Well, all I can say is, you don't have a monopoly on common sense and I have read quite a lot and, in some areas, your viewpoints are quite eccentric and non-standard.  

Are you saying Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour ahead of time (I have heard that theory)?

And that makes September 11, 2001, even more horrific.  All those Moslems being offered up as a Judas goat.  Fear in every corner, every shadow.  FOX news as foreign policy.

Graeme, I was thinking of starting a similar thread........

In the last year Wondercafe has been inundated with links on many subjects - particularly in the Politics and Global Issues forums.

There are some obvious advantages to this - an opportunity to familiarise yourself with details that may have escaped your attention being foremost.

But, as I'm fond of saying, there are both good and bad consequences.....

I do have a concern that a link can be used  to justify a particular point of view - and, as such, seldom shows balance. Often that provokes a response stating the opposite - but one seldom reads a post that says "I can see both sides of this argument have some validity".

It also can be misleading...

A wondercafe poster has a personal point of view. They hunt around for a link that justifies their viewpoint - the result being that there appears to be more "weight" as it's written by another -often an "expert".

But, why choose that particular link, if not to confirm the poster's opinion?

It would be more honest to say,"I have chosen this particular link because it  best supports my personal opinion on this subject. There are many other links out there - but I haven't chosen them because they don't agree with me."

The inevitable consequence is a polarization of views. Folks don't often get beyond being totally "for" or "against" any topic.

More and more I see black and white responses. Where is the grey?

I, for one, would really appreciate a link that clearly demonstrated at least two points of view - and pointing out the difficulties and problems associated with both.........

Pilgrim, I have on one occasion, just recently, posted a link that confirmed one of Graeme's earlier comments.  In that case (views of Republican candidates for US presidency) I had not been following it in detail, being busy at work.  However, the link confirmed him completely, so I posted it.

As to your objection that I am picking and choosing, the obvious response is for others to post those contrary links.   The threads I have started dealing with controversial topics (such as sanctions on Iran) -- I know perfectly well they are controversial, so I present my reasons for my viewpoint.  Is that not how debating works?  I try on the whole to stick with factual reports, rather than just editorial comments by someone.

I have not made the statement you make, "there are others who disagree me, etc" because I am assuming that it is obvious.  If no one disagreed, why would I bother to even discuss it?  Your statement goes without saying.

I do not have time to deliver lectures like a professor at a university!   I do have a full-time job.  It appears I am wasting my spare time by presenting factual stories, if you can dismiss them like that....  Yes, I am beginning to think I am wasting my valuable time and may just decide to abandon the whole place.  

----------------------------------------------------------------

Graeme, I have been thinking this over.   I realize that I have not taken much of your ponderings seriously ever since the "natives in America" debate we had last year.  Here, we were venturing into more than history, we were also venturing into science.  However, your "common sense" contradicts 100% of the scientists and the great majority of historians on that topic.  I am speaking of scientists who know infectious and mosquito-borne diseases.  And of historians whose area of specialty is the topic in question.   You, by contrast, appear not to have even read a book length history of Cortes in Mexico.   The whole area is outside your area of expertise.  I spent a lot of time (and money) buying and reading books on the topic.

You dismiss all this with a wave of your hand.  You present no other sources, just what you somehow know, by your "common sense."

Sorry, but I have not trusted your "common sense" since that time.

As to the topic of the US military policy in the time frame you have mentioned, I do not know enough about this to argue one way or the other.  But since you have repeatedly made bizarre statements about areas I DO know something about, I have no particular reason to trust you.  You could be right here, I would have to check into it.  It could take months (I do work full-time) and thus I will say simply on this topic, "I don't know."

Another reason to be suspicious.  Just the other day, you dismissed my sources by saying you could find sources saying Elvis was alive.  Yet, when I countered that you could not find that story in any of the reputable sources I use, you had to admit I was correct -- you will not find the New York Times or Financial Times or any of the sources I have referenced reporting that Elvis is alive.

(By the way I have never once used Fox news as a source.)

Thus your dismissal of my sources on those grounds was blatantly illogical and misleading.   I would not call that "common sense". Tell me again why should I trust anything you say unless I can back it up?

1. I did not say Roosevelt planned the attack to be on Pearl Harbour. If I had meant that, I would have said it. I said Roosevelt wanted an aggressive act from Japan. - Just as Bush wanted to believe Saddam had WMDs, and the Taliban was involved in 9/11. Just as Obama wanted to believe in humanitarian bombing in Libya, and now wants to believe in it, and also wants to believe in it for Syria - and also wants to believe that Syria getting a nuclear warhead would be a tremendous threat to world peace.

