|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2007 05:00:19 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Louis:
A very interesting article. I note a comment the official made that is relevant to the Iranian view of Israel. In response to a question about why Iran assisted Hezbollah in the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, this peace-loving "senior Iranian government official" said, "'We helped the enemy of our enemy [Israel].'" |
I agree - very interesting.
The Iranian position on Israel should not be surprising - there is great enmity, largely arising out of the Palestine issue.
One point to bear in mind is that public and private rhetoric can be very different - the US does not publicly talk to Tehran, not least for populist reasons, but I am pretty sure that there is a dialogue behind the scenes. In the same way, public enmity with Israel is populist but is probably tinged with a degree of practicality behind the scenes.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 05:51:51 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by "matthew":
I asked you to try to understand the point of view, even if you disagree with it. Of course the presentation is one-sided (though less so than many), but if you can manage to turn on your ability to empathise, you might better understand the position.
|
I do think it was one of the more rational voices from the Arab world.
Originally posted by "matthew":
No - before the 1920s, Palestine was only ever referred to as a geographic area. Palestine as an independent state has only been recognised very recently. The people there were Jordanians, Syrians, etc - Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. There was not one "type" or nationality of occupier for the preceding 1800 years - it was not a relevant concept. In contrast, concentrated immigration of Jewish people to Israel occurred during the 1940s from other states. |
Rather confused by this. You seem to be disagreeing with me. But considering one of my points was that those calling themselves Palestinians were mostly of heritage from general Arab states. The closest exception being some of the Beduin tribes most of whom consider themselves primarily Beduin rather than Palestinian. Though inter-marriage is influencing that view point.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I would be interested to know more. |
[Regarding land purchases]
"By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel on which 80 percent of Israel's population now lives. With this ownership came the responsibility of transforming the land into a beautiful and fertile area that would be a suitable home for the new state."
Discusses some early land purchasing.
//www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php
//www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/redeem.html
//www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arabs_in_Palestine.html
//www.users.zetnet.co.uk/david_barnett/writings/Qarnei.html
Here is a more modern example that is quite typical (often when you hear about settlements, settlers, the fact that those settlers have actually purchased the land with cash is often neglected)
//www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=666
Granted, there is always question of who truly owns lands. And usually the case (at least in the past), the nobility and the rich had the actual claims. And the peasantry/serfs/commoners who often lived on the land did not have the legal claim. Or likewise, a lot of the land in America was purchased from Native Americans. Not all feel that the deals were balanced, understood, or addressed all who might feel a claim to the land.
Originally posted by "matthew":
You assume that the occupied territories were empty before Israel occupied them - if you get the chance to travel there, you might realise that it is an area full of farms and olive groves. |
Um...considering that we're talking almost a century. And that the region of Israel/Palestine has benefited from a large economic and agricultural growth since the 1950's. That the largest re-forestation projects in the world have been done by Israel.
Of course there are lots of farms and olive groves...now. But every account I've read from the 1800's seems to express that much of the land was empty and large portions were at best used for cattle grazing.
Originally posted by "matthew":
It is not unreasonable to expect a population to double in half a century. The relevant figure is the relative percentage change. |
No, it's not that unreasonable. But let's also factor in the "decrease" of Jews throughout all of the surrounding Arab and muslim lands. They equated to hundreds of thousands. So we must factor in that credit/debit balance of population as well.
Originally posted by "matthew":
No - I agree with you. But the circumstance that made this possible was the existence of a new state to which Jews could be expelled (and the presence of which generated the impetus to expel). I don't condone it. I lament the segregation that it has caused. I don't support a call for reversion and reintegration, nor the dismantling of Israel. |
You're absolutely right. Without that option the result would have been a continuation of the fact that where as most populations grew during the time period of 1930's thru 1950's. The global Jewish population declined by 33%. Had Israel not been an option for those Jews the results would likely have been a global population decrease of 50%.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I agree with you - except in relation to the Israeli land grab in 1967 and the occupation of the surrounding territories. I think that this has been the consistent call of most Muslim and Western nations. |
First off, Israel returned much of the lands back to Egypt, and other Arab nations from that war.
Second, Israel has also offered phased land exchanges during peace negotiations in exchange for peace. Had the Palestinians co-operated then a lot of that land could have been exchanged. In fact, I believe Israel would return to the original U.N. division if peace was a real option.
