Israel & Lebanon

[Don Roley]

Don, as usual, you have no rational response to my arguments. I suspect the sniping is about to commence...that, too, fits the profile.

Your comment about me is an attack of its own. By saying that as usual I have no rational response and that the sniping is about to commence you have painted me as a troublemaker and attacked me and my reputation. In short, you are attacking me while trying to convince people that I am the guilty one.

I will point out your attacks on me whenever you make them. But I will not respond in kind. Instead I will deal with what you say instead of attacking your charecter.

And the whole problem with your theories is that they lack logic, facts and cohesion. Your theory is quite similar to one I saw on Japanese TV documentary last night where a North Korean made the argument that the US is behind the famine in his country.

First there is the Evil Intent. In the case of the North Korean, American capitalists are seeking to control the entire world and enslave the non-white races.

For you, it is that the US wants oil. You call it Peak Oil- a theory that I am familiar with.

In both cases of the Evil Intent (EI) there really does seem to be some benefit to the supposed hatcher of these conspiracies. But there is rarely anything that most of us would say is valid proof.

Then there is the Evil Statement of Intent. In North Korea's case, the guy was able to point to a lot of papers, groups and even some goverment folks that said that North Korea would be better off under a new goverment.

In your case, you are able to point to several papers and magazines like the New Republic as well as a private think tank written by people who think alike in many ways to some people in goverment.

In both the North Korean and your cases, the influence these sources have over the goverment is not laid out real well and taken as a matter of faith. The reason given in conspiracy theories like this is that there can't be a lot of proof since everything has to be secret. You really echoed something the North Korean said when you wrote,

Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon? Don't be silly.

The response for the North Korean when asked how America could cause the crop failures and such pretty much was along the line of, "do you think they are going to make it obvious?"

And it is clear that you make a huge leap of faith when you credit the neocons desire for a new goverment in Tehran with a desire to steal their oil. You overlook some much simpler explinations that make a lot more sense to cram your desired outlook on the facts at hand. The North Korean idea of people writing bad things about his country due to a desire to enslave them makes a similar leap over better explinations. I will deal this tendancy to ignore easier, more likely explinations later.

Finally there is the Evil Result. In the case of North Korea there is the famine they had. In your case it is the invasion of Lebanon. You can't dispute that these things happened. And thus the whole theory is "proved" in the minds of those that want to believe it.

But of course, at each point in these theories you have to make a leap of faith that the actual points are true and are conected. Since it is a conspiracy and since the attitude is, "Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon? Don't be silly." you can generally cover over the lack and the over emphasizing and speculation that needs to go on to make these things come even slightly close to working. Sure the PNAC did all the things you say- but of course you can't really lay it all out do to their secrecy, eh?

At each point there is a lot of doubt as to whether the points are true, and there is even more doubt if there is any connection with the EI, ESI and ER on them. But if you don't accept that the points are true and they are connected, you are attacked for having a narrow point of view.

And there are always, in cases like this, explinations that are much easier to explain and believe than the huge conspiracy theory that never gets blown like Watergate was.

Lets look at the idea of a lot of people in Washington not liking Iran. Do you think that maybe, just maybe it could be because of all the things Iran has done that makes us so cool towards being buds with them? Things like them having 'death to the US' rallies, sponsoring groups that do suicide bombings, mining vital sea routes, that little thing with the embassy, their seeking nuclear weapons and causing trouble in a region that is of great interest to us? Do you think that maybe the guys that don't like Iran might do so for these types of reasons rather than some complicated plot to seize their oil by getting Isreal to attack Lebanon? Gee, you think?

And as for why we are not pressing Isreal to stop as much as we could, do you think that maybe, just maybe, it could be because we see it as a case of a country reacting to an enemy that keeps attacking them? Or maybe that we don't want to run counter to them unless there is good reason for it? Or how about this- we aren't attacking Isreal to make them stop hitting Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a group that does suicide bombings, it rabidly anti American and has killed hundreds of Americans? Gee, you think?

Or do you want to go with the more complicated explination that by somehow taking out Hezbollah Isreal will make it easier for us to get Iran's oil?

(and as an aside, considering the damage that this has done to the US efforts to wean the Lebanese goverment from Syria's control it seems to be another case of a well worked conspiracy that is competent enough to remain secret, but not enough to avoid doing more damage than good.)