By commonsense, I also mean remembering you are dealing with human beings.  You should no assume that people of any country are all that different from people in another country - or that some religions are motivated by hatred and brutality while others create only love and joy.

As for you sources on early America - you don't seem to understand - THERE ARE NO STATISTICS AVAILABLE. Without that evidence, whatever historians may write is quesitonable.

As well, there is not such thing as general agreement among scholars and scientists. Not only do they disagree with each other; the two areas are constantly changing. There is no eternal truth in our earthly thinking.

That is neither illogical nor misleading. It is the reality of scholarly work. Even Einstein has been seriously questioned within the  last few months.

I never said the Elvis story was in a reputable paper. - though reputable papers have carried the stories that 9/11 was an American plot, that Bin-Laden is not dead, that the 9/11 terrorists came to the US through Canada - and it goes on.

Reputable papers have alsoo left huge gaps in their news. Most did NOT report the American slaughter of Guatemalans. MOST have not reported what happened to all the US aid that was supposed to go Haiti - and that list goes on.

You really must rethink what a source can do - and what it's limitations are - no matter how respectable the medium of the source.

EO,

if you knew me better you would know that if I intend to criticise anyone - I  do so directly.

My post wasn't about you.  There was no need for you to take it so personally.

I'm sorry that it seems to have upset you - but that wasn't honestly my intention......

My intention was to point out that, although links have a positive role to play, there are also some negative consequences.

Simple as.

My concerns apply equally to those  Wondercafinators who post links that I  mostly agree with...............  

To clarify, I don't object to links.

But, like most things in life, there's more to them than meets the eye.

Be mindful of this.

I have stopped posting links.  I was wasting my time.  I have convinced no one of anything. 

I am not offended, Pilgrim.  Such is life.  The main thing for me right now is family and friends.   I thought I could engage people here in discussions, and a few times, I have.   But mostly the people here already have their minds made up.

I might that add that people like Graeme represent a minority in politics and history.  If the United Church is losing members, and they come to Wondercafe and read Graeme's viewpoints they might get turned off.

Meanwhile, on other threads, the commenters seem to think it is just fine to insult anyone who voted Conservative in the last election.   That is semi-criminal, apparently.

Just sayin', guys.  You could be turning people off.   The people here are very left wing and very opinionated and some get downright nasty if you disagree with them.

You got that right.  It is ironic that "progressive" Christians often critisize more traditional Christians for being too involved in politics.  Pot, meet kettle.  

Hi All,

Speaking from a Moderate position I find it is simply the noise that turns off most.

There is nothing even remotely interesting for me in getting involved in a conversation where the conversational partners show no intent to a) listen or b) be respectful.

You want people to talk with you.  Demonstrate that you can do more than talk at.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Noise?   Please check my thread on "Support Sanctions on Iran" and tell me where I am just making noise.

I think that WC's Calvinist (revjohn) is meaning Mely and not you :3

I would like confirmation.

In the immortal words of Rodney King "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"
 

What does it really matter:  Some people like to post links, some people don't.  Some people like to debate the links, some people don't.  Some links are accurate, some aren't.  Some people demand the source, some people don't.  Some people believe that the originator of the information, idea, words, deserves to be credited, some don't.

Does it really make a difference:  To some it will, to some it won't.

Is it really so hard to equally respect the whims of both...

Anticipatory plagiarism occurs when someone steals your original idea and publishes it a hundred years before you were born.
         Robert King Merton
 

Hi Eastern Orthodox,

By use of the term noise I am referring to any and all posters who insist on talking over rather than to others.

Grace and peace to you.

John

LBMuskoka:  I would like to know if Revjohn meant I was "making noise."

And no, sources do matter.  Geofee tells me he does not work off any sources of information at all.  That being the case, I can hardly discuss anything but the most general, philosophical matters with him.

Sources certainly matter in professional debates.  You would get nowhere trying to debate a point of science without some agreement on sources (which are results of experiments in science).  In history, likewise, sources matter because in some cases, years of work has gone into translating from foreign languages, possibly archeological work, reading through old archives.

Your outlook on life may match Graeme's and thus you have yet to actual disagree with him.  I wish you luck if you do, for he expects you just to take his word for everything.