But the Palestinians have at best dragged their feet. It tooks many years before the PLO would simply remove the part of their charter that demanding the eradication of Israel. So here Israel was offering to turn over lands and all they wanted in exchange for that first step was that the Palestinians simply removed the text that demands their destruction. Is it any question why it didn't move forward to the next phases?
Originally posted by "matthew":
All kinds of people have been persecuted at different times for different reasons. Jews were persecuted - less so in the Middle East than Europe. I am not denying that (nor did King Abdullah) - but you appear to be ignoring the fact that most Jews, most of the time, lived peaceably alongside people of other religions. |
Most Jews have striven to live peacefully where ever they are. But they have been repeatedly murdered. Sure other groups have suffered violence and periods of genocide. But few if any have suffered it as repeatedly, and as far distributed as the Jews. A Rwanda might have suffered genocide where they lived. But if they were able to leave and move to another country few would suffer continuation of such violence. This has not been the case for the Jews. Everywhere they have gone they have been killed.
Why? Perhaps envy (as Jews put strong emphasis on learning in their culture this has benefited them as a culture to incline them toward success), perhaps as scapegoats (ie: black plague blamed on jews), etc.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I criticise a nation state - you criticise arabs and muslims (and presumably now, persians). Whereas I confine my criticism to policies, constitution and a government, you attribute negative characteristics to a broad swathe of people based upon their religion, race or nationality. There is no "fascist" Israel for me to restrict my comments to. |
No, I criticize a sub-group whose majority population resides in those nations. Because I realize that nation-states do not necessary address the aspects of today's geo-economical-political climate.
For example, is Honda a Japanese company? Is Exxon-Mobile an American company? Both of these entities have so much investments and portions spread through so many nations that it's becoming silly to address mega-corps as national.
In another 50-100 yrs megacorps will likely divest their nationalities even further then they have today.
Likewise, many of these things cannot be simply addressed as a nation-state matter.
And actually, there are zionist fascists. Those who support terrorism. Those who have no concern for non-Jews. And consider the only good Palestinian a dead one.
But most Israelies truly just wish they could live in peace. If they could, there would be little issue at hand.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I did not start by criticising Israel - I started by criticising the United States for apparently presenting misleading evidence to justify a military invasion of Iran long before necessary and without any serious attempt at diplomatic resolution.
|
Funny, I keep hearing President Bush state that an invasion is not called for and that they want to continue diplomatic means. Barring any blatant provocation by Iran (ie: attacking or mining the strait to prevent shipping traffic, military incursion into Iraq, etc.) More so, it seems an intention to cut off Iran's influence in what I believe is an islamic civil war (not just in Iraq but throughout the middle-east) between Sunni & Shiite.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I said that I understood Israeli concerns, but consider the threat to be hyper sensationalised - and just because Israel is nervous (understandably so), it does not justify a pre-emptive strike in respect of a risk that is disputed and 5 years away from potential delivery. There are better solutions. |
No one actually KNOWS just how far away Iran is. These are guestimates. And to dismiss a nuclear threat against one's people as hyper sensationalized is pretty ridiculous.
I mean, that's like dismissing the possibility of Israel being attacked by it's neighbors as hyper-sensationalized and therefore Israel really doesn't need it's army.
The truth is, Israel has faced attack by it's Arab neighbores repeatedly over the past 60 years. Almost unceasingly. If not openly, than via clandestine support of internal attacks.
And even if Iran itself did not want to bomb Israel with a nuke, it is a fact that there are some individuals who would like to. The penetration of islamic fascists throughout the Iranian government is quite high. Therefore, the likelihood of an individual acting of their own accord and aiding an islamic fascist in attacking Israel in such manner is a likely possibility.
Of course, by your standards, such a deed would not have been done by a nation-state therefore there would be nothing Israel could do to defend itself. Just sit by and allow "individuals acting of no authority on the part of a nation-state to nuke it's cities and people". Acceptance of such a stance is to me, ludicrous. And the action that will result will of course be that Israel will take out the supplier. (Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.) And since Israel doesn't want even one city to be nuked they will likely eliminate that risk pre-emptively.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Without religion, or rather, with more rationalism, the world would be a better place. |
While I do not accept the first premise, I do agree with the latter. But how to respond and deal with "irrationals" that is the question.
And there, I have answered another question of yours, albeit, not quite as you would like. What nation-state do islamic-fascists belong to. Why, they are irrationals as opposed to nationals. ;)
Originally posted by "matthew":
Are you asserting a connection between secularism and disregard for the lives of the citizenry? Isn't there a slightly more obvious connection? There are other communist countries that have similar great claims to fame (eg Cambodia, Vietnam). |
Nope...just denying the connection between "secularism" and the "regard for life". That they do not necessarily equate to one another.
