Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Regarding benGazi, no, it wouldn't make the president look ba, except perhaps on Fox News, which is about as meaningless as it can get in terms of criticizing teh president. Nobody who had a favorable opinon of him would have been swayed by teh fact that a terrorist organization attacked teh embassy instead of an enraged mob. if anything the president looks better with a terrorist organization because that means that under his leadership we have a few enemies in the area instead of large mobs of enemies in the area.
In the thread about the attack itself you said:

Consulate Attack ThreadSure tehre are a lot of details and geopolics involved, but consider that in 1990 when Salman rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses the fatwa was only issued for Rushdie- not even teh publishing company was targeted. Ultimately however that proved to be humiliating to those who issued teh Fatwa as it turned out their power could be thwarted by a single author for decades. So now the call goes out to strike back at whoever is closest. yes they have reasons, but those reasons are also being manipulated and directed, teh same way that Republicans have attempted to manipulate anti-Islamic feelin into a movement against Obama. Political leaders who do a bad job need someoen to blame, and someone with more military in the area than all teh legitimate leaders of the area combined does make a convenient target, one that in the words of Kissinger "has the additional benefit of being the truth"


I know they're different situations but you're right in principle. And Obama found that someone to blame when he went to the UN and blamed a video and mob violence despite us now knowing they were aware within two hours that terrorist groups have claimed credit. Of course Obama could have been out golfing or at a fundraiser at that time but the White House itself was aware of it despite what they later claimed in press briefings, TV interviews, UN, etc in the weeks following the attack. The emphasis for nearly a month after on the video and the protest slowed down investigations into why the Consulate was under attack for 8-10 hours and we didn't do anything except watch a live feed from a drone when we had forces that could have gotten there within 8 hours.

I think quite a few people have their ideological blinders on to believe the President whether it's Nixon saying "I am not a crook!", or Bush's "Read my lips, no new taxes!", Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." or Obama's "The suggestion that anyone on my team would play politics is offensive."

There's a difference between a terrorist group claiming credit and knowing that it was performed by terrorists. Terrorist groups claim credit for anything they can (I remember seeing on the news during Iraq multiple terrorist groups claiming responsibility for the same act), and while it's something I would pay attention to as President, I don't know that I would make an intelligence decision based on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
while it's something I would pay attention to as President, I don't know that I would make an intelligence decision based on it.
Particularly if I were to be receiving repeated assurances from my own intelligence agency to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
There's a difference between a terrorist group claiming credit and knowing that it was performed by terrorists. Terrorist groups claim credit for anything they can (I remember seeing on the news during Iraq multiple terrorist groups claiming responsibility for the same act), and while it's something I would pay attention to as President, I don't know that I would make an intelligence decision based on it.
Exactly, especially in a case like this.

Even if you were correct that the president needed someone to blame because he was doing a bad job- an argument I quite vigerously disagree with primarilly because i think a president who rescued an economy in freefall and brought it back to teh same level and opposite direction as when he took office 4 years ago is in fact doing a great job, your argument that he lied intentionally to protect himself still holds no water as he could just have easilly laid the blame on terrorists as the mob and actually come off looking better as it would demonstrate a stronger foreign policy.

Essentially your claim boils down to a statement that the president lied and made himself look worse in order to cover up his mistakes, mistakes which nobody can actually point out what they were beyond a bland assertio about how badly he is doing when the evidence suggests he is in fact not doing badly at all- especially on foreign policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Superior vantage points for examining irrelevant claims on a subjective scale? Maybe, but why bother? Like I said, it's like two kids arguing over who started what- even if you try to be fair one kid will think you just like the other better. Now with Isreal and Palestine they aren't my kids, nor are they the US's kids, though some people disagree about that apparently. So whatever we do we need to do to both of them, make sure it is clear we aren't playing favorites and we won't let the whole world get dragged into their petty squabble.
I wouldn't at all consider a linchpin Israeli propagandist claim to moral superiority irrelevant. It's widely invoked by pro-Israelis, and even those in the middle who don't know better to legitimize Israeli actions and stances which are simply atrocious and unconscionable.

Further, as international law and history (Israel objectively being a state founded on massacre, theocratic dogma and systemic terrorism) are on the side of the Palestinians in balance, their position _should_ be favoured over the Israeli one. That isn't to say all of its tenants must be agreed with or championed, but that support should lean in their direction rather than the opposite which is presently the case.

Linchpin Israeli propagandist? That is rich.My objection has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, beyond thinking that we have invested far to much time and effort in the issue for a conflict that dates back over 1000 years. I don't care a fig for israel, I just find it intellectually objectionable to argue for an 'unbiased' definition of fairness. That issue is the only one I am adressing, and I would address it outside teh context of Israel and Palestine as well- i grew up with "life isn't fair" and have found that it is a pretty universal truth that appeals to fairness come down in two categories- immaturity and con jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Linchpin Israeli propagandist? That is rich.My objection has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, beyond thinking that we have invested far to much time and effort in the issue for a conflict that dates back over 1000 years. I don't care a fig for israel, I just find it intellectually objectionable to argue for an 'unbiased' definition of fairness. That issue is the only one I am adressing, and I would address it outside teh context of Israel and Palestine as well- i grew up with "life isn't fair" and have found that it is a pretty universal truth that appeals to fairness come down in two categories- immaturity and con jobs.
Given the definition of propaganda and the fact that Israeli version of the 2000 Camp David Summit is often cited in support of the state (and/or to discredit Palestine), 'linchpin Israeli propagandist claim' isn't 'rich' so much as it is accurate.

As for the definition of fairness, I've never argued that there was a completely infallible and objective definition (at least in cases where subjectivity is involved). There are however obviously better/less biased vantages for determining what is fair, and these should be taken up and inform our judgments whenever possible.

I do not support Israel.
Therefore I cannot be a linchpin propagandist for Israel.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a minion of Israel, or bound to their propaganda.
You have presented no evidence beyond your bald assertion that I am somehow affiliated with Israel, and I am not- I would ask you to cease teh ad hominem nature of your arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
I do not support Israel.
Therefore I cannot be a linchpin propagandist for Israel.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a minion of Israel, or bound to their propaganda.
You have presented no evidence beyond your bald assertion that I am somehow affiliated with Israel, and I am not- I would ask you to cease teh ad hominem nature of your arguments.
I don't think you understood me at all. I am referring to the disinformation that Palestine scorned Israeli 'generosity' at the Camp David Summit, not claiming that you are a propagandist for Israel.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status