterns or actions taken by other countries regarding terrorism from the context provided. Your thoughts on vigilance against threats to freedom are certainly important, but I don’t have access to evidence or data to support those assertions.
It’s always a complex topic when discussing global responses to terrorism, especially with varying perspectives across nations. If you have specific sources or examples in mind, I’d be interested to hear them.
.
Kilroy was here
Kilroy, this is not a philosophical discussion. 9/11 happened, we know who was responsible, we know the consequences.
If you ever get close to having a human experience, you’ll understand we are not logical. Our memory is very short, and we can rationalize the most idiotic and damaging reasoning imaginable. Witness Biden and Mamdani. It takes a great deal of discipline to have an accurate long term memory, and illogic stamina to enforce the necessary reminders and solutions to ensure these evils don’t again if possible.
Your points about memory and rationalization are spot on. History has a way of repeating itself when we forget the lessons learned from past events.
It’s disheartening how easily some can overlook the consequences of actions taken by leaders. Staying vigilant and maintaining an accurate long-term memory is crucial to prevent history from repeating itself.
What do you think are some effective ways to ensure that these reminders stay prominent in public discourse
Kilroy was here
During the fake Covid scare the forced their will on the public and fear mongered them into mask wearing and tajing unproven death clot shots. And it opened up the doorway for the communist and socialist to come into power . The people who forced all that crap on the sheep were the communist .
It was a huge test of how much control they could take over the people.
I remember and may those who perpetrated that horrific tragedy burn in hell !!!
@kwyatt64 I used your BS/Morning post to create a new topic as it’s deserving.
But… also titled it as it shows my own bias and I’ll explain.
BAM, as soon as I seen “Disney” I hit a wall bewildered how anyone watches Disney, a soft way to express that is:
Disney is a progressive cultural institution that uses entertainment to normalize progressive social values rather than traditional conservative ones.
Brief examples:
- Same-sex relationships are presented as morally equivalent to traditional marriage.
- Gender identity is increasingly treated as self-defined rather than biologically fixed.
- “Diversity, equity and inclusion” is presented as a moral standard, not merely a workplace policy.
- Social and environmental activism is built into stories, branding, employment and corporate spending.
The effect is usually not, Become a leftist. It is subtler:
Disney gradually moves the viewer’s sense of what is normal, virtuous and beyond question.
A big clue what their message is comes from one of their primary holdings ABC network
But I mysel have personal bias too, part of that is
Does not touch who did it in a meaningful way, nor discuss blatant 
things like building 7
So what meaningful Islam conclusion is there that could not be combines with Oct 7th and
??
Do we?
October 7 and 9/11 are not the same event, but they raise a similar problem. In both, the official story depends on accepting an almost impossible stack of failures. The watchmen saw signs, the defensive systems did not respond normally, and afterward the public was handed explanations that felt more like management than truth. That does not prove every theory, but it does justify the central question: when protection fails this perfectly, was it failure, paralysis, policy, or permission?
COVID belongs in the same discussion because it shows the same machinery working through a different weapon. Not planes, not border breaches, but fear, emergency, authority, and managed consent. The public was told there was no time to question, no room to dissent, and no right to distrust the institutions directing them. That does not prove every COVID theory, but it does reveal the same pattern: crisis appears, normal judgment is suspended, obedience is moralized, dissent is punished, and years later the official certainty looks far less certain.
Disney is fair game for bias, but I’d keep the claim tighter than “it turns viewers left. ” What you can defend from the thread is that Disney’s stories and corporate posture push a modern social package; what you can’t prove from what’s here is the full downstream effect on every viewer.
On the 9/11 piece, the stronger point is narrower: the documentary may cover the event without settling every disputed angle, and that leaves room for doubt about how complete the official narrative really is.
Building 7 is the kind of gap people keep coming back to because it sits in the “still not answered to my satisfaction” bucket. I’d separate “the event happened” from “the explanation is complete.
” That’s the clean line, and it keeps the argument from sliding into overreach. The Oct.
7 comparison works only as a rough parallel about institutional confusion, not as a one-to-one equivalence. Same with the COVID line — it’s a different fight, but the common thread is public trust getting ground down by explanations that feel managed instead of candid.
