A new thread dedicated to Richard Ratner of Somerville, Mass. about the crisis America faces due to the Israel Lobby Options
HHW
Let me first say, Mr. Richare Ratner, that you've been lying about
the
reception given to Mearsheimer and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy". I choose the word lying, one I seldom use even
when under attack on these scrofulous ngs, because it is impossible
that you are unaware of the falsity of what you represent. The book
is one of the most widely read academic monographs of the last
generation, and one of the most important for American policy.
Hundreds of thousands of copies, probably close to a half million, of
the original working paper alone have been downloaded from the
Harvard
Kennedy School's web site. As to both the article and the book, the
primary hostile reviews came from the Jewish portion of the Israel
lobby which represents a demographic constituency of less than one
percent of American population and has an obvious conflict of
interest. Your argument is mendacious and shameful coming from an
"American". You didn't even read the "reviews" you posted. You got
the
list from a lobby source.
Here now is the history of both the article and book written by the
prominent scholars who experienced it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” (Bertrand
Russell)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“In the fall of 2002, the Atlantic Monthly invited us to write a
feature article on the Israel Lobby and its effects on U.S. foreign
policy. We accepted the commission with some reservations, because we
knew this was a controversial subject and that any article that
scrutinized the lobby, U.S. support for ISrael, or Israeli policy
itself was likely to provoke a harsh reaction. Nonetheless, we felt
this was an issue that could no longer be ignored, especially in
light
of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the looming war with Iraq.
If U.S. support for Israel was a significant source of anti-
Americanism in the Middle East and a source of tension with key
strategic allies, and if pro-Israel groups and individuals were a
major influence on U.S. foreign policy in this vital region, then it
was important to raise the issue openly and encourage public
discussion of the lobby’s actions and impact.
“We worked on the article off and on over the next two years, in
close
collaboration with the Atlantic’s editors, and we sent them a
manuscript conforming to our prior agreements and incorporating
virtually all of their suggestions in January 2005. A few weeks
later,
to our surprise, the editor informed us that the Atlantic had
decided
not to run the piece and that he was not interested in our attempting
to revise it.”
Whereupon, after failing to find other journals in the U.S. willing
to
publish it, they set the matter aside and turned to other projects.
“Then, in October 2005, a distinguished American academic contacted
us
and suggested that we consider publishing the article in the London
Review of Books. Someone at the Atlantic had given him a copy of the
rejected essay, and he told us he thought the editor of the LRB,
Mary-
Kay Wilmers, would be interested. We sent her the manuscript and she
quickly expressed her desire to publish it. After another round of
updating and revision, the article--now entitled “The Israel Lobby”--
was published in the March 23, 2006, issue. At the suggestion of one
of the scholars who had read and commented on an earlier draft, we
simultaneously posted a fully documented version of the article on
the
Faculty Working Papers web site of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School
of
Government. We did this because the LRB’s format does not allow for
extensive references or footnotes, and we wanted readers to see that
our argument rested on a wide array of credible sources.
“The case advanced in the article was straightforward. After
describing the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support
that the United States provides to Israel, we argued that this
support
could not be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds.
Instead, it was due largely to the political power of the Israel
lobby, a loose coalition of individuals and groups that seeks to
influence American foreign policy in ways that will benefit Israel.
In
addition to encouraging the United States to back Israel more or less
unconditionally, groups and individuals in the lobby played key roles
in shaping American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing confrontations with
Syria and Iran. We suggested that these policies were not in the U.S.
national interest and were in fact harmful to Israel’s long-term
interests as well.
“The response to the essay was breathtaking. By July 2006, the
Kennedy
School’s web site had recorded more than 275,000 downloads of the
working paper and we had received numerous requests to translate or
reprint the LRB article. As expected, the essay initially generated a
firestorm of criticism from prominent groups or individuals in the
lobby, and we were denounced as anti-Semites by the Anti-Defamation
League and by op-ed writers in the Jerusalem Post, New York Sun, Wall
Street Journal, and Washington Post. The New Republic devoted four
separate articles to attacking our article, and a number of critics
accused us--erroneously--of having made numerous historical or
factual
mistakes. A few critics even predicted that the article (and the
authors) would soon fade into what they thought would be a richly
deserved obscurity.
“They were wrong. A wide variety of readers--both Jewish and
gentile--
came out in support of the article. They did not agree with every
point we had made, but almost all of them agreed that such an
examination was long overdue. Predictably, reactions outside the
United States were generally favorable, and there were even some
positive responses in Israel itself. Respectful appraisals appeared
in
the New York Times, Financial Times, New York Review of Books,
Chicago
Tribune, New York Observer, National Interest, and Nation, and the
controversy eventually received prominent coverage in a wide array of
news outlets, from Ha’retz in Israel to National Public Radio in the
United States.
“The distinguished journal Foreign Policy organized a symposium on
the
on the article in its July/August 2006 issue, and the Washington Post
Sunday Magazine published a thoughtful cover story in July exploring
the issues we had raised. Later that summer, a reviewer in Foreign
affairs described the article as a ‘Hard-headed analysis...that might
set in motion a useful paradigm shift in United States’ Middle East
policy.’
Over the course of 2006, it became increasingly clear that the
conversation about Israel and U.S. Middle East policy was indeed
changing, and that it had become somewhat easier to discuss the
lobby’s role in shaping U.S. policy. This was not entirely our doing,
of course, as awareness of the lobby’s activities and impact was also
increased by Israel’s disastrous war in Lebanon in the summer of
2006,
the continued debacle in Iraq, the personal attacks on Jimmy Carter
following the publication of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
the simmering war of words between the United States and Iran, and
the
conspicuous but failed efforts to silence or smear other prominent
critics of the lobby. A growing number of people seemed to realize
that this subject needed airing and more were willing to speak out.”
(Mearsheimer & Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”
hereinafter “M & W”)
HHW
the
reception given to Mearsheimer and Walt's book "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy". I choose the word lying, one I seldom use even
when under attack on these scrofulous ngs, because it is impossible
that you are unaware of the falsity of what you represent. The book
is one of the most widely read academic monographs of the last
generation, and one of the most important for American policy.
Hundreds of thousands of copies, probably close to a half million, of
the original working paper alone have been downloaded from the
Harvard Kennedy School's web site. As to both the article and the
book, the
primary hostile reviews came from the Jewish portion of the Israel
lobby which represents a demographic constituency of less than one
percent of American population and has an obvious conflict of
interest. Your argument is mendacious and shameful coming from an
"American". You didn't even read the "reviews" you posted. You got
the list from a lobby source. Here now is the history of both the
article and book written by the
prominent scholars who experienced it:
“In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” (Bertrand
Russell)
“In the fall of 2002, the Atlantic Monthly invited us to write a
drahcir
Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
infantile. All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview. End of story.
Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
with avoiding as with the below.
HHW
> On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> infantile.
You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode. You lie. Lying is
despicable. By and large I don't owe you the slightest quarter. You
know that. You've made your bed. You'll "lie" in it.
All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
> end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview.
My entire post here is dedicated to your Tom Ashbrook mendacity.
End of story.
Getting ready to jump out of the backseat, asshole? No quarter with
you. You're a slimy, devious hypocrite. You, like Sharavi, are a one
person generator of anti-Semitism.
> Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> with avoiding as with the below.
The "below crap" deals with your Ashbrook crap directly. You're
bolting. Hear that? Running. That's what intellectual cowards do.
> > Let me first say, Mr. Richard Ratner, that you've been lying about
Don Ocean
You did note that Israel got its ass kicked by a bunch of poorly armed
ragtag Hezbollah, when the attacked Lebanon. That is because for once
America wasn't supporting that mess. Neither will the real America
support an unjustified war on Iran. We will start hanging corrupt
Americans that send our sons to die for the fucking Jews. Bush comes to
mind for such an act.
Don Ocean
> On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> infantile. All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
> end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview. End of story.
> Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> with avoiding as with the below.
Your an idiot..But we all knew that long ago. HHW has posted a valuable
piece of information that assholes like you have tried to suppress. You
may now kiss this Patriotic American Gentiles ass!
last_per...@yahoo.com
>
> My entire post here is dedicated to your Tom Ashbrook mendacity.
>
> End of story.
>
> Getting ready to jump out of the backseat, asshole? No quarter with
> you. You're a slimy, devious hypocrite. You, like Sharavi, are a one
> person generator of anti-Semitism.
You got that right. As I've said before, some of them do a better
job at anti-semite generation than a heard of Adolfs ever could,
just by being themselves! This is something the silly asses
never can understand.
Count 1
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:728bb85c-7e50-4541...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> infantile.
***
You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode.
***
Cool! I'm now a 'mode'. Everyone, click your switches to "Count 1" mode.
It's the setting in between 'Fred Astair' and 'John Rambo'.
If you can't find your switch, and you're a lady, I'll be happy to help you
find it. If you're a dude, I don't swing that way.
Anyway - back to your incoherent ad hominem against someone who has kicked
your ass so many times on these NGs you can't even tell he's not me.
drahcir
> On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile.
>
> You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode. You lie. Lying is
> despicable. By and large I don't owe you the slightest quarter. You
> know that. You've made your bed. You'll "lie" in it.
What a joke. You try to justify your disgusting lack of character with
a hallucination. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could, upon
analyzing the writing styles of count and me for 90 seconds, realize
how idiotic your obsession is. H, you simply have no character, and
bottom line is that is basic reason why you are an antisemite.
>
> All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
>
> > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview.
>
> My entire post here is dedicated to your Tom Ashbrook mendacity.
>
> End of story.
Interesting. Now I am lying about the Ashbrook interview. One may well
ask, how is that possible when I have done everything possible to
encourage readers to hear the interview, or at the very least read it.
Yet, somehow, I am lying about it. OK, I'll bite. Why don't you
specify precisely what in the interview I have lied about? If what you
write does not have quotes from the interview and quotes from what I
said was in the interview, you will have simply shown yourself yet
again to be a liar.
H, you think because you come from the gutter, have no character, lie
as easily as you breathe, that that is the way others behave. I have
NEVER lied on this or any other board. Period. You manufacture
ridiculous stories about me for one reason: I have caught you so many
times in errors that can only be explained by senility - you want
revenge, so you make it up. You are a lowlife, YUCK! I take pleasure
in making a fool of you.
>
> Getting ready to jump out of the backseat, asshole? No quarter with
> you. You're a slimy, devious hypocrite. You, like Sharavi, are a one
> person generator of anti-Semitism.
Empty blahblah from a person of obviously rotten character.
>
> > Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> > can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> > interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> > with avoiding as with the below.
>
> The "below crap" deals with your Ashbrook crap directly.
Really? Interesting. I won't claim to have read this silly post,
simply a defensive recounting by the authors of the article's and
book's history, without any cites to support it, so far as I can tell,
but on scanning it doesn't appear to mention Ashbrook's name. How it
can deal with Ashbrook "directly" without ever mentioning his name?
Did I perhaps miss it?
You're
> bolting. Hear that? Running. That's what intellectual cowards do.
H, your poor, jumbled neurons are responding to my having pointed out
how many times you have fled from debate with me by essentially saying
"I know you are, but what am I?" It's second childhood. Try to contain
it - people will laugh at you.
drahcir
> drahcir wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile. All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
> > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview. End of story.
> > Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> > can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> > interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> > with avoiding as with the below.
>
> Your an idiot..
LOL!! How shall I reply to a person who clearly demonstrates idiocy in
his accusatory statement? I must remember that the teacher is noble.
Ok don, you need to learn what you would have had you graduated the
fifth grade. "Your" is a possessive pronoun. You are looking for
"you're", an contraction. They sound the same, but they are spelled
differently. If you try very, very hard, you may learn it someday. I
know YOU CAN DO IT!
HHW
> drahcir wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile. All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
> > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview. End of story.
> > Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> > can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> > interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> > with avoiding as with the below.
>
> Your an idiot..But we all knew that long ago. HHW has posted a valuable
> piece of information that assholes like you have tried to suppress. You
> may now kiss this Patriotic American Gentiles ass!
But only gently and reverently.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:728bb85c-7e50-4541...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile.
>
> ***
> You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode.
> ***
>
> Cool! I'm now a 'mode'. Everyone, click your switches to "Count 1" mode.
>
> It's the setting in between 'Fred Astair' and 'John Rambo'.
>
> If you can't find your switch, and you're a lady, I'll be happy to help you
> find it. If you're a dude, I don't swing that way.
Okay, whatever you say.
> Anyway - back to your incoherent ad hominem against someone who has kicked
> your ass so many times on these NGs you can't even tell he's not me.
If you've kicked it, the way to vindicate yourself and maintain your
triumphal reputation is to continue doing it. I invite you to do so,
ad infinitum. Please.
HHW
Well now, Ratner, why aren't you commenting on the very words of
Mearsheimre and Walt? Who might you prefer?
B. H. Cramer
"Don Ocean" <oc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feslgF...@mid.individual.net...
I hope Bush and his henchmen get what they deserve.
Karadzic has been landed in to the Hague to face "war crimes" yet Dubya and
his merry gang of cut-throats have not even been indicted.
Bush and theneo-cons are directly responsible for the death of 5,000 young
Americans (that they admit to) and the mental and physical wounding of tens
of thousands, all in an illegal war for Ersatz israel.
B. H. Cramer
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10114310-e24b-44c5...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
>intimidate by broadcasting personal data.
You are well out of your depth RATner. AND busily lying again.
B. H. Cramer
On Jul 31, 6:32 pm, Don Ocean <oc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> drahcir wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile. All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
> > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview. End of story.
> > Forgive me if I don't waste time with your below crap, H, but anyone
> > can see it's sole purpose is to distract. Face up to the Ashbrook
> > interview or run away as you usually do - you're not fooling anyone
> > with avoiding as with the below.
>
> Your an idiot..
>LOL!! How shall I reply to a person who clearly demonstrates idiocy in
>his accusatory statement?
Probably in your own, inimitable, fucked-in-the-head style, RATner, (not
that there's any idiocy in Don's post, by the bye)
B. H. Cramer
On Jul 31, 6:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile.
>
> You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode. You lie. Lying is
> despicable. By and large I don't owe you the slightest quarter. You
> know that. You've made your bed. You'll "lie" in it.
>What a joke. You try to justify your disgusting lack of character with
>a hallucination. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could, upon
>analyzing the writing styles of count and me for 90 seconds, realize
>how idiotic your obsession is. H, you simply have no character, and
>bottom line is that is basic reason why you are an antisemite.
Each and every time you press the "send" button, RATner, you descend a
little further into the primordal ooze.
You are completely outclassed by "H", you idiot.
Count 1
If you've kicked it, the way to vindicate yourself and maintain your
triumphal reputation is to continue doing it. I invite you to do so,
ad infinitum. Please.
Yyyyyyyeah.
I was beginning to get the impression that on top of being a warmongering,
alcoholic, senile, anti-semitic moron you're also a masochist.
It certainly fits with your desire for more American deaths by appeasing
Islamic terrorists.
drahcir
I asked you a question, H:
> > How it [the above by m&w]
> > can deal with Ashbrook "directly" without ever mentioning his name?
> > Did I perhaps miss it?
You said the above "directly" deals with the Ashbrook interview. I
asked how that could be if the word "Ashbrook" is never mentioned. You
failed to answer. That is in usenet referred to as "fleeing". You
have three choices: 1) you can demonstrate how the above "directly"
addresses the Ashbrook interview (my personal choice - I need a good
laugh.) 2) you can say you were lying, that the above does not
directly address the Ashbrook interview, or 3) you can ignore the
question - i.e. you can flee. So far you have taken choice 3.
Similarly, you have ignored this from above:
> Why don't you
> > specify precisely what in the interview I have lied about? If what you
> > write does not have quotes from the interview and quotes from what I
> > said was in the interview, you will have simply shown yourself yet
> > again to be a liar.
You have fled from that point as well. One may only conclude that the
reason is that you are lying yet again. You silly, senile cow, you
dare accuse me of "running" and "lying", the two usenet habits that
are your modus operandi? I chew you up and spit you out in every
debate we have, and you can't stand that. Did you ever wonder why I do
it with such ease? Let me tell you, the reason is twofold. First, I am
way, way more intelligent than you are. Second, I am on the side of
truth and right, and thus don't have to lie or run when reality
catches up with me.
RJ11
B. H. Cramer <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
(snip)
Why do you hate Muslims, old thing?
"You seem to think I am a backer of these Islamic monkeys. You
couldn't be further from the truth." -- Posted by "Ben Cramer",
Source: Message-ID: <e2hlgb$opo$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
RJ.
HHW
As I say in the other reply to your Ashbrook post, read the damned
book, Ratner.
HHW
>
> news:728bb85c-7e50-4541...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > infantile.
>
> ***
> You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode.
> ***
>
> Cool! I'm now a 'mode'. Everyone, click your switches to "Count 1" mode.
>
> It's the setting in between 'Fred Astair' and 'John Rambo'.
>
> If you can't find your switch, and you're a lady, I'll be happy to help you
> find it. If you're a dude, I don't swing that way.
Haha.
HHW
> On Jul 31, 6:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > > infantile.
You began emitting the emission of interpersonal slime. So long as you
continue it there will be no quarter. It's in your hands. Quit whining
about your "personal data". At least it's very close to being true.
That with which you smear me is not.
>
> > You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode. You lie. Lying is
> > despicable. By and large I don't owe you the slightest quarter. You
> > know that. You've made your bed. You'll "lie" in it.
>
> What a joke. You try to justify your disgusting lack of character with
> a hallucination.
Say what you will, it's true. And I suspect it will be supplemented as
time goes on. It will all be fleshed out eventually as you don't have
yourself under control. Much less have you any common sense.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could, upon
> analyzing the writing styles of count and me for 90 seconds, realize
> how idiotic your obsession is. H, you simply have no character, and
> bottom line is that is basic reason why you are an antisemite.
Are you now trying to change your style? It won't matter? That didn't
occur to you in the beginning.
> > All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
>
> > > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview.
Didn't I just yesterday give the citation to the relevant pages of
their book? Do you intend to continue on this track indefinitely
without reading it? If you do it will lead to further humiliation.
Read all of Chapter 8. EVERYONE HERE, READ ALL OF CHAPTER 8 of
Mearsheimer & Walt's "THE ISRAEL LOBBY and US Foreign Policy."
Tell us, Ratner, do you really believe that a good ole oilboy from
Texas can be elected President on day one and launch a foreign war on
day two? I don't want to take advantage of your naivete, so consider
this a clue on your Ashbrook issue.
I haven't read the entire Ashcroft interview and doubt that you have
either. What's on camera.org is a snippet. It is quite evidently
unfinished. Why? Because I've read the book. Are you assuring us that
there was no further content in it relevant to your "Ashbrook" issue?
Perhaps before getting any more histrionic you might look it up at the
original source. It might turn out that not even you can trust
camera.org.
Remember now, you have two *related* issues. First is the Ashbrook
issue which has to do with what you call a Mearsheimer contradiction
of a central argument in the book which you haven't read, whether
Israel, the lobby and and the neoconservatives made *the* major
contributions to driving us to war in Iraq. I say yes they did. So do
Mearsheimer & Walt. I say also that the book proves it but that you
don't understand it--apparently (haha)--because you don't know how the
American system of governance works. I'm in no hurry here. I'm letting
this stretch out for a while. I'd just as soon your ultimate
humiliation be excruciating.
Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved. Of
course that determination was evident when we were being driven to war
in the region. It generated negative reviews and camera.org collected
them for the convenience of guys like you. This pattern can not avoid
analysis post facto, however, and Mearsheimer & Walt have rendered
that service in the book. Outside of Jewish and Israeli circles the
book was very well received. I have posted the relevant passages from
it. You have assiduously avoided comparing what I posted with your
obviously false assertions about the overall quality of the book's
reviews. It's okay, we understand the position you Zionist militants
are in given the last 60 years.
BTW, you should not disregard the importance of the book in the rest
of the world, particularly in Europe and in the Middle East. Even in
Israel. It drives what looks to me to be a nearly final nail into the
coffin of "Zionism in practice" as politics. It explains America's
passivity in this matter to the outside world.
Count 1
Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public opinion'
anti-semitic canard.
Such a nonsensical and ignorant lie has been skewered too many times in the
past to bother with again, and it certainly speaks to Hunter's character
that he chooses to use it.
Maybe the anti-semites will try to argue that observing the preponderance of
accomplished Jewish people in the media is just 'criticizing Israel'?
The fact that there were few favourable reviews of the book, and it fell in
sales quite rapidly, is due to the content of the book itself, and
subsequent very public 'gaffes' by the authors drahcir has already pointed
out and HHW is avoiding.
'The lobby' has no more control over what books people read and what
opinions they form then anyone has over the weather.
But when the book gets *skewered* - absolutely destroyed - in reviews like
this one;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Gelb-t.html?_r=2&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
it's no surprise that discerning people are less than interested in buying
W&M's nonsense.
Except - as Hunter demonstrates - anti-semites.
drahcir
> On Jul 31, 6:47 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 6:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he can
> > > > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > > > infantile.
>
> You began emitting the emission of interpersonal slime.
When H is cornered, he writes a meaningless sentence, hoping against
hope some reader will attribute some meaning to him that will
extricate him.
So long as you
> continue it there will be no quarter.
Continue "it"? You haven't a clue what you are talking about, so how
is anyone supposed to continue or discontinue "it"? You are
theoretically replying to a thread in which I pointed out that you are
a person of low character because, in your frustration at not being
able to debate me skillfully, you resort to posting my personal data
in the hope that it will scare me away. That is a simple observation,
easily verifiable. You bring emissions and interpersonal slime into it
solely to distract - they are meaningless terms and everyone,
including you, knows it. Gosh, H, you are so very pitiful. And do us
all a favor, pretty please? Will you stop with the "no quarter"? You
can't debate your way out of a paper bag, it's obvious to all here, so
how are you going to sell your idea that you need to provide me
quarter? Did you learn that catch-phrase in high school debate class
in 1937 or what?
It's in your hands. Quit whining
> about your "personal data". At least it's very close to being true.
> That with which you smear me is not.
>
Aw, poor wittoo H is trying to compare my calling him a senile twit
with him broadcasting my personal data. Isn't that precious? My
goodness, I don't want to repeat myself, but you are about the most
pitiful creature I can think of just now.
>
> > > You misrepresent who you are in the Count 1 mode. You lie. Lying is
> > > despicable. By and large I don't owe you the slightest quarter. You
> > > know that. You've made your bed. You'll "lie" in it.
>
> > What a joke. You try to justify your disgusting lack of character with
> > a hallucination.
>
> Say what you will, it's true.
Being convinced that what is obviously false to any normal person is
true is the difference between neurosis and psychosis.
And I suspect it will be supplemented as
> time goes on. It will all be fleshed out eventually as you don't have
> yourself under control. Much less have you any common sense.
H is indulging in wishful thinking out loud. How humiliating it must
be, H.
>
> Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could, upon
>
> > analyzing the writing styles of count and me for 90 seconds, realize
> > how idiotic your obsession is. H, you simply have no character, and
> > bottom line is that is basic reason why you are an antisemite.
>
> Are you now trying to change your style? It won't matter? That didn't
> occur to you in the beginning.
Is there anyone in the house who can explain what this twit is trying
to say?
> > > All of the bullshit below is designed to accomplish one
>
> > > > end: to try to distract from the fact that H has no capacity to
> > > > explain away M's blunder in the Tom Ashbrook interview.
