11-02-07, 12:18 AM #421
Donnal, I agree, but could you use sentences..I had to read that twice.
A lot of people assume that muslims in western countries all come from the middle east, A large portion of muslims are from bangladesh in australia.
11-02-07, 06:27 AM #422
It is important to repeat it now and then in confronting designer hysteria: Most Muslims are not Arab, most Arabs are not militants, most militants are not murderers, and most murderers are not terrorists. Terrorism is a crime that can be isolated and prosecuted like any other, but there are criminal leaders exploiting and protracting terrorism for their own agendas that include megalomania and racism.
11-02-07, 07:10 AM #423
11-02-07, 08:29 AM #424
Baron Max: "...over 50% of the terrorists would ever be captured and convicted. And you like that approach?"
Armies are not suited for chasing criminals.
There are criminal leaders exploiting and protracting terrorism for their own agendas that include megalomania and racism.
"What are you saying ...or trying to say?"
That when the "War on Terror" is evoked in the context of military adventurism, we are being lied to. War doesn't expose and curtail modern terrorism, but instead compounds it.
11-02-07, 09:20 AM #425
There is little rational about Bush's foreign policy so trying to determine whether or not the USA will attack Iran is based on trying to read the mind of a simpleton. Pat buchanan called Bush's approach to foreign policy 'a disaster and a one man wrecking ball'. It's difficult to understand why Bush does anything.
What the heck is Condi Rice on the payroll for? She's as incompetent as they come. Bush, if he had a brain, would replace her with a strong respected individual who can get-the-job-done.
11-02-07, 10:44 PM #426
11-22-07, 10:18 PM #427
12-08-07, 03:11 AM #428
It's been a long time watching and waiting for this: The intelligence community has finally stood up against Bushevik recklessness in a publicly-noticeable way. It's time for every American who sees through W's 6-year foreign-policy amatuer-hour, this Reign of Error, to do the same: Assert reason as antidote to hubris at every opportunity.
I hope the rest of the world will take notice that we aren't a ship of fools- We can turn this thing around, and we can keep a sharper lookout in the future.
12-08-07, 04:35 AM #429
Hyperwaders, Thats great to hear, Maybe you can salvage your countries reputation in the process.
12-08-07, 06:51 AM #430
12-08-07, 07:51 AM #431
Buffalo Roam: "if the NIE from 2005 wasn't wrong why is this new NIE 2007 right?"
The Bush Administration is losing leverage, not only as a departing administration, but also an administration that has been exposed for fraud. "Fixing intelligence around the policy" isn't so easily done, now that fabrications over Iran, Iraq, and other issues have been revealed- and now that emotions have cooled since 9/11. The Bush Administration is losing their ability to exploit with impunity the intelligence community, in order to advance misleading propaganda. They have been sufficiently exposed in doing so that it is now becoming politically possible within government institutions to resist further abuse of authority. That's what has changed the NIE.
IPSFormer CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House. "The White House wants a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy," says Giraldi. Despite pressures on them to change their dissenting conclusions, however, Giraldi says some analysts have refused to go along with conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence.some of [the conclusions of the 2005 NIE] appear to have been thinly sourced and were based on methods less rigorous than were ultimately required under an intelligence overhaul that did not begin in earnest until later.
It was also written by some of the same team that had produced key parts of the flawed Iraq estimate. Robert D. Walpole oversaw both reports as the national intelligence officer responsible for assessing illicit-weapons programs.
Robert Hutchings, who as head of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to early 2005 oversaw early production of the 2005 Iran assessment, said the quality of information about Iran’s nuclear program should have made American intelligence analysts wary of judging anything with “high confidence.” That was how the 2005 report described the basis for its assertion that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons, a conclusion that has been disavowed.
“The fact that we’ve reversed course two years later suggests that the high confidence back then wasn’t warranted”
The way that the Administration was talking before release of this latest NIE was also telling:
Washington MonthlyThis NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA — all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless.
