Two points:
- I didn’t say that but you go ahead and imagine whatever you want to.
- Try not to obfuscate, the survey is objectively terrible.
Of course you said that, you claimed that the survey was completely irrelevant. I cited it in direct response to a claim about American public opinion about attacking Iran’s nuclear program being manipulated by “AIPAC/Israel”. Perhaps what you mean to say is “I didn’t realize what I was responding to.” But, yah, you did indeed “say that”.
And no, you simply have no idea how a proper study is designed. Your ignorance, however, does not make a set of valid studies (there was not just one, as you seem to believe) “objectively terrible” not does the fact that you don’t understand research methodology mean I’m “obfuscating”. Informants were asked if they would support strikes against Iran as a default position, and then asked them if they would support them should diplomacy be determined to have failed. That series of questions determines the aggregate of Americans who would approve of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear program. What your ignorance leads you to think is an ‘objectively good survey’ is actually much closer to a push poll; a survey designed to get a specific answer is a shit-poor survey.
"Would you support an attack on Iran’s nuclear program? Oh yeah smart guy, well what if a bunch of generals disagreed with you? Oh yeah??? Well what if it wouldn’t completely 100% eradicate Iran’s nuclear program and nothing would do that short of invading the country and razing it to the ground? Oh yeah motherfucker!??!? Well don’t you realize that short of exterminating the Iranian people, they could still develop nukes once we left their country and then they’d hate us even more? Still want to bomb them now asshole, huh, hunh?
Thank you on behalf of Gallup."
Thank you. Mighty one-sided of you. But hey! It’s the US & Israel that are involved here.
What else could anyone else expect?
So the conspiracy theory takes all data and finds a way to incorporate it, even contradictory data. Not exactly novel for a CT, I admit.
Care to craft an explicit thesis with supporting reasoning as to how CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, ADL/Marttila, ABC/WaPo, Rasmussen, USA Today/Gallup, McLaughlin Group, CBS News, Pew Global Attitudes Project, NBC/WSJ all finding roughly the same results for roughly half a decade leads you to the “conclusion” that it’s “AIPAC/Israel hysterical propaganda”? Or did you read that BESA was reporting the study results and “conclude” that, naturally, it must be AIPAC/Israeli propaganda?
What cognitive process, specifically, has led you to winnow all of the competing alternative explanations for American public opinion and instead decide that we’re being nefariously manipulated by AIPAC and/or Israel? Once you arrived at that conclusion, how exactly do you support it and what mechanism, in specific, do you posit for the startling level of success that this “propaganda” has had? What specifics can you offer for examples of this “propaganda” and how many Americans are actually exposed to it, according to the information you have (no doubt) actually collected? Or have you simply discovered that millions of Americans do not agree with you, and then resorted to a CT in which AIPAC and Israel are bending the minds of Americans away from The Truth, which is so obviously The Truth since you agree with it?
Give proof or retract.
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr
Correct/nitpick all you’d like.
You’ll be doing the world a favor. Imagine that.
Shall we look at other the other weirdness in that article, then? (And are you going to actually support your claims about “AIPAC/Israel” “propaganda” controlling US opinions, or just repeat them?)
Let’s see, what’s the nefarious method by which AIPAC keeps congress in line? They, erm, say mean things. And then get thrown out until they apologize.
Truly Red, that article is a good find. I too believe that’s a very accurate example of “all hell breaking loose”. They may have even sent an angrily worded email. In fact, I believe a better description would be “Then AIPAC unleashed Armageddon!!!”
What else does the article contend?
Ah, dastardly! They want to push America towards war because it is the bidding of Netanyahu and they do his bidding. And they’re doing his bidding by pushing America to war even when what Bibi really wants is not to go to war. And why do they do Bibi’s bidding?
Ah, of course, a grand conspiracy to subvert America’s democracy simply so they can emphasize that our nation is a ZOG, as if we don’t really know. Wink wink, nudge nudge. How dastardly. And plausible! At least twice as plausible as it is dastardly.
