Mahmoud Ahmad ISI Chief

[bernit]

Can any of the experts here please comment on Mahmoud Ahmad, Chief of the ISI. He was in Washington DC the week prior to 9/11 and was in a meeting hosted by the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees while the attacks took place. From what I understand it has been confirmed that his organization wired $100,000 to 9/11 Ring leader Mohammed Atta.

globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

[MarkyX]

It was "confirmed" by the India Times.

Also a blog does some nice research on it. http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78639317

[bernit]

Thanks for that. That article does point out the flaws in Chossudovski's article BUT it does not deny the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta. It says that Mahmoud Ahmad lost his job as a result? Wow.

[JamesB]

One source, from a country which is Pakistan's arch-enemy is hardly "confirmed". Of course, coming from bunch of truthers which quote neo-Nazi newspapers as a source claiming the Jews did it, I suppose that would make sense.

I don't get the relevence of him being in Washington DC. If I were involved in a big international conspiracy to murder thousands of people, I would be as far away as humanly possible when it went off.

One should also point out that the ISI has always been a rogue element in the Pakistani government, and has supported fundamentalists in the past. They practically created the Taliban. This hardly makes it US government policy though.

[CurtC]

You should read http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

[bernit]

Are you suggesting that the jews did it JamesB?

[HyJinX]

Are you suggesting that the jews did it JamesB?

I suggest you re-read JamesB's post again. I think you didn't understand what he said.

[bernit]

Ya I Know, I got it. He's Saying you can't trust India when they report on anything to do with their arch-enemy Pakistan. Same as you can't trust Neo-Nazi articles that try to pin it on the Jews. But by that rational shouldn't everyone be equally wary about articles by god-loving americans regarding Islamic fundamentalists?

[DavidJames]

Ya I Know, I got it. He's Saying you can't trust India when they report on anything to do with their arch-enemy Pakistan. Same as you can't trust Neo-Nazi articles that try to pin it on the Jews. But by that rational shouldn't everyone be equally wary about articles by god-loving americans regarding Islamic fundamentalists?Yes. That's doesn't mean you necessarily dismiss it out of hand. But being wary is a good way of putting it. If that type of source, is the only source, that would make me very wary.

[JamesB]

Ya I Know, I got it. He's Saying you can't trust India when they report on anything to do with their arch-enemy Pakistan. Same as you can't trust Neo-Nazi articles that try to pin it on the Jews. But by that rational shouldn't everyone be equally wary about articles by god-loving americans regarding Islamic fundamentalists?

I am not saying you should never believe them, but a single unconfirmed report by a biased source is not my idea of reliable. Obviously not every news report can be true, since many of them contradict each other, so you have to make judgements sometime as to their reliability, and not just pick and choose those you want to believe.

[bernit]

It seems most articles on this subject neither confirm or deny anything. That must dissuade everyone from digging deeper into the story.

[T.A.M.]

Ya I Know, I got it. He's Saying you can't trust India when they report on anything to do with their arch-enemy Pakistan. Same as you can't trust Neo-Nazi articles that try to pin it on the Jews. But by that rational shouldn't everyone be equally wary about articles by god-loving americans regarding Islamic fundamentalists?

No. I think the equivalent would be Christian Extremists and comments on Islamic Fundamentalists. Most god-loving americans are not neccesarily the enemies of Islam. I can see how one could reach such a conclusion though.

TAM

[HyJinX]

It seems most articles on this subject neither confirm or deny anything. That must dissuade everyone from digging deeper into the story.

What I find particularly interesting is that I see this story pop up on truther websites from time to time, used as evidence to support their claims...knowing that it cannot be confirmed or denied. What's funny is that truthers deduce that it must be the truth since it cannot be sufficiently proven untrue. The rest of the world believes the opposite...since it cannot be proven to be the truth...it cannot used as evidence.

[bernit]

Well it does seem that certain Americans in power can't get enough of their Saudi-Arabian bum-chums, but that's a whole topic onto itself.

