Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-21-2009, 07:44 AM   #1 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Don't ask, don't tell Israeli style

Don't ask, don't tell Israeli style-


Quote:
JERUSALEM, May 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. administration of President Barack Obama will not force Israel to state publicly whether it has nuclear weapons, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

He said Washington would stick to a decades-old U.S. policy of "don't ask, don't tell".

Obama's bid to curb Iran's nuclear programme through diplomacy has stirred speculation that, as part of a regional disarmament regimen, Israel could be asked to come clean on its own secret capabilities.

But a senior Israeli diplomat, speaking after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held his first summit with Obama in Washington this week, said: "This has never happened, nor will it happen with this administration."

That U.S. message had been conveyed, the diplomat said, "on the various levels of our bilateral talks".

Israel is widely believed to have procured the Middle East's only nuclear weapons. It neither confirms nor denies this, under an "ambiguity" policy billed as deterring foes while avoiding the kind of public provocations that can trigger arms races.
Story

Does anyone believe Israel does not have nukes?

Maybe they're pulling a Saddam and acting like they have them when they really don't?

Personally I think they have them and they likely got the technology from the US.

Without them, or at least the threat of them, would they have a harder time surviving in the hostile environment they exist?

Anyone think Obama's going to have better luck with middle east peace then any of his predecessors?
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 08:12 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
1. I'm pretty sure the Israelis have a nuke arsenal.

2. They are simultaneously pulling a Saddam, or trying to, by refusing to say one way or the other publicly.

3. I remember reading (I forget where) that Israel somehow pirated fissile material from the US and then presented the US with a fait accompli in some secret talks. I wish I could remember the details.

4. They have a hard enough time surviving as it is now, and it would be worse if they didn't have nukes. The one comfort Israel's neighbors have is that Israel is very unlikely to use them unless the country was at immediate threat of extinction (as distinct from, say, al-Qaeda or some of teh "rejectionist" states that would use them in a heartbeat if they had them).

5. Obama will fail just like everyone else. The problem isn't solvable now and won't be for at least another 10-20 years. He's an ambitious guy, and since this is the world's most intractable conflict, it seems irresistible to him to try to solve it. He won't succeed. The conflict will end when we have a source of endlessly renewable clean energy, thereby rendering the Middle East much less interesting and removing the Arab states' leverage over everyone else. When that happens, the Palestinians will be about as interesting to the rest of the world as the Tamils in Sri Lanka were.
loquitur is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 08:53 AM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Does anyone believe Israel does not have nukes?
I doubt it.
Maybe they're pulling a Saddam and acting like they have them when they really don't?
Only Saddam wasn't our only and best regional ally. No, we either gave them nuclear weapons or were complicit in some way in their construction.
Without them, or at least the threat of them, would they have a harder time surviving in the hostile environment they exist?
The Israeli war machine is perfectly capable of fighting a simultaneous war with any 5 Arab nations.
Anyone think Obama's going to have better luck with middle east peace then any of his predecessors?
I'd love to see Obama take a crack at Oslo Accord 2: The Reckoning, but he's got his hands full. You know what would be cool? Send Hillary, give her a chance to earn her liberal chops back after bitching out on healthcare.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:06 AM   #4 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Send Hillary, give her a chance to earn her liberal chops back after bitching out on healthcare.
A) I don't even know what that means
B) I'm not usually the word police, but that seems like a really skeezy use of the word "bitch"

As for the OP, yes, Obama is going to fail. US-Israeli relations are at their lowest point since...I dunno, a very long time. Probably since the Suez Canal made the headlines every day. My guess is that Bibi and the Likudniks will have to crash and burn before the relationship improves substantially. Luckily, this is Israeli politics we're talking about, so that could happen any day now.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:11 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
israel has nuclear weapons.

israel is in no danger from it's neighbors.

