Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
“ISRAEL’S MOST DANGEROUS ENEMIES” Commentary on Alan Dershowitz by Gilad Atzmon
3 views
Skip to first unread message
HHW
May 1, 2012, 6:03:41 PM5/1/12
to
“ISRAEL’S MOST DANGEROUS ENEMIES”
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012 AT 9:25AM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon
For a while I have been worrying that my most devoted and enthusiastic
American campaigner is ill or even just gave up on me. But it seems
that Alan Dershowitz is alive and kicking. Yesterday he admitted that
together with Ilan Pappe and Neve Gordon, I am amongst the most
dangerous enemies of Israel.
Isracampus reported yesterday that notorious ethnic cleansing advocate
Dershowitz suggested that “some of the worst enemies of Israel are
themselves Israelis.” He referred to Neve Gordon, Ilan Pappe and Gilad
Atzmon. “In spite of the fact that the last two have emigrated from
Israel, Dershowitz says that these three, and people like them, are
people who wrap themselves in the Israeli flag only for the purpose of
burning it. The only time these people claim to be Israelis at all is
when they wish to wave this as a certificate to legitimize their own
malicious and unreasonable attacks against Israel."
Again Dershowitz is lying. I do not intend to talk on behalf of Pappe
or Gordon but for myself, I have never wrapped myself with an Israeli
flag. A long time ago I stripped myself of both Jewish and Israeli
identities. Unlike book burner Dershowitz, I am not interested in
setting fires but always enthusiastic for truth, justice and peace, I
am certainly searching for light.
I believe that the Jewish State is a grave threat to world peace and I
also contend that Hasbara agents such as Dershowitz must be exposed
for who and what they are.
I believe that as long as the Jewish Lobby in America is pushing for a
global war in the name of the Jewish State we must be entitled to ask
who are the ‘Jews’, what is ‘Judaism’ and what is ‘Jewishness’. I have
managed to answer these questions in my recent book The Wandering Who.
My take on the subject is actually rather reasonable,. It is driven by
love to peace, and devoid of any trace of racism. The text is endorsed
by many academics far superior to Dershowitz so it is not surprising
that Dershowitz, together with other Zionists and AZZ (Anti Zionist
Zionists) want to stop me and my book. But believe me, they don’t
stand a chance –
liberating thoughts posses a unique capacity to travel through
concrete walls. They are fuelled by negation. Hence, I am pretty sure
that Gordon and Pappe are also thankful to Dershowitz for his
recognition of their efforts.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics
The book can be ordered on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012 AT 9:25AM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon
For a while I have been worrying that my most devoted and enthusiastic
American campaigner is ill or even just gave up on me. But it seems
that Alan Dershowitz is alive and kicking. Yesterday he admitted that
together with Ilan Pappe and Neve Gordon, I am amongst the most
dangerous enemies of Israel.
Isracampus reported yesterday that notorious ethnic cleansing advocate
Dershowitz suggested that “some of the worst enemies of Israel are
themselves Israelis.” He referred to Neve Gordon, Ilan Pappe and Gilad
Atzmon. “In spite of the fact that the last two have emigrated from
Israel, Dershowitz says that these three, and people like them, are
people who wrap themselves in the Israeli flag only for the purpose of
burning it. The only time these people claim to be Israelis at all is
when they wish to wave this as a certificate to legitimize their own
malicious and unreasonable attacks against Israel."
Again Dershowitz is lying. I do not intend to talk on behalf of Pappe
or Gordon but for myself, I have never wrapped myself with an Israeli
flag. A long time ago I stripped myself of both Jewish and Israeli
identities. Unlike book burner Dershowitz, I am not interested in
setting fires but always enthusiastic for truth, justice and peace, I
am certainly searching for light.
I believe that the Jewish State is a grave threat to world peace and I
also contend that Hasbara agents such as Dershowitz must be exposed
for who and what they are.
I believe that as long as the Jewish Lobby in America is pushing for a
global war in the name of the Jewish State we must be entitled to ask
who are the ‘Jews’, what is ‘Judaism’ and what is ‘Jewishness’. I have
managed to answer these questions in my recent book The Wandering Who.
My take on the subject is actually rather reasonable,. It is driven by
love to peace, and devoid of any trace of racism. The text is endorsed
by many academics far superior to Dershowitz so it is not surprising
that Dershowitz, together with other Zionists and AZZ (Anti Zionist
Zionists) want to stop me and my book. But believe me, they don’t
stand a chance –
liberating thoughts posses a unique capacity to travel through
concrete walls. They are fuelled by negation. Hence, I am pretty sure
that Gordon and Pappe are also thankful to Dershowitz for his
recognition of their efforts.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics
The book can be ordered on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk
NEMO
May 1, 2012, 6:45:16 PM5/1/12
to
LOL!
HHW
May 2, 2012, 10:44:41 PM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 5:45 pm, NEMO <brianlambsbig...@excite.com> wrote:
> LOL!
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics by Gilad
Atzmon. It's not funny.
> LOL!
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics by Gilad
Atzmon. It's not funny.
drahcir
May 2, 2012, 11:49:52 PM5/2/12
to
Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
breathes:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e2?hl=en
breathes:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e2?hl=en
HHW
May 3, 2012, 3:05:34 PM5/3/12
to
On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> breathes:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> breathes:
>
Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
might be talking about.
dsharavi
May 4, 2012, 12:42:40 AM5/4/12
to
drahcir
May 4, 2012, 9:58:16 AM5/4/12
to
On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available. So
one can either believe you, a proven serial liar, and just take your
word for it, or that you simply lied again. I won't bother asking
what choice you believe a person of normal intelligence would make,
because you can't possibly know that Do you get what the liei is now,
or do you need further help?
wrote:
being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available. So
one can either believe you, a proven serial liar, and just take your
word for it, or that you simply lied again. I won't bother asking
what choice you believe a person of normal intelligence would make,
because you can't possibly know that Do you get what the liei is now,
or do you need further help?
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 2:15:27 AM6/3/12
to
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 2:16:24 AM6/3/12
to
On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
You can't post the alleged lie, Ratner. You're a fraud.
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
drahcir
Jun 3, 2012, 9:39:34 AM6/3/12
to
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:16:24 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
LOL! The hilarious thing, folks, is that the above is A LIE! How can
that be, you ask? Gather 'round and I'll tell you. As everyone knows,
HHW lies as easily as he breathes. He has no compunction whatever
about it. As many of you know, I have proven him a liar on numerous
occasions. So when he started his schtick about AD, I naturally asked
for his source. He couldn't provide it. As explained in my quoted
paragraph above, until he provided his source, he must be presumed to
be lying.
Well, eventually his neurons began to align, and he finally remembered
his source. Now, it was clear to everyone that in fact he was not
lying. The thread went on, and as usual HHW fled because I trounced
him. That fact is easily verifiable by anyone doing a search for
dershowitz in this group. And now, weeks later, this poor twit wants
to "get me", so he lies in that he knows full well that at the time of
the above paragraph, he was unable to produce his source, thus the
assumption that he was lying about it was perfectly valid. There was
nothing fraudulent about anyting I did or said, and so, in HHW's
inimitable, comic manner, he proves himself yet again a liar by
implying that my original claim of lying against him was fraudulent,
which of course it was not.
wrote:
that be, you ask? Gather 'round and I'll tell you. As everyone knows,
HHW lies as easily as he breathes. He has no compunction whatever
about it. As many of you know, I have proven him a liar on numerous
occasions. So when he started his schtick about AD, I naturally asked
for his source. He couldn't provide it. As explained in my quoted
paragraph above, until he provided his source, he must be presumed to
be lying.
Well, eventually his neurons began to align, and he finally remembered
his source. Now, it was clear to everyone that in fact he was not
lying. The thread went on, and as usual HHW fled because I trounced
him. That fact is easily verifiable by anyone doing a search for
dershowitz in this group. And now, weeks later, this poor twit wants
to "get me", so he lies in that he knows full well that at the time of
the above paragraph, he was unable to produce his source, thus the
assumption that he was lying about it was perfectly valid. There was
nothing fraudulent about anyting I did or said, and so, in HHW's
inimitable, comic manner, he proves himself yet again a liar by
implying that my original claim of lying against him was fraudulent,
which of course it was not.
drahcir
Jun 3, 2012, 9:40:45 AM6/3/12
to
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I'm usually kind to the handicapped, but in your case I'll make an
exception. Your request only serves to demonstrate your stupidity.
wrote:
exception. Your request only serves to demonstrate your stupidity.
drahcir
Jun 3, 2012, 9:41:21 AM6/3/12
to
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 7:08:01 PM6/3/12
to
On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> >> breathes:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>
> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
> >might be talking about.
>
> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
>
> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> >> breathes:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>
> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
> >might be talking about.
>
> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
learned about the great Professor Dershowitz. I've seen three versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectuan, not a scholar. I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of publications
after I wrote the Dean?
So
> one can either believe you, a proven serial liar,
MA. You'll probably like my response even less as the number of your
humiliations mount.
and just take your
> word for it,
or that you simply lied again.
mine. I make mistakes occasionally but don't ever lie on these ngs.
