Obama orders clandestine support of Syrian rebels

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

What I'm worried about is a new civil war in Lebanon. The civil war in Syria is throwing yet another bone of contention in this country, and I'm already wondering how it isn't collapsing.

Some of the latest articles on Hezbollah and Syria indicate that this is a realistic possibility.

Their attacks on the US almost entirely centered around Lebanon.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Edit: good lord, did you even read your own cite?

So the facts I could obtain from your diatribe: Hezbollah last spoke clearly about their support for Assad (something I never doubted or argued) in December. That's 8 months in a quickly changing war. You'd think they would do something.

[FinnAgain]

Ah, I see that now you're complaining about an imaginary "diatribe". Oddly, you still haven't been able to explain how you cited an article which debunks your wilfully ignorant nonsense and which confirm everything I've said, but boy you'd like to change the subject.

You cited an article which stated, in black and white, that Hezbollah would get involved "if there was foreign intervention"... while you were demanding that I provide a citation for Hezbollah potentially getting involved due to our foreign intervention. You provide a cite stating that Hezbollah will not possibly abandon the Assad regime, and then claim that Nashrallah's pronouncements have an 8 (6? 4?) month shelf life and we should ignore his statements now, and you apparently honestly don't understand why the fact that Hezbollah stands with Assad might just be important if we attack Assad. You're also arguing out of both sides of your mouth, literally sentence to sentence. First you claim that you never "doubted or argued" about Hezbollah's support for Assad (although you are unable to extrapolate what Hezbollah might do if we attack Assad) and then claim that, well, that support was 8 months ago in a "quickly changing war" and claim that surely Hezbollah would have "[done] something". Of course, your noncomprehension on that point appears willful, as you just provided an article (kindly refuting your own claims) from the dim, dark past of two weeks ago which stated "Hezbollah has shown no sign of abandoning Assad and Lebanese officials close to the group say it won't stand idle if the battle worsens."

Of course, your obfuscation about Nashrallah's 8 month old quote again strongly suggests that you didn't read your own citation, as it clearly states that Nashrallah reiterated his support of Assad a matter of weeks ago and clarified that he views it as part of a battle against America/Israel. "(The goal was) after destroying the resistance in Lebanon to topple President Bashar al-Assad, destroy Syria and submit it to the American-Israeli agenda," That you wish to handwave away potential retaliation in a battle Hezbollah sees as between it and America/Israel is an absurdity.

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Their attacks on the US almost entirely centered around Lebanon.

Torrejon, Spain. TWA flight 847. Khobar Towers.
Unsurprisingly, you are wrong.

You have nothing, at all. Your own cites put paid to your claims. You cannot gainsay the facts. You will not even recognize or acknowledge the facts. Of course, with estimates putting the number of Heabolah operatives in the US in the hundreds, this is not an issue which is simply limited to you tossing out a bullshit argument in GD, Inbred.

[FinnAgain]

This has been major news for a while, and is pretty much prerequisite reading before one adopts a position.

A congressional report finds that Hezbollah fundraising cells are rampant across the United States and that the Lebanese organization could activate these cells to carry out lethal terrorist attacks.

The report, compiled under the aegis of the US House Committee on Homeland Security, estimates that there are several thousand sympathetic Hezbollah donors in the country, with operatives probably in the hundreds.

[...]

“It is no longer clear that Iran sees carrying out an attack in the United States as crossing some sort of red line,” according to Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He testified before the committee Wednesday at a hearing on the threat that Iran and Hezbollah pose to America.

“Hezbollah has long had a substantial base of supporters in North America,” he noted in his prepared testimony. “This includes some operatives with military and operational training and a much larger pool of sympathizers and supporters who provide funding and some logistical support to the group but could be called upon to support operational activity should the group decide to carry out an attack here.”

Levitt calculated that such a decision became more likely if the organization perceived that the US was directly targeting or seeking to undermine the group.

Meanwhile, we just admitted that we attacked Iran's nuclear program, we're working to undermine Hezbollah's munitions pipeline and Nashrallah has publicly likened our interest in Syria to an American-Iraeli plot. Against this backdrop it is willful ignorance of the first order to try and claim that potential Hezbollah retaliation isn't a concern that Americans should have.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

The US forces in Lebanon were noncombatants, the US forces in Saudi Arabia were there at the government's request .

