Is this a serious agenda by US Neo-cons & Israel?

Great Debates
181

So, having been given Wikipedia as a starting point and knowledge of the internet and the English language, I’d like someone to assess the difficulty in performing the following:

1 - Wikipedia

2 - Neo-Cons.

Anyone at all. How difficult?

Anyway: Wiki on Neo-Cons

my emphasis

Hmm, ring any bells. We seem to have a thread in parallel to the wider public or academic debate. As I’ve mentioned before, I find Juan Cole very good. However, I’m not persuaded that the religion of the respective neo-cons is something he has made much mention of. Rather it is the Likud affiliation.

182

[QUOTE=astro]

This presupposes that the Israeli intelligence establishment is a pack of idiots who have no more notion of the true nature of the ME chessboard than the Bush Administration did. I would find that assertion hard to swallow.
[/QUOTE]
Not making the assertion. Remember disaster in Iraq spells trouble for Bush and the US, but not for them. For Israel it’s all cream and icing.

183

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Eh, fuck it. I’ve said what I have to say about the quality and proof behind someone wants to discuss a more realistic and plausible (rather than merely possible) theory, that’d be real neat.
[/quote]

Finn, if you’re wondering why no one has responded to your last post it’s because they’re all still reeling from the revelation that what prompted your conniption was the almost imperceptible shade of gray that distinguishes a “plausible” theory from a “possible” theory.

Give them some time and maybe someone will deign to engage you.

184

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Finn, if you’re wondering why no one has responded to your last post it’s because they’re all still reeling
[/quote]

Because you’ve talked to them all. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=you with the face]
what prompted your conniption
[/quote]

Take it to the Pit already or quit this bullshit. Or if you’re unable to have someone shred your innuendo on the grounds that it’s implausible, intellectually dishonest, cherrypicked, and irrational? Grow a thicker skin. Or, just continue to babble about how someone who calls out your silly evasive bullshit must be throwing a fit. Yeah, that’s the only reason someone would object to your bullshit, yeah…

[QUOTE=you with the face]

was the almost imperceptible shade of gray that distinguishes a “plausible” theory from a “possible” theory.
[/quote]

To you they may be almost imperceptible, to someone interested in getting at the truth rather than just slinging bull, they actually tend to matter. I pointed this out, and you ignored it. Your conspiracy theory stands at the height of intellectual dishonesty, and you’re not interested in the truth.

When faced with PNAC memos, whose content you have to cherrypick and deliberately distort in order to make your case, you then deliberately ignore each and every signatory who doesn’t fit in with your intelletually dishonest cherrypicked handfull of ‘favorite suspects’. When called on the carpet, you gleefully refuse to even attempt an intellectually honest position, and instead choose to invent increasing contrived and convoluted reasons to justify your intellectual dishonesty. The problem, all along, is that you’ve been playing a game of proof-by-inneundo, that when called on it, you ignore it.

You have no real intention of getting at the truth, but just want to pretend that you’re some sort of wounded martyr because people don’t give credence to your hollow and worthless argument of let’s-pretend. You advance an argument with less grounding than a blimp, and then cry foul when those mean ‘callers of anti-semitism’ dismiss your argument because it has the reasoning of a saturday morning cartoon. The only one ‘preemptivly’ dismissing anything was you and your cohorts, as you dismissed the facts that you should get proof before you construct a theory, not have an idea and try to jam facts in to fit its mould. You presented an idea which was as plausible as the whole war being about Christian fundamentalism, and attempted to launch a first strike that people should just, a priori, judge your argument as valuable rather than using a null hypothesis and growing increasingly amused with your laughable contortions.

It is possible that space aliens came down and used possible mind control rays to possibly influence the administration. That doesn’t mean it needs to be given equal weight.

You seem not to grok that the entire damn thread has been about the utter irrationality and intellectually barren position that you’ve been spouting. Maybe you’ll deign to comprehend later… rather than just complaining “People automatically dismiss my claims that the moon landing was faked on a sound stage. I just can’t understand why!”