The stark difference in the NIE is part of a development impacting American society from top to bottom: The neoconservative spin machine is flying apart.
12-08-07, 08:13 AM #432
12-08-07, 08:29 AM #433
My answer was more than can be said for your rebuttal to it. I responded specifically to your question. Your dismissive response is superficial, defensive, and apparently uninformed.
12-08-07, 08:44 AM #434
No your response was nothing but prevarication, the Question was and still is if the people who presented the report say the 2005 NIE was Correct, then how can the 2007 be correct about the 2003 date, if the 2007 NIE is correct, then the report in 2005 was incorrect, but they are still claiming that the 2005 report is correct.
A NIE come in two parts, a best case, and a worst case, the best case has been released because of Democratic Political Pressure, the Worst Case has not, WHY? because it is classified? because it would revel the depth of knowledge of Irans program, and point to how we are acquiring the information.
So if 2005 was correct, and the People who wrote the report say it is, then how can the 2007 report be correct? and if the 2007 NIE is correct and the people who wrote the report say it is them how can the 2005 report be correct as stated by the same people?
You answered nothing, you responded with your typical left wing spin machine mentality, and political hack mentality.
The sparring over a highly-classified set of facts and conclusions is precisely the reason Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said last month he did not to intend to make the NIE findings public.
McConnell reversed course at the insistence of Democrats in Congress and published an unclassified summary of key findings on Monday, with predictable results.
Nothing but pollitics.
Last edited by Buffalo Roam; 12-08-07 at 08:54 AM.
12-08-07, 09:26 AM #435
Buffalo Roam: "A NIE come in two parts, a best case, and a worst case, the best case has been released because of Democratic Political Pressure, the Worst Case has not"
That isn't the format at all. You can read about both the format and the process in the preamble of the release below. Basically the agencies agree on a set of points, and weigh them with "high" änd "medium"confidence. Just read it yourself:
2001 NIE release: Iran
"the Worst Case [portion of the 2007 NIE]has not [been published], WHY? because it is classified?"
Sorry, you can't inject the invisible here as credible support for your argument.
"if 2005 was correct, and the People who wrote the report say it is, then how can the 2007 report be correct?"
Different people are involved now. And note in the Release:The NIC has undertaken a number of steps to improve the NIE process under the DNI.
These steps are in accordance with the goals and recommendations set out in the SSCI
and WMD Commission reports and the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Prevention of
Terrorism Act. Most notably, over the last year and a half, the IC has:
Created new procedures to integrate formal reviews of source reporting and
technical judgments. The Directors of the National Clandestine Service, NSA, NGA,
and DIA and the Assistant Secretary/INR are now required to submit formal
assessments that highlight the strengths, weaknesses, and overall credibility of their
sources used in developing the critical judgments of the NIE.
Applied more rigorous standards. A textbox is incorporated into all NIEs that
explains what we mean by such terms as “we judge” and that clarifies the difference
between judgments of likelihood and confidence levels. We have made a concerted
effort to not only highlight differences among agencies but to explain the reasons for
such differences and to prominently display them in the Key Judgments.
It has been the revealed political manipulation of previous intelligence by the Bush 43 Administration that created this controversy. In response, the NIC is trying to restore the objectivity of NIEs and other community products.
12-08-07, 09:55 AM #436
Then explain this?
Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan and IAEA, don't seem to concure with the present NIE, or you.
Iran says UN sanctions invalid
Updated Fri. Nov. 23 2007 12:34 PM ET
The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria -- Iran on Friday rejected UN sanctions because of its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment as invalid and warned its enemies to expect a wave of resistance if they increase pressure on Tehran to mothball the program.
Iran is running 3,000 declared centrifuges -- sufficient to produce enough material for a nuclear warhead within 1 1/2 years if Tehran chose to.
The IAEA meeting focused on a report from agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei outlining the progress of an investigation of past suspicious Iranian nuclear activities.
