>> ^Farhad2000:
The Israel lobby does exist http://www.videosift.com/search?q=aipac


Yes, the bigger point is no other lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest. If you read the whole article the theme is consistently discussing how Israeli special interests essientially control the US government against it's own best interests more strongly than any other group in existence. That's frighteningly familiar, and one step from crying that the Jews are secretly controlling the US for their own gains.

The Israel lobby does exist http://www.videosift.com/search?q=aipac

>> ^bcglorf:
Worse, that false presentation creates a, I'll say deliberate, bias against Israel.


As opposed to your bias for Israel and your slanted cherry-picking of historical events?

Don't feel alone, only 99% of the mainstream media is exactly like you.

Oh! And 90% of our government is afraid to say anything critical of Israel at all, because as everybody knows, that will be shouted down as anti-Semitism, and AIPAC will put a hit on them come the next election.

It's so fucking nice to have a PAC, who's number one concern is the interest of a foreign nation, controlling so much of what happens within and to the USA.

Yes, alarmist. Very much so. Are the millions of people taking to the streets also being alarmist? I think they are, and I also think there's good reason.

I don't think I'm wrong on Obama but I hope I am.

Obama's speech last June in AIPAC has a scary relevance right now doesn't it? Remember, it was the one were he gave his unequivocal support for Israel's right to defend itself. Now we know how Israel likes to defend itself.

That's why I think he was the wrong president and Ron Paul was the right one.

I didn't think I was speaking *for* the WHOLE WORLD, I think it's pretty clear what the WHOLE WORLD thinks of Bush, and in time it'll be pretty clear what the WHOLE WORLD thinks of Obama.

So check back with me in a few years and we'll see if I was right or wrong.

I'll be very satisfied to be wrong about Obama on Israel.

Expose AIPAC, and that will set many of our wrongs, right.

No more mobsters buying off our government.

south africa = israel - the AIPAC lobby

seems to me that aipac has had a little chat with him.....put him in place.

Octo stated: "Do you want sources for my claim that not every Jew is an Israeli and vv and that not all Palestinians are muslim?"

No... Of course not all jews are israeli. I didn't make the video btw... I don't prescribe to everything in it.. I just posted it because I find the Israeli occupation and heavy AIPAC influence on American foreign policy interesting. relax.

Octo stated: "Remember the title of the vid is “Brief history of Israel"

Actually the title is "A brief history of Israel +" .... notice the plus sign at the end of it.. it means there's more than just a brief history of israel.. but I needed to keep the title relatively short.

But I will not do your research for you. sorry.

I was answering you're questions above.. sorry I didn't "quote" your specific question and you mistook my answer for a response to your entire comment.

WHY did he pick Biden? Good GOD!

I know you look down on all of them as CFR candidates, CP, but I still think there's a difference in who could have been chosen. I wanted Dodd, but then I wanted him or Feingold to be our next President.

Leniency for Pollard!? Fucking AIPAC has WAY too much influence on Capitol Hill.

I'll start with saying I'm glad I misread you -- there are so many people here in the US who repeat these kinds of things out of pure partisanship. What was in that clip was no reasoned debate, condemning Obama's use of fear, it was two propagandists for the right-wing party trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the opposition party's candidate for the Presidency.

I agree with your assessment that the low point of Obama's trip was the Israel leg. He always steps up his rhetoric about Iran, and that makes me nervous. He did the same thing when speaking to AIPAC here in the states (the pro-Israel lobby), and he caught a lot of flak for it from his base.

I think the main thing Europeans have to worry about is the echoes of 9/11 that are still ringing here in this country. They're no longer clearly audible, but it's just below our register, affecting our subconscious. The public in this country will not elect anyone who would not make the appeal to the world to aid us in our so-called "fight against extremism".

However, if you look back at his earlier comments from the beginning of the primary, you'd see he spent a lot of time talking about the need to "change our mindset" and to not act out of fear. That's part of why he's got Hope and/or Change emblazoned on his signs and bumper stickers. Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic field) blasted him for being "weak on terror", and he made a clear turn about a year ago to make sure he kept sounding a tougher line about extremism.

I think he's now in a place where he has to keep the momentum on this going, because he can't win without doing that.

That said, he has made it clear he will listen to our allies more -- so even if he does get carried away, I do think pressure from Europe would affect him. I think if he wins, he will begin the long process of trying to reverse the pervasive fear running through the populace -- fears that Bush amplified for his own purposes.

John McCain on the other hand will happily give Europe the middle finger if they protest an American plan to invade Iran, because many people here think that shows "good leadership" and "independence". He'll also happily continue to perpetuate those fears about terrorism. He has said on many occasions that the "fight against Islamic Extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century."

From what I see, Bush has pushed this country a great distance towards fascism. McCain's a member of the same political party, and it's clear that all the same advisers have gotten their hooks into McCain, because he's gone from a moderate that I actually kinda liked, to being in lock step with Bush, not only on issue positions, but also the combative, disrespectful, fear mongering overtones. He's also got the media propagandists helping him (like the ones in your clip), who dig up ridiculous claims like Obama is a muslim, or a terrorist, or that he wasn't born in the US (which would make him ineligible for the Presidency).

That's why I reacted the way I did to your post.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

Obama + AIPAC = fail.

latest polls say 1% of iraqies wants the u.s to stay, so i guess he is right when he says vast majority wants them to leave...99%.....osama never once said he was responsible for 9/11....why on earth would he not wanna take credit for it, even when he has been hunted for so long that it doesnt matter if he admits it or not??????? lets stop all these silly games, democrats and republicans receive 99% of the votes in the u.s every time, reminds me of the days when saddam held elections. wake up america, to have one more political party than communist china is not democracy.......oh, and did someone see his speech at aipac,he aint gonna change anything, it a big hoax.

Hmm, that extra "is" shouldn't be there. Now it's immortalized in quotation.

My main point was that the video doesn't contain any quotes about suggested actions to take with regard to Iran -- if it did, they'd have to show he's consistently advocated diplomacy, even in that AIPAC speech.

He changed his tone, from one that was dismissive of Iran, to one that takes it seriously. I think that's wise, given the way media-assassination works in this country.

If there's been a shift in actual policy though, I've not seen it.

Yeah, he got quite the media firestorm for the first comment, and "retooled" the message. Instead of trying to make the point that Iran is harmless compared to the Soviet Union (true), make the point that Iran is still poses threats to our interests in the region (also true), because you won't get demonized for the latter.

I wouldn't want a President in office who didn't think both statements were true.

They should've used a clip from his speech before AIPAC on June 4th where he says he's committed to "eliminating" the threat of Iran, and then coupled it with the numerous comments he's made about the importance of diplomacy.

That way you still get the out-of-context flip-flop effect, but this time on statements that seem to be about an actual policy position.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'AIPAC, Israel, Iran, Lobby, Congress, People, Power, Jazzeera, Blitzer' to 'AIPAC, Israel, Iran, Lobby, Congress, People, Power, Jazeera, Blitzer' - edited by calvados