How about this comment by you,

Sure, it makes sense for Isreal to respond. This is why it is the perfect Noble Lie. However, some questions a rational person might ask would be why now?

Gee, you think that maybe they are attacking now because a couple of thier soldiers were just grabbed? Hmmm?

Or do you want to say that they were all ready to invade just as their soldiers were grabbed?

I guess I am going to be accused of not having the brains to accept what is the truth because I go for the more likely, visible reasons rather than attribute things to something I can't see and really don't make a lot of sense.

 

[Don Roley]

Don Roley .. that is not the argument I have made.

That is the argument you want me to have made, so you can climb atop your high horse.

You just go on putting words in my mouth.

I did not put words in your mouth. I demonstrated how your logic applies itself in the case of the Taliban. I am not accusing you of saying that we should not have attacked the Taliban. But the logic you tried here could be used to make that point.

I am pointing out the inconsitancy in your logic, not accusing you of supporting the Taliban.

 

[Makalakumu]

I guess I am going to be accused of not having the brains to accept what is the truth because I go for the more likely, visible reasons rather than attribute things to something I can't see and really don't make a lot of sense.

Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter. You and I are operating in paradigms that are in direct conflict. That was determined in other threads in the Study. However, I understand what you are saying in regards to Isreal's right to defend itself, yet I refuse to believe that even you cannot see that the US's support of these actions would accomplish mutliple goals that our administration desires. Particularly, the isolation of Syria and Iran. It is not a jump in logic to assume that the US secretly urged these actions.

 

[Don Roley]

Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter.

Again a personal attack on myself. As I said, I would point them out when you engaged in them instead of trying to debate me.

And I again say that you have failed to show even a little bit of proof that the US is pulling the strings of this invasion. The events were initiated by the attacks started by Hezbollah that resulted in two Isrealis hostages.

 

[Monadnock]

Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter. You and I are operating in paradigms that are in direct conflict. That was determined in other threads in the Study. However, I understand what you are saying in regards to Isreal's right to defend itself, yet I refuse to believe that even you cannot see that the US's support of these actions would accomplish mutliple goals that our administration desires. Particularly, the isolation of Syria and Iran. It is not a jump in logic to assume that the US secretly urged these actions.

Even if this were true, Syria has been suspected of holding some of Iraq's WMD stash, sending terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans and Iran has stated Isreal should be wiped off the map. Since they use Hezbollah and other means indirectly to cause trouble, shouldn't we be cutting off their arms and legs?

 

[Makalakumu]

Again a personal attack on myself. As I said, I would point them out when you engaged in them instead of trying to debate me.

Get over it man. It's not a personal attack. I'm only saying that your viewpoint is myopic. If you disagree with my assessment, fine. You don't need to assume the role of the victim here. Just engage the ideas presented.

And I again say that you have failed to show even a little bit of proof that the US is pulling the strings of this invasion. The events were initiated by the attacks started by Hezbollah that resulted in two Isrealis hostages.

Who is providing Isreal with money and weapons for this invasion? The US. Who has been made aware of Isreali plans to invade, including tactics? The US Department of Defense. All of this has been shown by other posters in this thread. I feel like you aren't even reading them.

And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but given those things and the things that I have brought up it is not a great jump in logic to speculate that the US secretly urged Isreal to do this. Feel free to disregard this assessment if you will, but I feel that it is well grounded...based on what I have posted.

The "proof" you ask for can take many forms. Some of them are going to be unattainable via the internet and some of them would be attainable just by observing as the situation unfolds. I would say that if Isreal stays in South Lebenon and attempts to change the Lebenese regime in Beruit, that would definitely support my speculation. Also, I would say that if we see US troops inserted into this situation as "Peacekeepers" then that too would support my speculation. We'll just have to wait and see though.

On the other hand, if Isreal leaves Beruit alone and pulls back from South Lebenon in a few weeks, that would NOT support my speculation and I would have to reassess it.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is an interesting aside on the concept of proof...

Logically, proof can take many forms. This is because there are various standards for it...some standards are higher and some standards are lower. In the absence of a higher standard, a lower standard must be considered. And no standard is ever absolute.

An example of a high standard of proof (or disproof) would be met if someone claimed that a certain phenomenon occured and someone was able to show that this phenomenon violated several physical laws, thus it would be impossible.