[bernit]

What I find particularly interesting is that I see this story pop up on truther websites from time to time, used as evidence to support their claims...knowing that it cannot be confirmed or denied. What's funny is that truthers deduce that it must be the truth since it cannot be sufficiently proven untrue. The rest of the world believes the opposite...since it cannot be proven to be the truth...it cannot used as evidence.

It cannot be used as evidence because people only scratch the surface and then tuck tail and run.

[HyJinX]

Bernit...where do you sit on the whole conspiracy thing?

[MikeW]

It cannot be used as evidence because people only scratch the surface and then tuck tail and run.
And those who do are missing what, exactly?

[T.A.M.]

From what I can get on the ISI guy:

1. Source of info = 1 source, Times of India. All other articles that mention the connection, got there info from this source, including the Wall Street Journal, who quote them almost verbatim. The times of india got their info from ANONYMOUS Indian Intelligence.

2. If he was guilty it says very little, in that the USG is well aware of corruption in Pakistan, even at the highest level of govt. They are an allie out of neccesity, not desire...I believe.

TAM

[bernit]

HyJinX

Well...The towers fell down as explained by the NIST, there were 4 planes, all of which crashed with the terrorists flying them. I'm all official until we get into the nitty gritty of the whole thing, then it gets very questionable for me. For example, The money trail, all things leading back to Saudi-Arabia and ISI not being followed up but instead taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still researching really so I'll get back to you.

[Gravy]

It cannot be used as evidence because people only scratch the surface and then tuck tail and run.Do you know that this issue hasn't been investigated by U.S. intelligence?

Also, while the Indian government and press tend to reflexively blame many of the world's problems on the ISI, they would LOVE to have solid evidence of ISI involvement in 9/11. Think of the huge political difference it would make if they could turn world opinion against Pakistan. If anyone has turned up such evidence, they've kept it to themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some unnamed foreign nationals in high places were involved in some way in the 9/11 attacks. I would be very, very surprised if they made traceable money transfers to the hijackers or middlemen.

And as I've noted before, the 9/11 attack was not a very expensive operation. The many private sources of funding available meant that there likely wasn't a need for government or military involvement.

[jon]

From what I can get on the ISI guy:

1. Source of info = 1 source, Times of India. All other articles that mention the connection, got there info from this source, including the Wall Street Journal, who quote them almost verbatim. The times of india got their info from ANONYMOUS Indian Intelligence.


That's another good point - even if the Times of India was reliably reporting what its source said, the source may not have been reliable. The source is anonymous, and - as CTists really ought to know - intelligence agencies do sometimes spread inaccurate information for political purposes.

[bernit]

Gravy replace Indian Governmet with US government and Indian Press with US Press in your statement and how would you react to something as assuming and generalizing as that.

[Gravy]

Gravy replace Indian Governmet with US government and Indian Press with US Press in your statement and how would you react to something as assuming and generalizing as that.I don't know what you mean. Can you explain a bit more?

[bernit]

well, you say that the Indian Government and the Indian Press would jump at any opportunity to blame the ISI for anything, but isn't that a very big assumption on your part. Seems to me like you are giving them no credibility whatsoever.

[Spindrift]

Gravy replace Indian Governmet with US government and Indian Press with US Press in your statement and how would you react to something as assuming and generalizing as that.

Like this?

Also, while the US government and press tend to reflexively blame many of the world's problems on the ISI, they would LOVE to have solid evidence of ISI involvement in 9/11. Think of the huge political difference it would make if they could turn world opinion against Pakistan. If anyone has turned up such evidence, they've kept it to themselves.

It doesn't make sense since we don't blame everything on ISI.

[bernit]

you're right, you blame everything on Islamic fundamentalists, they're the commies of the 21st century.

[T.A.M.]

I think the key is multiple sources of varied origins makes evidence much more strong than a single source, anonymous in nature, from a country who is the publicly delcared enemy of the other.

The USA has not declared itself the enemy of any particular Country, but rather on Al-Qaeda. As well, most of the info on 911 is corroborated by independent sources from multiple countries.

