You truely think his statement was not even in the ballpark? And we've been wasting all this time trying to have a reasonable discussion with you? Even Glenn replied.

What a waste!

I couldn't be clearer Denning, but for you, I'll give it one more try.

What I clearly stated was that when one engages in legitimate criticisms of AIPAC without an awareness of how anti-Semites will use that information, they are implicitly reinforcing the notion that anti-Semitism doesn't exist or matter (or else, why worry about how others will misconstrue? That can't happen, because anti-Semitism isn't entering into this).

His response, "so anything I say about AIPAC is anti-Semitic" was moronic baiting. Of course not. I've said a hundred freaking times that there are legit criticisms of AIPAC.

But there is a whole school of anti-Semites out there waiting to use "just the facts" to build David Duke racist narratives.

If you minimize this reality, you minimize the real anti-Semitism that takes place around the ADL, AIPAC and even a reprehensible fool like Lieberman.

There are facts, and there are facts delivered in context. When you engage racist or anti-Semitic tropes you must be aware of this, or your ignorance perpetuates it.

So many here deny or minimize that real anti-Semitism even takes place around these issues of hidden Jewish financing of the Iraq War. They claim it's simply an "attempt to silence", echoing the persecution complexes of most wingnuttery.

It is not an attempt to silence. It is an attempt to contextualize and make aware the dangers of misuse. Instead, there's angry foot stomping and demands to swing away at AIPAC even if the anti-Semites celebrate every time you do and use it to build their grand conspiracy arguments.

Oh, but that's not your problem.

You're simply "stating facts."

Please.

This is not a vacuum. The responsibility is on you to provide context and accuracy in your AIPAC criticisms and not to perpetuate outlandish Protocols of Zion mythic Jewish financing cabal conspiracy thories.

T.C., when you offer something legitimate to respond to instead of linguistic gymnastics and gotchas that make you sound like a clown, it's hard to respond.

4. You indeed intended to say that ANY criticism of AIPAC had at least two perfidious consequences: it in effect questions whether anti-semitism really exists, and offering support to genuine anti-semites.

Not "any" but otherwise pretty accurate. I said criticism of AIPAC without contextualization and awareness of misuse (or even acknowledgement that it takes place) is ignorant and damaging.

I still maintain, WinSmith, that you've called me an others at this forum anti-semitic bigots. Am I wrong? Perhaps you could answer that question. Before you answer, please understand that I am a harsh critic of AIPAC for the reasons I"ve enumerated.

You can "maintain" whatever you'd like. I think a few clear anti-Semitic Jewish Zionist conspiracy comments have popped up in this thread, absolutely. It isn't even debatable. As soon as anyone ascribes the Iraq War to Israeli control of America, they're as deluded as any Pogrom in Russia was in the 1910s.

If I can respond to Glenn, my apologies if you feel slighted, but I never see you refer to your own Jewishness, so yes, I naturally assume it isn't a viable or active part of your life (or else, why not refer to it?).

Certainly my being Jewish has made me more attuned to the Dog Whistle anti-Semitism that takes place in our culture. I'll never forget the 1992 Republican Convention, dripping with anti-Jewish narratives about how Hollywood was "corrupting Christian youth."

I'm sure many of those frothing republicans had no idea they were buying into anti-Semitic Mel Gibson narratives of Christian Crucifying Jews.

But that doesn't excuse them.

And your ignorance doesn't excuse you.

Hey Paul Rosenberg, I hear if you repeat the word "fallacy" enough, it makes you sound smart.

Or was that a fallacy?

Or if we buy into Lacanian consumption of media via the psychoanalytic structuralist movement of the Frankfurt school, then wouldn't Benjamin, Adorno, Bourdieu and Kraceauer all agree that you're full of shit?

I think they would.

Dude, you're lying about what I said and then beating that strawman like Barry Bonds on the 'roids.

Give it up.

I can't think of how else to say there are many legitimate criticisms of AIPAC (and believe me, I'm not fan).

But when you discount the potential for anti-Semitic abuse, you are complicit.

What don't you understand here? Should I type slower? Would hand signals help? Or do you want to keep on claiming I'm saying no one can ever criticize AIPAC because that helps your "Woe is me! I'm so poor and persecuted, the meanies are shouting me down as part of their conspiracy of control!"

Please dude.

You sound like a poor, persecuted republican whining away on talk radio about "liberal media."

You're being asked to acknowledge real anti-Semitism uses AIPAC all the time as part of the Grand Zionist Myth, and to discount this possibility, to pooh-pooh it as so many here have done, is to discount anti-Semitism itself as being present in the larger discourse.

But you can't even admit to that, can you? You wanna criticize AIPAC and those whiny Jews are daring to ask you to gain a larger awareness of some of the narratives you're engaging.

Benjamin understood the dialectics of control. Most of the structuralists would immediately see the AIPAC narrative's ability for misuse.

But then again, Benjamin killed himself fleeing the Nazis in the early 1940s. So what would he know about Jewish persecution anyways. He simply should've listened as those well meaning Germans explained to him how German Jews had too much behind the scenes power, and it wasn't really anti-Semitism to point that out.