I have no idea why I’m responding to you (must be the masochist in me), but I am.
I made no non sequiters; I simply asked you to explain how someone can be truly certain that a country has no secret programs. You responded, not with an explanation, but with the claim that because the IAEA has stated that it could–but only if it has total Iranian transparency–that such a thing is possible. And if that’s the best thing you can come with, the only appropriate reponse is a guffaw.
Even if the IAEA had Iran’s complete and total cooperation, there’s no way it could verify that. That means there’s always going to be room for uncertainty when it comes to ascertaining the existence of a covert program. Nothing is keeping Iran from lying from the inspectors. They can not be certain that Iran is not lying when it comes to things they have no way of verifying to begin with.
Your whole claim rests upon an unverifiable “if”. You might at well be declaring that the world would be free of lies if everyone told the truth.
In other words, it’s perfectly possible to prove a negative. In other words, you were totally wrong. In other words, you still won’t retract your error.
Yes, like I said, IAEA says one thing, you say another.
Happy guffawing.
So when the IAEA says that it could do something, they’re too stooopit to know that it’s really impossible and there’s no way they could verify it.
Again, IAEA says they can determine it. You say they cannot.
Atomic Energy Experts vs Guy on the Internet.
Tough choice.
Yes, it’s not like they could… inspect… Iran’s claims.
Hmmm… IAEA Vs. Internet Guy.
A true photo finish.
Lying generally is. But hey, if you refuse to even read the thread you’re posting in, let alone hit control-F and look for all instances of the word “plausible” I can’t force you to. It’s just rather amusing that your refusal to read the thread, the PDF, or to search either of them after you’ve refused to read them leads you to lie and claim that I haven’t written what I have.
A threat to Israel is not a threat to the U.S. You’ve posted cites in other threads about Hezbollah “sleeper cells” in the U.S., but nothing I find one little bit scary.
Your obsession with Israel is interesting.
I point out that Hezbollah, , trained by Iran, armed by Iran, funded by Iran and given safe haven by Iran, and often directed by Iran has, over the course of decades,
attacked American soldiers and civilians… and you talk about Israel. Even without Hezbollah cells in the United States, continued support for such a group would be a threat to America. But of course you pretend that it’s only a threat to Israel. Because the hundreds of Americans they murdered, at Iran’s orders, weren’t threatened by being made dead. I guess.
I cited, in another thread, how the FBI has identified dozens of Hezbollah agents in the United States and that we cannot possibly know what they are all up to, or how many more have infiltrated. And you talk about how you’re not afraid that a terrorist organization with a decades long history of murdering Americans has its members in our country. And you talk about Israel.
You do sure seem to have Israel on the brain, eh?
But we’re talking about America. I know how you can get them confused, being as they’re almost spelled exactly the same. But please, try to stay focused. America. Not Israel. America.
That was back in the '80s when we (ill-advisedly) had Marines in Lebanon. At present, Hezbollah presents no particular threat to U.S. troops. It is not operating in Iraq AFAIK. (Iran might be supporting some insurgent groups in Iraq, but Hezbollah is not one of them; and none of that is relevant to any nuclear threat Iran may or may not present.)
And you seem to be the one who has Israel on the brain. I can’t recall any instance where you haven’t jumped in to take Israel’s side in any dispute in this Forum.
That, in and of itself, is entirely legit, BG. I have considerable sympathy and admiration for Israel, but find them at fault on numerous occasions for failing to seek peace as forthrightly as called for. Making peace is more difficult than making war, you have to live with people, which is vastly more complicated than killing them.
Defending Isreal doesn’t bother me much, as Amos Oz remarked, true tragedy is when both antagonists have legitimate grievances.
Too true, but that does not mean the U.S. should always side with Israel, nor that the U.S. cannot safely make a separate peace with some of Israel’s avowed enemies. WRT Iran, we can and should. We have no real interests in conflict. Iran has legitimate reasons to want to be a major strategic player in the MENA; the U.S. has not.
It doesn’t much matter how carefully one words the title or OP. Any MENA-related thread will turn to shit once FinnAgain gets into it, which is pretty much inevitable. We just have to accept that and march along with our boots on!
Well, yeah, but you’re a liar. As is Elvis. And Vibrotronica. Ravenmann, big ass liar. Patriot X, of course, trousers are ablaze… you with the face lies with every breath. Lowbrass. Me, natch.
I don’t think that is your ideology. Your post #39 is the first time anyone talked about the report’s “certainty,” and you have used that inaccurate word instead of the more accurate word “confidence” when discussing the report almost throughout the thread. “Moderate certainty” is an oxymoron: certainty is, unlike confidence, a binary situation. You’re either certain of something or you’re not: if you’re almost certain of something, you’re not certain.
