and from Seeker



I'd tend to agree that empathy is a precursor to compassion.

In my questions, I opined that the capability for empathy might be partly nature, and partly nurture, enchanced by life experience and exposure. So that might indicate the capability for compassion grows also. Makes one wonder whether it can be trained. Buddhists do, no?

It would seem you could in some sense "understand" another's feelings, thoughts, or situation without being sympathetic to them, in which case there'd be empathy, but not compassion. But I also believe in general that compassion does follow empathy. I think that the more one understands another, the more empathy is possible, and compassion tends to follow.

This is what MLK taught in a nutshell.

What I did not hear, Viewer, was a threat from the other superpower, the Soviet Union, to go to war with the United States for its support of terrorist proxy armies in Central America. Was Nicaragua a client state of the USSR? To an extent, yes. Is Israel a client state of the USA? Without a doubt!

Obviously Hizbollah did not see Israel withdrawing from every inch of Lebanon. There was apparently some disputed territory - the Shebaa Farms. Although it may be minor quibbling, I will concede that Israel was defeated and gave up occupation of southern Lebanon.

For what it is worth, I do not support an Islamic state in the West Bank or in Gaza any more than I support a Jewish state in Israel. I do not support a two-state solution at all. I support a single, secular, democratic state in Palestine. Neither Zionists or Arab nationalists have a solution because the solution necessarily means frustrating the realization of each camp's maximum program.

Ahmadinejad's sphere of power in Iran is in domestic affairs. You undermine his power by being a better friend to Iran than he can ever be.

Well said, Balor.

We can communicate pretty well with chimps through signing. This is the fascinating thing about what such research shows, so far.

You can chat with two chimps, say, Scrappy, and Coco.

You can ask Scrappy how Coco feels. Scrappy can say that Coco is sad.

You can ask Scrappy what Coco is thinking about. You can ask Scrappy what it would be like to be Coco. You won't get an answer. Chimps can't do this. They can't model each other's minds.



I would say thoughts and emotions. Animals seem good at sensing the emotions of other animals. They don't seem to be able to model the thoughts of other animals.



I believe we can sympathize, but not empathize. The similarity principle definitely applies. This is why we cry when somebody shoots Bambi, but don't flinch when somebody squashes a mosquito. If you really think about it, Bambi reacts to pain similarly to the way you do. A mosquito doesn't. (I had a fascinating discussion with a PETA member about this - and he agreed.)



Agreed. Dehumanization is precisely to prevent empathy.

I don't believe you. Could you prove you claim about the majority?

Also



The word I'm talking about was not an attack.

I read a book recently where it was scientifically deteremined that the type of person who generally agrees with this administration also is prone to categorizing the unknown as attacks and over reacting to threats.

I think you may fit this profile.

I disagree with many who feel this is a permanent thing - I went through a phase like that when I was younger. I hope you feel better soon.

This is what I love. The Israel haters (yes that's what some here are) say that either Israel and the "Israel lobby" (or whatever other similar, more offensive term they use) controls the US and US policy or that Israel is a "client state," subject to US dictates.

How about Israel is an independent state, like so many others, with its own interests. Sometimes those align with the US, sometimes (as Israel told the US in regard to the current war against Iraq) they do not.


Hizb can say whatever they want, but the fact is the UN (not known as a tool of Israel) certified they did. Syria claims that territory and Israel has stated that they would be willing to consider leaving that small area (a couple hundred acres, maybe) if Syria would formally cede this land to Lebanon. It puts Syria in a tough situation since they don't really want to do that, at the same time, Syria doesn't want Israel to be able to claim to have withdrawn from every inch of Lebanon.

As a point of history, Israel withdrew from Lebanon prior to the war with Hizb.

What I find ironic, is that you don't seem to have a complaint against Iranian backed Hizb usurping Lebanese sovereignty (not to mention violating domestic and international agreements) by having its own sub-government within a state and its own army. As to who was defeated, Israel was not really defeated so much in the war. Where they seemed to have lost to Hizb is in the period following the war where Hizb has been allowed to rearm in the south in violation of the UN agreement and in direct peril to the people of southern Lebanon and northern Israel.


