Author
|
Topic: The New Cold War (Read 2141 times) |
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.25
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
  
|
 |
The New Cold War
« on: 2008-05-14 18:24:21 » |
 |
WW rubs his hands together in eager anticipation of some lernin.......
;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
May 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The New Cold War
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the cold war. Yes, the next president is going to be a cold-war president — but this cold war is with Iran.
That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.”
For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?
The outrage of the week is the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah attempt to take over Lebanon. Hezbollah thugs pushed into Sunni neighborhoods in West Beirut, focusing particular attention on crushing progressive news outlets like Future TV, so Hezbollah’s propaganda machine could dominate the airwaves. The Shiite militia Hezbollah emerged supposedly to protect Lebanon from Israel. Having done that, it has now turned around and sold Lebanon to Syria and Iran.
All of this is part of what Ehud Yaari, one of Israel’s best Middle East watchers, calls “Pax Iranica.” In his April 28 column in The Jerusalem Report, Mr. Yaari pointed out the web of influence that Iran has built around the Middle East — from the sway it has over Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, to its ability to manipulate virtually all the Shiite militias in Iraq, to its building up of Hezbollah into a force — with 40,000 rockets — that can control Lebanon and threaten Israel should it think of striking Tehran, to its ability to strengthen Hamas in Gaza and block any U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace.
“Simply put,” noted Mr. Yaari, “Tehran has created a situation in which anyone who wants to attack its atomic facilities will have to take into account that this will lead to bitter fighting” on the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Persian Gulf fronts. That is a sophisticated strategy of deterrence.
The Bush team, by contrast, in eight years has managed to put America in the unique position in the Middle East where it is “not liked, not feared and not respected,” writes Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast negotiator under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his provocative new book on the peace process, titled “The Much Too Promised Land.”
“We stumbled for eight years under Bill Clinton over how to make peace in the Middle East, and then we stumbled for eight years under George Bush over how to make war there,” said Mr. Miller, and the result is “an America that is trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon.”
Look at the last few months, he said: President Bush went to the Middle East in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went in February, Vice President Dick Cheney went in March, the secretary of state went again in April, and the president is there again this week. After all that, oil prices are as high as ever and peace prospects as low as ever. As Mr. Miller puts it, America right now “cannot defeat, co-opt or contain” any of the key players in the region.
The big debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is over whether or not we should talk to Iran. Obama is in favor; Clinton has been against. Alas, the right question for the next president isn’t whether we talk or don’t talk. It’s whether we have leverage or don’t have leverage.
When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran.
The only weaker party is the Sunni Arab world, which is either so drunk on oil it thinks it can buy its way out of any Iranian challenge or is so divided it can’t make a fist to protect its own interests — or both.
We’re not going to war with Iran, nor should we. But it is sad to see America and its Arab friends so weak they can’t prevent one of the last corners of decency, pluralism and openness in the Arab world from being snuffed out by Iran and Syria. The only thing that gives me succor is the knowledge that anyone who has ever tried to dominate Lebanon alone — Maronites, Palestinians, Syrians, Israelis — has triggered a backlash and failed.
“Lebanon is not a place anyone can control without a consensus, without bringing everybody in,” said the Lebanese columnist Michael Young. “Lebanon has been a graveyard for people with grand projects.” In the Middle East, he added, your enemies always seem to “find a way of joining together and suddenly making things very difficult for you.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #1 on: 2008-05-15 10:14:53 » |
|
Time is not on my side. I'll do what I can in a short note.
It is quite apparent where these so called reporters come from, their articles are sufficiently slanted to make it quite blatant that they are not suffering from incomprehension but are rather purely perverse, completely inverting reality to suit their weltanschauung. Contra these belligerent and paranoid lunatics, and as I previously observed to Mo, we don't need to "interpret" what Iran is doing, we need to pay attention to what they are saying. Because what they are saying - and what they are seeing - is quite sufficient to explain what they are doing.