Revjohn:

Your reply to EO concerning the "making noise" comment seems a little vague. I think you owe  her a better explanation. Surely it's not "talking over" someone if you are passionate about a particular issue and want to share your point of view with others on this forum. For the record, I enjoy reading EO's posts even though I sometimes don't agree with her. I value the sources she provides and admire her logic. That said I would like to direct a comment to EO

EO

This no doubt falls under the category of giving advice when it's not asked for but here goes anyway.
Don't take comments by others so personally because they are not meant to be that way. You seem in particular to get your tail in a knot over Graeme. My own read on Graeme is that he has some hang ups (bashing of the US for example) which sometimes cloud his reason but that 's Graeme; just take him with a grain of salt. You are a very honest and valuable member of the WC and I would  hate to see you leave.

EDI:

Thanks, perhaps I am too touchy.  I am working on it.  Learning to debate on-line is not easy.  At first, there is a tendency to over-react and go over the top.   I am working on improving here, studying other people's styles.   I appreciate your compliments, especially since I don't agree with you on everything (but do we every agree with anyone on everything)?

I expect a higher standard from Graeme because he is a professional historian.   I know he is having issues with his computer and he can't post links (we went through it in detail, but his browser won't let him cut and paste).   But GRAEME!   Please leave 2 spaces between paragraphs so I can read what you write.  Please!

Why direct this statement to me:  My post was not relevant to your question to RevJohn.

Then don't discuss anything with him;  that is your choice.  

For others, discussion with Geofee is worthwhile; that is their choice.

This is hardly a "professional" debating site.  It is a "discussion" group and as such people are free to discuss in the manner they are comfortable.  Again, some will be comfortable citing sources, some will prefer floating their own ideas and opinion.  Neither is more valid in a discussion than the other.

The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion.
      G.K. Chesterton

LB

IMO, facts trump opinion even on a discussion forum like this one.

Not in my experience Easydoesit.  Opinion trumps facts all the time -- such as the Harper Government platform.  Besides How we read the facts depends entirely on our opinions

Listen guys.   Read Graeme's opening post.  Sources matter when you are discussing history.

I agree EO, but how we read the sources depends on our biases, our opinions.  THere is no such thing as objective fact.

Easydoesit,

It was meant to be.

The conversation tangent that I spoke to begins with Mely Quoting EO.

EO is pointing at "left-wing" types as being the reason why people are turned off.

Mely points another finger at "progressives"

I stepped in claiming a middle and suggested that it wasn't simply a matter of where one stood as it was how one chose to stand.

Which is not what I claimed the talking over was or the noise is.

I deliberately did not identify who is responsible for the noise since it isn't one person all the time.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I didn't think I was disrespectful of other posters.  Can you provide a link?  Although I have been insulted and disrespected many times I generally refrain from returning in kind (although I once suggested graeme should move to Cuba).  

I respectfully  disagree.  

I quote from respectable sources.  I tend to quote news stories only.  My preferred sources:

- The New York Times

- The Wall Street Journal

- The Times (London, England)

- The Financial Times (London, England)

- Der Spiegel (Germany)

- The Economist (England)

These are some of the most respected papers in the world.  That does not mean their news stories are always accurate of course, but I am doing the best I can.  Or was.  I have officially given up now as it appears I was wasting my time.

This can't be true because it creates a contradiction with itself.  

Suppose the statemnt is true.  Then since there are no objective facts, the statement itself is not an objective fact, contradicting our  assumption that it is true.    

QED

When discussing human affairs, there always seems to be a subjective element.

Whoever "I" or "we" happens to be - we are in a subjective position when discussing a matter outside of us.

A simple example.

Have a discussion with your siblings about your parents - chances are it will seem like you had many mothers.............

Equally, there is a saying that history is written by the victors.......

I'm often taken aback by the seeming lack of self-questioning on Wondercafe by some posters...........

It's as if they really think that their link, their comments, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Damned if I know how they do it - I feel at best I'm seeing the elephants trunk........

