Israel denies planning Iran nuke attack

[maddezmom]

LONDON - A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran's uranium enrichment program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that "the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions" and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear

[ClintonTyree]

1. Just like Bush hadn't decided about invading Iraq?

Remember? "The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions". Rhetoric, pure and simple. Similar words were uttered by George Bush before his inevitable Iraq attack.

Avigdor Lieberman. Any relation to our own, Joe Lieberman, Israel's staunchest ally in the Senate?

[w4rma]

2. "Denies" is good. (nt)

[ellisonz]

3. Ha ha.

"We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

Ouch.

Maybe we should consider throwing the Sunday Times into this category:

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Otherwise why have the rule? I mean the mass hysteria on here is kinda funny, not really.

:popcorn:

[Kagemusha]

5. I'm just wondering for my own bemusement here but...

How is that a denial, anyway?

[TomClash]

6. The Foeign Ministry denied the report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that "the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions" and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

[Kagemusha]

9. Ah, point taken, I got hung up on the PM office part.

Refusing to comment at all isn't a denial in my book but I should've paid more attention to the part reporting on the official position of the professional diplomats.

Who always, always tell the truth, after all.

[TomClash]

10. I did not initially see the denial either nt

[ellisonz]

8. Keep reading, I'm sorry they use gov't speak for DU's sake.

"I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say 'someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"

Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report.

"No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times," Kam said.

So basically, it depends what you mean by "plan," its logical that the IDF might have drawn up hypothetical plans, it's illogical to believe that there are actual plans being discussed by Olmert and Kadema, which is a peace party of sorts, to actually do such a thing. Believe what you want, but that's my political analysis and that of two respected Israeli experts.

The Sunday Times has a record of publishing junk, so its not surprising that the Israelis don't want to give them the "victory" of being commented on by the gov't.

;)

[Kagemusha]

11. The report said Kadima was in on this? Serious? That is nuts.

Yeah, I realize the Sunday Times has a record of publishing junk.. but as I replied above, seems the Foreign Ministry made an explicit denial anyway so it's all some big dance.

And if you look at the "no reliable source would ever speak about this", that's just complete doubletalk. If a source spoke to the Sunday Times about this, well, since it's a national secret, by definition he's not a reliable source, he's a stinking traitor. I would have preferred a flat denial. But that's me.

Anyway, I'm as clear on this as I'm gonna get so thank you.

[ellisonz]

15. Israel is a parlimentary democracy and the cabinet holds significant sway, hence Olmert/Kadema.

I think he's saying that *if* they were seriously planning there would not be a leak, and leaking contingency plans to scare people is wholly political craven IMHO.

Your welcome.

[Kagemusha]

18. Apologies, I got confused by how you said Kadima.

You called it a peace party. I temporarily confused it with an actual peace party. Like Meretz. So I wasn't as clear as I temporarily thought I was until you responded to my post...

I have a problem with your viewpoint that reporting, or leaking, on the very possibility that Israel might use nuclear weapons is bigoted and anti-Semitic, however skeptical I am about things written in the Sunday Times. But what's the point. It's not a credible report, and even if it was true, if it's anti-Semitic to even discuss the possibility, why waste everyone's time any further?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Huh?

Where has a discussion about 'bigotry' come from?

I agree there is some hysteria about one report. But you seem to be referring to some other story. What is it?

[ellisonz]

13. The Sunday Times is essentially a tabloid...

They frequently have published un-substantiated anti-Israel pieces in the past, not to mention other tripe. We used to have a rule against posting RW links but I couldn't find it, so I'm just suggesting that maybe this rule covers this issue. I mean, I like flame wars as much as the next DUer, but I like honest serious discussion better. IMHO: the article is functional anti-semitism.

Case in point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3059927

My money says he read this article and then wrote that. It also got posted in LBN and GD twice. At the very least it should stick to the I/P forum, which appears to be down tonight.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_%28UK%29

[Kagemusha]

14. So you mean you find the result anti-Israel so the article's bigoted?

Uh, thank you for pointing out your logic (?) here. It's illuminating.