As well, if you watch the US News what you will find is a story will start off with an "Anonymous" source. This is often then stated as "unconfirmed". the journalists then typically try to obtain multiple, corroborating sources, before launching it as reliable, or confirmed. Even then, the story often awaits confirmation from officials.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

you're right, you blame everything on Islamic fundamentalists, they're the commies of the 21st century.

That is a little harsh. I think alot gets blamed on them, in terms of terrorism around the world. They are the biggest terrorist threat to the USA at this point in history.

TAM

[MikeW]

well, you say that the Indian Government and the Indian Press would jump at any opportunity to blame the ISI for anything, but isn't that a very big assumption on your part.
Not at all.

Search Google (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=india%20isi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) at any time and you'll find them accusing the ISI of something. It's going on all the time.

[Gravy]

well, you say that the Indian Government and the Indian Press would jump at any opportunity to blame the ISI for anything, but isn't that a very big assumption on your part. Seems to me like you are giving them no credibility whatsoever.If you read up on India-Pakistan relations, you'll see that India really does tend to reflexively (which is not to say always incorrectly) blame the ISI for supporting terrorism, unrest, and riots, such as the Mumbai bombings, terror attacks in Kashmir, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.

Do you disagree that they would love to have hard evidence of Pakistani/ISI involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

[MarkyX]

you're right, you blame everything on Islamic fundamentalists, they're the commies of the 21st century.

Considering that these same Islamic extremists killed 3000 people in the US, killed a lot of Russian kids, blew up a few subways in Spain, destroyed a Buddhist Temple in Indonesia, and blew up a few buses in British..

Yeah, I would say that they are indeed a problem.

[Oliver]

Do you know that this issue hasn't been investigated by U.S. intelligence?

Also, while the Indian government and press tend to reflexively blame many of the world's problems on the ISI, they would LOVE to have solid evidence of ISI involvement in 9/11. Think of the huge political difference it would make if they could turn world opinion against Pakistan. If anyone has turned up such evidence, they've kept it to themselves. *snip*

What about the pakistani connection to the taliban. My
remembrances from articles are, that Pakistan shielded
and supported the Taliban. And OBL was defended by the
Taliban in Afghanistan.

So that explains why the Government tried to destroy
terrorism by attacking the Taliban - also in Iraq. But it does
not explain why Pakistans involvement in this mess is
completely ignored. :confused:

[Spindrift]

What about the pakistani connection to the taliban. My
remembrances from articles are, that Pakistan shielded
and supported the Taliban. And OBL was defended by the
Taliban in Afghanistan.

So that explains why the Government tried to destroy
terrorism by attacking the Taliban - also in Iraq. But it does
not explain why Pakistans involvement in this mess is
completely ignored. :confused:

Because for the time being, Musharraf is somewhat acting friendly to the US. The US has a long history of despising despots, except when they are useful to us.

[Oliver]

Because for the time being, Musharraf is somewhat acting friendly to the US. The US has a long history of despising despots, except when they are useful to us.

That was my guess: Ugly, double moral standards. :boggled:

[Gravy]

That was my guess: Ugly, double moral standards. :boggled:Well, it is necessary that the U.S. try to get as much cooperation from Pakistan as possible. No doubt that sometimes involves making deals with nasty characters. Would that extend to overlooking evidence of ISI involvement in 9/11? Doesn't make sense to me.

The ISI has been instrumental in capturing terrorists wanted by the US, going back to Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. And of course they were the channel through which the US funneled arms and aid to the Mujahideen. At the moment there is simply no way not to deal with Pakistan and the ISI. The CIA knows much better than we do that it's wise to "hold your friends close and your enemies closer."

[Oliver]

Well, it is necessary that the U.S. try to get as much cooperation from Pakistan as possible. No doubt that sometimes involves making deals with nasty characters. Would that extend to overlooking evidence of ISI involvement in 9/11? Doesn't make sense to me.

