Nasrallah on Libya

[Snow Crash]

Snow Crash, I don't know if the CIA was involved in agitating these circumstances. They certainly do have a history of doing so in other places and other times. What I do know and agree with Chomsky about is there was something to gain by this coaliton in terms of having a compliant leader in Libya of which Ghaddafi was not. Otherwise they would have sat on their asses and let massacres happen as they do in Sudan. Which, by the way, has strong connections with China.

Oh I agree Pan. I just think a certain person is trying to play the expert where they clearly have no expertise, and it is laughable, especially when teamed with the airs and graces offered here. Quite clearly, a fair few actual experts - such as Pilger, Chomsky, Kucinich - disagree with the idiotic conclusions this indiviual constantly draws; that this spate of uprisings has nothing to do with western intel, and that the Coalition is helping the rebels out of the goodness of their hearts. Furthermore, constant 'predictions' made by that person, which, upon closer inspection, reveal strategic bias - either that, or incredible naivety - are consistantly proven to be lacking in any basis whatsoever (by the mere fact that they never materialize or fall flat on their faces).

[Pam]

Everyone has an opinion and for each persons opinion there will be someone with a different one

[Snow Crash]

Everyone has an opinion and for each persons opinion there will be someone with a different one

Yeah but logic, historical context, and a need for analysis to be free of blatant strategic and political bias, not to mention rank naivety, overrule that, ESPECIALLY when one is assuming the mantle of 'expert'.

[Pam]

Everyone has an opinion and for each persons opinion there will be someone with a different one

Yeah but logic, historical context, and a need for analysis to be free of blatant strategic and political bias, not to mention rank naivety, overrule that, ESPECIALLY when one is assuming the mantle of 'expert'.

That too could be an assumption, I guess the difference between us is that I always give the benefit of doubt.

Canada is having an election right now, the current governments platform is to spend money on fighter jets. My husband thinks that is good, I don't.

Apparently I am ignorant for thinking it is wrong. I have my opinion, I am right in my eyes but not in his.

[Snow Crash]

That too could be an assumption, I guess the difference between us is that I always give the benefit of doubt.

Canada is having an election right now, the current governments platform is to spend money on fighter jets. My husband thinks that is good, I don't.

Apparently I am ignorant for thinking it is wrong. I have my opinion, I am right in my eyes but not in his.

And to what extent do your (both of your) considerations and calculations go? What ideologies are involved?

[TraumaT]

Yeah but logic, historical context, and a need for analysis to be free of blatant strategic and political bias, not to mention rank naivety, overrule that, ESPECIALLY when one is assuming the mantle of 'expert'.

Don't we all have political bias? And I haven't seen BE (I assume you are talking about him) call himself an "expert". Perhaps I have missed something?

[Pam]

His is that our military is very weak and if we were ever attacked or terrorists were to attack us that we could not defend ourselves, mine is that if you don't make yourself a threat, the chances of being attacked are minimal.

I really just want peace

[Snow Crash]

Don't we all have political bias?

We most certainly do. However, there is a point where if you're deny reality, logic, etc for its benefit, you are little more than a fanatic.

And I haven't seen BE (I assume you are talking about him) call himself an "expert". Perhaps I have missed something?

Really?

Someone needs to literally say something for them to say it? I thought you were an editor?

[TraumaT]

Someone needs to literally say something for them to say it? I thought you were an editor?

Yes, I am an department editor in a Norwegian magazine. What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

I just pointed out a fact. BE has never claimed to be an "expert". It is simply not true. And he has a right to his opinions, just like you have a right to yours.

[Snow Crash]

His is that our military is very weak and if we were ever attacked or terrorists were to attack us that we could not defend ourselves, mine is that if you don't make yourself a threat, the chances of being attacked are minimal.

I really just want peace

OK.... and he based that assertion on what exactly?

See, point is Pam (going back to the subject of the Middle East), if you're going to attempt to portray yourself as an expert, you need to try and actually get into the meat of the matter, considering as many angles as possible, such as who gains, who loses, wheres the money going, who controls what, and so on. Not draw up a wishlist of Middle East countries that you, or countries you have a soft spot for, don't like, and then swan around making wild, baseless predictions that all sorts of mayhem and death and destruction is going to befall them, all the while ignoring inconvenient information. That is the kind of shit you get on Fox News.