To begin this string Arjay wrote: "AIPAC ( America Israel Public Affairs Committee) is said to be the most powerful lobby group in the USA. There are only 5 million people of Jewish origin living in pop of 308 million.How do they wield so much influence?"

I have been reading the posts in this discussion with dismay.

It started out with crap. Industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers along with lobbyists representing tobacco, drug, insurance etc. are more powerful than AIPAC as are union organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters. Christian organisations which have helped to break down the separation of church and state by successfully promoting government support of religion in the faith-based initiatives are also more powerful.

Arjay has fed on the myth of the all-powerful Jew as outlined in the "Protocols of Zion", that hardy perennial forged by the czarist secret police.

"There are only 5 million people of Jewish origin living in pop of 308 million. How do they wield so much influence?"

More crap! This feeds into the myth. AIPAC Is not the most powerful lobby. the 5 million Jews do not wield so much influence. In fact many in the US Jewish community do not back AIPAC. Some Jews such as Noam Chomsky oppose both Israeli and US foreign policy. Some US Orthodox Jews such as the Satmar Hassidim oppose the state of Israel since they believe it should be only up to God whether Jews return to Israel. Some US Jews support J Street which is a lobby for peace in Israel and opposed to AIPAC. Some US Jews such as myself support the separation of religion and state. They oppose any government which discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity. They are against government promoted segregation on those grounds. Therefore they oppose government subsidies to religious school whether in Australia or Israel.

This string started with the myth of the all-powerful Jew. Then the fruitcakes went into their conspiracy theories.

Oh well, nuts can add flavour to a salad or other dish.

david f you started out with abuse and ended with it.You have in no way refuted the facts in this discussion.It is all ad hominen waffle.
So go to http://ae911truth.org/ and disprove the scientific facts there.

Perhaps, if Christopher were to rise to the challenge of showing the rest of us where he ever demonstrated any comprehension of the 9/11 controversy, it may be just possible to restore his cover before too many others notice.

Pericles most recent 'serious' 'contribution' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3613&page=13 #8720210 May 2010 2:18:17 PM), before he and Christopher attempted to resurrect the tired and worn 'tinfoil hat' supposed parody, again avoids discussing the evidence provided.

I would suggest that others check for themselves the articles by Kevin Ryan I cited at:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

... rather than accepting Pericles' word for it that they contain no evidence.

As for Pericles' claim that I have provided no evidence in any of these discussions, again I suggest people check for themselves my contributions, perhaps beginning with "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=1
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=2
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=3
etc.

Even if it were to be proven true that I provided no evidence in these discussions, I think it would be more helpful to others if Pericles were to demonstrate that by specifically referring to what I had presented as evidence.

The fact that he never does should make others suspicious of his pronouncements.

It is certainly true that I have often claimed that Pericles has produced no evidence whatsoever in support of his case.

Pericles doesn't even attempt to deny that.

Pericles wrote, "And the proof is that you can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy, so therefore there must be a conspiracy, ..."

Isn't that precisely Pericles' own logic in support of the US Government claims, of an existence a world-wide conspiracy of Islamist extremists in terrorist cells directed from Afghanistan, and that is why the war there must continue, lest these extremists re-establish their bases and training camps and begin launching further 9/11's, 7/7's, Bali bombings, etc.?

I've always loved the crystalline logic of your requests of me, daggett.

>>Even if it were to be proven true that I provided no evidence in these discussions, I think it would be more helpful to others if Pericles were to demonstrate that by specifically referring to what I had presented as evidence.<<

You would like me to specifically refer to what you present as evidence, even if it were to be proven true that you provided no evidence.

I did get that right, didn't I?

It is in fact your standard ploy. You refer to some desperate-for-attention website, Kevin Ryan's turgid four-parter being just one of many, that contains absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever, and then ask me to point out why the evidence is faulty.

Do you not see the fatuity of this?

It's highly reminiscent of the early days of the Gulf War - the first one - when the fruit-loops of world suddenly latched onto Nostradamus. Forests were destroyed in order to produce the paper onto which multiple interpretations of his spaced-out meanderings were touted. None yielded anything more significant than an exposure of the sad mind that had invested the time and energy to deliver their "warning to mankind".

This 9/11 stuff is compellingly similar.

>>It is certainly true that I have often claimed that Pericles has produced no evidence whatsoever in support of his case.<<

That's because, as I have pointed out to you before, I don't have a "case" to prove. All I have ever done is to point out the massive, gaping holes in your own arguments. And occasionally to add that I think that you are insulting the dead, their relatives, and the survivors, by insisting that it was their own government that was responsible for the wanton, premeditated and brutal murder.

That's what really annoys you, isn't it.

As I have also said on occasions too many to mention, I believe everyone should examine your "evidence" in detail - even though simply wading through it will destroy a fair few otherwise useful brain cells.

Evidently, Pericles considers it is acceptable for powerful nations to invade smaller nations without producing evidence in support of their stated justifications.

If Pericles intends to go on simply repeating over and over and over again his assertions that none of my posts, nor http://ae911truth.org nor Kevin Ryan's articles, nor any other articles I have cited contain evidence that warrants responses from him, then I think that should check those resources for themselves.

I believe that when they do, they will know that Pericles' word is not to be trusted.