Non-combatants, maybe, but their presence in Lebanon makes a hell of a difference, especially given the situation there at the time (and for the record, French troops in Lebanon where killed in the same fashion and at the same time, so it's not something I had never considered)

As for Saudi Arabia, I'll have to look up what attack you're referring to, but I must say that "at the government request", when it comes to Saudi Arabia, is essentially meaningless to me. I utterly despise the Saudi regime (it's on my personal "axis of evil" list) and nothing they can do appears legitimate to me. You could as well write "at the request of the North Korean government", as far as I'm concerned.

And I maintain what I said previously and that you didn't address : attacking the USA would be a very counter productive action for people who support Assad. Non only it wouldn't help Assad in any way, shape or form, but it would be the best way to ensure a larger American support to the rebels or direct action against the Hezbollah itself. "Those fucktards bombed us" would give legitimacy to about anything. They are way more likely to ramp up their policy of sending fighters in Syria or killing Syrian militants in Lebanon.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by adaher

Hezbollah has never attacked on US soil, but they have definitely created a capability to do so. They are operating here:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ist-activities

In fact, I had already read this article while looking up Hesbollah attacks againgst the USA. However, I'm not convinced by the assessment made (I mean about the possibility of an attack on US soil, not about the presence of militants in the USA).

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

As for Saudi Arabia, I'll have to look up what attack you're referring to, but I must say that "at the government request", when it comes to Saudi Arabia, is essentially meaningless to me.

It means that the US forces weren't invaders and were still targeted in a terrorist attack when they were threatening neither Iran nor Hezbollah.

Originally Posted by clairobscur

And I maintain what I said previously and that you didn't address : attacking the USA would be a very counter productive action for people who support Assad.

I thought that was an error on your part because as a non-native English speaker you'd confused retaliation with defense. I never claimed it was a defensive measure, but a retaliatory one. And if you know anything about the history of Hezbollah, they certainly don't shy from drawing massive, overwhelming force upon themselves if their politics demand military action be taken. The fact that they also may become involved in Syrian domestic military issues hardly precludes their involvement in external military activities.

Further, your handwaving of the possibility for attacks against America lacks persuasiveness. As you see to be unaware of Hezbollah's nature, being ignorant of the Khobar Towers bombing and the Jewish Community Center bombing, just as two examples, one has to wonder what, precisely, the source of your disagreement is. Seriously, doesn't it give you any pause that you adopted a stance of disbelief and denial of potential Hezbollah attacks on the US, evidently before you had to go to the length of "looking up Hesbollah attacks againgst the USA", because you were unaware of the full history before you decided to come to a conclusion about it?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

I thought that was an error on your part because as a non-native English speaker you'd confused retaliation with defense. I never claimed it was a defensive measure, but a retaliatory one. And if you know anything about the history of Hezbollah, they certainly don't shy from drawing massive, overwhelming force upon themselves if their politics demand military action be taken. The fact that they also may become involved in Syrian domestic military issues hardly precludes their involvement in external military activities.

Further, your handwaving of the possibility for attacks against America lacks persuasiveness. As you see to be unaware of Hezbollah's nature, being ignorant of the Khobar Towers bombing and the Jewish Community Center bombing, just as two examples, one has to wonder what, precisely, the source of your disagreement is. ]

My answer to both points is the same. I don't believe it will happen because it isn't a sensible course of action. Of course, sending men in Syria doesn't preclude bombing a stadium in the USA. But doing so would for instance result in even Russia having to admit that American retaliations are justified. And even assuming that Hezbollah leadership thinks it's a bright idea, it's not like they aren't in touch with and dependant from both Syria and Iran. I don't believe they would launch an attack against the USA in the current context without the greenlight of Damas and Teheran. And there's no way either would want this to happen.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

In fact, I had already read this article while looking up Hesbollah attacks againgst the USA. However, I'm not convinced by the assessment made (I mean about the possibility of an attack on US soil, not about the presence of militants in the USA).