as for whether obama's administration is able to make headway in stopping the settlements, taking down those that exist, ending the system of checkpoints that impede the movement of palestinians, ending the ban on circulation into and out of jerusalem---it's possible, but it would require playing hardball with the israelis, who are in a weak position after the gaza atrocity. this despite the likud/extreme right coalition that is for the moment in power. but i do think progress is possible, so long as the administration is willing to break with the rubber-stamp relationship that the united states has had to anything and everything israel does, particularly over the past 8 years.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:34 AM   #6 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44 View Post
A) I don't even know what that means
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/ny.../12donate.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44 View Post
B) I'm not usually the word police, but that seems like a really skeezy use of the word "bitch"
"Bitch out" means to not do something out of fear. It's a more vulgar version of "chicken out". I wasn't calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, just like Barack Obama wasn't called Sarah Palin a pig. It's a turn of phrase.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:36 AM   #7 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
I couldn't say either way if they have them or not. If they do have them they stole them (plans and/or the refined nuclear material) from the US or some other nation and did not build them entirely themselves.

As for Obama being able to make peace between Israel and Palestine, it won't happen. You can't make peace between two parties that don't want peace. I think its pretty obvious at this point that neither side does. They want war and that's what they've been getting.
__________________
We Must Dissent.

Last edited by ObieX; 05-21-2009 at 09:44 AM..
ObieX is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:52 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
actually, i changed my mind.

i just found this essay which outlines the numbers and locations of palestinian refugees--which in this context is obviously not a neutral category.

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-111657-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

i figure it might be useful to build information on these matters...so that's what i'll do.
the informational hole that surrounds the actual conditions under which palestinians live is pretty deep.

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-111711-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html


all kinds of strange opinions can grow in spaces which are this information-free.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 05-21-2009 at 10:00 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 10:26 AM   #9 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
One of the key reasons the US cannot admit that Israel has nukes is because anyone who acquires nukes outside of the non-proliferation treaty is barred from receiving foreign aid from the US because of the Foreign Assistance Act. In that case, foreign aid to Israel would require some sort of special authorization and would have some restrictions, as is the case in Pakistan.
dippin is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 05:19 PM   #10 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
actually, i changed my mind.

i just found this essay which outlines the numbers and locations of palestinian refugees--which in this context is obviously not a neutral category.

2. Statistical data on Palestinian refugees: what we know and what we don’t: International Development Research Centre

i figure it might be useful to build information on these matters...so that's what i'll do.
the informational hole that surrounds the actual conditions under which palestinians live is pretty deep.

10. Israeli settlements and the Palestinian refugee question: evaluating the prospects and implications of settlement evacuation in the West Bank and Gaza – a preliminary analysis: International Development Research Centre


all kinds of strange opinions can grow in spaces which are this information-free.
Interesting.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 07:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
jimmy carter israel nuclear weapons - Yahoo! Search Results

I'm not saying you should believe him or not, but I think it sounds about right.

Now, I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the fact that Israel hasn't been attacked by it's neighbors offensively in 35 years...
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 08:47 AM   #12 (permalink)
Upright
 
Of course Israel has nukes.


But to their credit they have never threatened to use them against a neighbor as a first strike or as a lever for a political agenda.


Israel has also been attacked by people whose sole purpose was to wipe them off the map and they didn't use them to defend themselves.


They have proven to be a responsible member of the Nuclear Brotherhood.


Meanwhile we have countries that are striking to get nukes (do you really think Iran wants nuclear power just to power their homes?) who are threatening Israel's existance.
Polar is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 08:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
gee, why would a country want to provide power for homes?


here's a map from last year showing israeli settlements in the west bank and something of the infrastructure surrounding them



there are more detailed maps, but they're too big to post directly.
this for example:

http://mappery.com/maps/Jewish-Settl...t-Bank-Map.jpg
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 05-22-2009 at 09:03 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 10:41 AM   #14 (permalink)
Upright
 
Gosh Roachboy, what a swell map.

What exactly does it have to do with Israel having nukes?





"gee, why would a country want to provide power for homes?"


