Legally, no, as a rule, although it depends on context.
NonceUponATimeInEpsteinAndAndyLand
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Well that’s good to know, since it seemed that you didn’t agree with the decision
Calm down, @Eboue. You have a fantasy league to think about now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
grass
Not sure if this was posted before but here is followup a reported had a to an older interview with Epstein s bodyguard and trainer: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-bodyguard-igor-zinoviev-on-his-old-boss.html
Interesting if anything. Food for even more conspiracy theories as well.
Interesting if anything. Food for even more conspiracy theories as well.
I always thought that when one is "alleged" something, murderer, rapist, anything, that it's about people currently on trial, or at least were charged and awaiting one.
That's how it's used but technically I dont think the allegation has to come from the police/prosecutors.
Lavon, USS liberty, Jonathan Pollard??? Hard to overlook those, let alone the extrajudicial killings they've carried out
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What's the deal with her father? Was he really a Mossad agent?
She was reading....The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives.
So eerrr, why is she not being arrested?
Looks like she has just accepted her fate as she wasn’t trying to avoid the photographer. No expression whatsoever I just guess she is waiting to be arrested or suicided.
It would depend on the context.
Publising suspicions of criminal activity by people referenced in, for example, the Epstein saga, are best avoided. In this context, the use of the word "alleged" won't protect you.
You could probably speak more freely about Epstein himself because he is dead. The common law principle holds the dead cannot be defamed. But there are exceptions to this principle too. Some jurisdictions may allow the action if it was started prior to the deceased dying. Other jurisdictions may allow an action if defaming the deceased harms a living person.
Last edited:
So much for the rumours about her going underground and fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty to the US.
All of those were done in direct connection to perceived protection of vital national interest and all were military by nature. Absolutely not comparable to this. Also these ops are not at all different from ops by CIA, KGB/FSB, or even some stuff German intelligence did (also French, British or even Syrian and Iranian). Yet you immediately pick Mossad as the most likely culprit. Why?
Edit: and Pollard was not even Mossad, but Lakam...
Last edited:
Or she's just waiting for her burger.
I thought you were joking
What the feck"A good friend of mine died recently under very tragic circumstances. Some of us saw it coming for quite a while but it was still a huge shock when it finally happened. I picked up this book at the advice of a friend and absolutely couldn't put it down. I'd read it walking the dog, getting fast food, or even just lounging around the house. It helped me realized that my friend really believed in something, and that giving your life for the CIA, NSA, FBI, Mossad, or other intelligence agency is truly a higher calling and not something to mourn. A wholehearted recommendation".
haha this story gets crazier by the day
Show me where American or British intelligence killed 35 of a close allies soldiers and gunned down life rafts even after identification man cause I don't remember them doing that. Or where they planted bombs in civilian targets of allied lands for the purpose of fomenting military action from an all. I know Northwoods was drafted but I don't recall Brits or Americans doing that stuff, afa I know.
I pick Mossad as the likely culprit (though it is obvious that if they are involved, there will be CIA-linked peoples involved too, I don't think they are sole culprits, just main ones) for Epstein because:
1) his shady financial history with Les Wexner inexplicably bankrolling him, and the mystery of his billions
2) his association with the Mega group
3) his management by Ghislaine maxwell, daughter of a Mossad agent
4) his procurement of a fake passport through the Mossad-linked Ronald Lauder
Again no antisemitic shit involved. It just bears the hallmarks of it to me.
This is clearly fake as anyone can change the name on their Amazon account.
A bit of internet research has given me the impression you base your assumptions on this article from "investigative journalist" and 9/11 truther* Whitney Webb?
* yup, Israel did it
Last edited:
I've read that first article and don't see what issues you have with it
This is false equivalence. Of course there will be no like for like action by US or British intelligence, but that is not what I was talking about. But they were involved in equally clandestine and "black op" business. Look at what the CIA did in Latin America during the cold war, or the bay of Tonkin incident may serve as an example. Or the incident called Celler Loch, where German intelligence service bombed their own prison to plant a source in the RAF.
What I am saying is that all intelligence services do the stuff you base your Mossad assumptions on.
Maxwell's dad was also likely a Russian and British asset, so why do you just follow the Mossad Road?
Edit: you also didn't answer my main question: what benefit does an op like this have for the national security of Israel? Because this is when Mossad becomes active. When Israel's most vital national interests are at stake.
What has Lex Wesner, the Jewish philanthropist, to do with Mossad? Besides that he's Jewish and donates a lot of money for scholarships and other social causes in Israel?
Again, the Mega group has no ties to Mossad besides the fact that it's members are concerned with Jewish issues. The only articles I found that make the connection are either overtly antisemitic (judas.watch) or the article @Synco found, which is shady at best.
Who has linked Lauder with Mossad, exactly? His Jewishness?
Not all rich Jews work for Mossad, you know...
Last edited:
The same as with her "9/11 was a Mossad hit job" article: it's essentially a rumour and speculation piece dressed up as investigative journalism, and it unsurprisingly produces the expectable antisemitic dog whistles.
The article's basis of "facts" features an endless list of random "connections", "ties", "close relationships", and speculations about irrelevant activities, that in themselves explain (let alone prove) mostly nothing about the Epstein case. But they create the firm impression of a vast Mossad/CIA/Israel/US government/Jewish establishment/organized crime conspiracy using pedophile rings to control politicians and enrich themselves. Some of the "facts" are also outright inventions.
It's basically the article version of one of these conspiracy organigrams, where everything is supposedly connected in clandestine ways (and with lots of powerful Jews in key positions, of course).
Didn’t take long for it to become a Jewish conspiracy.
Google "Moloch Epstein".
Coroner has ruled it a suicide.
It could be a suicide of a man who knew he was finished. Or it could be a convenient disposal of evidence against powerful people. The truth may never come out, but something is very fishy in this whole case.
Personally I think it was the bolded. I enjoy a good conspiracy and of course his manner of death is just one of many about Epstein, but I do think he offed himself. I think knowing he'd have to spend the rest of his life behind bars was what made him decide to take his secrets to the grave.
Why would he want to take his secrets to the grave?
We’ll never know the truth of what happened because they’d never tell us if it was murder. Suicide is the default conclusion for many contracted murders. Much easier that way.
For the same reason he didn’t want it being revealed when he was alive? People don’t think rationally, it’s very likely that a good part of the reason he committed suicide is because he didn’t want his shameful secrets being revealed to the world.
Or he was killed, which is equally possible.
They now have access to all his properties so they’ve probably found out most of what he was up to anyway and by the time all the witnesses come forward they should have quite an ugly picture of what had been going on. Not that we’ll see a lot of it once Barr etc get their mitts on it.
My theory is simply a guy who was a member of the high society elite despite being totally unknown to the ordinary public didn't want to spend the next 30 years waking up in an orange uniform, solitary confinement and being under observation and known as a pedophile. And perhaps more importantly he didn't want to be faced with the facts and testimonies of his crimes (especially if he's one of those people who are unwilling to comprehend what they did was a crime) so he takes it in his own hands before it gets to that stage. He exits the stage on his terms. Leaving other powerful people with sleepless nights.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
One nervous bodyguard...