What they are seeing is the amassing of weapons and personnel on all their borders and at sea, by an enemy that has repeatedly attacked their ships, brutally and inexcusably shot down their aircraft and is engaging in an ongoing propaganda effort against her the likes of which have not been seen since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Also on fabricated grounds.
So far their response has been diplomatic and political, and has followed the prescribed legal channels. Unfortunately, the US is using a combination of its security council seat, bribery, cajolery, threats and blackmail in order to isolate Iran and prevent its perfectly legitimate grievances from being addressed. This process is not opaque, but rather the reverse, once again showing us up as hypocrites and bullies. Unlike the US, the world's largest arms exporter, which doesn't particularly care about who buys its weapons as long as they are seen as being "on our side," Iran has supplied weapons to those aligned with it - who happen to be the oppressed minority in a large number of instances. This is not, however, because they "support terrorism" but because they have been ameliorating the impacts of US and Israeli actions on others. Today the non-UN, US instigated financial sanctions are impacting Iran and Iranians, making it very clear to every Iranian that, contra US words, that we are their enemy. Stupid because most Iranians used to like the United States. Syria, not having oil revenue to balance is even worse off, and is being assisted by Iran because of this, partly on the basis that the friend of my enemy is my friend.
We can agree that the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. I would suggest that the fecklessness is is a natural consequence of the combination of autocratic and brutal governments, ruling through fear and supported by the USA. The division is driven by greed and exacerbated by the US and Israeli machinations (little though that is needed). More puzzling, the portrayal of Iran as "strong and ruthless" and the USA as "dumb and weak" begs many questions. Why the unbalanced descriptions? Perhaps we can stipulate that the US, like her President, is dumb. The opposite of "dumb" would perhaps be "smart," which might well be applied to Iran which has kept itself squeaky clean and when attacked, the attack will be seen as unwarranted by most of the world. So I wonder where does the supposed "ruthlessness" originate? How is "strength" and "weakness" measured." Which countries has Iran invaded? How many troops does Iran have stationed abroad? Where are its fleets of hostile vessels? What are its missiles targeting? Who is Iran leaning on to isolate other countries?
Approvingly quoting the Zionist Jerusalem Report, including the idea that Israel has any interest in peace, when it has benefited so obviously from aggression and predation is perhaps an answer in and of its own right. At this point, with the US supporting Israel's dismemberment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestine, many Palestinians are beginning to say that a two state solution is no longer possible. That a single state encompassing both Israelis and Palestinians exists de juri et de belli and that the apartheid in Israel and the right of return are the substantive issues to be addressed. The demographics of this strategy is likely to result in the ultimate transformation of Israel irrespective of actions short of genocide of the Palestinians. And the USA would not support that. Or would they?
And on to the Lebanon.
Contra the USA/Israeli portrayal, Hezbollah is not a terrorist beast and clearly does not aspire to rule. Rather it is a peculiarly Islamic/philanthropic/tribal/nationalistic movement which evolved out of providing charity services in the collapse of the Lebanon due to American and Israeli interventions and invasion in the 1980s and which has evolved and adapted to respond to and counter the threats arrayed against the people of the Lebanon. Despite the American obsession with "only the state as actor," Hezbollah is not "managed by" or even "controlled by" Syria or Iran although they clearly have affiliations and receive donations and assistance from these (and other) sources.
Just as we saw recently in the Palestine, the US/Israel clumsily attempted to instigate a coup which has backfired in a huge way. This time the intention appears to have been intended to neuter the Hezbollah communication network (which would prevent their coordinated response to military action) and to limit their ability to monitor the International Airport (which allows Hezbollah the ability to respond to the injection of new combatants or weapon systems) in preparation for neutralizing them ahead of the appointment of a US/Israel aligned president, without granting Hezbollah the parliamentary veto they have demanded, and over Hezbollah's strong objections.