The report gives Tehran mixed marks. It suggests that as far as the agency can determine, Iran has told the truth about black market purchases of centrifuge technology used to enrich uranium.
But it points out the IAEA will be unable to assess the present state of Iran's centrifuge development unless the Iranians restore fuller inspection rights to UN experts and says it cannot draw a definite conclusion on whether some activities had possible military aspects
But the United States and key European nations as well as Canada, Australia and Japan contend Iran's cooperation has been spotty, and they insist it must obey a Security Council order to suspend enrichment.
On Thursday, chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte charged that Iran was repeating past foot-dragging -- "promises of full cooperation under international pressure, selective cooperation and backsliding when the pressure comes off."
Noting that the IAEA's latest report says the agency "knows less and less" about Tehran's nuclear activities ... including whether or not it is for exclusively peaceful purposes," Schulte accused Iran of using "delay tactics" in hopes of staving off new sanctions.
Separately, Britain, France and Germany expressed concern about a recent IAEA conclusion that Iran purchased black market nuclear technology meant for Libya's military nuclear program. "This does not help reassure us," their statement said.
"We cannot accept that the knowledge of the agency in Iran is diminishing," said the statement, read by chief French delegate Francois-Xavier Deniau. "We cannot ... (accept) that Iran refuses to bend to the demands of the council and that it violates the resolutions of the Security Council."
Continued Iranian defiance means the world "has to draw conclusions at the Security Council level," the statement added, alluding to further sanctions.
12-08-07, 04:17 PM #437
While the AP article that I Googled up (unlike your own edited version of it) describes the pressurized ambiguities that sanctions and discussions over their intensification present, nothing substantive, new, and scary was revealed there about Iran. Just imagine for a moment the grist if the USA were being held to a similar grindstone. All nations are sovereign, but some are more sovereign than others (paraphrasing Orwell). The issue of what nations are entitled to advanced weaponry, or even civil-use nuclear production technology, is hopelessly mired in contradictions over sovereignty. The paradigm until now has always been that once a nation cracks the code and possesses the resources, that nation has the option of entering the nuclear club. That paradigm is not going to be suddenly halted, and club membership frozen, certainly not while superpower sabre-rattling has been encouraging threatened nations to build their own nuclear deterrents.
The AP article mentions black-market acquisitions of hand-me-down centrifuges (perhaps broken-down centrifuges) that happened years ago. It's old news now, and not what concerns the members. The pressing concern at the Security Council is about keeping monitoring in place. In the case of Iraq, war took precedence over discovery, but there is a keener awareness in the present spotlighting of Iran that belligerence does not assist with international monitoring. There is nobody in the IAEA suggesting cause for attacking Iran here; no "smoking gun". On the contrary, the impetus at the UN is likely to put in place a program that can hold up better than the Iraqi inspection regime did in face of the Anglo-American propaganda blitz of 2003. Likewise, the US intelligence and military establishments are clearly signalling a new resolve not to roll over as they did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Not specific to your comments, but more generally for both sides of the Fear Iran issue: The further airing of issues related to information cooking and marketing will beneficially contribute to the demystification of government information services. The mythbuilding is embodied in the very term used to describe government news and information-gathering. For all the costly sensors, US Intelligence often lags behind the world press in terms of the all-important "humint", or reliable human sources. Secret bureaucracies have an inherent tendency toward isolation of both analysts and information that is not always conducive to clarity and subtlety.
Much of the howling over the latest NIE summary is a response to a challenge to a time-honored myth-building assertion and insinuation. Information gained in the dark, or out of the public eye, is sometimes bandied as more reliable than what is gathered in the daylight. It is of course a necessary assumption in maintaining prodigious and secret Intelligence budgets. But from time to time, the assumption falls down. We have all witnessed the most expensive information-gathering apparatus in the world's highest-level pronouncements being proven dead-wrong, even as "outsiders" lacking "clearance" have commanded a much clearer view, that has been vindicated over time.