- Are you talking about that country with one of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East?
Do you REALLY believe that Iran wants nuclear power solely for generating electricity to its citizens?

Last edited by Polar; 05-22-2009 at 10:45 AM..
Polar is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 10:48 AM   #15 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
- Are you talking about that country with one of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East?
Do you REALLY believe that Iran wants nuclear power solely for generating electricity to its citizens?
Economics 101: if you have something that's worth a shitload of money and you want to sell it, use as little of it as you can in order to maximize profits.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 10:49 AM   #16 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
- Are you talking about that country with one of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East?
Do you REALLY believe that Iran wants nuclear power solely for generating electricity to its citizens?
For starters, Iran exports twice as much oil as it consumes, and nearly all of its power is generated by fossil fuels. Of what little hydro generation they have, they export nearly as much as they import. Natural gas? They export nearly on par to imports.

And who isn't going nuclear for energy these days? Look at China...France....
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 10:53 AM   #17 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
polar...

the map of settlements on the west bank is interesting.
the bigger one is even more swell.

in order for the obama administration to make headway, it needs to acknowledge the realities of life under occupation, the realities of what israel has been doing (with american support, tacit and explicit) in the west bank, in gaza---and jerusalem (even as this raises even more questions than does the settlement programs)...doing that means that israel is no longer viewed as some imperiled little state, but instead as a regional military superpower that presides over an illegal and brutal colonialism, that presides over a de facto apartheid system..

the iran bogeyman is self-evidently part of the way of framing israel as other than it really is.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:03 AM   #18 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
For starters, Iran exports twice as much oil as it consumes, and nearly all of its power is generated by fossil fuels. Of what little hydro generation they have, they export nearly as much as they import. Natural gas? They export nearly on par to imports.

And who isn't going nuclear for energy these days? Look at China...France....

-- You are absolutely correct BG. But China and France both have had Nukes for decades and have never threatened to use them on their on their neighbors.

Perhaps Iran wouldn't run into the resisitance it is seeing if they weren't promising the certain demise of Israel.




Roachboy, with all due respect, your argument will only have a point if/when Israel threatens to use nukes on the Palestinians.

If you want to change this thread to the non-nuclear policies of Israel, fine, but you are changing the topic of the thread none the less.

If you are going to argue that Israel shouldn't have nukes because of the Palestinians, then you are going to have to make the same arguement for China due to Tibet and the treatment of it's own people, Russia due to Georgia, Chechnya and others, and even the US due to its invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Otherwise it is selective outrage.

Last edited by Polar; 05-22-2009 at 11:06 AM..
Polar is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:06 AM   #19 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
polar: read the op.


Quote:
Anyone think Obama's going to have better luck with middle east peace then any of his predecessors?

edit

to make my position a bit more clear than maybe it is: i don't see this thread as geared around questions of realities on the ground--information about that dimension of israeli politics is surprisingly difficult to come by---which explains the tack i decided to take here. instead, i see this as being about how israel is framed in the press. that's why it is apparent to me that the linkages between iran as potential nuclear threat and israel as potential victim are in significant measure politically motivated.

so the idea is to tamper with the framing.
things follow in a pretty straight line from that.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 05-22-2009 at 11:21 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:40 AM   #20 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Israel doesn't need to nuke Palestine, the current strategy to expel them from the area is working just fine.

Anyway, Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, as a response to Iran's alleged nuclear program.
Quote:
Israeli President Shimon Peres says the best way to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is to threaten it with a ‘nuclear response’.
Israel Threaten Iran With Nukes Pak Alert Press
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:42 AM   #21 (permalink)
Upright
 
"polar, read the op"


- Which?
Polar is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:46 AM   #22 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
"polar, read the op"


- Which?
op = original post
Derwood is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 12:00 PM   #23 (permalink)
Upright
 
Willravel, you need to re-read the article you posted.


Perez calls for others to nuke Iran and only IF Iran used nukes first. He does NOT call for nuking Iran as a first strike. Never even implied it.