Indeed, the report itself rejects discussing the matter in terms of certainty:
For someone so irritated at other folks’ perceived misreading of the report and its level of confidence in its conclusions, I’m surprised at your persistent misrepresentation of its contents regarding this precise point.
No further scrolls need to be written nor read from Finn Again, to note that that is exactly the clear motivation to his extensive (and sleep-inducing) parsing of both, the reports from the IAEA and the NSI conclusions.
Upthread he wrote a post in response to 'luc which contained an almost innumerable number of times in which he included the word “binary.” Mayhaps he should look in a mirror and find that said word is tattooed backwards into his own forehead, for as John Mace well said in page one (I believe, don’t have time to find and link) the US must somewhat sever its umbilical cord with Israel if there’s any hope for “American Foreign Policy” – in quotes due to the current lack thereof. ‘Do as we say or get blasted’ ain’t much of one – to make real progress in the MENA region. Never going to happen while you (Nation-wise) don’t wake-up and smell the coffee. Many things I admire about Israel and its citizens (work-ethic likely number one),but until they stop their expansionist and racist policies, maybe, just maybe, America shouldn’t go hand in hand with the mostly dual-loyalty neocon agenda.
Or The Great Finn’s for that matter.
“Binary” at its finest. Not. WW-III much more like it.
Hmm…in digging around a little, I find out that certain is not an absolute term, which I should have realized to begin with (I’m almost certain I’ve modified it before, myself). My apologies for that error.
Nonetheless, my criticism stands, inasmuch as someone decrying the accuracy of someone else’s summary is obligated to observe very high standards of accuracy in their own summaries (I remember a hilarious tiff about that in my own past on the boards–I hope I’m not viewing it through rose-colored glasses). And although I accept “almost certain” and “fairly certain,” the idea of “moderate certainty” sounds silly to me. I’m not sure why.
Iran is (probably) not working on a bomb…this doesn’t not mean they are no threat to the US. Frankly, if the US president DIDN’T think Iran was even a potential threat I think that would be a problem. I know it’s fashionable in these parts to down play Iran (or North Korea, or myriad other nations) as threats because of Iraq…but that doesn’t make it so. Iran is at least a potential threat to the stability of the ME…which, even leaving aside their direct threat to the US in the form of externally sponsored terrorist groups, makes them potentially a threat to US strategic needs (you know, all that oil stuff in the region).
I don’t see how the OP has backed up the assertion that GW is harping on this either. I’m also failing (once again) to see how all this points to imminent war between the US and Iran. I know, I know…we invaded Iraq so we could invade/attack/use bad language against Iran at any moment. I guess this bloody horse isn’t going to be properly buried until after we shake the dust of GW from our collective boots. Frankly, I can’t wait for that happy event…if for no other reason than we won’t have to sit through ANOTHER hand wringing kumbya singing session about how the US is poised to strike Iran any minute, blah blah blah.
Ah well, not that responding to certain posters really has any merit, but I do feel compelled to clear up their lies. I know, not being able to lie freely totally fucks up some political agendas. What a bummer, eh?
I trust that the peanut gallery can, as usual, determine if someone who lies so readily can be trusted on similar matters.
The lie: Hezbollah attacking Americans at the direction of Iran was just the Marine Barracks Bombing.
The truth: (just one example, as even though Hezbollah has attacked Americans numerous times through the decades), I only have to show one other than the Marine Barracks bombing to prove that bg is lying. Again.
Interesting, isn’t it, that evidently no matter how many times he’s corrected, he always seems to ‘forget’ and make the same ‘mistake’ again?
What a meanie I am for ruining his pristine and honest presentation.
You’re wrong. As you now say, relative certainty isn’t semantically incorrect. So while you are right and I deviated slightly from the NIE’s terminology, I didn’t deviate from the semantic value of their statements. Those who put forward certain definite claims as if the NIE had endorsed them, however…
From the OP: “U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb”.
From the very first post, saying that the NIE said definitively “Iran is not working on a bomb” is a statement of certainty, deliberately distorts what the NIE actually said, and was way before post 39. While the OP and buddies want to pretend that it was a pointless quibble, there was a reason that thread was set up with the formulation of “so and so is true as certified by our intelligence agencies, and someone thinks that it is not true” instead of “So and so may or may not be true as our intelligence agencies specifically say they cannot confirm, and something thinks that it may not be true.”
Isn’t it obvious that the formulation was deliberately distorted in order to score political ‘points’?
Further, there is actually nothing oxymoronic about ‘relative certainty’. Something can be moderately fixed or settled. Something can be moderately dependable or reliable. On preview, I see you’ve already corrected your error, thank you for that.