Maybe you are not aware that Israel is a secular state in that sense. It is a Jewish state in the context of culture and "national home". Elected secular government, a secular legal system rule the country. The rabbis do not run the government or set the laws.(except to the extend that there are political parties that have religious perspectives, the leading political party has always been secular-- right wing, left wing or moderate.) (interesting hisorical note: The National Religious Party, at the time the largest religious political party, was the coalition member most opposed to the 1967 war at the time.)

If you don't like any nationalism, fine. Let a couple of the other of the 180 nations (not to mentions more groups seeking independence) in the world give up their sovereignty first. Then maybe the Jews who want to live under self-determination might consider it as well. Jews, even right wing Jews, long ago gave up "maximalist" goals.

So, your dream aside, no one of any significance between Israel and the Arabs want it. So the solution will be based on, both sides reaffirming that maximalist demands won't be the solution and making accommodations for each other.


I have often made the point that like most other people in the world, the Iranians will band together when it comes to conflict with the outside. That's one of the difficulties in dealing with the situation there. Ahmadinjad us using this as a tool, and we are helping give him the tool to manipulate the people. But that doesn't negate the growing danger posed by Iran under both Ahmadinijad and the mullah.

So to go back to an earlier part of this discussion, I don't think sitting on our thumbs is any better a solution than attacking.

Well... they do set some of the laws. Unfortunately, one of the conditions the religious parties often set as junior partners in ruling parliamentary coalitions is getting to set some of the laws. If that were not true, Israel's laws on marriage and divorce would be secular. Likewise, the "Who is a Jew?" question (when it comes to conversion and aliyah) would not be answered by "whoever Orthodox Rabbis say, that's who."

This, plus people being generally pissed by the haredim for a variety of reasons, fueled the growth of the Shinui party. They seem to have faded electorally in the most recent election, but I bet they will still be back. I maintain it is absolutely wrong you cannot get a secular divorce in Israel, and that Jews and Arabs who want to marry must leave the country and go to Cyprus.

That said ... I believe the intent of Herzl, Ben-Gurion, and others in erecting the Jewish State was exactly as you say ... it was to be the state of the Jews as an ethnic group, in the same way that France is the home of the French/Franks/Gauls, or England is the home of the Angles and Saxons. I agree with you that liberals have a weird queasiness about ethnic nationalism, but they need to make up their mind as to whether they support it or oppose it. If Jewish nationalism is wrong, then so is Tibetan nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Quebecois nationalism, Basque nationalism, Northern Ireland Irish nationalism, Chechen nationalism, Vietnamese nationalism, Kenyan nationalism, etc, etc. I notice a lot of people on this board are bothered by Kosovar nationalism, but for some reason, not by Serb nationalism.

Can't figure that out, either.

I think the key problem of ethnic nationalism is finding an equal and fair place for ethnic minorities, including members of groups that had previously been dominant (say ethnic Russians in Chechnya or Sunni Arabs in Iraq); I believe that struggle is just as much a problem in Quebec or Chechnya as it is in Israel.

BTW, I'm not against the viability of multi-ethnic states; I'm living in one now. I just think the world can have room for both kinds.

Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

By Toby Harnden in Washington

Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 24/06/2008

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.

(snip)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-predicts.html

(snip)

House Resolution 362, introduced by Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), calls for the United States to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program." This sense of the Congress resolution, complemented by Senate Resolution 580, introduced by Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and John Thune (R-SD), would impose a naval, land, and air blockade against Iran and be tantamount to an act of war. The resolution is the brainchild of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which decided on the course of action two weeks ago during its annual meeting in Washington, DC.

AIPAC has marshaled its "amen corner" of Democrats in Congress in co-sponsorship support of the blockade resolution.......

(snip)

Yesterday, Rostam Pouraz of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), accused Saudi Arabia of secretly working behind the scenes with the AIPAC and war hawks community in Washington to push for a war against Iran. Saudi Arabia fears the growing influence of Iran among Shias in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia's restless Eastern Province. The de facto Saudi-Israel alliance of opportunity and their collusion on lobbying the Bush administration for an attack on Iran is played down by AIPAC and the Saudis as non-existent.

WMR has also learned that the so-called Syrian Al Kibar "nuclear weapons facility," said to be manned by Syrian, North Korean, and Iranian technicians and attacked by the Israeli Air Force last September, was a decoy attack to mask Israel's probing of Syria's Russian-supplied radar system. The Israelis successfully penetrated the Russian radar system during its attack on Al Kibar. However, Russia is installing an upgraded radar system in Iran to protect Iranian nuclear sites. It is expected the upgrade to the Tin Shield (NATO code name) mobile Russian radar in Iran will foil the stealth capabilities of Israeli attack aircraft and missiles and, therefore, some experts see an Israeli attack on Iran before such an advanced radar system becomes fully operational.