Now tell me, which nuclear power on earth HASN'T said it would respond to nukes with nukes?

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Roach, I re-read the original post.


Discusses Israel and the fact they likely have nukes.


........and?
Polar is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 12:06 PM   #24 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
Anyone think Obama's going to have better luck with middle east peace then any of his predecessors?

depends how you stack things up logically, i suppose. if you think that numerical order is the same as logical order, then i can see the confusion. it's like thinking that alphabetical order is more than a convention though. but whatever. back to the thread.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2009, 12:33 PM   #25 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
Willravel, you need to re-read the article you posted.

Perez calls for others to nuke Iran and only IF Iran used nukes first. He does NOT call for nuking Iran as a first strike. Never even implied it.

Now tell me, which nuclear power on earth HASN'T said it would respond to nukes with nukes?
The article is perfectly clear assuming you understand that Israel has nuclear weapons. Because Perez can't just come out and say, "OH, btw, we're nuclear", he has to mince his words ever so slightly.

And they're not saying they will "respond to nukes with nukes", they're saying, "You even developing nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear attack."
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-23-2009, 05:06 AM   #26 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
the point i'm trying to make here is that there are any number of ways to frame israel as a political matter. you'd think that after the gaza atrocities the focus would be more on moving forward with creating a viable palestine--which would require the dismantling of the settlements in the west bank and their attending military/colonial infrastructure. but placing the emphasis on this situation makes israel into a colonial power. which it is.

placing emphasis on a perceived threat to israel from iran keeps israel in the role of potential victim, which is consistent with the fantasy-image of israel that's been used repeatedly to rationalized unconditional support from the american state for anything that israel does. it also enables a continual looking-the-other-way on problems that related to palestine--which aren't going away---and which constitute the single most important underlying threat to the region--because much of the hostility directed at israel follows from it's treatment of palestinians. theres no way around this, politically or logically.

if you separate this manipulation of the meaning of israel (how it functions as a signifier, which is altered by the contexts that are layed over it) and think about iran...

i support the obama administration's approach to iran. i am hoping--as i suppose most folk are---that ahmadinejad looses in the coming elections and is replaced with someone who doesn't play the same game. the paradox of the dick-waving approach to iran used by the bush people and manipulated by the israeli right for it's own purposes is that it simultaneously decries ahmadinejad's administration while providing it EXACTLY the conditions it requires to stay in power.

so it seems to me that if anyone is seriously concerned with what the iranians may or may not be doing with their nuclear program, they would support an approach that doesn't play straight into maintaining the political conditions that make of it a real or imaginary Problem.


of course, the other hilarious, counter-intuitive aspect of this game is that israel is a nuclear power...but iran is the problem. so the israeli nuclear arsenal is not understood as destabilizing...how does that work?

o i know i know: they haven't said much about it--but they can't (see dippin's post above)...what does that change?

nuclear weapons are in themselves a bad bad idea. it'd be better if every last one of them was taken apart, instructions for building them erased.

and if you're worried about the consequences of nuclear proliferation, why bother dwelling on imaginary scenarios with iran when you can fret about quite real scenarios involving pakistan?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 08:48 AM   #27 (permalink)
Upright
 
Willravel, here is your entire article:



"Israeli President Shimon Peres says the best way to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is to threaten it with a ‘nuclear response’.He accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying that a conventional military attack could not halt Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Simply attacking the nuclear facilities is not the be-all and end-all,” Peres told Israel’s Channel Ten on Wednesday.

“There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying.

“You can destroy the (uranium enrichment) centrifuges but you cannot destroy the knowledge about building centrifuges,” he said.

Israel, which is believed to be the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, has repeatedly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran, however, says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes."





-- Kindly point out where exactly it says, in your words, ""You even developing nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear attack."


The first line of the article is misleading at best and does not quote Perez.


Later on in the article, the ACTUAL Perez quote negates the implication of the first line:


“There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying."