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Give them some time and maybe someone will deign to engage you.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, stripped of your let’s-pretend strategem I’d wager you don’t have all that much left. Why don’t you go complain about me in the Pit or something? You can use words like “conniption” a whole lot and not have to pretend that you’re doing anything other than flame baiting.

185

Finn, please check out this pit thread. It wasn’t started about you specifically, but your name has come up.

186

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
It is a mistake to think I am attempting to persuade persons with an overt and entrenched position. As I stated if you want to identify yourself as such, then you are outside the scope of my intended readership. While this forum is addressed to ‘debate’ I’ve moved to the position that in complex issues it is best to provide enough of a starting point for people to find things out for themselves. * “Oh look what I found out”* is so much more satisfying than “Well once again that nice Mr Sevastopol showed me the answers, wasn’t that so sweet of him”, don’t you think?
[/quote]

In other words, you have come to GD in order to not debate…
That is surely your right. I, in turn, am exercising my right to not do both sides of the debate myself (will it be a surprise for you to know that I have actually read both view points?).

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
They aren’t my words. If I believed there was a zionist conspiracy, I’d have said so. As it is I can’t imagine all the consequences of that phrase, but not having used it I’m not responsible for such.
[/quote]

Fine. Replace “Zionist conspiracy” with “Pro-Israel powerful group with a secret agenda”. :dubious:

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
“Unsupported”, yet you attack the support I provide. That’s a bit odd now. In substance the quote is not an “allegation.” It is a person’s first hand recollection of their dealings with Feith in the relevant time and place. It may not persuade you whatsoever, however that reflects more on yourself than the quality of the evidence.
[/quote]

Well, yes. If you present a clearly biased article as your support, I will attack it, and then claim you have failed to support your claim. Doesn’t make sense to you?
Anyway, the decision whether this article failure to persuade me reflects more on me, or on your cite, should be left to neutral third-party readers.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Keep bringing him up, as in, once? Anyway, you may have noted several other posters have developed alternative lines of evidence. Why confuse things with a duplication of their evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Err…
once, twice, thrice.
But I guess 1=3 make as much sense as the rest of your claims.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Not making the assertion. Remember disaster in Iraq spells trouble for Bush and the US, but not for them. For Israel it’s all cream and icing.
[/QUOTE]

<cough>
Having a large country in (partial) chaos, terrorist greenhouse, with a real danger of it becoming another Shiite-dominated center, at a short (Jordan) hop from the Israeli border is all cream and icing for Israel?

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
So, having been given Wikipedia as a starting point and knowledge of the internet and the English language, I’d like someone to assess the difficulty in performing the following:

1 - Wikipedia

2 - Neo-Cons.

Anyone at all. How difficult?

Anyway: Wiki on Neo-Cons
[/QUOTE]

Ahhhh. WOW! You have managed to find the neo-con article on wiki. Thank you, master Sevastopol, for showing me the path to enlightenment. I am convinced. I am sorry to have ever doubted you. Indeed, the Capitol Hill has been taken over by neo-cons who have Israel’s safety as their motive, and are willing to risk American soldiers for this purpose. Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

Translation: Believe what you will. I’m done with you.

187

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Finn, if you’re wondering why no one has responded to your last post it’s because they’re all still reeling from the revelation that what prompted your conniption was the almost imperceptible shade of gray that distinguishes a “plausible” theory from a “possible” theory.

Give them some time and maybe someone will deign to engage you.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not about to jump into the heated debate between Finn and yourself (it is, in fact, probably my last visit and post to this thread). But you do realize that possible and plausible are not synonyms, right?

188

You keep at this point, even though it has no factual basis in this thread.

First of all, the PNAC memo isn’t the only evidence at hand: it is the combination of the PNAC memo, and the policy paper written by Perle for Netanyahu, and the FBI wiretap in which Perle passes classified info to Israel, and the letter to the president urging regime change in Iraq, and Perle’s continuing agitation to go after Syria.