[ellisonz]

16. No I mean the intention and the result is bigoted.

It's no better than FOX News...and they're both owned by the same guy, Mr. Murdoch. So yes, I would like to see people stop linking it and discussion of its pieces shut down for journalisms, Israel, Iran's, and the US's sake.

Shabby journalism is a great threat as we all know from the run up to IWR, and there are clear standards followed by serious journalists in terms of sourcing before you publish, the Sunday Times and Mr. Murdoch obviously do not give a shit.

[Kagemusha]

19. What about the Jerusalem Post? (nt)

nt

[ellisonz]

21. They actually do journalism even if the paper does have a bent...

unlike the Sunday Times.

[magellan]

24. The Sunday Times is essentially a tabloid??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Recursion]

40. "tabloid" is a paper and fold size, and the Sunday Times isn't one

"tabloid" is often (wrongly) slang for a downmarket sensationalist paper, and the Sunday Times is one of those.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. No, it's not downmarket either

In those terms, it's 'upmarket' - it's readership is probably richer than any other newspaper in Britain (with the possible exception of the Financial Times), going by the adverts. It's a serious newspaper; it's slightly right wing, like, say, the Washington Post. When Harold Evans was its editor, you could have said it was the British equivalent of the New York Times.

[ellisonz]

47. Not anymore...

"Control by News Corporation ended the editorial reign of Harold Evans, bringing to a close a period in the paper's history when it was a leading campaigning, investigative and liberal-leaning newspaper. Under Andrew Neil's editorship in the 1980s and early 1990s, The Sunday Times took a strongly Thatcherite and Wienerite slant, and became particularly strongly associated with the view that anti-commercialism among those who traditionally voted for the Conservative Party had actually worked alongside traditional socialism in undermining the UK's economic competitiveness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_(UK)

So basically except for leaking documents (DSM)...a sure moneymaker...it's had serious ownership and editorial issues since the late 1980's. Wanna bet most of the reporters have turned over too? I think my criticism of it as a source has a point. Can't we just stick to the Independent?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Well, no, you can't just stick to one paper

because then you've no idea if what you see is a complete view. I don't see any calls for the Washington Post to be excluded from sources on DU, just because you can find a more left wing paper. Would you exclude CNN too, because most people think BBC coverage is more liberal?

I said the Sunday Times was now slightly right wing, and the Wikipedia contributors agree. That doesn't make it downmarket or sensationalist, which is what dmesg claimed. There's nothing on Wikipedia claiming "serious ownership and editorial issues".

[magellan]

55. That's the second time you've sourced wikipedia for your opinion

Whereas muriel_volestrangler lives in the UK, and I'm married to a Brit and also lived there until just a few years ago. The Brits know the difference between a "downmarket sensationalist paper", as dsemg put it, and papers like The Times -- which, for your information, isn't a tabloid but a "compact":

A compact newspaper is a British term referring to a broadsheet-quality newspaper printed in a tabloid format. The term came into use in its current form when The Independent began producing a smaller format edition for London's commuters, designed to be easier to read on the train/tube/bus. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_%28newspaper%29

When I conveyed your description of the Times to my husband, beginning with "it's a tabloid" and moving on to its "shabby journalism", he responded with the same look of contemptuous frustration he usually reserves for Bush**. He says, "Most people in the UK regard the Times as they do the BBC: if it's in the Times, you don't argue with it."

But certainly we can rely on the Independent if you choose:

Independent Online Edition > Middle East
"Israel 'has plan for nuclear strike on Iran'
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 07 January 2007

Israel has drawn up secret plans to use low-yield nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, it was claimed last night.

According to a report in The Sunday Times, two Israeli air force squadrons are training to use nuclear "bunker busting" bombs to demolish Iran's heavily guarded enrichment programme. Israeli military commanders are said to believe that conventional strikes may not be sufficient to wipe out Iran's enrichment facilities, some of which are built beneath 70ft of concrete and rock.

Under the plans conventional laser-guided bombs would open tunnels into the targets and then mini nuclear weapons would be fired, exploding deep underground. The nuclear-tipped, bunker-busting bombs would only be used if a conventional attack was ineffective, or if the US, which also wants to halt Iran's nuclear programme, fails to act. The leaking of the "plans" may well be designed to apply pressure on the US."

more.... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132596.ece

Now you'll have to accuse the Independent of spreading the Times' "functional anti-semitism".