Why should I do something which is both counter-productive and
immoral? There are not even any incentives for me to do it. I'm on the
side of the angels so far as Israel and Israel Lobby issues are
concerned. Your clients' behavior in our Congress and history of
oppression and crimes are indefensible. Their treatment of the
American people is despicable. You're the fish in the barrel. You
can't escape me.
Clip ad hominem filth.
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 7:11:18 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:39 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:16:24 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Just post a lie you allege I have made at any time in the past. You
can't do it. There are none.
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:16:24 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
can't do it. There are none.
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 7:12:07 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:40 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Haha, where's the lie, Missey?
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
HHW
Jun 3, 2012, 7:13:34 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:41 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Missey, Missey, dear girl, how could an oaf have kicked you around so
adroitly for so many years?
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
adroitly for so many years?
drahcir
Jun 4, 2012, 12:47:04 PM6/4/12
to
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
LOL! FIrst of all, as I have proven above, your very accusation of
fraud is a lie. Don't think so? Then refute it. Second, anyone can do
a google groups search with me as author containing HHW and liar. Get
a grip, H. Just because you live in a fantasy world does not mean
anyone else does. Your denial of lyng is either symptomatic of severe
mental impairment or just another lie.
wrote:
fraud is a lie. Don't think so? Then refute it. Second, anyone can do
a google groups search with me as author containing HHW and liar. Get
a grip, H. Just because you live in a fantasy world does not mean
anyone else does. Your denial of lyng is either symptomatic of severe
mental impairment or just another lie.
drahcir
Jun 4, 2012, 12:55:30 PM6/4/12
to
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:08:01 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On May 4, 8:58�am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 2, 10:49�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
>> >> breathes:
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>>
>> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
>> >might be talking about.
>>
>> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
>> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
>> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
>> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>
>I'll explain, Missey,
No explanation necessary. You posted uncited info. I asked for a cite.
You couldn't provide one. I reasonably then assumed it was a lie. You
much later provided a cite. It was then clear you were not lying (for
a vhange). There's no more necessary to this part of the story. The
much more interesting part is how you fled from the original thread.
Anyone is free to see that by searching for dershowitz in this group.
Please forgive me if I pass on wasting time reading the steaming mound
of HHWBabble below. I did notice that the pile consists largely of
one of your semiannual attempts at denying your myriad lies posted in
this group and others. Any google groups search with me as author
contianing [hhw liar] should put any doubts to rest. I'll even provide
the search:
https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=hhw+liar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2012&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=drahcir&safe=off
http://tinyurl.com/855xot7
Feel free to discuss anythng contained in that search. Write "post it
here" and you simply prove yourself so impaired that you can't click
on a link. You had ample opportunity within the original threads to
refute my proofs. You never could because they were truthful.
wrote:
>On May 4, 8:58�am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 2, 10:49�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
>> >> breathes:
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>>
>> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
>> >might be talking about.
>>
>> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
>> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
>> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
>> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>
>I'll explain, Missey,
You couldn't provide one. I reasonably then assumed it was a lie. You
much later provided a cite. It was then clear you were not lying (for
a vhange). There's no more necessary to this part of the story. The
much more interesting part is how you fled from the original thread.
Anyone is free to see that by searching for dershowitz in this group.
Please forgive me if I pass on wasting time reading the steaming mound
of HHWBabble below. I did notice that the pile consists largely of
one of your semiannual attempts at denying your myriad lies posted in
this group and others. Any google groups search with me as author
contianing [hhw liar] should put any doubts to rest. I'll even provide
the search:
https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=hhw+liar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2012&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=drahcir&safe=off
http://tinyurl.com/855xot7
Feel free to discuss anythng contained in that search. Write "post it
here" and you simply prove yourself so impaired that you can't click
on a link. You had ample opportunity within the original threads to
refute my proofs. You never could because they were truthful.
HHW
Jun 4, 2012, 3:39:43 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 11:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
A direct quot of a "lie" by me. You can't do it. According to you I am
a "serial" liar. But you can't find even one. So who is the dissembler
here?
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
a "serial" liar. But you can't find even one. So who is the dissembler
here?
HHW
Jun 4, 2012, 4:15:20 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 11:55 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:08:01 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
Fool, how does one "cite" personal experience?
I asked for a cite.
So what?
> You couldn't provide one. I reasonably then assumed it was a lie.
You make ridiculous "presumptions" every day. It's the central part of
your modus operandi. You were never taught to respect ethical
behavior.
You
> much later provided a cite.
Oh, I didn't do it quick enough? Is that the equivalent of lying?
It was then clear you were not lying (for
> a vhange). There's no more necessary to this part of the story.
You don't want the truth. But here it is again:
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
The
> much more interesting part is how you fled from the original thread.
If there is a lie there, post it here with precision. I'll humiliate
you again.
> Anyone is free to see that by searching for dershowitz in this group.
Oh, not the subject is not "my" lies but "fleeing". What in the
original thread did I flee? Post it here, Miss Ratner.
> Please forgive me if I pass on wasting time reading the steaming mound
> of HHWBabble below.
Babble, indeed. The readers need to read it carefully. Here it is
again. I wouldn't do this if you hadn't banished the answer I gave to
your question to the bottom of the post. What could be more dishonest?
Here it is again:
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
>
> http://tinyurl.com/855xot7
Ridiculous. It won't provide anyone with the text of *what you say* is
a lie. So far you're batting Zero. Who knows what you think is a lie?
You must quote it precisely yourself. Just cut, paste and cite. The
latter is because you can't be trusted. I will certainly respond with
my usual talent for displaying your inner filth.
>
> Feel free to discuss anythng contained in that search.
Quote a lie by me, Ratner. Prove that you are an honest Zionist.
Write "post it
> here" and you simply prove yourself so impaired that you can't click
> on a link.
The link goes to a vast amount of material. It's a scam as no one
knows what you think is a lie. Stop squirming and quote a lie by me,
quote the specific words that constitute the alleged lie.
You had ample opportunity within the original threads to
> refute my proofs.
You never once pointed out any passage which was a lie. Where are
they, Ratner?
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:08:01 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> >> >> breathes:
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>
> >> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
> >> >might be talking about.
>
> >> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
> >> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
> >> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
> >> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>
> >I'll explain, Missey,
>
> No explanation necessary.
Here it is again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
> >> >> breathes:
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>
> >> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
> >> >might be talking about.
>
> >> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
> >> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
> >> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
> >> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>
> >I'll explain, Missey,
>
> No explanation necessary.
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
learned about the great Professor Dershowitz. I've seen three
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectuan, not a scholar.
I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
You posted uncited info.
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectuan, not a scholar.
I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
Fool, how does one "cite" personal experience?
I asked for a cite.
> You couldn't provide one. I reasonably then assumed it was a lie.
your modus operandi. You were never taught to respect ethical
behavior.
You
> much later provided a cite.
It was then clear you were not lying (for
> a vhange). There's no more necessary to this part of the story.
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
learned about the great Professor Dershowitz. I've seen three
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectuan, not a scholar.
I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
Indeed, you've been proved to still be a defamatory son of a bitch.
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectuan, not a scholar.
I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
The
> much more interesting part is how you fled from the original thread.
you again.
> Anyone is free to see that by searching for dershowitz in this group.
original thread did I flee? Post it here, Miss Ratner.
> Please forgive me if I pass on wasting time reading the steaming mound
> of HHWBabble below.
again. I wouldn't do this if you hadn't banished the answer I gave to
your question to the bottom of the post. What could be more dishonest?
Here it is again:
I'll explain, Missey, as you seem to be grief-stricken by what you've
learned about the great Professor Dershowitz. I've seen three
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
coming from an attention-seeking public intellectual, not a scholar.
versions
of his bibliography. The original, several years ago, was on the
Harvard Law faculty web site. It looked to be complete as it went
back
to the early sixties and contained something more than seven hundred
trivial newspaper and magazine articles and forty some equivalent
magazine articles but virtually no scholarship. His books appeared to
contain nothing of it either. Virtually the entire collection seemed
to be more or less of the pop culture variety which one might find
I
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
then wrote the e-mail to Harvard Law's Dean. She did not answer. The
next time I went back to the Harvard Law faculty web site the
Dershowitz publication list had been severely cut back. Then recently
someone here mentioned that Dershowitz had a personal web site. I
looked at it. It seemed similar to the Harvard Law trimmed version
but
I'm not positive of that. Thus I have seen three publication lists,
the first which I describe as looking to be complete is no longer
available. Where's the lie? Are you really trying to tell the readers
here that I'm lying because Dershowitz edited his list of
publications
after I wrote the Dean?
I did notice that the pile consists largely of
> one of your semiannual attempts at denying your myriad lies posted in
> this group and others. Any google groups search with me as author
> contianing [hhw liar] should put any doubts to rest. I'll even provide
> the search:
>
> https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=hhw+liar&as_epq=&a...
> one of your semiannual attempts at denying your myriad lies posted in
> this group and others. Any google groups search with me as author
> contianing [hhw liar] should put any doubts to rest. I'll even provide
> the search:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/855xot7
Ridiculous. It won't provide anyone with the text of *what you say* is
a lie. So far you're batting Zero. Who knows what you think is a lie?
You must quote it precisely yourself. Just cut, paste and cite. The
latter is because you can't be trusted. I will certainly respond with
my usual talent for displaying your inner filth.
>
> Feel free to discuss anythng contained in that search.
