PDA

View Full Version : Advice from an Israeli Agent



LedZap
01-10-2010, 06:43 PM
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard, and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.

He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed, and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.


Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11, a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.


Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.


Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!
Every strategy we have is reactionary.

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.


Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time. The interlands ( Wyoming , Montana , etc.).

The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.

Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.


Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts. The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.


He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown', having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.

Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will inevitably face. America still has only a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.


So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase!


In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.


Unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!)

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel .

Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist
attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.

beelzebub
01-10-2010, 07:58 PM
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent

Here is a refuting article:

Given that it predicts terrorist attacks on "at least 5-8 cities" in the United States "within the next few months," probably the most important thing you need to know about this message is that it's at least two years old (with another variant dating back even further, to 2005), and has already proven itself false.

The second thing you need to know is that while Juval Aviv is a bona fide corporate security consultant operating out of New York, his credentials as an intelligence expert have been questioned by both journalists and government sources. A 2006 article in The Guardian reported that "Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation," and "his nearest approximatin to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early '70s."

A letter written to the U.S. President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in 1990 by Israeli counterterrorism adviser Yigal Carmon makes the same allegations, further claiming that Aviv is known to have been involved in "various acts of fraud and impersonation."

Notwithstanding specific claims made in the email above, I've found no legitimate sources confirming that Juval Aviv issued a warning to the Bush administration a month before the 9/11 attacks, nor that he predicted the London subway bombing one week in advance during an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly Show.

Regardless of the controversies surrounding Mr. Aviv himself, it goes without saying that one shouldn't rely on forwarded emails for critical advice on terrorist attacks and emergency preparedness. I recommend the Department of Homeland Security's Ready.gov instead. (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/juval_aviv_2.htm)

freakazoid
01-11-2010, 02:42 AM
Here is a refuting article:

Given that it predicts terrorist attacks on "at least 5-8 cities" in the United States "within the next few months," probably the most important thing you need to know about this message is that it's at least two years old (with another variant dating back even further, to 2005), and has already proven itself false.

The second thing you need to know is that while Juval Aviv is a bona fide corporate security consultant operating out of New York, his credentials as an intelligence expert have been questioned by both journalists and government sources. A 2006 article in The Guardian reported that "Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation," and "his nearest approximatin to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early '70s."

A letter written to the U.S. President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in 1990 by Israeli counterterrorism adviser Yigal Carmon makes the same allegations, further claiming that Aviv is known to have been involved in "various acts of fraud and impersonation."

Notwithstanding specific claims made in the email above, I've found no legitimate sources confirming that Juval Aviv issued a warning to the Bush administration a month before the 9/11 attacks, nor that he predicted the London subway bombing one week in advance during an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly Show.

Regardless of the controversies surrounding Mr. Aviv himself, it goes without saying that one shouldn't rely on forwarded emails for critical advice on terrorist attacks and emergency preparedness. I recommend the Department of Homeland Security's Ready.gov instead. (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/juval_aviv_2.htm)

Your rebuttal is pure bullshit. Nothing more. The answer to terrorists and those that support them is simple...hunt them down en masse and kill them.

LedZap
01-11-2010, 04:46 PM
Depend on the dept of homeland security ? You're joking , right ?

Carrot
01-12-2010, 09:28 AM
It's hardly groundbreaking.

It's just his speculation though, and as shown, his predictions didn't come true/were fraudulant.

beelzebub
01-13-2010, 06:25 AM
Depend on the dept of homeland security ? You're joking , right ?

Led, I didn't write the article (that's why I hyperlinked it). I just wanted to show an alternative viewpoint to what you posted. What you posted sounded a lot like those bogus emails I have seen circulating.

Just a different view.

freakazoid
01-13-2010, 10:17 PM
Depend on the dept of homeland security ? You're joking , right ?

Of course we should!! Says so right here in this article...

Several AQAP foot soldiers are also former Guantanamo prisoners...This only confirms the fears of critics vehemently opposed to Mr Obama's promise to close the prison camp by the end of this month...the potentially catastrophic failure of intelligence which allowed Mr Abdulmutallab to board the plane has been compounded by the revelation that two of AQAP's founders, Said al-Shihri and Mohammed al-Awfi, were both former Guantanamo detainees.