In this case, a high standard of proof would be met if someone was able to obtain DoD memos that would show that the US secretly urged the Isreali invasion and occupation of Lebenon.

An example of a lower standard of proof would be something that occurs in paleontology when looking at fossil remains. The paleontologist looks at the features of the bone and the surrounding environment in order to intuit what the creature may have looked like and where it lived may have looked like.

In this case, a lower standard of proof is being met one I claim that the US may have secretly urged the Isreali invasion of Lebenon in order to accomplish several strategic goals. The information that I have laid out allows me to intuit that this may have happened.

No assessment of various phenomenon is failsaife. Even those that are held to a high standard of proof. Newton's Laws were once considered to be proven to a high standard, but then along came Einstein. All standards of proof are subject to being supplanted by higher standards, because there is no ultimate standard of proof. There is no such thing as "proven beyond all doubt," the possibility of being wrong or right always exists in some proportion.

People often confuse this concept. In paleontology it occurs by the layman because that person cannot understand how the scientist intuited so much from a few bits of bones and dirt. The layman would say things like "he hasn't proven his conjecture," when in fact that scientist has. It is, however, a lower standard of proof then what would be obtained by actually observing the animal and environment.

What the layman doesn't understand is that the only way to show that the paleontologist is wrong is to engage the paleontologists ideas and attempt to bring about a higher standard of proof (or disproof) for his ideas. When the layman says that the paleontologist hasn't "proven" his speculation, he has made an assessment of his own that requires support. The only way to do this is to engage the ideas presented by the paleotologist.

Thus, if one wishes to engage a claim made in any thread including this one, one must engage the ideas presented. This is the only way to supplant a lower standard of proof with a higher standard. Pointing out that a higher standard may exist has not been met is not an argument against a lower standard. It is the impetus of an argument.

 

[michaeledward]

Syria has been suspected of holding some of Iraq's WMD stash,

Anyone who suspects this hasn't been paying attention to the proof of UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and ISG. Each of these entities was engaged in the process of determining the Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities of Iraq over the past 14 years. With each successive inspection regimen, the 'stash' has been shown less and less likely to exist. The latest 'official' information concerning "Iraq's Stash" ... is that it has not existed at all since 1998 or earlier.

It seems odd, that one would demand proof of the 'proxy war' argument, when the 'proof' of Iraq's WMD stocks prior to the 2003 invasion was so readily accepted. Perhaps it is experience and lessons learned, or, perhaps it is politics.

While I do not dispute upnorthkyosa's assertion that behind the scenes, American players could be directing Israel's actions, I also think that it is equally plausible that the United States ambiguous statements, the wink and nod, if you will, are more than sufficient to indicate intentions to Israel.

All branches of the United States government should be synchronized in their call for an immediate end to hostilities by all beligerants involved in the conflict. One accusation about the Bush Administration that is not incorrect, is that it presents its arguments in very stark terms. The fuzzieness of the State Department's comments, I believe, are adequate to the task of signalling objectives.

 

[mrhnau]

All branches of the United States government should be synchronized in their call for an immediate end to hostilities by all beligerants involved in the conflict.

If Lebanon seriously wanted a cease fire, then meet the demands of Israel. Help establish peace and get Hezbollah out of control of South Lebanon. Return the kidnapped soldiers. Thats the only way. Hezbollah is going to resist, since its their stated claim that they want Israel destroyed. If Lebanon wants to end the bombing, then accept the assistance of Israel and/or the UN/US to eradicate Hezbollah from South Lebanon. They will likely go to Syria/Iran, but at least the immediate crisis will be over. We can start pressuring Syria/Iran at that point and let democracy in Lebanon have a chance. Establish boarder security, not allowing Hezbollah back in, at least not in large enough numbers to regain control of the South.

With Hezbollah leaves alot of cash from Iran. A great gesture from Iran would be to take that cash that supported Hezbollah and give it to the Lebanese government to distribute and rebuild. That would go a LONG way in helping Lebanon recover as well as prove the good intentions of Iran, smoothing things over.

What I find aggrevating is that all these groups hate Israel simply because they are Israel/Jewish. I don't see Israel claiming they want to destroy all Islamic nations simply because they are Islamic.

 

[Bigshadow]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-David Russ
-MT Moderator-

 

[michaeledward]

What I find aggrevating is that all these groups hate Israel simply because they are Israel/Jewish.

Well, that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it?

