I actually first heard this metaphor during the cold war. It was some ex-CIA hand's chronicle of the Angola screw up. His thesis was that the Americans were poker players, raising each hand until they won or folded, and then looking around for the next game, while the Russians were chess players, moving pieces around in a grand super-strategy.

The appeal of poker is that you don't need to know anything. Poker is a game founded on ignorance. You don't know what cards the other guy has until the game is over. All you can do is guess. All you really know is the cards that you are holding.

The dynamics of Poker call for intuitive and character skills. Observation, reading the other guy, intuitiveness, guessing, resolve, steadfastness, courage and bluffing. The big poker moment in American legend and folklore is all about the bluff, pitting the heroes steely will against the villains faint heart.

Here's the problem with the metaphor. The Iranians know all your cards. They've seen your hand. And they've got a very good idea of who you are, how you think and how you'll play.

America, on the other hand, knows crap about what the Iranians might or might not have. The intelligence is for shit, and that's come obvious in the last day or two. Also, the Americans are so obsessed with their mythic good vs evil narrative that they've paid no attention to who the Iranians really are or how the Americans think.

So if this is a poker game, America is the retarded lug who is holding all his cards backwards.

More accurately, its the Iranians who are the real poker players, because we've got no idea as to their hand or their nerve. Americans are the chess players, with every piece deployed out on the board and the abilities and moves of each piece obvious for all to see.

The trouble is that Americans are terrible chess players, and the Iranians seem to be amazingly good at Poker.

George playing chess?

That's one for the record books!

Mr. Valdron, So good to see you - I just posted a reply to you on the August 22nd thread.

Sometimes it isn't uplifting to read ones thoughts confirmed. I know that many Democratic hawk writers believe that those of us who opposed the war in Iraq are just a gaggle of raving peaceniks, but in the real world most of us were discussing among other issues, the balance of regional powers during the summer of '02. Our position in the world, and our country's way forward is now being played out by a group of limited thinkers while people like General Clark are forced to sit and watch. Please, can't we have a new team now?

Well, if we don't bomb them, we will undoubtedly impose sanctions. 500,000 dead Iraqi children attest to the "success" of sanctions. (If your intent is to kill Muslims, that is.)

Heres what sanctions are doing to the Palestinians.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pressure24aug24,1,7031092.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

It seems, by golly, theres more than one way to kill a Muslim. And you can bet Bush and Ohlmert will use them all.

"The point is that Tehran seems to have more options than President Bush, who right now seems to be faced with the choice of accepting a nuclear Iran, trying to impose some hollow sanctions, or looking at that military option that he always says is on the table."

Yes, this is the worrisom part...the neos and Bush with no power or influence left except the military one. I am not sure Bush is even in touch with reality enough to stew in his own ego frustration over Iraq and Iran..but the neos sure are...and they are working every day to find a way to attack Iran. I am not hopeful.

Well, the sanctions may be "hollow" as far being unsuccessful at imposing Bush's will on Iranian policy, but they are not "hollow" when it comes to the very real human costs that are ALWAYS paid by the citizens rather than those in power. Make no mistake, we can kill a whole slew of Iranians without firing a shot, and it is obvious that we WILL kill a whole slew of Iranians before this is over, either by bombing the bejesus out of 'em, or by imposing devastating sanctions.

Yes POA..I have seen the reports on what Israel is doing in Palestine ...really stepped it up even more since their Lebanon incursion too..

If there is any justice in the universe the Palestines will get a state...those people have taken poundings upon poundings and abuse after abuse for years and years...as far as I am concerned suicide bombers blowing up pizza parlors doesn't compare to what Israel has done for decades. There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago. I can't read about the bulldozing homes and farms and olive tree groves anymore without my blooding literally boiling over.
Sheer putrid, sick, pointless destruction by cowardly criminals.

New York Times

August 25, 2006
Weapons
Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs
By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.

Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.

In addition to investigating use of the weapons in southern Lebanon, the State Department has held up a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, a cluster weapon, that Israel sought during the conflict, the officials said.