But, I hear some of you saying, it’s not an accusation about the ZOG. Surely Red didn’t really cite an article saying that Israel controls the US. Surely!
…oh
From the article you just posted:
This is straight up anti-Semitism, re-badged as anti-“Zionism.” Straight up anti-Semitism. The people who wrote it are anti-Semites, and the people who repost it are anti-Semites.
Er, Red? I didn’t mean “drop the block quote soundbyte level blurb o’ opinion… and then just leave a link, instead of actually debating”. But interesting, you have an article claiming that we would have “yet another” war for Israel. That is hard, considering we haven’t had one yet. You tell me Red, if something has never happened, what does it imply about an author if they claim it is going to happen “again?”
Further, why are you citing an article written by a liar? Do you or do you not realize that the author’s claim that Iran has “done nothing under international law to threaten the U.S. much less attack it” is a lie, considering both the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia?
Added to that, why are you citing an article that plays damn close to outright anti-Semitism and contrasts “American boys and girls” fighting the war, not with “Israeli boys and girls” but “Jewish boys and girls?” Does it or does it not disturb you to cite an article that echoes traditional anti-Semitic tropes about how deceitful Jews get other people to fight their battles for them? Do you object to the fact that the author is a liar who claims that Israel has been “creating new laws that deny full citizenship to anyone not a Jew”? Do you question the author’s credibility when he claims that “Iran has never attacked a neighbor” despite the fact that Iran’s force of Hezbollah even now has a massive degree of influence over Lebanon and has set up its own private telecom network designed to spy on Lebanon and unite Iranian proxy forces across the region?
Does is not bother you that you’ve just cited an author who is championing the Conspiracy Theory of a Zionist Occupied Government? “While Israeli control of America in the form of Las Vegas billionaires buying the presidency continues in the United States, and Republican candidates crawl to the altar of Mammon to remove Obama, who has already sold his soul to the forces of Evil, the people of the world look on in disbelief, having witnessed for sixty years the dominance of Zionist deceit, treachery, and manipulation of America?”
Does it not bother you that your CT’er cite actually asks “Is it not time for Israel to seek peace with its neighbors?” when Israel has made peace with every single Arab nation willing to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and offered peace to its enemies prior to '48 and after '67? That it offered something so generous to the Palestinians that Prince Bandar said if they refused that it wouldn’t be a shame, it would be a crime?
Or did you just link to an anti-Israel article because, hey, it’s easier than debating?
It’s funny, nobody ever argues that Iraq is trying to convince America to attack Iran, even though it would obviously benefit from that as much or more than Israel. Nobody ever makes that insinuation. It’s only ever TEH JOOOOOOOOOZ in IZZZREAL with their eeeeevil ZIONIST ways.
Anti-semites. They say this shit because they hate Jews. Maybe they’re OK with Jews being their comedians to entertain them and their scientists to make their medicine and their accountants to do their taxes, but the idea of a Jewish country disgusts them to the core. The Jews need to know their place, I guess, and not get any uppity ideas. Because if they do, the poor Palestinians, who these people would NEVER give a shit about if it wasn’t the Jews fighting them, will suffer. Never mind that these folks never say a peep about the suffering of ANYONE else.
They’re jew haters. If this was Nazi Germany it would literally be these exact people gleefuly shoving Jews into ovens and then going out drinking to laugh about it afterwards. I don’t care how much this Godwinizes the thread, it’s fucking true. They’re anti-Semites.
The wikipedia article you’re linking to lists two different organizations. The first is AIPAC, which has, according to the wiki article, a man named Lee Rosenberg as it’s President. The second is the American Israel Education Foundation which has an Executive Director named David Fishman who replaced Howard Kohr.
With all due respect, please actually read the links you post.
To be fair, while that article was overall an awful pile of bullshit, even a broken clock is right twice a day; “three of AIPAC’s top leaders: President Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg, Executive Director Howard Kohr, and Managing Director Richard Fishman.” Kohr, it seems, does dual duty.
