Pamela Brown Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The irony of Yom Kippur: http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/09/24/jewish-atonement-but-not-for-zionisms-crimes-against-the-palestinians/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Lee some of the saying that Israel knew that the liberty was an American ship came from the personal abroad the ship at the time of the attack i will take their word anytime Mack, Was the ship equipped with mind reading equipment? The ship was easily identified as an American ship which was flying a large American flag. James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag. The case of the USS Liberty should be acknowledged as the betrayal by Israel that it really represents. There is no other explanation imo and the myriad excuses given don't hold water. But why did LBJ enable this enigma to continue when he must have had the facts close to the time when it occurred? I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 The case of the USS Liberty should be acknowledged as the betrayal by Israel that it really represents. There is no other explanation imo and the myriad excuses given don't hold water. But why did LBJ enable this enigma to continue when he must have had the facts close to the time when it occurred? I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Yes I realized it was retorical but your reply smacks of, 'I've made up my mind don't confuse me with the facts.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) James Jesus Angleton Why did it take more than three years for the American intelligence establishment to reach the conclusion that Israel was planning to build nuclear weapons at the "peaceful" nuclear research station at Dimona? According to Avner Cohen's account in Israel and the Bomb, "Information about Israel was jealously held within the CIA, where James Jesus Angelton was in charge of the Israeli desk. Angleton did not share sensitive information with other agencies, and also withheld much of it from other CIA sections". http://books.google....epage&q&f=false Edited October 2, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 An eye opening time, the latter half of July, 1999. I don't believe Heymann's claim of being an actual agent of Mossad. I don't accept the official government claims, or Heymann's "notes" about JFK, Jr. and the events related to the disappearance of JFK, Jr.'s Piper Saratoga. I think Lisa pulled her punches in her related CTKA piece. I think this thread is as good a place as any for this curious collection and I hope more is not read into it. [...] Wow that clocked in at over 3200 words. Others and I have told in the past but many of your posts seem like a whole bunch of data in search of a point, what exactly was your point? "Tommy can you hear me?....Ooh, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy" It's a simple question Tom, how come you have time to churn out a 3200+ word post but can't dedicate a few words to spelling out your point? Bumped for Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) The case of the USS Liberty should be acknowledged as the betrayal by Israel that it really represents. There is no other explanation imo and the myriad excuses given don't hold water. But why did LBJ enable this enigma to continue when he must have had the facts close to the time when it occurred? I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Yes I realized it was retorical but your reply smacks of, 'I've made up my mind don't confuse me with the facts.' What you consider 'facts' are just your opinion. You are entitled. Edited October 4, 2012 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Yes I realized it was retorical but your reply smacks of, 'I've made up my mind don't confuse me with the facts.' What you consider 'facts' are just your opinion. You are entitled. The facts were extensively debated in cited the thread, they are not my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) More James Jesus Angleton Angleton, it turns out knew of what he spoke. In Top Secret testimony to the Church Committee Tad Szulc outlined Angleton's own account of U.S assistance to the Israeli atom bomb program. "I was told by one of my news sources that a situation had occurred in the 1960's in which the CIA delivered to the Israeli government classified information , technical knowledge, know-who, the services of distinguished physicists and fissionable material in the form of plutonium to assist in the development of an Israeli nuclear weapon at the Dimona Israeli Nuclear Testing grounds.... I have raised the subject in private conversation with Mr. James Angleton in the spring of this year [April 1975]. Mr. Angleton told me that essentially this information was correct. ... Angleton corrected Szulc on two points, saying that the events had taken place in the late 1950's, after the Suez War, and that no fissionable material had been delivered. Szulc then asked Angleton "whether he could confirm that a British born scientist...Wilfrid Basil Mann...was indeed one of the scientist involved in this operation. Mr. Angleton confirmed that indeed this was the case. http://books.google....epage&q&f=false Edited October 7, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) In1967 Israel gets the bomb... By the mid-1960's the CIA station in Tel Aviv was convinced, for good reason, that the Israeli's had an atomic bomb program. These field reports became official in March 1963, when the head of the Office of National Estimates, Sherman Kent, released a report on "Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.". Kent wrote that "Israel's policy toward its neighbors would become more rather [than] less tough... t would ...seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers...[israel] would use all its means at its command to persuade the US to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability." Kent predicted that the Arab countries would be dismayed and frustrated and turn from the United States to the Soviet Union for support. Three years later the CIA predicted that Israeli "assembly of a nuclear weapon could be completed in 6-8 weeks, a prediction that came true when, just before the 1967 war, Israel put together two nuclear weapons. http://books.google....epage&q&f=false Edited October 7, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Yes I realized it was retorical but your reply smacks of, 'I've made up my mind don't confuse me with the facts.' What you consider 'facts' are just your opinion. You are entitled. The facts were extensively debated in cited the thread, they are not my opinion. Now you are presenting an appeal to the masses. That is a fallacy. The goal of rhetoric is to persuade others, not to dictate. Edited October 10, 2012 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 