The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.”

Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.

The agreements that govern Israel’s use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.

Bush administration officials warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties, but they have lodged no public protests against its use of cluster weapons. American officials say it has not been not clear whether the weapons, which are also employed by the United States military, were being used against civilian areas and had been supplied by the United States. Israel also makes its own types of cluster weapons.

But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.

The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.

The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.

The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.

Dozen of Israelis were killed and hundreds wounded in attacks by Hezbollah rockets, some of which were loaded with ball bearings to maximize their lethality.

Officials say it is unlikely that Israel will be found to have violated a separate agreement, the Arms Export Control Act, which requires foreign governments that receive American weapons to use them for legitimate self-defense. Proving that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah did not constitute self-defense would be difficult, especially in view of President Bush’s publicly announced support for Israel’s action after Hezbollah fighters attacked across the border, the officials said.

Even if Israel is found to have violated the classified agreement covering cluster bombs, it is not clear what actions the United States might take.

In 1982, delivery of cluster-bomb shells to Israel was suspended a month after Israel invaded Lebanon after the Reagan administration determined that Israel “may” have used them against civilian areas.

But the decision to impose what amounted to a indefinite moratorium was made under pressure from Congress, which conducted a long investigation of the issue. Israel and the United States reaffirmed restrictions on the use of cluster munitions in 1988, and the Reagan administration lifted the moratorium.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In a perfect world the Olmert and his minons and Bush and the neos would all end up in the ICC. People are going to be dying from these cluster bombs for a long time...reports are that Isr used them on 170 different sites in Lebanon. One Israeli soldier and three Lebanon soldiers have been killed in the past two days from these unexploded bombs.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754743.html

Italy floats the idea of putting troops in Gaza also if Lebanon troop deployment is sucessful.

Huummmm...I find this interesting too...especially combining it with several other similar statements from officials of other European countries. I believe that Lebanon might have been, if not the last straw, close to it, for the Europeans. For sure the US isn't stepping up with any leadership or solutions....about time for someone(s) to take control.

Of course the war and our policies strengtend Iran. Such was regrettably inevitable. Well almost inevitable, since nothing really is. Now that it has come to pass it is with regret that we will have to slay the new monster. The only solution is nuclear. The final solution.

This bring up a niggling question about the chain of command for issuing the order to nuke Iran. Would someone ask a Joint Cheif or two if they would lanuch on orders from Bush without question. Without seeking confirmation that such was a decision that had broad support within the broad specturm of the intellegence, diplomatic and political establishments, as well as within the military of course.

This is not just a little thought experiment. Everyone here knows that such an order may well come from the White House and thus it needs to be discussed, openly. Will the radicals be allowed to give the order which the military at this point has no ability to resist or deny. A way must be found to short circuit this thing and it will have to be in essense extra-constitutional.

Chalmers Johnson has been saying this for years since he wrote the book "Blowback" before 9-11. He defines blowback as the "unintended consequences of policies that were kept from the American people." He also puts it in a simpler phrase: "a nation reaps what it sows".

After six years we know Bushco is all about blowback i.e. the United States has largely abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and multilateral institutions and resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial manipulation in carrying out its foreign policies.

The Bush admininstration is immune to conventional reason, principled arguments, thoughtful discussion, alternative solutions, and essentially anything else that does not further their agenda of global hegemony and the accumulation of raw power.

Some good news I hope....

"I think there's a revolt coming from grassroots America. I think they're tired of being deceived."
- General Wes Clark

If the Dems do not take back the House and Senate in Nov 2006 then Chalmers Johnson troubling prognosis of what's to come "a nation reaps what it sows" could be a harsh reality for America.

Great. First we have the US military playing football on Iraq's soccer field, and now the State Dept is playing a bad poker hand during Iran's chess game. Does ANYONE bother to figure out what games to bring to the competitions any more???