To find more reasons why we should put our trust in our "Department of Homeland Security," see...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8454804.stm

beelzebub
01-14-2010, 05:36 PM
Of course we should not trust Homeland Security!! Says so right there in the article Led posted...

You don't get comparing and contrasting opposing views do you? :cool:

You have to look at all sides of an issue and decide what you are going with.

As for you Freak, you only side with arguments that satisfy your own narrow minded view of the world.

LedZap
01-14-2010, 06:33 PM
I don't know if you were referring to me , but I for one would be very wary of our "dept of homeland security".

freakazoid
01-15-2010, 12:41 AM
Of course we should not trust Homeland Security!! Says so right there in the article Led posted...

You don't get comparing and contrasting opposing views do you? :cool:

You have to look at all sides of an issue and decide what you are going with.

As for you Freak, you only side with arguments that satisfy your own narrow minded view of the world.

The U.S. RELEASED TWO EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INSANE ISLAMIC KILLERS. Those two human excuses for pond scum helped train, plan and equipped "the Christmas day bomber" that almost killed some 300 innocent people on a jet.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gitmo-grads.jpg

How is that for contrasting opposing views, beelze______.

Good enough for you?

Personally, I would have used any means necessary to get as much information out of those two piles of muslim dog shit and executed them with a bullet to the back of the head when I was finished with them...NOT RELEASED THEM so they can kill more innocent people.

THANK YOU, LIBS!!

See - http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/former-gitmo-detainees-lead-detroit-bombers-al-qaeda-group-in-yemen/

Rise Up
02-05-2010, 03:26 PM
You can't just murder people Freak, you have to give them a fair trial. They didn't do it after World War 2 during the war crimes tribunals and they won't do it now.

yee-haw
02-05-2010, 03:55 PM
You can't just murder people Freak, you have to give them a fair trial. They didn't do it after World War 2 during the war crimes tribunals and they won't do it now.

The preamble of the constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now where does it say "We the People of the United States and the terrorists that attack it"....

The Constitution is for the UNITED STATES and its people, not terrorists that try to blow it up.

These people are ready to blow themselves and as many Americans as they can take with them, regardless of their education or bank accounts.

It's a war on terror, Make no mistake...Fairness you say?

Fuck them cowards.

Carrot
02-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Taking away rights for security is a slippery slope, even if initially sound.

yee-haw
02-05-2010, 04:12 PM
Your rebuttal is pure bullshit. Nothing more. The answer to terrorists and those that support them is simple...hunt them down en masse and kill them.

If you have never served much less fired a weapon at another human being. You have never spent 6 years travelling the world at your government’s behest sometimes doing something positive and sometimes not so positive. You have yet to really go out into the world and experience it from a military standpoint and most never will.

Fuck them ragheads!! They all deserve what they get.

Rise Up
02-05-2010, 06:31 PM
The preamble of the constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now where does it say "We the People of the United States and the terrorists that attack it"....

The Constitution is for the UNITED STATES and its people, not terrorists that try to blow it up.

These people are ready to blow themselves and as many Americans as they can take with them, regardless of their education or bank accounts.

It's a war on terror, Make no mistake...Fairness you say?

Fuck them cowards.

If we kill every terrorist that we capture where does that get us? Nothing but even more power to the recruiters of these terrorist organizations because those men are fathers and sons. If you kill them without giving them any chance you foster deep resentment, if you give them a trial then you still foster resentment but they respect the law as it's pretty much what makes up their religion.

Take an example of Vietnam, we killed any Vietcong not wearing a uniform considering them spies. What did that do? Put the South Vietnamese population against us because every now and then we would cap a poor old rice farmer who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

These men are terrorists, un-uniformed soldiers willing to kill themselves to kill us, but if we give them a chance and the rest of the world sees that we aren't cold blooded killers the War on Terror will end sooner because Al Qaeda and other organizations will have no propaganda to foist upon the Middle Eastern civilian populations thus effectively cutting off any chance of their recruiting more holy warriors for their causes.