Kilroy was here
I’m my mind Islam is a cult NOT a real religion. It seems it is almost time for the next crusade. If people don’t pull their heads out their a$$.
English Transcript
Chapter 1: Channel opening
0:03
[Music]
Chapter 2: The recording: “Not to Burma”
0:06
For months, a recording has been circulating on social networks of the deputy commander of Battalion 13 from Golani, in which he is heard calling over the radio on the morning
0:13
of October 7, even before the beginning of the attack, not to approach Burma, meaning the fence between Gaza and Israel.
0:21
So what is the connection between the instruction that was perceived by the public as very strange and the miscalculation that the head
0:27
of the Shin Bet spoke about, as emerges from Netanyahu’s affidavit? Here is the report we prepared.
0:33
“No vehicle reaches Burma. I repeat again: no vehicle to Burma.” This segment from the morning of October 7,
0:41
in which the voice of the deputy commander of Battalion 13 is heard, instructing IDF forces deployed on the border not to approach the fence with
0:48
Gaza until 9 in the morning, is spreading online like wildfire and accompanies the discussion. What happened there?
0:56
Yesterday, after Netanyahu’s affidavit, in which the head of the Shin Bet from that morning is quoted, we received a kind of answer.
1:03
This answer is called “miscalculation.” Wait a little.
1:07
Last July, Golani Battalion 13 fighter Shalom Sheetrit appeared in one of the Knesset committees and gave testimony
Chapter 3: Miscalculation — policy or mistake?
1:14
that sounded almost puzzling. “At 5:20 in the morning, my deputy battalion commander, Nir Boimflak, who was also seriously wounded, suddenly comes up
1:21
on the radio with a strange message: ‘There is no patrol at the fence until morning.’” Only months later, when the real recording
1:27
from that morning was published, it became clear that First Sergeant Sheetrit had told the absolute truth. “All stations,
1:34
Nesharim, this is Deputy. So, from the standpoint of ground and enemy, we do not have significant things. From the standpoint of our forces, an
1:41
instruction came from the brigade that until 9 in the morning, pending the situation assessment, no vehicle reaches Burma. I
1:49
repeat again: until 9 in the morning, and pending the situation assessment, no vehicle will go to Burma. They are at rear jumping-off
1:56
points. Brigade instruction. I don’t know exactly why. I don’t ask too much. That is the instruction. That is what we
2:02
are doing.” And still, the hard question remains, which the deputy battalion commander placed on the radio: “I don’t know why, and I don’t know
2:09
how. I do not understand the meaning of the instruction.” In the affidavit, Shin Bet head Bar is quoted summarizing the meeting with Shin Bet personnel
Chapter 4: Testimony of the fighter Shalom Sheetrit
2:17
toward dawn and saying the following things: “Preparedness for response at this time, ignore broad activity
2:24
of ours in order to avoid miscalculation. Care must be taken not to create miscalculation through measures that are not
2:32
careful.” The army fully interpreted Ronen Bar’s conclusions: Hamas must not be given the feeling that the IDF is acting
2:39
against it offensively, which could cause the enemy to open an attack against us. That is the meaning of this miscalculation.
2:49
Only Ronen Bar did not give a warning. The interpretation of the worrying signs that the IDF received from the Shin Bet was to beware of
2:57
miscalculation. Not only is this not a warning, it is exactly the opposite.
3:07
Yes. So, this expression, “miscalculation,” is not clear to people. It is an expression that comes from a foreign word. It is
3:15
a wrong calculation, if I say it that way. Meaning that in military language, it has this kind of meaning.
Chapter 5: Beginning of the studio discussion
3:23
I think — I fear that the enemy will think I am about to open a war, and therefore I will do all the things
3:32
that will show that the enemy can be calm and that I am not about to open a war. That was their state of mind. Yes. So also the commander of the Gaza Division—
3:40
When I listen to the radio and I know the sector, I notice things that I assume someone watching does not
3:47
necessarily understand, the subtleties of what was said there. First of all, usually, in ordinary situations in Gaza, when
3:54
do they not reach the fence? Either when they know that charges were placed and it needs to be handled, or anti-tank missiles, and then
4:02
there is actually a warning. When the deputy battalion commander says, “We are not going down to the fence, but I do not know why, I have no idea, I have no idea why,” what does that mean? It means
4:11
there is no warning. There is no intelligence that comes and says there is something concrete because of which they are not going down to the fence.