Quoted from Science Daily

Confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

For more information about the topic Confirmation bias, read the full article at Wikipedia.org,

Quoted from Stanford Encyclopedia

Self-Deception

First published Tue Oct 17, 2006; substantive revision Fri Aug 13, 2010
Virtually every aspect of the current philosophical discussion of self-deception is a matter of controversy including its definition and paradigmatic cases. We may say generally, however, that self-deception is the acquisition and maintenance of a belief (or, at least, the avowal of that belief) in the face of strong evidence to the contrary motivated by desires or emotions favoring the acquisition and retention of that belief. Beyond this, philosophers divide over whether this action is intentional or not, whether self-deceivers recognize the belief being acquired is unwarranted on the available evidence, whether self-deceivers are morally responsible for their self-deception, and whether self-deception is morally problematic (and if it is in what ways and under what circumstances). The discussion of self-deception and its associated puzzles gives us insight into the ways in which motivation affects belief acquisition and retention. And yet insofar as self-deception represents an obstacle to self-knowledge, which has potentially serious moral implications, self-deception is more than an interesting philosophical puzzle. It is a problem of particular concern for moral development, since self-deception can make us strangers to ourselves and blind to our own moral failings.

Quoted from What is History?: Bias  (bold emphasis mine)

Are you biased? It's not a trick question. Practically everyone is biased in some way. If you support Newcastle United you are probably biased against Sunderland, if you support Everton you are probably biased against Liverpool. You can show bias when talking about different bands, books, television programmes, politics, even the weather.

So what does it mean? Basically, bias means having an unfair or unbalanced opinion. Since history is a subject where people express their opinions it means that we have to be very careful to watch out for bias. 

Quoted from a classic example of bias and irony all in one article

Institute of Creation Research:  Can You...Recognize Bias in History Content?

Since historians now have an exhaustless reservoir of material about most people who lived on earth, they must select content information for their books. Who determines the guidelines of choice and on what basis is selection made? Ultimately, the historian's value systems and philosophy of life will determine text book content. Therefore, in spite of objectivity goals, personal belief colors the content.

*************************************

The above sources all illustrate Graeme's discussion point about seeing [cue echoing booming voice...] "The Big Picture".

Every source will contain a bias and, of more import, every source will contain the "Truth" of the writer's perspective.  Take the colonization of North America... the European writer will claim they brought good things to North America; progress, education, democracy.  The aboriginals will claim the Europeans brought bad things; disease, pollution, racism.  Both can be true depending on the perspective of the individuals reading the "historical fact".

The same bias runs through philosophical, political and scientific discussions (see Wikipedia article above) because "facts" only become so if they are revealed.

Graeme has repeatedly over the years presented his credentials regarding history.  He has shown that he is respected enough in his field that he has been interviewed by "respectable" news agencies and these claims have been verified by those who took the time to do so.   As a result he does possess a degree of authenticity on the subjects that he wishes to discuss and to do so in his own words.  Does he have a bias, yes but so do we all.

We all can Google and regurgitate "facts" to support our own positions (and I do it better than most so I recognize the bias), but as Graeme outlines all that does is secure our singular viewpoint.  It does not broaden our perspective, it does not allow us to see both sides of the historical story, it prevents us from seeing "The Big Picture"; all the vomitting of "facts" does is confirm our biases and narrows our views.

If every thread is to be nothing but a point counterpoint brawl, in which each person seeks only to defend their position, to use "facts" or "sources" as bludgeons against their ideological opponent then RevJohn is correct; it is nothing but noise.

Confirmation bias is the technical name for people's desire to find information that agrees with their existing view.

     Montier (2002)

THe statement isn't actually meant as a fact though.  It is an interpretation.  If you only want to deal with facts then you can sometimes claim objectivity but you can give no meaning.  For example it could be said that an objective fact is that the majority of the humans living in North America at the time of first European Contact died.  But why or how is not objective -- because even illness could be an act of accident or of war.

HIstorians don't only deal with names and dates, they link and interpret.  Inded most of their work is interpretation of things.  And then those interpretations are called facts--which are definitively not objective.

Thank you, LB, for providing some much needed quotes from sources on this very crucial topic.

As  quotes and links are a feature of Wondercafe discussions it's, IMO, important for those who include them to be aware of  the nature of both bias and self-deception....

It's equally important for readers to make their first question, "What am I being led to think here?"

 Then - "Do I tend to agree/disagree with it's premise?"

Then - "Allowing for my own bias, self-deception, is there any room for me to move when considering the opposing viewpoint?"

I have found this to be helpful not only in the realm of politics - but in life generally. (especially human relationships).

Well, I thought my posts on the controversial topics of "Sanctions on Iran" and the "Alleged US Plot to Invade the MidEast over Oil"  were written carefully.

