It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lord Levy Arrested But Does He “Corrupt” “Our” Foreign Policy?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I understand your reasoning, Liberal, and you are correct in a number of ways.

Your average Jew is like any other person. Works the job, has the family, dreams of retirement travel, wants to see the kids do well in life, ect. The real danger is not the average Jewish person, but the small cabal of Zionists, who, no matter their country of citizenship and birth, will always put their own interests and the interests of Israel first, above those of their native country and above the interests of the rest of the Jewish people. They are bad news, and sadly, the U.S. government bows to this lobby, and the Pentagon is laced with hawkish Zionists who encourage strife in our middle eastern relations.

It is because of the Zionists that the rest of the Jewish world suffers the suspicon and brunt of peoples anger. Your analogy about Hitler was pretty good. He took the actions of a few Jewish bankers, and used that to condemn the entire Jewish race as part of some vast evil conspiracy to harm Germany. It is the militant actions of the Zionists in Israel that your average Jew is not safe from terrorist attacks from the Palestinians.

The Zionists have used other countries to support Israel at the expense of the host nation. They simply do not care. As far as I am concerned, if they want to Support Israel, then go live in Israel and stop using other countries to further their agendas.




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Finally you say this thread “comes across as extremely racist” and of course you are totally right. But I challenge you to find an example of me “discriminating against any race.”


When "race" becomes a focus of topic and discussion, racists are inevitably attracted.

Long ago, the collective membership and staff of this discussion board deemed it appropriate to aspire to higher standards of discussion that rejects mindless drivel such as racism.

When you say something like, "_____ is a disgrace to their race", you open the door by injecting the subtle tactics of the modern racist.

Close the door now.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Once again Lib you have used innuendo and smear by implication against some wealthy Jewish people who support the Labour party.

Whirling around in as many silly self-selecting stats as you can conjure (and throwing out the usual 'questions' and 'maybes' to imply what you cannot actually prove).
Good luck on showing significant numbers of Britain's unions being led by elected officials who happen to be Jewish
(and the trades unions, along with the regular Labour party membership are where the bulk of Labour's funding comes from anyway).

Why would some Jewish people (wealthy or not) be inclined to support the Labour party in particular?
Well in 'broad-brush' terms it ought to be pretty obvious, they are a 'left of centre' party - right-wing European parties are probably not the instinctive choice - and the Labour party is a party with deep anti-sectarian and anti-racist roots, it ought to be obvious.

Just as some prefer Jewish people prefer to support the tory party because of their traditional concentration on business interests.

So, some wealthy Jewish people have donated or lent money to the Labour party; no-one disputed that.

The dispute arises over the next bit............and so what
?

Where is the slightest shred of evidence or fact that this has amounted to anything tangible?
Forget the 'perhaps', 'maybes' and all the other guff that covers an utter lack of evidence. You want to make the claim so you back it up.
Where is there any sign of, what you insist is unusual Jewish financial support, resulting in Israel's interests being pursued against Britain's?

I have kept asking and no matter how much bold type you use Lib you have utterly failed to demonstrate anything actually "criminal" by anyone despite you insisting to repeatedly using the term.

Nor despite many requests have you shown a single British foreign policy altered towards Israeli interests and against Britain's since Lord Levy becoming an envoy or started raising money for the Labour party.

Lastly you have totally failed to illustrate any action by these supposed 'pro-Israel Jewish interest groups' as against UK interests.

No matter how you dress it up Lib you have been on an anti-Jewish rant since this thread began.
You didn't define anything in 'Zionist' terms you went straight for 'Jewish' and haven't really let go since.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
as many silly self-selecting stats as you can conjure


Self selecting statistics? Ok why are they self selecting statistics? Didn’t I include all 18 individual donors who donated more than a 100,000 to the Labour Party regardless of their race, creed or ethnic origin? It’s in spite of that (correction: out of 18 donors (earlier I said 16) 8 these have titles). And 7 of these are foreigners, 6 of them are Jews.
But these are not self selecting statistics. In fact that’s precisely your accusations problem because I didn’t just show the 8 titled people, and I didn’t just show the foreign ones. I did the whole thing so all people can draw their own conclusions about why a 3rd of them are Jewish donors.

The fact that at most the U.K’s ratio between Jew and non Jew is 1 to every 171 is certainly an additional detail; maybe its not relevant? But you judge for yourself.

Maybe it’s self selecting of me to only focus on big donations? On the other hand is someone who donates 50 quid to the Labour party really up for suspicions of lobbying our government? If not then aren’t I fully justified in focusing on the big donations only?

I ask isn’t the “smear by implication” (you talk about) solely through implications that arise from the raw facts only? And to be quite honest I did not know for sure whether the donor information from the Electoral Commission I found would support my case; it’s only (perhaps because I'm right?) that it did.

You ask…

”Why would Jewish people be inclined to support the Labour party in particular?”

As they are so heavily backed by unions there is hardly much competition from other private individuals; this and Labour is the party of government. Apart from that I don’t why lobbyers would seek to lobby them in particular.
And isn’t there a small “bias” in your question? Who said pro Israelites would be supporting the Labour Party in particular? anyway?
I wouldn’t be surprised if pro Israelites are supporting the Tory party just as disproportionably (in line with U.K Jewish population) as they support the Labour party. All that is needed is a few more hours of research which would wrap up this argument wouldn’t it? In fact I might be inclined to do just some such research myself (if I can be bothered). Before then anyone is welcome to try (P.S I will happily correct anyone’s missing out of the identities of Jewish individuals).
However before we expand the argument I think its fair to say we already have some strong evidence (from both legal or illegally unregistered donors) to declare Labour is funded-supported by rich foreigners in a way which defies the demographics of the United Kingdom in the extreme (after all: the difference between an ethnically representative 0.58% of Jewish Labour Part individual funding; and the reality of 33.6% is quite extreme don’t you think?)