>
> Didn't I just yesterday give the citation to the relevant pages of
> their book?
Give it up. It's obviously a smokescreen. If you could have refuted
the interview, you would have line for line. You can't, so instead of
just admit it, you blow smoke. Just like you couldn't admit confusing
the judt review, exactly the same thing.
Hey folks, I've got this loon down pat. I've developed a sixth sense
about when it's time to stop reading his nonsensical posts. If anyone
has absolutely nothing better to do, reads the below, and finds
something that I really need to read, kindly let me know. Thanks.
Truth Will Out
On Aug 4, 3:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:47 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 6:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 3:55 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 31, 3:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Poor H. can't win a debate, so like a petulant child he thinks he
> > > > can
> > > > intimidate by broadcasting personal data. How despicable, how
> > > > infantile.
>
> You began emitting the emission of interpersonal slime.
>When H is cornered, he writes a meaningless sentence, hoping against
>hope some reader will attribute some meaning to him that will
>extricate him.
Have you noticed that almost everyone ignores you?
Truth Will Out
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X3Jlk.113627$kx.44105@pd7urf3no...
> ***
> Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> ***
>
> And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> Israel'.
There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic in his words.
HHW
> ***
> Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> ***
>
> And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public opinion'
> anti-semitic canard.
When in doubt, smear. When in a corner shoot the messenger. When you
know you will be destroyed by a given book, refuse to read it and
pretend you're doing it on principle by citing reviewers who have the
same conflict of interest. And remember that at all times you must
never forget that you can never admit the truth. Once you do that on
even the smallest issue you can never recover it.
> Such a nonsensical and ignorant lie has been skewered too many times in the
> past to bother with again, and it certainly speaks to Hunter's character
> that he chooses to use it.
You don't want the 99% of us to have even the right to do objective
studies of of the effect of lobby influence on our foreign policy. You
declare by fiat that it doesn't exist and that anyone who differs is
an anti-semite. I can't help you with the fact that the Israel lobby
is mostly Jewish. I can't help you with the fact that it has oppressed
and corrupted our Congress regarding Middle East policy. I can't help
you with the fact that the israeli political elite is Jewish. I can't
help you with the fact that over time they have perpetrated crimes
which the rest of the world see as revolting. I can't help you with
the fact that I personally see those crimes as revolting. I can't help
you that have a Christian moral sense about those crimes, one that is
different from yours. I can't help you that when lobby behavior is
obviously overweening on a particular issue of foreign policy and
hurting the nation badly, that YOU are determined that it must not be
discussed in public and that you will use any kind of smear like the
one you are using now to intimidate and silence.
I will be here until the Isrealis get the Hell out of the West Bank
and settle with the Palestinians so that the United States can have a
chance to go back to a normal life style. Who the Hell do you people
think you are, Ratner, to impose this mess on the American people?
> Maybe the anti-semites will try to argue that observing the preponderance of
> accomplished Jewish people in the media is just 'criticizing Israel'?
The question is not who is "in" the media but how they behave, what
journalistic standards they adhere to. Whether they fight conflict of
interest. I suggest that you read Mearsheimer and Walt on this issue
too. The media has a sacred duty in our system and it is not to drive
us into discretionary wars on behalf of a tiny minority and a foreign
country.
>
> The fact that there were few favourable reviews of the book, and it fell in
> sales quite rapidly, is due to the content of the book itself, and
> subsequent very public 'gaffes' by the authors drahcir has already pointed
> out and HHW is avoiding.
Idiot, you haven't read it. I've never seen such stupidity.
The book is still selling. The authors have made no gaffes I'm aware
of.
> 'The lobby' has no more control over what books people read and what
> opinions they form then anyone has over the weather.
But Ratner, it's a very large and expensive operation. If it had no
effect any good businessman would shut it down. Read the damned book.
This is a simple assertion by a conflicted person who has not read the
book.
>
> But when the book gets *skewered* - absolutely destroyed - in reviews like
> this one;
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Gelb-t.html?_r=2&ref=b...
Have you read any non-lobby comments on Gelb's review? What's Gelb
saying about Israel getting the Hell out of the West Bank? What's he
got to say about invading Iran? I read it. It stank. Do you want to go
through it here with me? Sure you do, right?
> it's no surprise that discerning people are less than interested in buying
> W&M's nonsense.
>
> Except - as Hunter demonstrates - anti-semites.
Here you are. The perfect archetype. Everyone who is interested in
buying the Mearsheimer book is an anti-semite. I can't help you with
this any more than I can on the rest on the list above. If the
American people are going to have any chance at "normalcy" and peace
so that we can begin rebuilding our country, we're going to have to
rein-in the lobby and put a leash on Israel. It's obviously true. Read
the damned book, hypocrite.
Count 1
On Aug 4, 2:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***
> Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> ***
>
> And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public
> opinion'
> anti-semitic canard.
***
When in doubt, smear. When in a corner shoot the messenger.
***
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am showing where 'crticism of Israel'
becomes 'anti-semitism'.
Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is not
'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
> Such a nonsensical and ignorant lie has been skewered too many times in
> the
> past to bother with again, and it certainly speaks to Hunter's character
> that he chooses to use it.
***
You don't want the 99% of us to have even the right to do objective
studies of of the effect of lobby influence on our foreign policy.
***
Your first use of inflammatory and hyperbolic language to mischaracterize
what I am saying. *Exactly* the same process you employ to demonize Israel.
I have never stated people shouldn't have the 'right' to study whatever they
want to study.
However as this page shows -
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
this book obviously never should be the sole source for anyone's opinion.
***
I will be here until the Isrealis get the Hell out of the West Bank
and settle with the Palestinians so that the United States can have a
chance to go back to a normal life style.
***
And I will be here to point out when you employ anti-semitic material and to
remind people of your long time use of such material, and suggest that's
what really motivates you to post the most scurrilous lies about the
country.
> The fact that there were few favourable reviews of the book, and it fell
> in
> sales quite rapidly, is due to the content of the book itself, and
> subsequent very public 'gaffes' by the authors drahcir has already pointed
> out and HHW is avoiding.
***
Idiot, you haven't read it. I've never seen such stupidity.
***
You don't need to see 'Showgirls' to know it sucked too.
***
The book is still selling. The authors have made no gaffes I'm aware
of.
****
Except for the one you're avoiding. And the book may still be 'for sale' -
but it isn't burning up any best seller lists.
> 'The lobby' has no more control over what books people read and what
> opinions they form then anyone has over the weather.
***
It's a very large and expensive operation. If it had no
effect any good businessman would shut it down. Read the damned book.
***
I didn't say it didn't have 'any effect' - I said it didn't have the
'specific' effects you accused it of having, being able to control what
books people read and what opinions they form. 'The lobby' cannot do that.
No one can do that.
But some sociological groups do try to do that. Question; In what country is
it possible to be arrested for the crime of 'Disturbing the Public Mind'?
> But when the book gets *skewered* - absolutely destroyed - in reviews like
> this one;
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Gelb-t.html?_r=2&ref=b...
***
Have you read any non-lobby comments on Gelb's review? What's Gelb
saying about Israel getting the Hell out of the West Bank? What's he
got to say about invading Iran? I read it. It stank. Do you want to go
through it here with me? Sure you do, right?
****
I dunno what he may say about those issues, but here's a good online
resource that may help you out.
http://www.cfr.org/bios/3325/
Do you have any comment on what he actually did write?
> it's no surprise that discerning people are less than interested in buying
> W&M's nonsense.
>
> Except - as Hunter demonstrates - anti-semites.
***
Here you are. The perfect archetype. Everyone who is interested in
buying the Mearsheimer book is an anti-semite.
***
Not only do I not think that, I never stated it. Once again we see you
employing hyperbolic and inflammatory language to mischaracterize my
actions. *Exactly* the process you employ when you mischaracterize Israel's.
I assume anyone who buys the book is buying it solely to understand what it
is Mearshimer and Walt are saying and I don't believe anyone has the right
to tell anyone else what books they can purchase and read.
David Duke really liked the 'working paper';
http://www.nysun.com/national/david-duke-claims-to-be-vindicated-by-a-harvard/29380/
HHW
wrote:
> "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thank you, Truth. Thank you for continuing to follow this thread too.
Ratner knows that there is no way to defeat his behavior and that of
the lobby except by simply confronting it with what in fact they are
doing. That's what M & W have done. That's the last thing they want.
Daylight terrifies them. He and they would prefer to silence through
by false shaming and intimidation. That inhibits reform. But its no
longer working very well. They have nothing on the merits of the
issues and rely in the end only on smears and fallacy. More than
anything they rely on what's left of our reservoir of sympathy for the
Holocaust. Ratner is playing the perennial victim as we speak. It's
obvious to everyone that Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people
simply can not be justified. It's just as obvious that having allowed
the lobby to brutalize our Congress into submission was a terrible
mistake.
This smearing/bribery/intimidation technique has been brought to a
high degree of refinement and ambiguity by the lobby types. The gimmic
is to make the critic pay a social price, or think he will, for
legitimate criticism and thus to stifle reform. Any decent person can
see it's a scam. The technique is described extensively by the
political scientists Mearsheimer & Walt in their book "The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". Evaluation of such things is right at
the center of their expertise. They are very courageous men.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f78b701-8b53-4076...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 2:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> > the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> > the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> > war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> > ***
>
> > And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> > anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> > Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> > denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public
> > opinion'
> > anti-semitic canard.
>
> ***
> When in doubt, smear. When in a corner shoot the messenger.
> ***
>
> I am doing nothing of the sort. I am showing where 'crticism of Israel'
> becomes 'anti-semitism'.
>
> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is not
> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
anti-semitic nor a canard?
"CHAPTER 6
"DOMINATING PUBLIC DISCOURSE
"One of the lobby's central concerns is to ensure that public
discourse about Israel echoes the strategic and moral rationales
dissected in Chapters 2 and 3 (in which whether Israel is a strategic
U.S. asset or liability and the dwindling moral case for Israel are
extensively reviewed-HW). Its various elements do this by constantly
reaffirming Israel's strategic value, by repeating one-sided accounts
about Israel and its founding, and by defending Israel's actions in
policy debates. The goal is to convince the public that America's and
Israel's interests and values are one and the same.
"At the same time, groups in the lobby try to marginalize anyone who
criticizes Israeli policy or challenges the 'special relationship,'
and try to prevent that person's views from getting a fair hearing in
the public arena. To do this, the lobby sometimes employs heavy-handed
tactics to silence critics, accusing them of being anti-Israel or
anti-Semitic. Channeling public discourse in a pro-Israel direction is
critically important, because an open and candid discussion of Israeli
policy in the Occupied Territories, Israeli history, and the lobby's
role in shaping America's Middle East policy might easily lead more
Americans to question existing policy toward Israel and to call for a
relationship with Israel that more effectively serves the U.S.
national interest.
"Accordingly, key elements in the lobby ( such as camera.org--HW)
strive to influence discourse about Israel in the media, think tanks,
and academia, because these institutions are critical to shaping
popular opinion. They promote efforts to portray Israel in a positive
light and they go to considerable lengths to marginalize anyone who
questions Israel's past or present conduct or seeks to cast doubt on
the merits of unconditional U.S. backing. Pro-Israel forces are well
aware that dominating discussions about the Jewish state is essential
to their agenda. These efforts do not always succeed, of course, but
are still remarkably effective." (Preface to Chapter 6, Dominating
Public Discourse, in Mearsheimer and Walt's "THE ISRAEL LOBBY and
U.S. Foreign policy)
Count 1
Answer my question please.
HHW
>
> news:6f78b701-8b53-4076...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 2:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> > the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> > the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> > war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> > ***
>
> > And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> > anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> > Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> > denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public
> > opinion'
> > anti-semitic canard.
"A key part of preserving positive public attitudes toward Israel is
to ensure that the mainstream media's coverage of Israel and the
Middle East consistently favors Israel and does not call U.S. support
into question in any way. While serious criticism of Israel
occasionally reaches a large audience across the United States, the
American media's coverage of iIsrael tends to be strongly biased in
Israel's favor, especially when compared with news coverage in other
democracies.
"This claim might sound to some like the old anti-Semitic accusation
that 'Jews control the media.' It is anything but." ( Mearsheimer &
Walt, THE ISRAEL LOBBY and U.S. Foreign Policy, Chapter 6)
Count 1
On Aug 5, 8:11 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f78b701-8b53-4076...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 2:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> > the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> > the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> > war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> > ***
>
> > And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> > anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> > Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> > denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public
> > opinion'
> > anti-semitic canard.
First of all - I don't care what W&M may have said on the issue. I am taking
you to task, and you should be able to address these accusations without
simply regurgitating material which has already been skewered by respected
historians and foriegn policy thinkers.
***
"A key part of preserving positive public attitudes toward Israel is
to ensure that the mainstream media's coverage of Israel and the
Middle East consistently favors Israel and does not call U.S. support
into question in any way. While serious criticism of Israel
occasionally reaches a large audience across the United States, the
American media's coverage of iIsrael tends to be strongly biased in
Israel's favor, especially when compared with news coverage in other
democracies.
"This claim might sound to some like the old anti-Semitic accusation
that 'Jews control the media.' It is anything but." ( Mearsheimer &
Walt, THE ISRAEL LOBBY and U.S. Foreign Policy, Chapter 6)
***
But that's all it is - a claim, it is most certainly not a 'proven truth'
despite your desperate attempts to portray that way. This is why critics of
Mearshimer and Walt point out that they don't seem to understand the
difference between research and opinion.
dsha...@hotmail.com
> news:7a89046f-7da6-48f8...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 8:11 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:6f78b701-8b53-4076...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 4, 2:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ***
> > > Your other issue, that there were virtually no favorable reviews of
> > > the book, is obviously related. It demonstrates the determination of
> > > the lobby to manipulate the formation of public opinion on matters of
> > > war and peace when Israel and Middle East policy is involved.
> > > ***
>
> > > And that - as our attentive audience observes- is where HHW uses
> > > anti-semitic language then lies and pretends it's just 'criticism of
> > > Israel'. Here we see the anti-semite use an ancient tool for Jewish
> > > denigration, the 'they control the media and therefore form public
> > > opinion'
> > > anti-semitic canard.
On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First of all - I don't care what W&M may have said on the issue. I am taking
> you to task, and you should be able to address these accusations without
> simply regurgitating material which has already been skewered by respected
> historians and foriegn policy thinkers.
>
> ***
> "A key part of preserving positive public attitudes toward Israel is
> to ensure that the mainstream media's coverage of Israel and the
> Middle East consistently favors Israel and does not call U.S. support
> into question in any way. While serious criticism of Israel
> occasionally reaches a large audience across the United States, the
> American media's coverage of iIsrael tends to be strongly biased in
> Israel's favor, especially when compared with news coverage in other
> democracies.
>
> "This claim might sound to some like the old anti-Semitic accusation
> that 'Jews control the media.' It is anything but." ( Mearsheimer &
> Walt, THE ISRAEL LOBBY and U.S. Foreign Policy, Chapter 6)
> ***
>
> But that's all it is - a claim, it is most certainly not a 'proven truth'
> despite your desperate attempts to portray that way. This is why critics of
> Mearshimer and Walt point out that they don't seem to understand the
> difference between research and opinion.
Was George Schultz a part of HHW's beloved "Israel Lobby"? Don't think
so.
The 'Israel Lobby' Myth
By George P. Shultz
September 9, 2007
US News & World Report
Israel is a free, democratic, open, and relentlessly self-analytical
place. To hear harsh criticism of Israel's policies and leaders,
listen to the Israelis. So questioning Israel for its actions is
legitimate, but lies are something else. Throughout human history,
they have been used not only to vilify but to establish a basis for
cruel and inhuman acts. The catalog of lies about Jews is long and
astonishingly crude, matched only by the suffering that has followed
their promulgation.
Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples
of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful
series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come
when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what
might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be
regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats,
targets, all-purpose objects of blame.
In America, we protect all speech, even the most hurtful lies. We
allow a virtual free-for-all by which laws are adopted, enforced, and
interpreted. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent yearly to
influence this process; thousands of groups vie for influence. Among
these are Jewish groups that have come under renewed criticism for
being part of an all-powerful "Israel lobby," most notably in a book
published this week by Profs. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.
Jewish groups are influential. They also largely agree that the United
States should support Israel. But the notion that they have anything
like a uniform agenda and that U.S. policy in Israel and the Middle
East is the result of this influence is simply wrong.
One choice. Some critics seem overly impressed with the way of
thinking that says to itself, "Since there is a huge Arab Islamic
world out there with all the oil, and it is opposed to this tiny
little Israel with no natural resources, then realistically the United
States has to be on the Arab side and against Israel on every issue,
and since this isn't the case, there must be some underhanded Jewish
plot at work." This is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple.
Another tried and true method for damaging the well-being and security
of the Jewish people and the State of Israel is a dangerously false
analogy. Witness former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine—Peace
Not Apartheid. Here the association on the one hand is between
Israel's existentially threatened position and the measures it has
taken to protect its population from terrorist attacks, driven by an
ideology bent on the complete eradication of the State of Israel, and,
on the other, the racist oppression of South Africa's black population
by the white Boer regime.
The tendency of mind that lies behind such repulsive analogies remains
and is reinforced by the former president's views, spread across his
book, which come down on the anti-Israel side of every case. These
false analogies stir up and lend legitimacy to more widely based
movements that take the same dangerous direction.
Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous "lobby"
ought to spend some time dealing with them. For example, my decision
to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he met certain conditions
evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its
political parties, and American Jewish groups who weighed in on one
side or the other. Other examples in which the United States rejected
Israel's view of an issue, or the view of the American Jewish
community, include the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and President
Reagan's decision to go to the cemetery at Bitburg, Germany.
The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on
political pressure or influence but because the American people, and
their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and
morally just.
We are a great nation. Mostly, we make good decisions. We are not
babes in the woods. We act in our own interests. And when we
mistakenly conclude from time to time—as we will—that an action or
policy is in America's interest, we must take responsibility for the
mistake.
So, on every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters
for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong
because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests.
They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right
to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S.
government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other
state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily—
sometimes with lies—to win America's support.
George Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. This is
excerpted from his introduction to The Deadliest Lies: The Israel
Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham Foxman (Palgrave
Macmillan).
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2007/09/09/the-israel-lobby-myth.html
Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
<Heinr...@mailgate.org> wrote:
>As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their
>palestinian
>prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
>numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!
The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT
Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.
Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.
# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of
noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).
# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:
Cider-Braised Jewish Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Kikes.
# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.
# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like
this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.
# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?
# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
Charles G. Says:
July 5, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Inappropriate.
Dead children are not fodder for zionist, demented humor.
Eric Lindstrom Says:
July 6, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Another way for the author to say she wants all Palestinians dead.
Hate is expressed in many forms.
R.C. Says:
July 7, 2008 at 6:07 am
This butcher’s cur is venom-mouthed…
Tania Says:
July 7, 2008 at 6:35 am
Deborah Sharavi probably stuck pins in her dolls and pulled wings off
butterflies.
Matt G. Says:
July 9, 2008 at 2:43 am
If Zionism were Judaism, anti-Semitism would be a moral imperative.
The zionist, cannibalistic “recipe”, proves it.
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
July 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm e
Excellent point, Matt G.
This vile, zionist, cannibalistic “recipe”, is proof of your
insightful comment:
If Zionism were Judaism, anti-Semitism would be a moral imperative.
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
July 16, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Deborah Sharavi Oct 14 2004, 12:02 pm
Michael W Cook wrote:
> You’re fucking sick, Deborah and you disgust me.
Aw shucks. And I never even got around to Palestinian Dessert Trifle.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek 22nd post
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
July 17, 2008 at 4:35 am
Deborah Sharavi Oct 15 2004, 1:48 pm
“torresD” wrote:
>To make light of a Palestinian child and offer
>a receipe for cooking the Palestinan child and
>in addition offer a dessert recipe using the meat,
>flesh of Palestinian children is despicable.
Typical hypocrisy from Dianne Torres. If the recipe had called for a
JEWISH kid, Torres would have been at the board in an instant,
pouding
knife and fork, and singing in happy anticipation:
“Love to eat them Jew kids
Jews is whut I loves to eat
Bite dey little heads off
Nibble on they tiny feet!”
And when her repast was delayed, she would pound harder on the board
with her knife and fork, and bellow (to the tune of Zum Gali Gali);
“FOOD! Waiter, waiter waiter
FOOD! waiter, waiter!
“FOOD! Waiter, waiter waiter
FOOD! waiter, waiter!”
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek 41st post.
Eric Roth Says:
July 17, 2008 at 6:40 am
The pathetic attempts by the zionazis posting here to apologise for
this disgusting woman’s filth is obscene.
This has nothing to do with a young goat. It was this sick person’s
hate coming to the fore.
Sharavi is not fit to take her daily quota of oxygen.
Angeles Déesse Says:
July 27, 2008 at 7:50 am
Sick, sick, sick…
Eric Roth, you are correct.
deborah sharavi is an oxygen thief.
Drown Zion Says:
July 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Fuck zioniSStSS. Fuck iSSrael.
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
__________________________________________________________
Mirelle
HHW
It is the only full scale academic monograph on the subject. You won't
read it and accordingly it is ludicrous for you to purport to
criticize it. If you do read it you will be a changed man, internally.
You can only be speaking of lobby critics of M & W. You can't judge
their reviews without knowing the book itself.
HHW
>
> Deborah
I have to admit that this one gave me pause because I have great
respect for George Shultz. I then read it a second time and began to
see that it is made of flimsy stuff. I'll go through it here with
anyone willing to do it.
I recently read Shultz's autobiography. As Secretary of State under
Reagan during the first Lebanon War, he was disgusted by Israel's
conduct in Lebanon and toward her "ally" in particular.
B. H. Cramer
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1054da98-6786-4e53...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, lying slime.
Count 1
read it
You can't type two sentences without lying. I have never once said I won't
read it, and - in fact - fully intend on reading it.
***
and accordingly it is ludicrous for you to purport to
criticize it.
***
I have never once purported to criticize it, so you have typed another lie.
I have no problem discussing passages you post, and neither should you.
***
If you do read it you will be a changed man, internally.
***
LOL. When I read it I *may* be more inclined to see the boogeyman you call
'the lobby', or I *may* be more inclined to see the less organized but no
less evil 'force' W&M describe. But most likely I'm going to do what most
people do, dismiss the book for it's shoddy content.
You didn't because it fit your preconcieved conclusions and you *wanted* to
believe it. Your desire for the book to describe and validate the world you
already saw makes you an unreliable source for either positive or negative
commentary of the book.
***
You can only be speaking of lobby critics of M & W. You can't judge
their reviews without knowing the book itself.
***
I don't know what a 'lobby critic' is - and it makes nodifference in
objective and dispassionate assessment of the books contents. Reviews are
not to be 'judged' - reviews are either arguments for or against
consumption. But you will always see criticism of the book as part of a
larger machiavellian plot by jews to control public opinion and thought, and
that makes you an anti-semite.
RJ11
HHW
> It is the only full scale academic monograph on the subject. You won't
> read it
> ***
>
> You can't type two sentences without lying. I have never once said I won't
> read it, and - in fact - fully intend on reading it.
So, Ratner, you've changed your mind but not your tune. We look
forward to a chapter by chapter analysis. I'm sure many will join in.
We'll encourage it, eh?