It is also being reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's Mossad, has had his term extended by a year to 2009 by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The extension of Dagan's term is to ensure continuity in Mossad in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran.

These developments follow a simulated Israeli Air Force strike on Iran using 100 F-15s and F-16s flying over the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece in an exercise conducted earlier this month.

(snip)

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

June 25, 2008 -- Another war production sign points to British involvement in Iran attack

On June 23, 2008, WMR reported: " the Defense Department has ordered a step-up in production of the AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile from the Lockheed Martin Hellfire production facility at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Our sources have revealed that there are not currently enough Hellfires in stock for what is being described as a plan for the United States to begin a military attack on Iran after an initial attack is launched by Israel."

WMR has now learned that the British Ministry of Defense has ordered stepped up production of the Brimstone anti-armor air-to-surface missile for use in an attack on Iran. The Brimstone is a derivative of the American Hellfire missile. Like the Hellfire, the Brimstone missile can also be fitted on the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The stepped up production of the Hellfire and Brimstone missiles suggest that the Americans and British have settled on a close air support plan to use the missiles to target specific Iranian leadership, especially those in vehicles, in an initial attack on Iran.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

Yeah, but that's a problem for Jews and secular people, not minority groups. Generally speaking (no line is clear cut) Jewish law is not imposed, as it relates to those issues, on non-Jewish communities. They have not control, issue over Muslim, Druze, Bahai, Christian marriage. And marriages outside of Israel, regardless, are accepted. And heck, even the "orthodox" are fighting between each other about who is "orthodox" (much less who is a Jew).

And yes, the Haredim, in my opinion, have gone too far. But I would also say that Shinui ruined itself by becoming a party with too much anti-orthodox and in particular anti Sephardic influences. (Before anyone goes too far on prejudice against Shephardim in Israel, for the most part its now a non-issue. intermarriage).

What you have really pointed out, at its core, is a weakness of parliamentary systems with small access to enter the parilament. It seems to foster political payoffs and is certainly keeping Olmert in office right now.

June 24, 2008 -- Money being pulled out of New York City banks

WMR's United Nations sources report that there has been a sudden rush in requests for foreign exchange wire transfer requests from New York City banks. The sudden demand for transferring funds abroad has resulted in a 24 to 48-hour processing delay due to the sheer volume of requests.

Foreign employees at the United Nations are transferring their money from accounts at the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) and other New York City banks, both domestic and foreign-owned, and the move has been sudden.

There has been no explanation for the sudden wire transfer activity, although the rumor mill suggests fears of a sudden economic collapse and/or a U.S. and Israeli military attack on Iran, which could touch off a wider regional conflict.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

Fearmongering is not limited to governments.

Although perhaps ex-NSA employees have learned their craft well.

Where you see "fearmongering", I see "investigative reporting". I guess we see so little of it, that we hardly know it when we see it anymore. After all, if CNN or the NYTimes doesn't tell us, it didn't happen, right?

Heh, well, with all the other fight/flight issues on my radar screen put there by Bushco, there isn't any more room on my radar screen for anything that isn't a fight/flight issue. So I understand the non-governmental fearmongers for trying to get our attention. BTW, take a look at the titles on RRMB - OMG, we're one.

That's the difference between you and me.

To me a journalist, a reporter, would never rely on the "rumor mill".

There's lots of rumors.

I heard a rumor that KFC isn't really chicken anymore, it's made from worm parts.

The precise point of journalism is to separate rumors from fact.

That is why I do not view Madsen as a journalist. What he does is something else.

With whom are you comparing Madsen? I, for one, see no qualitative difference between the nature and quality of his sources versus those of any aspect of MainstreamMedia, not one. The difference is that the rumors MSM report on are sanctioned or approved by corporate AMerica and/or the mainstream political apparatus.