Mr. Valdron, excellent post. I would also venture that China plays a mean game of chess to our mediocre poker skills.

I heard a quote from a Brit (unknown) who said there are a "lot of options in between neglect and bombing that are not being used in Iran".

Starting a conflict with Iran would be a very very bad idea in so many ways. Those in favor of diplomacy need to push back very hard against this insanity.

First things first. Caught a bit of Dobbins last night in background to important phone conversation. Couldn’t give it full attention, but it was impressive to hear RAND brought into the mix. I look fwd to watching the archive in its entirety Sunday.

And a few minor points worth clarifying.

"The appeal of poker is that you don't need to know anything. Poker is a game founded on ignorance.

Warren Buffet once said "In a typical poker game there may be one or two consistent winners who understand the game (one of knowing and BELIEVING in statistics, BTW), a bunch who sort of get it, and one sucker who is clueless who in essence finances the experience. If you don't know who the sucker is in a given game, it is likely you". My experience has been that success in poker is one of the best predictators at success in economics, a lesson learned before I knew who Buffet was, merely by observing a friend consistently beating the best economics professor at a prestigious college. And yes, that friend is today chairman of the department at a big Ten University.

The relevant distinction between chess and poker, is that in poker, success at the next hand is independent of success in the next. In chess, success at the next move is a function of previous moves.

Second, “This bring up a niggling question about the chain of command for issuing the order to nuke Iran”.

Now we get to the nub. Technically, GWB has that “paper” right, but the REAL right is divided between Dick Cheney, and the Generals. Among those decision makers the right is being “negotiated-fought”. From my perspective, it is the generals that at this point have the upper hand. The Navy has the best technical-strategy perspective, and also controls the most potent nuclear force (the Tridents). It is unclear how many smaller tactical nukes the US possesses- I’m hearing as many as 60. But then these Tridents are not the smaller, tactical weapons.

In one of Steve’s most concise and powerful statements he says:

“What worries me about Iran's perceptions of American weakness -- and America has become weaker in the region and globally -- is that superpowers with swagger and considerable ego don't usually acknowledge their failings. In desperation and attempting to show that their resolve is solid and military strength robust, big nations having a bad time strike out to prove a point.

George W. Bush may strike Iran not only because of a military rationale that his advisors assemble but because he wants to reassure the world that America still has the backbone and capacity to hit other countries -- ironically undermining the very perception of power he is trying to transmit.

The combination of a weakened U.S. and pretentious Iran is highly dangerous, despite many who think that rational calculators will prevail at the end of the day.”

There was a recent discussion among the military on precisely that point. It is my take that it is the military that is currently keeping Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush in check, but by the thinnest of margins. “Highly Dangerous” is an understatement. ALL empires eventually fall because of arrogance and hubris. One simply cannot accept the fact that “much bigger and stronger” does not translate into “last man standing”. Hitler’s superiority over the rest of the world was much greater than Cheney’s over the rest of the world” is today. Ever since the coup of 1976 and Wohlstetter’s
RAND paper “Delicate Balance of Paper” (the reluctance to “give up” national advantage of the atomic bomb was already evident in 1945 in “The Atomic Bomb and American Security, Yale memo#18, and Bernard Brodie’s “The Absolute Weapon”, 1946. In “BBofT”, the premise has been that some day USSR will dissolve, and during THAT window the US MUST ASSERT its manifest destiny and become the world’s ONLY superpower. And THAT means using tactical nukes, and why the Chinese minister suggested at the UN “things would work better if the US kept its mouth shut”.

We have the ingredients of a disaster that would dwarf WWII, and yes it WILL be decided rationally (if one thinks this through ala Alchian, that statement is a tautology). The problem is that private decision maker and societal factors completely diverge here. What is good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander. Hitler preferred a small chance of success to acceptance of defeat, and suicide over surrender.

hey Pissed Off American,

please take a look at www.tinyurl.com

short urls preserve readable line lengths.

thanks

I rather see Bush playing checkers, myself.