Secondly, the other authors of the PNAC memo had their own motivations, as I’ve pointed out. Motivations included oil interests, Halliburton, Saudi ties. It is the confluence of those special interests (of which Israel seems to be one, despite your protestations) which has landed us in an untenable war.

Cheney and the other PNAC members have been discussed in this thread, contrary to your assertions. It’s just that their interests seem more mercenary than a concern for Israel. We are not focused on them here, because Israel’s influence is the subject of this thread.

189

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Finn, please check out this pit thread.
[/QUOTE]

spoke-, please read a thread before you link to it. My post in that thread is directly before yours, not exactly hard to miss.

You really don’t deserve any other response, but I will clarify, since you do not understand and we’re supposed to fight ignorance. (Even though that often means we end up fighting ignorant people):

If one only looks for one country, and looks for people who are at all ‘connected’ with it, but can’t be bothered to look for those same connections in one single other country on the face of the planet, they’re not acting with intellectual honesty.

If one takes a piece of evidence, and claims that it is significant and that those who signed it have incriminated themselves, but then can’t be bothered to claim that it’s actually incriminating for everybody who signed it, and actually argue that for some it’s not incriminating, then they’re not acting with intellectual honesty.

If one looks at one nation out of many strategic alliances we have, and uses a document which says we would act in concert with all of our strategic allies for our benefit, and then they pretend that it’s proof that we acted for another country and put our benefit as a secondary concern, they’re not acting with intellectual honesty.

This session of fighting your ignorance has been brought to you by the letter I, for intellectual honesty.

190

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Take it to the Pit already or quit this bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

Since you have such a problem with me and everything that I stand for why don’t you grow a pair and pit me already? Reading your posts in this thread, though, a person could easily walk away thinking this is the Pit. So it might be kind of redundant.

191

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
If one takes a piece of evidence, and claims that it is significant and that those who signed it have incriminated themselves, but then can’t be bothered to claim that it’s actually incriminating for everybody who signed it, and actually argue that for some it’s not incriminating, then they’re not acting with intellectual honesty.
[/QUOTE]

Apparently you have not read my posts in this thread, including the last one.

Your posts have no apparent connection to what has actually been posted in the thread, which is why I mostly haven’t bothered to respond to you.

192

[QUOTE=Puzzler]
I’m not about to jump into the heated debate between Finn and yourself (it is, in fact, probably my last visit and post to this thread). But you do realize that possible and plausible are not synonyms, right?
[/QUOTE]

Look, I’m well aware that the words are not synonymous. But tell me, after looking over these definitions of the two terms in question, does the difference warrant a tenth of the reaction elicited by Finn?

plausible

adj 1: apparently reasonable and valid [ant: implausible] 2: likely but not certain to be or become true or real; “a likely result”; “he foresaw a probable loss” [syn: probable, likely] [ant: improbable] 3: within the realm of credibility; “not a very likely excuse”; “a plausible story” [syn: likely] 4: appearing to merit belief or acceptance; “a credible witness”; “a plausible story” [syn: credible]

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

possible

adj 1: capable of happening or existing; “a breakthrough may be possible next year”; “anything is possible”; “warned of possible consequences” [ant: impossible] 2: existing in possibility; “a potential problem”; “possible uses of nuclear power” [syn: potential] [ant: actual] 3: possible to conceive or imagine; “that is one possible answer” [syn: conceivable, imaginable] n 1: something that can be done; “politics is the art of the possible” 2: an applicant who might be suitable

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

(bolding mine)

“Possible” is the word to use when you have no evidence one way or the other. “Plausible” is more appropriate, because there is some evidence that Israel was a factor in the war. Whether that evidence meets the burden of proof necessary for belief is dependent on the beholder, but it’s not like the Israel question has sprung out of ether, either. Regardless, getting bent out of shape because someone used “plausible” as opposed to “possible” is asinine.