Well, it's clearly a case of whether they want to or not. They can do it if they want to. They can probably carry out a lot of simultaneous attacks if they want to if they've got such a large network. While 9/11 was devastating, I've always felt a lot of smaller attacks all over the nation would generate more fear and confusion.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by adaher

Well, it's clearly a case of whether they want to or not. They can do it if they want to. .

Yes, I agree with you on this point.

[ralph124c]

There are 15 million Alawites in Turkey-will they stand by if their Syrian co-religionists are massacred? Henry Kissinger thinks that Syria may well break up-can a nation exist that has such religious hatreds embedded in it?

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

There are 15 million Alawites in Turkey-will they stand by if their Syrian co-religionists are massacred? Henry Kissinger thinks that Syria may well break up-can a nation exist that has such religious hatreds embedded in it?

15 million Alawites in Turkey? No, there are not 15 million Alawites in Turkey. There are roughly 10 - 15 million Alevis in Turkey. They are primarily Turkish and Kurdish. I do not think they would like to be grouped with Alawites. Although they are Shia muslims. There are less than 500,000 Alawites in Turkey and likewise, I do not think they would like to be considered Alevis:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In order to avoid confusion with Alevis, they prefer the self-appellation Arap Alevileri ("Arab Alevis") in Turkish.

The facts being what they are, I rank this concern slightly more probably than Hezbollah attacking the USA over a rebellion in Syria

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

more probably than Hezbollah attacking the USA over a rebellion in Syria

That is certainly a more intellectually honest way of saying that other than "more probably than Hezbollah attacking the US over the facts that the US publicly admitting that it successfully attacked Iran's nuclear program via cyber warfare and the US is now publicly revealed that it will be aiding rebels who aim at closing off Hezbollah's arms pipeline and removing Assad from power."

Obviously, the other facts simply complicate the calculations and should be ignored.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

That is certainly a more intellectually honest way of saying that other than "more probably than Hezbollah attacking the US over the facts that the US publicly admitting that it successfully attacked Iran's nuclear program via cyber warfare and the US is now publicly revealed that it will be aiding rebels who aim at closing off Hezbollah's arms pipeline and removing Assad from power."

Obviously, the other facts simply complicate the calculations and should be ignored.

OK, when comparing the chances of the 15 million Alawites in Turkey rising up in conflict to support their Syrian brothers to the chances of the USA suffering an attack by Hezbollah over its minor role in supporting the rebels, I will have to say it is ever so slightly more likely that Hezbollah will attack the USA.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

This has been major news for a while, and is pretty much prerequisite reading before one adopts a position.

I'm compelled to point out that the report was headed by Peter King, the New York congressman who has notable positions such as being neck-deep in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, has said the "80-85%" of mosques in the US are run by radical Muslims, has said that "no Muslim-American leaders" are helping the US on anti-terrorism measures, that Guananamo should remain open and waterboarding should continue, and that Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization.

Finn, this is really the guy that you think should be on prople's required reading list?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

There are 15 million Alawites in Turkey-will they stand by if their Syrian co-religionists are massacred? Henry Kissinger thinks that Syria may well break up-can a nation exist that has such religious hatreds embedded in it?

Of course it can; Lebanon still exists.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm compelled to point out that the report was headed by Peter King, the New York congressman who has notable positions such as being neck-deep in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, has said the "80-85%" of mosques in the US are run by radical Muslims, has said that "no Muslim-American leaders" are helping the US on anti-terrorism measures, that Guananamo should remain open and waterboarding should continue, and that Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization.

Finn, this is really the guy that you think should be on prople's required reading list?

