Oh dear... did Bush really say this?

[TJHairball]

You'll note that you had to alter the technically correct definition in order to take this position.

Actually, all I did was cite a different dictionary than you did.

And that's all they have to be in order to meet the definition of a conspiracy -- a willing accessory.

Even if you disregard the secrecy inherent to the common definition of conspiracy, you still need deliberate accessorizing before the fact. Conspiracy implies premeditation, covert communication, and deliberate cooperation.

No, because you fail to meet the two central requirements of that definition -- you're not 1. working with someone to accomplish your objective 2. through illegal means. That's what it takes in order to establish conspiracy. You don't meet either of those requirements; the U.S./Israel relationship does.

First of all, the definition provided makes no mention of secrecy. Second, even if it did, the politicians who support Israel, sometimes in spite of the best interests of the American public, aren't doing it for nothing. It's reasonable to assume that they reap personal benefit from it in some way; likely through political and/or financial support. If that is the case -- and, again, it's reasonable to assume so -- then the exact form and volume of support they receive in exchange for their cooperation would be... secret.

Plenty of definitions for conspiracy do involve secrecy... and when we're talking about presumed kickbacks, bribes, and other under-the-table dealings, we're dealing with covert communication and secrecy.

Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible that there is conspiring going on of some degree, even on this topic. However, it's hardly necessary to assume it in motivating them, as politicians reap financial and political benefits directly from right-wing Christian groups through blind support of Israel. Any politician willing to stand out against Israel in turn reaps criticism and negative support from the same groups.

And whoo, we've managed to stir up an argument, albeit only about technicalities.

 

[The Question]

So this, then, brings us back to the question: What difference does it make whether there's an actual conspiracy going on or not, when we have the same result?

 

[Tyrant]

TQ is right on the money. The 9/11 attacks were, as Malcolm X would say, "The chickens coming home to roost".

If you support a country that 3/4 of the rest of the world hate with a psychopathic religious fervor, you've got to expect to be attacked.

Most of the evidence points to Israel being behind the attacks, or at least having a good deal of knowledge about the plot before the attack took place.

 

[The Question]

From what I've read, a handful of Mossad operatives had been surveilling the hijackers for at least a couple weeks before the attacks, and opted not to share their information with the American authorities. They were subsequently detained, questioned and released back to Israel.

 

[jack]

You folks confuse Zionism with isolationism. Zionism isn't the enemy here, and making it the straw man simply makes it easier for the jews to continue the rhetoric.

Being Jewish is not being Zionist. At least get your fucking nomenclature straight for gods sake. The Zionists are not in power in israel, nor do they "control" Bush. It's BIG OIL that controls bush, and we've been fucked deeply over it the last two terms.

Get fucking real

 

[jack]

From what I've read, a handful of Mossad operatives had been surveilling the hijackers for at least a couple weeks before the attacks, and opted not to share their information with the American authorities. They were subsequently detained, questioned and released back to Israel.

Prove it. show what you've read.

 

[The Question]

Prove it. show what you've read.

Right here, Sparky.

 

[jack]

That wasnt five Israeli's, it was the guys doing that "day in the life" film with that FDNY troop, they caught the first explosion. It was on PBS. One Jew, three Italians and an arab.

The only other known footage was by that guy who happened to be filming the WTC with his homecam during the first crash.

You're funny d00d

 

[jack]

Let's see proof of the arrests, that story has been discredited more time than the idea that the Holocaust never took place.

 

[The Question]

That wasnt five Israeli's, it was the guys doing that "day in the life" film with that FDNY troop, they caught the first explosion. It was on PBS. One Jew, three Italians and an arab.

The only other known footage was by that guy who happened to be filming the WTC with his homecam during the first crash.

You're funny d00d

And you're jumping to conclusions, d00d. I said that's what I'd read. You asked me to show you where I read it, and I did.

 

[The Question]

That wasnt five Israeli's, it was the guys doing that "day in the life" film with that FDNY troop, they caught the first explosion. It was on PBS. One Jew, three Italians and an arab.