By implication, you attribute use of inaccurate or unreliable sources solely to Madsen and, by extension, other alternative media sources. Doing so is a gross distortion in my view. If anything, alternative media have been more reliable than MSM in my view. Of course, I do not engage with MSM at all, with the only exceptions being inadvertent contact such as while walking through an airport where Teevees are unavoidable, logging online through mainstream browsers and other similar acts that expose me to msm notwithstanding my best efforts to stay away from toxicity of that nature.

If any msm source was wrong as often as Madsen it would be called Fox News.

There is no difference between his sources and those in mainstream media, with the possible exception that Madsen's sources are more forthcoming and truthful. However, there is no organized effort to impugn their credibility or integrity, especially since they are in the business of "catapulting the propaganda" of the powers-that-be. Madsen represents a threat to the Neocons and AIPAC, among others. So the same people keep attacking him, over and over. It's modus operandi.

Only those who are biased in favor of the government and the corporate media would spend so much time attacking a whistleblowing investigative journalist. At least, Madsen, is still alive, unlike many of his colleagues who were similarly attacked. At least, so far, Madsen has only endured character assassination. For those of you who attack him, you can only hope to raise doubts with those who do not know his work, because those of us who do, know he is a brave, honest truth teller. Hey, if he is telling lies, then why not attack the message, instead of the messenger?

Hamoth, accusations are easily made. Please back up your claim that Madsen is often wrong with proof. Examples and evidence, please. Be warned, many have accused him similarly, but NO ONE has shown ANY PROOF of their accusations against him.

Actually, the kind of pre-emptive attack you describe, a response to a real, imminent threat, is legal. That is recognized as a justifiable act of self-defense. But, under no circumstances, does the possibility that someday Iran may pose a threat to us qualify as a justification for a pre-emptive strike. That's the point.

Isn't that a perfect description of "Shock and Awe"? Were the fiends, who envisioned such indiscriminate violence against the Iraqi civilians, also "terrorists"? Or does it depend on who is being terrorized?

He repeatedly warned that we were on the brink of war with Iran in 2006.

Or, in the case of Iraq, a rationale that degraded month-by-month from
-- threat of imminent destruction, to
-- caches of WMDs, to
-- capabiltiy to develop WMDs, to
-- program to develop the capability to build WMDS, to
-- intent to develop the program to acquire the capability to build WMDs.

Seeker, I prefer to keep this thread on the subject. However, since you insist on trashing a journalist and instructing me about what "journalism" is, then please take a close look at what passes for "journalism" at the NY Times these days.

Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

Then please explain to all of us why, when the NY Times uses sources like "a foreign official", "one former CIA official", "a foreign counterterrorism official", "one veteran CIA official", "an intelligence officer", "a terrorism consultant", and "one person who saw the telephone chart", it is perfectly acceptable. But when an alternative media source quotes similarly, it is forbidden.

And we all know it's not just the NY Times which push government stories without really ever giving us any tangible sources. CNN is notorious for it. So are the other msm outlets. Start noticing and you will see that this is widespread and pervasive. So, when you are squeamish about unnamed sources, which you call the "rumor mill", I must insist that you use your high standards similarly on the mainstream media as well. Otherwise, your standards are selectively applied, and that weakens your argument.

The difference in you and me is not that your standards are higher. It's that you wish to attack the messenger whose message offends you. I recognize that the sorry state of journalism today has rendered the msm untrustworthy. I am equally dubious of most sources. Only by experience, do I decide who is to be trusted. I honestly believe that the old dragons of the msm no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Operation Mockingbird complete.

So did others like Scott Ritter. Just because it didn't happen yet, does not prove their information was incorrect.

Now Madsen, Ritter and McGovern, among others are telling us the same thing. John Bolton is bemoaning the fact that he fears the Bushies will not get it done, but Israel will do it, between the election and the inauguration of a new U.S. president. That does not mean that Cheney does not wish it so and is not trying to make it happen.

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/20...2/31/4336.shtml

I recall a report of secret plans for a 2006 strike that never materialized.

I also recall a leak from a naval officer about an impending strike that never happened.

Raw Story, Madsen, and Brad Blog all do this a LOT. I stopped paying attention to stories from those sites due to their frequent urgent tone with no substance of follow through.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Mag_Iran_bom...re_21_0307.html

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/532.html

Oh, you can repeat that as many times as you like, but it still doesn't become true.