Hezbollah deployed a tiny fraction of their forces, proving that they are in a position to totally dominate the Lebanon, and then in a very sophisticated move, handed power to the army that has largely remained neutral during the political turmoil of the past few months. This provided a powerful demonstration that Hezbollah was not - and apparently is not - interested in taking power, even though they almost certainly could. They assert that they would like to work inside a political framework which is not manipulated by either side and nothing they have done or said indicates otherwise.
Clearly Hezbollah won this round, the US/Israeli backed push against their fiber network has of course been abandoned, and the airport will remain shut until and unless Hezbollah can monitor it effectively again.
Meanwhile one has to wonder why two countries can't talk without "leverage"? It sounds stupid and shortsighted to me. Much like the insane American policies of talking only to one's friends, and employing sanctions which, never mind the rhetoric, always have the effect of starving the masses in an attempt to influence the behavior of the few, and in so doing inverting the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. Not only showing a bankruptcy of concept but unethical in every possible way.
Which brings us to the current American position, which I think is accurately portrayed. Spreadeagled, bare assed and with Israel standing behind it with lowered fly.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #2 on: 2008-05-16 13:19:51 » |
|
ANALYSIS-Hezbollah deals more damage to Bush's credibility
[ Hermit : Nice to find confirmation. This is an excellent article compared to the original. I have not highlighted the last section because it is not reporting but analysis, but it certainly is worth reading and I concur broadly with the conclusions.]
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Authors: Alistair Lyon (Special Correspondent), Samia Nakhoul (Editing)
Dated: 2008-05-14
Datelines: Beirut (Reuters)
Hezbollah's humbling of Lebanon's U.S.-backed government has dealt a further blow to American credibility in the region less than a year after Hamas Islamists seized Gaza from Palestinian leaders supported by Washington.
The Shi'ite Islamist group's easy military triumph over pro-government gunmen preceded this week's visit to the region by U.S. President George W. Bush, who had cast Lebanon as a success for his declared drive for democracy in the Arab world.
That campaign was decisively tarnished in Arab eyes when Bush denounced the 2006 victory of Hamas in Palestinian polls he had promoted, and led an international campaign to isolate and deny funding to the government formed by the Islamist movement.
Three years ago, compelling images of Lebanese demonstrators demanding -- and winning -- the withdrawal of Syrian troops who had dominated Lebanon for 29 years provided Bush with a rare moment to relish amid the disasters of the U.S. war in Iraq.
Now the anti-Syrian ruling coalition he backs is in disarray after an 18-month-old power struggle with Hezbollah and its allies led to the violence that has cost 81 lives in the past week, nudging Lebanon closer towards sectarian civil war.
"Bush and (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice singled out Lebanon as a poster child of their success," said Rami Khouri, a political analyst in Beirut. "That makes the loss even bigger."
He said it was too early to predict how Hezbollah's bold street offensive would play out politically, but described events so far as a "huge setback" for the United States.
"It comes as part of a cumulative process in which an American policy to confront Islamists and nationalists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, perhaps Yemen and now Lebanon seems to have failed, at least in the short run."
The White House has acknowledged it was "very disappointed" by the turmoil in Lebanon, once again the arena for a wider conflict pitting the United States and its Arab allies against Iran, Syria and groups they support such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
CAUGHT NAPPING
In this round at least, Hezbollah caught Washington napping, leaving Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government helpless.
"I don't know what the pro-U.S. people were thinking about the extent of U.S. commitment to Lebanon," said Hilal Khashan, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut. "Hezbollah's actions took the Americans by surprise and they will have to scratch their heads for a response."
The crisis erupted after Siniora's government decided to outlaw Hezbollah's private telephone network and to fire Beirut airport's security chief, who is close to the Shi'ite group.
Denouncing these moves as an attack on the "weapons of the resistance" to Israel, Hezbollah went on the offensive against its Sunni and Druze foes in and around Beirut. For the first time in 20 years, it reneged on its promise to use its arsenal only against Israel, never against fellow-Lebanese.