Write "post it
> here" and you simply prove yourself so impaired that you can't click
> on a link.
knows what you think is a lie. Stop squirming and quote a lie by me,
quote the specific words that constitute the alleged lie.
You had ample opportunity within the original threads to
> refute my proofs.
they, Ratner?
HHW
Jun 4, 2012, 4:22:41 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 11:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Any time you are willing to isolate and quote here a lie of mine, let
me know.
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
me know.
NEMO
Jun 4, 2012, 4:26:46 PM6/4/12
to
'' Any time you are willing to isolate and quote here a lie of mine,
let me know.''
Everytime you open your mouth, Jew - baiter!
Now piss - off, little man & be damn quick about it!
let me know.''
Everytime you open your mouth, Jew - baiter!
Now piss - off, little man & be damn quick about it!
drahcir
Jun 4, 2012, 5:40:01 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:15:20 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 4, 11:55 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:08:01 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
>> >> >> breathes:
>>
>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>>
>> >> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
>> >> >might be talking about.
>>
>> >> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
>> >> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
>> >> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
>> >> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>>
>> >I'll explain, Missey,
>>
>> No explanation necessary.
>
>Here it is again.
Um, why would your crap be necessary yet again? It wasn't necessary a
first time. If you care to refute anything I've said, do it in a
normal way, meaning post the refutation below the precsie statement
you wish to refute. Do you actually believe there's a soul here who
doesn't get why you won't do that?
wrote:
>On Jun 4, 11:55 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:08:01 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 4, 8:58 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 2, 10:49 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Here's just the latest of many proofs that HHW lies as easily as he
>> >> >> breathes:
>>
>> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/adb36547564511e...
>>
>> >> >Quote the "lie" here, Miss Ratner. Only you know what you think you
>> >> >might be talking about.
>>
>> >> The lie is clear for everyone from the link. Neverheless, I believe in
>> >> being kind to the handicapped, so here is yet another explanation just
>> >> for you. You stated you had read AD's complete bib, but when asked to
>> >> supply your source, you babbled that it was no longer available.
>>
>> >I'll explain, Missey,
>>
>> No explanation necessary.
>
>Here it is again.
first time. If you care to refute anything I've said, do it in a
normal way, meaning post the refutation below the precsie statement
you wish to refute. Do you actually believe there's a soul here who
doesn't get why you won't do that?
drahcir
Jun 4, 2012, 5:48:28 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
H, please, you're embarrassing yourself. I've PROVEN, not just accused
you of lying many times, as is known by all here. You want to change
that? Reply in the innumerable threads in which I proved your lies,
linked to elsewhere in this thread. You fled the original because my
proofs were irrefutable. That's why you won't attempt refutation now.
According to you I am
>a "serial" liar. But you can't find even one. So who is the dissembler
>here?
Here's a few of them:
https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=proof+hhw+liar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2012&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=drahcir&safe=off
http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT. You're just a
helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
succeeded in refutation.
Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
there for all to read.
wrote:
you of lying many times, as is known by all here. You want to change
that? Reply in the innumerable threads in which I proved your lies,
linked to elsewhere in this thread. You fled the original because my
proofs were irrefutable. That's why you won't attempt refutation now.
According to you I am
>a "serial" liar. But you can't find even one. So who is the dissembler
>here?
https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=proof+hhw+liar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2012&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=drahcir&safe=off
http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT. You're just a
helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
succeeded in refutation.
Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
there for all to read.
HHW
Jun 5, 2012, 7:14:43 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 4, 4:48 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=proof+hhw+liar&as_...
a single one here. Your scam is based on the Goebbels' big lie theory.
If it's repeated often enough people will begin to believe it. The
problem is that an allegation of lying is not lying. No one will
believe you unless you produce the so called lies, not just the
accusations. Paste one specific "lie" in here, give us the cite and
I'll again humiliate you as I've already done a few posts back up the
thread. By the way, the alleged issue of me lying regarding
Dershowitz's publications record is one of the most stupid things
you've done here in years.
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
>
> It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
> similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
> cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
> good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT. You're just a
> helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
> succeeded in refutation.
>
> Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
> containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
> even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
> there for all to read.
Your allegations are false, Ratner. You are a fraud. You can't produce
> http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
>
> It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
> similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
> cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
> good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT. You're just a
> helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
> succeeded in refutation.
>
> Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
> containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
> even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
> there for all to read.
a single one here. Your scam is based on the Goebbels' big lie theory.
If it's repeated often enough people will begin to believe it. The
problem is that an allegation of lying is not lying. No one will
believe you unless you produce the so called lies, not just the
accusations. Paste one specific "lie" in here, give us the cite and
I'll again humiliate you as I've already done a few posts back up the
thread. By the way, the alleged issue of me lying regarding
Dershowitz's publications record is one of the most stupid things
you've done here in years.
HHW
Jun 5, 2012, 7:25:58 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 4, 4:48 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
>
> It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
> similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
> cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
> good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT.
But you're refusing to do just that right here. Post a single lie you
> http://tinyurl.com/bqk7yev
>
> It's a simple google search for [proof liar hhw] author:drahcir . A
> similar search could be done for your various aliases: iconoclast,
> cazador, patricia, etc. You fled from every one of these threads, with
> good reason. When I prove something, I PROVE IT.
say I've made here
You're just a
> helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
> succeeded in refutation.
>
> Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
> containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
> even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
> there for all to read.
quote a single lie.. Give us the alleged lie itself. Put it in
quotation marks. Do it here. Give us a cite.
drahcir
Jun 6, 2012, 9:22:46 AM6/6/12
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<yawn> As I have stated numerous times, you had ample opportunity to
refute them in the original threads. You couldn't. I've invited you to
go back to any of them and refute them now - don't worry, I'll see
them. You won't because you can't. It's not enough to say my
"allegations are false". When something is proven beyond refutation,
counselor, it leaves the realm of allegation and becomes accepted
fact. The only way to dislodge it from that perch is to refute it. You
can't becuase I'm too smart for you.
You are a fraud. You can't produce
>a single one here.
<yean again> H, do you honestly think there's a soul here who hasn't
been through you clucking about me not producing a single one "here"?
You have a link that has threads proving many of your lies. COpying
and pasting them hHere", meaning in this conversaion, will only serve
your purposes of clouding the water. Ain't gonna happen. The original
threads are there - you fled from them becuase you had nothing left to
say. I'll tell you again, should you wish to re-engage with any of
them (for example, the "topping-off" incident) please feel free to do
it - I'll find you and set you straight. A cite is on the internet
almost always a link. I've provided that link, so my obligation is
done. The proof of your lying is in those links, for you or anyone
else to see.
Your scam is based on the Goebbels' big lie theory.
LOL! The proof is in the links. Godbbels had no proof.
>If it's repeated often enough people will begin to believe it. The
>problem is that an allegation of lying is not lying. No one will
>believe you unless you produce the so called lies, not just the
>accusations. Paste one specific "lie" in here, give us the cite and
>I'll again humiliate you as I've already done a few posts back up the
>thread. By the way, the alleged issue of me lying regarding
>Dershowitz's publications record is one of the most stupid things
>you've done here in years.
You've tried this probably 10 times before - wait until the heat of
the original discussions dies down a bit, then deny it ever happened.
I'd say that qualifies as a big lie, but of course I'm here to prevent
it from taking hold, so we have nothing to worry about!
Because I like to be kind to the handicapped, here's a link to the
"topping off" fiasco:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cda944
Here's one of your more despicable lies:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7603588266296075
Here's one where you lied about what I said:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
Here's one of your more infantile attempts at lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/70e59d04b030ede3
You fled from each thread, because the evidence proved you lied. This
is just a sampling from the search provided before in this thread.
And who could forget this incdident? If anyone would like to see how
absolutely second-nature it is for HHW to lie, what an insecure,
pathetci creature who has to try to show off for strangers in a
newsgroup he is, please read this hilarious thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/soc.culture.jewish/0grYArnC1sc
I state clearly here that this lie I cannot prove.
Please, counselor, I invite your participation in any or all of the
threads above. When you fled them, I became very lonely - I really
missed you...
wrote:
refute them in the original threads. You couldn't. I've invited you to
go back to any of them and refute them now - don't worry, I'll see
them. You won't because you can't. It's not enough to say my
"allegations are false". When something is proven beyond refutation,
counselor, it leaves the realm of allegation and becomes accepted
fact. The only way to dislodge it from that perch is to refute it. You
can't becuase I'm too smart for you.
You are a fraud. You can't produce
>a single one here.
been through you clucking about me not producing a single one "here"?
You have a link that has threads proving many of your lies. COpying
and pasting them hHere", meaning in this conversaion, will only serve
your purposes of clouding the water. Ain't gonna happen. The original
threads are there - you fled from them becuase you had nothing left to
say. I'll tell you again, should you wish to re-engage with any of
them (for example, the "topping-off" incident) please feel free to do
it - I'll find you and set you straight. A cite is on the internet
almost always a link. I've provided that link, so my obligation is
done. The proof of your lying is in those links, for you or anyone
else to see.
Your scam is based on the Goebbels' big lie theory.