And there might be successful communist nations (the example of Vietnam would NOT be my first choice for sure) that said, there have been examples of benevelont monarchies and religious states.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Not quite the same - but why do you resist? Why not hand them some of those empty parts of Texas that you said you wouldn't mind sharing? |
If Arabs want to come to this country and purchase land, farm, build factories, plant forests in Texas and bring over their families. I have no objections. In fact, I don't even have objection if Mexicans want to do so. But there are a couple of differences.
1. Texas is already a state entity and part of a larger state entity (namely the U.S.)
2. Palestine was not an independent state entity. At the time it was territory of a large "state" (namely Britain). Prior to that the Ottoman Empire. And in fact it had essentially been an undistinguished entity of a number of large powerful states prior to that.
Upon the release of the region by Britain it was the first time in a very long time that the region itself had opportunity for sovereignty. It could have easily been the Jews declaring for themselves a sovereign state and the Palestinians (Arabs residing in the region) declaring for themselves a sovereign state. Both could have accepted one another.
Or they could have come together and embraced each other as equals and declared the existence of a common Israelipalestine state. Acknowledging both ancestries. And lived in co-operative peace. Had such been done, it is likely that with the influx of educated Jews from throughout Europe the region could have excelled and become the gem of the middle-east. Perhaps revolutionizing the whole region.
Had such occurred. Instead of need for tanks and swords, we could have had a great many plowshares. Instead of just a few regions of the middle-east being re-forested it could have expanded and perhaps the entire middle-east could have benefited.
But such was not the desire, not really for either party. Sadly.
***
Quoting what Arab/Iranian leaders say in front of Western media is nigh useless. Yassar Arafat constantly said one thing to Western media and another to the Arab/Islamic media. To the West he said "We want peace in Palestine." To the Palestinians and Arabs he stated the goals had never changed and there was no room for Israel. This is quite a common tactic.
Just look at Hillary Clinton. If she goes to a peace conference she'll trash the military and war. But if she went to a conservative town with tons of sons in Iraq she'd switch faces and express her support and the need to get the job done.
We call this politics, and those who speak politicians. It is usually synonimous with the words lying & liars.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I understand and agree that anti-semitism is rife in the ME, and this extends to school teaching. Incidentally, there is a strong dose of prejudice going the other way, too. |
Please show me the quotes in the Israeli textbooks that say the equivalent to "You have 30 Jews. You use an AK-47 to kill 27 Jews. How many Jews are left?"
Yes, this sort of thing occurs in many textbooks throughout Palestine and the middle-east.
Originally posted by "MadMordegon":
We reap what we so. |
So true...the West royally !@$% up with regards to the middle-east. America royally screwed up in it's war against communism. We chose tyrants and dictators and brutal regimes so long as they were anti-communist.
Rather, we should not have fought communism but the aspect of totalitarianism that was common in most of the communist regimes. We should have supported communism where there was not totalitarianism and individual freedoms and rights were maintained. Stressing, that while we differed on the economics it was not an issue so long as the rights of individuals were preserved and maintained.
Yes, alot of this is blood from foolish mistakes made 50-100 yrs ago. Combined with a region that never left the mentality of the dark ages and is in need of both the reformation and the renaissance.
Originally posted by "Flash":
Iran / US Allies |
It appears that Iran is suffering attacks from islamic fascists as well. These being from Al Quaeda (Sunni). A large part of all of this conflict truly goes back to the division between Sunni & Shi'ite.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 06:18:29 PM · #53 |
| I wonder if Matthew would like to speak to the "problems" of Arab-non-assimilation in England and the home grown terrorists arising and being formed outside London. Scary enough to make you want to move to somewhere safe, like Israel? |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 05:15:53 PM · #54 |
I'm going to try to be brief on the Jewish aspects - they are OT.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Rather confused by this. |
You said that Palestinians were all recent immigrants to Palestine, implying that Jewish immigrants had equal claim to the land - I was pointing out that Palestinians were long-term occupiers over centuries of general, non-specific occupation.
Originally posted by "theSaj":
"By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel on which 80 percent of Israel's population now lives. With this ownership came the responsibility of transforming the land into a beautiful and fertile area that would be a suitable home for the new state." |
Thanks for the references - I will read when I have a moment. I would note that Palestinian farms grew olive trees and was grazing land, whereas under Israel the land has been mechanised and grows a variety of more valuable crops - this is not to say that it was being unused beforehand.