So, if we know that the Administration would like to bomb Iran, why is the Congress not pressing a modification of the AUMF to exclude such an attack wihtout prior approval of Congress? This step could have enormous consequences in allowing military leaders the leeway to actually defy such an order, and if the Administration proceeded without such authorization there would be an instant and obvious Constitutional conflict that could allow an impeachment and possibly heading off World War III, such a small thing and yet Congress sits on its hands sanguine in its impotence.

carroll wrote:

"There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago."

how do you figure this to be the case, carrol? doesn't seem at all logical to me.

Cenk Uygur on the lethal danger of the culture of sycophancy in Washington. Let's hope he's right in his assumption that Iran does NOT already have nuclear weapons.

* * *

Why are the neoclowns trying to attack a country that might buy it from the North Koreans when they could just attack North Korea, who they haven't paid a lick of attention to in six years?

These guys should be the laughing stock of the country right now. And here is all of Washington taking them very seriously to this day and having a legitimate discussion about whether we should attack another Middle Eastern country that did not attack us and has no weapons. How many times do we have to point out how absolutely insane that is before the people in power (politicians and the press) get it? It shouldn't that difficult.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-neoclowns-are-at-it-a_b_27989.html

Posted by bianco

Thanks!

I don't think it is the fact that Palestinians fought back, Carroll. I think it has more to do withworld opinion and international law. You can't openly murder a civilian population. But that seems to be changing now that this bastard Bush has decided that internatiional law can be openly and blatantly ignored. Israel seems to have got the message. Israel has been cited by Amnesty International, the ADC, and Human Rights Watch as being in total violation of international law, and guilty of indisputable war crimes in Lebanon. Yet the world community is powerless to halt the bloodbath Ohlmert and Bush are inflicting on the Muslims in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq. Now that Bush and Ohlmert have decided to commit such crimes without even feeling the need to conceal them from the world community, they can REALLY start murdering Muslims with impunity.

Den's monicker for these people, "monsters", is fitting, but really doesn't do justice. There is something satanical about Bush and his handlers, an evil that is beginning to ooze out from under the masks they wear.

Heres an interesting bit about the Congressional report on Iran. But the writer needs to get his shit together. He seems to have the words "errors" and "lies" confused.Why is it so difficult for many people to call Bush and his
handlers "liars"? We have plenty of indisputable lies to draw that conclusion from......

http://www.juancole.com/

"Republican Congressional Report on Iran Riddled With Errors"

An excerpt....

On page 9, the report alleges that "Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centrifuge cascade at this facility in Natanz."

This is an outright lie. Enriching to weapons grade would require at least 80% enrichment. Iran claims . . . 2.5 per cent. See how that isn't the same thing? See how you can't blow up anything with 2.5 percent?

The claim is not only flat wrong, but it is misleading in another way. You need 16,000 centrifuges, hooked up so that they cascade, to make enough enriched uranium for a bomb in any realistic time fame, even if you know how to get the 80 percent! Iran has . . . 164. See how that isn't the same?

The report cites the International Atomic Energy Agency only when it is critical of Iran. It does not tell us what the IAEA actually has found.

By the way, here is what IAEA head Mohamed Elbaradei said in early March, 2003, about Iraq:

' After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. '

This discussion is about taking a stick to a hornet nest. Do we stand there and keep swinging or take one swing and run or not swing at all. The sane option is to not swing at all, but so many indicators point to employing nuclear arms in attacking Iran.

Besides the stupidity and self-destructiveness of such an act what would we gain? Bush would gain the opportunity to tear up the remaining vestiges of our constitution and take total control of the american population because of the Iranian suicide bombers in our cities. the oil companies would reap even bigger profits with gas prices between 10 & 20 dollars a gallon at the pump and the military/industrial complex will ramp up their production to new record levels. We will have a draft. To pay for all this, all social programs will be eliminated or reduced. Canada would close the border with the US to stop the mass exodus of americans north. Mission Accomplished

This discussion is about taking a stick to a hornet nest. Do we stand there and keep swinging or take one swing and run or not swing at all. The sane option is to not swing at all, but so many indicators point to employing nuclear arms in attacking Iran.