[ellisonz]

59. Well...

I mispoke, it was late: I meant http://www.guardian.co.uk/ . It was late, I'm not lying. Believe what you want...
This is how the BBC reported The Sunday Times story:
--------

Israel 'plans Iran nuke strike'

Plans for an Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian uranium enrichment plants are reported on in Sunday's papers.
The Sunday Times claims Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

What the paper calls senior sources say such action would only be taken if a conventional attack was ruled out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6238373.stm

--------

I couldn't find a reprinting of it by the BBC, and I couldn't find any mention of the Times story or Israeli plans in the Guardian (look if you want).

Not exactly a stirring endorsement of it...can we at least agree on that? Oh, and don't bash me for using wikipedia (which is very handy), and your husbands opinions do not constitute sourcing. Get a grip...

:silly:

[magellan]

61. I found it

Fatah faithful gather in Gaza to confront Hamas rivals | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Conal Urquhart and agencies in Jerusalem
Monday January 8, 2007

snip...

"Meanwhile, Israeli officials yesterday refused to confirm newspaper reports that Israel was planning to use small tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear programme.

The reports suggested that Israeli pilots were training to carry out a bombing mission on fortified bunkers believed to be used by Iran to protect its nuclear laboratories. The pilots would first fire conventional weapons and then follow up with small nuclear bombs."

more.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1984787,00.html

This counts as an endorsement of the Times' "functional antisemitism". You know your duty.

"and your husbands opinions do not constitute sourcing"

I'll trust my British husband's opinion of a British newspaper over that of an American whose opinion derives from Wikipedia (which is very handy but often enough wrong) and the considerable evidence of their own sensitivities, thank you very much.

[ellisonz]

62. Yes, you did, buried in another article, what does that tell you about the editorial opinion?

The point stands...neither the BBC or the Guardian felt the article credible enough to publish it as unadultered gospel, they are burying it and minimizing it for a reason (mainly its sensationalist exaggeration because Israel is not "planning" to attack Iran, despite Likud).

Believe what you want...but don't expect every DUer to endorse the sensationalist nature of the story, which IMHO is "functional antisemitism" because it gives the impression that Israel is intent on bombing Iran, which just adds to anti-Israel fervor. The fact is that the sources are unnamed and the two major British media outles panned the story. By panned, I mean, not worth it's own story, not worth repeating in full, only worth mentioning as the claim of another newspaper. You may know British newspapers better, but I'm not sure you understand media editing, which is the latent issue in this debate.

;)

[magellan]

64. You're way too excitable, friend

In no instance have I defended the story to you. While I happen to think that it's important to keep track of these things, especially after those on the Right defended the DSM portrait of Bush**'s year-long stealth-development of the Iraq invasion as "the kind of contingency planning any country does", I've taken no stand one way or another on this particular article except vigilance.

Rather I've been trying, patiently, to correct your ill-conceived notion of the London Times as "a tabloid" given to "sensationalism" and "functional antisemitism". If other papers -- those you initially claim are okay by your standards -- also carry the information, then you must by any logical sense also accuse them of spreading antisemitism. But you don't. You dodge the point and change the conditions of our disagreement.

So be it. Your inability to admit a mistake means nothing to me.

[ellisonz]

65. No, just bullheaded friend.

But I stand by the claim that this is more sensationalist fearmongering than actual journalism...maybe they do have a source, but frankly I find it hard to believe that a journalist would be able to get that kind of access to IDF officers. There are also some real logical inconsistancies in the article, training flights to Gibraltar :wtf: So yes, I'm skeptical.

I also stand by the claim that the function of the article anti-semitic since it makes the Israelis out to look like they're going to attack Iran just for having contingency plans, and justified ones at that IMHO. The title is misleading and so is the lead of the "news" article.

Case in point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x162590

What do you think Turks are going to think when they read that in their newspapers?

BTW, I did admit the mistake in regard to "a tabloid" above.