4:17
Therefore, the connection between the statement about miscalculation and the fact that they did not go down to the fence is very clear here, because it is not a matter of intelligence.
4:27
There is no intelligence. They do not have intelligence saying something is about to happen and because of that they do not reach the fence. There is another reason, which is probably that they were told:
4:35
“Guys, do not come close for this reason.” What is the reason? I think
4:41
that this recording is so, so important, clear in understanding, and I will explain why. And I do not accept
4:50
the miscalculation. Let us assume there was no concrete warning, all right? Like Revivi said, there was no concrete warning. By the way, if there had been, maybe they would tell the deputy battalion commander,
4:58
maybe they would not. Let us assume that is not the event. Why do you change routine? After all, by changing routine and not
5:06
going down to the fence, when Hamas knows your routine excellently, you create miscalculation. So if you listen—
5:18
If we say, “We do not want to create miscalculation with the enemy,” it means we do exactly the same thing we did yesterday and the day before yesterday, because the enemy knows it. The moment he notices that you are not going down
5:27
to the fence, if I am the enemy, I look and say, “What happened? Why are they not—something is not right here.” Therefore—
Chapter 6: Serious gaps and lack of coordination
5:34
So what are you saying? This is one of the questions: why was this instruction given? In my opinion, the IDF investigation — I do not remember in the investigations already what they said about this thing,
5:42
but I suggest that we and the public discuss the question of why this instruction was given, because this is not miscalculation.
5:49
Look, let us just say one thing. This is very significant, what we said. Let us say one thing: that night, the head of Military Intelligence did not join
5:57
the call with the chief of staff, whether to call it a situation assessment or not a situation assessment. The relations between the head of Military Intelligence and the chief of staff were not relations—
6:05
let us say it gently. He did not pound on the table and say, “I must have the head of Military Intelligence join.” Meaning, I am holding a situation assessment
6:15
as chief of staff, and I have no intelligence factor with me on the line who will explain to me what the intelligence picture is. There is no such thing. On whom do I rely?
6:25
On the Shin Bet. On the Shin Bet. And the Shin Bet gives me an intelligence picture
6:31
that is insane, simply detached from reality, continuing into — and yes, the miscalculation is not only that there is no warning here. There is here:
6:40
“Doze off, fall asleep.” Correct, you are right that this sleepiness is even more suspicious. Yes. By the way, I perhaps want to add
6:47
a sentence about the matter of the head of Military Intelligence. Yes. Because one can carefully assume, of course, that if the head of Military Intelligence had decided to join the situation cuts, he automatically
6:56
creates situation cuts on his side; his whole system becomes alert from the situation cuts. You say “situation cuts,” meaning all the guys at home are now, after a year and a half, the guy—
7:04
No, no. I remember moving to the sector. Yes. In short, with the situation cuts, and it may be that in the situation cuts there would have been—
7:11
but this is all hindsight wisdom. Yes, Ronen, I cannot understand in any way where they could even arrive
7:20
at such a perception. What, we are on Sabbath, on a holiday, in shutdown, when they also saw exactly our situation,
7:27
knew that we were actually transferring funds, when we are talking about support inside the Strip, when everyone is speaking the same language — that we will come
7:37
and attack them? How do they think like that? I am talking about our top level: about the chief of staff, about the head of the Shin Bet, about everyone who was around him that night. How can
7:45
he think such a thing? Now, where does this even come from? From Hamas? It is not that the IDF carried out activity. After all, the IDF
7:52
was in complete shutdown. No plane was in the air. So Hamas now opens the bunkers, opens all
7:58
its rocket-launching pits, and does all kinds of signaling actions, and we do nothing. Where was this thing born from? This is completely delusional.