Besides the stupidity and self-destructiveness of such an act what would we gain? Bush would gain the opportunity to tear up the remaining vestiges of our constitution and take total control of the american population because of the Iranian suicide bombers in our cities. the oil companies would reap even bigger profits with gas prices between 10 & 20 dollars a gallon at the pump and the military/industrial complex will ramp up their production to new record levels. We will have a draft. To pay for all this, all social programs will be eliminated or reduced. Canada would close the border with the US to stop the mass exodus of americans north. Mission Accomplished

"why is the Congress not pressing a modification of the AUMF to exclude such an attack wihtout prior approval of Congress?"

How many people in Congress would actually vote to take this power away from Bush? Depressingly few, I'm afraid. Which is why it won't happen. No republican would vote against Bush, and I'll bet 75% of the democrats wouldn't vote against him either.

We don't have very many allies in our government.

We're on our own. Or, as Seymour Hersch would say, "We're F*cked."

POA

"I don't think it is the fact that Palestinians fought back, Carroll. I think it has more to do withworld opinion and international law. You can't openly murder a civilian population."

Yes you can, you just change the language..to "self defense","security", "premption"....whatever.

If Palestines hadn't started killing Israelis I doubt anyone in the US would even know where Palestine is.

Robert Frisk did an article long ago about how "langauge" and terms were changed by the media and press in the Isr/Pal conflict...one eample being how "Palestine occupied land" was turned into "Jewish settlements" instead.

In a world where you don't have to have evidence or proof of any individual's or groups wrongdoing you can kill as many and whoever you want to as long as you label your motives in the right way.

I have to go with Carroll on this. The Palestinians only got world and international interest by blowing things up.

If you look at the actual history of Palestinian violence, terrorism or resistance, what you'll find is that it is not continuous, but actually quite intermittent. For long periods of time, the Palestinians in one are or another sat and waited for things to happen... And no one gave a shit about them. Then at some point or other, some of them would start blowing things up or throwing rocks. Then, everyone would start paying attention.

Human nature. A sad and disgusting part of human nature. But there it is.

poa wrote:

"Make no mistake, we can kill a whole slew of Iranians without firing a shot, and it is obvious that we WILL kill a whole slew of Iranians before this is over, either by bombing the bejesus out of 'em, or by imposing devastating sanctions."

has anyone seen the open letter to BYU Prof. Steven Jones (printed below) about the strong possibility that nuclear fusion devices were used at WTC on 9/11? and if this is close to the truth, who would have been able to pull this off? certainly not knife/boxcutter carrying Arabs!

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

July 28, 2006


All 911 truth seekers appreciate your current contributions toward proving WTC demolition even though explosives and demolitions are not your field of expertise.

However, while I believe that thermate may have been used to initiate the collapse in conjunction with cutting charges such as RDX, it cannot begin to explain the observed evidence at the WTC and therefore I feel that we must now include fusion devices as well in our demolition hypothesis and research.

The significance of this line of research is that while thermate alone could be blamed on a small group of individuals impossible to identify, fusion devices can only be supplied by the US and/or Israeli military, according to a Finnish military expert I have consulted.

I would appreciate your expert comments, and those of other qualified 911 scholars, on the hypothesis that directed energy fusion devices were used at the WTC.

For the benefit of those in this mailing list not familiar with fusion, it is the nuclear reaction of hydrogen taking place in the sun and does not produce the same radioactive "fallout" as "fission" reactions with uranium and plutonium.

Fusion radiation is short lived, approx. 7-12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water. Telltale byproducts that do not normally occur in nature are Tritium and atomic size metals, both recorded in official studies and subsequently ignored by "experts."

Funding for gradual conversion of the US nuclear arsenal to fusion devices was recently approved. This would allow the mini-nukes practical use in wars and troops to control the sites afterward. Official statements said that testing would not be necessary. I would submit that testing already occurred at the WTC.

