Zionist Occupied America (878)
gininitaly: Oh don't pay any attention to him Muse... just gets the end of a bone in his mouth and won't let it go.
Alright then... 
------ This thread is Archived ------
On task:
------ This thread is Archived ------
gininitaly: On task:http://www.laleva.cc/economy/whocontrolsthefrs.html
Rense and Victor Thorn!Who is Victor Thorn?
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: Sorry Fred "Just kidding" nope ,some folk do take what you say to heart and that is why I challenged, you tried to deflect the challenge with your query in Tel Aviv.
You contested the figures on the number of Senators and Congress folk as well, not exactly what anyone who says. "I any event I don't believe in the position of this thread. There is no "occupation", just influence."
Now this is page twenty what? Why not put that point on page 1 or 2, Or did the links you posted in support of the OP not contradict you last admission?
Even so I am glad you now admit there is no OCCUPATION.
That and your admission helps me and others show the OP is totally wrong.
Thank you Fred.
You contested the figures on the number of Senators and Congress folk as well, not exactly what anyone who says. "I any event I don't believe in the position of this thread. There is no "occupation", just influence."
Now this is page twenty what? Why not put that point on page 1 or 2, Or did the links you posted in support of the OP not contradict you last admission?
Even so I am glad you now admit there is no OCCUPATION.
That and your admission helps me and others show the OP is totally wrong.
Thank you Fred.
What the heck does "occupied" mean to you in the context of this thread?
I chose to substitute the words Zionist influence. I assert there is no Zionist "occupation" of the US Government, that is no Zionist at every door with a firearm, tanks in the streets and IAF planes flying over Congress and the White House.
If that is your definition, then we agree!
Tell me, pat, have you ever served on a committee, or attended a meeting where a few well-organized in advance individuals with an agenda managed to sway or lobby the majority into agreeing them? Are those organized people "occupying" or influencing?
------ This thread is Archived ------
gininitaly: On task:http://www.laleva.cc/economy/whocontrolsthefrs.html
As far as I know ,they do control the Federal Reserve
but the owner is the royal family of England
of cause, I could be wrong ..
------ This thread is Archived ------
Paldi5: What the heck does "occupied" mean to you in the context of this thread?
I chose to substitute the words Zionist influence. I assert there is no Zionist "occupation" of the US Government, that is no Zionist at every door with a firearm, tanks in the streets and IAF planes flying over Congress and the White House.
If that is your definition, then we agree!
Tell me, pat, have you ever served on a committee, or attended a meeting where a few well-organized in advance individuals with an agenda managed to sway or lobby the majority into agreeing them? Are those organized people "occupying" or influencing?
The dramatic effect of "Occupied" is definitely greater,than that of a simple "Influenced"!I chose to substitute the words Zionist influence. I assert there is no Zionist "occupation" of the US Government, that is no Zionist at every door with a firearm, tanks in the streets and IAF planes flying over Congress and the White House.
If that is your definition, then we agree!
Tell me, pat, have you ever served on a committee, or attended a meeting where a few well-organized in advance individuals with an agenda managed to sway or lobby the majority into agreeing them? Are those organized people "occupying" or influencing?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Paldi5: What the heck does "occupied" mean to you in the context of this thread?
I chose to substitute the words Zionist influence. I assert there is no Zionist "occupation" of the US Government, that is no Zionist at every door with a firearm, tanks in the streets and IAF planes flying over Congress and the White House.
If that is your definition, then we agree!
Tell me, pat, have you ever served on a committee, or attended a meeting where a few well-organized in advance individuals with an agenda managed to sway or lobby the majority into agreeing them? Are those organized people "occupying" or influencing?
I chose to substitute the words Zionist influence. I assert there is no Zionist "occupation" of the US Government, that is no Zionist at every door with a firearm, tanks in the streets and IAF planes flying over Congress and the White House.
If that is your definition, then we agree!
Tell me, pat, have you ever served on a committee, or attended a meeting where a few well-organized in advance individuals with an agenda managed to sway or lobby the majority into agreeing them? Are those organized people "occupying" or influencing?
We most certainly do agree Fred.
as per
oc·cu·py (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5. To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.
And yes Fred I have served and Iam currently serving on a committee and yes seen them in action. But like I said Fred it would and does take a lot more than 15% to really have any influence.
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: We most certainly do agree Fred.
as per
oc·cu·py (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5. To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.
And yes Fred I have served and Iam currently serving on a committee and yes seen them in action. But like I said Fred it would and does take a lot more than 15% to really have any influence.
as per
oc·cu·py (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5. To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.
And yes Fred I have served and Iam currently serving on a committee and yes seen them in action. But like I said Fred it would and does take a lot more than 15% to really have any influence.
Maybe a committee of Scotsmen is more difficult to sway. Unless of course one is armed with a bucket full of great scotch.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Paldi5: I hope he's getting something for all his hard work!
Maybe he will come back all sweetness and light with a great big grin on his face. Not sure what his partner Missbunny would say about it though.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Paldi5: Maybe a committee of Scotsmen is more difficult to sway. Unless of course one is armed with a bucket full of great scotch.
Two buckets Fred and even then we are always 
wary. ------ This thread is Archived ------
I find a lot of things strange lately.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Boban1: As far as I know ,they do control the Federal Reserve
but the owner is the royal family of England
of cause, I could be wrong ..
but the owner is the royal family of England
of cause, I could be wrong ..