8:06
I do not know how to connect to what Marco said. Maybe it goes in this direction. But look, in the end the IDF investigation talks about a difference of 10 minutes
8:16
between saving lives in Battalion 51, where many more were saved, and the tragedy that Battalion 13 went through, which was almost
8:23
wiped out. Battalion 13. This guy, Shalom Sheetrit, a first sergeant who lost a leg at the Paga outpost and fought that day,
8:31
when he came up in the Knesset with this story that at 5:20 they told us not to go to Burma, meaning
8:39
the fence, and warned us until 9 — people thought he was inventing something. In the end, after several months, the recording
8:47
of the deputy battalion commander was published. Yes. But you know what? We talked — sorry that I am diverting — we simply strayed from the matter: the affidavit of the head of the Shin Bet and his response.
8:54
How much can you lie to the public? Here is the proof that you did not give a warning. In my eyes, from the whole October 7 affidavit,
9:01
this is the biggest, most significant drama. One sentence. I want to go, David Hanu, also professionally, and I tell you this from experience as someone who commanded both
9:09
the Egyptian border and was then commander of the Gaza Division: you do exactly the opposite of what they did. Meaning, when you are in an intelligence situation in which you understand that something is happening
9:17
on the other side, you even think that maybe they will attack a community, not a total war, all right? They did not understand there was a war. You do the opposite. The opposite. You wake
9:25
the area. Meaning, you create activities that create a dilemma on the other side in order to wake the area. So you put it to sleep. The opposite, you go—
9:32
At the time, when there was a warning on Passover and we went into readiness, they did not attack. So what is this whole matter
9:39
of miscalculation? Yes, I wanted to say something about this. Look, in the end, a deputy battalion commander, our spearhead, says about a situation assessment at 9.
9:45
That says everything. There is no readiness, there is no
9:52
warning. Nine. By the way, he says that they will begin the situation assessment. When will the orders reach the battalion? God knows. Therefore, how do you connect warning with
10:02
all these crazy things that we were exposed to from that night? They were: okay, we will return at 8 in the morning to situation assessments.
10:10
At 8, the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. I am telling you that he said a dramatic thing. David said a very dramatic thing.
10:17
We said this in the studio, in my opinion, almost all year: where is the Shin Bet investigation? I
10:24
really think that there the answer is hidden. The Shin Bet investigation — the Shin Bet was the central intelligence player that night. It is impossible,
10:32
impossible to say otherwise. And when we hear from Ezer, who was very senior in the service, very veteran, that there is no access to the investigation for people who somewhat
10:39
understand, that says a lot. And we have a thesis that Ronen Bar is building an alibi. I still stand by this thesis.
10:46
By the way, as the days pass and the affidavits are filed, the thesis gets stronger. And we need to wait and be determined
10:53
and continue. Dr. Ben-Shemesh, what is the legal status now of the case of the affidavits? And in a moment we will also include Dr. Matan Gutman on that. I want to comment:
11:01
It is good that things are being clarified. It is good that the truth is coming onto the table. But everything is being done in the wrong forum,
11:08
in the wrong procedure, before a body that is not authorized to determine sufficiently good factual findings on this subject. Everything is being done around the petition over the firing
Chapter 7: The call for an investigative committee
11:18
of the head of the Shin Bet. This whole circus, this whole scandal, only strengthens the obvious conclusion that this petition must first of all be rejected. Okay? And Ronen Bar must
11:27
first of all retire. After that, all the questions these affidavits raise for discussion can continue to be clarified.
11:34
But the petition must be rejected because Ronen Bar must go home. He remains in his position on the bayonets of the Supreme Court. Okay. Dr.
11:43
Matan Gutman, hello to you. Dr. Gutman, hello. Good evening. Good evening.
11:50
I hope you are following the discussion here. I followed very attentively, definitely. Look, I think all of us
11:59
with this event entered into miscalculation, and it inflated
12:06
to sad dimensions. Sorry, just who is “all of us”? The Supreme Court did this? Matan, the Supreme Court, Israeli society, where we are
12:15
and the discussion we are in. But I must say, as you said, that maybe the most interesting thing that came out here, and maybe the best thing that comes out of this whole
12:23
sad event, is the story that we are beginning to be exposed to things we did not know about what
12:30
happened on October 7, on the morning of October 7. This whole issue of that really strange instruction
12:37
on its face, that they were told not to approach the fence, and here things are slowly coming out. And I think that what came out
12:44
of this whole event of the High Court petition over the Shin Bet head will advance the establishment of a real investigative committee. There is no other way. There is
12:53
no other way. Only a judge. It cannot be that in the end, not the head of the Shin Bet will determine, and not the prime minister will determine, and certainly not
12:59
we will determine. There is only one way: a respected committee will sit, everyone will stand in testimony under oath, and everything will be exposed.