Edit: Want to address the Guardian and BBC treatment of the story?

[magellan]

67. I thought it would be clear

...that I don't care to address any treatment of the story. I've given you my stance.

"BTW, I did admit the mistake in regard to "a tabloid" above."

Where? Not to me. And I haven't kept track of your posts to others.

[ellisonz]

70. I guess I didn't but...

You seem to be backing away from your superior understanding of British media...I mean c'mon why do you think the BBC has brief coverage and the Guardian buried it another story? It's a good question and its telling. I've given you my stance too. So humor me...

:hi:

[magellan]

72. ellisonz, I have nothing against you

But I've been here for a while, and I know better by now than to get into contests when the charge of antisemitism is involved. (Apart from this thread, you never find me in I/P!) I am simply not interested in upsetting my id anymore than the current administration already does. You're free to interpret that as you like, but sorry, I'm not biting.

:)

[ellisonz]

73. Fair enough. But I still think it shows a heck of a lot in terms of media.

Your partner in crime appears to though...:sarcasm:

No hard feelings, but I'm just sick to death of "news" journalism...

I've been here longer than my post count indicates, I changed SN's before the amnesty. It's in my info...

I just happen to have one tough id, as my fmr SN indicates.

:thumbsup:

[ellisonz]

74. I also feel compelled to add...

1. I never accused the authors or the paper of outright anti-semitism, I said "functional anti-semitism," the two are rather different if you think about it; the conditioning makes all the difference, but yes I wanted the red meat.
2. There was a whole other sub-thread between me and ibid that got cut out when the mods consolidated the threads.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Since Mahnaimi used to be in Israeli intelligence

it's not that surprising that Israeli officials might talk to him. Gibraltar is the other end of the Mediterranean - the longest flight from Israel without entering another country's airspace.

[ellisonz]

69. Not exactly...

Unless they were to fly a very strick flight path they'd violate Italian, Maltan and Tunisian airspace. Maybe he was hanging out with some bragging pilots in a bar?

:spank:

[magellan]

56. See my post #55

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=162447&mesg_id=162582

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Oh, bollocks, when you cry "anti-semitism" the moment Israel is mentioned

you lose all credibility. Don't give me crap about wanting "honest serious discussion". Shouting "bigotry" the moment someone criticises a country's position is a lousy debating tactic.

I don't think you know much about the Sunday Times at all. I don't think you know much about the DU rules on sources either. It's accepted that posts from serious newspapers are accepted, even if they lean Republican, or the equivalent in their country. The Jersualem Post would be an example. The Sunday Times certainly counts as a serious newspaper. It's about as right wing as CNN.

I haven't the faintest idea what you think that other DU thread shows about the Sunday Times. The poster seems to be a "strong Israel" type, who thinks it has a right to nuke a potential nuclear enemy. Are you saying that he's a plant from the Sunday Times, to try to give credibility to their story, by showing that people think that way?

[ellisonz]

29. Nuts?

If I recall the rule used to be that you couldn't link place like newsmax or drudge and then it changed sometime earlier this year. I'd put the Sunday Times in that class. Anyways, you use way to many ad hominems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_(UK)

News International, a subsidiary of News Corp, owns it, do you know who owns News Corp? It's a tabloid. I'm saying that it was posted without much thought to the validity of the author's obvious slant or his sources. Deal with it. See the Oberliner thread, the same journalist wrote the same thing in 2005.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. And you haven't shown any prejudices on the reporter's part

Given that he is himself Jewish, you're going to have to show some evidence that he's bigoted against Jews. He may or may not agree with current Israeli government policy, but even if he didn't, that wouldn't make him bigoted. If you disagree with Bush policy, that doesn't make you bigoted against white Christians.

No, the Sunday Times is not a tabloid. As your own link says, it's a broadsheet, and its style isn't like a tabloid either. It publishes serious stories, such as the Downing Street Memo. Or the details of the Israeli nuclear arsenal, from Mordechai Vanunu. You're not upset about them publishing that, are you?