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, it's not that unreasonable. But let's also factor in the "decrease" of Jews throughout all of the surrounding Arab and muslim lands. They equated to hundreds of thousands. So we must factor in that credit/debit balance of population as well. |
Your point was that 600,000 population increases were experienced in 50 years by Jews and Arabs, and you concluded that each had benefited from similar levels of immigration. This is not the case if you take into account an assumed doubling of the population naturally - which would result in 0 Arab immigrants and nearly 600,000 Jewish immigrants.
Originally posted by theSaj:
First off, Israel returned much of the lands back to Egypt, and other Arab nations from that war. |
For concessions - yes.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Second, Israel has also offered phased land exchanges during peace negotiations in exchange for peace. Had the Palestinians co-operated then a lot of that land could have been exchanged. In fact, I believe Israel would return to the original U.N. division if peace was a real option |
Israel has never offered a return of all the land taken . Palestinians have engaged in prolonged periods of non-agression, and both sides have at times been the ones to break the peace. If the Israeli's took the land illegally, is it unreasonable for the Palestinians to ask for all of it back? Why do you consider it only the Palestinians who dragged their feet: when the offer reached a high percentage, Israel needed offer only a tiny bit more to meet the Palestinian demands, but failed to do so.
The issue is compromise - both sides need to move, and a resolution has previously been so very close, but not quite finalised - either side could have compromised a little more and achieved it, but neither did.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Most Jews have striven to live peacefully where ever they are. But they have been repeatedly murdered. Sure other groups have suffered violence and periods of genocide. But few if any have suffered it as repeatedly, and as far distributed as the Jews. |
Jews have had it tough - but their plight is also better advertised than most (eg Armenian Christians). In the case of Israel, it is quite a bellicose state (possibly out of need) - I am not sure that I can reconcile that with your assertion that most Jews strive to live peacefully.
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, I criticize a sub-group whose majority population resides in those nations. Because I realize that nation-states do not necessary address the aspects of today's geo-economical-political climate. |
That is unfortunately not what you write, eg
Originally posted by theSaj:
But the muslims in that region have a knack for double-standards. There is no option to negotiate with them. ... I'll say it, a bunch of spoiled little playground brats those muslims are... |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Funny, I keep hearing President Bush state that an invasion is not called for and that they want to continue diplomatic means. Barring any blatant provocation by Iran (ie: attacking or mining the strait to prevent shipping traffic, military incursion into Iraq, etc.) More so, it seems an intention to cut off Iran's influence in what I believe is an islamic civil war (not just in Iraq but throughout the middle-east) between Sunni & Shiite. |
Great - a relevant, on topic point. There have been a couple of recent speeches supporting diplomacy - I hope that it continues.
Sectarian tension does appear to have been released by the Iraq war - IMO, more shortsightedness on the part of the coalition leaders.
Originally posted by theSaj:
No one actually KNOWS just how far away Iran is. These are guestimates. And to dismiss a nuclear threat against one's people as hyper sensationalized is pretty ridiculous.
I mean, that's like dismissing the possibility of Israel being attacked by it's neighbors as hyper-sensationalized and therefore Israel really doesn't need it's army.
The truth is, Israel has faced attack by it's Arab neighbores repeatedly over the past 60 years. ...
And even if Iran itself did not want to bomb Israel with a nuke, it is a fact that there are some individuals who would like to. The penetration of islamic fascists throughout the Iranian government is quite high. Therefore, the likelihood of an individual acting of their own accord and aiding an islamic fascist in attacking Israel in such manner is a likely possibility. |
The retaliation by the Western world on Iran if it were to nuke Israel would be horrific - any Iranian act of nuclear attack would be suicide. It would serve no purpose - and is therefore unlikely unless you think that a madman has control of those bombs with a deathwish desire to kill Jews.
The risk of a crazy individual is not impossible - but that risk exists with many other countries (eg ex-Soviet states).