It all comes down to anti-semetism. Why can't those Aye-rabs behave like the indiginous North Americans, and get thee to the reservations, and open casinos.

 

[mrhnau]

Well, that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it?

It all comes down to anti-semetism. Why can't those Aye-rabs behave like the indiginous North Americans, and get thee to the reservations, and open casinos.

a generalization? not too sweeping. what I'm claiming is there exist radical islamic groups that seek to eradicate Israel. I don't see the analogy groups in Israel/Judaism. I'm making no claims about the bulk of Islam. Can you name two or three radical Jewish/Israeli groups that seek to overthrough Saudi Arabia, where Mecca resides? How many Jewish suicide bombers have been seen in the past 10 years? Been blowing up many planes lately?

The analogy with Native Americans is flawed. Israel, to my knowledge, is not seeking to remove every muslim from their native lands. They have not been overly expansive, in fact, they are giving away land lately. Bad analogy.

 

[michaeledward]

When you use phrases like "all these groups", such pronouns demand anticedents. A very small minority of radicals in Lebanon seek the destruction of Israel. In your post, your description could include Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the Lebanese Government.

Israel has removed muslim's from their native lands. While I don't understand the complete history, as to whether Isreal was created in the early 20th century or mid 20th century, the state was carved out of the map by the victors in those wars. At the time, I understood, approximately 900,000 people were displaced from their homeland to provide the Jews a State.

That is the fight that is waging today.

The indigionous middle eastern residents, apparently, did not have the same attitudes toward the land as the native North Americans ... Muhammed never traded the fertile crescent away for 26 dollars worth of beads.

In North America, as I understand it, the native peoples never conceived of the idea of 'ownership' of land. It wasn't their land to give away.

How'd that work out for them?

 

[mrhnau]

When you use phrases like "all these groups", such pronouns demand anticedents. A very small minority of radicals in Lebanon seek the destruction of Israel. In your post, your description could include Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the Lebanese Government.

I suppose it could be read to mean that. It was perhaps a bit vague. I'm not implying all of Lebanon, rather radical groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Regardless, I'd still like to hear if you are aware of such radical groups in Israel.

Israel has removed muslim's from their native lands. While I don't understand the complete history, as to whether Isreal was created in the early 20th century or mid 20th century, the state was carved out of the map by the victors in those wars. At the time, I understood, approximately 900,000 people were displaced from their homeland to provide the Jews a State.

That is the fight that is waging today.

Brief history of the modern Israeli state
The land has been handed back and forth for ages now. Everyone has their own unique claim on it, just different eras. At the time it was created in the '40's, it was under the control of Britain. They had the right to "give" it to whoever they wanted to. It was also called for by the UN, [sarcasm] which we both know can do no wrong [/sarcasm].

The indigionous middle eastern residents, apparently, did not have the same attitudes toward the land as the native North Americans ... Muhammed never traded the fertile crescent away for 26 dollars worth of beads.

In North America, as I understand it, the native peoples never conceived of the idea of 'ownership' of land. It wasn't their land to give away.

How'd that work out for them?

Not relevant. I can bring up thousands of naughty things people have done through every single generation. Thousands of examples of wars that have displaced people. Every nation has done something bad in its history at some point. This is the second time you have brought up Native Americans. If you like, start a new thread and we can discuss that in depth. Let this discuss Israel and Lebanon and the current crisis, which from my understanding was your original intent.

Israel is clearly not trying to steal more land, but accepted the land granted by Britain and OK'ed by the UN. In fact, they have given land back in an attempt to harness peace. How has that turned out? This makes the analogy clearly flawed and not strictly relevant. If you want to discuss who has historic claims to the land, we need to go back WAY further, and start using texts and things I KNOW you won't trust/like.

 

[mantis]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411424/796783
i find it interesting how the US objects cease fire regardless of both military and civilian deaths!

 

[Don Roley]

Here is an interesting aside on the concept of proof...

Logically, proof can take many forms. This is because there are various standards for it...some standards are higher and some standards are lower. In the absence of a higher standard, a lower standard must be considered. And no standard is ever absolute.

How about this...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And that possible motives do not necceasarily lead to the conclusion desired to make a conspiracy theory work.

And those wishing to push a theory are the ones required to provide proof for it. And if only one person or two in a thread think that the conclusions are reasonable and clear- then it is quite likely that they are wrong and not that the rest of the particpants are just too stupid to realize it.