With no clear explanation of why the cabinet embarked on a provocative course, some analysts suggest the United States and its Arab allies pushed for the hard line against Hezbollah.
"Perhaps U.S. policy to raise the pressure against Iran and its allies, and President Bush's impending visit to the Middle East impelled the government to do something," wrote Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East programme.
Equally puzzling is why Iran this time gave Hezbollah approval -- assuming it did -- to apply its military muscle to a Lebanese political row rumbling since the 2006 war with Israel.
Perhaps, Salem speculated, it was an Iranian response to U.S. efforts to tighten sanctions, charges of Iranian meddling in Iraq and U.S. attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army there.
Bush is to consult regional Arab allies, who are alarmed at Hezbollah's gains, on how to help Lebanon during a tour that began in Israel on Wednesday, but his options are limited.
He has pledged more aid to Lebanon's military to ensure its ability "to defend the Lebanese government", yet the army has shown it is neither willing nor able to take on Hezbollah or side with the U.S.-backed government in a divided society.
COLLISION WITH REALITY
[ Hermit : Pesky thing reality. Keeps refusing to go away even when the loonies shut their eyes really, really tightly and whistle. ]
Bush's focus on halting what he sees as a Syrian-Iranian drive to use Hezbollah "terrorists" to dominate Lebanon and threaten Israel may complicate efforts at a Lebanese compromise.
The ideology ignores the practical reality that Hezbollah and its Shi'ite and Christian allies form a political opposition bloc that represents perhaps half the Lebanese.
No solution in Lebanon is possible without some sort of accommodation that recognises the interests of both camps -- but this is anathema to the United States because Hezbollah's core interest is to safeguard its weaponry for use against Israel. [ Hermit : This could have been better phrased. Hezbollah has not attacked Israel. Israel has repeatedly invaded the Lebanon, including now, with UN monitors embedded in the area. From this it follows that "Hezbollah's core interest is to safeguear its weaponry to defend the Lebanon against Israeli attacks." ]
Similarly, no reconciliation among Palestinians -- seen as vital if any peace deal with Israel is to make headway -- can happen without accepting Hamas as a partner, some analysts say.
Such arguments cut no ice with Washington because it shuns Hamas as a "terrorist" Islamist group that refuses to recognise Israel, forgo violence or accept past peace deals.
Failure to distinguish "criminal terrorists" like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from "legitimate Islamists like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brothers" has been a recurring flaw in Bush's Middle East policy, said analyst Khouri.
"My suggestion to the Americans is to take a whole bottle of humility pills, be realistic and understand that trying to confront Islamist-Arab nationalist groups militarily is not working well and will always generate resistance," he added.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Logos
Anarch
Posts: 4
Reputation: 3.53
Rate Logos
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #3 on: 2008-05-17 13:00:07 » |
|
Hermit's support of the murderous mass movements known as Hamas and Hezbollah brings to mind the following philosophical riddle.
Question: When does the unacceptable become acceptable to the liberal intelligentsia?
Answer: When it opposes the USA, Britain and Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #4 on: 2008-05-17 15:48:10 » |
|
Things I note of Iran, Hezbollah, Shias etc.
As I've been reading of the news, none of these groups is into projecting global power in the way that Sunni Wahhabis via Al Qeda do. Unlike the global terrorists they certainly remain connected to local and temporal if often less-than-democratic political struggles. This Amadeenajad guy is really nuts no doubt, but like Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 global-style terrorism. The terror he practices remains mostly in his own backyard. Naturally if anyone decides to send in diplomats as many have, well . . . of course you stand warned so proceed at whatever risk you deem acceptable.