I have repeatedly demonstrated how Madsen lifts stories from the MSM, then later embellishes them with bullshit.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that Madsen's claimed "reporting" routinely, in virtually every article, violates the basic tents of journalism - Just as I've documented time and again what those principles are

I have demonstrated that Wayne (and some here on his behalf) claim "scoops" on certain stories, when in fact that mean old MSM has actually covered the same matter days, months and even YEARS earlier than Wayne's ham-handed efforts were sold to gullible visitors to his blog.

I have repeatedly pointed out instances of enormous holes in Madsen's stories - opportunities to have even the barest, slimmest details of his ludicrous claims documented by a named, living, breathing person in a manner available to even the most minimally competent journalist - opportunities he's repeatedly passed up. And it's not as though sometimes he meets these standards and sometimes he doesn't. He virtually never does, even in the most innocuous matters.

But what you repeatedly demand is for others to prove a negative, which is, of course, impossible. Prove there was NOT a sixth nuke stolen from Minot and shipped to the middle east, perhaps for a fiendish falseflag Op. Prove that Alabama pols were NOT blackmailing George Bush for millions or billions in government contracts because they knew he threw up on a girlfriend 30 years ago. Prove that the Houston PD was NOT commissioned by the CIA and/or Mossad to assassinate a bookkeeper. Prove that Wayne's life has NOT been threatened because he infuriates so many high and mighty with the truth. Prove that GWB is not a mean drunk who sends his wife fleeing to a DC hotel for extended periods. Prove Palfry was NOT murdered by henchmen working for terrified Washington big shots, perhaps even including DICK CHENEY!

You employ the amateur's tactic again and again, this while covering your eyes and ears to the ample proof that Wayne is a charlatan and a fraud, and that virtually any high school paper in the country does a more competent job of meeting even the most minimal standards of ethical, honest journalism than Wayne does on any given day.

The double-standards are endless, and still another comes to mind. You and others have noted that the failure of some politicians to refute Wayne's blogged allegations - and some from similarly fictionalized tabloids - somehow proves the truth of the claims. Answers that the accusations are so ludicrous and beneath contempt that they only warrant being ignored is met with peals of laughter. Well, the fact is Wayne hasn't sued me for asserting he's a fraud or refuted my accusations, and so, applying your standard, I've proved he's full of shit many times over.

I don't maintain Wayne is a kook who perhaps really believes the bullshit he peddles. I believe Wayne feeds his foolish base what they want with all the cynical manipulation of the management team for Miley Cyrus. Can I PROVE that? Nope. It's only the logical inference premised upon what I have proved and shown time and again.

I trust the viewpoint of my co-worker who is a Palestinian Christian woman from Ramallah who can never go home again because of the Israeli occupation. Israel can pretend to be a democratic secular state so long as Jews constitute the majority within that state. If it truly were secular and democratic, then there would be no need for a Gaza Strip and a West Bank since Palestinians would be equal and welcome citizens within Israel/Palestine.

Point of order. I didn't use the word "rumor mill". Madsen did.

Madsen didn't say his source for an impending attack on Iran and/or financial collapse was "an un-named NSA officer" or "an anonymous source in the intelligence community". He said he heard it from the rumor mill, quote unquote. So what does that mean? Somebody at the barber shop? Someone on the street corner? Someone on Usenet? Most people I think of as journalists, whether writing for the mainstream or the alternative press, do not source the "rumor mill," whatever the hell that is.

BTW, it is well known that one of his most critical "un-named sources" is Richard Armitage. You can choose whether or not you think this makes Madsen more trustworthy. I would say less. Armitage claims to be a "clean" member of the Bush administration but invariably in many scandals his hands are tainted, too.

From my POV, Armitage may be using Madsen to spread disinfo.

That's funny, because my colleagues from Ramallah, Palestinian Muslims, don't have a problem going back and forth.


So is it your position that Jews, as an ethnic group, can never be the majority in a democratic society. That's what you are saying.


You'd probably be interested in these facts:

More than a million people, about 19% percent of Israel's population is Arab, with freedom of speech, religion and the right to vote. About 10 percent of the Parliament is Arab.

The Ramallah based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip view Israeli democracy as the preferred model for a regime that they would like to see applied in a future Palestinian state.

And here's a study released this week by the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Was Israel set up to be a Jewish State? Yes it was, and if Jews ever found themselves to be a minority within that state, it probably wouldn't be a "Jewish" state anymore.