>
> ***
> and accordingly it is ludicrous for you to purport to
> criticize it.
> ***
>
> I have never once purported to criticize it, so you have typed another lie.
> I have no problem discussing passages you post, and neither should you.
Of course you have. We've been wrangling about the book forever.
You've called M & W anti-simites based allegedly on reviews from the
lobby press.
>
> ***
> If you do read it you will be a changed man, internally.
> ***
>
> LOL. When I read it I *may* be more inclined to see the boogeyman you call
> 'the lobby', or I *may* be more inclined to see the less organized but no
> less evil 'force' W&M describe.
Don't look for anything but what M & W depict. We don't want this dual
personality thing to get further out of control.
It is a coalition of Jewish organizations, media and individuals It's
explained by Mearsheimer & Walt. The truth is never defamatory. I
don't see how it can be anti-semitic either, so in the long run you
are going to have to defeat the book on its facts and logic, a thing
no one I've encountered has yet accomplished. Not even George Schultz.
There has been a lot of whining and finger pointing but the facts it
contains have stood like Gibralter.
But most likely I'm going to do what most
> people do, dismiss the book for it's shoddy content.
Yes you do assert that most people dismiss the book. That was your
argument from the beginning without having read it. Even in your sock
mode you have this familiar contempt for a book you haven't read.
Where have we heard it before?
> You didn't because it fit your preconcieved conclusions and you *wanted* to
> believe it. Your desire for the book to describe and validate the world you
> already saw makes you an unreliable source for either positive or negative
> commentary of the book.
It is true that i've been aware of the existence of the lobby for many
years. Anyone following our foreign policy and the behavior of
Congress has been aware of it. For a long time i've been aware of the
fear our legislators experience when faced with the quandry of
following the American vs. Israel's interests. I've been well aware of
the intense social pressure to remain silent about it. I'm certainly
not alone.
>
> ***
> You can only be speaking of lobby critics of M & W. You can't judge
> their reviews without knowing the book itself.
> ***
>
> I don't know what a 'lobby critic' is -
Sure you do. It's a critic who fits the definition in the book. It
comes early on.
and it makes nodifference in
> objective and dispassionate assessment of the books contents. Reviews are
> not to be 'judged' - reviews are either arguments for or against
> consumption.
Richard, why do you continue to say the same things in both guises?
Once you make the decision to pretend to be two personalities you
ought at least invest some craftsmanship in the scam.
But you will always see criticism of the book as part of a
> larger machiavellian plot by jews to control public opinion and thought, and
> that makes you an anti-semite.
The book speaks only of the situation in America and only of the
impact on a narrow section of American Foreign policy. It describes
the concentrated resources, financial and in manpower, devoted to it.
It names names too. You'll find it interesting. It's verry carefully
written so stay awake. There are extensive notes so if you have an
academic turn of mind you should be pleased. It is ridiculous for you
to pretend that we must presume it to be impossible for public
discourse to be shaped and channeled in this era by a powerful lobby
on a narrow issue, especially regarding this case in this post-
Holocaust era.
Most of the reviews coming out of the Jewish 1% of our population (my
short of hand for those in that Community who support the lobby) were
hostile. Does that make the authors philosemitic? Does it say anything
about the potential for conflict of interest? The sword has two edges.
I am routinely smeared with anti-semitism. Accordingly I feel little
inhibition about pointing out what I believe to be a gross conflict of
interest among those who run the lobby. Don't forget that they are
Americans and what we're doing in Palestine and in other parts of the
Middle East on behalf of Israel is not in the American interest. 9/11
put that question to rest for reasonable people. We can protect Israel
without being complicit in her crimes and without having to take any
more crap from her leadership.
Now we have a really wonderful situation. Ratner refuses to read the
book but the Ratner/sock has committed him to doing it. This is going
to be very interesting. We'll keep tuned. I assure you the book is not
difficult to find. It is sold all over the world. It certainly doesn't
matter to me whether I debate Ratner or Ratner/sock on "The Israel
Count 1
On Aug 6, 8:18 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is the only full scale academic monograph on the subject. You won't
> read it
> ***
>
> You can't type two sentences without lying. I have never once said I won't
> read it, and - in fact - fully intend on reading it.
***
We lookforward to a chapter by chapter analysis.
***
My point stands - you literally cannot type two sentences without lying.
What in the universe makes you think I would go to all that trouble in a
post to the internet's gutter, usenet?
>
> ***
> If you do read it you will be a changed man, internally.
> ***
>
> LOL. When I read it I *may* be more inclined to see the boogeyman you call
> 'the lobby', or I *may* be more inclined to see the less organized but no
> less evil 'force' W&M describe.
***
Don't look for anything but what M & W depict.
***
I won't even look for that. If their case is compelling enough, I won't have
to. If their case is argued in a manner consistent with the passages you
have posted, it won't be made.
***
It is a coalition of Jewish organizations, media and individuals
***
Who - according to you - act as one. Why you describe it as one entity
because you believe it heightens the fear factor.
***
It's
explained by Mearsheimer & Walt.
***
It better be - it's the title of their book.
***
The truth is never defamatory.
***
'Truth' is a function of perception, and your perception is skewed to see
anything that demonizes jews and Israel as 'truth'.
***
I don't see how it can be anti-semitic either,
***
As above.
***
so in the long run you
are going to have to defeat the book on its facts and logic,
***
I'm not interested in 'defeating' anything. If W&M continue in the same
manner as the passages you've copied, then the book is self defeating.
But most likely I'm going to do what most
> people do, dismiss the book for it's shoddy content.
***
Yes you do assert that most people dismiss the book.
***
A fact you ignore.
> You didn't because it fit your preconcieved conclusions and you *wanted*
> to
> believe it. Your desire for the book to describe and validate the world
> you
> already saw makes you an unreliable source for either positive or negative
> commentary of the book.
***
It is true that i've been aware of the existence of the lobby for many
years. Anyone following our foreign policy and the behavior of
Congress has been aware of it. For a long time i've been aware of the
fear our legislators experience when faced with the quandry of
following the American vs. Israel's interests. I've been well aware of
the intense social pressure to remain silent about it. I'm certainly
not alone.
***
Then you agree with me - it fit your perceptions and that is the primary
reason you were inclined to like it before you even read it.
> ***
> You can only be speaking of lobby critics of M & W. You can't judge
> their reviews without knowing the book itself.
> ***
>
> I don't know what a 'lobby critic' is -
***
Sure you do. It's a critic who fits the definition in the book. It
comes early on.
***
I haven't read the book, so I still don't know what a 'lobby critic' is. I'm
certainly not aware that any of the critics I've read are members of 'the
lobby'. And I've already said it makes no difference anyway.
Reviews are
> not to be 'judged' - reviews are either arguments for or against
> consumption.
But you will always see criticism of the book as part of a
> larger machiavellian plot by jews to control public opinion and thought,
> and
> that makes you an anti-semite.
***
I am routinely smeared with anti-semitism.
***
Not quite - you routinely use anti-semitic smears.
***
Accordingly I feel little
inhibition about pointing out what I believe to be a gross conflict of
interest among those who run the lobby. Don't forget that they are
Americans and what we're doing in Palestine and in other parts of the
Middle East on behalf of Israel is not in the American interest. 9/11
put that question to rest for reasonable people.
***
You have failed to convince me that America is doing anything with Israel
that is not in America's interests, and you're still relying on the
Palestinian Propaganda machine's lie that 9/11 was really all about them.
***
We can protect Israel
without being complicit in her crimes and without having to take any
more crap from her leadership.
***
She is conducting no crimes so you are complicit in nothing. Again you show
you cannot type two sentences without lying. On top of that you continue
with your weak attempt at obfuscation by claiming I am richard, even though
no one really believes you think that.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but you're not, and that again speaks to
your lack of character.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Clip
>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is not
>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>
> Answer my question please.
My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
canard can very well be demonstrably true. If it is true the use of
the anti-semitic canard *epithet* is not legitimate. In fact it may
even be a dishonest technique to dominate public discourse on a matter
critical to all Americans such as our policy in the Middle East. After
all, Richard, there is much at stake. Shall we sing a verse or two of
Onward Christian Soldiers?
Count 1
> On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Clip
>
>>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is not
>>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>
>> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
>> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>>
>> Answer my question please.
>
> My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> canard can very well be demonstrably true.
::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
definition** - a falsehood.
Like the Anti-semitic canard of a jewish lobby controlling thought and
opinion - you know - the canard you regularly rely on when you demonize
Israel.
Now - please try answering my question instead of replying nonsensically.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Clip
>
> >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is not
> >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>
> >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>
> >> Answer my question please.
>
> > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>
> ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
> definition** - a falsehood.
Yes it is, by definition only. But the term when used in the form of
an epithet or as a substitute for a response on the merits of the
argument can be falsely applied. The operative test is remains
objective. It does not follow by definition. Therein lies your
fallacy. In the present situation it is an egregious use of fallacy to
promote a political end, the demonization of M & W and, of course, of
me. In fact demonizing me has been you sole goal from the beginning.
You don't want the Israel lobby discussed in public. It's as simple as
that.
> Like the Anti-semitic canard of a jewish lobby controlling thought and
> opinion - you know - the canard you regularly rely on when you demonize
> Israel.
I am not interested here in the history of false anti-semitic
allegations. There have certainly been plenty of them. But that's not
what we're about. We're discussing an academic monograph about the
nature, conduct and effect of a particular lobby on our Middle Eastern
foreign policy---and in turn its effect on the interests of the United
States. These are matters capable of objective study and mature
conclusion. It's the kind of thing political scientists do. My
interest here is in the causal chain, in the truth or falsity of such
matters relating to distortions of our Israel policy. The way the
media works in the U.S. has a lot to do with it. This is dissected
carefully by M and W. Now that you're going to read the book we will
be capable of evaluating the facts alleged.
> Now - please try answering my question instead of replying nonsensically.
My very first reply, even though in the form of a question, answered
you well enough. It elicited a fake sigh.
Did you ever take a symbolic logic course? Have you ever done any
systematic thinking about the nature of the dozens of fallacies which
have been identified and analyzed by the logicians? If so I should
think you would be somewhat self-conscious about your constant use of
fallacy in argument. This is especially true of the suppressed false
premise. It's dishonest coming from a man capable of cleaning up his
act.
HHW
It's research and conclusions drawn therefrom that I'm trying to
address. You frustrate it by not reading the book.
It's so strange, Ratner, to see you denigrating a book you haven't
read. I can't imagine doing that. You don't evaluate the proofs in the
book and yet you say the thesis is not proven. Only people without
moral integrity who've been pushed into a corner do such things.
Count 1
On Aug 7, 11:45 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Clip
>
> >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is
> >>> not
> >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>
> >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>
> >> Answer my question please.
>
> > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>
> ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
> definition** - a falsehood.
***
Yes it is, by definition only. But the term when used in the form of
an epithet or as a substitute for a response on the merits of the
argument can be falsely applied.
***
Certainly - as can any term. But in this case you haven't demonstrated that.
This is your central failing - inability to acknowledge that you haven't
made your case, you have only stated it. Until you do the canard you use -
that 'the lobby' controls thought and opinion - is merely an anti-semitic
falsehood.
**
The operative test is remains objective.
***
And you are not objective, you are clearly motivated to demonize Israel,
which explains your gross mischaracterization of Israel's actions and your
refusal to acknowledge the malfeasance of her enemies.
> Like the Anti-semitic canard of a jewish lobby controlling thought and
> opinion - you know - the canard you regularly rely on when you demonize
> Israel.
***
I am not interested here in the history of false anti-semitic
allegations. There have certainly been plenty of them. But that's not
what we're about.
***
That is what you are about.
***
We're discussing an academic monograph about the
nature, conduct and effect of a particular lobby on our Middle Eastern
foreign policy---and in turn its effect on the interests of the United
States. These are matters capable of objective study and mature
conclusion. It's the kind of thing political scientists do.
***
But that's not what you do on this board. Additionally the source material
you are relying on has not given the definitive work on the study - yet you
act as if that is exactly what they've done.
There is in fact a vast amount of material disputing W&M, but you dismiss
them out of hand as being part of 'the lobby'.
***
My
interest here is in the causal chain, in the truth or falsity of such
matters relating to distortions of our Israel policy.
***
Bullshit. You are here to demonize Israel and present a false
characterization of her history, and to exaggerate your countries
culpability in crimes you claim she commits. You are not even remotely
interested in 'the truth of falsity' of 'the lobby's' effects on foriegn
policy, you are here to mischaracterize and demonize it. You are here to
claim it controls thought and opinion, that it has usurped US foriegn
policy, that it engages in machiavellian machinations for the parasitic
purposes of benefitting solely a different organism - at the detriment of
the host.
Don't get sanctimonious with me scuzball, your intentions are far from mere
academic interest.
***
The way the
media works in the U.S. has a lot to do with it.
***
I love it when you conspiracy types use terms like 'the way the media
works'. It's such a simplistic view of 'the media'.
> Now - please try answering my question instead of replying nonsensically.
***
My very first reply, even though in the form of a question, answered
you well enough. It elicited a fake sigh.
Did you ever take a symbolic logic course? Have you ever done any
systematic thinking about the nature of the dozens of fallacies which
have been identified and analyzed by the logicians? If so I should
think you would be somewhat self-conscious about your constant use of
fallacy in argument. This is especially true of the suppressed false
premise. It's dishonest coming from a man capable of cleaning up his
act.
***
Your first reply was a question. A question is by definition not an answer.
However this is your third chance and it's clear you're not going to answer
the question. My statement stands, using anti-semitic canards, as you do, is
not 'criticism of Israel', its anti-semitism. Your repeated use of the
anti-semitic canards proves you are an anti-semite.
You may not have neen aware of this - and if you weren't you may now
consider yourself educated.
And I can assure you, you haven't gained one inch of the respect necessary
for me to hear you lecture anyone about fallacious arguments. If your next
post doesn't answer my question in a direct and forthright manner you may
consider this EOT. I'm not interested in reading the nonsensical
Palestinian propaganda you regurgitate - too many other sources for that on
the internet for it to be of interest to me here.
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Aug-2008, "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Clip
> >
> >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is
> >>> not
> >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
> >
> >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
> >>
> >> Answer my question please.
> >
> > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>
> ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
> definition** - a falsehood.
>
Yes, Freud was correct, & these bigots prove it every time they open their
mouths.
Susan
Count 1
***
It's research and conclusions drawn therefrom that I'm trying to
address.
***
But that's my point - the conclusion is not based on the 'research'. Look in
the passage you just typed - there is no argument defending their assertion
that this is 'anything but' the 'old anti-semtic accusation'. They just
state that - they don't, or you didn't bother to include, give an argument
as to why it isn't the 'old anti-semtic accusation'.
***
You frustrate it by not reading the book.
***
I don't think you'd be doing any better if I had.
***
It's so strange to see you denigrating a book you haven't read.
***
Like I've said before, you don't need to see 'Showgirls' to know it sucked.
***
I can't imagine doing that. You don't evaluate the proofs in the book and
yet you say the thesis is not proven.
***
Their thesis isn't proven. It is not axiomatic that US foriegn policy
towards Israel is driven by any one single lobby group, and it is not
axiomatic that US's attitidue towards Israel is detrimental to the US. That
has absolutely not been *proven* by anyone.
I'm sorry you feel it is. You should read Ross's 'The Missing Peace', he
isn't an isolated academic mind you - he was the US's point man for Israeli
/ Palestinian negotiations for three presidents.
Anyway - here is an article discussing W&M's 'thesis';
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/03_israel_rabinovich.aspx
And this one talks about their inflammatory rhetoric and
mischaracterizations - a good one for you to read...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/walt_mearsheimer_and_the_peace.html
Eli Grubman
>
>On 7-Aug-2008, "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Clip
>> >
>> >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is
>> >>> not
>> >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>> >
>> >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
>> >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>> >>
>> >> Answer my question please.
>> >
>> > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
>> > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
>> > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>>
>> ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
>> definition** - a falsehood.
>>
>Yes, Freud was correct, & these bigots prove it every time they open their
>mouths.
>
>Susan
Unlike you, Freud was a jew, you thick Irish cunt. He created a whole
psychiatric industry of incompetent jew quacks and charlatans.
Eli
dsha...@hotmail.com
Nor will it be, except by more hot air, which is what HHW's subjective
definition is.
Merriam Webster:
canard
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des
canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks
Date:
1851
1 a: a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated
report b: a groundless rumor or belief
HHW is demonstrably given to posting canards against Jews and Israel.
> This is your central failing - inability to acknowledge that you haven't
> made your case, you have only stated it. Until you do the canard you use -
> that 'the lobby' controls thought and opinion - is merely an anti-semitic
> falsehood.
A very old one, too.
Deborah
HHW
A claim? The book constitutes nothing but an unfounded claim? How do
you intend to follow up on that without having read it? This really is
intellectually bankrupt.
This is why critics of
> > Mearshimer and Walt point out that they don't seem to understand the
> > difference between research and opinion.
Critics from the lobby say such things. You need to test them. That's
the honorable thing to do, the intellectually and morally honest thing
to do.
>
> Was George Schultz a part of HHW's beloved "Israel Lobby"? Don't think
> so.
Why this question? It hadn't occurred to me.
>
> The 'Israel Lobby' Myth
> By George P. Shultz
> September 9, 2007
> US News & World Report
>
> Israel is a free, democratic, open, and relentlessly self-analytical
> place. To hear harsh criticism of Israel's policies and leaders,
> listen to the Israelis. So questioning Israel for its actions is
> legitimate, but lies are something else. Throughout human history,
> they have been used not only to vilify but to establish a basis for
> cruel and inhuman acts. The catalog of lies about Jews is long and
> astonishingly crude, matched only by the suffering that has followed
> their promulgation.
Certainly this is true. But does George Schultz mean by writing this
in Abe Foxman's book that M & W's study is a "catalog of lies about
Jews?" Surely not! Surely he would deny that. He is a great man. He's
no Alan Dershowitz.
>
> Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples
> of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful
> series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come
> when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what
> might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be
> regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats,
> targets, all-purpose objects of blame.
Does George Schultz mean to suggest that M & W are "defaming the Jews"
by writing a well sourced book about the Israel lobby? Or that they
are "disputing the "rightful place" of the Jewish people? Or that they
are "scapegoating" the Jewish people? I can't believe he could read
that book and describe it that way. What *is* Secretary Schultz
describing, some sort of global problem visible in the last 2,000
years of human history? Or is he describing a particular book about a
particular lobby's effect on a narrow slice of our foreign policy
horizon?
> In America, we protect all speech, even the most hurtful lies.
Have we no law of defamation? Is defamation protected speech.
We
> allow a virtual free-for-all by which laws are adopted, enforced, and
> interpreted. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent yearly to
> influence this process; thousands of groups vie for influence. Among
> these are Jewish groups that have come under renewed criticism for
> being part of an all-powerful "Israel lobby," most notably in a book
> published this week by Profs. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.
>
> Jewish groups are influential. They also largely agree that the United
> States should support Israel. But the notion that they have anything
> like a uniform agenda and that U.S. policy in Israel and the Middle
> East is the result of this influence is simply wrong.
What sort of criticism is this "renewed" criticism. What Secretary
Schultz has so far mentioned are false anti-semitic slurs. Should a
predominantly Jewish lobby on a particular issue be exempt from all
criticism because Jews have been falsely criticized in the past?
M & W specifically disclaim any uniform agenda. They describe the
lobby as a loose coalition of groups which include some representing
tens of millions of Gentiles. They say it can not even be called a
Jewish lobby.
> One choice. Some critics seem overly impressed with the way of
> thinking that says to itself, "Since there is a huge Arab Islamic
> world out there with all the oil, and it is opposed to this tiny
> little Israel with no natural resources, then realistically the United
> States has to be on the Arab side and against Israel on every issue,
> and since this isn't the case, there must be some underhanded Jewish
> plot at work." This is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple.
Were what is found in M & W's book a mere conspiracy theory I wouldn't
be recommending it. It isn't. I have always acknowledged that at the
end of the day we have a defensive obligation to Israel. So do M & W.
We don't however owe her the West Bank. It isn't ours to give or
Israel's to take. And Israel's real estate grabs are very hard to take
too.
The book is about the damage done to America by its support of and
association with *specific Israeli policies,* which can and should be
changed.
There is no conspiracy *theory* in M & W's book. It contains a vast
compilation of data and hard headed analysis of that data. There isn't
an anti-semitic word in it. It expressly disclaims the abandonment of
Israel should her existence come into question. They also expressly
reject any sort of Jewish plot. They describe lavishly funded bare
knuckle politics on behalf of a foreign country, the sort of thing
which could be generated by any single issue lobby with equivalent
standards, influence and funding. What they do describe, however, is a
lobby which is so effective, so lavishly funded, so smothering on the
narrow issue of our Israel and Middle East policy and so willing to
use brutal political tactics, that it dominates policy in those areas.
That a lobby, expecially one with a conflict of interest, has been
able to accomplished this does not augur well with our long term
stability and welfare. If one can do it others can too with equivalent
motivation and available wealth. We need to nurture and protect our
democracy and this situation proves why.
Is it the American people who instill in our Congress the fear of
AIPAC?
>
> We are a great nation. Mostly, we make good decisions. We are not
> babes in the woods. We act in our own interests. And when we
> mistakenly conclude from time to time—as we will—that an action or
> policy is in America's interest, we must take responsibility for the
> mistake.
>
> So, on every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters
> for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong
> because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests.
There is an entire chapter in M & W on this subject. It is not
addressed here.
> They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right
> to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S.
> government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other
> state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily—
> sometimes with lies—to win America's support.
What price must the American people pay as the result of abuse of this
legitimate right? The right of free speech doesn't include the right
to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. Is the right unlimited no
matter the damage to the country? Can this style of lobbying not be
regulated? Must our "government" really be responsible for the
policies imposed upon it through the intimidation of such a lobby?
Does not a lobby built upon conflict of interest have some
responsibility for the damage it does? Whence this suggestion of
impunity?
>
> George Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. This is
> excerpted from his introduction to The Deadliest Lies: The Israel
> Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham Foxman (Palgrave
> Macmillan).http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2007/09/09/the-israel-lobby-my...
>
> Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
and psychopath, aka dumb Rever'nerd, aka stalking fake Susan, etc., etc. in
various newsgroups, wrote:
ROTFLOL! Not to happy with psychiatrists, psycho Grabmen? So what was the
medical definition your psychiatrists gave of your abnormal condition,
psycho?
Quotes from your psychiatrists, even of those that gave up on you, are
welcome! LOL
--
Rev. Richard Skull about Eli Grabmen: "Any sex act involving YOU is
bestiality."
B. H. Cramer
Fuck orf, despicable slime.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7936f720-1661-40c9...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 7, 11:45 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Clip
>
> > >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is
> > >>> not
> > >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>
> > >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> > >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>
> > >> Answer my question please.
>
> > > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> > > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> > > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>
> > ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
> > definition** - a falsehood.
Here is my entire paragraph which you are butchering:
Yes it is, by definition only. But the term when used in the form of
an epithet or as a substitute for a response on the merits of the
argument can be falsely applied. The operative test is remains
objective. It does not follow by definition. Therein lies your
fallacy. In the present situation it is an egregious use of fallacy
to
promote a political end, the demonization of M & W and, of course, of
me. In fact demonizing me has been you sole goal from the beginning.