Worse yet, the testimony in question comes from "Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy" -- and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a motherfucking AIPAC sock.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a Washington-DC-based think tank and part of the so-called pro-Israel Lobby; WINEP was founded in 1985. WINEP was founded by AIPAC, and initially WINEP staff and offices overlapped; WINEP’s founding director was Martin Indyk, AIPAC’s former research director. While AIPAC sought to influence the US Congress directly, WINEP is seen as a means to influence US foreign policy, discussion of foreign policy in the media, to serve as a conduit to place its own personnel in key policy-making position, and to recruit important policymakers to its cause. WINEP’s means used to influence US foreign policy include the following:

1.Write policy papers[1]
2.Host seminars/discussions – WINEP hosts or appears in most foreign policy discussions in Washington DC.[2]
3.To recruit academics, out-of-office/revolving door policymakers, and wannabe policymakers as fellows to the institute
4.Influence US military staff by hosting military as “visiting Military Fellows”[3]
5.Place WINEP members in policymaking positions[4][5]
6.Issuing endless streams of press releases
7.Provide pundits or commentators for the US or Western media.[6]
8.Provide forums where it engages in discussions on policy in the Middle East with similar-minded academics, journalists, and policymakers in the Middle East[7]
9.Create new foundations or forums to affect specific policy issues or aspects of regional politics WINEP/AIPAC seek to influence[8]

Critical Assessment

MJ Rosenberg comments on WINEP:[9]

SourceWatch is your friend.

[Evil Captor]

Well come on. Good guys in the Mideast are few and far between. There is no black and white, there are only shades of gray there ... often, MORE THAN fifty shades of gray! Most of them are deeply, horribly sexist to one degree or another, most hate Israelis, most hate the US as well. But we should stick to our principles, go for what maximizes freedom and democracy for people in the Mideast and hope the culture there modernizes. Western culture is a lot more FUN than the stuff they got in the Middle East for your average guy or gal, if we can keep the channels of communication open, they'll come around eventually.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Worse yet, the testimony in question comes from "Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy" -- and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a motherfucking AIPAC sock.



SourceWatch is your friend.

Who is Sourcewatch and why should they be considered reliable?

Are they the people that informed you that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt weren't extremists and were no different than the Christian Democratic Parties in Europe?

FWIW, the report is correct that it was founded by Martin Indyck who was a member of AIPAC and went on to be a US Ambassador to Israel.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm compelled to point out that the report was headed by Peter King

Unless you're claiming that somehow it wasn't a committee and King and/or got the write the report, then it's not terribly relevant. Claiming that I've suggested that Peter King should be on someone's "required reading list" is beneath you, Raven. Besides, the report's conclusions were not particularly novel and we've known, for years now, that Hezbollah has numerous members in the United States. The idea that any findings of the US House Committee on Homeland Security should be ignored because King wrangled himself a chairman's spot is shaky enough of a claim without then implying that I've somehow personally endorsed King.

Why, you might as well try to handwave the whole thing away with a Conspiracy Theorist interpretation of the fact that one person (utterly without credibility, eh, eh?)who offered testimony happens to be from an think tank which AIPAC founded and while nefariously published an "endless" number of press releases and then you could darkly hint at What He Must Be Up To due to his Zionist masters' plans and... oh...

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

a motherfucking AIPAC sock.

Meanwhile, while Glutton is focusing on some good ol' fashioned character assassination and ad hominem CT'ing, if we get past Glutton's 'Ayieeee, AIPAC pawn!!!" schtick, it's clear that the report was solid . Read Swecker's testimony for a start, although he's probably under AIPAC's control too, I'm sure.

Of course, as I said, this has been big news for a while and should've been read prior to debates such as this. Clapper's testimony, for instance, was that Iran is now more willing to strike at the US in response to perceived threats against their regime is particularly relevant as we've just admitted attacking their nuclear program and we're now publicly acting to topple their ally in the region. Even a skeptical read of King's claims still concludes that Hezbollah has the capability to attack the US on our soil or attack American interests abroad (although does include a caveat that some in Hezbollah would be wary of attacking on American soil due to its importance as a fundraising locus):

Iranian-inspired surveillance missions in the United States have been scattered over a period of years. But, when combined with a handful of recent attacks or plots around the world, they have contributed to an assessment within the U.S. government that considerable violence directed against U.S. targets - at overseas installations or businesses, or at American soil - could follow any strike on Iran's nuclear program.

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials, along with private experts, say there is little doubt Hezbollah has an extensive network of supporters, fund-raisers and potential operatives in the United States.
[...]
One factor heightening U.S. officials' concern about Hezbollah-related attacks is the accumulation of accounts of alleged attempts by Iranian operatives to "case" potential U.S. targets.