Oh, and another one- Occam's Razor. The simplest and least complicated explination is the one most likely to be correct.

 

[michaeledward]

And those wishing to push a theory are the ones required to provide proof for it. And if only one person or two in a thread think that the conclusions are reasonable and clear- then it is quite likely that they are wrong and not that the rest of the particpants are just too stupid to realize it.
.

But this thread seem to be comprised of about four or five people. Then the ration becomes a 40% to 50% of the thread. But even then, sheer number do not in any equal the correctness of an argument.

Think back five hundred years ... the 'rest of the participants' were confident the sun went around the earth.

 

[Don Roley]

But this thread seem to be comprised of about four or five people. Then the ration becomes a 40% to 50% of the thread. But even then, sheer number do not in any equal the correctness of an argument.

Think back five hundred years ... the 'rest of the participants' were confident the sun went around the earth.

I was speaking in general about proof and conspiracy theories. One of the things that I have seen a lot is that a lot of people that push conspiracy theories seem to have a sense of superiority about them. They can see things that most of humanity can't. Thus they seem to feel they are more intelligent than the rest of humanity.

In some threads on martialtalk there is comments that the people who refuse to believe some outrageous conspiracy theories "Lack a wider view" or something along the line that the fault is in their lack of intelligence. It is hardly in the spirit of the friendly discusion they want here at martialtalk and one of many reasons IMO why there was talk of closing down the study.

I feel rather strongly that the more a theory depends on evidence that we can only speculate about, the less likely it is. Call me suspicious, but the more someone says that the nature of the theory is that there can't be any proof the more I think that they should be kept away from flamables and sharp objects.

 

[michaeledward]

I was speaking in general about proof and conspiracy theories. One of the things that I have seen a lot is that a lot of people that push conspiracy theories seem to have a sense of superiority about them. They can see things that most of humanity can't. Thus they seem to feel they are more intelligent than the rest of humanity.

In some threads on martialtalk there is comments that the people who refuse to believe some outrageous conspiracy theories "Lack a wider view" or something along the line that the fault is in their lack of intelligence. It is hardly in the spirit of the friendly discusion they want here at martialtalk and one of many reasons IMO why there was talk of closing down the study.

I feel rather strongly that the more a theory depends on evidence that we can only speculate about, the less likely it is. Call me suspicious, but the more someone says that the nature of the theory is that there can't be any proof the more I think that they should be kept away from flamables and sharp objects.

You talk about the rest of the not being able to see something. Or is it not wanting to see something.

The manifesto of the Project for a New American Century has been widely available on their website for years. You can hear direct descriptions of that manifesto every time Bill Kristol speaks on the public airwaves. If their plan is secret, it certainly is hidden on the kitchen table.

How many of us know the signatories to the United States Declaration of Independence?

How many of us know the signatories to the PNAC?

How many of those signatories currently hold office in the Executive Administration?

Then, look at what the PNAC desires ....

And look at the events in the world ....

Do they line up at all? The PNAC original document is, what, 10, 12 years old? These guys either have a fabulous crystal ball ... or they have worked methodically toward their objectives, either in the administration or not.

Then, what other items are in their objectives, that have not yet come to pass?

You talk as if this stuff is Nostrodamous. Decrying peers on this message board, but not disputing the claims, and demonstrating no evidence that you have even looked at the information.

Post Script ...
Signatories to the PNAC

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J Bennet
Jeb Bush
Richard Cheney
Eliot A Cohen
Midge Dector
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C Ilke
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W Rodman
Stephen P Rosen
Henry S Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Google 'em .... knock yourself out.


But wait ... there's more ...
The PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton asking for a strong policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power ... that letter was signed by many of the above, but also ...

Richard L Armitage
John Bolton
Richard Perle
William Kristol
R James Woolsey

Any of those names look familiar?

 

[Don Roley]

You talk about the rest of the not being able to see something. Or is it not wanting to see something.

Quite the opposite. I would say that people who want to see a evil conspiracy, like the North Korean, will see it no matter what. Some points will fit their theories, but they will reject anything that does not fit in with what they want to believe. So one source of possible influence becomes the sole influence. And anything they can't prove other than extreme conjecture will be explained away as part of a conspiracy.

And then they will accuse others of being stupid or too biased to see the truth that they, with their greater clarity and intelligence, can clearly see.