I noted that there was disagreement over what Ahmadinejad's statements really indicated: were they power plays (internal, between him and rivals), power plays over leading the Islamic world, or what?   I also noted that by no means all Iranians were in agreement with him.

Only one person, EDI (who didn't even agree with me about the sanctions), said I wrote fairly.  Graeme and SG attacked me using largely irrelevant arguments about incidents that happened decades ago.  Geofee indicated he did not go by any sources at all, distrusting them all.  Good conversation stopper.

That being the case, there seems little scope for intelligent discussion around here.  Last night, I loaded two stories from the Wall Street Journal giving some ammunition to the OWS folks.  Well, if they don't want to see sources, I'll just stop that thread too.  Perhaps someone else will pay for a subscription to WSJ.

I do think the OWS folks are making a terrible mistake not getting the facts right (and there are plenty of incriminating facts to be found in the financial press).   I think they will have little luck in the corridors of power trying to sell their viewpoint with no factual backup.  This is clearly already ailing the movement, perhaps because it is dominated people who don't believe in facts.  

If everyone here but EDI (and Mely) can just write off what I have said on various posts, then I leave you to it.   Graeme can be your representative historian and advise you on OWS.  Good luck.  You'll need it.  

As you will note below, the source for your observation above, I say first that I am not much disposed to information but do respect and appreciate the influence of those who are.
.

In the second part of the quote below you will note a variety of sources by which my opinion and priorities are shaped.
.

I thought to attempt conversation with you. Now,in a variety of places you say that without information conversation between us is not possible, our difference makes my participation pointless. Is that about right?

Why would you think you are being "led" to think something? When I read, say, a news item, I try to read it objectively, and to look for objective facts.  Surely that should be first and formost in your mind when reading news.   

But then I suppose people who think facts don't exist might not think this way.  I'm beginning to  realize that a lot of people here are very different from me (and from EO too).  Our brains seem to work in entirely different ways.     

The people behind the OWS movement have been pointing out "facts" for months and in some cases for years.  That the WJS is just getting around to reporting it doesn't make the "truth" that the reality has been happening - not just for years but decades - any more or less real.  Nor does the "fact" that some of the sources, in either camp, report errors discredit the entire opinion. 

The media does not *make* the news.  They report it.  They report what they think the public wants to hear.  What they report may or may not be truthful other than the truth of the slant they decide to take.  

Here is a little news reading trick - search for reports from ideological opposites, when they both present the same "fact" that is the one that is probably the closest to the "truth" you will ever find.

Here are a couple of facts:

1.   No one, not even you, sets the rules in Wondercafe or for that matter any unmoderated forum.

2.  Every participant in this forum is free to think for themselves, post what they want, read what they want, comment on what they want, as long as it does not violate the code of conduct.

3.  People are capable and free to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects.  One can agree with a person on somethings but not others.  Agreement does not make one a slave to another's total philosophy nor does disagreement invalidate another's opinion.

Now here is my interpretation of the above "facts".  Our society due to polarization of opinions is losing its ability to critically think.  By creating a society in which we must agree with *all* of one viewpoint and discard *all* of another's we do not see either the flaws or the strengths of both.  As a result our society swings from one pendulum to another never achieving any balance.

Critical thinking, as Pilgrims Progress points out above, requires the individual to ask themselves the hard questions:  Why do I believe this?  How did I come to believe this?  Where did this belief come from?  Who created this belief?  Answer those questions honestly and they become your truth. 

Then when faced with a counter opinion ask yourself:  Why does that person think differently?  Could it be because their where's, how's and who's differ from yours?  And does that make either one of your realities more "true"?  Are your facts more real than theirs?  Or have you both experienced a different life, a life which is true to each and therefore each can learn a new truth from one another?

I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that does not have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular.
       E.B. White

Each of us here has a brain and none of these brains think in exactly the same way. That is the value of conversation, the admittance of diverse points of view by which insights and encouragments may be obtained.

What I find challenging in working towards conversing with you and EO, is the consistent suggestion that your reliable sources (of information) somehow trump all others, one perspective claiming a priority in the circle of perpsective. This way leads to tyranny (and I could quote reams from the realms of philosophy and theology to prove situate  my bias in the largere historical context).

Except the person presenting those facts writes with a bias.  Even the best writer has a bias that influences how the facts are described.  That is why no report is objective.  ANd so whenever we read a report we have to look for the bias of the writer/editor.  It is also why it is important to read items from a variety of viewpoints -- something most of us fail to do, migrating instead to items from a viewpoint we share.

incidents that happened "decades ago" are not irrelevant to what is happening today.

