All Hank, all the time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You are so fucking stupid, it's a wonderment to me you haven't yet drowned walking around with your mouth open in the rain, like a young turkey.

While I don't necessarily have much esteem for DK, I do share some of her feeling about people who repeatedly point out that Arab terrorists "learned their tactics" from Sharon, Moshe Dayan, etc.

First, I think it's a crock, as it falsely suggests that the Israelis who fought the Brits invented the use of terror tactics against an occupying force. Of course they didn't.

Second, while the tactics may be similar in some respects, they are hardly the same as far as I know -- I don't recall any British passenger liners going down.

Third, so what? "They did it to someone else, so we can do it to them?"

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
While I don't necessarily have much esteem for DK, I do share some of her feeling about people who repeatedly point out that Arab terrorists "learned their tactics" from Sharon, Moshe Dayan, etc.

First, I think it's a crock, as it falsely suggests that the Israelis who fought the Brits invented the use of terror tactics against an occupying force. Of course they didn't.

Second, while the tactics may be similar in some respects, they are hardly the same as far as I know -- I don't recall any British passenger liners going down.

Third, so what? "They did it to someone else, so we can do it to them?"

never thought I'd say this but sidd has my proxy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Jayson Blair's problem was that he didn't use sources at all.

• Willard: They told me . . . that your methods were unsound.
  
  Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
  
  Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

Other than not having been busted, yet, what makes you think Hersh has actual sources?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
While I don't necessarily have much esteem for DK, I do share some of her feeling about people who repeatedly point out that Arab terrorists "learned their tactics" from Sharon, Moshe Dayan, etc.

First, I think it's a crock, as it falsely suggests that the Israelis who fought the Brits invented the use of terror tactics against an occupying force. Of course they didn't.

Second, while the tactics may be similar in some respects, they are hardly the same as far as I know -- I don't recall any British passenger liners going down.

Third, so what? "They did it to someone else, so we can do it to them?"

I don't know if I've lost the ability to communicate, or you're willfully ignoring my message. What I have been saying is that:

1. Israel is, and always has been, both brutal and ruthless in their defense of their territory;

2. Long before it was "their" territory it was a land shared by Jews and Palestinians alike;

3. We need Israel to exist as much as Israel needs Israel to exist and therefore we need to support Israel; but

4. Speaking as a Jew who lost family in the death camps, I can champion Israel while at the same time finding it reprehensible that they are willing to so casually ignore the line between terrorist and civilian; and

5. Their actions in doing so will prolong the conflict and we need to exert some pressure to reign them in at the same time as we lend them support to maintain at least one pocket of relative stability in the Middle East.

I don't buy the "my country, right or wrong" crap when it's used to counter criticism of American actions in the Middle East and I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel sometimes prefers to shoot itself in the dick by responding to Arab attacks with undue ferocity.

Even if we don't agree, I havee faith that you will at least understand my position. I doubt Diane will be able to read the post in its entirety before being distracted by something shiny.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Other than not having been busted, yet, what makes you think Hersh has actual sources?

My Lai. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
finding it reprehensible that they are willing to so casually ignore the line between terrorist and civilian;

isn't the problem that the terrorists are built into the neighborhoods so there is no way to attack them w/o killing citizens? you know we killed a child with Zarquawi- and TYY himself wanted that guy killed years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
No I meant exactly what I said: Do you have any cites that are not from reporters that claimed to get their information from allegations made by "anonymous sources"?

Clearly you do not have any. As a lawyer, I can't believe you refer to information gleaned from double hearsay from an unknown source as "fact". Allegations made from anonymous sources, are not facts, just allegations. They are not verifiable and there is just as much incentive for these reporters to lie (or for their sources to lie) as there is for the government to lie. For the reporters the more shocking the story the more it sells and the more ancillary press it gets. Therefore the reporter has a strong incentive to exaggerate or to shade things to be more sensationalistic. And the temptation is doubly strong because no one can check on their statements because no one has access to their sources. And often these anonymous sources have axes to grind or have agendas other than the truth. And what provides a better place to spread disinformation than a place where no one can ascertain who is spreading it. So more often than not information from anonymous sources is not reliable.