Carrot
02-05-2010, 06:42 PM
Well said rise.

If you start killing every suspected terrorist (not "terrorist suspect") it makes it that much harder to call yourselves the good guys.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 06:46 PM
Well said rise.

If you start killing every suspected terrorist (not "terrorist suspect") it makes it that much harder to call yourselves the good guys.

So you are saying to kill the "terrorist suspect" and not the suspected terrorist?

Rise Up
02-05-2010, 06:52 PM
So you are saying to kill the "terrorist suspect" and not the suspected terrorist?

Same damn thing Zap.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 06:55 PM
Same damn thing Zap.

Yes...I'm aware of that.

Carrot
02-05-2010, 06:56 PM
So you are saying to kill the "terrorist suspect" and not the suspected terrorist?

Just note the new terminology the media uses.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, they switch it round so they're a terrorist suspect. That way it doesn't sound so bad if you kill them.

yee-haw
02-05-2010, 06:58 PM
Just note the new terminology the media uses.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, they switch it round so they're a terrorist suspect. That way it doesn't sound so bad if you kill them.

If they're suspected would'nt you think there is a reason for that? :rolleyes:

Carrot
02-05-2010, 07:07 PM
If they're suspected would'nt you think there is a reason for that? :rolleyes:

Because they're a suspected terrorist?

Im just saying, they always say terrorist suspect because it doesn't sound as bad if you kill them. No biggie, but where am I going wrong?

yee-haw
02-05-2010, 07:11 PM
Because they're a suspected terrorist?

Im just saying, they always say terrorist suspect because it doesn't sound as bad if you kill them. No biggie, but where am I going wrong?

I'm not saying you're wrong, Being passive leads to shit like sept. 11th. 2001
All i'm saying.

Carrot
02-05-2010, 07:15 PM
I'm not saying you're wrong, Being passive leads to shit like sept. 11th. 2001
All i'm saying.

Yes, but being overly aggressive ensures it's not going to end.

What would it be like today, if the west had simply concentrated purely on security within it's borders? It's worth considering.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 07:20 PM
Yes, but being overly aggressive ensures it's not going to end.

What would it be like today, if the west had simply concentrated purely on security within it's borders? It's worth considering.

You'd be speaking German in England.

Carrot
02-05-2010, 07:22 PM
You'd be speaking German in England.

Yes, that's exactly the context I meant it in. Top marks.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 07:25 PM
Yes, that's exactly the context I meant it in. Top marks.

If Obama was in charge in 1941 , I'd be typing in Japanese right now.

yee-haw
02-05-2010, 07:26 PM
You'd be speaking German in England.

Quoted for the fuckin' truth there man!

Carrot
02-05-2010, 07:32 PM
If Obama was in charge in 1941 , I'd be typing in Japanese right now.

Didn't you just post in a thread showing that the number of deployed troops is at it's highest?

Going back to what I said. Afghanistan and iraq have not only decreased support for the U.S, but have also become aother reason for terrorists to fight for their "muslim brothers" and provide them with easy recruits. And has "proven" the wests "crusade" on islam. Ontop of this, western soldiers die in the process, and the "liberated" countries are as unstable as ever.

What would happen if we had simply enacted stricter border control and focused on internal security, which would have prevented 9/11, the more I think about it the more I see it being the more viable option.

But I suppose I'll just get reactionary "U.S, kickass" replies.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 07:37 PM
Prome posted that thread , and yeah it's true. But Obama would have fucked it up some how.

LedZap
02-05-2010, 07:55 PM
Going back to what I said. Afghanistan and iraq have not only decreased support for the U.S, but have also become aother reason for terrorists to fight for their "muslim brothers" and provide them with easy recruits. And has "proven" the wests "crusade" on islam. Ontop of this, western soldiers die in the process, and the "liberated" countries are as unstable as ever.

What would happen if we had simply enacted stricter border control and focused on internal security, which would have prevented 9/11, the more I think about it the more I see it being the more viable option.