According to a New York law enforcement source, there have been several notable incidents of this nature involving individuals who turned out to be accredited to Iran's U.N. mission.

In a 2003 incident, New York police patrolmen observed a group of men videotaping the tracks out of the front window of a subway train traveling between Queens and Manhattan at 2 a.m. The Iranians were arrested, but later released after they produced diplomatic credentials. The law enforcement source said they were asked to leave the country.

In a 2006 incident, the captain of a sightseeing boat became suspicious after a group of Iranians taking his cruise along the East River broke into two smaller groups and started snapping pictures of the undersides of the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. The six men all turned out to be covered by diplomatic immunity, the law enforcement source said.

In September 2008, three more Iranians with diplomatic status were observed taking pictures of rail tracks going into Grand Central Station that are not routinely accessible to members of the public.

And in a 2010 incident, security personnel at a heliport near Wall Street observed a group of men who claimed to be affiliated with an Iranian broadcasting network taking pictures of the framework supporting the heliport deck which was cantilevered over the river.

A federal official said that similar surveillance incidents had been reported in other cities such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Targets under observation included nuclear power plants, tunnels and casinos.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Unless you're claiming that somehow it wasn't a committee and King and/or got the write the report, then it's not terribly relevant. Claiming that I've suggested that Peter King should be on someone's "required reading list" is beneath you, Raven. Besides, the report's conclusions were not particularly novel and we've known, for years now, that Hezbollah has numerous members in the United States. The idea that any findings of the US House Committee on Homeland Security should be ignored because King wrangled himself a chairman's spot is shaky enough of a claim without then implying that I've somehow personally endorsed King.

What on earth are you talking about, this being "beneath" me? You said reading the report is a "pretty much a prerequisite" for holding an opinion on your assertions. I pointed out that the committee chairman has a pretty robust history of taking controversial stands on issues relating to terrorism and Islam, which is entirely relevant to this matter. (I'll take this moment to point out that I previously did not raise King's support for the Provisional IRA because I do not believe his support for THAT kind of terrorism is relevant to this discussion.)

And allow me to correct something: the report you are referencing is not a bipartisan product of the entire committee. The report referenced in the news article you linked to is here: the report consists only of the findings of the Republican members of the committee. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee, said that the report was based on "outdated" information and that the committee "should not engage in a public discussion that creates fear and delivers misinformation."

You've endorsed the work that King's committee did on a partisan basis. Why you're calling for me to be ashamed of questioning your cite on this matter is totally baffling to me.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

And allow me to correct something: the report you are referencing is not a bipartisan product of the entire committee. The report referenced in the news article you linked to is here: the report consists only of the findings of the Republican members of the committee. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee, said that the report was based on "outdated" information and that the committee "should not engage in a public discussion that creates fear and delivers misinformation."

I clicked on the link you gave there, and it says it's for the Committee On Homeland Security, US House of Representatives. I don't see where it says something like 'For Republicans only' in there. What you seem to be saying is this report was written strictly for the Republican members at their behest, but I don't see anything in there about that in your link. What am I missing here?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

What on earth are you talking about, this being "beneath" me?

As I explained, you suggested that "[Peter King] is really the guy that [i] think should be on prople's required reading list". I did not state that King's personal statements should be, and you know it. There is a difference between saying that Peter King should be on people's required reading lists, and that if the House Committee on Homeland Security releases a report which touches on Hezbollah in the US, that it is indeed required reading.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

the report you are referencing is not a bipartisan product of the entire committee.

Irrelevant and just as obfuscatory as your attempt to claim that I want people to read King's personal writings. I've already provided the link to the hearings and testimony given. I've provided another citation which confirms that the intelligence community in general supports the basic set of findings.
By the way, some of that "out of date" information is what I linked to in Swecker's testmiony, which includes a case-study of how a Hezbollah cell operated, and Silber's testimony about how Iran has roughly a decade of precedence worth of using its embassy/broadcasting staff to case soft targets in Manhattan.