Now then, was the United States set up to be a white man's country? If I said that whites can never be the majority in democratic society, then that would be absurd, wouldn't it?

But the United States had Jim Crow and other laws designed to protect the superior status of white people. How did those laws get passed if whites weren't the majority? Who had to be dispossessed for whites to become a majority on the North American continent? How was it done if not at the point of a gun?

So what you are saying is, is that as long as Israel has formal democratic institutions it is ok to keep Palestinians under conditions of occupation, poverty, and humiliation.

Actually that's I how interpreted your comment "Israel can pretend to be a democratic secular state so long as Jews constitute the majority within that state." In fact Israel has shown itself to be a very vibrant democracy. Few people, including its detractors, deny that. As to your second question, to me it's more of a matter of self determination. That's one good reason many call for a partition of the area.

I haven't heard you call for, as an example, the dismantling of India and Pakistan, countries established and partitioned along religious lines. Or many of the European or African states partitioned on ethinic lines.


The US was not established to be a white man's country. Racism has been a serious problem in US, and world, history. But it is/was not simply a US issue, nor was slavery, which in the US was a race issue, but it was also an economic issue (worldwide).


Am I saying that? Where have I every promoted either occupation, poverty or humiliation. Further, you are making a mistake that I feel is a serious weakness in the Palestinian national movement. On the whole they tend to do very little inward looking. Very little recognition of the fault that they and the Arab states play in their current situation. Say what you will about Israel, but there is no lack of open self criticism and internal debate. (heck, even Carter recognizes that).

Oh come on, I've already proven Madsen wrong in response to comments that you made, in at least two other threads. In fact, in those cases, Madsen was clearly deliberately wrong. We don't need to reprove Madsen wrong each time that you use them.

If you cannot find a reputable site to back up your allegations and claims then maybe you should avoid making them. If a proven disreputable site is your only source, then maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your position.

Tammy, like Bushwa, you only give your OPINION in response to my repeated requests for PROOF.

Come on, Tammy, you have not proven anything to my knowledge. Please give links to show what you suggest. And now that you are claiming Madsen was "clearly deliberately wrong", you have quite a lot to prove. Now you must prove him wrong and that he was DELIBERATELY wrong. Go ahead and try. Are you a mind reader? If not, how do you "know" that Madsen is purposely misleading?

Madsen is well aware that certain advocates for ISRAEL are attacking him personally in concert to drown out the news he reports. As Randi tells us every day, the mainstream news has been cancelled. Yes, the mainstream media ignores the torture of children, the stolen elections, the Downing Street Memo, the government's drug dealing and other critical stories, yet they do cover Madonna's marital strife and the squid story.

Tammy, are you personally involved in a concerted effort to discredit an independent journalist, like Madsen, because he speaks the truth about what is really going on with the Bush Crime Family, the Neocons and their warmongering co-conspirators? Do you have some "inside knowledge" about Madsen you'd like to share with us? Or are you personally offended by the content of his reports?

Hamoth, at least you are engaging with examples. But with regard to the attack on Iran, I still believe that since Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern and Seymour Hersh were also reporting that the U.S. planned to attack Iran, that cannot be used as an example of Madsen's unreliablity. All of these people can only report to us what their governmental sources report to them. Just because it didn't happen yet, does not mean it was not planned.

CND warns against nuclear attack on Iran, issues Statement

10 April 2006: for immediate release

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today strongly warned against US plans to attack Iran, as revealed by Seymour Hersh in the most recent edition of the New Yorker magazine. Mr Hersh writes that an attack on Iran would likely occur regardless of the diplomatic outcome of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, as US President George Bush is intent on achieving regime change in Iran.

One option reportedly under strong consideration by the US administration involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon. Hersh reports that many military officials are considering resigning after their attempts to remove nuclear weapons from the war plan failed.

(snip)

http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/press-relea...-statement.html

http://www.democracynow.org/features/ritter_hersch

Pentagon lashes out at Iran claim
By Peter Spiegel in London

Published: January 17 2005 09:01 | Last updated: January 17 2005 19:55

Pentagon officials on Monday lashed out at a US magazine report which claimed they were preparing for possible strikes on Iran by carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside the country, saying the article contained "fantastic claims" about programmes that do not exist.



The article, written by veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for The New Yorker magazine, claims that President George W. Bush plans to drastically expand the war on terrorism, and has already signed executive orders authorising secret commando operations against terrorist targets in as many as ten middle eastern and south Asian nations, including Iran.