You don't want the Israel lobby discussed in public. It's as simple
as
that.
>
> ***
> Yes it is, by definition only. But the term when used in the form of
> an epithet or as a substitute for a response on the merits of the
> argument can be falsely applied.
> ***
>
> Certainly - as can any term. But in this case you haven't demonstrated that.
Here is another false presumption nestled in a single sentence. You
use the anti-semitic canard epithet against me, but you want everyone
to *presume* that *I* I have the burden of disproving it. Should I
make an equivalently naked allegation that you are a living, breating,
practicing Nazi, would you then have the burden of disproving it? Can
you see yourself flailing away to lay out your entire intellectual
history and to show that you're Jewish for Chrissake? That would be
absurd. It could be that you are just not a disciplined thinker but in
your case it's more likely that you're no gentleman.
> This is your central failing - inability to acknowledge that you haven't
> made your case, you have only stated it. Until you do the canard you use -
> that 'the lobby' controls thought and opinion - is merely an anti-semitic
> falsehood.
But I can't convince you to move forward with the facts and argument.
For example,
I have quoted the Preface to Chapter 6 of an academic study of the
subject by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy." Of course a preface contains conclusions but the
facts and argument are in the body of the chapter. Would you prefer
that I type out the entire chapter for you? What I've done is dictated
by common sense. I suggest that you purchase the book so that we can
go through it together. Must I send you a money order for $29.95 or
subsidize your acquisition of a library card?
>
> **
> The operative test is remains objective.
> ***
>
> And you are not objective, you are clearly motivated to demonize Israel,
> which explains your gross mischaracterization of Israel's actions and your
> refusal to acknowledge the malfeasance of her enemies.
Israel created a national patriotic myth about her founding and also
about the events of 1967. As to material detail it was false, like it
or not. One of it's purposes was to demonize the Palestinians, to
blame the victims for their misfortune. Accordingly, there is no way
to "enable the truth" absent attacking those myths. The myths include
misrepresentation of the actions and intentions of the Palestinian
people in the present. That too requires the scales to be balanced
because it is consciously intended to stand in the way of a
settlement. Their claim to Palestine is certainly as legitimate as is
that of the Israelis. To make progress in the settlement of the
dispute, their essential human dignity and co-equal rights must be
fully recognized. This propaganda advantage created by the better
organized and more sophisticated European Israelis needs to be
neutralized in the interests of a settlement. My goal here is equal
justice. There is no way to attain it absent a righting of the scales.
That can't be done without attacking that Israeli propaganda
advantage.
Let's use the word empirical instead of objective. Will you settle for
that?
Regarding malfeasance of both branches of the tribe, I have repeatedly
said, "a pox on both their houses." I have also shown that
historically the central core of the dispute lies at the feet of the
Israelis. It relates to their inherently aggressive ideology, Zionism.
Whatever the background, it shares a territorially aggressive
characteristic with the other ideologies which were empowered in the
20th Century, fascism, Marxism/Leninism and National Socialism.
>
> > Like the Anti-semitic canard of a jewish lobby controlling thought and
> > opinion - you know - the canard you regularly rely on when you demonize
> > Israel.
>
> ***
> I am not interested here in the history of false anti-semitic
> allegations. There have certainly been plenty of them. But that's not
> what we're about.
> ***
>
> That is what you are about.
False allegations like this, which have the purpose of shutting down
debate and thus inhibiting reform, are what you are about.
>
> ***
> We're discussing an academic monograph about the
> nature, conduct and effect of a particular lobby on our Middle Eastern
> foreign policy---and in turn its effect on the interests of the United
> States. These are matters capable of objective study and mature
> conclusion. It's the kind of thing political scientists do.
> ***
>
> But that's not what you do on this board. Additionally the source material
> you are relying on has not given the definitive work on the study - yet you
> act as if that is exactly what they've done.
I have posted lots of things from the net and also considerable
material from academic works. Whatever you may think of that body of
work and of my argument based upon it, you have not. What that shows
is that you are not serious about the issues but have the intent
merely of shutting down debate on a subject the lobby deems too
sensitive to be performed in public.
>
> There is in fact a vast amount of material disputing W&M, but you dismiss
> them out of hand as being part of 'the lobby'.
I want the actual M & W facts and argument to be heard first. Then we
can indulge any amount of criticism and praise. From the first you
have been arguing against hearing those facts and that argument. You
tried to raise it to a matter of principle. That was so strained as
to be hilarious.
>
> ***
> My
> interest here is in the causal chain, in the truth or falsity of such
> matters relating to distortions of our Israel policy.
> ***
>
> Bullshit. You are here to demonize Israel and present a false
> characterization of her history, and to exaggerate your countries
> culpability in crimes you claim she commits.
So I merely exaggerate? Therein lies an admission of the underlying
truth of the matter.
You are not even remotely
> interested in 'the truth or falsity' of 'the lobby's' effects on foriegn
> policy,
That's what the book you haven't been willing to read does.
you are here to mischaracterize and demonize it. You are here to
> claim it controls thought and opinion, that it has usurped US foriegn
> policy, that it engages in machiavellian machinations for the parasitic
> purposes of benefitting solely a different organism - at the detriment of
> the host.
Speaking of exaggeration! You speak in pure Hitlerian terms, straight
from Mein Kampf. Yet the lobby HAS usurped US foreign policy as it
relates to Israel and the Palestinians. For example, it is undeniable
that this has happened in our Congress. M & W describe the process and
results in detail. You won't read it. When I try to discuss it the
responses from you are filthy ad hominem outbursts such as those in
this post.
>
> Don't get sanctimonious with me scuzball, your intentions are far from mere
> academic interest.
Of course they are, the end of it all is *political*. You don't think
the rest of us ought to engage in politics opposite you on these
subjects at all. Isn't it ironic that unlike you, I can actually use
academic material to a political end with a straight face.
How many times do I have to explain "my intentions?" What business of
yours are they? In any event as a gift to you I've explained what my
intentions are over and over. I do it above in this post. Just set
aside your "scuzball" preconceptions for a moment and apply some
thought to what I say there.
When you've done such a thing here about "your intentions" we can
perhaps put the passages side by side and reason together about the
differences.
>
> ***
> The way the
> media works in the U.S. has a lot to do with it.
> ***
>
> I love it when you conspiracy types use terms like 'the way the media
> works'. It's such a simplistic view of 'the media'.
The book describes how it works. But we're not discussing the book
yet, Richard. You're still hiding. Unless I'm to type the whole thing
out here on on the newsgroup, you'll have to buy it or get it from the
library or borrow it from any lobby type. THey all have it. Only then
will you be able to come to grips with it as an alternative to calling
me names.
> > Now - please try answering my question instead of replying nonsensically.
>
> ***
> My very first reply, even though in the form of a question, answered
> you well enough. It elicited a fake sigh.
>
> Did you ever take a symbolic logic course? Have you ever done any
> systematic thinking about the nature of the dozens of fallacies which
> have been identified and analyzed by the logicians? If so I should
> think you would be somewhat self-conscious about your constant use of
> fallacy in argument. This is especially true of the suppressed false
> premise. It's dishonest coming from a man capable of cleaning up his
> act.
> ***
>
> Your first reply was a question. A question is by definition not an answer.
That's true, but a question in response to another which is full of
nonsense can be illuminating. Mine certainly was. Do you deny it.
Shall we put them side by side?
> However this is your third chance
You impose three chances on the guy who answers anything he likes any
time any place? Not likely. I own our relationship, Ratner. You are
struggling and angry constantly. No only are you constantly in
corners, they are corners of my choice. I push you into them.
and it's clear you're not going to answer
> the question.
I've answered it, again. Take a look.
My statement stands, using anti-semitic canards, as you do, is
> not 'criticism of Israel', its anti-semitism.
You asked a question. Now you conflate it with a statement. Is your
musical notation any more competent?
Your repeated use of the
> anti-semitic canards proves you are an anti-semite.
Or does your argument prove something about you rather than me. You
are desperate to prevent discussion of anything related to changing
our Middle East policies. You think they benefit Israel and you don't
give a damn about the US in that context.
> You may not have neen aware of this - and if you weren't you may now
> consider yourself educated.
What a strange thing to say to your master.
> And I can assure you, you haven't gained one inch of the respect necessary
> for me to hear you lecture anyone about fallacious arguments.
Unless you bolt you have no choice but to hear me describe every
fallacious argument you make. You're in a corner. You can only exit
through the ropes or by calling for your cut man to throw in the
towel.
If your next
> post doesn't answer my question in a direct and forthright manner you may
> consider this EOT.
My, an acronym. You're sooooo experienced here, Ratner. Why should I
give a damn whether you bolt? It's been in the cards from the
beginning. I predicted it. You're having trouble sleeping at night
thinking about how to get hasbara style scams past me. Nothing works.
I'm not interested in reading the nonsensical
> Palestinian propaganda you regurgitate - too many other sources for that on
> the internet for it to be of interest to me here.
So it's not that you can't take what the Palestinians say, it's that
you can't cope with me.
HHW
> On 7-Aug-2008, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:6b680e81-4199-4f62...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Clip
>
> > >>> Do you disagree with my argument that using anti-semitic canards is
> > >>> not
> > >>> 'criticism of Israel' but rather 'anti-semitism?
>
> > >> > Will you agree with my observation that whatever is true is neither
> > >> > anti-semitic nor a canard?
>
> > >> Answer my question please.
>
> > > My answer is that your question contains one or more suppressed
> > > premises. In a given situation what you label as an anti-semitic
> > > canard can very well be demonstrably true.
>
> > ::sigh:: A canard cannot be demonstrably true. A canard is - **by
> > definition** - a falsehood.
>
> Yes, Freud was correct, & these bigots prove it every time they open their
> mouths.
>
> Susan
Well Susan, how nice to see you here. You're invited to enter the
conversation. You don't have to lurk. In fact my unworthy adversary
shows signs of flagging. Don't worry about being outperformed by
Ratner. He's a pipsqueak next to you.
BTW, what did Freud say? Let's look at it. He was amazing.
drahcir
Hey H, I don't want to intrude on your fantasy of being a calm, cool,
collected, unbeatable debater, but feel obliged to mention that you
have fled discussions with me countless times, many the last few days.
Here are but a few examples:
This was another of your myriad flights regarding ashbrook.
Yet another ashbrook. This was the one where you claimed you couldn't
figure out how to click the link. Remember? That was a good one,
wasn't it?
That was a fun one too, remember? It's where you claimed I was
"clipping" your posts to shreds, and when I denied doing such things
and asked for just one example, you couldn't provide it. One of my
favorites, and probably one of yours, too!
Well, of course you fled from this one. Who wouldn't? This is the one
where I enumerated, detailed, and proved a few of your lies of recent
history. What could you possibly say in response? How you can show
your face around here after this is anyone's guess.
So, there you have just a few examples of your fleeing when cornered.
Not bad for a pipsqueak, eh H?
To all those to whom H has lied innumerable times - don't take it
personally. His apparent self-image as someone who can actually debate
proves that he lies just as easily to himself.
HHW
> On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
it.
Remember that the last time you summed up what you thought were my
defeats or whatever I did respond to each one and you did nothing
substantive in reply. Sometimes (how generous I am) you simply aren't
worth replying to. That's most frequently the case. It was especially
true of your puerile Ashbrook thread.
I'm not familiar with your acronym, so are you going to bolt or,
perhaps, shall we go to something new? This is getting tiresome. How
about starting something new yourself this time. I've dedicated
several specifically to you.
kangarooistan
burnet developed his WMD Q fever ,
Coxiella burnetii is named after him, this pic shows him at work in
mount barker labs
http://www.wehi.edu.au/media/images/MacfarlaneBurnet.gif
It is considered possibly the most infectious disease in the world,
as a human being can be infected by a single bacterium.[1]
As a standardized biological WMD it was manufactured in large
quantities at Pine Bluff Arsenal, with 5,098 gallons in the arsenal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever
The Australian white christian scientist and weapons of mass
destruction was awarded the first "Australian of the year" award and
knighted and awarded nobel prize for his work
http://www.wehi.edu.au/media/images/MacfarlaneBurnet.gif
...
'Rewind' reveals that Australian Nobel Prize winner, Sir Macfarlane
Burnet, was a champion of biological warfare in the 1940s.
We open top-secret defence files in which he planned for attacks on
the 'teeming hordes' of Asia. And, in a touching twist, we discover
why this white supremacist later changed his mind.
MICHAEL CATHCART: Let's turn first to a man who's still seen as one
of the very finest minds in our history. Nobel Prize in 1960. But
thereas another very secret and very surprising side to Sir
Macfarlane Burnet. Back in the 1940s, when we were afraid of what we
called the 'Asian hordes to our north', Macfarlane Burnet took part
in government plans to develop weapons of mass destruction -
chemical and germ warfare that could be used against our neighbours.
It's the story of a brilliant man who took a journey towards the
heart of darkness. In January 1947, Australia's leading biological
scientist travels down St Kilda Road, Melbourne. His destination is
Victoria Barracks, for a top secret meeting of a senior defence
committee. He's carrying documents which have the potential to change
Australia's destiny. These documents will remain secret for
decades,and with good reason. Their mission is a biological and
chemical weapons plan for Australia, and the scientist is Frank
Macfarlane Burnet.
DR PHILIP DORLING, HISTORIAN: As a professional scientist, he was
prepared to give some reasonably cold-blooded advice to the Australian
Government about weapons that today would be viewed with repugnance,
and indeed back in the 1940s were certainly viewed as morally dubious,
and probably considerably worse.
MICHAEL CATHCART: But this very grim and secret chapter of Macfarlane
Burnet's life has been wiped from public memory. These days, this
Nobel Prize winner is remembered by most Australians as a great
humanitarian.why not a terrorist
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/rewind/txt/s1184924.htm
==================================================================
Vist kanga at macfarlane tce mount barker to see where macfarlane
burnet developed his WMD Q fever ,Coxiella burnetii is named after him
http://www.wehi.edu.au/media/images/MacfarlaneBurnet.gif
Q fever is a disease caused by infection with Coxiella burnetii, a
bacterium that affects both humans and animals. This organism is
uncommon but may be found in cattle, sheep, goats and other domestic
mammals, including cats and dogs. The infection results from
inhalation of contaminated particles in the air, and from contact
with the vaginal mucus, milk, feces, urine or semen of infected
animals.
The incubation period is 9-40 days.
It is considered possibly the most infectious disease in the world,
as a human being can be infected by a single bacterium.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever
Biological warfare
The United States investigated Q fever as a potential biological
warfare agent in the 1950s with eventual standardization as agent OU.
At Fort Detrick and Dugway Proving Ground human trials were conducted
on Whitecoat volunteers to determine the median infective dose (18
MICLD50/person i.h.) and course of infection. As a standardized
biological it was manufactured in large quantities at Pine Bluff
Arsenal, with 5,098 gallons in the arsenal in bulk at the time of
demilitarization in 1970.
Q fever is a category "B" agent. It can be contagious and is very
stable in aerosols in a wide range of temperatures. Q fever
microorganisms may survive on surfaces up to 60 days.
drahcir
> On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
> with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
> it.
Each link is the post of mine from which you fled. Of course, "it's
not worth it". I see.....
>
> Remember that the last time you summed up what you thought were my
> defeats or whatever I did respond to each one and you did nothing
> substantive in reply.
That conversation is one from which you fled. Specifically, it is the
last one linked to. You are so silly, you think that if you don't
check it out, no one else does either. My poor little ostrich H.
Sometimes (how generous I am) you simply aren't
> worth replying to. That's most frequently the case. It was especially
> true of your puerile Ashbrook thread.
Hmmm, so the fact that one of the authors of your bible, one of the
two books you rely on to support your entire position here, obviously
contradicted one of the main premises of that book on air for all to
hear on a highly respected interview program was not worth replying
to? H, get a grip, will you? Every single soul here knows why you
didn't reply: you couldn't. You sit there desperately typing these
absurd lies and, like a child, think anyone will take them seriously.
Re Ashbrook, you certainly tried replying many times. Most recently,
you tried bullshitting with your "p.233" fiasco, and when that didn't
work, you desperately claimed a link was dead which wasn't, after
which you just slunk away. Have I accurately recounted this little
history?
>
> I'm not familiar with your acronym, so are you going to bolt
Why don't you post a link of JUST ONE discussion between us that I
have "bolted" from, in your reply to this post? I'll be waiting. I am
sure you will give me the same reply you gave when you accused me of
"clipping" and I asked for just one example, i.e. you will not be able
to. Not only that, you snip the entire post to which you purport to
"reply", then refer to some mysterious acronym. How is anyone supposed
to know what you are referring to? I went back to my post searching,
and couldn't find one. Could you please clarify? Sheesh, dealing with
the alzheimer's "mind" can be irksome.
or,
> perhaps, shall we go to something new?
Why? So you can just flee again when you are cornered? What's the
point?
This is getting tiresome.
Is that all, H? Just tiresome? You do understand, don't you, that that
silly statement is going to be read as just another lie by all here?
How
> about starting something new yourself this time. I've dedicated
> several specifically to you.
Yeah, that big offensive of yours really went over well. Had you
noticed? Wow, you really got me there, H. Good one.
Qahir Al-Ashrar
> Vist kanga at macfarlane tce mount barker to see where macfarlane
> burnet developed his WMD Q fever ,
>
> Coxiella burnetii is named after him, this pic shows him at work in
> mount barker labs
>
> http://www.wehi.edu.au/media/images/MacfarlaneBurnet.gif
>
> It is considered possibly the most infectious disease in the world,
> as a human being can be infected by a single bacterium.[1]
>
> As a standardized biological WMD it was manufactured in large
> quantities at Pine Bluff Arsenal, with 5,098 gallons in the arsenal
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever
>
> The Australian white christian scientist and weapons of mass
> destruction was awarded the first "Australian of the year" award and
> ==================================================================
> Vist kanga at macfarlane tce mount barker to see where macfarlane
>
> Q fever is a disease caused by infection with Coxiella burnetii, a
> bacterium that affects both humans and animals. This organism is
> uncommon but may be found in cattle, sheep, goats and other domestic
> mammals, including cats and dogs. The infection results from
> inhalation of contaminated particles in the air, and from contact
> with the vaginal mucus, milk, feces, urine or semen of infected
> animals.
> The incubation period is 9-40 days.
>
> It is considered possibly the most infectious disease in the world,
> as a human being can be infected by a single bacterium.[1]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever
>
> Biological warfare
>
> The United States investigated Q fever as a potential biological
> warfare agent in the 1950s with eventual standardization as agent OU.
> At Fort Detrick and Dugway Proving Ground human trials were conducted
> on Whitecoat volunteers to determine the median infective dose (18
> MICLD50/person i.h.) and course of infection. As a standardized
> biological it was manufactured in large quantities at Pine Bluff
> Arsenal, with 5,098 gallons in the arsenal in bulk at the time of
> demilitarization in 1970.
>
> Q fever is a category "B" agent. It can be contagious and is very
> stable in aerosols in a wide range of temperatures. Q fever
> microorganisms may survive on surfaces up to 60 days.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever#Biological_warfare
I am absolutely amazed by your informative article
HHW
> On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You won't find me bolting, Ratner. I just want some new material to
talk about.
I couldn't resist giving you this:
Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide
(HHW note: Dr. Finkelstein's forthcoming book is about this Jewish
Divide.)
by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe
A mushrooming media controversy pitting neoconservatives against a
prominent Jewish-American political commentator could mark a new stage
in the growing battle over who speaks for the US Jewish community on
foreign policy issues, particularly regarding the Middle East.
Time columnist Joe Klein's accusations that Jewish neoconservatives,
who played a particularly visible role in the drive to war in Iraq and
have since pushed for military confrontation in Iran, sacrificed "US
lives and money...to make the world safe for Israel," have spurred
angry charges of anti-Semitism and personal attacks from critics at
such neoconservative strongholds as the Weekly Standard, National
Review, and Commentary.
(Given those arrayed against him, one wonders what we can do to help
the poor guy. Letters to Time?)
But the fierceness of the controversy surrounding Klein, generally
considered a political centrist, highlights the growing antagonism
between neoconservative hardliners and prominent US Jews whose more
moderate views are aligned more closely with those of the foreign
policy establishment.
The controversy began Jun. 24, when Klein argued in a Time blog post
that the "fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like
[independent Democrat Sen.] Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary
– plumped for this war [in Iraq], and now for an even more foolish
assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties."
Within a day, Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League,
accused Klein of espousing ,"age-old anti-Semitic canards about a
Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government."
The reaction from the right-wing press was even harsher. Commentary
editor John Podhoretz reiterated the accusation of "anti-Semitic
canards," and called Klein "manifestly intellectually unstable."
Writing in National Review, former George W. Bush speechwriter Peter
Wehner called Klein "a man who cannot control his anger and even
hatred."
But Klein has refused to back down, accusing his attackers of using
charges of anti-Semitism to silence criticism of neoconservative
policies.
"When [Commentary writer] Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me anti-
Semitic, they're wrong," he said in an interview. "I am anti-
neoconservative."
In its broad contours, the controversy is a familiar one, as critics
accuse neoconservatives of exercizing pernicious influence on US
Middle East policy and neoconservatives reply with charges of anti-
Semitism and conspiracy-mongering.
What distinguishes the recent furor over Klein, however, is that it
involves someone who is widely regarded as an exemplar of the centrist
political establishment.
Klein is best known for his 1996 novel Primary Colors a thinly-veiled
and largely unflattering portrait of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential
campaign that was originally published anonymously and subsequently
made into a Hollywood movie. A frequent critic of Clinton, Klein has
at times expressed admiration for George W. Bush.
He also endorsed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (although he has since
expressed regret for his support) and describes himself as "a strong
supporter of Israel."
The Klein dust-up is the latest in a series of events over the last
several years that have placed neoconservatives both in the spotlight
and on the defensive.
Neoconservatism, a predominantly – but by no means exclusively –
Jewish movement, got its start in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when
a small but influential group of Democrats began distancing themselves
from the party which, in their view, had become too dovish toward the
Soviet Union and too sympathetic toward Arab demands against Israel.
By 1980, most had become strong supporters of Ronald Reagan. A number
of prominent neoconservatives joined his administration, including
many who would later play key roles in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq
war.
Consigned to the political wilderness under President George H.W.
Bush, the neoconservatives became increasingly identified in the 1990s
with Israel's right-wing Likud Party. It was also during the same
period that they began agitating for "regime change" in Iraq, arguing
that such a move would transform the balance of power in the Middle
East decisively in favor of both Israel and the US.
They experienced a rebirth with the election of Bush's son in 2000,
and particularly after the 9/11 attacks, when they played a major
role, both inside the administration and in the media, in rallying the
public and Congress behind war in Iraq.
But with the deterioration of the situation in Iraq, the influence of
neoconservatives inside and outside the administration began to wane,
and critics began charging that they had led the US astray.
A series of incidents also focused critical scrutiny on the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful lobbying group
whose hawkish right-wing leadership has often defied both the views of
the broader US Jewish community and the policies of Israeli
governments.
In 2004, the Justice Department charged Pentagon staffer Lawrence
Franklin with passing classified US government documents to two AIPAC
lobbyists, who had then given the documents to an Israeli Embassy
official. In January 2006, Franklin was sentenced to more than 12
years in prison, while the AIPAC staffers are still awaiting trial.