So, some wealthy Jewish people have donated or lent money to the Labour party; no-one disputed that.
The dispute arises over the next bit............and so what?


Sminkeypinkey. To put it mildly they don’t quite fit in with the demographics of the U.K. Are you really clinging onto the hope it’s all a coincidence? (If so some maths can put that into perspective).

Meanwhile there’s
1. There’s Friends of Israel in America
2. There’s obviously Friends of Israel here
3. This extremely high number of private wealthy Jews funding Labour. If you ignore race for a second) there’s perhaps even more Zionists (according my Google info many of the English donors seemed quite pro Israel).


Where is the slightest shred of evidence or fact that this has amounted to anything tangible?


Good question. Admittedly it’s almost entirely confined to the fact that many of these Jews back pro Israeli charities as well as the Labour party, plus the fact such a disproportionate number are Jewish (as well as foreign).
But this only points to foreign lobbying. I have no other direct evidence; so you would be right to say that to prosecute (in a court of law) you would need more evidence than I alone have presented so far. In fact I too would like to know more about what exactly they have been up to. And in absence of a hidden microphone (or at least a news outbreak providing specific cases I have none. Perhaps someone can help me with that?
But big wow man; because as I’ve already said I posted a question on ATS (not a complete answer). Had it been this thread would surely be moved to the news section? What I find curious though sminkeypinkey is the fact you need some extra evidence just to even believe-accept something fishy might be going on.

Your right that we certainly don’t have the whole storey (and in any case statistical analysis will give you statistics first, and stories later) but I mean wow; guess there must be something really dodgy about those statistics if you’re still certain nothing doggy is going on?
If so rather than just saying “silly self selective stats” do you care to spell out whatever the alleged problem is to us? Maybe there isn’t really one?



You didn't define anything in 'Zionist' terms you went straight for 'Jewish' and haven't really let go since.

I know it’s terrible. But you obviously didn’t read my reply earlier when I explained why. Sometimes it's ok not to use the authoritarian language of political correctness. I think it’s funny to use the word Jew over Zionism because this small difference (and here it was zero to communicated meaning) sets so many people of. Could it be that authoritarian minds look for selected words over meanings? Well they should think about the messages meaning first.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
When "race" becomes a focus of topic and discussion, racists are inevitably attracted.


You do realise the alternative is usually not to discuss these things at all? And maybe most people have had enough of this fine alternative?
But I know exactly what you mean ScepticOverlord when you talk about your fear of attracting racists. What scares some other people even more is that a racist might actually make a racial point and be correct; because this of course defies many of the current “laws” of anti racism. Then again according to the “laws of political correctness” such a thing should be literally impossible in which case with a board like this (full of good brains, and good arguments) we have almost nothing to worry about.
As I explained earlier I am technically a modern racist myself; so obviously I (initionally) don’t like what you say about avoiding attracting other people like me.
However I agree you’re completely right to be weary of anyone (racist or not) who uses tactics-insults ahead of the logic of sound argument. But as long as someone has a sound argument behind them, then I personally have time for them (be them anti racist or not).
Hopefully you agree with me that the only thing we have to fear is not an individual’s personal ideology or argument but instead their potential use of non intellectual tactics like insults over substance, or the fictionalisation of facts. Maybe it’s arrogant of me but I reckon if I can have time for people who don’t do that; then so too can everyone else.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Self selecting statistics?


- What do you call the concentration and impossible vast conspiracy you have constructed on the basis of 6 people out of a country of 60millions?


On the other hand is someone who donates 50 quid to the Labour party really up for suspicions of lobbying our government? If not then aren’t I fully justified in focusing on the big donations only?


- You can focus on whatever you like but all you have done is basically shout 'Jew'; you haven't shown any facts to back up your implications/innuendo or outright claim that there are 'bought' consequences from their donations/loans at all.....or anything to suggest they in this government have secretly acted against British interests or perverted British foreign policy.


I have no other direct evidence


- Well thanks, finally.
That's cleared that up then.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- What do you call the concentration and impossible vast conspiracy you have constructed on the basis of 6 people out of a country of 60millions?


Now there’s a self selecting statistic if there ever was one.
Here’s what you miss out…
1. They are 6 Jews out of 18 individual Labour donors. Relevant fact right?
2. They are 6 Jews out of a country were the ratio between Jew and non Jew is 1 to 224.7 at most, and 1 to 171 at minimum. Relevant fact right?
3. They make up a third of all the private donor money; and they are more heavily represented as individuals with allegiance to another country than anyone else than any other country. Relevant fact right?
Certainly Relevant as long as full relevant disclosure (honesty) always is?

4. For extra detail you might also like to add that the 60 million figures applies to the other 59,650,000-59,733,000 people who aren’t Jewish. Or even mention the existence of disproportionably powerful organisations like Friends of Israel (this after all would explain to people how race isn’t the only thing which can make sense of the other details I mentioned). To be fair you could even mention the far more numerous union donations (exactly as I did, even though it’s a point against my argument).

In fact Sminkeypinky when you give statistics like the above that are lacking in so much detail it actually makes them quite silly. And how does this do any honest argument any favours?

P.S I would still like to know what’s “silly” about my own statistics (given earlier in the full response).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join