The first line is either poor journalism or intentional misinformation.
In either case, there is NOTHING in the rest of the article which supports your 'interpretation' of what it is saying. No-thing.


Once you read the entire article you realize the first line is actually saying that Perez is calling for the threat of a nulcear response if Iran uses nukes because a conventional bombing (either before it comes to fruition or after Iran used nukes) would not stop their program.


Do you often feel you know everything in an article simply by reading the first line?
Polar is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 09:36 AM   #28 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
""Israeli President Shimon Peres says the best way to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is to threaten it with a ‘nuclear response’."
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-26-2009, 11:12 AM   #29 (permalink)
Upright
 
It's good to see that you don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your position.
Polar is offline  
Old 05-26-2009, 11:21 AM   #30 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Israel can't just come out and make threats because that would confirm that they have nuclear weapons and they'd lose their aid from the US. Still, Israel has made it clear that it has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, a fact that they intentionally leaked to the Sunday Times. Why would they blatantly release such information? As a threat. The same intentionally unsubtle threats can be seen in the article I linked.

Instead of snarky remarks that get us nowhere, let's try and make this constructive.

Last edited by Willravel; 05-26-2009 at 12:48 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-26-2009, 12:16 PM   #31 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
It's good to see that you don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your position.

Who are you speaking to here? You seemed to have a chip on your shoulder. Any reason for this? I'm trying to follow your reasoning and I think you're making a few valid points here and there. But then your posts just appear to go sideways.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 05-26-2009, 12:45 PM   #32 (permalink)
Upright
 
You say you don't want 'snarky' comments but all you do is give the first line of the article you provided. A line that is refuted later in the very same article. An article I commented on in length pointing out specifically where you are in error.

The only assumption can be that you could not refute what I said so you chose to simply post the first line of the article again. That is hardly being 'constructive.'

The article given in your blog link is from the UK and provides no source for the 'information' included. "The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week..." Provided by whom? You aren't the least bit concerned about the honesty/veracity of the source? It could even be Israel planting disinformation to further dissuade Iran BECAUSE they have no intention of nuking them first. This is the standard of proof you use?

Tell me, why would this be given to a news outlet in the UK, but not the US? Why haven't any of the US news outlets picked up on it and presented it as fact?

Your article provides no proof, no source, no outside corroboration....no validity.
Polar is offline  
Old 05-26-2009, 12:53 PM   #33 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
The article given in your blog link is from the UK and provides no source for the 'information' included.
It does. See the green passage, "engage in a preemptive nuclear strike"? That's a link to the source:
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
"The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week..." Provided by whom?
In journalism, you sometimes finding yourself having to quote anonymous sources to protect their identities. This is one of those cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
You aren't the least bit concerned about the honesty/veracity of the source? It could even be Israel planting disinformation to further dissuade Iran BECAUSE they have no intention of nuking them first. This is the standard of proof you use?
I know the Sunday Times to be reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar View Post
Tell me, why would this be given to a news outlet in the UK, but not the US? Why haven't any of the US news outlets picked up on it and presented it as fact?
The same reason many stories break on BBC News before they reach MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. They've got plenty of good journalists over there.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 05:21 AM   #34 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
In journalism, you sometimes finding yourself having to quote anonymous sources to protect their identities. This is one of those cases.

I know the Sunday Times to be reliable.

The same reason many stories break on BBC News before they reach MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. They've got plenty of good journalists over there.



-- A journalist quoting an 'anonymous source' does not automatically give that anonymous source validity. You have no idea if it is someone out to burn someone else or who has an ax to grind.

I remember the "Downing St. Memos" that were "copies of the original that had been destroyed" (how convenient) brought forth by an 'anonymous source.' That died a quick death.

And the 'anonymous source' who allegedly brought forth actual 1960's documentation from Bush's time in the service. CBS News ran with it, only to find out that the documents were not from the 60s but were typed up in Microsoft Word. That 'anonymous source' vanished and has never been heard from again.

That is why when you are tried you cannot be convicted by an 'anonymous source.' You get to face your accuser.