I am not saying that there is not a place for anonymous stories. They serve an important purpose. But it is important to always keep in mind that any information produced by a reporter from an "anonymous source" is highly suspect. To refer to it as "fact" is either naive or disingenuous.

How would Watergate have played out under your system, as set forth here?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't the problem that the terrorists are built into the neighborhoods so there is no way to attack them w/o killing citizens? you know we killed a child with Zarquawi- and TYY himself wanted that guy killed years ago.

If that's the problem then you send in snipers or wait for an opportunity that does't mean bombing a block full of innocents.

[Spanky]

You stated:

"which is why the White House told the Pentagon to plan for the use of tactical nuclear weapons."

The US has not used Nuclear weapons since WWII. It has been US policy not to use nuclear weapons except under the most dire circumstances. Because of the consequences, the use of nuclear weapons would only be used as a last option desperate measure. A use of a nuclear weapon against Iran would create an international firestorm that would be unprecedented. It may have been the administrations conclusion that the only way to get at these underground bunkers is to use tactical nuclear weapons, but that does not mean they ever seriously considered using them. And since the Pentagon plans for everything, they have probably made plans to do so. Just like they may have plans to nuke France. But there is a vast difference between drawing up plans to use nuclear weapons and "planning to use them".

Like nuking France, nuking Iran is never going to happen. The only way we would nuke Iran is if Iran attacked someone and it was our only option. But if Iran refused to back down on this diplomatic stuff, nuking Iran is not an option. Bunker busters maybe, but not nuclear weapons.

The thrust of the Hersh article was that the US was preparing to use tactical nukes on Iran. It was sensationalistic, and got lots of attention, because it alleged that the US was making a drastic change in policy that has been sacrosanct for the last fifty years. But I think that the idea that the US is preparing to nuke Iran is absurd. And I don't believe anyone in any serious position to influence policy told him that. He just heard that the pentagon has drawing up plans to nuke Iran and he or his sources twisted that into the US is planning on nuking Iran.

But of course he could be telling the truth (I doubt it but it is possible). But there is no way to determine if his statements are accurate because his sources are "anonymous". Until the person is named, and that person is questioned about what he or she said, and their position in the administration can be verified, we don't know what the administration plans to do about Iran and we don't know if Hersh's characterization is accurate. We can only speculate.

When someone asks for a cite, that means a factual source, not speculation. The proper response would have been "there is no cite, but the allegation has been made by anonymous sources. We don't really know if it is US policy but it has been alleged by someone who I believe is credible".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't the problem that the terrorists are built into the neighborhoods so there is no way to attack them w/o killing citizens? you know we killed a child with Zarquawi- and TYY himself wanted that guy killed years ago.

That is a huge, core problem.

It doesn't really explain the infrastructure destruction so much though. I think that Israel would like to destroy or cripple Hezbollah this time, and forsees an extended campaign. The destruction is, in my view, part of a caclulated strategy to try to punish Lebanon to the point that the non-Shiite groups become their active enemies and push to have Hezbollah disarmed. (The word is they (generalized) are really pissed at Hezbollah, but that the f-ing Israelis are the enemy.)

I saw today in the paper that Israel has declared its intention to establish a security zone in Southern Lebanon -- thus putting everyone back where they were six years ago. (But this one will probably be bigger -- given the new rockets.) On the one hand, one wonders why Israel is leaping back into that quagmire. On the other hand, it sends a strong message that Hezbollah's "shit", as our President would say, won't produce any results that make anyone happy.

As for DK -- any woman who will yell -- "the pooty store is open" can't be all bad. :waggle:

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How would Watergate have played out under your system, as set forth here?

the anon allegations led to provable facts -"follow the money."