While I am making a judgement call, it is not an unreasoned one. Claiming that Iran *will* use nuclear force as soon as it can, does not seem to be backed up with any credible reasoning.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Of course, by your standards, such a deed would not have been done by a nation-state therefore there would be nothing Israel could do to defend itself. Just sit by and allow "individuals acting of no authority on the part of a nation-state to nuke it's cities and people". Acceptance of such a stance is to me, ludicrous. And the action that will result will of course be that Israel will take out the supplier. (Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.) And since Israel doesn't want even one city to be nuked they will likely eliminate that risk pre-emptively. |
Would you support taking pre-emptive action against all nuclear states that have enemies, or carry a nuclear threat? What about Israel or the US - are they allowed to use nuclear force? Under what justification? Does this work the other way around?
Originally posted by theSaj:
And there might be successful communist nations (the example of Vietnam would NOT be my first choice for sure) that said, there have been examples of benevelont monarchies and religious states. |
And dictators. [PS Vietnam is not doing too badly].
Originally posted by theSaj:
Quoting what Arab/Iranian leaders say in front of Western media is nigh useless. |
It is also dangerous to put too much faith in the media: look at these translations from the same televised speech. At least one is clearly wrong (I am not sure which).
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 04:32:56 PM · #55 |
Various people have accused Iran of supporting terrorism contrary to American interests. It looks as though what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 04:41:32 PM · #56 |
| It'd be so much easier for the US if Iraq had a Sunni majority government instead of a Shia one. Right now it's a catch-22 situation. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 04:50:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by theSaj:
No one actually KNOWS just how far away Iran is. These are guestimates. And to dismiss a nuclear threat against one's people as hyper sensationalized is pretty ridiculous.
I mean, that's like dismissing the possibility of Israel being attacked by it's neighbors as hyper-sensationalized and therefore Israel really doesn't need it's army.
The truth is, Israel has faced attack by it's Arab neighbores repeatedly over the past 60 years. ...
And even if Iran itself did not want to bomb Israel with a nuke, it is a fact that there are some individuals who would like to. The penetration of islamic fascists throughout the Iranian government is quite high. Therefore, the likelihood of an individual acting of their own accord and aiding an islamic fascist in attacking Israel in such manner is a likely possibility. |
The retaliation by the Western world on Iran if it were to nuke Israel would be horrific - any Iranian act of nuclear attack would be suicide. It would serve no purpose - and is therefore unlikely unless you think that a madman has control of those bombs with a deathwish desire to kill Jews.
The risk of a crazy individual is not impossible - but that risk exists with many other countries (eg ex-Soviet states).
While I am making a judgment call, it is not an unreasoned one. Claiming that Iran *will* use nuclear force as soon as it can, does not seem to be backed up with any credible reasoning.
|
Claiming that Iran will not nuke Israel is equally lacking. Iran's leaders, religious and secular, have all shown their willingness to sacrifice their own people in pursuit of their agendas. It's not like they'd necessarily use a missile. That's far too overt, even for Iran. All they need is one religious looney-tune looking to be the next martyr (And we all know how hard those guys are to find in the ME) and build him a nice little suitcase-size nuclear weapon to take into Israel. Even if the bomb doesn't work perfectly, he'll still kill hundreds or even thousands and injure many more. It's not like Iran doesn't have a history of providing support for Palestinian Terrorists.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 16:56:51.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 04:57:16 PM · #58 |
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. And I'm not the only one.
See the Wikipedia Article Here
Some excerpts:
...former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."
..."commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the US government."
...U.S. Defense Department spokesman Brian Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 06:43:00 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. And I'm not the only one.
See the Wikipedia Article Here |
Thanks - useful context in which the article should be read.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 09:12:42 AM · #60 |
On topic - the latest diplomatic softening of the US stance towards Iran and Syria is reassuring.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 09:54:08 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. And I'm not the only one.
See the Wikipedia Article Here
Some excerpts: |
Don't forget some of the other excerpts surrounding what you've picked out:
David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through."
And at the beginning of the article:
Hersh received the 2004 George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting[1] given annually by Long Island University to honor contributions to journalistic integrity and investigative reporting. This was his fifth George Polk Award, the first one being a Special Award given to him in 1969.
I don't know this journalist, but if you're going to offer quotes, offer balanced ones. |
|
|
|
02/28/2007 10:48:16 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Don't forget some of the other excerpts surrounding what you've picked out:
|
Thanks Louis - I had not heard of Hersh before this.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 11:53:13 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. |
Yeah, no way did that bit he did on My Lai deserve a Pulitzer Prize ... |
|
|
|
02/28/2007 12:51:47 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. |
Yeah, no way did that bit he did on My Lai deserve a Pulitzer Prize ... |
Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. But even if he did that doesn't mean that ALL of his published articles are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. After all, many journalists, including other Pulitzer Prize winners, have been found to have fabricated stories. A list of disgraced journalists can be found HERE on Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
02/28/2007 01:47:05 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. |
Yeah, no way did that bit he did on My Lai deserve a Pulitzer Prize ... |
Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. But even if he did that doesn't mean that ALL of his published articles are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. |
You are the one who said -- and EMPHASIZED -- the word "anything," which is pretty all-inclusive sounding to me.