In March 2006, the well-respected and staunchly realist international
relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published the
article "The Israel Lobby" in the London Review of Books. That
article, which charged that the lobby had for decades skewed US policy
towards Israel in a direction detrimental to US interests, became the
basis for their 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis was instantly controversial. Like Klein,
they were accused by critics, including the ADL and Commentary, of
anti-Semitism and of perpetrating stereotypes about shadowy Jewish
conspiracies.
But as a result of their stature, the two authors' work clearly
created political space for those, both within the foreign policy
establishment and within the US Jewish community, who had been long
privately critical of the neoconservatives but had been worried about
the consequences of going public with their misgivings.
More recently, AIPAC has come under fire for its close alliance with
right-wing Christian Zionists, particularly controversial pastor John
Hagee and his organization Christians United for Israel (CUFI).
Hagee views an undivided Israel as a precondition for precipitating
the Armageddon, and his group has accordingly pushed for hawkish US
policies in the Middle East that have been consistent with the
neoconservatives' own preferences.
Matters came to a head earlier this year, when Republican presidential
candidate John McCain was compelled to repudiate Hagee's endorsement
after comments came to light in which the pastor suggested that the
Holocaust was biblically ordained in order to force Jews to resettle
in Israel.
(Look below at the gross hypocrisy the neoconservatives display:)
Nonetheless, Hagee and CUFI have maintained close ties with the
neoconservatives, and a collection of prominent Israel hawks,
including Senator Lieberman, spoke at CUFI's summit in Washington
earlier this month.
The belief that AIPAC has failed to accurately represent the views of
the US Jewish community led to the foundation earlier this year of J
Street, a Jewish lobbying group that aims to push for a more moderate
stance on Middle East issues.
(But will be able to raise money?)
In the wake of these developments, many observers have taken Klein's
comments – and particularly his refusal to back down in the face of
withering criticism from neoconservatives – as a sign that new
political space is being created for the public airing of more
moderate views on Middle East policy.
M.J. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer now associated with the
moderate Israel Policy Forum, expressed the hope that commentators
would stop equating neoconservatism with Judaism and start treating it
as a political movement subject to political criticism.
(What?! Perpetrate anti-semitism?)
"Although most neocons are Jews, few Jews are neocons," he wrote
Wednesday. By equating the two groups, "[the neocons] want Americans
not to follow the trail of war-mongering that leads not to Jews but to
them."
(Inter Press Service)
HHW
> On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
> > with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
> > it.
>
> Each link is the post of mine from which you fled. Of course, "it's
> not worth it". I see.....
Okay, okay, quit whining. I'll respond here but THEN I'm going on to
something interesting such as the Klein controversy which has been
going on since June without me knowing because I don't read TIME. Damn
it!
Each link was indeterminate as to which post it referred to. Paste
them in if you want further comment. I'm not going to waste time
chasing your urls.
>
>
>
> > Remember that the last time you summed up what you thought were my
> > defeats or whatever I did respond to each one and you did nothing
> > substantive in reply.
>
> That conversation is one from which you fled.
But I responded. How is that fleeing?
Specifically, it is the
> last one linked to.
Oh, I didn't get that far.
You are so silly, you think that if you don't
> check it out, no one else does either. My poor little ostrich H.
>
> Sometimes (how generous I am) you simply aren't
>
> > worth replying to. That's most frequently the case. It was especially
> > true of your puerile Ashbrook thread.
>
> Hmmm, so the fact that one of the authors of your bible, one of the
> two books you rely on to support your entire position here, obviously
> contradicted one of the main premises of that book
How do you know what the premises of that book are? Answer, now. I've
read it twice. I know it backwards and forwards. I have it right
beside me. Point out that so-called premise.
on air for all to
> hear on a highly respected interview program was not worth replying
> to?
I did reply, several times. You'll recall the 7th Grade Civics lesson,
surely:
H, get a grip, will you? Every single soul here knows why you
> didn't reply: you couldn't.
The 7th Grade Civics lesson. That was all you needed. I've now
listened to the tape, by the way, and Ashbrook didn't say a word about
your alleged "contradiction". In fact that aspect of the conversation
ended without completion at the end of the Camera.org snippet. It was
the lobby org Camera which raised the issue, not Ashbrook. And, like
you, Camera flunks 7th Grade Civics.
You sit there desperately typing these
> absurd lies and, like a child, think anyone will take them seriously.
> Re Ashbrook, you certainly tried replying many times.
Yes I did. Have you read them?
Most recently,
> you tried bullshitting with your "p.233" fiasco,
Actually it is p. 233 et seq. It goes on 20 or 30 pages. I told you I
wasn't going to type them. If you're impoverished you can try the
Boston Public library.
and when that didn't
> work, you desperately claimed a link was dead which wasn't,
The hell it wasn't.
after
> which you just slunk away. Have I accurately recounted this little
> history?
Obviously not. See above.
>
>
>
> > I'm not familiar with your acronym, so are you going to bolt
>
> Why don't you post a link of JUST ONE discussion between us that I
> have "bolted" from,
You are effectively bolting every time you clip material parts of my
arguments. That's very often. You have failed to answer cogent
argument to many times to count. When I raise the issue you simply
deny it in a bald faced lie. Then because I'm not going to chase after
them you turn it around and lie again. Is it genetic our were you
taught to behave this way?
in your reply to this post? I'll be waiting. I am
> sure you will give me the same reply you gave when you accused me of
> "clipping" and I asked for just one example, i.e. you will not be able
> to.
I posted back in what you clipped just two or so days ago, Count. You
ignored it.
Not only that, you snip the entire post to which you purport to
> "reply",
Yes, now that you are lying about doing it, I'm going to do it
myself, but only when it's worth while.
then refer to some mysterious acronym.
Don't pretend you're not count 1, Richard. I deal with the two of you
as one person. You'll just have to live with that. It was a stupid and
disingenuous move for you to make in the first place.
How is anyone supposed
> to know what you are referring to? I went back to my post searching,
> and couldn't find one. Could you please clarify? Sheesh, dealing with
> the alzheimer's "mind" can be irksome.
You've described me in about four different ways in the last week. Get
it together. Either I'm the master debater or an Alzheimer's patient.
You've been absolutely frantic the last couple of weeks, Ratner.
You're perpetually angry, frustrated, very much frustrated. Just as I
can't help you with the fact that most neoconservatives are Jewish but
few Jews are neoconservatives, I can't help you with your emotional
state. So what was the three letter acronym anyhow? Come on, tell us.
drahcir
> On Aug 9, 6:15 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You won't find me bolting, Ratner. I just want some new material to
> talk about.
I understand. The past is simply too painful for you to endure. If it
makes you feel better to call it "wanting new material", then you just
go ahead and call it whatever you want. Everyone else will continue to
see it for what it is - fleeing, or, to use your terminology, bolting.
Until you contend with the Ashbrook interview, admit your myriad lies,
show at least one example of my "clipping". and show at least one
example of my "bolting", one has no choice but to see you as the
scared-shitless liar that you are.
So H, tell me, what is the technical term for someone such as yourself
who repeatedly gets his ass kicked by a pipsqueak?
>
> I couldn't resist giving you this:
And I may even read it - as soon as you learn to provide links with
the stuff you dredge up. I want to see what I am reading, as do
others.
drahcir
> On Aug 9, 6:15 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
> > > with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
> > > it.
>
> > Each link is the post of mine from which you fled. Of course, "it's
> > not worth it". I see.....
>
> Okay, okay, quit whining.
Interesting. You and your good bud cramer don't seem to comprehend the
definition of "whine". I suggest you look it up. What I am doing is
dogging you, not letting you escape.
LOL! "Point out the so-called premise." As if everyone here doesn't
know that I have stated the premise at least a dozen times in my posts
relative to the ashbrook interview. Are you here denying that one of
the main premises of the book is that Israel and its lobby bear a
significant part of the responsibility for the US invasion of Iraq? A
simple yes or no will suffice.
>
> on air for all to
>
> > hear on a highly respected interview program was not worth replying
> > to?
>
> I did reply, several times. You'll recall the 7th Grade Civics lesson,
> surely:
> H, get a grip, will you? Every single soul here knows why you
>
> > didn't reply: you couldn't.
>
> The 7th Grade Civics lesson. That was all you needed. I've now
> listened to the tape, by the way, and Ashbrook didn't say a word about
> your alleged "contradiction".
Hey everybody, H learned to click his mouse. What a good boy you are,
H. Here is the question, ASKED BY ASHBROOK, that got M fumbling over
himself:
Ashbrook: The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear,
so if the Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone
into Iraq? That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a
contradiction then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of
Israeli lobby influence?
In your opinion, is the above reflective of Ashbrook not saying a word
about M's contradiction? HE STATES IT POINT BLANK. He is a smart
cookie, much smarter than M, and he got him good. Are you just an oaf
or a terrible liar, H? I don't see a third possibility.
In fact that aspect of the conversation
> ended without completion at the end of the Camera.org snippet. It was
> the lobby org Camera which raised the issue, not Ashbrook. And, like
> you, Camera flunks 7th Grade Civics.
H has gone from p.233 to 7th grade civics. What will it be next, H,
global warming? The contradiction is plain, obvious, there for all to
see, will you please stop trying to pull non-existent wool over
anyone's eyes?
>
> You sit there desperately typing these
>
> > absurd lies and, like a child, think anyone will take them seriously.
> > Re Ashbrook, you certainly tried replying many times.
>
> Yes I did. Have you read them?
yup. A joke, just like their author.
>
> Most recently,
>
> > you tried bullshitting with your "p.233" fiasco,
>
> Actually it is p. 233 et seq. It goes on 20 or 30 pages. I told you I
> wasn't going to type them. If you're impoverished you can try the
> Boston Public library.
If you had a point that could demolish the contradiction ashbrook
revealed, you would have stated it clearly. Instead you just try more
of your bullshit. You got nothing, H, and that is obvious.
>
> and when that didn't
>
> > work, you desperately claimed a link was dead which wasn't,
>
> The hell it wasn't.
But somehow you got it to work. Isn't that amazing. You brought it
back from the dead, eh? Did you get someone to show you how the mouse
works? (What H will do now is try to confuse the issue, bringing in
the fact that the original link WAS dead. As soon as that was revealed
to me, I provided a live one, which H, in his panic, tried to claim
wasn't working either. The only end that served was to get him even
deeper in doodoo, something I wouldn't have thought was possible.)
>
> after
>
> > which you just slunk away. Have I accurately recounted this little
> > history?
>
> Obviously not. See above.
I have. You must be hallucinating.
>
>
>
> > > I'm not familiar with your acronym, so are you going to bolt
>
> > Why don't you post a link of JUST ONE discussion between us that I
> > have "bolted" from,
>
> You are effectively bolting every time you clip material parts of my
> arguments.
This guy is sticking his chin out and saying "please slap me". Glad to
oblige, H. As everyone is very tired of hearing by now, you accused me
of "clipping", I challenged you to produce just one example, and you
couldn't. The reason for that is obvious - it never occurred. So,
logically, if "clipping" is your indicator of "bolting", and if
"clipping" never occurred, then "bolting" never occurred, either. But
the door is still open, H. Provide just one example of my "clipping".
I am waiting.
That's very often. You have failed to answer cogent
> argument to many times to count. When I raise the issue you simply
> deny it in a bald faced lie.
Let's go for round 3. You accused me of "clipping", yet couldn't
provide even one example. You accused me of "bolting", but couldn't
provide even one example. Now you accuse me of lying. I challenge you
to provide just one example of a lie of mine in our discussions, just
one. If you don't produce it, your accusation of lying must, of
course, be a lie.
Then because I'm not going to chase after
> them you turn it around and lie again. Is it genetic our were you
> taught to behave this way?
Careful, we wouldn't want to sound antisemitic now, would we?
>
> in your reply to this post? I'll be waiting. I am
>
> > sure you will give me the same reply you gave when you accused me of
> > "clipping" and I asked for just one example, i.e. you will not be able
> > to.
>
> I posted back in what you clipped just two or so days ago, Count. You
> ignored it.
Hey, you want to maintain this charade of pretendng I am Count, go
ahead. Your job is to produce one example of my clipping. that's of
ME, DRAHCIR. Producing examples of other posters is, of course,
irrelevant.
>
> Not only that, you snip the entire post to which you purport to
>
> > "reply",
>
> Yes, now that you are lying about doing it, I'm going to do it
> myself, but only when it's worth while.
H, you can say I lie, you can say I bolt, you can say I "clip". It's a
free internet, you can say anything you want. The fact that you can't
produce even one example speaks for itself.
>
> then refer to some mysterious acronym.
>
> Don't pretend you're not count 1, Richard. I deal with the two of you
> as one person.
Who cares how you deal? That's irrelevant to reality.
You'll just have to live with that.
Oh, no, I can't live with that, it's too much to bear.....
It was a stupid and
> disingenuous move for you to make in the first place.
>
> How is anyone supposed
>
> > to know what you are referring to? I went back to my post searching,
> > and couldn't find one. Could you please clarify? Sheesh, dealing with
> > the alzheimer's "mind" can be irksome.
>
> You've described me in about four different ways in the last week. Get
> it together. Either I'm the master debater or an Alzheimer's patient.
The fact that you can't decipher whether I have described you as a
master debater or an alzheimers patient ought to make it clear even to
someone who has never read one of my posts which is the term I used to
describe you.
> You've been absolutely frantic the last couple of weeks, Ratner.
Frantic? Why, whatever do I have to be frantic about? Making you look
ridiculous is pure fun.
> You're perpetually angry, frustrated, very much frustrated. Just as I
> can't help you with the fact that most neoconservatives are Jewish but
> few Jews are neoconservatives, I can't help you with your emotional
> state. So what was the three letter acronym anyhow? Come on, tell us.
There is no "us", H. And I have no clue what you are talking about.
Why don't you produce it and end the mystery of the acronym? Or,
don't.
HHW
> On Aug 9, 6:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:15 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
> > > > with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
> > > > it.
>
> > > Each link is the post of mine from which you fled. Of course, "it's
> > > not worth it". I see.....
>
> > Okay, okay, quit whining.
>
> Interesting. You and your good bud cramer don't seem to comprehend the
> definition of "whine". I suggest you look it up. What I am doing is
> dogging you, not letting you escape.
Yeah the queen is being a bitch.
>
> I'll respond here but THEN I'm going on to
>
> > something interesting such as the Klein controversy which has been
> > going on since June without me knowing because I don't read TIME. Damn
> > it!
>
> > Each link was indeterminate as to which post it referred to. Paste
> > them in if you want further comment. I'm not going to waste time
> > chasing your urls.
Oh, you admit that.
>
> > > > Remember that the last time you summed up what you thought were my
> > > > defeats or whatever I did respond to each one and you did nothing
> > > > substantive in reply.
>
> > > That conversation is one from which you fled.
Oh, really. What do you imagine I was afraid of. I answered your post,
responded to each whine and don't recall you turning it around. And
don't give a shit either. However, in the future should I neglect to
answer any of your hollering sessions is copy and paste it in wherever
I'm working with a request that I answer it. The idea that I hesitate
to answer you is absurd.
>
> > But I responded. How is that fleeing?
>
> > Specifically, it is the
>
> > > last one linked to.
Paste it in. Ask me in a civil fashion to respond. I won't chase your
urls.
> > Oh, I didn't get that far.
>
> > You are so silly, you think that if you don't
I do think I didn't open up the last one. The first two or three were
too stupid for belief. Have you looked up the 7th Grade Civics post
yet.
> > > check it out, no one else does either. My poor little ostrich H.
What's happened to the first three? I take it you accept my replies?
>
> > > Sometimes (how generous I am) you simply aren't
>
> > > > worth replying to. That's most frequently the case. It was especially
> > > > true of your puerile Ashbrook thread.
>
> > > Hmmm, so the fact that one of the authors of your bible, one of the
> > > two books you rely on to support your entire position here, obviously
> > > contradicted one of the main premises of that book
You have no idea of the primises of the book. You won't read it. I'm
supposed to take you seriously. I've answered the Ashbrook thing at
least twice. 7th Grade Civics lesson, idiot. Look it up. The quesion
is did you respond to that?
>
> > How do you know what the premises of that book are? Answer, now. I've
> > read it twice. I know it backwards and forwards. I have it right
> > beside me. Point out that so-called premise.
>
> LOL! "Point out the so-called premise." As if everyone here doesn't
> know that I have stated the premise at least a dozen times in my posts
> relative to the ashbrook interview.
You don't know the theses of the book Stating bullshit several times
is what you've done. I went through that in detail You're just being a
profound jerk. You're straight out of that disgusting Hasbara manual.
Can you defend the patent amoralism and dishonest in that thing.
Are you here denying that one of
> the main premises of the book is that Israel and its lobby bear a
> significant part of the responsibility for the US invasion of Iraq? A
> simple yes or no will suffice.
You've changed your language. I took it apart last time and now you've
changed it. They probably call that bait and switch in your charming
Hasbara manual on how to lie, cheat and steal and get away with it on
American college campuses. The first time I don't even think you
mentioned the lobby, only Israel and I don't think that you qualified
it at all either. It was something like the central thesis was Israel
caused us to go to war. I dismantled you in two or three posts and now
you pretend it didn't happen. I had to tell you that the book and its
central thesis are about the American Israel lobby, not Israel. It's
about domestic American politics. Israel is there alright but she is
not central. That's why I gave you the quote to "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy" at pp. 233 et seq. That's one of the locations in
the book that Israel does surface for 20 or 30 pages. It's the place
where ISRAEL'S role is discussed specifically. You blow that off as if
I'm to type it out for you or you won't stoop to read it. It's another
occasion when you hide from information directly on the issue YOU
raise.
>
>
>
> > on air for all to
>
> > > hear on a highly respected interview program was not worth replying
> > > to?
>
> > I did reply, several times. You'll recall the 7th Grade Civics lesson,
> > surely:
> > H, get a grip, will you?
So, you deny that my seventh grade civics lesson reply doesn't exist?
Every single soul here knows why you
>
> > > didn't reply: you couldn't.
So you're saying it doesn't exist and that I flat out did not reply?
>
> > The 7th Grade Civics lesson. That was all you needed. I've now
> > listened to the tape, by the way, and Ashbrook didn't say a word about
> > your alleged "contradiction".
>
> Hey everybody, H learned to click his mouse.
Ashbrook did not follow up on Mearsheimer comment. Apparently he
didn't think it contradicted anything. It's only It's camera.org which
raised the faux issue.
What a good boy you are,
Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
> H. Here is the question, ASKED BY ASHBROOK, that got M fumbling over
> himself:
>
> Ashbrook: The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear,
> so if the Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone
> into Iraq? That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a
> contradiction then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of
> Israeli lobby influence?
"No, Ratner it isn't." When the Israelis came to inquire in early 2002
It turned out they were going to get all three of their enemies "done"
by the US, not just Iran. Once that sank in The only question was the
sequence. Bush wanted to do Iraq first. Why should the Israelis
complain about that so long as they were promised all three. They fell
into line and accomplished politically what Bush and Cheney could not
have done alone. In a previous reply to you I went through what had to
be accomplished politically for even the attack on Iraq to be
feasable. That's where the lobby, the neocons and Israel pitched in
and successfully drove us to war. That they had a compliant President
was perhaps necessary but certainly not sufficient. A good part of the
book is a detailed account of what the lobby and Israel and those
primarily Jewish-American neocons, especially in government, but also
in the media and think tanks actually did in that stinking, filthy
cause on behalf of Israel. Start at page 233. There's more elswhere in
the book. If you can't afford a library card or don't know how to use
the index, let me know.
>
> In your opinion, is the above reflective of Ashbrook not saying a word
> about M's contradiction? HE STATES IT POINT BLANK. He is a smart
> cookie, much smarter than M, and he got him good. Are you just an oaf
> or a terrible liar, H? I don't see a third possibility
If Ashbrook is such a smart cookie, why didn't he follow up. He hadn't
nailed Dr. Mearsheimer on anything at that point.. He left the
subject. Mearsheimer had the last word and the book they were
discussing kills you on the issue. I think he did not follow up
because unlike a naife like you, he understood Mearsheimer and knew at
least from reading the book that the question of lobby and Israel
conduct over the following year is described elaborately in it. All
you are doing here pretending you have a gotcha here because I'm not
going to type out 20 or 30 pages from a book you refuse to read
because the prospect of having to discuss it in public terrifies you.
I'd rather remind the audience of your hypocrisy at every turn.
.
>
> In fact that aspect of the conversation
>
> > ended without completion at the end of the Camera.org snippet. It was
> > the lobby org Camera which raised the issue, not Ashbrook. And, like
> > you, Camera flunks 7th Grade Civics.
>
> H has gone from p.233 to 7th grade civics.
Damned right I have and you're twisting in the wind right now. These
posts are in my record here. When you deny it you lie. You don't miss
any of them. I'm the mongoose to your cobra. You're obsessed.
What will it be next, H,
> global warming?
Not with me it won't.
The contradiction is plain, obvious, there for all to
> see,
Stupid. The issue is what the lobby and Israel and neocons actual did
over the next year to drive the nation to war in iraq.. You can learn
about it by reading the damned book, Ratner. It is flat out dishonest
to debate the book without doing it. Everybody here knows that.
will you please stop trying to pull non-existent wool over
> anyone's eyes?
Suppressed and false premise. Fallacy.
>
>
>
> > You sit there desperately typing these
>
> > > absurd lies and, like a child, think anyone will take them seriously.
> > > Re Ashbrook, you certainly tried replying many times.
>
> > Yes I did reply several times. Of course you've read them, right? I had to explain to you how the American system system of governance is designed and works and had to direct you to the specific text in Mearsheimer's book where you can find out about the conduct of the lobby, Israel and the Jewish neocons wasover the next year. I also explained to you how the book is organized and that its main thesis has to do with the lobby, not Israel. Look at the Title for Chirssake. When you were first raising the issue you said the central thesis was that Israel drove us to war. Israel did participate but the book is centrally about the lobby. Ashbrook got that right in his question, but when you first began to raise the issue you substituted Israel for the Lobby. That was monumentally stupid and I explained that in detail. You now deny that I even responded. You see, Ratner, I can speak of the book having read it twice. You are a deceitful charlatan, not having not read a word of it and still trying to attack it. I think it is obvious that Ashbrook had read it. As you say he's a smart cookie. He knew better than to follow up that line of questioning. It would have led to Mearsheimer simply stating the contents of the book he had written, commencing, for example at pp. 233, et seq.
>
> yup. A joke, just like their author.
A joke? You have no idea what a dunce you are by trifling with that
book in this dishonest fashion.
>
>
>
> > Most recently,
>
> > > you tried bullshitting with your "p.233" fiasco,
>
> > Actually it is p. 233 et seq. It goes on 20 or 30 pages. I told you I
> > wasn't going to type them. If you're impoverished you can try the
> > Boston Public library.
>
> If you had a point that could demolish the contradiction ashbrook
> revealed, you would have stated it clearly. Instead you just try more
> of your bullshit. You got nothing, H, and that is obvious.
If someone else here is willing to type out thirty pages for you I
invite them to do it. In this case you're an obvious miscreant. I even
offered to buy the damned thing for you if you can't afford it or
don't qualify for a library card. That's a princely gesture. If you
were to wish me to read a book by, say, Alan Dershowitz on our subject
and offered to send me a check to buy it with, I would certainly
accept. Just let me know.
>
>
>
> > and when that didn't
>
> > > work, you desperately claimed a link was dead which wasn't,
>
> > The hell it wasn't.