The Iranian operation, which the article claims has been underway since last summer, intends to identify as many three dozen Iranian military or nuclear sites for US missile attacks or commando raids.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/671eed44-6864-11...000e2511c8.html

Those stories were fine in their original context. The story here was that our Iran plans included nuclear options. That's fuckt up. But our millitary has "plans" to attacks every country. That is not the same as saying they plan to do it. It is very far from saying we are likely to do it. It is in another galaxy from saying we will do it and another universe from saying it is impending.

You see?



Anything can be twisted. The frequent bent of stories on those sites shows me they have an agenda to fit any information to a pre-defined narrative they want to promote. I'm not interested in that.

EDIT:
I will provide you a brief example:

<< MADSEN MODE >>

CSM reports on NASA cover up of martian life:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0628/p25s37-stss.html

That's right. I'm not the only one who is saying this. Nearly every major news oulet has agreed that there is every reason to suspect that the disappearance of hte beagle probe was to cover up the fact that it beamed back proof of life on mars. Sources inside NASA say:



...

<< END MADSEN MODE >>

You see how I did that? I only reported facts taht more creidble outlets did while I recharacterized them out of context to imply something totally unsupported.

That's what these sites do.

All those people reported that our forces were moving toward an attack on Iran, that the plans were in the works and that inside sources were telling them that the Neocons planned to do it. That's not the same as saying there is a contingency plan, like there is for every other nation. Please recognize that the signs of an attack against Iran were there and they reported it. Also, we have known there is a divide in the administration, with Cheney pushing for military strikes against Iran.

A handfull of people whispered it. Madsen either helped or got used.

Don't ge me wrong. I lost respect for a lot of people over the Iran hype. Obama in particular. Maddow - who I thought could do no wrong - also seemed to pick up on this - so did Sam. People were in a rush to vilify the republicans who didn't pause to realize they were being used by them. That's why you should never demonize them whole-cloth. If you set our course by heading opposite to whatever they are doing, you are really letting them push you on whatever path they want.

Since Madsen's sources are governmental and intelligence agency officials, current and past, his idea of a "rumor mill" is not the same as yours and mine. If you read Madsen's reports regularly, you would know that. He is a Washington insider, with Washington insider sources, much as Seymour Hersh is now or Jack Anderson once was. That is not to say he is someone who believes the insiders of the Bush Crime Family like Judy Miller did. Madsen knows full well how untrustworthy the Bushies are.

You state that one of Madsen's "critical 'un-named sources" is Richard Armitage" and say that is "well-known". Well, it's not "well-known" to me. Please provide a link to prove that. How do you know this? I am not aware of any particular ties between Armitage and Madsen, but I am aware of a great deal of not very flattering information about Armitage. If I am aware of it, I am certain Madsen is as well. So I am dubious of any claim that Madsen would rely on Armitage, or that Armitage could use Madsen "to spread disinfo". Where are you getting this information?

I understand what you are saying. But I don't understand how you are so sure that the reports were not and are not true. Just because it didn't happen yet, that does not mean it will not happen or they don't want it to happen. For all we know, these reports somehow stalled the attacks or allowed cooler minds to prevail.

Still, even now, John Bolton is telling the London Telegraph that he is worried that the U.S. may not attack Iran after all, but that maybe Israel will. He is saying the prime time would be between the November election and when the next president takes office.

So, is the plan to attack Iran, but to blame it on Israel? Will there still be a false flag attack that will happen to the U.S. or Israel, that will "justify" an attack on Iran? WE STILL DON'T KNOW.

This is called an appeal to ignorance: Because we can't prove it will never happen we should take it seriously. Unfortunately this is a logical problem since a negative can't be proven.

I take the opposite stance: Because there is no proof we should NOT take it seriously.

This is being used to get REAL RESULTS in congress and to take away energy from issues that WE DO KNOW exist.

The Iran thing is chaff to get us off of ABRAMOFF. IRAQ. OBL. HUGE issues. A congressional resolution declaring it a national priority to arrest and try OBL for the crime's he's charged with would make some good news and foster some interesting discussion.

At least we passed a GI bill with some decent funding for caring for troops when they get back...but they tried to scare democrats with Iran threats and use it as leverage then too. Who knows...maybe that's what was used to get hte house to cave on FISA.