>If it's repeated often enough people will begin to believe it. The
>problem is that an allegation of lying is not lying. No one will
>believe you unless you produce the so called lies, not just the
>accusations. Paste one specific "lie" in here, give us the cite and
>I'll again humiliate you as I've already done a few posts back up the
>thread. By the way, the alleged issue of me lying regarding
>Dershowitz's publications record is one of the most stupid things
>you've done here in years.
the original discussions dies down a bit, then deny it ever happened.
I'd say that qualifies as a big lie, but of course I'm here to prevent
it from taking hold, so we have nothing to worry about!
Because I like to be kind to the handicapped, here's a link to the
"topping off" fiasco:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cda944
Here's one of your more despicable lies:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7603588266296075
Here's one where you lied about what I said:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
Here's one of your more infantile attempts at lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/70e59d04b030ede3
You fled from each thread, because the evidence proved you lied. This
is just a sampling from the search provided before in this thread.
And who could forget this incdident? If anyone would like to see how
absolutely second-nature it is for HHW to lie, what an insecure,
pathetci creature who has to try to show off for strangers in a
newsgroup he is, please read this hilarious thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/soc.culture.jewish/0grYArnC1sc
I state clearly here that this lie I cannot prove.
Please, counselor, I invite your participation in any or all of the
threads above. When you fled them, I became very lonely - I really
missed you...
drahcir
Jun 6, 2012, 9:27:10 AM6/6/12
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
See my previous reply to you. You have the cites - feel free to reopen
the threads. They will NOT be pasted here by me - that only serves
your purposes of muddying the water. You can reopen the original
threads or you can paste them here yourself, but when you do so, I'll
be on the lookouw for selective pastes. Or you can keep clucking about
how I've never proven a single lie of yours while everyone else who is
reading this has clicked on the links and has had a fine time
reminiscing.
It appeasrs, counselor, that you are unfamiliar with the definition of
"cite". A cite is used to prove a statement. In newsgroups, cites are
often hyperlinks. I made a statement about having proven you a liar
and supported it with cites. That is the end ofmy obligation.
wrote:
the threads. They will NOT be pasted here by me - that only serves
your purposes of muddying the water. You can reopen the original
threads or you can paste them here yourself, but when you do so, I'll
be on the lookouw for selective pastes. Or you can keep clucking about
how I've never proven a single lie of yours while everyone else who is
reading this has clicked on the links and has had a fine time
reminiscing.
It appeasrs, counselor, that you are unfamiliar with the definition of
"cite". A cite is used to prove a statement. In newsgroups, cites are
often hyperlinks. I made a statement about having proven you a liar
and supported it with cites. That is the end ofmy obligation.
Zev
Jun 6, 2012, 4:51:56 PM6/6/12
to
which make a wrong impression, if they're not outright lies.
You appeared to be champing at the bit when I suggested
comparing Dershowitz to Finkelstein,
but you never did it.
When pressed, you had nothing objective
to explain why you admired NF over AD.
You hinted that Pappe got into trouble over Tantura
because he revealed the truth,
even though you know the opposite is true.
You refer to Pappe as "Dr Pappe"
but to Frantzman as a "geography student".
You discuss Frantzman's book review and make comments on it,
but your understanding of it is so superficial
that it makes one wonder if you've actually read it.
You bring up Geneva Convention 4,
but you can't explain exactly how it applies
to Israel's presence in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.
You project your own faults by accusing me of fleeing from threads.
These are things you've said to me,
in the last few weeks,
and it's just from the top of my head.
Hunter, it's a bad record.
HHW
Jun 7, 2012, 2:51:10 AM6/7/12
to
Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
don't interfere with it again.
First I will gently ask you who wrote it? I'll even answer for you: it
was the famed New York Columnist Glenn Greenwald, not me. I admire
Mr. Greenwald but am not my brother's keeper. Like the NYT I post news
which by my lights is fit to print. There is absolutely nothing
whatever about the Greenwald article which is objectionable, period.
It's honest, honorable and courageous. Everyone should read it.
Now I'll note that you perhaps were first infuriated by the fact that
I pasted from Greenwald into the title line of the post. I do that a
lot to catch the eye and don't apologize for it. I don't bother to put
it in quotations because the reader will find it in the text and thus
know where it came from. The quote certainly got you to read it. And
that fact is in turn giving me some opportunities you won't be happy
to have had a hand in. That's good because the paragraph in question
is only secondarily about Jewish votes but more importantly about
hypocrisy in the political use of an "ancient canard". I chose it
because you're a massive exemplar of that particular vice. Now that
I'm involved you'll have to read it more carefully than you probably
have to date. The readers you champion will probably do so too.
As a preliminary let me say that the system you're supporting of
identifying alleged "canards" and of accusing anyone who isn't
intimidated by one of them as anti-Semitic is a primary technique of
the Israel Lobby and of yourself as a tiny, thoughtless cog in that
overall effort. I'm here to do exactly the opposite of your
assignment. My role is to push back at efforts such as yours to
silence political speech on American foreign policy which you and the
Lobby find distressing because of your giant conflict of interest.
That you abuse antisemitism as a political weapon and do it
irrespective of context and facts is something I'll point out below.
On Mar 24, 10:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> > > BY GLENN GREENWALD
Ratner said:
> > I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
> > only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
> > wrote in your subject from it.
You've never been serious about anything of substance. I didn't write
a thing. I pasted in the words of Glenn Greenwald as the title for an
article by Glenn Greenwald. When you say I wrote the title you know
you are not truthful. I consider the article to be important and ask
that everyone read it in its entirety so that they can understand what
has gotten Ratner so rattled.
> > > (updated below - Update II - Update III)
> > > The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
> > > among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
> > > evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
> > > with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
> > > Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
> > > price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
> > > neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
> > > Israel.
> > > As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
> > > Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
> > > region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
> > > reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
> > > couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
> > > officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
> > > rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
> > > haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
> > > hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
> > > officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
> > > case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
> > > certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
> > > commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
> > > says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
> > > the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
> > > lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
> > > military."
> > > As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
> > > contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
> > > tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
> > > the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
> > > point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
> > > forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
> > > who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
> > > (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
> > > Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
> > > expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
> > > allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
> > > yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
> > > faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
> > > illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
> > > in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
> > > Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
> > > interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
> > > "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
> > > America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
> > > advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
> > > indistinguishable, even synonymous.
> > > Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
> > > American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
> > > is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
> > > jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
> > > response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
> > > with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
> > > Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
> > > quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
> > > notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
> > > the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
> > > relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
> > > towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's
> > > nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
> > > free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
> > > incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
> > > what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
> > > the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
> > > includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
> > > cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
> > > advance that devotion.
> > > On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
> > > those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
> > > Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
> > > recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
> > > Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
> > > Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
> > > accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
> > > note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
> > > who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
> > > on his Twitter account:
> > > I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
> > > America and my new country.
> > > If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
> > > American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
> > > crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
> > > Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
> > > incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
> > > lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
> > > per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
> > > individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
> > > denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
> > > out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
> > > nefarious.
> > > Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
> > > conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
> > > will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
> > > action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
> > > reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
> > > by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
> > > Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
> > > by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
> > > two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
> > > like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
> > > supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
> > > subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
> > > from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
> > > will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
> > > this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
> > > policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
> > > step toward that vital goal.
> > > Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties
> > > erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the
> > > wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the
> > > Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli
> > > actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all
> > > of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to
> > > do something substantial about the latter.
> > > UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme
> > > and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the
> > > political strategy it intends to pursue.
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> > > UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing
> > > against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by
> > > AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as
> > > nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You
> > > may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the
> > > obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman,
> > > they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly
> > > disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course)
> > > we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon
> > > threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political
> > > price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the
> > > upcoming AIPAC conference.
Ratner:
> Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
> "American Jews determine their
> political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
Here is the complete paragraph by Greenwald about a hypocritical
double standard again. By clipping you were consciously distorting the
context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
GONE?
OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
HHW You've called it a lie. Have you changed your mind?
Ratner:
HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
No, here's the fuller context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
On Mar 24, 10:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> > > BY GLENN GREENWALD
Ratner:
> > I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
> > only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
> > wrote in your subject from it.
You've always been sloppy.
> > > (updated below - Update II - Update III)
> > > The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
> > > among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
> > > evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
> > > with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
> > > Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
> > > price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
> > > neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
> > > Israel.
> > > As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
> > > Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
> > > region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
> > > reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
> > > couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
> > > officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
> > > rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
> > > haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
> > > hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
> > > officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
> > > case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
> > > certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
> > > commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
> > > says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
> > > the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
> > > lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
> > > military."
> > > As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
> > > contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
> > > tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
> > > the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
> > > point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
> > > forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
> > > who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
> > > (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
> > > Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
> > > expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
> > > allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
> > > yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
> > > faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
> > > illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
> > > in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
> > > Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
> > > interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
> > > "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
> > > America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
> > > advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
> > > indistinguishable, even synonymous.
> > > Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
> > > American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
> > > is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
> > > jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
> > > response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
> > > with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
> > > Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
> > > quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
> > > notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
> > > the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
> > > relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
> > > towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's
> > > nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
> > > free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
> > > incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
> > > what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
> > > the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
> > > includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
> > > cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
> > > advance that devotion.
> > > On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
> > > those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
> > > Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
> > > recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
> > > Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
> > > Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
> > > accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
> > > note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
> > > who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
> > > on his Twitter account:
> > > I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
> > > America and my new country.
> > > If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
> > > American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
> > > crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
> > > Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
> > > incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
> > > lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
> > > per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
> > > individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
> > > denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
> > > out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
> > > nefarious.
> > > Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
> > > conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
> > > will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
> > > action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
> > > reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
> > > by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
> > > Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
> > > by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
> > > two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
> > > like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
> > > supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
> > > subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
> > > from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
> > > will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
> > > this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
> > > policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
> > > step toward that vital goal.
> > > Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties
> > > erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the
> > > wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the
> > > Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli
> > > actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all
> > > of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to
> > > do something substantial about the latter.
> > > UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme
> > > and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the
> > > political strategy it intends to pursue.
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> > > UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing
> > > against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by
> > > AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as
> > > nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You
> > > may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the
> > > obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman,
> > > they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly
> > > disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course)
> > > we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon
> > > threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political
> > > price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the
> > > upcoming AIPAC conference.
> Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
> "American Jews determine their
> political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
Here is the Greenwald paragraph again, whole:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
GONE?
OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
No, here is the accurate, unclipped, undistorted context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > WILL CAUSE American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar PREDICTIONS for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
Caps added by HHW.
Now that we have the real thing in front of us and can see why you
clipped part of it, what's wrong with it? GOP loyalists made the
prediction which you falsely attribute to me.. So, apparently, has the
neoconservative Right. That's news, Ratner. You shouldn't be trying to
suppress it. That's not very American of you.
Ratner:
So the statement is the BASIS of the FUTILE and FALSE claim that
American Jews will abandon the Democratic party.
HHW:
A futile and false claim? Really? Would the neoconservative Right do
such a thing. I didn't but but maybe I should now, eh? It just has to
be true, right? Or a prediction?
It is NOT A STATEMENT
OF FACT, but rather a statement that is PROVEN FALSE by the fact that
the predicted outcome DID NOT AND HAS NOT OCCURRED.
No, it wasn't a statement of fact but part of a paragraph about
predictions about Jewish abandonment of the Democratic Party made by
neoconservatives and their right wing GOP allies.
H, you are lying scum, pure, unalduterated scum, and the stupidest of
anyone here. The lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you. Now go wallow in your shame, if you have any
ability to do so.
Haha, I was tempted to clip that last paragraph on the grounds that it
was not about a lie, but decided to leave it in to provide local color
from the Israel Lobby sewers.
Ratner:
So the statement is the BASIS of the FUTILE and FALSE claim that
American Jews will abandon the Democratic party. It is NOT A
STATEMENT
OF FACT, but rather a statement that is PROVEN FALSE by the fact that
the predicted outcome DID NOT AND HAS NOT OCCURRED.
HHW:
This brilliant statement raises two points: In fact the falling away
of Jewish support for Obama has occurred and recent polls of Jewish
voters confirm it. So that by your standards makes you a liar, right?
And, the election to which the *predictions* of the neocons and gop
stalwarts are germane has not been held and is still six months away.
That makes you pretty ignorant.
Ratner:
H, you are lying scum, pure, unalduterated scum, and the stupidest of
anyone here. The lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you. Now go wallow in your shame, if you have any
ability to do so.
HHW:
Again, there is no mention of a lie here but I believe in free speech
so I didn't clip it. It demonstrates to the readers what your tactics
are. And besides, I have something else to say.
It's my prediction that Obama's tense relationship with Netanyahu, his
uppity relationship with Israel, will in fact result in a
substantially lower Jewish vote for Obama's Democratic ticket than
voted for him three and a half years ago. It's simple common sense
based on the de-facto existence of a conflict of interest between
allegiance to Israel and to the United States. It is a conflict of
interest which the history of the Israel Lobby proves beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Frankly, I'm surprised you can get so up-tight about reality, Ratner.
You are now 0 and 2 on the lie front. I invite you to continue, but
you will have to post the specific text you claim to be a lie or I
will ignore you. You caved and met that standard more or less in this
post. You'll have to do it in the future too.
entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
don't interfere with it again.
First I will gently ask you who wrote it? I'll even answer for you: it
was the famed New York Columnist Glenn Greenwald, not me. I admire
Mr. Greenwald but am not my brother's keeper. Like the NYT I post news
which by my lights is fit to print. There is absolutely nothing
whatever about the Greenwald article which is objectionable, period.
It's honest, honorable and courageous. Everyone should read it.
Now I'll note that you perhaps were first infuriated by the fact that
I pasted from Greenwald into the title line of the post. I do that a
lot to catch the eye and don't apologize for it. I don't bother to put
it in quotations because the reader will find it in the text and thus
know where it came from. The quote certainly got you to read it. And
that fact is in turn giving me some opportunities you won't be happy
to have had a hand in. That's good because the paragraph in question
is only secondarily about Jewish votes but more importantly about
hypocrisy in the political use of an "ancient canard". I chose it
because you're a massive exemplar of that particular vice. Now that
I'm involved you'll have to read it more carefully than you probably
have to date. The readers you champion will probably do so too.
As a preliminary let me say that the system you're supporting of
identifying alleged "canards" and of accusing anyone who isn't
intimidated by one of them as anti-Semitic is a primary technique of
the Israel Lobby and of yourself as a tiny, thoughtless cog in that
overall effort. I'm here to do exactly the opposite of your
assignment. My role is to push back at efforts such as yours to
silence political speech on American foreign policy which you and the
Lobby find distressing because of your giant conflict of interest.
That you abuse antisemitism as a political weapon and do it
irrespective of context and facts is something I'll point out below.
On Mar 24, 10:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> > > BY GLENN GREENWALD
Ratner said:
> > I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
> > only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
> > wrote in your subject from it.
You've never been serious about anything of substance. I didn't write
a thing. I pasted in the words of Glenn Greenwald as the title for an
article by Glenn Greenwald. When you say I wrote the title you know
you are not truthful. I consider the article to be important and ask
that everyone read it in its entirety so that they can understand what
has gotten Ratner so rattled.
> > > (updated below - Update II - Update III)
> > > The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
> > > among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
> > > evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
> > > with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
> > > Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
> > > price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
> > > neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
> > > Israel.
> > > As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
> > > Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
> > > region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
> > > reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
> > > couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
> > > officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
> > > rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
> > > haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
> > > hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
> > > officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
> > > case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
> > > certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
> > > commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
> > > says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
> > > the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
> > > lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
> > > military."
> > > As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
> > > contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
> > > tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
> > > the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
> > > point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
> > > forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
> > > who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
> > > (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
> > > Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
> > > expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
> > > allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
> > > yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
> > > faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
> > > illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
> > > in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
> > > Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
> > > interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
> > > "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
> > > America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
> > > advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
> > > indistinguishable, even synonymous.
> > > Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
> > > American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
> > > is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
> > > jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
> > > response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
> > > with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
> > > Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
> > > quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
> > > notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
> > > the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
> > > relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
> > > towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's
> > > nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
> > > free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
> > > incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
> > > what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
> > > the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
> > > includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
> > > cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
> > > advance that devotion.
> > > On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
> > > those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
> > > Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
> > > recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
> > > Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
> > > Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
> > > accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
> > > note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
> > > who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
> > > on his Twitter account:
> > > I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
> > > America and my new country.
> > > If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
> > > American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
> > > crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
> > > Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
> > > incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
> > > lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
> > > per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
> > > individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
> > > denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
> > > out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
> > > nefarious.
> > > Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
> > > conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
> > > will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
> > > action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
> > > reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
> > > by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
> > > Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
> > > by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
> > > two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
> > > like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
> > > supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
> > > subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
> > > from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
> > > will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
> > > this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
> > > policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
> > > step toward that vital goal.
> > > Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties
> > > erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the
> > > wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the
> > > Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli
> > > actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all
> > > of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to
> > > do something substantial about the latter.
> > > UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme
> > > and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the
> > > political strategy it intends to pursue.
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> > > UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing
> > > against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by
> > > AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as
> > > nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You
> > > may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the
> > > obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman,
> > > they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly
> > > disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course)
> > > we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon
> > > threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political
> > > price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the
> > > upcoming AIPAC conference.
Ratner:
> Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
> "American Jews determine their
> political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
Here is the complete paragraph by Greenwald about a hypocritical
double standard again. By clipping you were consciously distorting the
context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
GONE?
OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
HHW You've called it a lie. Have you changed your mind?
Ratner:
HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
No, here's the fuller context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
On Mar 24, 10:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:16 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> > > BY GLENN GREENWALD
Ratner:
> > I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
> > only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
> > wrote in your subject from it.
You've always been sloppy.
> > > (updated below - Update II - Update III)
> > > The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
> > > among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
> > > evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
> > > with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
> > > Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
> > > price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
> > > neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
> > > Israel.
> > > As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
> > > Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
> > > region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
> > > reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
> > > couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
> > > officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
> > > rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
> > > haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
> > > hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
> > > officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
> > > case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
> > > certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
> > > commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
> > > says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
> > > the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
> > > lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
> > > military."
