Oh you see when there is a link to the article . . . .you check out the article to read the rest of the article. . .that is how you find out how the article ends. . .that's what "big boys" do. . . cretin. . .

Why would I want to do that when you copy/pasted the parts you thought supported your argument, and were therefore the only parts relevant to the debate you were trying to start?

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

I don't think even he would dispute that. But to dismiss the piece, just because he posted it, is foolish IMO. My question would be, is there any validity or truth in the piece? If so, what? If not, prove it to be untrue. Whether the likes of David Duke have jumped on the bandwagon to support the piece is immaterial. That might make it harder to agree with it in a public forum, despite whatever facts are present. But IMO, the article should be judged on its own merits.

My point would be, anyone who is not lying to himself knows that the Israeli lobby spends money on an order of magnitude with the tobacco and gun lobbies in this country. I am a gun owner. I support what the NRA and GOA do. Do I think we're getting some support for our money? Yes, that's why I send checks to the NRA-ILA on occasion. So am I to believe that the Israeli lobby gets nothing for their money? Most would say they get something. OK, so, how much? What do they get? The article makes a claim. I've not seen a post yet that truly addresses that question.

IMO, it's the same old same old... talk about Israel and those who want to avoid the discussion bring up anti-semitism. Course, things that Shamgar writes here don't help matters... but can MY question be answered with ration and reason?

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

I don't want to avoid the issue. I state plainly that I have no objection whatsoever to the lobbying of Israel or of any other country.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I would hope that LoSconosciuto's support for the NRA is not simply predicated upon his getting something for his money, but rather also owes to his belief in gun rights and the Second Amendment. Rights, in other words. When we look at it that way, it's both money in support of his interests and his interests being in the interest of what he believes to be right. Israel has a right to lobby, just like every other group--just like the Muslims do. Whether they are right or wrong should depend upon what it is they're lobbying for...not some sort of assumption of nefariousness because--God forbid--Israel does what everybody else in the world does.

It's apparenetly within the bounds of PC to discuss what my boys are to deliver for what we send in. It's fine to discuss lists developed of those friendly to our cause, as well as those we believe should lose political office. Why do different rules seem to apply to Israel?

I haven't read most of the posts here. I don't know if anyone said that Israel does NOT have the right to lobby. If they did, I would disagree,as that's not even remotely close to what I said. Israel has the same "right" to lobby as any other country... no less, but no more.

My question had NOTHING to do with whether or not Israel had the right to lobby. So I'm not sure why people are answering a question I did not ask.

Again:

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

What zealot doesn't have an "agenda" . . . farce doesn't have an agenda? the jews he bows down to don't have an agenda. . . Your questions weren't answered? Did you read the full article? Doubtful. . .

LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 | John Mearsheimer
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

. . . . have you read Tony Martin's book?. . .Doubtful. . .

Furthermore, all kinds of Jews, from the Marxist radicals to the redoubtable “Prof.” Adelson of the Jewish Press, generalize about “the Jews” when it suits them. The “some Jews” business is yet another red herring and attempt at special rules for the Jews.

Tony Martin, “The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront” ISBN 0912469307 (Dover: 1993). Page 37.

. . have you read Paul Findley's book which mirrors the claims of the Harvard professors? . . .Doubtful. . . .

In short, when a lobby [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee] stifles free speech nationally on one contoversial topic – the Middle East – all free speech is threatened.

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby,” (Westport: 1985) Page 332.

Most Congressional actions affecting Middle East policy are either approved or inititated by AIPAC. [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee]

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby,” (Westport: 1985) Page 32.

Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a political force that can make or break their chances at election time.

Paul Findley, “They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby” (Westport: 1985) p. 25

In practice, the lobby groups [AIPAC, ADL, AJC] function as an informal extension of the Israeli government. This was illustrated when AIPAC helped draft the official statement defending Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, then issued it the same hour as Israel's embassy. No major Jewish organization ever publicly takes issue with positions and policies adopted by Israel. Thomas A. Dine, executive director of AIPAC, spoke warmly of President Reagan's peace plan when it was announced in September 1982, but as soon as Israel rejected the plan Dine fell silent.
Paul Findley, “They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby” (Westport: 1985) p. 26-27.

. . . . .so chances are you are the typical lazy person who needs someone to give you 'predigested' info in one or two sentences so you can give it "your" thumbs up or down. . . it appears your agenda is sloth. . . . .

Propaganda cannot be satisfied with partial success, for it does not tolerate discussion. As long as noticeable or expressed tension or a conflict of action remains, propaganda cannot be said to have accomplished its aim. It must produce quasi-unanimity, and the opposing faction must be negligible, or in any case sense to be vocal. Extreme propaganda must win over the adversary and at least use him by integrating him into its own frame of reference.

Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 11.

For action makes propaganda 's effect irreversible.(3) He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obligated to believe in the propaganda because of his past action. He is obligated to believe from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obligated to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action. He is what one calls committed – which is certainly what the Communist party anticipates, for example, and what the Nazis accomplished.

Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 29.

It is a well known that in Western countries propaganda is particularly effective in the upper segment of the working class and in the middle class. It faces much greater problems with the proletariat or the peasantry.

Jacque Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.” (New York: 1973) Page 105.

They get our protection from terrorists. The United States and Israel have a common goal in defeating Islamist terrorism. We do have an obligation to help prevent Israel from being overrun by such murderers. In a side note, Mossad has been very valuable to the United States in both the Cold War and the war on terror.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

LoSconosciuto, if your question is mistakenly thought to mean something else, go ahead and take a look at the name of this thread. We're conversing in a thread that uses the derogatory "Jew" rather than "Jewish." Shamgar might well have said "Kike" but he's apparently trying to maintain a veneer of intellectualism. Not successfully, but whatever. So, if we ask, what does the Israeli lobbying efforts get, or what are they looking for, then that's a perfectly reasonable question. If we ask, what does the ZOG do for its Jew puppetmasters, then that's probably not as fair a question...unless you're Hitler Jr. like our friend here.

I have not discussed Shamgar, his posts or his meanings... hidden or not. I asked about the article itself, not Shamgar's thread title.

My question was a rather simple one (I thought). I even gave an example of my own beliefs, as they related to an organization I am a devoted member of. For such a simple question, your answer is rather convoluted and off topic.

I am disappointed in you. Yours is the same tactic that is most often employed in (attempts) at rational discussion about Israel. Avoid the question or topic presented (by me) and drift off into discussions about Hitler and ZOG.

Most who have been here for more than a few months will tell you that I have no love for Zionism... or most other ism's for that matter (it's a Ferris Bueller thing). But I have no problem with Jews as a group - to be a Zionist, one does not need to be Jewish. Most of the most passionate anti-Zionists (without also being anti-Semetic) I know are in fact Jewish. Many of the most passionate Zionists I know are Evangelical Christians. Most Logic 101 courses include all pistols are guns, but not all guns are pistols to get the midset right for the balance of the course. It seems some variation of that is needed on this board from time to time. Poor logic and debating skills are often the course of the day here.

I basically asked you what is 2+2, and you have gone on about how bird cages are built. Either you cannot answer my question (which is fine and acceptable) or you're playing Sneaky Pete. Which is it?

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."