But I suppose I'll just get reactionary "U.S, kickass" replies.

Sorry but they attacked us so we returned the favor.That's how we are.Same as you.It's not the reactionary "U.S, kickass" reply..it's what Nations do when attacked.The Islamic extremists that want to kill us would have found a way , and will again , as long as their bullshit religion exists .

Carrot
02-06-2010, 09:18 AM
Sorry but they attacked us so we returned the favor.That's how we are.Same as you.It's not the reactionary "U.S, kickass" reply..it's what Nations do when attacked.The Islamic extremists that want to kill us would have found a way , and will again , as long as their bullshit religion exists .

We were more than justified to retaliate, but it wasn't a nation that attacked us. And by attacking, it hasn't fixed the problem at all (quite the opposite really).

I still maintain that focusing on internal security would have been the best option. They have ot get into the country before they can do anything to your country. Such is hindsight.

LedZap
02-06-2010, 01:39 PM
We were more than justified to retaliate, but it wasn't a nation that attacked us. And by attacking, it hasn't fixed the problem at all (quite the opposite really).

I still maintain that focusing on internal security would have been the best option. They have ot get into the country before they can do anything to your country. Such is hindsight.

By attacking them we brought the fight to Afghanistan where they're trained and based. Better than fighting them here IMO.

Carrot
02-06-2010, 02:30 PM
By attacking them we brought the fight to Afghanistan where they're trained and based. Better than fighting them here IMO.

You allow more of them to fight and kill. You force some of them that otherwise wouldn't to fight and kill. You destabilise a country in the process.

LedZap
02-06-2010, 02:34 PM
You allow more of them to fight and kill. You force some of them that otherwise wouldn't to fight and kill. You destabilise a country in the process.

True, but they allowed their own people to become terrorists and attack otherwise peaceful citizens. With your logic should we not have attacked Japan in 1942 ?

Carrot
02-06-2010, 02:44 PM
True, but they allowed their own people to become terrorists and attack otherwise peaceful citizens. With your logic should we not have attacked Japan in 1942 ?

That was a nation that had declared war on you. And there were key elements which could be defeated to result in it's collapse, and no extra enemies could be gained by attacking them.

Not the same situation.

LedZap
02-06-2010, 03:58 PM
That was a nation that had declared war on you. And there were key elements which could be defeated to result in it's collapse, and no extra enemies could be gained by attacking them.

Not the same situation.

Japan never declared anything...they just attacked , just like al qaeda (Afgani taliban).

Carrot
02-06-2010, 04:02 PM
Japan never declared anything...they just attacked , just like al qaeda (Afgani taliban).

Yea, then the declared war. There was an actual government/state/country at war with you, who could be recognisably be defaeted and have it's proverbial head cut off and neutralise all forces underneath it's command.

LedZap
02-06-2010, 04:04 PM
We still had to take the battle to them , to get it out of the states.

Carrot
02-06-2010, 04:11 PM
We still had to take the battle to them , to get it out of the states.

No, it's just that now people who otherwise wouldn't be able to kill our soldiers can, and terrorist attacks or attempts are still being made.

The battle just furthers their cause. It presents more of an immediate enemy and excuse.

LedZap
02-06-2010, 04:15 PM
No, it's just that now people who otherwise wouldn't be able to kill our soldiers can, and terrorist attacks or attempts are still being made.

The battle just furthers their cause. It presents more of an immediate enemy and excuse.

OK...I get it , they bomb and destroy the world trade center and we should just protect our borders more ?

Carrot
02-06-2010, 04:29 PM
OK...I get it , they bomb and destroy the world trade center and we should just protect our borders more ?

Justified as it is to seek revenge, if the main goal is to make our countries safer then internal security and border control is the logical answer.

Your answer can't be based in what the emotional response would be, but how to make your own citizens ultimately safer.

The terrorists might have been trained abroad, but these same people are then allowed into our countries and plan their attacks from within. Look at how little the two wars have achieved.

freakazoid
02-06-2010, 04:55 PM
If Obama was in charge in 1941 , I'd be typing in Japanese right now.

Or Russian.