The ISI has been instrumental in capturing terrorists wanted by the US, going back to Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. And of course they were the channel through which the US funneled arms and aid to the Mujahideen. At the moment there is simply no way not to deal with Pakistan and the ISI. The CIA knows much better than we do that it's wise to "hold your friends close and your enemies closer."

Frankly - the whole intelligence intrigue in the middle east stinks.
I really believe that this behavior was indeed a reason for 9/11.
An inside job by accident because a pretty nasty foreign politics -
starting by funding the Mujahedeen or involvements within the
middle east even before the Afghanistan War.

[Oliver]

That was my guess: Ugly, double moral standards. :boggled:

I should add: A quarry for CT'ists and distrust against US politics.
Maybe the Truthmovement is an "Inside Job". A side effect of
their non-transparent politics.

[Spindrift]

That was my guess: Ugly, double moral standards. :boggled:

No it's called diplomacy.

Not sure who said it but:
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice Doggie!" until you can find a stick.

[Gravy]

Frankly - the whole intelligence intrigue in the middle east stinks.
I really believe that this behavior was indeed a reason for 9/11.
An inside job by accident because a pretty nasty foreign politics -
starting by funding the Mujahedeen or involvements within the
middle east even before the Afghanistan War.There were certainly other options. If the U.S. was on a crusade against Islam as the Jihadists claim, we would have helped the Russians in Afghanistan. :eye-poppi

[Oliver]

There were certainly other options. If the U.S. was on a crusade against Islam as the Jihadists claim, we would have helped the Russians in Afghanistan. :eye-poppi

I don´t believe that Jihadists are a problem at all in terms
of global politics - and especially during the invasion from
russian side.

And i guess that Al Qaida was pissed because the double
moral standards in terms of "The US never was a friend,
they were just fighting for their own interests and gave
a **** about us after the war" - (to describe it as simple
as possible).

How big is the israeli friendship and influence in the middle
east politics in %? It must be pretty present to explain all
these Zionist CT´s concerning the jewish lobby in america.

Strange question for a german, i agree. :boggled:

[Oliver]

Binglybert Bumptyback :p

[jon]

I don´t believe that Jihadists are a problem at all in terms
of global politics - and especially during the invasion from
russian side.

Could you clarify - depends what you mean by Jihadists, but the Russians certainly found Islamist and Afghan nationalist rebels a problem when they tried to occupy the country :eek: And international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are struggling to deal with Islamist and nationalist rebels and militias.


And i guess that Al Qaida was pissed because the double
moral standards in terms of "The US never was a friend,
they were just fighting for their own interests and gave
a **** about us after the war" - (to describe it as simple
as possible).


I think Bin Laden was well aware of - and taking advantage of - 'double moral standards'. In 1998 he argues that "When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,565446,00.html)". I don't think he'd have been surprised when the US turned its back of Afghan Islamists (at least to an extent) after the Soviets had been forced out.


How big is the israeli friendship and influence in the middle
east politics in %? It must be pretty present to explain all
these Zionist CT´s concerning the jewish lobby in america.


You shouldn't disregard the possibility that many of those creating and spreading zionist CTs are just anti-semitic morons - maintaining a belief in their ethnic superiority as part of an attempt to ameliorate the pain of their own personal failures and the limitations imposed on them by their mid-80s IQs. After all, the simplest explanation is often the best one ;)

[Oliver]

Could you clarify - depends what you mean by Jihadists, but the Russians certainly found Islamist and Afghan nationalist rebels a problem when they tried to occupy the country :eek: And international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are struggling to deal with Islamist and nationalist rebels and militias.

Hell, the russians would have a problem with me, too,
if they would invade us. :rolleyes:

I think Bin Laden was well aware of - and taking advantage of - 'double moral standards'. In 1998 he argues that "When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,565446,00.html)". I don't think he'd have been surprised when the US turned its back of Afghan Islamists (at least to an extent) after the Soviets had been forced out.

