52 former diplomats bash Blair in public letter.

[Agathon]

Sava is looking spot on about now, K.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

[Tripledoc]

Anyway, calling Sharon a person who prefers "religious despotism" is, well, silly. Sharon ain't religious, for example.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

[Az]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

to vilify all Arabs? You'll have to back this up, real good.

Excerpt from Bob Woodwards new book "Plan of Attack".



see here

In 2002 Ken Adelman published an article named "Cakewalk in Iraq" in which he concluded that, "Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism."

see here

Ken Adelman, also known as Kenneth L. Adelman, served as Assistant to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977. Adelman was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Ronald Reagan administration as well as serving as Reagan's director of arms control. Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News.

To this very point, you answered a question I never asked. I sure hoe you copy-pasted this, otherwise, it's such a shame of time.

Adelman, who by own admission is Jewish, has also engaged in anti-Egyptian slander.

"His own admission"? Is the IAEA chief, Al-Baradei also disqualified from making a judgement on nukes in muslim countries?

anyway, this link:
see here
[/q]
is an attack on the Egyptian government, not "vilifying governments". Also, a note: "slander" involves not telling the truth. What he writes about the egyptian media is the truth.

And more than insinuated that Iraq was involved in terror. While playing down Israeli warcrimes in Jenin.

see here

Again, not vilifying all arabs, just the Saddam regime, moving right on...

A PNAC letter to Bush urging war against Iraq concludes.

"Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."

see here

turns out to be a rant, and not an actual argument. can't say I am surprised, that you've still not answered the question.

Is Mr. Adelman working for the interests of the American people, or is he working for the interests of a greater Israel? Too harsh on mr Adelman? Well he has not been shy in attacking Muslims.

Ken Adelman, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, has joined several other hawks in direct attacks on Islam. Calling Islam a peaceful religion "is an increasingly hard argument to make," announced Adelman. "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus."

This, perhaps, is the only thing resembling a proof. Of course, this too, is not, vilification of all arabs. Not, not even all muslim ones. It passes judgement on the nature of Islam, yes. a very delicate one. Would you say that saying:

Christianity isn't a very open-minded Religion, after all, there are many accounts of Christian authorities persecuting various people

is vilifying all christians?

see here

Recall what he said according to Woodward? "It's so easy for me to write an article saying, 'Do this.'" Its so easy to start a war on false premises. Too easy. He should be tried as a war crimininal in my oppinion. After all he did say in his "Cakewalk" article the following:



And if Mr. Adelman perpetuated the lie about Saddams weapons of Mass destruction, is anything else he has said true at all.

of course it might be unfair to point to mr. Adelmans joy at the prospect of dead iraqis and Americans, since that was said at a private dinner party. But when the French Ambassador Daniel Bernhard called Israel "a ****ty little country" at a private dinner party it was used against him.

Nice spin, demagogue. Where is Mr. Adelmans joy at the prospect of dead Iraqis and Americans? Oh, you mean that he was happy about the war? Well, that's a nice spin.

[Az]

Ooooh, you know how to make the letters red, nice.

Now, how does this make him religious?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

A fallacy?

So if 50 prominent US diplomats did the same thing to Bush, given all that we know about diplomats and their high levels of tact, you wouldn't pause to think?

[Tripledoc]

Azrael:

Adelman specifically says that what got him turned on about the Egyptian propaganda was that he himself is Jewish. Read the article linked to.

I am not on an anti-Jewish crusade here, but if mr, Adelman is in any way motivated by insults to his religion, then he is not a person whom the US State dept. should listen to.

And that is the point, because Adelmans arguments would be laughed out in the State dept., but he was listened on by Cheney and the Defense dept.

What I am saying is, that a lot of bad **** happened because people were too interested in promoting their own agenda, instead of taking an objective view on things.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
Now, how does this make him religious?

I think the quote reveals a fanatic mindset, and since he believes that Jews should tell other people what they should do, and not the opposite, it is kind of hard making any sort of deal what so ever.