>
> But somehow you got it to work. Isn't that amazing.
No, it has an explanation. I just don't know it.
You brought it
> back from the dead, eh? Did you get someone to show you how the mouse
> works? (What H will do now is try to confuse the issue, bringing in
> the fact that the original link WAS dead. As soon as that was revealed
> to me, I provided a live one, which H, in his panic, tried to claim
> wasn't working either.
It didn't. Sorry about that.
The only end that served was to get him even
> deeper in doodoo, something I wouldn't have thought was possible.)
Don't you see what's happening here. You attack me personally and all
it accomplishes is to give me further opportunities to explain the
situation over and over for our audience. I enjoy speaking past you.
It's politics. That's why I'm here. Now go put on a pretty frock, mix
yourself a drink and relax for a while.
>
>
>
> > after
>
> > > which you just slunk away. Have I accurately recounted this little
> > > history?
>
> > Obviously not. See above.
>
> I have. You must be hallucinating.
>
>
>
> > > > I'm not familiar with your acronym, so are you going to bolt
>
> > > Why don't you post a link of JUST ONE discussion between us that I
> > > have "bolted" from,
>
> > You are effectively bolting every time you clip material parts of my
> > arguments.
>
> This guy is sticking his chin out and saying "please slap me". Glad to
> oblige, H. As everyone is very tired of hearing by now, you accused me
> of "clipping", I challenged you to produce just one example, and you
> couldn't. The reason for that is obvious - it never occurred. So,
> logically, if "clipping" is your indicator of "bolting", and if
> "clipping" never occurred, then "bolting" never occurred, either. But
> the door is still open, H. Provide just one example of my "clipping".
> I am waiting.
P. 1: HHW: You clip.
P. 2 Richard Ratner, famed composer of clarinet duets of Somerville MA
says:
No I don't.
THEREFORE: Richard Ratner does not clip.
HHW
> On Aug 9, 7:22 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clip
>
> > > > Yeah, that big offensive of yours really went over well. Had you
> > > > noticed? Wow, you really got me there, H. Good one.
Here's a real good one. Joe Klein, Senior Editor at TIME, in response
to Abe Foxman:
"I am disappointed, but not surprised, by your claim of antisemitism.
But that's what you do for a living, isn't it? I find your "outrage"
particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly
spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians,
or who don't favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their
campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and
careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being
"soft on terrorism" or "unpatriotic" or favoring "surrender"--Joe
Lieberman's favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a
neurotic need to prove their toughness. They, and you, should know
that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are
disgusted with their behavior. They, and you, should know that the
tendency to "cry wolf" about antisemitism does real harm to the
Jewish
community—indeed, in this case, it is laughable."
HHW
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Check this page and video out, Richard. It shows you what the lobby is
doing as we speak in order to foment another war:
HHW
dsha...@hotmail.com
Since HHW never "tests them," he is, by his own admission,
intellectually and morally dishonest.
"To prove their argument, the professors don't rely on such banal
sources as declassified records, presidential memoirs, or State
Department documents. These would unimpeachably show that Arab oil
(and not Israel) was America's persistent focus in the Middle East —
and that presidents have supported Israel for strategic and moral
reasons, not political ones. But, instead of citing archival sources,
Walt and Mearsheimer pack their footnotes with newspaper articles and
references to the polemical writings of Noam Chomsky and Norman
Finkelstein, as well as the unreservedly pro-Arab Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs. The paper's slipshod quality was so evident that
the Kennedy School removed its official seal from the treatise."
- Michael Oren, Quiet Riot, The New Republic, 31 March 2006
"John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy" has won David Duke's endorsement as "a modern
Declaration of American Independence" and a vindication of the ex-
Klansman's earlier work, presumably including his pathbreaking book,
"Jewish Supremacism."...One of Mearsheimer's University of Chicago
colleagues has characterized this as "piss-poor, monocausal social
science." It is indeed a wretched piece of scholarship...The authors
dismiss or ignore past Arab threats to exterminate Israel, as well as
the sewer of anti-Semitic literature that pollutes public discourse in
the Arab world today. The most recent calls by Iran's fanatical -- and
nuclear weapons-hungry -- president for Israel to be "wiped off the
map" they brush aside as insignificant. There is nothing here about
the millions of dollars that Saudi Arabia has poured into lobbying and
academic institutions, or the wealth of Islamic studies programs on
American campuses, though they note with suspicion some 130 Jewish
studies programs on those campuses. West Bank settlements get
attention; terrorist butchery of civilians on buses or in shopping
malls does not. To dispute their view of Israel is not to differ about
policy but to act as a foreign agent."
- Eliot A. Cohen, 'Yes, It's Anti-Semitic,' Washington Post, 5 April
2006
"My own reading of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper found it unremarkable, a
bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the Arab oil lobby), but
nothing that even a casual newspaper reader does not know...Israel's
special place in U.S. foreign policy is deserved, in my view, and not
entirely the product of lobbying. Israel has earned it, and isn't
there something bracing about a special relationship that is not based
on oil or markets or strategic location but on shared values? (A bit
now like Britain.) But I can understand how foreign policy "realists"
such as Mearsheimer and Walt might question its utility and not only
think that a bit too much power is located in a specific lobby but
that it is rarely even discussed. This may be wrong, but it is not
(necessarily) anti-Semitic." Richard Cohen, No, It's Not Anti-Semitic,
Washington Post, 25 April 2006
"We still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my
opinion...They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much
of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to
China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they
fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to
back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with
the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel.
Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious
blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that."
"Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy
corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life --
transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can
they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen
Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests
that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does
AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms
industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and
campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist
lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." Do the energy
corporations fail to understand their interests, or are they part of
the Lobby too?"
- Noam Chomsky, The Israel Lobby? Znet, 28 March 2006
"What progressive supporters of Mearsheimer and Walt's analysis seem
to ignore is that both men have a vested interest in absolving from
responsibility the foreign policy establishment that they have served
so loyally all these years. Israel and its supporters are essentially
being used as convenient scapegoats for America's disastrous policies
in the Middle East. And though they avoid falling into simplistic,
anti-Semitic, conspiratorial notions regarding Jewish power and
influence for the failures of U.S. Middle East policy, it is
nevertheless disturbing that the primary culprits they cite are
largely Jewish individuals and organizations.
"Also problematic are the article's references to U.S. Middle East
policy resulting in part from the influence of “Jewish voters,” since
most American Jews take more moderate positions regarding Iraq, Iran,
and Palestine than does Congress or the Bush administration.
Similarly, while Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim that the Israel
lobby is monolithic or centrally directed, they fail to emphasize how
not all pro-Israel groups support the policies of the Israeli
government, particularly its right-wing administrations."
"The authors' claim that the Israel lobby is a major factor in the
formulation of overall U.S. Middle East policy is plainly false.
Indeed, U.S. policy in the Middle East over the past several decades—
orchestrating military interventions and CIA-backed coups, backing
right-wing dictatorships, peddling neoliberal economic policies
through the International Monetary Fund and other international
financial institutions, undermining the United Nations and
international law, imposing sanctions against nationalist governments,
etc.—is remarkably similar to U.S. policy toward Latin America,
Africa, and Southeast Asia. If the United States can pursue such
policies elsewhere in the world without pressure from the Israel
lobby, why is its presence necessary to explain U.S. policies in the
Middle East?"
- Stephen Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It, Really? Mother
Jones News, 18 May 2006
"Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a
decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of
Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--
who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number
on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an
Israeli lobby. Perhaps I have forgotten, but I can remember plenty of
conversations about the power of the American gun lobby,
environmentalists, evangelicals, small-business owners, and teachers
unions."
- David Gergen, An Unfair Attack, US News & World Report, 26 March
2006
"One day after Kennedy School scholar Marvin Kalb lambasted the
paper's authors for failing to meet basic quality standards for
academic research, another Harvard professor, Ruth Wisse, called for
the Kennedy School to withdraw the paper until the authors remedy
their "poor scholarship."
"The paper has won praise from Islamist groups and white supremacist
and anti-Semite David Duke. Yet the assessment of Rep. Eliot Engel, a
Democrat of New York who is Jewish, was that the paper "really
deserves the contempt of the American people," and that it amounts to
"the same old anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist drivel."
"Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature who is
publicly supportive of Israel, said that beyond generating "anger" and
"anxiety," the result of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper "has really been
consternation that professors of standing could produce a work of such
poor scholarship, and belligerence."
- Meghan Clyne, Harvard's Paper on Israel Called Trash by Solon, New
York Sun, 22 March 2006
"I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it
clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School
research paper," Mr. Kalb, who is also the faculty chair for the
Kennedy School's Washington programs, told The New York Sun in an e-
mail yesterday after reading the paper.
"It is a rather sensational example of 'realist' journalism," he
continued. "My sense is that Dean Walt would be better advised to
stick to scholarship and leave journalism to journalists, who
generally check their 'facts' before publishing them."
Also critical of the paper's academic quality was one of the figures
mentioned in it as part of the "lobby," President Clinton's special
Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, who said the authors displayed "a
woeful lack of knowledge on the subject."
"The part I've read I find remarkable for its lack of seriousness,"
Mr. Ross told the Sun yesterday. "It is basically a series of
assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point
of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound
way. It is masquerading as scholarship.
"I would say this is an effort to take a point of view and give it
academic legitimacy," he continued.
- Meghan Clyne, Kalb Upbraids Havard Dean Over Israel, New York Sun,
21 March 2006
"Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt
often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in
apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a
travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past
two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by
mendacity."
- Benny Morris, And Now For Some Facts, The New Republic, 8 May 2006
> > Was George Schultz a part of HHW's beloved "Israel Lobby"? Don't think
> > so.
> Why this question? It hadn't occurred to me.
A lot of questions don't seem to have occurred to HHW, so preoccupied
he is with parroting antisemitic propaganda which he never "tests".
The opinions of scholars -- and of Schultz -- as to the quality of
research M&W employed differ from the unqualified views of it held by
HHW and David Duke.
"We still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my
opinion...They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much
of the evidence is assertion)." Noam Chomsky
"Instead of citing archival sources, Walt and Mearsheimer pack their
footnotes with newspaper articles and references to the polemical
writings of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, as well as the
unreservedly pro-Arab Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The
paper's slipshod quality was so evident that the Kennedy School
removed its official seal from the treatise." Michael Oren
"One of Mearsheimer's University of Chicago colleagues has
characterized this as "piss-poor, monocausal social science." It is
indeed a wretched piece of scholarship." Eliot A. Cohen
"My own reading of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper found it unremarkable, a
bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the Arab oil lobby), but
nothing that even a casual newspaper reader does not know." Richard
Cohen
"I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it
clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School
research paper. My sense is that Dean Walt would be better advised to
stick to scholarship and leave journalism to journalists, who
generally check their 'facts' before publishing them." Marvin Kalb
"It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people
who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at
anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship."
Dennis Ross
"What these distinguished professors have produced is otherwise
depressing to anyone who values intellectual integrity...Their work is
riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity...The "facts"
presented by Mearsheimer and Walt suggest a fundamental ignorance of
the history with which they deal, and that the "evidence" they deploy
is so tendentious as to be evidence only of an acute bias. " Benny
Morris
[Flush remainder of HHW babble]
Deborah
drahcir
> On Aug 9, 7:22 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 6:15 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 8, 8:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 8, 3:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > When I click on your tiny urls I get an entire thread, frequently
> > > > > with two of your posts on a single page. Sorry, but it's not worth
> > > > > it.
>
> > > > Each link is the post of mine from which you fled. Of course, "it's
> > > > not worth it". I see.....
>
> > > Okay, okay, quit whining.
>
> > Interesting. You and your good bud cramer don't seem to comprehend the
> > definition of "whine". I suggest you look it up. What I am doing is
> > dogging you, not letting you escape.
>
> Yeah the queen is being a bitch.
I have done my part to reduce wasted bandwidth and reduced H to silly
one-liners.
>
>
>
> > I'll respond here but THEN I'm going on to
>
> > > something interesting such as the Klein controversy which has been
> > > going on since June without me knowing because I don't read TIME. Damn
> > > it!
>
> > > Each link was indeterminate as to which post it referred to. Paste
> > > them in if you want further comment. I'm not going to waste time
> > > chasing your urls.
>
> Oh, you admit that.
Oy, this senile oaf is replying to himself again.
>
>
>
> > > > > Remember that the last time you summed up what you thought were my
> > > > > defeats or whatever I did respond to each one and you did nothing
> > > > > substantive in reply.
>
> > > > That conversation is one from which you fled.
>
> Oh, really.
Yes, really. This is all cited, H, so you obviously know it's
"really".
What do you imagine I was afraid of.
Why should anyone imagine? Why not just come out and state what you
were afraid of? Fear is nothing to be ashamed of, well, actually it
is....
> I answered your post,
H, you do not need to state what you did or didn't do. The evidence
was posted for all to see.
> responded to each whine and don't recall you turning it around.
You don't need to recall. You need to click and read.
And
> don't give a shit either.
Is that a request to me? Or did you forget "I"? In any case, it is
just blahblah without meaning.
However, in the future should I neglect to
> answer any of your hollering sessions is copy and paste it in wherever
> I'm working with a request that I answer it. The idea that I hesitate
> to answer you is absurd.
H, try to post sober next time. It'll make more sense and will be less
embarrassing for you.
>
>
>
> > > But I responded. How is that fleeing?
>
> > > Specifically, it is the
>
> > > > last one linked to.
>
> Paste it in. Ask me in a civil fashion to respond. I won't chase your
> urls.
So don't. It doesn't matter. You fled from them, why would you
suddenly develop the urge to reply now. You don't wanna click? Not a
problem.
>
> > > Oh, I didn't get that far.
>
> > > You are so silly, you think that if you don't
>
> I do think I didn't open up the last one. The first two or three were
> too stupid for belief. Have you looked up the 7th Grade Civics post
> yet.
>
> > > > check it out, no one else does either. My poor little ostrich H.
>
> What's happened to the first three? I take it you accept my replies?
is this "reply" of yours ever going to be anything more than babble?
>
>
>
> > > > Sometimes (how generous I am) you simply aren't
>
> > > > > worth replying to. That's most frequently the case. It was especially
> > > > > true of your puerile Ashbrook thread.
>
> > > > Hmmm, so the fact that one of the authors of your bible, one of the
> > > > two books you rely on to support your entire position here, obviously
> > > > contradicted one of the main premises of that book
>
> You have no idea of the primises of the book.
The oaf repeats himself. Do you mind if I ignore all of this
meaningless chatter and skip down to where I ask you point blank about
one of the premises of the book? Thanks.
You won't read it. I'm
> supposed to take you seriously. I've answered the Ashbrook thing at
> least twice. 7th Grade Civics lesson, idiot. Look it up. The quesion
> is did you respond to that?
>
>
>
> > > How do you know what the premises of that book are? Answer, now. I've
> > > read it twice. I know it backwards and forwards. I have it right
> > > beside me. Point out that so-called premise.
>
> > LOL! "Point out the so-called premise." As if everyone here doesn't
> > know that I have stated the premise at least a dozen times in my posts
> > relative to the ashbrook interview.
>
> You don't know the theses of the book Stating bullshit several times
> is what you've done. I went through that in detail You're just being a
> profound jerk. You're straight out of that disgusting Hasbara manual.
> Can you defend the patent amoralism and dishonest in that thing.
>
> Are you here denying that one of
>
> > the main premises of the book is that Israel and its lobby bear a
> > significant part of the responsibility for the US invasion of Iraq? A
> > simple yes or no will suffice.
>
> You've changed your language. I took it apart last time and now you've
> changed it. They probably call that bait and switch in your charming
> Hasbara manual on how to lie, cheat and steal and get away with it on
> American college campuses.
H thinks no one notices that although he states that "i've changed my
language", he doesn't state precisely how. When I ask him to cite my
supposed previous language and cite its location, we all know that he
will simply flee.
The first time I don't even think you
> mentioned the lobby, only Israel
Wrong. I cited the CAMERA cites from the book, the first of which is:
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
element. (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
See that bit about AND THE LOBBY, H?
and I don't think that you qualified
> it at all either.
No once cares what you "think".
It was something like the central thesis was Israel
> caused us to go to war. I dismantled you in two or three posts
You "dismantled me"? I'll give you one thing, you have a vivid
imagination.
and now
> you pretend it didn't happen.
Poor H is destroying me in his imagination.
I had to tell you that the book and its
> central thesis are about the American Israel lobby, not Israel. It's
> about domestic American politics. Israel is there alright but she is
> not central. That's why I gave you the quote to "The Israel Lobby and
> U.S. Foreign Policy" at pp. 233 et seq.
You didn't give any quote, you simply supplied a cite - a cite that
clearly had no relevance, else you would have supplied a quote.
That's one of the locations in
> the book that Israel does surface for 20 or 30 pages. It's the place
> where ISRAEL'S role is discussed specifically. You blow that off as if
> I'm to type it out for you or you won't stoop to read it. It's another
> occasion when you hide from information directly on the issue YOU
> raise.
H, get a grip. From the very outset, Ashbrook asks:
The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear, so if the
Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone into Iraq?
That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a contradiction
then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of Israeli lobby
influence?
That was my very first post about this interview. The lobby is clearly
mentioned. If you want to try in vain to get yourself off the hook on
a technicality that doesn't exist. be my guest. You make a fatal flaw
in these newsgroups, H. You think that your silly ploys are not
transparent.
>
>
> > > on air for all to
>
> > > > hear on a highly respected interview program was not worth replying
> > > > to?
>
> > > I did reply, several times. You'll recall the 7th Grade Civics lesson,
> > > surely:
> > > H, get a grip, will you?
>
> So, you deny that my seventh grade civics lesson reply doesn't exist?
>
> Every single soul here knows why you
>
>
>
> > > > didn't reply: you couldn't.
>
> So you're saying it doesn't exist and that I flat out did not reply?
>
I am sorry if what I am saying is not clear to you. There is nothing
more I can do to help you.
>
> > > The 7th Grade Civics lesson. That was all you needed. I've now
> > > listened to the tape, by the way, and Ashbrook didn't say a word about
> > > your alleged "contradiction".
>
> > Hey everybody, H learned to click his mouse.
>
> Ashbrook did not follow up on Mearsheimer comment. Apparently he
> didn't think it contradicted anything.
He himself proposed the contradiction in his question. This is so
boring. It's amazing that you really don't think your evasive bullshit
is obvious to everyone here.
It's only It's camera.org which
> raised the faux issue.
No, it's Ashbrook. Here's his question, yet again:
The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear, so if the
Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone into Iraq?
That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a contradiction
then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of Israeli lobby
influence?
Did you read the words "IS THERE A CONTRADICTION THEN JOHN"?? Hmmmm?
>
> What a good boy you are,
>
> Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you try! It
would be fun to hear them.
>
> > H. Here is the question, ASKED BY ASHBROOK, that got M fumbling over
> > himself:
>
> > Ashbrook: The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear,
> > so if the Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone
> > into Iraq? That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a
> > contradiction then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of
> > Israeli lobby influence?
>
> "No, Ratner it isn't."
Does anyone know what H is above trying to say. It's in quotes, I have
no idea why. Is the poor oaf trying to say that ashbrook did not ask
the above question?
When the Israelis came to inquire in early 2002
> It turned out they were going to get all three of their enemies "done"
> by the US, not just Iran. Once that sank in The only question was the
> sequence. Bush wanted to do Iraq first. Why should the Israelis
> complain about that so long as they were promised all three.
H is pretending he doesn't get the contradiction. The book's premise
is
"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
element. (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)"
M says:
"In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact that we were
seriously thinking about doing Iraq, they came to Washington and told
us that they would prefer that we do Iran first. "
To any normal person, the above two statements contradict one another.
You have spent innumerable megabits of bandwidth dancing around like a
lunatic, laboring under the mistaken impression, with stuff like your
bullshit paragraph to which I am here replying, your idiotic non-quote
from p.233, and all your other clownish ploys including trying to get
anyone to believe that a live link was dead, that you can somehow
distract from this simple contradiction. Ashbrook perceived it as a
contradiction, stated it point blank, and before the oaf Mearsheimer
knew what he was doing, he verified the contradiction. Ashbrook didn't
even set a trap, but M managed to fall into it anyway.
They fell
> into line and accomplished politically what Bush and Cheney could not
> have done alone. In a previous reply to you I went through what had to
> be accomplished politically for even the attack on Iraq to be
> feasable. That's where the lobby, the neocons and Israel pitched in
> and successfully drove us to war. That they had a compliant President
> was perhaps necessary but certainly not sufficient. A good part of the
> book is a detailed account of what the lobby and Israel and those
> primarily Jewish-American neocons, especially in government, but also
> in the media and think tanks actually did in that stinking, filthy
> cause on behalf of Israel. Start at page 233. There's more elswhere in
> the book. If you can't afford a library card or don't know how to use
> the index, let me know.
>
See above.
>
> > In your opinion, is the above reflective of Ashbrook not saying a word
> > about M's contradiction? HE STATES IT POINT BLANK. He is a smart
> > cookie, much smarter than M, and he got him good. Are you just an oaf
> > or a terrible liar, H? I don't see a third possibility
>
> If Ashbrook is such a smart cookie, why didn't he follow up. He hadn't
> nailed Dr. Mearsheimer on anything at that point..
You actually think you just stating that in any was detracts from the
fact that it happened?
He left the
> subject. Mearsheimer had the last word and the book they were
> discussing kills you on the issue. I think he did not follow up
> because unlike a naife like you, he understood Mearsheimer and knew at
> least from reading the book that the question of lobby and Israel
> conduct over the following year is described elaborately in it.
He knew from reading the book that there was a conflict with reality.
He asked if that was contradictory. Those are his words. Your moronic
attempt to say black is white is irrelevant. The rest of this reply
looks to be just more clownish dancing. Forgive me if I skip a few of
your twirls.
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
"It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
The above two statements contradict each other. If you cannot perceive
that, you need to learn English. If you can refute this contradiction,
do it here, with at most 5 sentences of at most 35 words each. If your
reply is significantly longer, it will be crystal clear to all that
you are just bullshitting.
fla...@verizon.net
Yeah, I can't imagine which is the least true of those adjectives.
He's none of those things - & this is hardly a "conversation".
The more facts you & Deborah post, the more ridiculous his
replies get.
> but feel obliged to mention that you
> have fled discussions with me countless times, many the last few days.
> Here are but a few examples:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5aw9kq
>
> This was another of your myriad flights regarding ashbrook.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6ymkrq
>
> Yet another ashbrook. This was the one where you claimed you couldn't
> figure out how to click the link. Remember? That was a good one,
> wasn't it?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6xxuek
>
> That was a fun one too, remember? It's where you claimed I was
> "clipping" your posts to shreds, and when I denied doing such things
> and asked for just one example, you couldn't provide it. One of my
> favorites, and probably one of yours, too!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6dm68f
>
> Well, of course you fled from this one. Who wouldn't? This is the one
> where I enumerated, detailed, and proved a few of your lies of recent
> history. What could you possibly say in response? How you can show
> your face around here after this is anyone's guess.
>
> So, there you have just a few examples of your fleeing when cornered.
> Not bad for a pipsqueak, eh H?
>
> To all those to whom H has lied innumerable times - don't take it
> personally. His apparent self-image as someone who can actually debate
> proves that he lies just as easily to himself.