Since you like dictionary definitions so much, let's use the one for 'ad hominem':

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So my arguments are not 'ad hominem' - I say you are mischaracterising the reporter and the Sunday Times. Ironically, your argument against Mahnaimi is 'ad hominem' - you claim he's a 'bigot', though you haven't shown any evidence for that. Your arguments against the Sunday Times are similar (you say it is 'tabloid', rather than addressing this story), though since it's not a person, 'ad hominem' isn't quite appropriate in that case.

[ellisonz]

46. No, I'm saying the article is bigoted in that it is prejudicial sensationalist reporting.

1. when you cry "anti-semitism" the moment Israel is mentioned

you lose all credibility. Don't give me crap about wanting "honest serious discussion".

2. " I don't think you know much about the DU rules on sources either."

If my memory is correct there was a rules change awhile back. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's not really the point.

3. "The poster seems to be a "strong Israel" type, who thinks it has a right to nuke a potential nuclear enemy."

Ad hominem's methinks so?

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. You said the article was antisemitic, in post #13

despite a complete lack of evidence for that. How is it 'prejudicial'? Who has it prejudged - or who does it encourage to be prejudged? 'Sensationalist' has nothing to do with 'bigoted', and is a rather subjective judgement - is there a way of reporting that Israel is considering using nuclear weapons without causing a sensation? The language used looks moderate to me.

No, those aren't ad hominems (look back at the definition) - they argue your points, or are my opinion of a DUer (who you brought into this for no apparent reason). The article isn't about Jews, or Judaism - it's about Israeli government policy. Therefore your claim of antisemitism is false, and damaging to "honest serious discussion" (because it's a serious accusation). I've explained why you don't seem to understand the DU rules on sources (and the continuing existence of links to the Sunday Times shows that you don't). The reason I think that poster thinks Israel has a right to nuke a potential nuclear enemy is post #6:

using small tactical nukes against military targets

is always preferable than a full-yield nuclear strike against civilian populations.

Obviously, it would be nice if something can be worked out diplomatically without any of this occurring. But in a zero-sum game, if Iran develops nukes, the government of Israel would be criminally negligent to its citizens not to do something about it.

This would be like if the U.S. had a neighbor like the president of Canada or Mexico had nukes and threatened to wipe it off the map at every turn.

You think any democrat or republican president would tolerate that BS?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3059927&mesg_id=3059983

It seems clear he thinks Israel has the right (and a duty) to bomb Iran if it develops nukes; and that using tactical nukes is also acceptable. You still haven't explained why you mentioned that DUer, though.

[magellan]

30. And let's not forget, it was the Sunday Times that broke the DSM

The reputation of the London Times speaks for itself, regardless of those who would try to defame it for printing something they don't agree with.

[Lurking Dem]

32. If this article had been about Iran

and stated, using unnamed sources, that Iran had nukes and a plan in place to use them on country X, would you have taken it as gospel? Or would you have asked some serious questions about the article, its author, and its purpose?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Since it's common knowledge that Israel has nukes, and Iran doesn't

that would be quite a different story.

But if a news story said that an Israeli university said "Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is only a matter of time", I'd accept it as part of normal international news reporting. Many people think Iran is working towards a bomb, and reporting that does not mean the paper is anti-Persian. I wouldn't ask for the newspaper to be banned as a link from DU. I'd also note the same report says:

Concerning Iran, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland - a member of the INSS, formerly known as the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies - said that if the US or Israel wanted to stop the Islamic republic's nuclear program, it "should have attacked the nuclear facilities in Iran yesterday, or tomorrow (at) the latest."

But I don't think that makes the Jerusalem Post bigoted against Israel. See, calling for Israel to attack Iran is a common thing to say. Saying that it has been seriously considered by the Israeli government and military is nothing special. Whether Israel would consider using nuclear weapons for the attack is a new question - but Israel itself may want to keep Iran guessing on that subject, so that Iran doesn't just bury its nuclear laboratories too deep for conventional weapons to affect.

[Lurking Dem]

41. The fact is

when a story of questionable repute is posted here from a Murdoch owned paper, we get long and heated threads about posting from a "Murdoch rag", etc., ad nauseum.

The thread that questions THIS story can't even make the front page.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. And your point about Murdoch is what?