Evidence of fusion devices at the WTC:

1. pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate.

3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.

6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.

9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic)

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radiactivity.

20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory.

21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler watertanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from WTC site.

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

I sincerely hope that you will help me refine this hypothesis using your expertise in the field of fusion. Statistical probability would suggest that this long list of evidence cannot be easily dismissed and in fact provides the solution to the WTC demolitions.

I would also appreciate your comments on my seven laws of science in the 911 Eyewitness DVD in order to improve our presentation.

Please feel free to use any segments from our DVD in your presentations.

I would also like to take this opportunity to invite you and other 911 scholars to speak in Washington DC this Sept. 11 anniversary and have your grievances redressed as is your constitutional right according to the first amendment. Your presence at the Capital would certainly make a significant statement to those who have the power to change the current state of affairs.

Best regards,

David Shaw

Steven Jones? Did he say whether he thinks it was cold or hot fusion?

pauline: "has anyone seen the open letter to BYU Prof. Steven Jones (printed below) about the strong possibility that nuclear fusion devices were used at WTC on 9/11?"

Here is David Shaw's follow-up letter to Jones, which includes Jones' reply to Shaw's first letter:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=63

20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory
David Shaw

Posted by pauline at August 25, 2006 05:27 PM

I am not at all qualified to comment on the WTC theories...but one thing that struck me as so "odd" or "fortunate" was the finding of the intact passport of Atta on the street after the WTC collapse...it was just a blip in the news and no further comments were made on who found it or etc., at least that I heard. I always wondered where his passport was, on his person or in his luggage? Did the hijackers check in any luggage or carry it on?
Maybe it was just a "lucky" happenstance, but that and the message warnings by Idigo that were never really followed up on always puzzled me.

carroll wrote:

"There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago."

how do you figure this to be the case, carrol? doesn't seem at all logical to me.

Posted by alec at August 25, 2006 10:52 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I guess for it to be logical to you, you first have to think logically.

One clue would be the continued building and expanding of "Jewish settlements" every year on Palestine land.
I have forgotten the figures but there was an expose in the Israeli newpapers not to long ago about how much money had been secretly diverted to building illegal settlements.
Then there was Bush, Sr. who tried to hold up any aid to Israel because they were building settlements in contravention of one condition of our aid that Isr was not to expand any settlements.
Then lately there is the fact that the Israeli wall illegally took in land in the West Bank that contains the Palestine water aquifers. 80% of which Israel uses for themselves and 20% of which they "sell" back to Palestine.
Then of course there is always the IDF blowing up of civilian infastructure like the power plants and all the water sanitation work USAID and the WB had just paid for and done there a few years ago.
It is also interesting that for years Israel has pumped their sewer waste into Palestine and now that it has started seeping back into Israel, Isr wants the US and the EU to pay for building facilities to clean up the problem.
There is also bulldozing down all thoses terrorist olive trees to deprive the Palestine of a source of makeing a living.
Then we could also look at how every time things get too quiet a Sharon marches to the Temple mount with a military detachment to stir things up.
Or shells a beach of Palestine sunbathers or arrest a batch of Palestine elected Hamas officials.
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

funny, carroll.

just when i pay you a complement(look in the "american prospect" thread) you insult my intelligence :) oh well.

but you don't answer my original question. i wasn't asking for another littany of israeli misdeeds against palestinians, but simply for you to explain your statement,

"There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine (sic) hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago."

it doesn't make any sense, carroll. surely, palestinian resistance in the face of overwhelming israeli force has not saved them from extinction.

let's face it, if israel wanted all the palestinians to "be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago," the near defenseless palestinians would be unable to prevent this.

are you sure that i'm not thinking logically?