So what did change Al Qaidas mind to hate america
in your view. Trouble with their wifes? :confused:

You shouldn't disregard the possibility that many of those creating and spreading zionist CTs are just anti-semitic morons - maintaining a belief in their ethnic superiority as part of an attempt to ameliorate the pain of their own personal failures and the limitations imposed on them by their mid-80s IQs. After all, the simplest explanation is often the best one ;)

That was no answer. There is a jewish lobby within
the government. How big is their influence in %? (estimated)

[Gravy]

So what did change Al Qaidas mind to hate america
in your view. Trouble with their wifes? :confused:Bin Laden gives the reasons repeatedly: the US-Israel relationship, and the US establishing military bases in the Muslim holy land.

That was no answer. There is a jewish lobby within
the government. How big is their influence in %? (estimated)I know this wasn't addressed to me, but percent of what? And how is a percentage of influence to be estimated?

[Oliver]

Bin Laden gives the reasons repeatedly: the US-Israel relationship, and the US establishing military bases in the Muslim holy land.

So what is this relationship about?

[Gravy]

So what is this relationship about?That's beyond the scope of this thread and subforum. You'll find endless discussion about this in the politics & current events subforum!

[Oliver]

That's beyond the scope of this thread and subforum. You'll find endless discussion about this in the politics & current events subforum!

You´re dodging. There are millions of sites about the
"ISI connection", too. It´s a pretty simple question:

How much % influence does the jewish lobby have
within the american government? (OBL isn´t dumb,
i guess he knows the answer to be so pissed about it)

[jon]

Hell, the russians would have a problem with me, too,
if they would invade us. :rolleyes:



So what did change Al Qaidas mind to hate america
in your view. Trouble with their wifes? :confused:



That was no answer. There is a jewish lobby within
the government. How big is their influence in %? (estimated)

OK, what is classed as 'a problem' depends who you're asking.

Back to conspiracies, though. You said that:

How big is the israeli friendship and influence in the middle
east politics in %? It must be pretty present to explain all
these Zionist CT´s concerning the jewish lobby in amer

I answered this question by saying that it's premises are wrong - there would still be paranoid CTs about a Jewish/Zionist lobby even if such a lobby did not have any political power. I think you're attributing too much rationality to CTists.

It's also a badly worded way of addressing the issue. What do you mean by 'Jewish lobby'? Is chomsky part of this? Are zionist and anti-islamic christian fundamentalists part of the 'Jewish lobby'? It would be better (though still a bit crude) to ask about a 'zionist lobby'.

[Oliver]

I answered this question by saying that it's premises are wrong - there would still be paranoid CTs about a Jewish/Zionist lobby even if such a lobby did not have any political power. I think you're attributing too much rationality to CTists.

It's also a badly worded way of addressing the issue. What do you mean by 'Jewish lobby'? Is chomsky part of this? Are zionist and anti-islamic christian fundamentalists part of the 'Jewish lobby'? It would be better (though still a bit crude) to ask about a 'zionist lobby'.

It´s not new to me that this issue would also be present
if there were no lobby at all. I spoke to Mr. "Holohoax"
Hufschmid. He´s an idiot and confessed that he did not
look into the "wold war II era" issue. But he believes in
a holofake nevertheless.

I don´t know any guys within the jewish lobby - but i
also know this fact from mainstream media articles, i
just don´t know how influential they are. "They are
pretty influential" says nothing about percentages.

[Gravy]

You´re dodging. There are millions of sites about the
"ISI connection", too. It´s a pretty simple question:

How much % influence does the jewish lobby have
within the american government? (OBL isn´t dumb,
i guess he knows the answer to be so pissed about it)This is a conspiracy theories subforum. If you want to make a case that the Israeli lobby in Washington is a criminal conspiracy, that's fine. Take it up in a new thread. And see my post 44 about the percentage issue: I think my edit crossed with your post.

[Pardalis]

What the heck does the Jewish lobby have to do with Mahmoud Ahmad?

[jon]

Fair points - Oliver, if you want to discuss the 'Jewish Lobby', maybe you could start a new threat in the appropriate bit of the forum.