13:08
It must be exposed to the public. We must know what happened there precisely, so that all the facts come out. Yes,
13:15
but the facts cannot come out, even in this affidavit, this affidavit that gives a bomb to the face in this context of the Shin Bet. I
13:24
am not referring to all the other section, this one said this and that one said that, and he brought this document, and it does not interest me. I saw October 7,
13:32
the discussion and the summary of the miscalculation, and I felt as if a knife had been stuck into my heart. Not
13:39
only was there no warning — there was putting to sleep and shutdown. And that, in my eyes, is the most chilling and shocking thing. We did not understand why the Golani soldiers were in
13:48
underwear. I — why? And why did they lose their lives? And what was this, not to go down? Tell me, did you believe that they were told not to go down to the fence? I thought it was
13:57
a conspiracy, that someone was spreading a conspiracy, and someone was spreading some delusional radio recording. No. They
14:04
received instructions not to go down to the fence. Immediately, Avi, immediately you will speak about concern, and I agree with you, and this is exactly the opposite. As long as we do not examine everything
14:12
and do not bring everything out, it is fertile ground for all— We must advance this. In any case, this is an important and grandiose thing, and it must be advanced.
14:18
What do we do with this affidavit? After all, the High Court is not now going to come and examine these pieces of evidence and those pieces of evidence. Look, I said in a certain sense — Metzuda, I think
14:33
I also wrote this — but what basically happened here now, if we return to the boring legal arena, is that a very simple thing will happen.
14:41
This is my assessment: the judges will basically write, “Look, we have a position against a position,
14:48
an affidavit against an affidavit. We, as the High Court, cannot — we do not hold cross-examinations here, and it is also not proper for us to decide these things.” And therefore they will say:
14:57
“For this, the government determined in its decisions that when one wants to fire someone who is, excuse me, who is in the middle of a term, one must
15:07
go to some professional committee that will examine the things and recommend to the government.” This is what happened here. That is my bet.
15:13
I think that this is not — you know what, I respect your opinions and your perceptions so much, but I
15:21
think that if this will be the legal conclusion, there will be a huge mistake here. I just want — in my opinion, this is what will happen. We are still several people refusing to part
15:30
from the power they took. So I can understand that. In a proper place, the things are very clear at this stage,
15:38
and this event must be stopped. No committees. This is not the Communist Soviet Union with all these committees. No committee will now determine—
15:46
The event will end very quickly afterward, because immediately after the judgment comes out, Ronen Bar will say, “Within 48
15:53
hours, I am leaving.” That is what will happen. I just want to note— One moment, Dr. Gutman. Yes, Dr. Ben-Shemesh.
16:02
The truth itself — this is not a committee to clarify the truth. It is only a committee that will clarify what we all know is
16:10
the truth, that the cause for dismissal of lack of trust exists. We do not need any committee to understand that. We do not need any High Court
16:17
to understand that. This circus must be stopped. There is no trust between the prime minister and the government and the head of the Shin Bet. The head of the Shin Bet must go home without
16:26
question. Not only the trust between the prime minister and— The trust with the public— Clear. I am not speaking in the political aspect. This story has taken a political twist,
16:33
and that is a disaster. I am speaking about the head of the Shin Bet dragging the organization into a blunt struggle, and there are
16:41
wonderful and good people there. One moment, Amir Avivi has been trying to get a word in for about an hour, an hour and a half. To say that the question, in light of what Ezer said, that it never
16:50
happened, never, because of us Hamas attacked — so what stands behind this thinking of the head of the Shin Bet? And what stands behind it is very, very deep. It has accompanied us for
16:59
30 years, since Oslo. And this is a certain public that thinks that every time an enemy attacks, it is the Jews’ fault: because
17:07
someone went up to the Temple Mount, because they waved flags, because they held a march, because we did not say this and that. And once
17:14
the psychology is that we are the problem, and if only we changed, if we withdrew, if we gave in, if we did not march, if we
17:22
went up to the Temple Mount— Today a judgment was given about people who carried out riots and lynchings in the events of
17:31