Alex....I was not intending to insult your intelligence...I don't think you are stupid...I am just expressing frustration that any objective "outsider" can possibily look at the facts and sequence of events and think anything but that Israel has at every opportunity acted to destroy any hope of talks and has in every way tried to destroy every vestige of social structure and economy in Palestine that would encourage them to build toward a civil state and end the conflict.

If you mean by logical, strictly that Isr "could have" wiped them out, yes you are correct...that is logical.
But if you are saying that it isn't logical that Israel has tried to rid itself of any Palestine state and that what they have done and are doing isn't geared toward that end, then that isn't logical...because looking at their actions there is nothing else you can assume as a goal.

And you don't have to kill every Palestine to wipe them out or practice complete military genocide, you can just keep punishing them and taking their resources and beating them up until they become so radicalized you have an excuse to kill them or become so marginalized through deprivation as to be a non existent group for all intents and purposes. That is what Israel has done because they, as POA sugggested, can't get away with just wholesale murder because it would be done in full view of the international comunity.

When I first took an interest in the Israel Palestine conflict I did so with no preconceived opinion for either side since I am not Jewish or Israeli or Muslim or Palestine...I studied the entire history from the 1890's to today and my opinion, not influenced by ethnics, or religion or nationality, is that Israel has been more in the wrong than Palestine from the begining and still continues to be more in the wrong today.

The history of this conflict could have told me that Palestine was more wrong, but the facts just didn't come out that way. And every day Israel is going out of their way to prove themselves more guilty than not in this affair.

"That is what Israel has done because they, as POA sugggested, can't get away with just wholesale murder because it would be done in full view of the international comunity."

That was before Bush came along and lowered the bar. Now, apparently, they CAN "get way with wholesale murder in full view of the world community", because that is EXACTLY what they are doing.

carol,

thanks for your thoughtful post. you wrote:

"Alex....I was not intending to insult your intelligence...I don't think you are stupid...I am just expressing frustration that any objective "outsider" can possibily look at the facts and sequence of events and think anything but that Israel has at every opportunity acted to destroy any hope of talks and has in every way tried to destroy every vestige of social structure and economy in Palestine that would encourage them to build toward a civil state and end the conflict."

first of all, my name is ALEC :)

secondly, MANY poeple equally as objective as yourself look "at the facts and sequence of events" and come to a conclusion very different from yours... and others. many others DON'T think "that Israel has at every opportunity acted to destroy any hope of talks and has in every way tried to destroy every vestige of social structure and economy in (sic) Palestine that would encourage them to build toward a civil state and end the conflict."

remember, one's perception is ones alone. we all see, desrcibe and understand things VERY differently. truth is a point of view and point of views are as unique as fingerprints.

you wrote:

"If you mean by logical, strictly that Isr "could have" wiped them out, yes you are correct...that is logical.
But if you are saying that it isn't logical that Israel has tried to rid itself of any Palestine state and that what they have done and are doing isn't geared toward that end, then that isn't logical...because looking at their actions there is nothing else you can assume as a goal."

not quite sure what you're getting at here, but remember, my initial comment was that this statement of yours didn't make sense:

"There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago."

mine wasn't an argument of philosophy, i merley think that your argument is illogical.

you wrote:

"And you don't have to kill every Palestine to wipe them out or practice complete military genocide, you can just keep punishing them and taking their resources and beating them up until they become so radicalized you have an excuse to kill them or become so marginalized through deprivation as to be a non existent group for all intents and purposes. That is what Israel has done because they, as POA sugggested, can't get away with just wholesale murder because it would be done in full view of the international comunity."

again, i disagree with your logic and conclusion. here are the facts:

israeli population = 6,352,117
note: includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights (now all gone), and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (July 2006 est.)

israeli birth rate = 17.97 births/1,000 population

israeli growth rate = 1.18%

palestinian population in gaza = 1,428,757

gaza birth rate = 39.45 birth/1,000 population

gaza growth rate = 3.71%

palestinian population in west bank = 2,460,492

west bank birth rate = 31.67 birth/1,000 population

west bank growth rate = 3.06

hmmm... let's do the math. nearly 4 million palestinians reproducing 3 times as fast as the 6 million israelis. the palestinians don't look like a people being wiped out to me. and if the convoluted perceptions of those who talk about the israeli's grand plans of "exterminating" palestinians are true... the israelis are failing terribly.