> > > As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
> > > contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
> > > tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
> > > the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
> > > point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
> > > forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
> > > who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
> > > (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
> > > Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
> > > expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
> > > allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
> > > yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
> > > faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
> > > illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
> > > in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
> > > Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
> > > interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
> > > "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
> > > America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
> > > advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
> > > indistinguishable, even synonymous.
> > > Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
> > > American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
> > > is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
> > > jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
> > > response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
> > > with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
> > > Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
> > > quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
> > > notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
> > > the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
> > > relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
> > > towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's
> > > nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
> > > free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
> > > incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
> > > what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
> > > the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
> > > includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
> > > cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
> > > advance that devotion.
> > > On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
> > > those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
> > > Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
> > > recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
> > > Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
> > > Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
> > > accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
> > > guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
> > > note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
> > > who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
> > > on his Twitter account:
> > > I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
> > > America and my new country.
> > > If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
> > > American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
> > > crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
> > > Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
> > > incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
> > > lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
> > > per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
> > > individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
> > > denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
> > > out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
> > > nefarious.
> > > Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
> > > conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
> > > will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
> > > action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
> > > reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
> > > by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
> > > Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
> > > by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
> > > two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
> > > like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
> > > supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
> > > subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
> > > from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
> > > will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
> > > this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
> > > policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
> > > step toward that vital goal.
> > > Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties
> > > erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the
> > > wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the
> > > Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli
> > > actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all
> > > of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to
> > > do something substantial about the latter.
> > > UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme
> > > and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the
> > > political strategy it intends to pursue.
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
> > > UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing
> > > against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by
> > > AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as
> > > nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You
> > > may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the
> > > obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman,
> > > they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly
> > > disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course)
> > > we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon
> > > threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political
> > > price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the
> > > upcoming AIPAC conference.
> Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
> "American Jews determine their
> political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
Here is the Greenwald paragraph again, whole:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
GONE?
OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
No, here is the accurate, unclipped, undistorted context:
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > WILL CAUSE American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar PREDICTIONS for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
Caps added by HHW.
Now that we have the real thing in front of us and can see why you
clipped part of it, what's wrong with it? GOP loyalists made the
prediction which you falsely attribute to me.. So, apparently, has the
neoconservative Right. That's news, Ratner. You shouldn't be trying to
suppress it. That's not very American of you.
Ratner:
So the statement is the BASIS of the FUTILE and FALSE claim that
American Jews will abandon the Democratic party.
HHW:
A futile and false claim? Really? Would the neoconservative Right do
such a thing. I didn't but but maybe I should now, eh? It just has to
be true, right? Or a prediction?
It is NOT A STATEMENT
OF FACT, but rather a statement that is PROVEN FALSE by the fact that
the predicted outcome DID NOT AND HAS NOT OCCURRED.
No, it wasn't a statement of fact but part of a paragraph about
predictions about Jewish abandonment of the Democratic Party made by
neoconservatives and their right wing GOP allies.
H, you are lying scum, pure, unalduterated scum, and the stupidest of
anyone here. The lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you. Now go wallow in your shame, if you have any
ability to do so.
Haha, I was tempted to clip that last paragraph on the grounds that it
was not about a lie, but decided to leave it in to provide local color
from the Israel Lobby sewers.
Ratner:
So the statement is the BASIS of the FUTILE and FALSE claim that
American Jews will abandon the Democratic party. It is NOT A
STATEMENT
OF FACT, but rather a statement that is PROVEN FALSE by the fact that
the predicted outcome DID NOT AND HAS NOT OCCURRED.
HHW:
This brilliant statement raises two points: In fact the falling away
of Jewish support for Obama has occurred and recent polls of Jewish
voters confirm it. So that by your standards makes you a liar, right?
And, the election to which the *predictions* of the neocons and gop
stalwarts are germane has not been held and is still six months away.
That makes you pretty ignorant.
Ratner:
H, you are lying scum, pure, unalduterated scum, and the stupidest of
anyone here. The lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you. Now go wallow in your shame, if you have any
ability to do so.
HHW:
Again, there is no mention of a lie here but I believe in free speech
so I didn't clip it. It demonstrates to the readers what your tactics
are. And besides, I have something else to say.
It's my prediction that Obama's tense relationship with Netanyahu, his
uppity relationship with Israel, will in fact result in a
substantially lower Jewish vote for Obama's Democratic ticket than
voted for him three and a half years ago. It's simple common sense
based on the de-facto existence of a conflict of interest between
allegiance to Israel and to the United States. It is a conflict of
interest which the history of the Israel Lobby proves beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Frankly, I'm surprised you can get so up-tight about reality, Ratner.
You are now 0 and 2 on the lie front. I invite you to continue, but
you will have to post the specific text you claim to be a lie or I
will ignore you. You caved and met that standard more or less in this
post. You'll have to do it in the future too.
HHW
Jun 7, 2012, 3:24:29 AM6/7/12
to
On Jun 6, 3:51 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:25 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:48 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Jun 4, 11:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > But you're refusing to do just that right here. Post a single lie you
> > say I've made here
>
> >> You're just a
> > > helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
> > > succeeded in refutation.
>
> > > Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
> > > containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
> > > even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
> > > there for all to read.
>
> > Bullshit. All there are there are false accusations by you. You can't
> > quote a single lie.. Give us the alleged lie itself. Put it in
> > quotation marks. Do it here. Give us a cite.
>
> Speaking for myself, I've seen you make many statements
> which make a wrong impression, if they're not outright lies.
Igualmente, Senor.
> On Jun 6, 2:25 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:48 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Jun 4, 11:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > But you're refusing to do just that right here. Post a single lie you
> > say I've made here
>
> >> You're just a
> > > helpless little weasel caught in a trap - if you weren't you'd have
> > > succeeded in refutation.
>
> > > Now what will happen is that you click on the 500+ linked to posts
> > > containing countless proofs of your lying, and you'll say that I can't
> > > even find one, which is, of course, just one jmore lie. The proofs are
> > > there for all to read.
>
> > Bullshit. All there are there are false accusations by you. You can't
> > quote a single lie.. Give us the alleged lie itself. Put it in
> > quotation marks. Do it here. Give us a cite.
>
> Speaking for myself, I've seen you make many statements
> which make a wrong impression, if they're not outright lies.
> You appeared to be champing at the bit when I suggested
> comparing Dershowitz to Finkelstein,
> but you never did it.
way. That time I concentrated on what in my opinion was Dershowitz's
astounding lack of seriousness as a legal scholar based on his own
bibliography. All you have to do for Norman Finkelstein is go his web
site. His books are there. He is a serious historian.
> When pressed, you had nothing objective
> to explain why you admired NF over AD.
> You hinted that Pappe got into trouble over Tantura
> because he revealed the truth,
> even though you know the opposite is true.
I'm not going to write a dissertation about the massacre at Tantura.
You won't even read Dr. Pappe's book. You lose by default. Everyone,
read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Professor Ilan Pappe, late
of the Israeli university system.
He didn't get in trouble, Zev, he was driven out of Israel by
harassment which became intolerable. It was from both inside and
outside the University where he should have been defended by his
colleagues in the community of scholars.
> You refer to Pappe as "Dr Pappe"
> but to Frantzman as a "geography student".
> You discuss Frantzman's book review and make comments on it,
> but your understanding of it is so superficial
> that it makes one wonder if you've actually read it.
And you, Zev, defend against it. When you attempt it I won't shrink.
I'm not going to respond to myself.
> You bring up Geneva Convention 4,
> but you can't explain exactly how it applies
> to Israel's presence in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.
showed no interest and were dismissive. You'll be bloodied by that if
you change your mind.
> You project your own faults by accusing me of fleeing from threads.
> These are things you've said to me,
> in the last few weeks,
inaccurate.
> and it's just from the top of my head.
> Hunter, it's a bad record.
opposite you is excellent. It has been since we first met. But you
constantly want to waste my time and almost never respond substantly.
I'm not going to write an analysis of the fourth geneva convention for
you. I posted it in its entirety. It obviously applies. You've
refused to admit it is germane without explanation. That wasn't
candid. I''m not going to let you just assert it without supporting
it. That means you're not serious. I don't like that. You don't
dominate these exchanges. I do and always have.
drahcir
Jun 7, 2012, 8:47:30 AM6/7/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
>entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
LOL! I was hoping you'd take the bait. Some in the group may not be
familiar with what lying scum you are. Thank you!
see, HHW cannot seem to control himself - even in the context of
vainly attempting to prove he's not a liar, he lies.
The original lie is not alleged, counselor, it's PROVEN.
So that readers don't have to wade through mounds of HHWBabble
designed to obfuscate his lie, here it is clearly and plainly. You can
read the text of the article below since HHW has insisted on pasting
it here.
The subject of HHW's original post containing this article was:
"American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
anti-Semitic."
He copied and pasted that sentence from the article and placed it in
the subject line to imply not only that the author of the article
claimed it as fact, but that it was the main thrust of the article.
However, let's examine that line in context:
UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
As you can see, what HHW posted as the subject of this article was
preceded by "That", in answer to the question, What is the core
assumption of this [futile and false] claim? The author is clearly
stating that what HHW pulled is a FALSE ASSUMPTION, proven by the fact
that American Jews continue to vote Democrat. Thus, HHW lied by trying
to convince readership that the gist of the article was something the
author was referring to as FALSE.