>
He's no different from the rest of them.
Susan
Eli Grubman
But, but, haven't you got him killfiled, you thick Irish cunt?
Eli
fla...@verizon.net
Half of then are the LAST people you'd expect to be doing it!!
Susan
4PeaceMirelle
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
and psychopath, aka dumb Rever'nerd, aka stalking fake Susan, etc., etc. in
various newsgroups, wrote:
ROTFLOL!
Psycho Grabmen is confused!!!!!!
--
üDoug±Ç about Grabmen: "Eli plays stupid with himself and always wins."
mirell...@yahoo.ca
Enrollment begins for classes in the art of fellatio, taught by world
renowned fellatrix Vera "Mirelle" Perks of Silverton, BC.
WANTED! Volunteers (male only) to serve in class as models for My
artistry. Sign up at the Church of the Revolving Vulva, or call Me at
250-358-2727. If I'm not available, you can leave a message with
Shaulik, My hubby and personal dhimmi.
http://moaningmirelle.blogspot.com/
"Great head has more than just penis action to it.
There are the balls to suck and roll around with the tongue....
And go back to the penis slowly tickling the head
ever so playfully....
And motions of up and down the penis with the tongue
ever so playfully.....
It takes having them tell the woman they are about to come and have
the woman pull gently on his balls as a man can not come when his
balls are descended for when a man has an orgasm his balls go up. Also
stop moving while doing this gentle pulling down of the balls."
- Mirelle, 17 Jan 2007 22:00:00
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.palestine,alt.religion.is=
lam
Message-ID: <1169099999.979954.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Visit My site at moaningmirelle.blogspot.com
See ya!
Mirelle
HHW
> From M&W:
>
> "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
> U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
> element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
>
> From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
>
> "It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
> in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
> that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
There is no contradiction. Concentrate now. He lays the foundation
with the chronology. I'll say if for the third or fourth time:
Yes, "FIRST". Ariel Sharon, the man who boasted about Israeli
domination of American policy, preferred that we do Iran FIRST. Not
only, not exclusively, but FIRST. Have I emphasized that enough? It's
not that he didn't want the United States of America to "do" Iraq for
Israel. Far from it. He preferred that the US would do Iran for Israel
*FIRST*. It's not that Sharon didn't want us to use our military to
attack Iraq on behalf of Israel. Of course not. He *DID* want that, he
was delighted with that, and the consequent pressure from Israel and
the lobby over the next year became the "critical element" in making
it happen. In lawyer-speak it was the "but for cause" of America going
to war, i.e., were it not for that cause it would not have happened.
The book describes HOW Israel, the lobby and the neocons, both in and
out of government, supplied that but for cause over the following
year, that critical element which drove a skeptical America, not Bush
and Cheney, but America, to war. That Bush and Cheney, both neocons
even though not Jewish, were on board is one thing. Propelling THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to go to war is a very different matter. I
explained it in detail in a previous post. You remember it. It was a
bit of a stinger. The thesis was that you didn't understand how your
mother country works politically or even how its government is
structured.
The Israelis had the chutzpah to "prefer" that we first attack the
country of 80 million rather than of 26 million. You know, the one
with a massive, fanatical army and a modern air defense system. The
one with the Sunburn Anti-Ship missile which we can not defense yet.
The much larger one geographically. Why wouldn't they if we're going
to "do" all three for them in order to improve the strategic position
of Israel anyway, Iraq, Syria AND Iran. Surely they'd get more bang
for our borrowed bucks if we attacked Iran first. You know, what if we
got tired, war weary? What if we repented of attacking other countries
for Israel? What if we bogged down, fell into a recession which might
end up looking like 1929, fell hopelessly into debt and just couldn't
sum up the strength to do Iran? Then we wouldn't have attacked Iran
for Israel, right? Of course they wanted Iran first. Of course they
wanted America to follow Israel's desires even in such detail, even in
that most complete sense. I'm sure it was nip and tuck but the
American President did get what he wanted on the matter of sequence.
He was still committed to attacking all three for Israel. So far as we
know the fool still is.
> The above two statements contradict each other. If you cannot perceive
> that, you need to learn English.
There is no contradiction whatever. There is another false, suppressed
premise in what passes for your analysis. America does not invade
other countries simply because two neocon former cowboys enter the
White House. As I told you before, America is not yet the Soviet
Union. Bush and Cheney have been working on it but the job isn't
finished. We still have three branches of government: AIPAC, the
Executive and the Judicial Branches.
If you can refute this contradiction,
> do it here, with at most 5 sentences of at most 35 words each. If your
> reply is significantly longer, it will be crystal clear to all that
> you are just bullshitting.
You don't care, Ratner, if your argument bears any resemblance to the
truth. Something more important than the truth and the interests of
your native land drives what you do. You have an Israel-first dual
loyalty. You are a sharavi clone complete with her moral sense. If you
just admitted it and then proceeded with your any-lie-for-Israel
arguments it would be one thing, but you don't. You pretend that your
conflict of interest doesn't exist, that it's an "anti-semitic canard
to mention it. Joe Klein is a man of honor. Richard Ratner is not.
I've now done it for third or fourth time. I've repeated it here only
because there are other readers of this thread and it gives me
another chance to persuade them. It is, however, the last time. There
are interesting things going on in this field. Feel welcome to join
me.
By the way, did you know that Norman Finkelstein is currently writing
a book on the collapse of Zionism among American Jews?
HHW
> On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Clip
>
> > What a good boy you are,
>
> > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
>
> Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you try! It
> would be fun to hear them.
"Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
drahcir
> On Aug 10, 8:39 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From M&W:
>
> > "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
> > U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
> > element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
>
> > From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
>
> > "It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
> > in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
> > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
>
> There is no contradiction. Concentrate now. He lays the foundation
> with the chronology. I'll say if for the third or fourth time:
Liar. You've NEVER directly addressed the contradiction. Prove me
wrong with a cite.
>
> Yes, "FIRST". Ariel Sharon, the man who boasted about Israeli
> domination of American policy, preferred that we do Iran FIRST. Not
> only, not exclusively, but FIRST.
We're not speaking of "ariel sharon". We're speaking of "israel and
the lobby", to quote M. Try to keep on track.
Have I emphasized that enough?
You can emphasize all you want. it's just more HHW bullshit. The issue
is not what Israel "preferred". The issue isn't even whether or not
israel wanted us to "do" iraq at all. The issue is WHETHER THE
ISRAELIS WERE A "CRITICAL ELEMENT" in the decision to "do" Iraq.
According to M:
Israelis caught wind of the fact
> > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
They CAUGHT WIND OF THE FACT. That means they learned of the fact
after it was decided. If it was already a fact, then pressure from
Israel could not have been a critical element in arriving at that
fact. Get the chronology?
It's
> not that he didn't want the United States of America to "do" Iraq for
> Israel. Far from it. He preferred that the US would do Iran for Israel
> *FIRST*. It's not that Sharon didn't want us to use our military to
> attack Iraq on behalf of Israel. Of course not. He *DID* want that, he
> was delighted with that, and the consequent pressure from Israel and
> the lobby over the next year became the "critical element" in making
> it happen. In lawyer-speak it was the "but for cause" of America going
> to war, i.e., were it not for that cause it would not have happened.
<yawn> As I stated above, what "sharon" (why you pick sharon when this
is about israel and the lobby is anyone's guess) wanted is IRRELEVANT.
The question is, was what Israel wanted "a critical element" in the
decision to do iraq. AND THE ANSWER IS NO, ACCORDING TO M IN THE
INTERVIEW, BUT YES ACCORDING TO M&W IN THE PAPER AND BOOK. That is
commonly referred to as a CONTRADICTION.
And below, as per my prediction, is mounds of meaningless HHW idiocy,
piled and piled on with the hope of somehow swaying the conversation
away from that contradiction. I have better things to do than waste
time reading such crap, as I am sure most here do. I warned you about
5 sentences. I believe they are up. So, ta!
HHW
> On Aug 10, 8:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 8:39 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > From M&W:
>
> > > "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
> > > U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
> > > element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
>
> > > From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
>
> > > "It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
> > > in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
> > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
>
> > There is no contradiction. Concentrate now. He lays the foundation
> > with the chronology. I'll say if for the third or fourth time:
>
> Liar. You've NEVER directly addressed the contradiction. Prove me
> wrong with a cite.
Three days ago:
"No, Ratner it isn't." When the Israelis came to inquire in early
2002
It turned out they were going to get all three of their enemies
"done"
by the US, not just Iran. Once that sank in The only question was the
sequence. Bush wanted to do Iraq first. Why should the Israelis
complain about that so long as they were promised all three? They
fell
into line and accomplished politically what Bush and Cheney could not
have done alone. In a previous reply to you I went through what had
to
be accomplished politically for even the attack on Iraq to be
feasable. That's where the lobby, the neocons and Israel pitched in
and successfully drove us to war. That they had a compliant President
was perhaps necessary but certainly not sufficient. A good part of
the
book is a detailed account of what the lobby and Israel and those
primarily Jewish-American neocons, especially in government, but also
in the media and think tanks actually did in that stinking, filthy
cause on behalf of Israel. Start at page 233. There's more elswhere
in
the book. If you can't afford a library card or don't know how to use
the index, let me know. "
>
>
>
> > Yes, "FIRST". Ariel Sharon, the man who boasted about Israeli
> > domination of American policy, preferred that we do Iran FIRST. Not
> > only, not exclusively, but FIRST.
>
> We're not speaking of "ariel sharon". We're speaking of "israel and
> the lobby", to quote M. Try to keep on track.
Why not speak of Sharon? He went to Washington at that time. He led
the delegation, Richard. Was he not the dominant political figure in
Israel at the time. Control your temper and you'll do better against
me.
>
> Have I emphasized that enough?
>
> You can emphasize all you want. it's just more HHW bullshit.
Fallacy, suppressed premise. False too. You're afflicted with this
failure. Must I outline it as if for children in a grammar class?
The issue
> is not what Israel "preferred".
Have you forgotten what Mearsheimer said in your "contradiction" quote
from camera? Here it is from your own post:
"...they came to
> > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first." You do see the word "prefer". Good.
The issue isn't even whether or not
> israel wanted us to "do" iraq at all. The issue is WHETHER THE
> ISRAELIS WERE A "CRITICAL ELEMENT" in the decision to "do" Iraq.
Yes, the "decision." Guess what, the US Congress made the decision.
What Bush and Cheney displayed in early 2002 were their policy goals.
There was a long, long way to go before it became a national decision.
And Bush and Cheney could not have accomplished it but for the lobby
and Israel. The book describes how they did it. You won't read it.
Here you again make the absolutely fundamental transposition of Israel
for the lobby. You again forget that the book is primarily about the
Israel lobby. Look at the title. The role of Israel is very
substantial but peripheral to that central subject. If you were to
make sense you would say that the issue is "whether the Israel lobby
and Israel combined were a critical element." You quite clearly
haven't been following this issue. You need to know something about it
beyond your blind devotion to Israel.
> According to M:
>
> Israelis caught wind of the fact
>
> > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > Washington and told us that they would PREFER (emphasis added) that we do Iran first."
>
> They CAUGHT WIND OF THE FACT. That means they learned of the fact
> after it was decided. If it was already a fact, then pressure from
> Israel could not have been a critical element in arriving at that
> fact. Get the chronology.
The chronology is not your friend in this argument. I've understood
that from the beginning. Ashbrook understood. Camera probably did too.
It didn't matter to them. They were going to make the accusation
anyway. Check your hasbara manual.
Whether to launch a preemptive war wasn't decided by Bush and Cheney
in early 2002. That would have been institutionally and politically
impossible. They couldn't authorize themselves to begin an offensive
war. We weren't attacked by the devastated and miserable Iraqis. We
had been attacking THEM since the early 90s. Mearsheiimer & Walt don't
say that Sharon and his team or the lobby convinced Bush and Cheney to
invade anyone in 2002, quite the opposite. They came into office
hoping they could accomplish it. What they say in essence is that
Sharon supported the idea of OUR going to war with not only Iraq but
Iran and Syria too, and joined the team in the sense that over the
next year before the national decision to invade Iraq was actually
made they meddled in our internal politics in ways which drove the
final decision. Their partners were the neocons in office, neocons in
a generally pro-Israel media, and think tanks allied with the lobby.
AIPAC was the point. The book tells you how it was accomplished, step
by step.
I knew these things when you began this thread. I tried to help you by
telling you where to get the information with which to evaluate the
accuracy/
honesty of the Camera charge of contradiction. You weren't listening.
You didn't listen to Mearsheimer either. You attacked him personally
instead. I also explained it in another thread with your alter ego,
Count 1, so you've no basis for saying you weren't advised.
>
> It's
>
> > not that he didn't want the United States of America to "do" Iraq for
> > Israel. Far from it. He preferred that the US would do Iran for Israel
> > *FIRST*. It's not that Sharon didn't want us to use our military to
> > attack Iraq on behalf of Israel. Of course not. He *DID* want that, he
> > was delighted with that, and the consequent pressure from Israel and
> > the lobby over the next year became the "critical element" in making
> > it happen. In lawyer-speak it was the "but for cause" of America going
> > to war, i.e., were it not for that cause it would not have happened.
>
> <yawn>
Don't pretend to be sleepy here. You are angry and frustrated. Your
ego is bruised. You should have had the wit not to have bought into
the camera scam. You trusted them and it brought you down.
As I stated above, what "sharon" (why you pick sharon when this
> is about israel and the lobby is anyone's guess) wanted is IRRELEVANT.
Yes, you are repeating yourself. But what Sharon wanted is not
irrelevant. He was deeply involved. I suggest that you learn something
about the direct connection between his office and that of Douglas
Feith in the Department of Defense. The DoD Inspector General has
investigated it and the decision is on the public record. Just do a
search for "Inspector General" and Feith. I'm sure you will find it.
Of course it's all an anti-semitic canard but you should find it
interesting nonetheless. Anyway the "stovepiping" of bogus
intelligence to Feith without it being vetted by our intelligence
community was illegal and was an important contribution to defrauding
the American people into the War on Iraq. Read the book, Richard.
> The question is, was what Israel wanted "a critical element" in the
> decision to do iraq.
What Israel DID in meddling with the internal operations of the
American government contributed to what the lobby, neocons,etc., etc.,
did in addition and together they constituted "a critical element"
which drove us to war. Israel did this because it wanted to. It
actively wanted us to attack Iraq irrespective of whether it would
have prefered us to attack Iran first.
AND THE ANSWER IS NO, ACCORDING TO M IN THE
> INTERVIEW, BUT YES ACCORDING TO M&W IN THE PAPER AND BOOK. That is
> commonly referred to as a CONTRADICTION.
It merely appears to be contradictory because you struggle mightily to
suppress the rest of the context. You need to check your ethical/moral
compas, Ratner.
> And below, as per my prediction, is mounds of meaningless HHW idiocy,
> piled and piled on with the hope of somehow swaying the conversation
> away from that contradiction. I have better things to do than waste
> time reading such crap, as I am sure most here do. I warned you about
> 5 sentences. I believe they are up. So, ta!
"Ta," eh? Hilarious. You've taken a prolonged whipping. I'd have
thought you might have liked it.
Anyhow the readers are invited to read the rest of my post below so
that they may understand the rest of what drawcir/Count1 is fleeing.
drahcir
IDIOT! Do you think I mentioned "deviant" because I was hurt by it?
You complete and utter fool! I mentioned it mockingly, to show how
desperate you had become. Unbelievable! When I asked you for "the
words", I was hoping you would elaborate on my "deviance". You
pathetic creature, how did you get this way?
drahcir
> On Aug 10, 8:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 8:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 8:39 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > From M&W:
>
> > > > "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
> > > > U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
> > > > element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
>
> > > > From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
>
> > > > "It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
> > > > in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
> > > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
>
> > > There is no contradiction. Concentrate now. He lays the foundation
> > > with the chronology. I'll say if for the third or fourth time:
>
> > Liar. You've NEVER directly addressed the contradiction. Prove me
> > wrong with a cite.
>
> Three days ago:
Get a grip. The below is just more of the sort of bullshit that
everyone ignores. Here, let me give you some advice. You want to be a
good lawyer someday? Listen up:
Here is what you said above:
> > > There is no contradiction.
Your utterly inept attempt to bend and twist reality into something
that suits your purposes,which is what lawyers like you attempt to do,
is doomed to failure so long as you do not acknowledge the
contradiction that is clear as day. What you should do is say, "yes,
there is what appears to be a contradiction here, but let me tell you
why appearances can be deceiving." But, you fucked it up by saying
like some ostrich "THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION." You actually think that
if you say it, it miraculously becomes true and everyone reading nods
their heads. I guess you are just not too bright. If you would like
any further advice about how to be a better lawyer, just ask.
>
> "No, Ratner it isn't." When the Israelis came to inquire in early
> 2002
> It turned out they were going to get all three of their enemies
> "done"
> by the US, not just Iran. Once that sank in The only question was the
> sequence. Bush wanted to do Iraq first. Why should the Israelis
> complain about that so long as they were promised all three? They
> fell
> into line and accomplished politically what Bush and Cheney could not
> have done alone. In a previous reply to you I went through what had
> to
> be accomplished politically for even the attack on Iraq to be
> feasable. That's where the lobby, the neocons and Israel pitched in
> and successfully drove us to war. That they had a compliant President
> was perhaps necessary but certainly not sufficient. A good part of
> the
> book is a detailed account of what the lobby and Israel and those
> primarily Jewish-American neocons, especially in government, but also
> in the media and think tanks actually did in that stinking, filthy
> cause on behalf of Israel. Start at page 233. There's more elswhere
> in
> the book. If you can't afford a library card or don't know how to use
> the index, let me know. "
>
Hehe, the above is just from his previous post, some of the stuff he
knew anyone not forced to stare at their computer screen by some
terrible disease would ignore.
>
> > > Yes, "FIRST". Ariel Sharon, the man who boasted about Israeli
> > > domination of American policy, preferred that we do Iran FIRST. Not
> > > only, not exclusively, but FIRST.
>
> > We're not speaking of "ariel sharon". We're speaking of "israel and
> > the lobby", to quote M. Try to keep on track.
>
> Why not speak of Sharon?
It is YOU who took a ploy, now apparently abandoned, that I perhaps
said "israel" once or twice when I meant "israel and its lobby". Now
suddenly it's "sharon". Sorry, won't fly. Sharon is not mentioned in
the section of the ashbrook interview cited, therefore, unacceptable.
If you want to say "israel", i am smart enough to understand, unlike
you, that the lobby is included.
He went to Washington at that time. He led
> the delegation, Richard. Was he not the dominant political figure in
> Israel at the time. Control your temper and you'll do better against
> me.
See above.
>
>
> > Have I emphasized that enough?
>
> > You can emphasize all you want. it's just more HHW bullshit.
>
> Fallacy, suppressed premise. False too. You're afflicted with this
> failure. Must I outline it as if for children in a grammar class?
You are transparent, H. You are powerless and dead in this debate long
ago. You knew that months ago when you fled. The only reason I goad
you into response is to give you the opportunity to further prove what
an imbecile you are.
> The issue
>
> > is not what Israel "preferred".
>
> Have you forgotten what Mearsheimer said in your "contradiction" quote
> from camera? Here it is from your own post:
>
> "...they came to
>
> > > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first." You do see the word "prefer". Good.
>
> The issue isn't even whether or not
>
> > israel wanted us to "do" iraq at all. The issue is WHETHER THE
> > ISRAELIS WERE A "CRITICAL ELEMENT" in the decision to "do" Iraq.
>
> Yes, the "decision." Guess what, the US Congress made the decision.
> What Bush and Cheney displayed in early 2002 were their policy goals.
And you actually think congress was swayed not by bush and cheney, BUT
BY SHARON!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
> There was a long, long way to go before it became a national decision.
> And Bush and Cheney could not have accomplished it but for the lobby
> and Israel.
You are such a pathetic liar. Whenever you hear about the decision
that was made, have you ever, even once, heard a congressman say that
he was influenced by anything except potential lies from bush and
cheney? Have you ever heard sharon mentioned by even one? If so,
please cite.
The book describes how they did it. You won't read it.
>
> Here you again make the absolutely fundamental transposition of Israel
> for the lobby.
Now H wants us to think that the lobby had different goals from the
country they represented. The desperation is palpable.
You again forget that the book is primarily about the
> Israel lobby. Look at the title. The role of Israel is very
> substantial but peripheral to that central subject. If you were to
> make sense you would say that the issue is "whether the Israel lobby
> and Israel combined were a critical element." You quite clearly
> haven't been following this issue. You need to know something about it
> beyond your blind devotion to Israel.
I have no blind devotion to israel. I just enjoy making you look
silly.
> > According to M:
>
> > Israelis caught wind of the fact
>
> > > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > > Washington and told us that they would PREFER (emphasis added) that we do Iran first."
>
> > They CAUGHT WIND OF THE FACT. That means they learned of the fact
> > after it was decided. If it was already a fact, then pressure from
> > Israel could not have been a critical element in arriving at that
> > fact. Get the chronology.
>
> The chronology is not your friend in this argument. I've understood
> that from the beginning. Ashbrook understood.
Is that why HE ASKED IF THERE WAS A CONTRADiCTION? Do you recall in
your last post you tried to claim that Ashbrook NEVER MENTIONED A
CONTRADICTION? You are a joke.
Camera probably did too.
> It didn't matter to them. They were going to make the accusation
> anyway. Check your hasbara manual.
H, this is going nowhere. Just more meaningless inundation. Ashbrook
asked if there was a contradiction, and M seemingly did his best to
prove that there was. End of story. You must think I have lots of
spare time to meander through your attempt to make someone believe
black is white. Go find another retiree.
> ...
>
> read more »
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Clip
> >
> >
> >
> > > > What a good boy you are,
> >
> > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
> >
> > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you try! It
> > > would be fun to hear them.
> >
> > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
> > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
>
> IDIOT!
(You forgot "liar")
Susan
drahcir
> On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Clip
>
> > > > > What a good boy you are,
>
> > > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
>
> > > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you try! It
> > > > would be fun to hear them.
>
> > > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
> > > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
>
> > IDIOT!
>
> (You forgot "liar")
No need to mention the obvious. Of course, it's obvious he is an
idiot, too, but the exclamation was rhetorical, not informational.
HHW
You get what you deserve, what you have earned. You've earned it by
being the filthiest opponent I've encountered here short of sharavi.
And you're continuing it here. I'm not. I thought this was over. You
said "Ta", remember?
drahcir
I guess when someone kicks your butt repeatedly, that makes him filthy
in your view. Of course, that designation has nothing whatsoever to do
with your bruised ego. Here's a newsflash for you, spike: the fact
that I have clearly demonstrated that you lie repeatedly makes your
opinion of me meaningless, get it?
> And you're continuing it here. I'm not. I thought this was over. You
> said "Ta", remember?
When you say "ta" to someone, does that mean "it's over"?
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:46 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Clip
> >
> > > > > > What a good boy you are,
> >
> > > > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
> >
> > > > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you
> > > > >try! It
> > > > > would be fun to hear them.
> >
> > > > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
> > > > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
> >
> > > IDIOT!
> >
> > (You forgot "liar")
>
> No need to mention the obvious. Of course, it's obvious he is an
> idiot, too, but the exclamation was rhetorical, not informational.