193

Since you’re a liar and continually distort things, why don’t you stop?

Or is “everything you stand for” intellectual dishonesty, distortion, evasion, and cherrypicking the evidence to manhandle it into a mold?

As for your (repeated) naked hypocrisy, I couldn’t possibly care less. That someone like you considers me a coward should be a badge of honor. If this is all
you’ve got left, you’re done. Stop pretending otherwise.

[QUOTE=spoke-]
You keep at this point, even though it has no factual basis in this thread.
[/quote]

Um… no. That’s exactly what happened. You’re… hrm… what’s a single word that can be used to mean “saying something one knows not to be true?” Oh yeah, you’re lying.

The ‘factual basis’ is exactly as I described it, that the PNAC memo is taken as evidence, but not evidence for everybody. Why would you deliberately distort that? Introspection slow in coming?

Wonderful intellectual dishonesty in your attempt to avoid retracting previous intellectually dishonest statements. Le sigh.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

First of all, the PNAC memo isn’t the only evidence at hand:
[/quote]

I never, ever, ever, ever, anywhere, at all, said it was. Merely discussed its intelletually dishonest and cherrypicked use by you and yours.

But I can understand how it’s so very tough to talk about what actually happened.

Also notice that I used the word “memos”, plural, which includes, by the way, the letter to Clinton.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

it is the combination of the PNAC memo,
[/quote]

Whose content is cherrypicked and whose signatories are cherrypicked.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

and the policy paper written by Perle for Netanyahu,
[/quote]

Whose content is deliberately distorted (eg. lied about) in order to make your case.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

and the letter to the president urging regime change in Iraq,
[/quote]

Which was a PNAC memo, whose content was deliberately distorted and cherrypicked in order to make your claims, whose signatory parties were deliberately cherry picked in order to make your claims, etc…

“It’s evidence! Erm… for some people.”

And of course, you’ve pointed out Perle several times. Luckily enough you’ve also ignored how just a few people could’ve caused America to go to war “for” Israel, especially without the aid of members like Cheney and Rummy, who you tell us had “different motivations”.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Secondly, the other authors of the PNAC memo had their own motivations, as I’ve pointed out.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, intellectually dishonest obfuscation, I’ve noted it before. You ascribe other motivations to them, by an act of mind-reading, and then pretend that they couldn’t have multiple motivations.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

It is the confluence of those special interests (of which Israel seems to be one, despite your protestations) which has landed us in an untenable war.
[/quote]

Well gee whiz, anybody else’s mind you can read for us?

And no, a “confluence” ( :rolleyes: ) of forces whispering campaign doesn’t make it true, either. And it doesn’t explain how planners like Rummy and Cheney allowed their agenda to be hijacked by the “Israel special interest”.

But don’t let the details get in the way of a good conspiracy.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

Cheney and the other PNAC members have been discussed in this thread, contrary to your assertions.
[/quote]

More intellectual dishonesty? Don’t you get bored and want to play straight, just for fun?

Cheney and other PNAC members have not been accused of being part of the Zionist conspiracy because, as you’ve just provided us an object lesson for, they’re handwaved away as having “different motivations”. The proof of these different motivations being… your claims by fiat.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

It’s just that their interests seem more mercenary than a concern for Israel.
[/quote]

Solid proof, that.

[QUOTE=spoke-]

We are not focused on them here, because Israel’s influence is the subject of this thread.
[/QUOTE]

And you act with intellectual dishonesty and exclude Cheney et al. from this “influence”, even though the same evidence is used to convict other administration members.

194

Ah Finn, you do love your post-parsing and your straw men, don’t you?

I am content with the posts I’ve made in this thread, and trust the disinterested reader to evaluate them as written (not the distorted versions of them you have produced by filtering my remarks through your own paranoia).

Not without getting shit all over me.

195

Since it now appears that the only topics of conversation in this thread are the personalities of those posters still participating, and no one appears to have an interest in the original topic, I’m putting a fork in it.

[ /Moderating ]