Hmm… that’s interesting.
You link to a blatantly anti-Semitic article and then decide to link to a quote by Voltaire.
For those unfamiliar with Voltaire.
Why did you link to Voltaire and what are your feelings regarding Voltaire and his attitude regarding “the Jews”?
A)Were you unaware of his views when you made your post?
B)Were you aware and agreed with his views?
C)Were you aware but didn’t care about his views.
So apparently does Fishman.
Let’s not distract from the important point though, that Red has done precious little other than offer driveby links and has yet to even begin to carry the weight of crafting let alone supporting a thesis. And the driveby links he has provided are pretty much uniformly dishonest, inaccurate and/or racist.
I was guessing that you would post something like this because you make a habit of putting words in my mouth. I agree that the surveys’ statistics report exactly what they claim. Regardless, they’re still clearly irrelevant.
So I did not say that, and I couldn’t care less about AIPAC conspiracy theories. I was commenting on the weakness of the polls (now amending that to say the McLaughlin Group asked a better question about military action). It could just be that the author of this internet article narrowed down and reported the collective results in such a way that it made the ‘military action’ part meaningless.
When people are responding to my questions I like to have some idea of what they are thinking when they approve or disapprove. “Military action” is vague and to speak of it as though it means anything specific and/or captures Americans’ willingness to prevent Iran from building a nuke is obfuscating.
I enjoyed the parody.
I’m guessing that you’re resorting to (a factually inaccurate) personal attack because when faced with the fact that I posted a survey about American attitudes to strikes against Iran in response to claims about American attitudes to strikes against Iran, you called it irrelevant. Obviously your claim that my cite was “irrelevant” was bombast due to you not reading the conversation before commenting, and rather than admitting you were wrong, you’re accusing me of “putting words in your mouth” by… quoting your exact words, in context. A context you now say you don’t care about, as if that changes what you said and what you said it in response to. Neat trick, that.
You are now, actually, reduced to claiming that a poll about people’s opinions on whether or not military force can be used to initiate a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program is “obfuscating” when it purports to show people’s opinions on whether or not military force can be used to initiate a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program.
The Argument From Nuhn Uhnnh! is not particularly compelling. And “obfuscation” has an actual definition which is, in fact, not “something Inbred doesn’t like”.
Nor does your desire for a quasi push poll detract from the fact that informants honestly answered whether or not they thought that the US should initiate the use of military force. That you believe their responses to be “vague” is not the studies’ fault, but yours. The lack of granularity in defining the sub-types of military action does not change the fact that military action would be entailed in all sub-types.
It’s not an attack. It’s an observation concerning what you actually did. I’ve only discussed the article because I think that all this AIPAC/Israel conspiracy theory b.s. and calling people on their well-known feelings toward Israel or Jews in general doesn’t actually lead to any greater understanding of anything.
Instead of writing all this, why don’t you just be direct and say “my post was in response to…” because I still don’t see it.
Quoted from the article:
This conclusion from that data isn’t obfuscating? Its speculating well beyond the bounds of the data, thus making it shadowy and indistinct. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if the author was narrowly selecting questions from the various sources in order to make this particular point. The questions simply do not address whether Americans support military action are also considering the ramifications of the varied forms military action. “Opening a front” is a ramification. It is not addressed by the questions quoted in the article. For the concluding speculation to be supported Americans need to be shown to be willing to use military action and willing to open up a new front. It’s not enough to assume that those pulled fully understand such consequences.
I’ve stated a reason for everything I said so your re-characterization of my argument as coming from Nuhn Unhnnh is in fact by definition obfuscation - “to make obscure” or “to confuse”. You do understand that changing the facts of what a person says to make a point is obfuscating right? Let me re-iterate so that maybe you read the actual words this time: I’m discussing the article. I haven’t been able to read most of the posts other than Lantern’s, or xtisme’s because they actually contain content on the two opposing points of view. I clicked on your link because I normally do that to see if I learn something new and I thought “Hey this article has some problems with it”. So save the effort and just give me a post# or something, and try to just give the number without all the extraneous stuff.
