dagblog - Comments for "Julian Assange and Wikileaks, a warning: How to hide an elephant "

Assange is a Jew. That's

Grantland — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:25:18 +0000

In reply to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, a warning: How to hide an elephant

Assange is a Jew. That's all you need to know. That's all anyone needs to know.

No I think the reaction

David Seaton — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:49:47 +0000

In reply to Assange may or may not be a

No I think the reaction should be after some days of wading through tons of boring, repetitive stuff, on of the readers does a double take and shouts eureka as he stumbles on the plant. This is the "hiding the elephant" technique: making the plant not look like a plant.

Do you even bother listening

quinn esq — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:28:55 +0000

In reply to I don't think Spaniards are

Do you even bother listening anymore David, or at this point in your life is it just easier to make shit up along the lines you want?

Or maybe I need to speak more bluntly. You're a goddamn fathead. You think you know it all. And nowadays, you don't even bother listening. Because no, actually, the question Pew uses in their ongoing survey - IS NOTHING LIKE THE MAGIC ONE YOU MADE UP. Nothing about "too much influence" at all. The question (10e in the Survey) was simple,

"Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of Jews."

And the favorable/unfavorable result in Spain was 37/46, against. Yes, the USA was 77/7. But France was 79/20. Even Russia was 47/34.

Spain's got a problem. Has had for a long goddamn time. And for you, who knows the situation and the history quite well, to try to spin it as Spaniards being more "innocent?" Farce.

http://pewglobal.org/2008/09/17/unfavorable-views-of-jews-and-muslims-on...

Zap! That was an eye-popper

we are stardust — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:09:01 +0000

In reply to Seems like the "Chicken

Zap! That was an eye-popper of a video, Lulu. Dave and most people are, I think, meaning that the Israelis would strike the sites with tactical nuclear bombs, the dudes that can drill down a zillion feet underground (bunker-busters). A year or so ago, I looked a bit into the technology, and the effects above ground. The military down-played the effects, scientists not so much.

Dave says if the story from the Wikileaks becomes Iran (past the neo-cons), then he'll be proven right. I'd say he might be proven a little bit right if Israel hits the sites soon, but even that timing wouldn't prove causality. Lieberman's Morning After was dependent on Israeli Intelligence knowing for sure that Iran had X amount of centrifuges operating at X capacity to enrich at X purity, or whatever the metric is.

Lulu, thanks for that link.

Oxy Mora — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:08:31 +0000

In reply to Seems like the "Chicken

Lulu, thanks for that link. Very chilling words indeed. Hey, you kill 100 thousand, or even 200 thousand people, pretty soon you're talking some real numbers.

Seems like the "Chicken

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:56:53 +0000

In reply to Chicken Little should

Seems like the "Chicken Little" meme you like so well has been hashed out before. I consider it a derogatory slur when used broadly against anyone who hasn't become confident in your reading of the situation and still worries that war mongers might actually get their war.

It is, in fact, likely that the "Real Men" have figured out they can't go to Teheran the way they expected to because Iraq and Afghanistan have shown them that they don't have enough pawns to pave the road. The fact that they might well not be planning a conventional attack because it would be crazy doesn't mean they won't do anything crazy. While you try to be rational, there are others who "Think Big".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9qCTCzOKag&feature=related

Bruce,The Jewish people (many

David Seaton — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:20:45 +0000

In reply to And I didn't call you a

Bruce,

The Jewish people (many in Israel, more in America) that fully realize that Israel cannot be a democracy and maintain the occupation are not governing Israel right now and don't show much sign of governing it in any foreseeable future. I wish you could understand that when I talk about conspiracies and such I am not talking about "THE" Jews, I am talking about specific Jews and what Mao would have called their "running dogs", the Christian Zionists, for example. Really, in the long and not so long, run this is more of a problem for Jewish people than for the goyim... and I think you are more aware of that than most people. If you want to do your therapy with me, cool, what are friends for?

Bluff is always a component

lally — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:01:16 +0000

In reply to AndU.S.-South Korea sea

Bluff is always a component of "advertising" joint military exercises. But to compare the vast array of worldwide wargames we play with others to the massive deployments of assets as in Juniper Cobra 10 is silly unless you can also make the case(s) that a potential catastrophic regional war is also "on the table" in each case.

BTW, I'm *surprised* that you missed another potential and very reasonable assumption about the "unprecedented" military cooperation between the Obama administration and Israel; that it is "reassurance" of total American commitment to Israel's security designed to bolster Bibi should he agree to extend the settlement freeze for 2 more months.

;~{)

Brewmn says: "So, you won't

we are stardust — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:52:00 +0000

In reply to So, you won't engage me

Brewmn says: "So, you won't engage me directly, but you'll take potshots behind the comments of two or three others? And you wonder why I find you absurd?"

One of the reasons I find you absurd, Brewmn, is that I was not speaking of YOU, but snarking about another commenter above, concerning which threads he was visiting, which not. One other reason I find you impossible to deal with, Brew, is that you have a hair-trigger for assumptions of all sorts, including mind-reading your perceived enemies in the blogosphere. That you bring up your petty conspiracy theory that there is some secret club of Obama critics, and we make a pact to support each other's ideas on threads, and call each other to see what we should all wear the next day to the web (well; actually that part IS true, but don't say I told you) is another reason I think you are paranoid and delusional.

I've tried to stay out of your way, both here and at FDL so that we don;t have to replay the dreck of our past at TPM. But here you are again. Here's a thing, brewmn: Look at the indents. They will try to tell you which comment is directed toward which commenter. I think I was commenting to Quinn about decider, but you were nowhere in the mix.

In closing, may I ask you to get offa my cloud? And stay off?

"And the initial leveler of

Bruce Levine — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:24:18 +0000

In reply to "But neither am I a fan of

"And the initial leveler of the anti-Semitism charge also has his own history on the blogosphere; and this would not be the first time he's leveled bogus charges of anti-Semitism against a blogger or commenter."

I honestly don't have much respect for you brewmn, but still I choose not to leave your slanderous allegation against me untouched. Your allegation that I level bogus charges of anti-semitism is both cheap and false. Perhaps I am more sensitive to people on the left whom I believe choose not to understand how historical predicate does not become immaterial with respect to matters concerning Israel or Jews, and I make no apologies for calling things as I see them. But you have lied here about me, and you have done so in a futile attempt to scrape yourself off the floor from which you have been so comprehensively mopped in this thread--and not by me, because I tend to ignore you--and I do so because I think you offer so little in terms of substance.

Brewmn, Seaton and I have a history, and in a warped way we remain friends and blogospheric colleagues. Like Quinn, I read his stuff, and some I find to be out of this world. I will continue to read him, and call him on an area about which he and I have a profound disagreement. And if I believe he crosses a line, I will tell him so, whether it's groovy to do that or not in the minds of simplistic alleged progressives like yourself.

Bruce S. Levine

New York, New York