EDIT: Oh and this:

Totally...

Well I base that on MADSEN having reported over and over that there was an impending attack in 2006. Over and over he reported how it was going to be any day now. Weren't there tons of articles titled things like "here we go folks." and "Now it's starting." But the big tell is what I detailed in my earlier post on the previous page: That this is an agenda he is pushing any information to fit tells me more than all the rest of the minor failures of his reports.

The problem with an Israeli attack scenario is that they would have to overfly Jordan, Syria, Turkey or Saudi Arabia to reach Iran meaning they would have to deploy tankers for mid-air refueling plus either get overflight clearance or knock out air defenses in the way. They would also be unable to escape US detection by AWACS as soon as they get in range. So any Israeli attack on Iran must have the active participation of the US.

meh. never mind.

Sorry, my source is a critical un-named source within the Washington intelligence community.

That's kinda my point. If you put words in my mouth, then I will put words in yours. See how you like it?

Tell me where I have endorsed the Palestinian national movement or supported any of the Arab states?

Israel as a state can't be undone - that's what's called a fait accompli. It is undeniable that the Jewish state was created at the expense of the Palestinian people. The homes and lands and farms belonging to Palestinians were taken and continue to be taken to this day.

The question is where does it stop? Is the Palestinian national movement simply about irredentist claims from 60 years ago? It isn't that simple.



Yes it was. It was established by white property owners for white property owners. For representation purposes, slaves only counted as a fraction of a person and Indians weren't counted at all. If self determination for Jews is so important in Israel, how is that so different from Aryan Nations who want self determination for whites in the Pacific Northwest? If Palestinians have to give up self determination, then shouldn't Zionists have to do likewise?

The USA evolved away from being a white man's country and became a country where rights and liberties under law were extended to all. When Israel stops being a Jewish state and becomes a state where Jews live along with everyone else there, then progress will be made. In the meantime, setting up a so-called "Palestinian" state in the West Bank and Gaza is not an option because those apartheid-style bantustans will never be economically viable.



And you haven't heard me calling for the dismantling of Israel. As I said, the existence of Israeli is a fait accompli. What you have heard me calling for is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. For instance, you don't hear of the Republic of Ireland as an "Irish Catholic" state. They don't confine their Protestant population in hellish slums or force them off to the six counties in the north.

And it goes without saying that I have no sympathy for the Palestinian nationalist crazies who want to drive all the Jews into the sea.

Between the Palestinian hardliners and the right-wing Zionists demanding Eretz Israel, there are people who just want the insanity to end. For Jews who see the Zionist experiment as a violation of traditional Jewish values of ethics and justice and Palestinians who want only to live and work with dignity, the need to compromise and end the conflict is as great as ever.

I get your sarcasm. But it does not shed any light on the discussion or the charge you made. This is a serious discussion and when you charge that an investigative reporter is being used by a Bush official to pass on disinformation, that is a serious accusation. If it's true, I would like to know about it. But it's not true, that is also important to know. Is there any foundation to the idea that Armitage has somehow duped Madsen and that Armitage feeds Madsen false informaiton? Please explain yourself.


Seeker wrote: BTW, it is well known that one of his most critical "un-named sources" is Richard Armitage. You can choose whether or not you think this makes Madsen more trustworthy. I would say less. Armitage claims to be a "clean" member of the Bush administration but invariably in many scandals his hands are tainted, too.
From my POV, Armitage may be using Madsen to spread disinfo.



Now you refuse to furnish a link or give proof to your claim, or you cannot do so. Is this just your opinion? Did a friend tell you this? Do you work for an organization which is spreading this rumor? Have you confused Madsen with some other reporter who does use Armitage as a source, someone like Bob Woodward, for example? Do you now claim to be an investigative reporter with inside sources? Or are you just dodging the quesiton?

http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/477716.html

Hamoth wrote:This is being used to get REAL RESULTS in congress and to take away energy from issues that WE DO KNOW exist.

The Iran thing is chaff to get us off of ABRAMOFF. IRAQ. OBL. HUGE issues. A congressional resolution declaring it a national priority to arrest and try OBL for the crime's he's charged with would make some good news and foster some interesting discussion.


Do you have evidence that this is true or is this your OPINION? We can all speculate, imagine and surmise......Do you have any facts to back your belief?