Daily Archives: 7 December 2015

August 18, 2002 Israel To US: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

“Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world’s main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

As evidence of Iraq’s weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.

“Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iraq told the United Nations on Friday that it will continue to discuss the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, but it insisted on conditions that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already rejected.

In a 10-page letter to Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri reaffirmed an Iraqi offer to hold a round of technical negotiations but he insisted they focus on outstanding issues related to Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction as well as “practical arrangements for the return of the inspection system in the future.”

Sabri was replying to a letter from Annan that rejected Iraq’s proposal to have chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Iraqi experts determine outstanding disarmament issues of mass destruction and figure out how to resolve them before inspectors return to the country.

Also on Friday, President Bush said he knows there are “very intelligent people” who doubt the wisdom of attacking Iraq.

But he says Saddam Hussein is “thumbing his nose at the world” — and must be ousted.

Speaking to reporters near his Texas ranch, the president vowed to make his own decision — based on the best intelligence available.

Gissin also said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons.

While the Israeli government backs U.S. action against Iraq, there is also concern in Israel that in response, Iraq would launch missile attacks against Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel.

During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led forces pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles — none of them with chemical or biological warheads — causing few casualties but extensive damage.

In an interview published Friday, Ben-Eliezer told the daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel would surely become a target during such a conflict and would consider retaliation in coordination with U.S. forces.

www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

There’s a Congressional Ban on studying Gun Violence

Researchers from federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) have largely been mum on the public health issue of gun violence—not by choice, but because of a 20-year-old congressional ban on federally funded gun violence research.

www.citylab.com/crime/2015/12/the-20-year-old-ban-that-silenced-research-on-gun-violence/418704/?utm_source=atlfb

Curt: THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM’S LIES

THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM’S LIES
(The Stoics Were Right: Jehova Is The Devil) (trigger warning) (ouch)

The Greeks tried and only partly succeeded in creating a discipline of truth telling.

The Hebrews succeeded in creating an training manual in deception, written using the very technique of deception that they wished to promote.

The first great deception was monotheism: Moses restatement of Ramses’ monotheism, and Abraham’s use of Babylonian absolutism.

The second great deception was pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, The Frankfurt School and Critique, Rothbard and Rand, Strauss’s neoconservatism, Chomsky.

These techniques of deception work by the same mechanism: half truth, desirable falsehood, suggestion appealing to altruism, and loading, framing, overloading, and propagandizing by heaping undue praise on the falsehood while heaping straw man criticisms on the truth.

It took others a few decades to identify the vulnerability. It took me a few years to understand the technique and find a means of exposing it to analytic criticism.

But now it’s pretty clear that the ancient battle between western science and middle eastern mysticism is merely the battle between the art of truth telling and the art of lying.

It is far more profitable to lie than speak the truth. Especially in a land where everyone speaks the truth.

If for no other reason than it is cheaper and faster to diligently construct desirable falsehoods than unpleasant truths.

Just as the common law evolves only in response to innovations in parasitism; just as science evolves only by the falsification of theories; so does truth telling evolve only by the incremental suppression of lying.

This should be clear enough for an individual with a Bachelors degree in a STEM discipline to follow.

Curt Doolittle.
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Jewish Joke to study Talmund: Two men came down the same Chimmeny

Deception, overloading, obliterating truth, pseudo science.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, whose writings have been a blessing to many of us, recounts this story of Talmudic logic in his book Jewish Humor: What The Best Jewish Jokes Say About the Jews:

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Shwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Shwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic.The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is “narishkeit”, foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

May we all have the wisdom to ask, and answer, the wise questions!

kolaleph.org/2013/01/16/the-rabbi-is-in-two-men-come-down-the-same-chimney/

Review of “Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups”

The argument Singh makes in his book is simple and compelling: Coup attempts are best understood as coordination games, or “situations in which each individual has an incentive to do what others are doing, and therefore each individual’s choices are based on his or her beliefs about the likely actions of others.” Instead of thinking about coups as battles (e.g., the side with the greatest military power will win) or coups as elections (e.g., the side with the most public support will win), Singh pushes us to think of coup success as being driven by coup-makers’ ability to get others to believe that their coup attempt will be successful.

How do coup-makers convince others their coup attempt will be successful? They convince military actors that the success of the coup has the support of almost everybody in the military and that any possible resistance is minor. One way coup makers have done this is by seizing the main radio broadcast facility.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/10/anyone-planning-a-coup-should-read-this-first/