Yes, people talking about Hezbollah and America should be aware of the report in question, the general consensus of the intelligence community, the specific testimony offered that made up the preliminary report, etc... The report's general conclusions are in accord with the findings of the general intelligence community and what we've known for years.

You've endorsed a denial, made on a partisan basis, of the majority committee findings. Why you're calling for me to not support the facts because one partisan accused another partisan of being partisan even though the facts stand up to scrutiny, is totally baffling to me.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

You've endorsed a denial, made on a partisan basis, of the majority committee findings. Why you're calling for me to not support the facts because one partisan accused another partisan of being partisan even though the facts stand up to scrutiny, is totally baffling to me.

Please, take a deep breath and calm down. Read what I have written. I have not denied anything, I said that citing a report done at King's direction should be questioned. (Before you go on to protest that the report was not written by King, your own cite says that the report was "issued by investigators for King.") If you were trying to prove that hypertension leads to heart disease and you cited a study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, I'd raise the same issue.

There is a difference between saying that Peter King should be on people's required reading lists, and that if the House Committee on Homeland Security releases a report which touches on Hezbollah in the US, that it is indeed required reading.

You are trying to split a hair here that cannot be sliced any thinner. The chairman of a congressional committee is responsible for the work product of the committee. Virtually nothing can get through a House committee without the support of the chairman, especially when the minority party is not a part of the committee's work product. There's just no question at all that this report reflects the views of the committee chairman, just like a partisan report from any other committee would overwhelmingly reflect the views of the chairman, whether he or she is a Democrat, Republican, or whatever.

Yes, people talking about Hezbollah and America should be aware of the report in question, the general consensus of the intelligence community, the specific testimony offered that made up the preliminary report, etc... The report's general conclusions are in accord with the findings of the general intelligence community and what we've known for years.

Uh.... perhaps you didn't read your own cite, but it said that intelligence community and law enforcement officials "paint a more nuanced picture" of the report's conclusions. That means that the report does NOT accurately reflect the consensus opinion of the intelligence community.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by XT

I clicked on the link you gave there, and it says it's for the Committee On Homeland Security, US House of Representatives. I don't see where it says something like 'For Republicans only' in there. What you seem to be saying is this report was written strictly for the Republican members at their behest, but I don't see anything in there about that in your link. What am I missing here?

The title of the paper is, "Majority Preliminary Investigative Findings." In this context, "majority" refers to the Republican leadership and staff of the committee. It is a common expression in Washington, for example see this memo, this report, this one too, and so on. The Democratic staff and members would be referred to as the Minority, like on this page, or this report.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Please, take a deep breath and calm down.

Oh, I'm quite calm. But you're obviously enraged and bouncing off the walls. Eh? Eh?

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I said that citing a report done at King's direction should be questioned.

And I've already shown that the major claims it made are accepted by the intelligence community and/or backed up by credible expert testimony. You'll also please note that "issued by investigators for..." is not the same thing as "written by", even if the relevant issue wasn't the accuracy of the report but King's involvement in it.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Uh.... perhaps you didn't read your own cite, but it said that intelligence community and law enforcement officials "paint a more nuanced picture" of the report's conclusions.

Uh... perhaps your "lol u didn't read ur own cite!" bullshit is also beneath you. Not only did I read the cite, one of several cites I provided, I pointed out in the hyperlink itself that it was a skeptical read of King's report. That it "paints a more nuanced" picture was the point. Just as the point was that I quoted text from that more nuanced picture which still supports the main claim made in the congressional report. In point of fact, I pulled a quote from the article, taking up a good bit of text, that elaborated on just what some of those points of major agreement were. Hard to miss that.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

That means that the report does NOT accurately reflect the consensus opinion of the intelligence community.

Yes, it does. The relevant facts have already been cited. Pretending that because one view is more "nuanced" that the general conclusions of another report must not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community is nonsensical. You're now actually relying on the author's gloss, not even the actual statements by the intelligence community, but the author of the article's gloss on the intelligence community's findings. And even then, you're claiming that because his gloss was that the intelligence community made subtler distinctions and judgements than te congressional report that they didn't agree with its substantive findings.