Obfuscating isn’t taking part of what a person says and then recasting it. Couldn’t be.
Go outside and ask 30 random people what they think military action means and see what kinds of responses you get. I’d think we would need to be 100% sure so that requires at the minimum an indefinite bombing campaign. Let’s see what you get with 29 more open-ended questions. It’s a vague question because people do not readily imagine the exact same things when the words “military action” is presented to them. Like I said, the surveys probably do have more detailed questions. The McLaughlin survey’s question regarding military action is more of what I would suspect from better questions. The response to those types of questions best support the article’s military action conclusion quoted above.
The website’s article is nothing more than a poorly supported opinion piece. I say this because a much more careful conclusion is supported by the collected data.
Except, of course, it’s not.
In response to a claim about American attitudes, I cited half a decade of polls about American attitudes. You then said my citation was irrelevant. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you claimed I was “putting words in your mouth.” Even now you’re saying that you can’t see what my post was in response to.
Figuring out the context of a conversation is generally something you should do before you respond to it.
Faced with the fact that Americans in general are now tending to support military action against Iran, you are trying to shift the topic to whether or not they’ve considered the ramifications. Well, that’s not the question. Nor would most proper polls have a followup question asking “And have you considered the ramifications of your view, Mr. Smartypants, mmm?” If a plurality of Americans would support the initiation of military strikes, then they’d support them, whether or not they’ve thought through the results of their desires or would agree with your assessment of consequences.
You seem to be missing some key, fundamental concepts and confusing what a poll is actually supposed to be used for. It’s not “see if we can’t get people to agree with Inbred through carefully designed push-polling.” It’s “see what people’s opinions are.” The data clearly shows that many Americans’ opinions are that if diplomacy fails, we should initiate military force against Iran. You also seem not to understand what “opening another front means”. If we were to initiate military force against Iran, that would be a front, even if we don’t put boots on the ground. I’m reasonably sure that, as far as “ramifications” go, people understand that initiating force against another country entails the initiation of force against that country.
I’m willing to credit you with actually believing that you’ve given reasons. You haven’t. Your disagreements really do boil down to The Argument From Nuhn Uhhnh! You have a series of polls which have taken a sampling of people’s views on the desirability of America initiating military action against Iran. You are casting about, without any real focus, for some way to discredit the results, but you are not able to attack the actual methodology because you do not understand it. It’s similar to Creationists trying to attack evolution but not bothering to learn what evolutionary biology actually says. So they give us nonsense like “well, if apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes?” They’re not* wrong* so much as they’re nonsensical; they’re not even having a cogent conversation. Your objections that, sure they asked people if they would support military force against Iran, but they didn’t also ask people about the ramifications or about generals’ opinions is also not really wrong so much as it’s an incoherent response. “Hello sir, paper or plastic?” “There are goldfish in my trousers!”
Some responses are gibberish even if the person making them honestly thinks they’ve scored rhetorical points. By the way, I understand that you keep saying things that make your position sound absurd, but it should be beneath you to claim that your own cited, quoted words are somehow made up. Own up to your mistakes and fix them, but stop this bullshit about how your own statements and their implications are somehow “obfuscated”.
This is again like a Creationist arguing that evolution is false because they disagree with the Big Bang or abiogenesis, and thinking that he’s made a devastating rebuttal.
We have seen that, in poll after poll, a significant percentage of Americans would support military action against Iran. It does not matter if some would support targeted bombings and some would support a month of carpet bombings and some would support nuking Iran into a radioactive parking lot. All of them support military action. This is not confusing although you are, to use your frequent claim, obfuscating the issue for some reason or another. Multiple polls have yielded similar results, and those results show that a significant portion of Americans would support one form of military action or another. Trying to invalidate that fact because they may not agree on the specifics, duration, exit strategy or official-military-campaign-theme-song is irrelevant, diversionary and yep, obfuscatory.