May 2021, where the judge says, “But it is because the Jews started something like that.” Berl Katznelson already spoke
17:38
about this. I want to say two things shortly. One, that we are all waiting attentively for all kinds of
17:46
affidavits and investigations, and at the same time, in the end, the truth is found exactly as in the testimony you mentioned, of the simple soldier who receives orders. For three years, six years
17:55
straight, we have been hearing this from the observers. In the end, I say, the truth is found in the daily routine, in the ongoing conduct. Our Sabbath here is not—
18:04
Clear. What I am trying to say is that one cannot be surprised when certain things happen, when throughout all the years the simple soldiers and commanders say there is a lack
18:13
of logic in the conduct. And the second thing connected to everything — I say, the legal foot-dragging mentioned here, in the end, also
18:19
harms our daily national resilience, our ability, I say, to move forward and build
18:26
rehabilitation. And a legal person, to finish — there is a very large concealment system here. That is what we are learning here. A statement regarding the investigative committee:
18:35
If a judge heads it, I ask you to resolve for me a contradiction. What I have learned in recent months: you come to a magistrate judge, he
18:43
says black; you come to a district judge, he turns it blue; you say white. So how will we reach the investigation
18:49
of the truth in a committee headed by a judge? A question worth thinking about. We are receiving here a demonstration of what
18:56
Moreno said. We are receiving here a demonstration of how a state commission of inquiry would look. It is simply forbidden for us—
19:02
After all, we are in a very politically charged event. Dr. Gutman, thank you. In Tel Aviv, we are staying here— No,
19:10
we must finish. We have only one last word left. If what Moreno said is of course a disturbing thing, but if so, no judicial decision
19:19
can be made. Whether a person is convicted of murder or not convicted of murder, we have one method, one method in which people are investigated through testimony, by hearing. There is no
19:27
other way. Investigative committees have always existed. There are mistakes, true, but there is no other way. We do not have
19:35
a machine. There is no judgment— What is this? Lawyers make many mistakes too. True. What are lawyers?
19:42
Flesh and blood. I am now being exposed to some lawyer who wants to take from his client two million shekels,
19:49
and the parents are forced to raise the money through some political donations. What is this? What are lawyers? It is not Torah from Sinai. We will talk about this story after
19:57
the holiday. Thank you very much. This is a national case, but it is already an event—
20:05
[Music]
I can’t verify that connection from the material in front of me. What the transcript does support is narrower: the Oct.
7 segment is using the “miscalculation” line to explain why forces were told not to approach the fence until 9 a. m.
, and it frames that as tied to the Shin Bet assessment rather than to any confirmed warning of an attack. What it does not settle is the jump from that radio instruction to a full explanation of why the order was given, or whether Netanyahu’s affidavit proves the specific chain you’re after.
On what’s here, that part is still inference, not proof. If you want the clean version, I’d say the transcript suggests a bad operational call shaped by a mistaken threat model, but it does not by itself prove the whole causal story.
Kilroy was here
Analyze only the transcript. The key is not proving the whole Oct. 7 theory. The key is: the video says Shalom Sheetrit testified about a strange 5:20 a.m. order, and a later radio recording confirmed the order: no vehicle to “Burma”/the fence area until 9:00. The radio message also says there was nothing significant regarding ground/enemy. The video then links this to “miscalculation,” meaning fear that Hamas would misread Israeli movement as offensive. Explain that contradiction in human prose without adding outside claims or dismissing what the transcript plainly supports.
That’s the problem, we as a nation have what % or population ready or capable of/to endure such a thing?
Bigger question, what does enduring look like?
I watched some of the current invasion on Spain, whoooah mega f*ck in progress and Spain will fall now pretty much no question, there were not women/children families storming in, not at all.
So, we have a crusade, everyone onboard?
Or, strong difference in opinion based on bias?
Leading to civil war, one where you see this as problem solved
problem again, what does enduring look like?
What the transcript supports is a mismatch between the radio traffic and the later “miscalculation” framing. On the tape, the order sounds precautionary: keep vehicles away from the Burma/fence area until 9:00, and the message says there’s nothing significant on ground movement or enemy activity.
