Strewth

Chomski says:

"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."

he also says:

"They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)."


look mate he's saying its dodgy, deal with it hey.

[Deleted for abusive language]

BOAZ David,

I wondered what you may have to say about this. It always is pleasing to read your writings on Christ.

`BRUSSELS (Reuters) - More than 80,000 people marched in silence through Brussels on Sunday in memory of a teenager stabbed to death by two suspects of North African origin in Belgium’s biggest protest in 10 years, police said.

Joe Van Holsbeeck, 17, was stabbed five times in the chest during the evening rush hour on April 12 when he refused to hand over his MP3 player to the men in the central railway station.

On the request of Van Holsbeeck’s parents, marchers did not carry any political banners but Van Holsbeeck’s death triggered an uproar over crime and racial tension in Belgium.

The federal prosecutor’s office said on the basis of video footage from security cameras, two men of North African origin were suspected of carrying out the crime.

Leaders of the Muslim community in Brussels said they were disturbed by the stabbing and immams called at Friday prayers for people to turn in the suspects if they knew who they were.`

http://www.dhnet.be/dhinfos/article.phtml?id=148286

click on the link at the top of the linked to page for CCTV footage of the murderers at the scene - `La vidéo de leur fuite`

rhross,

One rule for fanatic islamists who threaten to `wipe Israel off the map` and to end Israel in `one storm` (IraN or any other lunatic regime)

and one rule for other states who do not threatn nuclear armagedon such as china and note also pakistan (also a muslim country you may like to note so as to calm your zionist plot fears - a muslim nation who does not threaten mass murder and the `wiping out` and genocide of an entire group of people in `one storm` as amadeenejahd stated publicy.

its not about zionism, its about the underlying politics and `risk` to ALL of us, jews christains and muslims.

Meredith, your quotes to support the accusation of ‘dodgy’ are not only out of context they are inaccurate.

Chomsky is not saying the ‘Lobby’ does not have power, he is saying, in his view, that the thesis does not hold up because the Lobby is not the major power-broker in US policy as the authors suggest.

He disputes, not the existence of the Lobby, nor its power but the level of power it wields in terms of US policay.
To quote: “M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation.” That there are forces other than the Lobby which manipulate US power.

To quote again:” Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.”
Chomsky’s view is that the Lobby does not predominate. But he also says:”To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.”

When he says they have a ‘highly selective use of evidence and much of it is assertion’ he refers to their argument that the Lobby is the predominant power-force in terms of US policy.

He is not saying that the Lobby does not exist, that the Lobby does not wield power, merely that he disputes how much power it wields. Chomsky’s view is that the energy corporations for instance play a much larger role than discussed in this thesis.

Meredith: You can wriggle and squirm all you like but Chomsky has still not questioned the "veracity" of M-W's thesis. "Unconvincing", yes, a less plausible interpretation than his own, yes, but nowhere does he speak of lying - that's reserved for the likes of Dershowitz and Rubenstein where he (Chomsky) says, "[A]ny attempt even to bring up plain facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off the most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit" - which leads me directly to PP who's convinced I'm a "Chomskyite" and "convulsed with cognitive dissonance" at your antics. Sorry to put your snout out of joint PP, but in the debate between Chomsky and Blankfort over whether the tail wags the dog or vice versa I find Blankfort far more convincing than Chomsky. Now, your knickers are obviously in a knot over P of Zion. You mean you're not a propagandist, not a Zionist, not a Propagandist of Zion? And as for "turning people off", have you perhaps noticed how the majority of contributors to this thread are somewhat turned off with respect to the discredited object of your affections? A world-wide turning off I'd say and most concerning for Likudniks such as yourself. Concerning also is your disturbing obsession with bodily fluids. Now I know a good doctor...