bmags Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Made the exact same post on another board, where I can post more obnoxiously without worrying the troops. But don't get derailed by the sarcasm. A new jewish lobbying group opened up to much interest inside blog politics, a jewish lobbying group that is for PEACE in the Arab-Israel conflict as opposed to just getting money from the US and then spying on us and spitting in our faces. And so, a director from AIPAC now tries to discredit the group by saying THEIR ARE ARABS CONTRIBUTING TO THE GROUP!! OMG!!! TERRORISTS?!?! http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/ Quote: So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away. When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?” and then continues his bulls*** by bringing up an example of a Lebanese woman who once worked for, f***!, the Arab American Institute! To which Ackerman takes him to task: Quote: You will notice that nowhere in Lenny Ben-David’s post is there any accusation that Rebecca has taken any sort of objectionable stand or made any sort of objectionable point. And that’s because it is impossible to do so. I would wager that every journalist in Washington who writes on Middle East peace issues has had some interaction with Rebecca, as has every Hill staffer and innumerable current and former administration officials. Every single one of us will attest that Rebecca is incapable of ill will toward the Jewish people or toward Israel. Her entire professional life is devoted to peace, reconciliation, and two states. I have repeatedly marveled at how good natured she can be. Many has been the time I have felt that I’ve been too dour or pessimistic about peace in her presence, because Rebecca lives it. Anyone who has spent any time with her, any time at all, knows how true this is. And any person or organization that would disrespect her is not sincerely interested in peace. http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/10...ca-abou-chedid/ Arab=terrorist. Arabs couldn't possibly benefit from peace in the middle east. AIPAC is saintly. AIPAC will continue to lobby for giving Israel weapons to Israel and turning a blind eye to them sending spies to us. AIPAC is good. J-Street is bad. War is good. War is good. War is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 This recent story loosely ties into your thread: US scientist charged with attempting to sell military secrets to Israel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yes, but one question for lost, Does the FBI ever have to worry about entrapment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) Yes, but one question for lost, Does the FBI ever have to worry about entrapment? They do it to potential terrorists all the time, the thing is whether they can prove that the person actually had intent to do something. If they intended to carry out their act with/without the FBI and the FBI's informant/decoy was just a conduit then they have no leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) They do it to potential terrorists all the time, the thing is whether they can prove that the person actually had intent to do something. If they intended to carry out their act with/without the FBI and the FBI's informant/decoy was just a conduit then they have no leg to stand on. Yes, the law applies to all domestic agencies (except, in some limited circumsances, the USSS) when it comes to this. Some judges may be more flexible than others, but if the entrapment resulted in an intent that would otherwise have not been there, then its a house of cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Clearly this guy has a big mouth about his intent, but there were some cases some years ago, where it just kind of seemed like idiots that were being supplied weapons and the line was blurred. but anyways, J-Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts