Abolish AIPAC

TeamGreen wrote:

Fuck’em.Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)And, let’s be clear…It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. Combined...

Fuck’em.

Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)

And, let’s be clear…

It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.

They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. 

Combined Militaries…🤪

It’s as if our founding documents don’t exist to these nutters. 

MoogenKen wrote:

From 5Aug90 this were our gear up song. 
 

MoogenKen wrote:

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. The provision (originally Section 224 in...

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. 

The provision (originally Section 224 in the House Chairman’s Mark, later renumbered Section 219 in the House version; similar language appears as Section 1217 in the Senate version) is the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate an executive agent in the Pentagon to synchronize and expand bilateral efforts on defense technology. This covers research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, industrial cooperation, co-production of systems, and areas like counter-unmanned systems, missile/air defense, AI/autonomous systems/quantum/machine learning, directed energy, cyber/electronic warfare, biotech, network integration/data fusion, and contested logistics. The stated goal includes promoting “the long-term integration of joint capabilities” between the two countries. 

What it actually does vs. the hype

•  Not a military merger: US and Israeli forces remain separate sovereign militaries. There is no unified command structure, no US troops placed under IDF control (or vice versa), and no dissolution of national chains of command. Claims of them “joining together like being one unit” are overstated.

•  What it expands: Closer tech and industrial ties—joint R&D, sharing/adapting Israeli tech into US systems (and vice versa in some cases), co-production, data-related cooperation, and a dedicated coordinator to push this. The US and Israel already have deep, longstanding cooperation (missile defense like Iron Dome/David’s Sling, joint training, tech development, equipment sharing). This formalizes and accelerates it across more advanced domains and embeds it more structurally in DoD processes. 

•  Critics (across the spectrum, including Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna) argue it creates unprecedented entanglement, gives Israel deeper access/influence over US defense tech and supply chains, reduces transparency/oversight compared to traditional aid, and makes the partnership harder for future administrations to scale back. Supporters frame it as efficient coordination of existing programs, mutual benefit in emerging tech, and a shift toward partnership rather than pure aid. 

Snopes and similar reviews note that social media claims of a full “merge” or “link” of the militaries are false or heavily overstated—the text focuses on technology cooperation and an oversight/coordination role, not fusing the armed forces themselves. 

The House has advanced/passed its version of the NDAA including this language (with attempts to strip it via amendment blocked by the Rules Committee), and it is moving toward the Senate. Exact final form depends on conference negotiations. This is policy/legislative debate, not a secret plot to dissolve US military independence into a single US-Israel force.

TeamGreen wrote:

Fuck’em.Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)And, let’s be clear…It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. Combined...

Fuck’em.

Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)

And, let’s be clear…

It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.

They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. 

Combined Militaries…🤪

It’s as if our founding documents don’t exist to these nutters. 

MoogenKen wrote:

From 5Aug90 this were our gear up song. 
 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you guys talking about hype songs before combat?  

TeamGreen wrote:

Fuck’em.Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)And, let’s be clear…It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. Combined...

Fuck’em.

Never been. Never seen. Never known. Never been “Burnin’ Down The Highway” (Gulf I)

And, let’s be clear…

It IS “Hebrew Hatin’ Bullshit”.

They’re stuck in the Reddit Spiral. 

Combined Militaries…🤪

It’s as if our founding documents don’t exist to these nutters. 

MoogenKen wrote:

From 5Aug90 this were our gear up song. 
 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you guys talking about hype songs before combat?  

MoogenKen wrote:

From 5Aug90 this were our gear up song. 
 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Are you guys talking about hype songs before combat?  

TeamGreen wrote:

I’m talking about preflight briefings/Gulf 1

There are some hilarious pics and vid’s of what got written on some of the ordinance during that period.

“Special Delivery”…etc. 

borg wrote:

I saw two guys on the freeway overpass today. They had banners hanging over the side that said "abolish AIPAC". One guy was waving an American...

I saw two guys on the freeway overpass today. They had banners hanging over the side that said "abolish AIPAC". One guy was waving an American flag and the other guy was scrolling his phone in the shade. They looked like 20 y/o gangbangers.  Like if they weren't  there, they would be on a county jail road crew somewhere.

WTF? That was weird.

MoogenKen wrote:

MoogenKen wrote:

SilentAssassin wrote:

You could probably take a few lessons from them ya fossil. 

Alex814 wrote:

AIPAC isn't foreign money, BTW. 

Alex814 wrote:

AIPAC isn't foreign money, BTW. 

TalinH112 wrote:

Yeah, ok. 😆

Alex814 wrote:

AIPAC isn't foreign money, BTW. 

TalinH112 wrote:

Yeah, ok. 😆

APLMAN99 wrote:

Technically, the majority of it likely isn’t ‘foreign money’. The bulk of their funding is likely overwhelmingly domestic. 

TalinH112 wrote:

Yeah, ok. 😆

APLMAN99 wrote:

Technically, the majority of it likely isn’t ‘foreign money’. The bulk of their funding is likely overwhelmingly domestic. 

TalinH112 wrote:

I understand that AIPAC is “American Funded”, they made it very apparent on the front page of their website. They even directly say that they are...

I understand that AIPAC is “American Funded”, they made it very apparent on the front page of their website. They even directly say that they are in no way funded by the Israeli Government. Funny thing to say for absolutely no reason. 😆

APLMAN99 wrote:

Technically, the majority of it likely isn’t ‘foreign money’. The bulk of their funding is likely overwhelmingly domestic. 

TalinH112 wrote:

I understand that AIPAC is “American Funded”, they made it very apparent on the front page of their website. They even directly say that they are...

I understand that AIPAC is “American Funded”, they made it very apparent on the front page of their website. They even directly say that they are in no way funded by the Israeli Government. Funny thing to say for absolutely no reason. 😆

APLMAN99 wrote:

I don’t think that there is ‘no reason’ to say it. I’d bet a fair amount of people would think that the Israel government might be...

I don’t think that there is ‘no reason’ to say it. I’d bet a fair amount of people would think that the Israel government might be one of the sources of funding for AIPAC. I’d also bet that none of the funding for AIPAC comes from the Israeli government. Perhaps some smaller amounts from Israeli politicians personally, but not directly from the Israeli government. 

The important part is what country’s government is the funding used to benefit…..

APLMAN99 wrote:

I don’t think that there is ‘no reason’ to say it. I’d bet a fair amount of people would think that the Israel government might be...

I don’t think that there is ‘no reason’ to say it. I’d bet a fair amount of people would think that the Israel government might be one of the sources of funding for AIPAC. I’d also bet that none of the funding for AIPAC comes from the Israeli government. Perhaps some smaller amounts from Israeli politicians personally, but not directly from the Israeli government. 

The important part is what country’s government is the funding used to benefit…..

TalinH112 wrote:

The Israeli governments funding does not run through Israeli government channels, it still finds its intended target. Again, I have stated this previously but I will...

The Israeli governments funding does not run through Israeli government channels, it still finds its intended target. Again, I have stated this previously but I will just for reference, I don’t hate Israel, I don’t hate AIPAC, I don’t hate as a general rule for my life. 

borg wrote:

AIPAC is, under current law, a completely legal organization that draws funds from Americans who are pro Israel. The part that bothers me is that there...

AIPAC is, under current law, a completely legal organization that draws funds from Americans who are pro Israel. The part that bothers me is that there are so many. They are able to collect enough money from "Americans" to sway elections in favor candidates who seem to be more loyal to Israel than the US. That's my opinion. I wish their weren't so many "Americans" with that allegiance. Not healthy for us. This shit in Iran.........

MoogenKen wrote:

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. Candidate is forbidden to...

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. 

Candidate is forbidden to use his own money in campaign.

Alex814 wrote:

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in...

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United vs FEC. 

MoogenKen wrote:

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. Candidate is forbidden to...

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. 

Candidate is forbidden to use his own money in campaign.

Alex814 wrote:

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in...

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United vs FEC. 

TalinH112 wrote:

If you look up my previous posts in this thread, I am more concerned about the Chinese than anything. 

MoogenKen wrote:

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. Candidate is forbidden to...

Get rid of every PAC. No Corporate Sponsorships. Only legal citizens are allowed to contribute. Cap on that could be $5000 per person. 

Candidate is forbidden to use his own money in campaign.

Alex814 wrote:

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in...

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United vs FEC. 

TalinH112 wrote:

If you look up my previous posts in this thread, I am more concerned about the Chinese than anything. 

Alex814 wrote:

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in...

The thing is, this is just about Israel and The Jews. No one wants to talk about the other PACs or the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United vs FEC. 

TalinH112 wrote:

If you look up my previous posts in this thread, I am more concerned about the Chinese than anything. 

Alex814 wrote:

And I'm just addressing the mainstream narrative of the left. Right now they're (AOC, Bernie, and media) supporting a guy that wears Mao outfits and broadcasts...

And I'm just addressing the mainstream narrative of the left. Right now they're (AOC, Bernie, and media) supporting a guy that wears Mao outfits and broadcasts in front of a Chinese flag. There's an obsession with AIPAC and Israel funding over any and all other foreign influence, including Enemy states (not conspiracy Candace Owens "Theys"). 

There's also no more effort being made to distinguish between Israel and Jews in America - blatant anti-semitism is now a requirement to gain support from the AOC and Bernie bros who hold all the momentum on the left. This is the platform going into 2026, and anyone pushing back is not doing well in the Democratic party. 

Again, denouncing it is great but if you plan to vote Democrat you better be ready to get on board with the above. 

MoogenKen wrote:

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. The provision (originally Section 224 in...

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. 

The provision (originally Section 224 in the House Chairman’s Mark, later renumbered Section 219 in the House version; similar language appears as Section 1217 in the Senate version) is the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate an executive agent in the Pentagon to synchronize and expand bilateral efforts on defense technology. This covers research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, industrial cooperation, co-production of systems, and areas like counter-unmanned systems, missile/air defense, AI/autonomous systems/quantum/machine learning, directed energy, cyber/electronic warfare, biotech, network integration/data fusion, and contested logistics. The stated goal includes promoting “the long-term integration of joint capabilities” between the two countries. 

What it actually does vs. the hype

•  Not a military merger: US and Israeli forces remain separate sovereign militaries. There is no unified command structure, no US troops placed under IDF control (or vice versa), and no dissolution of national chains of command. Claims of them “joining together like being one unit” are overstated.

•  What it expands: Closer tech and industrial ties—joint R&D, sharing/adapting Israeli tech into US systems (and vice versa in some cases), co-production, data-related cooperation, and a dedicated coordinator to push this. The US and Israel already have deep, longstanding cooperation (missile defense like Iron Dome/David’s Sling, joint training, tech development, equipment sharing). This formalizes and accelerates it across more advanced domains and embeds it more structurally in DoD processes. 

•  Critics (across the spectrum, including Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna) argue it creates unprecedented entanglement, gives Israel deeper access/influence over US defense tech and supply chains, reduces transparency/oversight compared to traditional aid, and makes the partnership harder for future administrations to scale back. Supporters frame it as efficient coordination of existing programs, mutual benefit in emerging tech, and a shift toward partnership rather than pure aid. 

Snopes and similar reviews note that social media claims of a full “merge” or “link” of the militaries are false or heavily overstated—the text focuses on technology cooperation and an oversight/coordination role, not fusing the armed forces themselves. 

The House has advanced/passed its version of the NDAA including this language (with attempts to strip it via amendment blocked by the Rules Committee), and it is moving toward the Senate. Exact final form depends on conference negotiations. This is policy/legislative debate, not a secret plot to dissolve US military independence into a single US-Israel force.

early wrote:

Read it for yourself, it's incredibly vague with absolutely no limits to what can be done.This is Patriot Act 2.0

Read it for yourself, it's incredibly vague with absolutely no limits to what can be done.

This is Patriot Act 2.0

MoogenKen wrote:

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. The provision (originally Section 224 in...

……..and I had heard enough about the inane rumor about combing militaries, so I went and did my own research. 

The provision (originally Section 224 in the House Chairman’s Mark, later renumbered Section 219 in the House version; similar language appears as Section 1217 in the Senate version) is the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate an executive agent in the Pentagon to synchronize and expand bilateral efforts on defense technology. This covers research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, industrial cooperation, co-production of systems, and areas like counter-unmanned systems, missile/air defense, AI/autonomous systems/quantum/machine learning, directed energy, cyber/electronic warfare, biotech, network integration/data fusion, and contested logistics. The stated goal includes promoting “the long-term integration of joint capabilities” between the two countries. 

What it actually does vs. the hype

•  Not a military merger: US and Israeli forces remain separate sovereign militaries. There is no unified command structure, no US troops placed under IDF control (or vice versa), and no dissolution of national chains of command. Claims of them “joining together like being one unit” are overstated.

•  What it expands: Closer tech and industrial ties—joint R&D, sharing/adapting Israeli tech into US systems (and vice versa in some cases), co-production, data-related cooperation, and a dedicated coordinator to push this. The US and Israel already have deep, longstanding cooperation (missile defense like Iron Dome/David’s Sling, joint training, tech development, equipment sharing). This formalizes and accelerates it across more advanced domains and embeds it more structurally in DoD processes. 

•  Critics (across the spectrum, including Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna) argue it creates unprecedented entanglement, gives Israel deeper access/influence over US defense tech and supply chains, reduces transparency/oversight compared to traditional aid, and makes the partnership harder for future administrations to scale back. Supporters frame it as efficient coordination of existing programs, mutual benefit in emerging tech, and a shift toward partnership rather than pure aid. 

Snopes and similar reviews note that social media claims of a full “merge” or “link” of the militaries are false or heavily overstated—the text focuses on technology cooperation and an oversight/coordination role, not fusing the armed forces themselves. 

The House has advanced/passed its version of the NDAA including this language (with attempts to strip it via amendment blocked by the Rules Committee), and it is moving toward the Senate. Exact final form depends on conference negotiations. This is policy/legislative debate, not a secret plot to dissolve US military independence into a single US-Israel force.

early wrote:

Read it for yourself, it's incredibly vague with absolutely no limits to what can be done.This is Patriot Act 2.0

Read it for yourself, it's incredibly vague with absolutely no limits to what can be done.

This is Patriot Act 2.0

borg wrote:

So basically we just give them the info that they used have to get from their spies. Cool. Cut out the middle man.