To recaps, the author is saying that the GOP claims that tension
between Obama and Israel will cause American Jews to stop voting
Democrat, and has been claimig thus for years in complete futility.
The author then states that the FALSE assumption that would cause such
a Jewish migration away from the Dems is, guess what, the sentence
that HHW pulled as the subject, namely that American Jews vote with
Israel's interest instead of America's. The very thing that the lowly
liar HHW tried to foist off as the subject of the article was in fact
shown as false and PROVEN FALSE by the author, as evidenced by the
fact that American Jews are still solidly Democrats.
Since logic has never been an HHW forte, here is the meaning of
Greenwald's paragraph so even a (second) child could understand it:
IF American Jews voted with Israel in mind, they'd have voted
Republican for years.
Yet they have not voted Republican for years.
THEREFORE they do not vote with Israel in mind.
HHW IS PROVEN A LIAR ONCE AGAIN BY ME!!!
If someone cares to wade through the muck below, kindly let me know if
there's anythnig the PROVEN LIAR has written that can refute the
above.
I will hereby challenge HHW to refute my proof of his lie in the
manner normally employed in newsgroups, namely, to refute a statement
DIRECTLY BELOW THAT STATEMENT.
You are so dense, H. It was YOU who said "here it is again" as if that
would stop me from proving yet again that you are a LOWLY LIAR.
>Here is the complete paragraph by Greenwald about a hypocritical
>double standard again. By clipping you were consciously distorting the
>context:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>
>H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
>GONE?
>OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
>
>HHW You've called it a lie. Have you changed your mind?
What would cause your "brain" to "think" I've changed my mind? You've
just proven your own lie. The context completely belies what you tried
to foist off on the group as the gist of the article and what you
placed into your subject line.
>
>Ratner:
>
>HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
>"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
>years
>with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
>political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
>
>No, here's the fuller context:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
Which, of course, does NOTHING more than the context I supplied. It's
yet ANOTHER LIE, here H is trying to imply that his context somehow
belies mine because he included a couple of more sentences. ANOTHER
LIE.
As I look below, I see this idiot pasted the post YET AGAIN. I'm
snipping it away since its only possible intent can be to distract. H,
please inform the group why you felt compelled to paste it here TWICE,
if not to disctract. Enquiring minds want to know!
>
<snip>
wrote:
>Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
>entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
familiar with what lying scum you are. Thank you!
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
>asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
>don't interfere with it again.
The above is a lie. I never interfered with anything. As anyone can
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
>asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
>don't interfere with it again.
see, HHW cannot seem to control himself - even in the context of
vainly attempting to prove he's not a liar, he lies.
The original lie is not alleged, counselor, it's PROVEN.
So that readers don't have to wade through mounds of HHWBabble
designed to obfuscate his lie, here it is clearly and plainly. You can
read the text of the article below since HHW has insisted on pasting
it here.
The subject of HHW's original post containing this article was:
"American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best
for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty"
assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as
anti-Semitic."
the subject line to imply not only that the author of the article
claimed it as fact, but that it was the main thrust of the article.
However, let's examine that line in context:
UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
***
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
As you can see, what HHW posted as the subject of this article was
preceded by "That", in answer to the question, What is the core
assumption of this [futile and false] claim? The author is clearly
stating that what HHW pulled is a FALSE ASSUMPTION, proven by the fact
that American Jews continue to vote Democrat. Thus, HHW lied by trying
to convince readership that the gist of the article was something the
author was referring to as FALSE.
To recaps, the author is saying that the GOP claims that tension
between Obama and Israel will cause American Jews to stop voting
Democrat, and has been claimig thus for years in complete futility.
The author then states that the FALSE assumption that would cause such
a Jewish migration away from the Dems is, guess what, the sentence
that HHW pulled as the subject, namely that American Jews vote with
Israel's interest instead of America's. The very thing that the lowly
liar HHW tried to foist off as the subject of the article was in fact
shown as false and PROVEN FALSE by the author, as evidenced by the
fact that American Jews are still solidly Democrats.
Since logic has never been an HHW forte, here is the meaning of
Greenwald's paragraph so even a (second) child could understand it:
IF American Jews voted with Israel in mind, they'd have voted
Republican for years.
Yet they have not voted Republican for years.
THEREFORE they do not vote with Israel in mind.
HHW IS PROVEN A LIAR ONCE AGAIN BY ME!!!
If someone cares to wade through the muck below, kindly let me know if
there's anythnig the PROVEN LIAR has written that can refute the
above.
I will hereby challenge HHW to refute my proof of his lie in the
manner normally employed in newsgroups, namely, to refute a statement
DIRECTLY BELOW THAT STATEMENT.
would stop me from proving yet again that you are a LOWLY LIAR.
>Here is the complete paragraph by Greenwald about a hypocritical
>double standard again. By clipping you were consciously distorting the
>context:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>
>H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR
>GONE?
>OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
>
>HHW You've called it a lie. Have you changed your mind?
just proven your own lie. The context completely belies what you tried
to foist off on the group as the gist of the article and what you
placed into your subject line.
>
>Ratner:
>
>HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
>"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
>years
>with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
>political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
>
>No, here's the fuller context:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
yet ANOTHER LIE, here H is trying to imply that his context somehow
belies mine because he included a couple of more sentences. ANOTHER
LIE.
As I look below, I see this idiot pasted the post YET AGAIN. I'm
snipping it away since its only possible intent can be to distract. H,
please inform the group why you felt compelled to paste it here TWICE,
if not to disctract. Enquiring minds want to know!
>
<snip>
Zev
Jun 7, 2012, 5:06:37 PM6/7/12
to
a preference for one or the other,
unless there's nothing objective about it.
> > When pressed, you had nothing objective
> > to explain why you admired NF over AD.
>
> See above.
>
> > You hinted that Pappe got into trouble over Tantura
> > because he revealed the truth,
> > even though you know the opposite is true.
>
> Are you too calling me a liar?
>
> I'm not going to write a dissertation about the massacre at Tantura.
> You won't even read Dr. Pappe's book. You lose by default. Everyone,
> read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Professor Ilan Pappe, late
> of the Israeli university system.
>
> He didn't get in trouble, Zev, he was driven out of Israel by
> harassment which became intolerable. It was from both inside and
> outside the University where he should have been defended by his
> colleagues in the community of scholars.
made mincemeat out of you on this.
Have you forgotten?
> > You refer to Pappe as "Dr Pappe"
> > but to Frantzman as a "geography student".
>
> Frantzman is not a peer of Dr. Pappe. He is a defamer.
>
> > You discuss Frantzman's book review and make comments on it,
> > but your understanding of it is so superficial
> > that it makes one wonder if you've actually read it.
>
> You know better.. Everyone! Read my evaluation of Frantzman's article.
> And you, Zev, defend against it. When you attempt it I won't shrink.
> I'm not going to respond to myself.
>
> > You bring up Geneva Convention 4,
> > but you can't explain exactly how it applies
> > to Israel's presence in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.
>
> It was yours to respond to, Zev. I say it obviously applies. You
> showed no interest and were dismissive. You'll be bloodied by that if
> you change your mind.
You ran away from my arguments and you say
I showed no interest and was dismissive?
> > You project your own faults by accusing me of fleeing from threads.
>
> Prove it. I leave you when you're not saying anything probative.
> > These are things you've said to me,
> > in the last few weeks,
>
> I didn't "say" these nonsense conclusions to you, Zev. That's
> inaccurate.
>
> > and it's just from the top of my head.
> > Hunter, it's a bad record.
>
> If you think so then don't do it from the top of your head. My record
> opposite you is excellent. It has been since we first met. But you
> constantly want to waste my time and almost never respond substantly.
> I'm not going to write an analysis of the fourth geneva convention for
> you. I posted it in its entirety. It obviously applies. You've
> refused to admit it is germane without explanation. That wasn't
> candid. I''m not going to let you just assert it without supporting
> it. That means you're not serious. I don't like that. You don't
> dominate these exchanges. I do and always have.
which makes you think it applies.
And if you made the claim,
you should be more than happy to prove it.
drahcir
Jun 8, 2012, 8:30:32 AM6/8/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
>entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
>asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
>don't interfere with it again.
It seems that our usually chatty HHW has nothing whatever to say about
the reiteration of my proof of his lying in my previous post in this
thread. I'm sure everyone here is simply shocked at this. I'd like to
make crystal clear something I touched upon there. If you read above,
HHW has put within asterists the sentence A PART OF WHICH he used as
the subject of his post. Of course, the asterisks imply that he pulled
the whole thing intact for his subject, but in fact he omitted one
word: THAT. Everyone here should see that omitting "That" changes the
sentence from a conditional predicated upon the preceding sentence to
an affirmative, which is what he posted as the subject. So even his
claim here in this post is a lie, since if he were being truthful, he
would have put his initial asterisk just before the word "American"
to reflect that his subject began with that word, not "That". But of
course, if he did that, it would reveal the deception he tried to
foist off the first time.
It's kinda fun reading the steaming HHWBabble below - you can almost
see the rusty, decrepit wheels in his head squeakily turning as he
desperately tries to cover up his lie. He SO overrates his ability to
deceive and distract.