The Rothschilds have the majority as far as I have been able to find.
But I'm starting to think I need a better search engine.
I don't think the Royals in Britain need to do much with theirs other than show up at events... probably wouldn't have a clue how to make more or the hunger to want to.------ This thread is Archived ------
gininitaly: The Rothschilds have the majority as far as I have been able to find.
But I'm starting to think I need a better search engine.
I don't think the Royals in Britain need to do much with theirs other than show up at events... probably wouldn't have a clue how to make more or the hunger to want to.
But I'm starting to think I need a better search engine.
I don't think the Royals in Britain need to do much with theirs other than show up at events... probably wouldn't have a clue how to make more or the hunger to want to.
they own the US IRS Nasa CIA FBI and the Fed...what a paradox
------ This thread is Archived ------
Don't you just love where this Thread is going?
------ This thread is Archived ------
invinciblemuse: Well, it seems to me that an antisemite would object to the very existence of Israel altogether.
I would therefore assume that someone, who criticises the politics of the Israeli leadership at present, cannot be an antisemite, because s/he acknowledges its existence and its role in politics.
Or am I wrong about that??
I would therefore assume that someone, who criticises the politics of the Israeli leadership at present, cannot be an antisemite, because s/he acknowledges its existence and its role in politics.
Or am I wrong about that??
One can very well criticize the politics of Israeli leadership at present and still be 100% antisemitic because one can fully object to the existence of Israel and still vehemently criticize their leadership and politics. Criticism of Israeli politics is not proof of antisemitism, per se, but certainly can't be a litmus test that proves one is NOT anti-semitic. You cannot assume someone is not an antisemite because they criticize Israel. If anything, it would make antisemitism a distinct possibility. It's not enough information to establish antisemitism.
To illustrate: Someone in China criticizes US policy. To say that means they cannot be anti-US simply isn't logical. They could very well have wet dreams about the US being destroyed in it's entirety. You can't tell based on whether or not they criticised US policy. If they happened to be against the USA on principle, you would never know without more iformation. Eventually. If a pattern of behavior and sentiment develops, THEN you know.
------ This thread is Archived ------
invinciblemuse: See, this is the point I´m having problems with - if I´m understanding this right, you´re basically saying that antizionists are necessarily antisemites by nature.
No. You can't make that assumption logically. It is, however, very possible that anti-zionism is rooted in anti-semitism. It's the "why" that tells the story. If one is "Anti-Zionist", the question of "why" has to come into play. Does this mean that someone thinks Israel shouldn't exist? If so, WHY? And this is where the anti-semitism usually gets revealed, if it's there.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: No. You can't make that assumption logically. It is, however, very possible that anti-zionism is rooted in anti-semitism. It's the "why" that tells the story. If one is "Anti-Zionist", the question of "why" has to come into play. Does this mean that someone thinks Israel shouldn't exist? If so, WHY? And this is where the anti-semitism usually gets revealed, if it's there.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
So, why didn`t the USA embrace them and gave them,hmmmm, lets say Texas,instead of taking Land from Palestine
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: No. You can't make that assumption logically. It is, however, very possible that anti-zionism is rooted in anti-semitism. It's the "why" that tells the story. If one is "Anti-Zionist", the question of "why" has to come into play. Does this mean that someone thinks Israel shouldn't exist? If so, WHY? And this is where the anti-semitism usually gets revealed, if it's there.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
An Anti-Semite may be very pro-Zion. After all the more Jews there are in Israel, the less Jews there are everywhere else. It's muddy water the anti-Semite/anti-Zionist argument, but I don't believe the popular wave of anti-Zionists we're seeing are anti-Semites.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: No. You can't make that assumption logically. It is, however, very possible that anti-zionism is rooted in anti-semitism. It's the "why" that tells the story. If one is "Anti-Zionist", the question of "why" has to come into play. Does this mean that someone thinks Israel shouldn't exist? If so, WHY? And this is where the anti-semitism usually gets revealed, if it's there.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
"Because Jews shouldn't have their own country'... OK. WHY? Only after all the layers are peeled off can you figure out what the heck the whole rabid "Anti-zionist" thing is all about.
Without a good explanation of why Israel, established by the UN shouldn't be the Jewish homeland, you can then assume that it's because there's some antipathy towards the Jewish people, themselves. If there's some other reason, it would have to have some really solid grounds because in all likelihood, that "some other reason" is rationalization - an ulterior reason because the REAL reason someone feels that way wouldn't be very "acceptible".
So you have to take it all in context and it's a judgement call... all that really matters in the end is where someone stands on a subject. Why can be any reason at all and really is irrelevant except in determining how much credibility you want to assign their opinion.
Going back before anti zionism and anti Iraelism - before WWII and the holocaust, what do you think the reasons were for antisemitism, if it indeed even existed? Those times were before I was born so I haven't a clue... why Jews were thrown out of so many places in history? The ones I know in my life look normal enough. I would never think of throwing them out, unless they thought they were entitled to take something that's mine.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Icebergs Still Around
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Reality Check
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
rarotonga
How far is too far?
everything is changing
1830's Music
Nature
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Now get back on the point