206-21

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How would Watergate have played out under your system, as set forth here?

No different. Did I ever say that anonymous sources shouldn’t be used (in fact I said quite the opposite). I just said that when the source is from an anonymous source it should be identified.

During Watergate the editor required that all statements had two unrelated verifiable sources that were reviewed by the editor. No one goes by those rules anymore.

I am not saying that anonymous sources should not be used, I am just saying that any statements made by them should be referred to as allegations made by anonymous sources and not as facts.

The problem is that reporters don’t point out which facts in their articles came from where (any more). They just throw out a bunch of statements some of which are verifiable and others that are not. Every year since Watergate it gets crazier and crazier.

This doesn't just happen to Bush, it happened to the Clinton administration all the time. Every one talked like they new what was exactly going on in the Clinton administration when half the time they were using dubious sources that were wrong. And the Clinton administration was much easier to get information on than the Bush administration.

Did you ever read the Agenda by Bob Woodward (Bob Woodward’s expose on the Clinton administration)? Most of it was a work of fiction. Half the stuff in it was erroneous but after it was published everyone talked like everything in it was a fact.

He had tons of conversation (which he does in all his books) of just two people talking to each other, both of whom never talked to him. In other words, someone told someone about a conversation he or she had, the person that he or she talked to about the conversation, then relayed it to Woodward (or even that person related it to someone else, who related it to Woodward) and then Woodward then turns it into direct dialogue. Makes it sound like he was in the room with a steno pad or tape recorder. And of course the person he got the information from remains anonymous.

The press gave up a long time ago trying to be serious about facts, but that doesn't mean we should follow along blindly.


.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
No different. Did I ever say that anonynouse sources should't be used (in fact I said quite the opposite). I just said that when the source is from an anonymous source it should be identified.

During watergate the editor required that all statements had two unrelated verifiable sources that were reviewed by the editor. No one goes by those rules anymore.

I am not saying that anonymous sources should not be used, I am just saying that any statements made by them should be referred to as allegations made by anonymnous sources and not as facts.

The problem is that reportes doint point out which facts in their articles came from where (any more). They just throw out a bunch of statements some of which are verifiable and others that are not. Every year since Watergate it gets crazier and crazier.

This doesn't just happen to Bush, it happened to the Clinton administration all the time. Every one talked like they new what was exactly going on in the Clinton administraiton when half the time they were using dubious sources that were wrong. And the Clinton administration was much easier to get information on than the Bush administration.

Did you ever read the Agenda by Bob Woodward (Bob Woodwards expose on the Clinton administration). Most of it was a work of fiction. Half the stuff in it was erroneous but after it was published everyone talked like everything in it was a fact.

He had tons of conversation (which he does in all his books) of just two people talking to eachother, both of whom never talked to him. In other words, someone told someone about a conversation he or she had, the person that he or she talked to about the conversation, then relayed it to Woodward (or even that person related it to someone else, who related it to Woodward) and then Woodward then turns it into direct dialogue. Makes it sound like he was in the room with a steno pad or tape recorder. And of course the person he got the information from remains anonymous.

The press gave up a long time ago trying to be serious about facts, but that doesn't mean we should follow along blindly.

.

Are you a Choatie?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you a Choatie?

I am not sure I know what that means. Are you asking if I went to Choate (Sp?) for prep school?

I didn't. I went to school in the Golden State.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not sure I know what that means. Are you asking if I went to Choate (Sp?) for prep school?

I didn't. I went to school in the Golden State.

it's a reference to an observation I made on another web page about my spelling ability and the abilities of another who also went to Choate- it's supposed to be a good school but we spell poorly- so then I made the insdie joke of asking you if that's where you went- it would be mean except I'm part of the joke- like how wonk isn't anti-semetic just because he wants Israel to use some unworkable rules.