Wow, what a speech! Does nothing to address my proof of your lying,
but if must have taken you most of an afternoon. Pity you have nothing
better to do in your waste of a life.
wrote:
>Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
>entire paragraph in which you discern a lie by me:
>
>> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
>> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
>> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
>> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
>> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
>> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
>> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
>> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
>> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
>> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
>> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
>The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
>asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
>don't interfere with it again.
the reiteration of my proof of his lying in my previous post in this
thread. I'm sure everyone here is simply shocked at this. I'd like to
make crystal clear something I touched upon there. If you read above,
HHW has put within asterists the sentence A PART OF WHICH he used as
the subject of his post. Of course, the asterisks imply that he pulled
the whole thing intact for his subject, but in fact he omitted one
word: THAT. Everyone here should see that omitting "That" changes the
sentence from a conditional predicated upon the preceding sentence to
an affirmative, which is what he posted as the subject. So even his
claim here in this post is a lie, since if he were being truthful, he
would have put his initial asterisk just before the word "American"
to reflect that his subject began with that word, not "That". But of
course, if he did that, it would reveal the deception he tried to
foist off the first time.
It's kinda fun reading the steaming HHWBabble below - you can almost
see the rusty, decrepit wheels in his head squeakily turning as he
desperately tries to cover up his lie. He SO overrates his ability to
deceive and distract.
but if must have taken you most of an afternoon. Pity you have nothing
better to do in your waste of a life.
Tell it like it is.
Jun 13, 2012, 3:15:45 PM6/13/12
to
On Jun 7, 7:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Jerry Lewis of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis was in
the news this afternoon. Low-blood sugar. Jerry always claimed he was
smarter than Dean. That's why like you an H, Jerry played the monkey.
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
the news this afternoon. Low-blood sugar. Jerry always claimed he was
smarter than Dean. That's why like you an H, Jerry played the monkey.
Tell it like it is.
Jun 13, 2012, 4:13:21 PM6/13/12
to
On Jun 7, 7:47 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
idiot".
when a "gentile" or the "goyim" meaning by them, others, fuck-up
Hollywood broadcasts to the world their own acceptable sins when seen
through the actions of others. That is a double standard. That's why
Christians should never compromise their faith.
I worked in Hollywood for ten years.
People go to prison and watch Hollywood shows of the world they've
been living being played out on television.
Shows like Criminal Minds.
like Mark Levin?!
"Yes we can."
-President Obama
What about us adults, can we understand it?
validating your assumption that H is unaware of your ethnic mind-set.
I have noticed that the bombardment for over ten years from
publications demeaning and attacking the semitic people of the Middle
East is not Christian thought, but Jewish thinking in the misguided
belief by attacking a people they are aiding Israel. In lieu of any
reasonable diplomacy recognizing a people's right to exist as a people
worshipping the Creator of all people's as they see fit.
I've read many articles drahcir, of warped thinking about the Middle
east, and the native people. Ethnocentrics, by definition, see the
world only one way - theirs.
As far as everyone is concerned, it,s the ethnocentric way or the
highway.
Let me guess, drahcir. You spent your childhood in a family in which
the mother wears the pants.
BIAS is the name of a good book written by an American Jew.
The NEO-Conservative Jews working in the Bush Administration and
specifically, at the Pentagon, trying get a war started in Iraq, were
all part of the Bush Administration as you should recall, drahcir. You
believe they all voted Democratic? They "vote their conscience"right?
And H is a liar? More likely, an attorney who refuses to compromise,
is what you label, a liar.
While screaming antisemitism as Jews do in American media, is
attacking Muslim culture, antisemitism? Of course not. Muslims aren't
Jews.
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT), HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
entire paragraph in which you discern a "lie" by me:
>
> LOL! I was hoping you'd take the bait. Some in the group may not be
> familiar with what lying scum you are. Thank you!
>
>
>
> >> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring
double standard
> >> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> >> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> >> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> >> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> >> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> >> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> >> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> >> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> >> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> >> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
> >The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
> >asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
> >don't interfere with it again.
> The above is a lie. I never interfered with anything.
As anyone can see,
>HHW cannot seem to control himself - even in the context of
> vainly attempting to prove he's not a liar, he lies.
By calling it "a lie" and him "a liar" like me calling you "an
>
Okay, Ratner, the first one I opened was the second link. This is the
entire paragraph in which you discern a "lie" by me:
>
> LOL! I was hoping you'd take the bait. Some in the group may not be
> familiar with what lying scum you are. Thank you!
>
>
>
> >> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring
double standard
> >> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> >> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> >> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> >> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> >> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> >> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> >> > > assumption of such a claim? *That American Jews determine their
> >> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> >> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> >> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.*
>
> >The alleged lie BY ME is the final sentence which I have put in
> >asterisks. It's now in context so we're making progress. I hope you
> >don't interfere with it again.
> The above is a lie. I never interfered with anything.
As anyone can see,
>HHW cannot seem to control himself - even in the context of
> vainly attempting to prove he's not a liar, he lies.
idiot".
> The original lie is not alleged, counselor, it's PROVEN.
There are people who commit all the sins as perfectly normal, but
when a "gentile" or the "goyim" meaning by them, others, fuck-up
Hollywood broadcasts to the world their own acceptable sins when seen
through the actions of others. That is a double standard. That's why
Christians should never compromise their faith.
I worked in Hollywood for ten years.
People go to prison and watch Hollywood shows of the world they've
been living being played out on television.
Shows like Criminal Minds.
> So that readers don't have to wade through mounds of HHWBabble
Really?!
> Since logic has never been an HHW forte, here is the meaning of
> Greenwald's paragraph so even a (second) child could understand it:
A child can!
> Greenwald's paragraph so even a (second) child could understand it:
"Yes we can."
-President Obama
What about us adults, can we understand it?
> IF American Jews voted with Israel in mind, they'd have voted
> Republican for years.
> Yet they have not voted Republican for years.
They didn't vote for Eisenhower and Nixon?
> Republican for years.
> Yet they have not voted Republican for years.
> THEREFORE they do not vote with Israel in mind.
They vote the democrat every time?
> HHW IS PROVEN A LIAR ONCE AGAIN BY ME!!!
Proven!
> If someone cares to wade through the muck below, kindly let me know if
> there's anythnig the PROVEN LIAR has written that can refute the
> above.
>
> I will hereby challenge HHW to refute my proof of his lie in the
> manner normally employed in newsgroups, namely, to refute a statement
> DIRECTLY BELOW THAT STATEMENT.
Why should he REFUTE your use of the word liar. That'd be like
> there's anythnig the PROVEN LIAR has written that can refute the
> above.
>
> I will hereby challenge HHW to refute my proof of his lie in the
> manner normally employed in newsgroups, namely, to refute a statement
> DIRECTLY BELOW THAT STATEMENT.
validating your assumption that H is unaware of your ethnic mind-set.
I have noticed that the bombardment for over ten years from
publications demeaning and attacking the semitic people of the Middle
East is not Christian thought, but Jewish thinking in the misguided
belief by attacking a people they are aiding Israel. In lieu of any
reasonable diplomacy recognizing a people's right to exist as a people
worshipping the Creator of all people's as they see fit.
I've read many articles drahcir, of warped thinking about the Middle
east, and the native people. Ethnocentrics, by definition, see the
world only one way - theirs.
As far as everyone is concerned, it,s the ethnocentric way or the
highway.
the mother wears the pants.
BIAS is the name of a good book written by an American Jew.
The NEO-Conservative Jews working in the Bush Administration and
specifically, at the Pentagon, trying get a war started in Iraq, were
all part of the Bush Administration as you should recall, drahcir. You
believe they all voted Democratic? They "vote their conscience"right?
And H is a liar? More likely, an attorney who refuses to compromise,
is what you label, a liar.
While screaming antisemitism as Jews do in American media, is
attacking Muslim culture, antisemitism? Of course not. Muslims aren't
Jews.
HHW
Jun 21, 2012, 1:23:33 PM6/21/12
to
On 13 jun, 15:13, "Tell it like it is."
An interesting post. Thank you.
Uncle Rich
Jun 21, 2012, 11:07:43 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 13, 3:15 pm, "Tell it like it is."
Thanks for that, um, incisive contribution.
drahcir
Jun 21, 2012, 11:16:13 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 13, 4:13 pm, "Tell it like it is."
Learn to read, psycho. I challenged him to refute my proof of his
lying. Not the same thing
That'd be like
> validating your assumption that H is unaware of your ethnic mind-set.
The above is evidence only that your present drug combination is
ineffective.
<snip insane ramble>
AAAAAHAHAHAHA! Psycho is here attempting to make use of his years of
psychoanalysis. THIS IS TOO GOOD!
Below is exactly what one might expect of an insane person - total,
rambling nonsense having exactly nothing to do with the thread.
lying. Not the same thing
That'd be like
> validating your assumption that H is unaware of your ethnic mind-set.
ineffective.
<snip insane ramble>
psychoanalysis. THIS IS TOO GOOD!
Below is exactly what one might expect of an insane person - total,
rambling nonsense having exactly nothing to do with the thread.
drahcir
Jun 21, 2012, 11:41:56 PM6/21/12
to
say specifically why? My guess is that basically your first sentence
is bs. Your second is thanking psycho for attempting to come to your
rescue, but of course it was in vain, both because my case proving you
a liar is iron-clad, and second, he is, well, insane, as any objective
reader will conclude.
0 new messages