There were far more reasons to murder JFK, than the fact, that he tried to prevent Isreal to get some nukes. reasons that had absolute nothing to do with Jews or the State of Israel... I don't give a shekel for Ragos crazy Israel did it theory... KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I already participated in a 10 page thread about the incident. I'm not into starting new discussion on the topic from scratch but if either of you read through the old thread and want to continue the discussion there I'll reply. http://educationforu...?showtopic=9846 Nice thread. However, my question was rhetorical. Yes I realized it was retorical but your reply smacks of, 'I've made up my mind don't confuse me with the facts.' What you consider 'facts' are just your opinion. You are entitled. The facts were extensively debated in cited the thread, they are not my opinion. Now you are presenting an appeal to the masses. That is a fallacy. The goal of rhetoric is to persuade others, not to dictate. "Appeal to the masses"? you should really know what fancy terminology means before using it, otherwise you can end up looking foolish: Appeal to the masses (argumentum ad populum, appealing to the people, mob appeal, appealing to the gallery, appeal to popular pieties). This involves theatrical appeals to our lowest instincts, such as selfishness, greed, jealousy, or vanity rather than using facts and reasoning... "Because you are a college audience, I know I can speak to you about difficult matters seriously." Oh, well, thank you very much; please do go on! One example of appeal to the masses is the bandwagon fallacy (consensus gentium, argumentum ad numerum): concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. “Most people believe in God; therefore, it must be true.” Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. Once upon a time, everyone thought the earth was flat! "All I'm saying is that millions of people believe in astrology, so there must be something to it." "The enormous popularity of books on dream analysis alone suggests its validity!" http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/fallacies.html I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 LC said: I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you seem to think your position is correct because of the 'extensive debate' on the thread. Do the various members who posted in the thread not constitute a 'mass'? On the other hand, if your argument is that you have 'debated the case closely' because of the debate on the thread and you think that I have not, that is an appeal to authority. The fact is that you have your opinions and I have mine. I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in how you defend your position. You don't seem to know how to defend your position with logic, so why should I even bother? Why not just agree to disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 LC said: I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you seem to think your position is correct because of the 'extensive debate' on the thread. Do the various members who posted in the thread not constitute a 'mass'? On the other hand, if your argument is that you have 'debated the case closely' because of the debate on the thread and you think that I have not, that is an appeal to authority. The fact is that you have your opinions and I have mine. I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in how you defend your position. You don't seem to know how to defend your position with logic, so why should I even bother? Why not just agree to disagree? LC said: I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you seem to think your position is correct because of the 'extensive debate' on the thread. Do the various members who posted in the thread not constitute a 'mass'? On the other hand, if your argument is that you have 'debated the case closely' because of the debate on the thread and you think that I have not, that is an appeal to authority. The fact is that you have your opinions and I have mine. I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in how you defend your position. You don't seem to know how to defend your position with logic, so why should I even bother? Why not just agree to disagree? I am quite aware of the details of the incident as my participation in the tread indicates. I've seen no indication your knowledge is of equal depth. That was not an appeal to authority, I invited anyone so interested to revive the thread. What I'm not willing to do is rerun the entire debate from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 LC said: I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you seem to think your position is correct because of the 'extensive debate' on the thread. Do the various members who posted in the thread not constitute a 'mass'? On the other hand, if your argument is that you have 'debated the case closely' because of the debate on the thread and you think that I have not, that is an appeal to authority. The fact is that you have your opinions and I have mine. I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in how you defend your position. You don't seem to know how to defend your position with logic, so why should I even bother? Why not just agree to disagree? LC said: I never employed such tactics.In fact I did the exact opposite I encouraged people to go to a thread where the incident was debated. As evidenced by the lengthy thread I'm quite aware of the relevant facts I've seen no evidence you examined the case so closely. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you seem to think your position is correct because of the 'extensive debate' on the thread. Do the various members who posted in the thread not constitute a 'mass'? On the other hand, if your argument is that you have 'debated the case closely' because of the debate on the thread and you think that I have not, that is an appeal to authority. The fact is that you have your opinions and I have mine. I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in how you defend your position. You don't seem to know how to defend your position with logic, so why should I even bother? Why not just agree to disagree? I am quite aware of the details of the incident as my participation in the tread indicates. I've seen no indication your knowledge is of equal depth. That was not an appeal to authority, I invited anyone so interested to revive the thread. What I'm not willing to do is rerun the entire debate from scratch. You are entitled to your opinion and your belief that your position is superior to mine. From my standpoint, your arguments are lacking in sufficient logic for me to have any interest in debating you, even if you wanted to. Why not agree-to-disagree and move forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now