Quite frankly, if I was an Iranian, living in Iran, I imagine that I would certainly think differently about the prospects and virtues of my country obtaining nuclear weapons. If Iraq was already a member of the nuclear club, do you think my country's leadership would have instituted "regime change"? Well, who knows really what kind of craziness lurks in the BushCheney braintrust, but I certainly think things would have at least been considered in a different light had that been the case.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #5 on: 2008-05-17 18:23:33 » |
|
Quote from: Logos on 2008-05-17 13:00:07 Hermit's support of the murderous mass movements known as Hamas and Hezbollah brings to mind the following philosophical riddle.
Question: When does the unacceptable become acceptable to the liberal intelligentsia?
Answer: When it opposes the USA, Britain and Israel.
|
Ah, Logos, the "Word". So probably a Christian of some sort, maybe a neocon, and definitely appears to be completely mixed up if not an absolute idiot. Here is why.
Logos, please note that Democracy is a mass movement. So a mass movement per se is probably not an epithet to hurl? Unless, perhaps, it is what the Bush Administration refers to as a democracy. In which case it seems to mean a puppet government that will dance to America's tune. In which case it might be valid to sneer at it, but it definitely would not describe Hamas or Hesbollah. You are mixed up perhaps?
Murderous means "to kill illegally". Who is doing this in the world today? America is undoubtedly far in the forefront of all the illegal killers, slightly assisted by the British and others. And of course, the Israelis are doing their best in their genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians and sometimes against the people of the Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah appear to the people of the area as the defenders, no matter what the Israelis call them. And a simple body count, taking into account where they are killed, both of he armed and the unarmed victims of the Americans and Israelis and of the American and Israelis themselves proves that the people of the area other than the Israelis seem to have the right of it. You appear to be mixed up here too.
To study, read and apply judgment to a situation is not to support the actors in it. You appear mixed up on this score as well.
A riddle is not a paradox and vice versa. You appear to have troubles with words, seemingly mixing them up into a meaningless torrent of neocon idiocies.
The study of politics and violence is not philosophy. More trouble mixing up words perhaps?
Five mix-ups in the first sentence of your screed. Should you not be studying instead of making a fool of yourself on the Internet where idiocy is visible forever?
Acceptable? Unacceptable? To what do you refer? Table manners? Thinking habits? This use of untargeted adjectives only makes sense in some sort of "encoded" speech. To imagine that it is appropriate here, in the discussions of mostly rational people, is to suggest that you are mixed up all over again.
Presumably you don't think of yourself as a member of the "Liberal Intelligentsia." Even so, having established that you have trouble with words, please consider these abbreviated definitions:
Liberal = Those who advocate that people have the freedom to think and choose for themselves.
Intelligentsia = Those capable of thinking for themselves.
Having placed yourself outside of the group of those thinking for themselves, do you think we should pay attention to you? If so you are again sorely mixed up.
You seem to have mixed up opposition to illegal, unconsidered and just plain stupid actions and policies with opposition to countries. Was that deliberate on your part, are you simply unthinkingly toeing the neocon line, or would you like ask the people whose BBS this is to make allowances for your inability to think coherently?
Making another three mix-ups in the second and third sentences.
Might I suggest that you read Zloduska's advice on "HOW 2 BEE @ L33T V1RU$ FL@M3RZ !!~!!!##", ([Church of Virus BBS, General, FAQ, Best of Virus, Re:Best of Virus, Reply #14 on: 2003-06-14 04:41:27, "Subject: from the book of Insomnia 6:13", Author: Zloduska, Sent: 2003-06-14]) for trolls* before repeating your errors and inanities. You might find it helpful as you don't seem to have done very well so far. Unless you think that the record of 8 mix-ups in three sentences is something of which to be proud?
Sneeringly
Hermit
*hint, it is at the very bottom of the page.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #6 on: 2008-05-18 01:14:18 » |
|
[Blunderov]Well, if we are dealing in improper questions we might also enquire when the unacceptable becomes acceptable to American coneheads?