He's not exactly anti-semitic. He was honoured by the Simon Wiesenthal Center last year. So why do his ownership of the newspaper help support an accusation of anti-semitism against the story?

[Lurking Dem]

44. Where did I state Murdoch was antisemitic?

I'm confused.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Post #13 said the article was anti-semitic

and you were replying to my answer to that, when you brought up that Murdoch owns the Sunday Times.

[Lurking Dem]

52. Sorry.

I'm not that convoluted.

[ellisonz]

45. My point about Murdoch is this:

Many people on DU complain so much about media consolidation (they're right) and right-wing ownership, and yet they are perfectly willing to take a consolidated media viewpoint as worth discussion without question. Reread yourself? Is a down-market sensationalist paper essentially different from "tabloid journalism"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Again, it's not "a downmarket sensationalist paper"

You plainly no nothing about British newspapers. Try taking The Guardian's word for it:

The quality Sunday market is complex. Some of the year-on-year comparisons look bad because of relaunches that took place in the autumn of last year. This affects both the Sunday Telegraph (-8.2%) and the Independent on Sunday (-5.7%). The Observer is looking very sprightly (+2.6%). Yet all eyes are on the Sunday Times which still looks to be hurting from its cover price rise to £2 (-7.6%). The assumption is that the price rise is not just hitting the Sunday Times itself, but is also having a knock-on effect on other titles which may have been secondary purchases to the Sunday Times.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1968863,00.html

[ellisonz]

53. I'm sorry...I'm not British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

That's my judgment and I'm sticking to it.

Don't bother.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. So you admit you don't know the paper

and won't listen to the judgement of another British 'quality' newspaper, but just stick to your uninformed opinion? Great, I can see evidence means little to you.

[ellisonz]

58. No. I know enough to know what I know. One must not be an expert to have an informned opinion...

What I can see is that you are so full of yourself that you are perfectly willing to misinterpret an article on a vital matter in international relations and nuclear politics in order to extract a latent prejudiced judgment to fit your own political ends. Don't talk down to me, I'm not stupid, in fact, I'm rather bright. But no one is perfect and you seem to completely willing to criticize my faults while ignoring your own in this matter of nuclear weapons, Israel and Iran. Maybe you should take a course in journalism and journalistic ethics...you might understand my criticism of the article better. And since you can't maintain civility in discourse I see no reason to continue to respond beyond this post.

:eyes: :eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I don't think you're stupid, and I never said that

But you come from another country, and you don't listen to the opinions - not only mine (and since I am British, I know the Sunday Times well), but to a competitor British newspaper.

Somehow you think I'm misinterpreting the article. I'm taking it at face value - it says that the talk by the Israelis may be sabre-rattling. This is frequently done by politicians in international relations, and it's not 'prejudiced' to think that might be what's happening. You, on the other hand, are convinced that the article is prejudiced against Israel. Since you are the one claiming that it's false, it's up to you to show that. But all you can do is call it 'sensationalist', and attack the paper as 'downmarket' - despite how wrong that adjective is (again, go to The Guardian, or the Independent - they will always regard the Sunday Times as a rival). You claim it's 'yellow journalism' - but the content and tone of the piece is nowhere near that. It's not as if you've tried to say why you think it's yellow journalism either - you just linked to a Wikipedia piece.

Perhaps you do listen to evidence in other cases - but here, you've made up your mind based on your previous opinion of the Israeli government, and you're not going to let the article, or anything it seems, alter your perception. Do you really think one needs a course in journalism to understand your 'criticism'? Since it's a simplistic "I don't believe the article", it would seem to be massive overkill.

[ellisonz]

63. "Is English your first language?"

See the above response to Magellen. There are other's here who agree with me....so don't play that card, because its crap.

It's not I don't believe the article, although the source is unnamed, it's more that I don't think the article means anything in terms of relevance to interpreting events. What do you believe the purpose of the paper is in the publishing it? Do you believe they have purpose without purposiveness (meaning action without intention)? They are selling newspapers, and publishing anonymously sourced "leaks" of contingency planning while using distortive wording in the headline and lead.

"I'm taking it at face value - it says that the talk by the Israelis may be sabre-rattling."