The US, France, and Britain overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran 6 decades ago. They then installed a dictator. What  we are living through today is a direct consequence of what they did.

Castro overthrew a dictator six years ago. His success in breaking from US control has directly led to the weakening we are now seeing in US influence in South America.

The past helps us to understanda the present. The past also helps us to understand human behaviour. When I write that 3 decades ago, the US led the genocide of over two hundred thousand Maya - that is not just an old story. Nor is it anti-American ranting. It's a reminder that ALL nations are capable of enormous cruelty. It's a reminder of how even the "nice" guys can be evil.

And if we cannot understand these uses of history, then we cannot understand the present.

Mely,
My screen is acting up - so I've no idea whether you can read this.....

I agree with you - our brains seem to work in different ways.

It would be an interesting exercise to try and understand why. Either that, or live with the mystery.

Have you any idea of the manner in which such a sentence might lead some here to consider you at least a little disrespectful of others. Are you really suggesting that no one of us has intelligence adequate to your own?

You might be well advised to take your own advice and read from a variety of sources. Like most people here I used to believed everything on CBC.  Then I began to look at other sources and began to see that the CBC is very biased and not objective at all.  For one thing it simply fails to report news that doesn't support the world view it wants you to have.

I have never seen such a closed-minded, "groupthink" infested place as the one here at WC.   When I try to point out other points of view, or simply factual material that contradicts the "correct" world view, I am:

-called names

-told to go away

-outright banned (once)

-ridiculued and vilified

-told my sources are "no good"

Yet you all go on imagining you are a compassionate, intelligent , open-minded group who KNOWS what the truth is and anyone who disagrees is a knuckle-dragging, extreme-right-wing-watcher-of-SUN-TV deluded moron, if not an actual evil Nazi anti-Christ.

A forum where most people desparately wanted the government to censor a TV channel (SUN TV) because you don't like it has no right to imagine they are free-thinking, open-minded people.

Just saying.   

Did you actually read my post based on the WSJ story?  It was reporting on the results of a trial that had just ended. 

That seems like new information to me.  WSJ did not "just get around to it".   They reported it when it happened.

Let me try to clear this up.  I am quite sure there are many areas you could discuss GeoFee, that I know little about.  You have a different life and different experiences.

We could also engage in philosophical or spiritual discussions.   (Sometimes you remind me of the holy men in Eastern Orthodoxy called "spiritual fathers."   I can't quite describe it, but they are either clerics or monks or sometimes neither, but seem to have a very good spiritual bent).   That is not something I would very good at.

But when one is talking about something like, should we support sanctions on Iran, then one needs a different kind of knowledge.  One needs to know something about Iran and its government and problems of the Middle East.

I am certainly not an expert on the field, but I have read a great deal about the Middle East, both as books and in news stories.  It was in this spirit that I presented my argument  on that thread.   I have probably read 2 dozen books on Iran just written by Iran exiles alone (they could be biased, I agree).   I have given a great deal of thought.

Now, you may disapprove of sanctions for spiritual reasons, rather like a pacifist disapproving of war.  In that case, there is not much we can say to each other.   There is no common ground.

Or, you might disagree with my posts, you might disagree with the facts presented, find them wrong or misleading or incomplete or biased.  Graeme points out some of his objections along those lines.  If you disagree with me on this basis, I would expect you to point out what you disagree with and why.

That is what I meant.   I hope this clears that up.

Yes, history is a continuous process and things that happened decades ago still echo around the world.  However, being as nearly sixty years have passed, we can acknowledge it was the wrong thing to do, but it does not shed any light on what should now.

The US and British governments are very different than what they were at that time.   If we could replay history and take that event out, things might be different now (but like all counter-factuals, you can never really know).

Let me give another example.  When WW II started, one could have said, "Jeez.  We really screwed up the post WW I situation with Germany.  We really played the heavy with war guilt clauses and reparations and invading the Ruhr coal area.   We should have taken a different approach, after all, they had brought in a new democratic government and was it fair of us to blame that new govt for what the Kaiser and his crew did?"

That would be a fair enough statement.  But should we have then, on that basis, have simply permitted Hitler to do whatever he wanted, because the Entente powers were partially responsible for his existence int he first place?