YOU believe it because you WANT to believe it. You have no proof other than an unvetted, unverified, 'anonymous source.' Good luck with that.

Last edited by Polar; 05-27-2009 at 05:28 AM..
Polar is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 05:56 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
and you don't believe it because you don't want to, polar. given the constraints of information flows, how they work, among which is the fact that you have no independent access to the sources that you're demanding from will either....

it seems that you're pursuing a line of argument every point of which applies to your own position as well.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:36 AM   #36 (permalink)
Upright
 
Roachboy, I would believe it if more than just the Times reported it as fact using an 'anonymous source.'

Do you have any other news outlet pushing this as fact that isn't referencing the Times?

BBC isn't reporting it. Nor is Sky News. Neither is UPI or AP. Or CNN. Or Aljazeera. Or....well, you get my point.

Call them old fashioned. They appear to be waiting for provable facts or a verifiable source.

I have given two of the many examples of 'anonymous sources' ending up being full of crap. And what have you given?......exactly.

Neither you nor Willravel have provided ANYTHING to show this 'anonymous source' is valid or accurate.



I just got an email from a Nigerian government official asking for help getting his money out of Nigeria. Sounds like I should forward it to you
Polar is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:41 AM   #37 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
actually, polar, you may or may not have noticed that i wasn't taking part in the exchange between you two. i only added something after your last post.

it is strange to see arbitrary standards being set up as arguments against arbitrary standards. and surely you know about wire services and the complication they present for your claim that a degree of "validity" can be imputed to a particular article or factoid via repetition.

the funny thing is that much of your Problem here centers on a paraphrase of the opening line of the article will posted. the paraphrase is not much more than that. anyone who read the article would encounter the qualification that follows a paragraph or two below it.

so i honestly don't know what you're on about here.

it seems a pseudo-problem: maybe that's why your argument ends up going as far as it does, as if by jacking up the rhetoric in your critique you can make your point seem less slight.

it's not working.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:53 AM   #38 (permalink)
Upright
 
So what you are saying is that both your position and my position carry about the same weight


What you are saying contradicts what Willravel says about the article, though. Perhaps you should be speaking with him.

Last edited by Polar; 05-27-2009 at 10:01 AM..
Polar is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:09 AM   #39 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what i'm saying is that the argument about how to interpret the statements in the article isn't going to be resolved by heading down the path you're taking, i don't think. i'm also saying that the problems you point to apply to your own position.

in a classroom, the approach might work: but you'd have to provide other information--not so much the "anonymous source" but contextual information that'd function to make the political lines of the article/interpretation clear. it might work because you'd be building a shared informational pool and could assume that folk in the room were at least talking about the same thing using the same material basis (plus what they bring to it of course)....but the shared pool of information would provide a density of common referencepoints. here, we're trafficking in factoids.

really, we're running into one of the limitations of the messageboard form. articles are presented in more or less isolated form; you can't assume that the people reading either the articles or interpretations have anything like a shared information pool to draw from; you can't really build one because folk don't use these forums in ways that allow for it (you have to modulate how much information you bring into play else folk will shut down...it happens all the time). so things tend to devolve into point/counterpoint tv debate.

if you can figure a way around this, by all means go for it.
i haven't quite worked it out.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:52 AM   #40 (permalink)
Upright
 
I hear what you are saying, roachboy, but the 'heading down this path' should not necessarily be saved just for me.

On 5/25/ at 10:48am I gave a detailed factual message to Willravel explaining why his assumption of what the article says is incorrect.
His response was to post the first sentence of the article. Nothing more.

Then later, an article basing his entire claim on a single anonymous source. I give two concrete examples as to why anonymous sources should not be considered the best sources. The result is a response from you.

I give concrete reasons why the 'anonymous' source should be doubted. You, like Willravel provide none to assume he should be taken seriously.

Your standard should be applied evenly when calling for a specific type of give and take.
Polar is offline  
 

Tags
israeli, nukes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360