Wow you just deconstructed your own argument. I don't take things at face value, I use my mind to interpet the meaning and significance of the article, this can generally be understood as a applying a process of reason to the object in question, and from that I form a judgment that reflects my knowledge of events and concepts in relation to the object in play.

:popcorn:

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. What, the one where you define "panning" as "not reprinting in full"?

It's things like that that make it look as if you're using your own private language, not English.

What's the purpose of the article? Yes, to sell papers - that's the purpose of all newspaper articles. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Although you haven't produced any evidence to show the article is wrong, you accuse me of 'misinterpreting it'. But I haven't put any interpretation on it. You seem to think your opinion is fact, and so anyone who believes the article rather than you must be wrong.

You have now gone from calling the Sunday Times a bigoted paper that publishes anti-semitic articles to just saying the article is irrelevant (a judgement I can see some merit in). Can we take it that means you've actually accepted the arguments from Britain about the quality of the paper?

Anyway, I thought you weren't continuing beyond post #58. Or was it that your plans changed? :evilgrin:

[ellisonz]

71. The same can be said for you...

I just couldn't let your crap go, but I'm going to bed soon so don't expect anymore responses soon.

I still stand by calling the article bigoted (I never called the paper bigoted, just not very credible). Why aren't you offering any interpretation of the articles strenghts or weaknesses? What are you afraid of? Being wrong? Being right? Admitting the sourcing is weak? Or that there are serious questions about the bias of the article? You seem to believe that taking things at face value is the way to go. I don't, I strive to better understand what I read. I'm not afraid to have an opinion and frankly your posts are for the most part devoid of any opinion and that is telling, you prefer to snipe and use personal attacks rather than argue the facts.

I still don't think the paper is of good quality given the alternatives, namely the BBC and the Guardian. Neither media outlet deemed the story worth its own article. Care to address that? The Sunday Times stands alone and the authors are certainly not of Woodward and Bernstein investigative caliber...

So please feel free to kiss my American buttocks if you please... :+

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. You accused the website of being bigoted in post #3

"Maybe we should consider throwing the Sunday Times into this category:

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites"

Do I have to make endless commentaries on the article? I said something brief when it was first posted here, and have, since then, been trying to correct the mistakes Americans have been making about the Sunday Times (it hasn't just been you). I've been attacking people's posts, not the people themselves (OK, the "is English your first language" question did expect the answer yes, but the point was that you were pointing at dictionary definitions that didn't back up your argument). I've been arguing the facts all along - it's been you who uses subjective judgements of a newspaper you don't know well that no-one British, who actually know the papers here, agrees with; or linking to that post started by Herman Munster, for no apparent reason. And I hope you now understand what an ad hominem argument is better, since you've misused that term so much.

The BBC and Guardian mention the story briefly because they don't have their own sources - all they can do is repeat what the Sunday Times says, which isn't great journalism (and there's a limit to how much they can lift straight from a competitor). I don't think this is a story of immense importance (it's not exactly Watergate), so it doesn't surprise me that they aren't writing a great deal about it. But they didn't 'pan' it either, using the definition of 'pan' that everybody apart from you uses.

Your arse can stay unkissed. I'm sure you'd prefer that.

[ellisonz]

77. Oh please...you're so self-righteous I see I right through you...

I only posted dictionary definitions because you seemed to have such a hard time understanding what I was saying. I did not link the Munster post for no apparent reason, that post demonstrated how easily an article like this can play into peoples fears. In regards to the word bigoted, the definition did provide a valid basis for my claim as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" (http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate) and for all you post about the author in all honestly you don't know jack, and my skepticism is very much warranted. I can't help it if you can't get past the latter 20th century usage of the word (hint: the word dates back to the 17th century). My understanding of the English language is perfectly fine and apparent, the fact you would post such an insult as "Is English Your First Language?" is without a doubt an adhominem and I'm not surprised the mods decided to delete that sub-thread!