As I've already cited, they do.

[Ravenman]

If you're calm, what's with the "this is beneath you" ad hominems?

[FinnAgain]

For serious?

First, it's not an ad hominem to point out that your posting history rarely includes such silly tactics as claiming that because a congressional report should be read, that its chairman's personal writings should also all be required reading. Even if I had been insulting you rather than criticizing your post, I wasn't claiming you were wrong because of your silly tactic but that you were wrong in addition to it. And as for how I could possibly be anything but calm if I'm calling you out for posting that's less than optimal? If you think that someone needs to be angry to find fault with an argument in a post of yours, then I guess I can't talk you out of it.

[Ravenman]

The credibility of the chairman of a congressional committee is OF COURSE directly relevant to the partisan products of the committee. Ron Paul is the chairman of a House committee that deals with the Federal Reserve; if that committee issued a report reflecting only the views of committee Republicans that the Fed is corrupt, it makes perfect sense to look at Ron Paul's views on economic issues and question whether that's a reliable report. If someone were to specifically call out Chairman Paul's report on the Fed as a prerequisite on discussing some monetary issue, they would get called out on it because Ron Paul has a track record on the subject.

Same thing applies with Peter King. Some thing would apply if the late Ted Kennedy had his committee write a report on reforming the health care system.

If you want to vehemently disagree on these points, fine. But to the extent that you bring my character into this -- saying that what I posted is beneath me -- that's not cricket.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The credibility of the chairman of a congressional committee is OF COURSE directly relevant to the partisan products of the committee.

Except as already stated, cited and quoted, the major findings of the majority are in accord with the consensus of the intelligence community as well as expert testimony. As such the credibility of the chairman becomes irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If you want to vehemently disagree on these points, fine. But to the extent that you bring my character into this -- saying that what I posted is beneath me -- that's not cricket.

You're free to object to me saying that you've generally displayed a high standard of posting and you should be above the low standard of posting you've displayed. You're certainly free to report my posts and claim that since I've criticized your posting and said that you normally don't provide such low quality posts, I'm somehow personally insulting you. You might even get a mod to agree.
~shrugs~

[Ravenman]

If anyone wants to read an interesting article on how well Peter King's Homeland Security Committee does in in assessing the threats to the country, check out this new article:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/dhs/all/

Daryl Johnson had a sinking feeling when he started seeing TV reports on Sunday about a shooting in a Wisconsin temple. “I told my wife, ‘This is likely a hate crime perpetrated by a white supremacist who may have had military experience,’” Johnson recalls.

...

Nor does he think DHS should ignore Islamic extremism. “It just needs to be more balanced,” Johnson says. New York congressman “Peter King has held three hearings in the past year on Muslim extremism,” he says, referring to the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, “but he’s yet to have a single hearing on right-wing extremism when there’s been a lot more activity....

Indeed, since Johnson released his ill-fated report, the Wichita, Kansas, abortion doctor George Tiller was assassinated; a security guard was killed when a gunman with neo-Nazi ties went on a shooting spree at the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the FBI arrested members of a Florida neo-Nazi outfit tied to drug dealing and motorcycle gangs; a man was charged with attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction at a Spokane, Washington march commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday; and several mosques around the country have been vandalized or attacked — including a Missouri mosque that burned to the ground on Monday, which had been attacked before.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If anyone wants to read an interesting article on how well Peter King's Homeland Security Committee does in in assessing the threats to the country, check out this new article

And if anybody wants to read the cites which verify the major conclusions of the cited report with the consensus of the intelligence community and expert testimony, cites that have to do with the report we're actually talking about, then they should read this thread. Perhaps you can also find video of King kicking a puppy, Raven?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Perhaps you can also find video of King kicking a puppy, Raven?

This is better, actually.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

This is better, actually.

Indeed, that King is a Nazi Communist pedophile has great bearing on the central claims of the majority reports, claims I've shown are supported by the consensus of the intelligence community and expert testimony. Obviously, we should ignore those facts and focus on what an asshole King is.

[BrainGlutton]

Let's take this Hezbollah-hijack to a new thread.