Answer: Any time that it redounds to their own advantage. Reptiles have more conscience apparently. Better table manners too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logos
Anarch
Posts: 4
Reputation: 3.53
Rate Logos
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #7 on: 2008-05-18 09:08:58 » |
|
Hermit, your pathetic efforts to "deconstruct" what I have said so as to avoid addressing the point being made would have been laughable had they not been so at odds with the kind of rationality that this site is supposed to stand for. That you should have an 8.5 rating on it only confirms my doubts about the "liberal intelligentsia". Me? I'm a non-Christian belonging to that group of liberals who set more store by WISDOM, in recognition that intelligence per se can be a clever way of being stupid.
The insulting nature of your remarks just confirms that I must have struck a very raw nerve!
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #8 on: 2008-05-18 12:21:04 » |
|
Quote from: Logos on 2008-05-17 13:00:07
<snip>... the murderous mass movements known as Hamas and Hezbollah</snip> |
[Blunderov] IMO Hamas and Hezbollah are perfectly legitimate resistance movements which have arisen in response to outrageous Zionist/American aggression. More strength to both their respective arms. Down with Israel. Down with the USA. Down with the UK. Viva war crimes trials.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #9 on: 2008-05-18 12:29:11 » |
|
[logos 3] Hermit's support of the murderous mass movements known as Hamas and Hezbollah brings to mind the following philosophical riddle.
[logos 3] Question: When does the unacceptable become acceptable to the liberal intelligentsia?
[logos 3] Answer: When it opposes the USA, Britain and Israel.
[hermit 5] Deconstructed logos' assertions and provided a sustainable response to them. In particular the only actual refutable statement provided, being "Hermit's support of murderous mass movements" was rejected, along with the only refutable implied statements being "Hamas and Hezbollah" [are] "murderous mass movements" and "the unacceptable become acceptable to the liberal intelligentsia" "when it opposes the USA, Britain and Israel" being shown to be incorrectly constructed.
[logos 7] Hermit, your pathetic efforts to "deconstruct" what I have said
[hermit 8] Describing something as "pathetic" does not make it so. What is apparent is that you cannot respond to the devastation of your assertions, or are to inept to, or that you don't recognize that they were devastated, or that you are too unused to serious discussion to realize that if you seek credibility that you need to. Do you think that stating that you disagree with something is sufficient to "rebut" it? That is only true on talk radio, not here.
[logos 7]so as to avoid addressing the point being made
[hermit 8] There didn't seem to be a point. Merely an unfounded assertion and two invalid implications. But as shown, I did in fact rebut what you seem to imagine passed for a point. And your assertion here is thus incorrect as well.
[logos 7] would have been laughable had they not been so at odds with the kind of rationality that this site is supposed to stand for.
[hermit 8] Again with the unsupported (and unsupportable?) assertions. How is my deconstruction at odds with the rationality this site (actually church) is supposed to stand for? How did you determine what we stand for? Support your naked assertions (even the stupid one's require it or should be retracted).
[logos 7] That you should have an 8.5 rating on it only confirms my doubts about the "liberal intelligentsia".
[hermit 8] When you set yourself up in opposition to the capability and freedom to think for yourself, in a church which regards dogmatism (the inversion of the freedom to think for yourself) and hypocrisy (the inversion of realities e.g. who are the murderers) as sins, and reason (the ability to think effectively) and empathy (the ability to see things from the perspective of others) as virtues, you really make the assertion that you probably won't do particularly well here. Given that my rating, as yours will be, is the product of many people evaluating their knowledge of me, through words, deeds and contribution, your are in effect calling the existing body of the church stupid. Not sensible if you seek to persuade. Stupid if you seek merely to insult.
[logos 7] Me? I'm a non-Christian belonging to that group of liberals who set more store by WISDOM, in recognition that intelligence per se can be a clever way of being stupid.