How does the fact that some other journalist has fabricated a story or otherwise committed a "disgraceful" act have anything to do with Mr. Hersh's integrity or qualifications? You're the one who's always pointing out that we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush, merely because of their association or membership in a certain group.
The sad fact is that, given their overall record on telling the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I'd have to rank Mr. Hersh's veracity well ahead the President's. |
|
|
|
02/28/2007 02:21:00 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, Matthew, but I don't put much stock in ANYTHING that Seymour Hersh writes or says. |
Yeah, no way did that bit he did on My Lai deserve a Pulitzer Prize ... |
Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. But even if he did that doesn't mean that ALL of his published articles are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. |
You are the one who said -- and EMPHASIZED -- the word "anything," which is pretty all-inclusive sounding to me.
How does the fact that some other journalist has fabricated a story or otherwise committed a "disgraceful" act have anything to do with Mr. Hersh's integrity or qualifications? You're the one who's always pointing out that we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush, merely because of their association or membership in a certain group.
The sad fact is that, given their overall record on telling the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I'd have to rank Mr. Hersh's veracity well ahead the President's. |
1) The fact that some other journalists have fabricated stories has nothing to do with Mr. Hersh's integrity or qualifications, but it DOES have something to do with your implication that being a Pulitzer Prize winner should be taken as a guarantee of a journalist's integrity and qualifications.
2) Mr. Hersh is not "everyone". I am not painting ALL journalists with the same brush. In fact, I'm not even painting Mr. Hersh with that brush. I'm merely saying that I don't give his writings credence.
3) I never questioned Mr. Hersh's integrity or qualifications. I merely pointed out that OTHER prominent individuals have expressed doubts as to his integrity and that, coupled with my own doubts about any articles quoting "unnamed sources" leads me to my position concerning his writings.
4) There is a difference between stating that which is untrue, and lying. Lying is representing something as fact that is known to be untrue AT THE TIME IT IS STATED. While President Bush has, indeed, stated a number of things that have been shown AFTER THE FACT to be untrue, neither you, not anyone else in DPCdom have yet been able to provide evidence that the President LIED - though many continue to make those unsupported accusations ad nauseam.
Note: I am not saying that Mr. Hersh has ever LIED in his articles, though others imply that they believe that he has. As I said, those implications, along with my own cautions about "unnamed sources" leaves me with enough doubt that I do not place much stock in anything he says.
I'm sure that YOU feel the same way about other writers. |
|
|
|
03/10/2007 12:37:51 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I never questioned Mr. Hersh's integrity or qualifications. I merely pointed out that OTHER prominent individuals have expressed doubts as to his integrity and that, coupled with my own doubts about any articles quoting "unnamed sources" leads me to my position concerning his writings. |
Other "prominent" individuals?? They would not happen to be right-wing commentators perhaps?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to share how your doubts may have been deepened by any of Mr Hersh actual writings, insofar as his historical record of accuracy?
Because I would have thought that be looking at all he has written, and how accurate it has been, one might have a reason to believe him, based on the historical record.
Originally posted by RonB:
There is a difference between stating that which is untrue, and lying. Lying is representing something as fact that is known to be untrue AT THE TIME IT IS STATED. While President Bush has, indeed, stated a number of things that have been shown AFTER THE FACT to be untrue, neither you, not anyone else in DPCdom have yet been able to provide evidence that the President LIED - though many continue to make those unsupported accusations ad
nauseam. |
RIGHT!!! :D
As if the burdon of proof is on US !!! Oh my God you crack me up!!
Like we have to prove to you what the resident chimp had in his mind at the time to satisfy your definition of a "lie"!
The man lies constantly. With prodigious volumes of bullshite. About anything and everything. And the whole bloody world knows it, talks about it, accepts it, bemoans it.
Except for you, of course.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2007 12:46:44 PM · #68 |
Those "sixteen words" in the State of the Union Address were "known to be untrue" at the time the speech was given -- the White House's later retraction admitted as much ("those words should not have been included").