I still would like to add, however, that not only did declarations of the NIE’s certainty start with the OP (despite that the NIE said the exact opposite), they were certainly before my post at 39 in any case.
From luc, in post 35 about what the NIE said “They stopped in 2003, haven’t restarted to date” Are you honestly going to deny that saying “They stopped… haven’t restarted” is a statement of absolute certainty? And simply because I’m curious, once you’re done quibbling with me, will you take a similar stance to those who’ve been deliberately distorting intelligence data for their own partisan purposes, and are so very frustrated that they can’t get away with it?
You are correct, that I most likely should have cleaved to the exact terminology that the NIE report used and never deviated. But as I was responding to continued claims of certainty, like ““they’re not doing it” means “they’re not doing it”,”
Yes, it would have been more precise to keep using the term that the report used, but as posters were discussing claims as if they were a certainty, I began to discuss relative certainty. But I didn’t change the semantic value of the NIE’s statements, unlike others.
True or false, when the NIE says that they are "moderately confident they mean that something is "credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence. "
True or false, saying that something was moderately certain (or moderately reliable) retains the semantic value of something that is "credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence. "
True or false, someone who read the PDF read: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007” and that “moderate confidence” means “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”
True or false, they also read that, as differentiated from moderately confident appraisals, highly confident ones were appraisals which"generally [indicate] that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. "
True or false…someone who read that, and then went on to declare that the NIE had actually made a solid judgment that something was definitely ended would, indeed, not only have changed the semantic value of the NIE’s statement, but done so despite the NIE’s explicit and deliberate definitions and delineations and statements that they were only “moderately confident” that Iran had kept its program on hold until the middle of 2007?
I honestly do not believe that I changed the semantic value of anything. But if you want to see me as distorting what the NIE said, that’s your right.
Regardless, can you condemn those who repeatedly and deliberately cast the situation as if the NIE was confirming that Iran was not working on a bomb, rather than saying that it was “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence” ?
Isn’t it wrong to deliberately distort an intelligence report and pretend that something definitive has been said, simply because a definitive statement “thus and such has ended” helps one’s poltiical cause more than an honest statement “it is plausible that thus and such ended, but it cannot be corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence?”
Isn’t it just as dishonest when the OSP did it as when posters here did it? Isn’t the correct and honorable course of action, then, to retract false certain, to admit that the conclusion is only plausible and not certain, and not to whine and carry on in general about how one’s politics have to reflect reality, and that’s just no fair?
For what it’s worth Lefty, I’ve always thought of you as a valuable poster. Even if you still feel like taking me to task, surely you have the intellectual honesty to also decry those who twist and spin intelligence reports for partisan political goals?
It is not remotely obvious, and I’ll stake your respect for me on that. The report makes it quite clear that they are not willing to suggest certainty about anything, but that they are willing to express confidence, and confidence is all they’ll express. Someone speaking about this is justified in eliding the caveats about confidence, because those caveats are intrinsic in an estimate.
Yes, folks who are striving for completeness in their summaries will mention those caveats; but summaries are necessarily incomplete. Leaving those caveats out does not change the essential nature of the report, which is to contradict the rhetoric coming from the White House.
True. When they say they are moderately confident, it is clear that they would say they are not moderately confident of the opposite, yes? They would consider an assertion that Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons to be implausible, given current intelligence.
False, but only slightly false; were you not accusing others of dishonestly for an even lesser semantic error, I wouldn’t take you to task for this at all.
Of course not. The NIE is asserting this, with their second-highest degree of confidence. Someone summarizing their findings is perfectly justified in casting it as the assertion of the NIE.
I’m certainly taking you to task, and I think that you’re getting hung up in a semantic quibble. I will not speculate to your reasons for doing so, but your posts in this thread are insulting to people who are speaking both from knowledge and from sincerity and are detracting from productive debate. Your implication that I am dishonest if I disagree with you on this is insulting as well.
Dang. I shouldn’t have done that point-by-point rebuttal; I hate reading those. My apologies. I won’t respond to a similar post, because they drive me crazy, and if that upsets your sense of fairness, feel free to ignore all but the last paragraph of my last post.
Yo, Finn, why don’t you just come clean? What, in your highly considered and obviously unbiased opinion (there’s a laugh) should the US’s stand vis-a-vis Iran, be?
All I’ve seen (read) from you is your innate hatred for said nation, but no suggestions as to your own nations (yes, plural) US and Israel actions should be.
I do believe vibrotronica took you to the mat on this particular point – good show – and yet I’ve not read a singledirect response to the query. As someone else said, why not just “spit it out” and quit the Bushit-like approach of your scrolls?
they mean that something is "credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence. "