> >
Ah - I sit corrected.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 6:32 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Clip
> >
> > > > > > What a good boy you are,
> >
> > > > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
> >
> > > > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you
> > > > >try! It
> > > > > would be fun to hear them.
> >
> > > > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
> > > > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
> >
> > > IDIOT! Do you think I mentioned "deviant" because I was hurt by it?
> > > You complete and utter fool! I mentioned it mockingly, to show how
> > > desperate you had become. Unbelievable! When I asked you for "the
> > > words", I was hoping you would elaborate on my "deviance". You
> > > pathetic creature, how did you get this way?
> >
> > You get what you deserve, what you have earned. You've earned it by
> > being the filthiest opponent I've encountered here short of sharavi.
>
My irony meter just exploded - and took out my reserve irony meter.
> I guess when someone kicks your butt repeatedly, that makes him filthy
> in your view.
Must be why he's so hypocritically disgusting in his baseless
& impotent attacks on Deborah.
> Of course, that designation has nothing whatsoever to do
> with your bruised ego. Here's a newsflash for you, spike: the fact
> that I have clearly demonstrated that you lie repeatedly makes your
> opinion of me meaningless, get it?
>
> > And you're continuing it here. I'm not. I thought this was over. You
> > said "Ta", remember?
>
> When you say "ta" to someone, does that mean "it's over"?
He's just trying to weasel out on another butt-kicking.
Susan
Eli Grubman
>
>On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 11, 10:46 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Clip
>> >
>> > > > > > What a good boy you are,
>> >
>> > > > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
>> >
>> > > > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you
>> > > > >try! It
>> > > > > would be fun to hear them.
>> >
>> > > > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
>> > > > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
>> >
>> > > IDIOT!
>> >
>> > (You forgot "liar")
>>
>> No need to mention the obvious. Of course, it's obvious he is an
>> idiot, too, but the exclamation was rhetorical, not informational.
>> >
>Ah - I sit corrected.
>
>Susan
Couldn't have been much of an ass porking on Friday, then?
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
and psychopath, aka dumb Rever'nerd, aka stalking fake Susan, etc., etc. in
various newsgroups, wrote:
BTW, psycho Grabmen: are you also *physically* handicapped? <BG>
--
Rev. Richard Skull about Eli Grabmen: "Any sex act involving YOU is
bestiality."
HHW
> On Aug 11, 12:00 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 8:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 8:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 8:39 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > From M&W:
>
> > > > > "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
> > > > > U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical
> > > > > element." (p. 31 paper; p. 230 book with a lower case lobby)
>
> > > > > From M's interview with Tom Ashbrook:
>
> > > > > "It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq
> > > > > in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact
> > > > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first."
>
> > > > There is no contradiction. Concentrate now. He lays the foundation
> > > > with the chronology. I'll say if for the third or fourth time:
>
> > > Liar. You've NEVER directly addressed the contradiction. Prove me
> > > wrong with a cite.
>
> > Three days ago:
> > "No, Ratner it isn't." When the Israelis came to inquire in early
> > 2002
> > It turned out they were going to get all three of their enemies
> > "done"
> > by the US, not just Iran. Once that sank in The only question was the
> > sequence. Bush wanted to do Iraq first. Why should the Israelis
> > complain about that so long as they were promised all three? They
> > fell
> > into line and accomplished politically what Bush and Cheney could not
> > have done alone. In a previous reply to you I went through what had
> > to
> > be accomplished politically for even the attack on Iraq to be
> > feasable. That's where the lobby, the neocons and Israel pitched in
> > and successfully drove us to war. That they had a compliant President
> > was perhaps necessary but certainly not sufficient. A good part of
> > the
> > book is a detailed account of what the lobby and Israel and those
> > primarily Jewish-American neocons, especially in government, but also
> > in the media and think tanks actually did in that stinking, filthy
> > cause on behalf of Israel. Start at page 233. There's more elswhere
> > in
> > the book. If you can't afford a library card or don't know how to use
> > the index, let me know. "
> Get a grip. The <abive> is just more of the sort of bullshit that
> everyone ignores. Here, let me give you some advice. You want to be a
> good lawyer someday? Listen up:
>
> Here is what you said above:
>
> > > > There is no contradiction.
Yes, and I explained it. You don't want to hear that. Your
contradiction was apparent but not real. I've explained why four times
at least and you refused to come to grips with what I say, which is
what M & W say in their book. What you've done every time is respond
with an insult such as "get a grip" and "bullshit". Insults don't
advance the argument. You always respond with insults, therefore you
DON'T WANT to advance the argument. Why? Because you know you've lost
it and will get in deeper if the actual history of the matter is
discussed. You want only to smear M & W, not to evaluate their work.
You have the lobby m. o.
It's interesting how you respond to my mention of the war criminal
Sharon who was working with Bush and Cheney. Everything is propaganda
for you. Even Americans are hostile to Sharon. Can you imagine that?
So you don't want him even mentioned. Not even if he was the central
actor on the Israeli side.
>
> Your utterly inept attempt to bend and twist reality into something
> that suits your purposes,which is what lawyers like you attempt to do,
> is doomed to failure so long as you do not acknowledge the
> contradiction that is clear as day.
What you should do is say, "yes,
> there is what appears to be a contradiction here, but let me tell you
> why appearances can be deceiving."
I've said that repeatedly. The contradiction is apparent, but not
real. Therefore there is no actual contradiction. We're speaking about
history. The history is in the book. You just have to have some
knowledge of the book you refuse to read. I've said it over and over,
the chronology is your enemy. You are pretending that that nothing
happened which sheds light on the apparent contradiction in the year
between Sharon's visit to Washington and the final national decision
to go to war. A lot happened. It's in the book. It is the context for
the conversation between two people who unlike you had read the book,
Mearsheimer and Ashbrook. Mearsheimer made it clear that those
conversations in Washington were in early 2002 and that we did not go
to war until March of 2003. Why do you suppose he said that? It lays
the foundation for a discussion of the contents of the book. Ashbrook
did not follow up. I know nothing about Ashbrook but I read him as
contemptuous and hostile throughout. I thought that curious. He also
put callers on a couple of times and then didn't let Mearsheimer
answer their questions, preferring to go to Dennis Ross who is
profoundly pro-Israeli.
But, you fucked it up by saying
> like some ostrich "THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION."
You understand this. You're just practicing deceit in a failed effort
to discredit Professor John Mearsheimer and his book even though you
haven't read it. What you're doing is disgusting. 90% of what you do
here is ad hominem. The motive for that is to avoid coming to grips
with the history. Underlying that is the desire to avoid reform. You
think that if you can obscure the issues a little with these clouds of
squiddish ink you might strike a blow for Israel and the lobby---and,
unfortunately, against America. You would grind us into war and
depression if you thought it would be "good for the Jews" of Israel
even though it weren't necessary to the defense of Israeli
sovereignty.
I say again, there may be an appearance of contradiction, but it
doesn't exist in reality, in context. By now you know it's true. You
just don't care. Of what historical importance is an apparent but
actually non-existent contradiction? What actual substance can you
wring from that? None. What you care about is the appearance, not
reality. In Hollywood they elevate appearance over reality. We don't
do it when the well being of the American people is at stake.
Like sharavi, you're the sort of person who manufactures anti-
semitism.
You actually think that
> if you say it, it miraculously becomes true and everyone reading nods
> their heads. I guess you are just not too bright. If you would like
> any further advice about how to be a better lawyer, just ask.
Yes, 90%. Who taught you that this filth is the way to win an
argument?
> Hehe, the above is just from his previous post, some of the stuff he
> knew anyone not forced to stare at their computer screen by some
> terrible disease would ignore.
Yes, who taught you how to win arguments like this? In a sense you
represent the Jewish people here. Do you think you are covering them
with glory?
> > > > Yes, "FIRST". Ariel Sharon, the man who boasted about Israeli
> > > > domination of American policy, preferred that we do Iran FIRST. Not
> > > > only, not exclusively, but FIRST.
>
> > > We're not speaking of "ariel sharon". We're speaking of "israel and
> > > the lobby", to quote M. Try to keep on track.
>
> > Why not speak of Sharon?
>
> It is YOU who took a ploy, now apparently abandoned, that I perhaps
> said "israel" once or twice when I meant "israel and its lobby".
Just the lobby would have been perfectly fine in that context. I
explain below why I think you changed it.
Now
> suddenly it's "sharon". Sorry, won't fly.
Will you next be telling me that pigs don't fly?
Sharon is not mentioned in
> the section of the ashbrook interview cited, therefore, unacceptable.
So what? He was deeply involved in the actual facts being discussed in
the interview. His role is material context for your non-existent
"contradiction." Do you perceive yourself to be some sort of censor
here? If I have an observation to make about one of Israel's chief war
criminals, Sharon, I'll make it. BTW, why haven't you responded to the
example his his perfidy I wrote about, the manufacture and stovepiping
of false and misleading intelligence to Douglas Feith's Office of
Special Plans in the Pentagon which in turn was used by the White
House to defraud America into war with Iraq? Have you no honor? Will
you acknowledge nothing on Israel's debit side?
> If you want to say "israel", i am smart enough to understand, unlike
> you, that the lobby is included.
You're brilliant, Ratner. Look how you're taking it out of its
context. Mearsheimer says "lobby" and you change it to poor
beleaguered Israel. I don't believe for a minute that was a mistake.
It's just a part of your default deceit.
> He went to Washington at that time. He led
>
> > the delegation, Richard. Was he not the dominant political figure in
> > Israel at the time. Control your temper and you'll do better against
> > me.
>
> See above.
But you didn't actually address it above.
>
>
>
> > > Have I emphasized that enough?
>
> > > You can emphasize all you want. it's just more HHW bullshit.
>
> > Fallacy, suppressed premise. False too. You're afflicted with this
> > failure. Must I outline it as if for children in a grammar class?
>
> You are transparent, H. You are powerless and dead in this debate long
> ago. You knew that months ago when you fled. The only reason I goad
> you into response is to give you the opportunity to further prove what
> an imbecile you are.
I have reason to believe we're being read every day here. I don't mind
sticking around a little more but there are other fruitful fields to
plow. BTW, didn't
>
> > The issue
>
> > > is not what Israel "preferred".
>
> > Have you forgotten what Mearsheimer said in your "contradiction" quote
> > from camera? Here it is from your own post:
>
> > "...they came to
>
> > > > > Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first." You do see the word "prefer". Good.
Even on such tiny things you make no acknowledgment of having been
wrong.
> > The issue isn't even whether or not
>
> > > israel wanted us to "do" iraq at all. The issue is WHETHER THE
> > > ISRAELIS WERE A "CRITICAL ELEMENT" in the decision to "do" Iraq.
And look at this again. The book is about the lobby. Israel is
important but secondary. And you whine about poor Israel taking the
whole rap in this fraud.
>
> > Yes, the "decision." Guess what, the US Congress made the decision.
> > What Bush and Cheney displayed in early 2002 were their policy goals.
>
> And you actually think congress was swayed not by bush and cheney, BUT
> BY SHARON!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
A breakthrough! You admit that the decision was not made by Bush and
Cheney, but by the Congress. I'll take that to the bank. I'll also
point out that you've just demolished your entire "contradiction"
issue. And that in doing so you've admitted that the necessary context
lies in the year following the Bush-Cheney/Sharon meeting in early
2002.
> > There was a long, long way to go before it became a national decision.
> > And Bush and Cheney could not have accomplished it but for the lobby
> > and Israel.
>
> You are such a pathetic liar.
It is an opinion, a well founded opinion. It's an opinion which the
Mearsheimer book supports abundantly. How am I a liar? Do you know the
difference between a lie and an opinion? I really question your
education, Ratner. You're out of your depth.
Whenever you hear about the decision
> that was made, have you ever, even once, heard a congressman say that
> he was influenced by anything except potential lies from bush and
> cheney? Have you ever heard sharon mentioned by even one? If so,
> please cite.
I've read of many legislators who have admitted that the fear of
losing their career if they went against the lobby's wishes forced
them to go along. Are you now going to begin character assassination
of the former Illinois Congressman who writes the books about his
experiences with the lobby?
> The book describes how they did it. You won't read it.
I should have said you in the guise of drahcir. The other half of your
unsplit personality is staying up at night to finish it. I can't wait.
> > Here you again make the absolutely fundamental transposition of Israel
> > for the lobby.
>
> Now H wants us to think that the lobby had different goals from the
> country they represented. The desperation is palpable.
Don't put the lobby in the past tense quite yet. It has been pushing
for American acts of war against Iran. It's still corrupting our
Congress. It still writes its own aid legislation and gets it passed
by overwhelming margins.
>
> You again forget that the book is primarily about the
>
> > Israel lobby. Look at the title. The role of Israel is very
> > substantial but peripheral to that central subject. If you were to
> > make sense you would say that the issue is "whether the Israel lobby
> > and Israel combined were a critical element." You quite clearly
> > haven't been following this issue. You need to know something about it
> > beyond your blind devotion to Israel.
>
> I have no blind devotion to israel. I just enjoy making you look
> silly.
You're only technique is constant insults. Is it the sadistic impulse
which gives you such intense pleasure? Whips and leather maybe? You
have no command of the history. Yes, the subject is recent history.
You're profoundly ignorant of it. You, like most of the Zionists here,
are pushovers for someone who reads. It's definitely emotion and
ideology which drives you. That's especially obvious given the quality
of your education.
>
> > > According to M:
>
> > > Israelis caught wind of the fact
>
> > > > > that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to
> > > > > Washington and told us that they would PREFER (emphasis added) that we do Iran first."
>
> > > They CAUGHT WIND OF THE FACT. That means they learned of the fact
> > > after it was decided. If it was already a fact, then pressure from
> > > Israel could not have been a critical element in arriving at that
> > > fact. Get the chronology.
>
> > The chronology is not your friend in this argument. I've understood
> > that from the beginning. Ashbrook understood.
>
> Is that why HE ASKED IF THERE WAS A CONTRADiCTION? Do you recall in
> your last post you tried to claim that Ashbrook NEVER MENTIONED A
> CONTRADICTION? You are a joke.
That's why he did not *follow-up* on Mearsheimer's answer. I'm
convinced he knew there was no real contradiction as I did the moment
I read the camera thing. Really now, how would you have followed up if
you had been in Ashbrooks position? Think about what I have explained
to you so patiently. What question would you have asked him when he
finished his explanation at the end of the Camera snip?
> Camera probably did too.
>
> > It didn't matter to them. They were going to make the accusation
> > anyway. Check your hasbara manual.
>
> H, this is going nowhere.
Not at all, comes from reading Camera. As ADL is no longer really a
civil rights organization but an untiring engine for maintaining the
present relationship with Israel through intimidation no matter what
it does to the United States, Camera is in the business of
disciplining the media to the same end. They are parts of the lobby
described in the book which you say you won't read but which your sock
says he will. I presume he's almost through with it by now. I'll be
asking him about it if you haven't pushed him out of a helicopter as
if he were a Latin American leftist.
Just more meaningless inundation. Ashbrook
> asked if there was a contradiction, and M seemingly did his best to
> prove that there was. End of story.
You'd like to to be the end. You're desperate for it to be so. But the
end of the story is in the book. It demonstrates that we would not
have gone to war but for the lobby and Israel. Have you looked up the
Inspector General's report on Feith's back-door connection with
Sharon?
You must think I have lots of
> spare time to meander through your attempt to make someone believe
> black is white. Go find another retiree.
Tell us what you do, Ratner. I see no sign that you have a job. I
don't believe it.
> > Yes, you ARE repeating yourself. But what Sharon wanted is not
> > irrelevant. He wanted Iran FIRST. That doesn't mean he didn't want us to attack Iraq. In fact he fell in line and helped Bush convince the American people to attack Iraq. He did it in a fraudulent manner.
Above sentence edited to enhance clarity.
BTW, what did you think of my response to former Secretary of State
George Schultz's preface to Abe Foxman's book written to be published
at the same time as Mearsheimer & Walt's? It was certainly interesting
to respond to one of the most prominent figures of the entire Reagan
era. I meant to thank sharavi for the opportunity. How about reading
them and giving us your views? I think sharavi chose not to do that.
drahcir
You just don't get it. You can't "explain it". You must acknowledge
it. You are too stupid to realize that.
Your
> contradiction
Are you kidding? Here's what Tom Ashbrook said:
The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear, so if the
Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone into Iraq?
That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a contradiction
then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of Israeli lobby
influence?
Did you forget already, H? Why did you call it "my" contradiction? Is
that your old debating prowess making its presence felt? Please
answer.
was apparent but not real.
Oh, look, H, like a little boy, is trying to follow the advice I gave
him about how to be a better lawyer - now H says the contradiction not
only exists, but is apparent. What a good boy you are, H!
I've explained why four times
> at least and you refused to come to grips with what I say, which is
> what M & W say in their book.
H, you've inundated with verbiage, all complete shit. You've denied
there was even a contradiction until I felt such pity for you that I
told you that you'd get nowhere like that. You've tried your
ridiculous p.233 crap. Now, you want to try another tack - the light
bulb went off in your fucking stupid head, and you now want to create
history and say you've "explained" it at least four times. Explained
what, H? The contradiction that you claim didn't exist? Why, if it
didn't exist, there was nothing to explain, right? Fucking imbecile.Do
you actually think there is a soul here who doesn't think that if you
really had something, you would be able to state it succinctly in a
few sentences? What the fuck is wrong with you - how can you be so
utterly and completely impervious to even the slightest bit of reason?
Are you laboring under the delusion that you are, like, intelligent
enough to fool everyone? Get a fucking grip! Try to did deep and let
me know what it is, because how someone can be as moronic as you, I
just don't comprehend.
What you've done every time is respond
> with an insult such as "get a grip" and "bullshit". Insults don't
> advance the argument.
You have no argument. You inundate with meaningless crap and hope that
someone doesn't see through it. That's your strategy - it's painfully
obvious. Then when someone calls you on it, calling it exactly what it
is, crap, you don't like it. Tough.
You always respond with insults, therefore you
> DON'T WANT to advance the argument. Why? Because you know you've lost
> it and will get in deeper if the actual history of the matter is
> discussed. You want only to smear M & W, not to evaluate their work.
> You have the lobby m. o.
I didn't smear anyone. M smeared himself. Tom Ashbrook knew it was
contradictory - that's why HE asked the question. (unlike you,
ashbrook read the book and understood it.) You apparently still think
it's MY contradiction, you fucking moron.
> It's interesting how you respond to my mention of the war criminal
> Sharon who was working with Bush and Cheney. Everything is propaganda
> for you. Even Americans are hostile to Sharon. Can you imagine that?
> So you don't want him even mentioned. Not even if he was the central
> actor on the Israeli side.
>
We are talking about israel and the lobby. In order to maintain
consistency, we need to use only the terminology that M and TA used
during the interview. Simple. If you want code words, we can use
Sharon as the code word for israel, I don't give a shit.
>
> > Your utterly inept attempt to bend and twist reality into something
> > that suits your purposes,which is what lawyers like you attempt to do,
> > is doomed to failure so long as you do not acknowledge the
> > contradiction that is clear as day.
>
> What you should do is say, "yes,
>
> > there is what appears to be a contradiction here, but let me tell you
> > why appearances can be deceiving."
>
> I've said that repeatedly.
Liar. (This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I've never actually
done that, but I can only assume it's very easy, based on the fact
that it's an accepted simile for ease.)
"There is no contradiction" -HHW August 10, 2008
Message ID 070f2c4b-6f82-4f99-a9bc-3b2888107707
@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
"Mearsheimer's words in the snippet of
transcript contain no contradiction whatever " - HHW August 5, 2008
Message ID 9b42e9e4-64dc-475c-a492-6b834d871d65
@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com
"And the good Tom Ashbrook unearthed no contradiction whatever from
Professor Mearsheimer. " -HHW July 30, 2008
Message ID 020ce41b-5458-45db-beb9-3d4cfaaa41a1
@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com
Now, tell me, H, above you have direct, simple, clear evidence that
yet another of the many delusions you are laboring under is that you
can lie around here and not get caught. There is simply no escaping
the fact that you tried a bold-faced lie, saying that you acknowledged
the contradiction, when I have provided more than ample evidence that
you denied it existed. What would you do now if you were in my shoes?
What would you say to you, a low-down snake who is so senile he thinks
he can get away with obvious lies? Would you say, "I don't discuss
with silly children who constantly lie. Adios."? I bet you would. But
see, I am not you. I am going to continue to reply to you, even though
you are just the lowest lying scum that anyone could possibly imagine.
And it's all because I am one helluva nice guy.
The contradiction is apparent, but not
> real.
You know, when I suggested you take this tack, I didn't actually
expect you to take me up on it. I couldn't imagine that you would have
so little self-esteem that you would actually now try it, given that I
said it would be a much more effective way to bend the truth to serve
your needs. Or, in your alzheimic stupor, did you forget that part?
Whoa, man, I have just looked down the page. I gotta apologize - I am
a nice guy, but not that nice. Like I said, go find a retiree willing
to wade through your mounds of bullshit. I have better things to do.
Ta.
4PeaceMirelle
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
Mirelle
HHW
> On 11-Aug-2008, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 6:32 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 8:47 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 10, 7:13 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 10, 1:59 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Clip
>
> > > > > > > What a good boy you are,
>
> > > > > > > Indeed, and you're too deviant for words.
>
> > > > > > Oh, now I'm "deviant". C'mon, H, you can find the words if you
> > > > > >try! It
> > > > > > would be fun to hear them.
>
> > > > > "Whatever ye shall sow,so shall ye reap." You began this savage
> > > > > interpersonal stuff. Do you expect not to have to take it?
>
> > > > IDIOT! Do you think I mentioned "deviant" because I was hurt by it?
Who cares?
> > > > You complete and utter fool! I mentioned it mockingly, to show how
> > > > desperate you had become.
No quarter, Ratner.
Unbelievable! When I asked you for "the
> > > > words", I was hoping you would elaborate on my "deviance".
Did I not respond appropriately?
You
> > > > pathetic creature, how did you get this way?
First you answer my repeated asking of the same question of you.
>
> > > You get what you deserve, what you have earned. You've earned it by
> > > being the filthiest opponent I've encountered here short of sharavi.
>
> My irony meter just exploded - and took out my reserve irony meter.
Quit wasting our time.
>
> > I guess when someone kicks your butt repeatedly, that makes him filthy
> > in your view.
Filthy is as filthy does.
> Must be why he's so hypocritically disgusting in his baseless
> & impotent attacks on Deborah.
Awww, don't we all just love Deborah? And she's such a good cook too.
>
> > Of course, that designation has nothing whatsoever to do
> > with your bruised ego. Here's a newsflash for you, spike: the fact
> > that I have clearly demonstrated that you lie repeatedly makes your
> > opinion of me meaningless, get it?
I certainly wouldn't want to disabuse you of your illusions. You need
them Ratner.
> > > And you're continuing it here. I'm not. I thought this was over. You
> > > said "Ta", remember?
>
> > When you say "ta" to someone, does that mean "it's over"?
You're the expert on such narrow dialectical jargon.
>
> He's just trying to weasel out on another butt-kicking.
>
> Susan
Who's he? This has been the strangest post, eh"
drahcir
> On Aug 11, 2:17 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
B.H. Cramer
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa10bc81-49a6-4e8e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 12:30 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2:17 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>Uh-oh. I think I have pushed our poor H over the edge.
You're a fucking loon, RATner. And still suffering from delusions of
adequacy.