[hermit 8] Strange that you identify yourself as a non-Christian while using a particularly Christian nom-de-plume. Stranger that you should identify yourself as a liberal, while simultaneously seeming to reject what it stands for. Strangest that you apparently cannot differentiate between the intelligentsia and intelligence and find it necessary to introduce the idea of "wisdom" while asserting that "intelligence per se can be a clever way of being stupid" which doesn't seem connected to anything unless you are attempting to label the members of the CoV as stupid without quite saying so. If that is the case, please don't be so coy. Much smarter people than you appear to be and far better at debating than you have shown yourself to be to date have called us names before. Amazingly, we survived it.
[logos 7] The insulting nature of your remarks
[hermit 8] Not at all. I try to answer every new poster to the CoV in the same vein as they introduce themselves. When you allege (without supporting your allegations) that I support murderers and thus, by the doctrine of common purpose am a murderer, I respond as robustly as the seriousness of the allegation deserves. To imagine that this is "insulting," where you perhaps think you were not being insulting (as well as, as I have previously shown, mixed up) is to show a glaring lack of intellectual capacity utterly precluding "wisdom" no matter how you choose to define it. Further, I don't think you are so naive as to believe that you did not attempt to insult me directly and the congregation as a whole when you asserted to a group who regard dogmatism as a sin and are intelligentsia, that the intelligentsia dogmatically make the same errors as you do (refer to my initial deconstruction of your assertions e.g. reflexively "accepting" the ill-defined "unacceptable"). To complain of "the insulting nature" of my response is hypocrisy of the first water. Particularly when you reread my response and realize that it was far from insulting, but perhaps you are incapable of realizing that, rejecting as you do the prerequisite capacity and independence of thought.
[logos 7] just confirms that I must have struck a very raw nerve!
[hermit 8] My nerves are very well protected by the certain knowledge that insult cannot be given, only taken. Please don't imagine that because I have chosen to respond to your egregious errors that I vest any emotional interest in your error riddled perspective or epithets. Your scribblings merely served as the object in a lesson in how to deal with such babble as you have seen fit to provide us.
Even More Sneeringly
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Logos
Anarch
Posts: 4
Reputation: 3.53
Rate Logos
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #10 on: 2008-05-18 13:20:18 » |
|
The Hermit doth protest too much, methinks. Extra dollops of casuistry won't get you off this particular hook I'm afraid. And I thought this was a serious debating site. What a shame!
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.50
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #11 on: 2008-05-18 14:20:30 » |
|
[Logos] The Hermit doth protest too much, methinks. Extra dollops of casuistry won't get you off this particular hook I'm afraid. And I thought this was a serious debating site. What a shame!
[Hermit] Looks for a hook. Notices that it is as absent as the supposed points in Logos' previous posts or grammatical consistency in this one. Concludes that Logos is dishonest as well as stupid, claiming things that are palpably not true. Wonders if Logos will ever realize that the CoV is a Church, not a debating site, and that its behavior is inappropriate to either.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #12 on: 2008-05-18 14:34:34 » |
|
I've seen no relevant points made by Logos on the topic of this thread, from his first ad hominem to his last. Any decent attack to be taken even half seriously, should at least say something relevant to the topic in between the venom squirts. All I see is one version of "Hermit sucks", followed by another, and finished off with general insults to everyone in the forum. So we all suck, that's the point? 
No thanks to your enlightening input. I'll be sure to pay less attention next time.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Logos
Anarch
Posts: 4
Reputation: 3.53
Rate Logos
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #13 on: 2008-05-18 15:06:54 » |
|
Since Hermit obviously has a deep need to get in the last word, I will gracefully bow out of my exchange with him , leaving it to the more discerning visitors to this site to decide who makes the greater sense. I am happy, however to continue a genuine debate with others about the rights and wrongs of Hamas and Hezbollah. Any takers?
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The New Cold War
« Reply #14 on: 2008-05-18 15:21:37 » |
|
Quote from: Logos on 2008-05-18 15:06:54 | I am happy, however to continue a genuine debate with others . . . |
Continue? 
Whatever you believe you started, I see no merit in continuing or encouraging your actual behavior here.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