With the attention I'd expect to be given to preparation of a speech of that magnitude, that it was an "innocent mistake" is incomprehensible, unless it was a manifestation of such colossal incompetence that everyone involved should have been fired (no one was, that I've heard of, except maybe CIA Direstor George Tenant, who warned against using that info). |
|
|
|
03/10/2007 02:28:27 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by RonB:
4) There is a difference between stating that which is untrue, and lying. Lying is representing something as fact that is known to be untrue AT THE TIME IT IS STATED. While President Bush has, indeed, stated a number of things that have been shown AFTER THE FACT to be untrue, neither you, not anyone else in DPCdom have yet been able to provide evidence that the President LIED - though many continue to make those unsupported accusations ad nauseam. |
There appears to be less question as to the validity of Carl Bernstein's reporting on wikipedia. Here is his view on the fact of the Bush regime's lies, and the scandal that it has not been better reported.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2007 02:32:10 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
4) There is a difference between stating that which is untrue, and lying. Lying is representing something as fact that is known to be untrue AT THE TIME IT IS STATED. While President Bush has, indeed, stated a number of things that have been shown AFTER THE FACT to be untrue, neither you, not anyone else in DPCdom have yet been able to provide evidence that the President LIED - though many continue to make those unsupported accusations ad nauseam. |
There appears to be less question as to the validity of Carl Bernstein's reporting on wikipedia. Here is his view on the fact of the Bush regime's lies, and the scandal that it has not been better reported. |
PS these guys have an obvious agenda, but if Ron demands specific instances, the internet is a great place to find examples of them.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 01:52:44 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
RonB - the illegality of the war in Iraq is determined by reference to the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory - the war met none of the prerequisites for lawful war. The contrary argument is that either, the US is above international law and is not bound by the UN charter, or that resolutions 1441, 687 and 678 permit the use of force regardless of the later refusal of the UN to sanction it. I do not find these arguments persuasive. The reasons given at the time (WMDs and pre-emptive strike) were of highly questionable legality and as it turns out false (and possibly falsified), and the justifications given subsequently (regime change) have no legal basis.
The illegality has not yet been successfully prosecuted - potentially relevant venues have generally ruled themselves as not having jurisdiction or the relevant mandate, or the illegality has been considered irrelevant on the facts of specific cases. This does not make the act lawful. |
Even the French never argued that Iraq did not have WMD. Obviously he did have them at one point, since he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians, and since UN weapons inspectors tracked them for years. Had Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors instead of kicking them out and rallying his forces on the Kuwaiti border time and time again, maybe the world would have believed him when he said he had gotten rid of them. But, as I said, even Chirac didn't dispute that claim. He just argued that the existence of WMD wasn't a justification. So don't suggest that it was fabricated.
As for the law, have you forgotten the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense established in "The Caroline Case?" My own argument would be more that the war from 1990 had never actually ended, since Saddam kept firing at coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. And, since the relevant UN resolutions (under Chapter VII) authorized force to re-establish peace and security in the region, and because that peace and security were never re-established, one might argue that the U.S. did have UN sanction and did not require additional sanction.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Iran's nuclear ambitions are problematic. International law prohibits them from developing nuclear weapons, but permits civilian use. I think that this represents a reasonable balance of interests. By far the best result would be for reintroduction of UN inspectors and the oversight of civilian development of nuclear technology in Iran. Diplomacy should be capable of achieving this - that is, if we engage in it. (In this context, casting other nations as "evil" is unhelpful). |
Problematic!? That's a mild way to put it. And do you really believe that Iran, a country overflowing with oil and gas, is concerned with getting nuclear energy? Really? And keep in mind that it's Iran that has evicted the inspectors. Why do you suppose that is?
Originally posted by Matthew:
The issue is more subtle than I had understood it: the apparent use of Iranian weapons by the Mehdi army is highlighted, possibly intended to mislead people into believing that Iranians are generally supporting the insurgency and violence, when in fact the Mehdi army is responsible for a tiny proportion of the violence. I appear to have fallen foul of the misleading nature of the reports myself. |
It's more than just the Mehdi Army. The Shi'ah represent roughly 60% of the Iraqi population. But, yes, I believe that the Iranian Government (probably the Revolutionary Guard Corps) does use Iranian weapons against the U.S. in Iraq and does also supply the Sunni insurgents. Why? In order to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Iran would like nothing better. Once we're gone, they can handle the Sunnis in Iraq themselves.