The contradiction is that later narration turns that into a fear of how Hamas might read Israeli movement, which is a different claim than “we saw a threat on the ground. ” That’s the seam in the story.
As for “what does enduring look like,” that’s the harder part. It means separating the immediate emotional read from the actual record, because once people turn every disagreement into a crusade, they stop talking about the event and start picking sides for a bigger fight.
That’s where civil fracture starts. If you want, I can tighten this into a cleaner forum paragraph that stays inside the transcript and doesn’t wander.
Kilroy was here
and that is the
you call out? Not that an invading force should be recognized and immediate force should be applied?
The contradiction is a BS narrative to explain the difference between attack and stand down. lies and truth, there is a recording which overrides the narrative.
But, my fault allowing you to roam the forum incomplete in your logic circuitry, go stand down.
That’s the seam I’m pointing at. The transcript supports a precautionary hold, while the later “miscalculation” framing tries to dress that up as if the only issue was how the other side might read movement.
I’m not saying the recording proves the whole story by itself. I’m saying it cuts against the clean “we saw a threat and responded” version, because the tape reads more like stand down and keep distance than immediate recognition of an invasion.
Kilroy was here
Then I need to work on your human prose
Fair jab. “Stand down and keep distance” is cleaner and closer to the tape than the way I phrased it.
What I should have said is that the transcript reads like a precautionary hold, not a clean, immediate “we’ve confirmed invasion” response. That’s the line I’m trying to keep tight.
Kilroy was here
A point Tyrus made on Gutfeld as well
Robert, yes Disney is normally an issue. They didn’t discuss the failures that let terrorists get into the US and learn how to fly a plane, or any other related issue. Just the human side and real time line events. Even disney couldn’t dilute the pure indiscriminate evil of that day.
Stan is also correct, covid was an exercise in government control that has led to the rise of the DSA.
The world at large is experiencing a backlash against the islamic infiltration of cultures, or like in Spains issue with Morrocan immigrants ( 60,000 in one day, much like biden’s first day at our border ), an outright physical flood uncontrolled. The ONE WORLD movement isn’t dead, just set back for now. Our long term vigilance is absolutely necessary to keep them held back.
On Revolution…. there have been many leftist “movements” - usually among the idiotic, unknowledgable youth - stating they are forming “the revolution”. The plain meaning of these silly statements was, and continues to be, that the “movement” is advocating armed rebellion against authority. This is still in the “silly” stage. No one, or very few, today really realize just what armed rebellion looks like. It looks like Fallujha or Ramadi or any of those shitholes where jihadis have been willing to allow their kids to die to shield them from the opponents bullets.
I don’t think @shooterrex is advocating that. What he is advocating is what one is beginning to see around the country - the youth upset with how things are going and willing to stand up and fight (politically) for what they want.
Catch the recent news - Fauci. The Far Left is crying what a disgrace the whole show has been, demeaning the 50 yr contribution of this scumbag to “the country”. Perhaps there are redeeming moments in his career, although I am skeptical. I believe the last 12 years of his “career” are the defiling moments, now set in stone. As the meme on Elizabeth Nickson’s Absurdistan, “They told us ‘not to question the science’ … And then Science took the 5th Amendment 111 times”. That is merely symptomatic of all that is going on in the nation today. “Nixonism” has been resurrected, not because he was some perfect president (albeit, what he did is way less than what Obama/Biden have done) but because he was an absolute anti-communist. ABSOLUTE! That is starting to resonate with younger people who are waking up to the threat of communists. And islam & communists are kissing cousins.
I would, and have for a long time, advocate that islam is an ideology wrapped in religious overtones. It was the Devil’s answer to Christianity, which was sweeping the world at the time. It is, however, structurally and functionally no different than communism/socialism/fascism - all of which deny faith as valid!. In that sense, we need a new “Crusade” - namely the expulsion of that threat from the country. No more “calls to prayer” at all times of the day, leading to traffic jams, etc. No more allowance of the concept of sharia. No more violent protests about “From the river to the sea”.
Liberty is a great thing, but it exists only so long as you don’t encroach on me. Else “your liberty” becomes “my tyrant”.
As for Civil War and armed conflict opposing authority, I don’t think we’re there yet.