I can't help it if your favored topic of choice is defending the Sunday Times (given that a very similar article was published by the same author in 2005, and he also wrote the "ethnobomb" article I believe.) The paper ran all these...so the charge of bigotry does have basis. I can't help it if you have a very one-dimensional understanding of the usage of words in the English language. This is important, important enough that the Israeli government denied the story and it was likely picked up by many other newspapers thus further shaping public opinion on Israel. So yes, maybe I use subjective judgments, but that's still better than no judgment at all. For all practical purposes they panned the article...I can't help it if your favorite paper runs anonymously sourced stories on page 1 by a journalist of questionable caliber. If it's not important why are you still responding?

:nopity:

[dnbn]

35. The Sunday Times was the first to reveal Israel's nuclear secrets.

They published the Mordechai Vanunu's story in 1986. This is why Israel despises it. It's definitely not a tabloid.

[Lurking Dem]

36. They were also the first to report

on Israel's so-called "Ethnic Bomb" that would kill only Arabs.

Jes' sayin'.

[EFerrari]

12. Your post is the third in the thread. What mass hysteria?

Do you understand the term "mass hysteria"?

[ellisonz]

17. I was being rhetorical...

See #31

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3061544#3061686

[originalpckelly]

33. Yeah, and we had no plans to invade Iraq.

Never, never, underestimate the stupidity of neo-cons and their Likudnik friends. These far right people are so totally incompetent and insane, they should be allowed anywhere near power. Likud is probably putting pressure on Olmert and Kadima to do this.

[Briar]

4. Since Israel denies having

nukes, what else is it going to say?

[ellisonz]

20. That's overstated...

Israel only "denies" it because they don't want to provoke disorder and violence anymore. That wasn't the original case when the program was still a secret before 1986.

[Briar]

22. Israel has always adopted

the position that it will not confirm or deny, its reasons being that it then keeps the nukes away from the hands of the international atomic regulators, and maintains an ambiguity about what it really does possess.

[ellisonz]

23. So maybe there are dual purposes?

But I think both are true...the later clause of your sentence suggests the validity of my claim...and besides, even if the IAEA were to inspect that doesn't mean they have the right to disarm Israel. Secrecy does have its uses...

Edit: In this matter, it is important to remember Israel has not signed the NPT. And with that I'm going to bed. If you want to debate this there are plenty of other threads already.

[Briar]

26. You should read

up about the history of the Israeli bomb. It's very interesting.

[ellisonz]

27. Believe me, I have.

Let me elaborate: what do you think the effect of the head of Hamas saying Israel has X hydrogen bombs, X atomic bomds, X missiles, X bombers would be?

I suggest reading up on your US nuclear weapons history, a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

[Joe Bacon]

28. I don't believe them

The same nuts pulling Bush's strings are the same nuts ordering Olmert to nuke Iran.

[originalpckelly]

34. Very much indeed.

And it's quite awful.

It really does blow the mind to see how incompetent these neo-cons are their far right nut friend in Israel are. They have a big time case of victory disease, still, even after the failure of Iraq. I guess because they don't believe it's a failure of their ideas, just their idea's implementation, which went wrong in Iraq, it makes sense that they are still at it.

[leQ]

37. isn't there some ships moving into the gulf?

there's a buildup brewing, and more than 20,000 he wants for iraq.

[Tom Joad]

39. Listen to the words of this Israeli general...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3061496&mesg_id=3061496
Not comforting.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eugene]

76. Military strike is only way to stop Iran, says top Israeli strategist (Independent)

8 January 2007 14:28

Military strike is only way to stop Iran, says top Israeli strategist
By Eric Silver in Jerusalem
Published: 08 January 2007

A top Israeli strategic analyst says armed force is the only way to stop Iran acquiring
nuclear weapons if the international community does not impose effective sanctions.

Zvi Shtauber, director of Tel-Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies,
was speaking last night after the Foreign Ministry denied a report in The Sunday Times
that Israeli pilots were already training to strike three targets with low-yield nuclear
weapons.

Mark Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Israel was focusing on giving full support
to diplomatic actions and the implementation of a UN Security Council resolution imposing
limited sanctions on Tehran.

But Mr Shtauber said: "Experience shows that it is very hard to stop a state which is
determined to build nuclear weapons."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2134877.ece

Note: Posted because he said this, not becuase I share this view.