Originally posted by Matthew:
In respect of the accusations that Ahmadinejad is a whacko dedicated to use nuclear force, as I understand it, Iran has not said it wants to wipe Israel out of the map of the world, but wants to eliminate Zionism. The threats appear to be broadly sensationalised and/or mistranslated |
Actually, I believe he has said just that.
Originally posted by Matthew:
The threat is to the Israeli executive, not the people. The principle issue is Palestine and the ongoing opression of the Palestinians (in respect of which Iran supports a one state solution). I would also maintain (as do many others) that resolving the Palestinian crisis is the single most productive thing that could be done to improve world peace. Again, the US refusal to engage in diplomacy in the region makes this problematic.
|
No threat to the people? Just the executive? Tell that to the victims of Hezbollah and Hamas (whom Iran supports with weapons and cash). You're right, Iran does support a ONE STATE solution -- the same one supported by Hamas -- eliminating Israel. You're right that solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would be extremely productive to world peace, but how can you speak of a U.S. refusal to engage in diplomacy in the region? We're the single most active country in the world in trying to use diplomacy to solve that problem. Where has the UK been in this? How about France? Germany? Russia? China? Nope, none of them has shown up to the table. And, while I hate to badmouth the UK, let's not forget who got us into all this -- Rember Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration!!!!
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 13:54:41. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 07:08:15 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Even the French never argued that Iraq did not have WMD. Obviously he did have them at one point, since he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians, and since UN weapons inspectors tracked them for years. Had Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors instead of kicking them out and rallying his forces on the Kuwaiti border time and time again, maybe the world would have believed him when he said he had gotten rid of them. But, as I said, even Chirac didn't dispute that claim. He just argued that the existence of WMD wasn't a justification. So don't suggest that it was fabricated.
As for the law, have you forgotten the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense established in "The Caroline Case?" My own argument would be more that the war from 1990 had never actually ended, since Saddam kept firing at coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. And, since the relevant UN resolutions (under Chapter VII) authorized force to re-establish peace and security in the region, and because that peace and security were never re-established, one might argue that the U.S. did have UN sanction and did not require additional sanction. |
The WMD threat was exaggerated and sensationalised - most widely in the now generally discredited 45 minute claim that created a sense of there being an immediate threat. Absent an immediate threat, the WMD justification for war was incredibly weak. It is increasingly apparent that the government deliberately exaggerated the 45 minute claim.
I know the arguments trying to justify the claim that the preceding sanctions were effective. If that was the case, why did the coalition seek a further resolution?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Problematic!? That's a mild way to put it. And do you really believe that Iran, a country overflowing with oil and gas, is concerned with getting nuclear energy? Really? And keep in mind that it's Iran that has evicted the inspectors. Why do you suppose that is? |
Yes - in the coming decade, it is something that we will have to deal with. It is not something that justifies war now.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
In respect of the accusations that Ahmadinejad is a whacko dedicated to use nuclear force, as I understand it, Iran has not said it wants to wipe Israel out of the map of the world, but wants to eliminate Zionism. The threats appear to be broadly sensationalised and/or mistranslated |
Actually, I believe he has said just that. |
Perhaps you would provide a source in respect of which there is none of the confusion over translation that I considered earlier in the thread?
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
No threat to the people? Just the executive? Tell that to the victims of Hezbollah and Hamas (whom Iran supports with weapons and cash). You're right, Iran does support a ONE STATE solution -- the same one supported by Hamas -- eliminating Israel. |
By "eliminating Israel", you mean making the state binational - ie incorporating both Israeli and Palestinian people as equals in a single state. I think that this demonstrates the danger of interpretation of imprecise language.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
You're right that solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would be extremely productive to world peace, but how can you speak of a U.S. refusal to engage in diplomacy in the region? We're the single most active country in the world in trying to use diplomacy to solve that problem. Where has the UK been in this? How about France? Germany? Russia? China? Nope, none of them has shown up to the table. And, while I hate to badmouth the UK, let's not forget who got us into all this -- Rember Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration!!!! |
I believe that I was referring to the refusal of the US (especially at the time of writing) even to talk to several key states in the region. While it may not make your news, the EU is a regular and key participant in peace talks. The UK and France have particular expertise and valuable relationships that do get exploited - arising out of the historical situation to which you refer.
I don't pretend that the dismantling of the British Empire was done perfectly, but then I am not trying to defend my nation's actions from half a century ago.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:12:35 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:12:35 AM EDT.
|