The only other known footage was by that guy who happened to be filming the WTC with his homecam during the first crash.

You're funny d00d

Fox News Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

More interesting-ness. And why, if there was no connection between Mossad and 9/11, would the evidence of that connection be "classified"? Why classify something that doesn't exist?

I mean, I know you're desperate to avoid seeing what's right there plain as day, Jack, but come on. Just... for the love of God, man, open your eyes already.

 

[missmanners]

"As the new House majority leader, I can assure you that under my leadership, legislation that is in any way perceived as anti-Israel will not be considered in the House of Representatives," said Boehner.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/24/74324/6653



mm

 

[The Question]

Yep. Despite all the blubbering to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves. Whether out of stupidity or fear, our elected representatives are Israel's puppets -- and a good portion of them are so because they can't become or remain elected representatives without so becoming.

 

[Tyrant]

"The image of the Jewish state as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful US Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse."

I saw the Nader speech where he said things such as "The Israeli puppeteer travels down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets."

I guess that if Muslim folk started beheading people in the Western world, it would be wrong to point that out, since it would feed into many age-old sterotypes.

 

[The Question]

The biggest reason why people are intimidated or shamed into silencing sentiments against Israeli influence in American politics is because what they're saying is dangerous to someone. Who are these sentiments a danger to? Not to the average Jewish American; the average Jewish American isn't the subject of these sentiments, corrupt government representatives are. And it probably gets difficult for a corrupt politician to get reelected if people know he's corrupt, no matter how much money the supporters of his corruption throw his way.

 

[Tyrant]

Here's one:

jack doesn't seem to have all the facts on his side. Unless jack has family in Israel, he is being blindly loyal and biased against anti-Israeli sentiment (Justified or not).

If what I just wrote there is true, then it's a good thing jack isn't in a position of power, like a media mogul or politician is.

*wipes brow*

 

[The Question]

"The image of the Jewish state as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful US Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse."

Point of interest #1: Stereotypes only become stereotypes through repeated observation.

Point of interest #2: ADL doesn't address whether the image is accurate, they only attempt to discredit the image by imbuing it with negative connotations.

 

[Tyrant]

HEAD OF AIPAC BOASTED ABOUT HIS CONTROL OF [USA] POLITICIANS IN 1992

(But a thumbnail)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

In 1992, AIPAC Harry Katz phoned the President of AIPAC, David Steiner, to offer contributions. Steiner proceeded to make several claims, including negotiating with then-candidate Bill Clinton over who would be Secretary of State, and had already "cut a deal" with Baker for more aid to Israel.

Unknown to Steiner, Katz taped the phone call and gave the recording to the media, worried that AIPAC's influence had grown to dangerous levels.

God the entire conversation is disgusting. Americans need to work on their own democracy before trying to spread it to other nations.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: No, we need money, like we got a guy, Byron Dorgan, in North Dakota, who's going to be very good for us and we need money to make sure that he gets in.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it's at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. 'If you don't give up Syria, I won't give you the money. If you don't give up the Golan Heights.' It's at the discretion of the president. And that's why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton's ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.

IIRC there was a fuss over whether or not APAIC should be registered as a 'foreign lobby group.' You'll be amazed how Steiner gloats over the benefits Israel reaps.

 

[Tyrant]

Why do American TKers get so riled everytime one of the two major political parties there does or says something that even hints of subterfuge or deciet, yet seem to have a lukewarm attidute towards groups like AIPAC?

Is it not as exciting as seeing the opponent of your favorite political party stumble for a moment? It looks more like the average American here who thinks him or herself well read in politics has the same 'us vs. them' fetish found in the 'national sports,' which resemble something more akin to the film Running Man than actual sport, than rationally thought-out perspectives, no matter how correct or incorrect in their logic.

TQ has presented more than enough food for thought to warrant at least further rational discussion. I've noticed people like jack get silent when he tries to fastidiously address most every point brought up against him.


Why the silence?

Or will this question be met in a similar manner?

 

[The Question]

EDIT: nm.