I mean it is amazing how Sharon is being coodled by the US. The man is a war criminal and a fanatic. He scares people.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
A fallacy?

So if 50 prominent US diplomats did the same thing to Bush, given all that we know about diplomats and their high levels of tact, you wouldn't pause to think?

Not based on the fact that it was fifty prominent US diplomats. I'd actually look at their arguments.

(btw, if this is a claim over a factual matter, on which they would simply be better informed, then it isn't a fallacy)

[Agathon]

Not based on the fact that it was fifty prominent US diplomats. I'd actually look at their arguments.

Thus exposing your own intellectual bankruptcy.

How many ex diplomats do you know, and how many of them do you regularly talk politics with?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Anyway, calling Sharon a person who prefers "religious despotism" is, well, silly. Sharon ain't religious, for example.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

Oooh... colors

Mariam Sobh introduced her Dec 11 piece with the following statement, purportedly uttered by Ariel Sharon, in order “to show a clearer picture of the Israeli leadership:”

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956.

This shocking quote, a staple on Arab propaganda Web sites, is an internet hoax for which the journalism student, not surprisingly, provided no source. There is no record of any “General Ouze Merham” or any truth to the claim that Sharon made the quoted comments. The paper’s decision to run such an inflammatory statement with no attribution is indefensible.

link

[East Street Trader]

That faked quote is a disgrace. You might consider deleting your post Tripledoc.

It is interesting that the 52 ex-diplomats believe that the way to improve prospects in Iraq is to focus firmly on the arab/Israeli conflict.

I would not, myself, have reached such a conclusion. But I can - hazily - see that they may be right.

Unfortunately as matters currently stand to turn from one to the other just seems to go from one hopelessly intractable mess to another.

It is so absolutely weird. Here we are, a species that has put men on the moon, cracked the genetic code, produced Shakespeare, Beethoven and Michaelangelo, we have tamed our planet and taken our understanding of the universe back as far as the big bang.

Hell, the other day I managed a progressive squeeze at bridge.

And yet there are still sizeable numbers of us who think that when we have a problem the way to solve it is to go out and shoot a stranger or blow them to smithereens.

Virtually no other species kills each other. They squabble away and males fight over precedence - but they have all evolved social skills which allow the thing to stop short of killing.

While we spend quite a lot of effort and energy developing ever more effective ways to kill more and more quicker and quicker.

Someone explain to me just why all the Israelis and every single arab can't just get up this very minute and all go and find an Israeli or an arab to talk to and to say that all they want to do is to just get on with living as happy a life as they can, that they don't feel compelled to hate anyone and that maybe if they discuss the use of all the land and the fruits of it there might turn out to be more than enough good things to go round?

The German and English soldiers got out of the trenches and did something similar once during the Great War.

And if there is some nutter who won't do that all the people with goodwill can just send them somewhere well away to get on with raking over the past or whatever other fatuous thing they want to wreck their life with.

[Alexander's Horse]

well actually that is what diplomacy is about, building bridges between people.

It's no easy task to get so many retired Ambassadors to agree about anything, including to put aside personal differences and rivalries, sometimes career long.

Ambassadors tend to be mavericks - independent thinkers, contrary to the popular stereotypes. They aren't "joiners". It's quite a feat by whoever put the letter together.

It also raises the interesting question as to whether they were put up to it by serving foreign service officers appalled by Blair's ape-like kow towing to Bush.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Thus exposing your own intellectual bankruptcy.

WTF? I'm intellectually bankrupt because I don't accept the fallacy of arguments from authority?

[Agathon]

We accept arguments from authority all the time because no one can be an expert in every field. Not to do so would have you living in a swamp, chewing rats. It's just a matter of fact that to some degree, we have to trust the experts if we aren't experts ourselves. Of course there are unreasonable ways to abuse this principle, but that doesn't make it any less forceful.

You sound as if you've been reading some first grade informal logic book. You are forgetting that epistemic notions introduce complications into arguments that a simple view of logic can't deal with.