[switchtech]

HyJinX

Well...The towers fell down as explained by the NIST, there were 4 planes, all of which crashed with the terrorists flying them. I'm all official until we get into the nitty gritty of the whole thing, then it gets very questionable for me. For example, The money trail, all things leading back to Saudi-Arabia and ISI not being followed up but instead taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still researching really so I'll get back to you.

The money trail and all leading to Saudi born people is true. It did not necessarily lead to Saudi-Arabia as a country (though it's still possible). The reason for going to Afghanistan is that's what these particular Saudis were hiding at the time.

On the other hand, we were involved with dealing with Iraq even before 9/11 and with a new harder line attitude after 9-11 - well, I don't need a conspiracy behind it all to have seen that coming.

[Oliver]

This is a conspiracy theories subforum. If you want to make a case that the Israeli lobby in Washington is a criminal conspiracy, that's fine. Take it up in a new thread. And see my post 44 about the percentage issue: I think my edit crossed with your post.

I know it´s a political issue. The point is that this is part
of this thread. Understanding the pakistani connection means
to understand other geopolitical issues involved, too. Okay,
the percentaged question is meanly.

Is there influence and if so - strong or weak? I give up and
start a conspiracy thread about it if you as new yorker
have no idea about it.

[Pardalis]

What's the relation between the Pakistani ISI and the Jewish, or Zionist lobby in America?
:confused:

[Oliver]

What's the relation between the Pakistani ISI and the Jewish, or Zionist lobby in America?
:confused:

I just want to add another puzzle piece to the issue. It
would be far beyond the topic to went thru all these things,
but in short: If americas jewish lobby has big influence about
the middle east politics - like CT´ists and muslims claim, then
it has a lot to do with everthing down there - no matter if
iraq, afghanistan or pakistan. Don´t you think?

[Pardalis]

Not necesserally. It doesn't mean that the Jews are the sole influence on the USA to support Israel, the entire UN support the state of Israel.

[Oliver]

Not necesserally. It doesn't mean that the Jews are the sole influence on the USA to support Israel, the entire UN support the state of Israel.

I made a simle question ten posts ago. What´s so hard
to answer it instead talking for hours about it?

[Pardalis]

You seem to have the confirmation bias that it's the Jewish lobby who are the reason why the USA are supporting the State of Israel.

[Oliver]

You seem to have the confirmation bias that it's the Jewish lobby who are the reason why the USA are supporting the State of Israel.

And you´re dodging, Pardalis. I don´t know - but i want to know. So...?

[Brainster]

I know it´s a political issue. The point is that this is part
of this thread. Understanding the pakistani connection means
to understand other geopolitical issues involved, too. Okay,
the percentaged question is meanly.

Is there influence and if so - strong or weak? I give up and
start a conspiracy thread about it if you as new yorker
have no idea about it.

The Jewish people in America are fairly diverse, so you will not find unanimity of opinion among them. There are plenty of Jews who oppose Israel almost reflexively, just as there are those who support Israel reflexively. I would guess though that the latter group is larger.

The irony is that support for Israel is probably greater among Republicans than among Democrats; certainly that is my estimation. Clinton had more visits from Yassir Arafat than any other foreign leader; Bush basically told him not to darken the White House's doorstep.

And yet, Jews vote disproportionately for the Democrats. There are many reasons for this (gratitude for the party in power during WWII being one). So it's very hard to argue how influential the Jewish lobby is, when the party they support has been out of power for a large percentage of the time and yet the party in power supports Israel. You can argue about the reasons why Republicans support Israel (many claim it has to do with Christian conservatives and biblical prophecy), but it is clearly not the influence of the Jewish lobby.

[Pardalis]

This is what I've found so far, from what seems to be a legitimate source as numbers are concerned. Maybe an American could be better equipped to answer though...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html


Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor. This is reflected by the fact that Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group. Though the Jewish population in the United States is roughly six million (about 2.3% of the total U.S. population), roughly 89 percent live in twelve key electoral college states. These states alone are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. If you add the non-Jews shown by opinion polls to be as pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of the largest veto groups in the country.