I wish you well EO, as you carry forward your hope for remedy specific to the abuse of power in the realm of international relations. With that wish, I encourage you to take others as seriously as you take yourself and those who share your primary assumptions.

Attacked, eh?

Disagreeing is attacking? Debating is attacking?

I cannot recall a single personal comment made by me. If there is one, please share so I can not repeat it and offer and apology.

I have strong opinions on sources and bias. I work and so does my wife in the news game. I cannot help but bring that to the table.

John Mayer wrote a couple lines in Waiting on the World to Change

And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want
 

It applies to televison or ANY media.
 

One example- offshoring all ad production of a "local" paper. Did it make the paper? No. Does that mean it did not happen? Does it mean the rumours people heard were false? No, it means it was bad publicity and they did not want customers to know. An online blogger broke the story. Stories get killed every day.

Stories that get told have a bians, a slant and are written with a purpose. If there was no purpose, why write?

Another example... a trial verdict... let's say A killed B and simply confessed. Cut and dry,new,  eh? There can be speculation on sentencing... let's make it tougher, let's say the sentence is handed down. Is it now cut and dry? A killed B and C happened?  Not really. One article can suggest the judge was too lenient and cite case law where people got less time. One article can suggest the sentence was too harsh and again cite case law. One article can shine light on the intellectual capacity of the convicted and call into question the whole confession. One can bring up past incidents and draw further sympathy or ire for the convicted or create it where there was none before. Still another could suggest the person is actually innocent and confessed for leniency, was coerced....The options are as endless as the authors and the agendas and the interpretations.

This exemplifies the resort to categorical dismissal which seems a constant in your posting, and which calls into question all of your protests concerning objectivity. Do we all really go on as you indicate? With SG I wonder if you can find one quotation from all of my contributions, as one of the all you reference, to validate your indictment?

EO - The crucifixion of Jesus happened over 2000 years ago. Does that shed no light on what  we should do now?

For all of recorded history, there have been people off all religions, of all "races", of all nations who have abused power, who have exploited others, who have committed mass murder. Does that not tell us anything about human behaviour?

Mely - All news media are biased. That's because all news media are run by people. All people have some bias.

Yes, there is some bias at the CBC. I know that well because I have worked for it. I  have also worked for private radio and TV and for newspapers and magazines. And you know what? They're all biased. That's just the way people are.

To say, though, that CBC is notable for its bias is such a silly statement that it just suggests a terribly paranoid outlook on the world. Have you never seen Fox News? or, for that matter, any private radio or TV network that was not heavily biased?

There's a recent study on reporting around the world on climate change. Guess what.

Reporting on that subject has gone steadily downhill for several years in some countries. Those same countries are heavily inclined to publish stories that deny global warming is a threat - or is even happening.

And there's even a bigger suprise. The countries with the press most heavily biased and most likely to publish denials of climate change are the same countries whose financial elites make their money out of things that pollute the globe - like the oil industry - in other words, countries like the US, Britain and Canada - with Canada perhaps the worst offender per capital in the world.

The CBC has some bias. But compared to most other news media it's as pure as the driven snow.

EO - I was just thinking of  your final paragraph. That's an absurd statement. I never suggested any such thing. And there's no logic in the lesson you claim to draw from the experience. The lesson of the peace terms is that there are great dangers in imposing such terms.

That has nothing to do with the lesson on how to react to the Hitler experience. (As a matter of fact, though, western capitalism was generally approving of Hitler.)

I'm sure that in the back of your mind y ou think I have suggested we should forgive moslem terrorists, and let them go on killing us. I suggested no such thing.

I said, many times, that we are the root cause of the current rise of  terrorism. I also said that by mass killing we are not reducing terrorism. We are probably increasing it. The lesson to be drawn is that the military approach is not working - and has not worked for the last sixty years. And that suggests we should try another approach.

"We are the root cause of the current rise of terrorism."   

From an editorial in The Times, a tribute to the late Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3261092.ece

Hitchens’ support for US and UK foreign policy after the attacks of 9/11 marked the point, in his estimation, when he abandoned the Left. Loss of friendships in the process troubled him not in the least. He did not care to have friends who would observe the slaughter of civilians by theocratic fanatics and conclude that the fault lay with the victims for provoking it. “The very first step that we must take”, he wrote, “is the acquisition of enough self-respect and self-confidence to say that we have met an enemy and that he is not us, but someone else.”

And I no longer am going to spend time arguing with people who believe your statement.  Ta ta.