When "intelligence estimates" enter the political arena, the practical differences between an intelligence service and a news bureau fade. Contentious issues in the public eye require identical corroboration, because no information-gathering source is considered an infallible oracle. When we discuss a summary issued by the National Intelligence Council, for example, we have to keep an eye towards the evidence available out in the daylight, through both international monitoring and the press, in the case of nuclear proliferation- We assume factuality of any single source at our peril, especially when a favored source contradicts most others.
An unprecedented information age is unfolding. If we compare the sheer amount and specificity of military information available in the public arena today with that of decades past, the difference is phenomenal. Call it leaks, or accountability, the result is that the resolution of stories is accelerating. Official keepers (hoarders?) of the truth have diminishing uniqueness. This is an increasingly salient issue when participatory governments are undergoing agitation for elective warfare. In the American experience, "pre-emptive" or elective warfare is taking more and more explaining before mobilization. I see this as a positive trend. Elitists will likely disagree.
Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald Kerr defends the NIE
Last edited by hypewaders; 12-08-07 at 05:05 PM.
12-29-07, 01:24 AM #438
12-29-07, 07:26 PM #439
Achmed Imadinnerjacket doesn't impress me much, but that's no excuse to go and cook a couple of million Iranians with nukes. Besides, wind and nuclear fallout know no borders, as anyone who was alive when Chernobyl went up will know. Would you bomb the crud out of Iran, then stand there and take all the bad press you'd get from all of Iran's neighbours when the hard rain starts falling on them, making tens of thousands of people sick? Not to mention the strategic and tactical problems of taking control of Iran once the bomb/s had been dropped, and 40 million Iranians were really steamed (more than usual) about having foreigners in their country.
12-30-07, 10:00 AM #440
Relations between nations get especially analogous to interpersonal and interspecies relations when one nation is undergoing a decline in prestige and respect. The trouble with attacking Iran is not only because it presents challenges of a tactical and strategic military nature. Attacking Iran now further removes support for US authority in the Mideast (and beyond) that has already been in sharp decline. We are sharply trending toward a near-term point where little association with American-associated associations will be cool in the desert. This predicament is being met with denial in the USA, which also contributes to the many indications of how profoundly it actually is our national predicament in the USA.
It's a lot like the climate-change debate: Supporters of this neoimperialism and neocorporatism that have emerged under Bush-Cheney will ever insist that what they have wrought, and what they still hope to wreak, will someday be popular among the millions of recipients of their international attention; they actually expect what has been going on to result in greater US influence; some corporate supporters think the New American Century was the perfect model of capitalist lebenstraum; some still expect war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and (if necessary) Pakistan, Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.to improve and promote their American-associated corporate interest. People in support of present US foreign policy are OK with being forbidden from Makkah- But they obviously haven't contemplated the implications of having any organization associated with the United States to be boycotted, and more thoroughly than in 1973. They obviously don't understand what it's going to do to the US economy if anything even vaguely resembling a miniature of this scenario emerges.
To me, these politicians and their corporate partners are identical in behavior to people who buy dogs and cats, or now maybe elephants and rhinos, and then proceed to beat them in private and in public, in the open expectation of having some pleasant new companions in life. These kind of people will look you right in the eye and say "I(/They) know what I'm(/They're) doing".
Last edited by hypewaders; 12-30-07 at 10:46 AM.
By madanthonywayne in forum World EventsLast Post: 02-20-07, 06:56 PMReplies: 167
By MattMarr in forum World EventsLast Post: 09-18-06, 04:00 PMReplies: 4
By Solve et Coagula in forum PoliticsLast Post: 04-22-06, 04:11 PMReplies: 25
By vincent in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-27-06, 08:50 AMReplies: 10
By Kiwi123 in forum World EventsLast Post: 11-08-05, 08:54 PMReplies: 26