[Oliver]

This is what I've found so far, from what seems to be a legitimate source as numbers are concerned. Maybe an American could be better equipped to answer though...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html

The Jewish people in America are fairly diverse, so you will not find unanimity of opinion among them. There are plenty of Jews who oppose Israel almost reflexively, just as there are those who support Israel reflexively. I would guess though that the latter group is larger.

The irony is that support for Israel is probably greater among Republicans than among Democrats; certainly that is my estimation. Clinton had more visits from Yassir Arafat than any other foreign leader; Bush basically told him not to darken the White House's doorstep.

And yet, Jews vote disproportionately for the Democrats. There are many reasons for this (gratitude for the party in power during WWII being one). So it's very hard to argue how influential the Jewish lobby is, when the party they support has been out of power for a large percentage of the time and yet the party in power supports Israel. You can argue about the reasons why Republicans support Israel (many claim it has to do with Christian conservatives and biblical prophecy), but it is clearly not the influence of the Jewish lobby.

Thank you, Pardalis and Brainster. My goal is to understand the
whole picture about 9/11 and the iraq war and also the countries
involved.

I also don´t understand the whole pakistani connection and we
probably never will. Avery claims to use the pakistani connection,
so what else could he have revealed about it what we don´t
know?

[Pardalis]

I personally think to understand the whole picture we would have to include Pakistan's own internal politics, between Sunni and Shi'a, and its external politics with India and China.

ETA: it just seemed to me that the American Israeli lobby connection you were making was a little far-fetched, as Pakistan is concerned. :)

[Gravy]

I know it´s a political issue. The point is that this is part of this thread. No, it isn't. Either there is evidence of Mahmoud's involvement in aiding the hijackers or there isn't. The Israeli lobby in Washington has nothing to do with the existence of such evidence.

Is there influence and if so - strong or weak? I give up and
start a conspiracy thread about it if you as new yorker
have no idea about it.Irrelevant. And why should "a New Yorker" be able to produce an analysis of the Israeli lobby in Washington for you?

I just want to add another puzzle piece to the issue.You just want to speculate on a subject that is beyond the scope of this thread and subforum. You should know that attempts to build a case based on speculation don't go over well here.

It would be far beyond the topic to went thru all these things,
but in short: If americas jewish lobby has big influence about
the middle east politics - like CT´ists and muslims claim, then
it has a lot to do with everthing down there - no matter if
iraq, afghanistan or pakistan. Don´t you think?Could you be a little more vague, please? Come on, Oliver.

I made a simle question ten posts ago. What´s so hardto answer it instead talking for hours about it?You asked us to speculate on a percentage of undefined influence exerted by an undefined body on another undefined body. That's silly and off topic.

[Oliver]

No, it isn't. Either there is evidence of Mahmoud's involvement in aiding the hijackers or there isn't. The Israeli lobby in Washington has nothing to do with the existence of such evidence.
Irrelevant. And why should "a New Yorker" be able to produce an analysis of the Israeli lobby in Washington for you?
You just want to speculate on a subject that is beyond the scope of this thread and subforum. You should know that attempts to build a case based on speculation don't go over well here.
Could you be a little more vague, please? Come on, Oliver.
You asked us to speculate on a percentage of undefined influence exerted by an undefined body on another undefined body. That's silly and off topic.

Well, you live over there - i would suppose that you are
more informed over there - following the local news. But
you´re right, it´s pretty offtopic. :)

[fuelair]

Ya I Know, I got it. He's Saying you can't trust India when they report on anything to do with their arch-enemy Pakistan. Same as you can't trust Neo-Nazi articles that try to pin it on the Jews. But by that rational shouldn't everyone be equally wary about articles by god-loving americans regarding Islamic fundamentalists?

(rationale) and I am not god-loving, just American and I will tend to accept news that IFs have done something bad - but , then, I will accept that for any fundies because it has such a high probability of being true.:)