meanwhile, on the comparative economic front (just for a different perspective):

the per capita GDP in the west bank is $1,000

the per capita GDP in yemen is $900

you wrote:

"When I first took an interest in the Israel Palestine conflict I did so with no preconceived opinion for either side since I am not Jewish or Israeli or Muslim or Palestine...I studied the entire history from the 1890's to today and my opinion, not influenced by ethnics, or religion or nationality, is that Israel has been more in the wrong than Palestine from the begining and still continues to be more in the wrong today.

The history of this conflict could have told me that Palestine was more wrong, but the facts just didn't come out that way. And every day Israel is going out of their way to prove themselves more guilty than not in this affair."

i always try to stay away from over-simplistic, sweeping generalizations, carroll. wrong and more wrong and less wrong... IN THE END EVERYONE IS WRONG. if black is guilty and white is innocent, the middle east is charcoal grey. there are no actors that are anywhere near blameless and no actors that are underserving of rebuke. in the end the truth may be that their are NO victims in this saga, only instigators.

shame on us all.

-alec

bu the way, carroll,you also wrote:

"That is what Israel has done because they, as POA sugggested, can't get away with just wholesale murder because it would be done in full view of the international comunity."

i find this statement kind of dubious, because you, poa and many others have made the argument again and again over the last 5 weeks that israel HAS been committing "wholesale murder" of palestinians and arabs.

none of us can have it both ways ;)

goodnight, all.

ooops, typo/correction:

the per capita GDP in the west bank is $1,100

This Congress has shown no oversight of the Bush administration to this point. Why would they start now?

We need to push back with the message that Bush has already screwed up Afghanistan, NKorea, Iraq, and Lebanon-Israel and it is just plain nuts to think they won't screw up Iran.

Message: We have no confidence in Bush foreign policy and do not support escalating a conflict with Iran.

"...let's do the math. nearly 4 million palestinians reproducing 3 times as fast as the 6 million israelis. the palestinians don't look like a people being wiped out to me ..."
Posted by alec

That demography is misleading. The death rate has not been factored and a linear function has been assumed.

Example of documented comparatives:
http://tinyurl.com/aux86

Alicia Hill

alicia wrote:

"That demography is misleading. The death rate has not been factored and a linear function has been assumed."

not true. the population growth rates that i reference ARE computed by factoring in the death rate. the growth rate is "the average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country."

The death rate demography you report is skewed. You have assumed a linear comparative.

Disaggregate the death rates and their causes, if your sources have imbedded them.

For one example of inaccurate comparatives in reporting:
http://tinyurl.com/aux86

For another example of current death and displacement statistics, see the Amnesty website,click: war crimes against Lebanon.

And while procuring data from the CIA Factbook, why not cite it, so everyone can shop for stats to their heart's content? Many #'s listed are estimates -- that's interesting. Do a multiple regression analysis of categories estimated.

http://tinyurl.com/jor92

Here's a couple of comparatives for you:

Purchasing Power
Israel $154.5 billion (2005 est.)
West Bank $1.8 billion (2003 est.)

Population below poverty line:
Israel 21% (2005)
West Bank 46% including Gaza Strip (2004 est.)

And the Harvard workshop on how not to lie with statistics:

http://tinyurl.com/fq5k9

And the entry-level course on how to lie with statistics:

http://tinyurl.com/hrdoq

BTW -- was that an attempt to make the burden of proof dispositive upon the Palestinians for their reproductive proclivities, in comparison to those of the Israeli's? By extension, should the latter make love, not war?

By further extension, would a linear and global population analysis of the sort you advance place your argument squarely in the laps of neocons?

But no, that could not be so, because you state that you avoid sweeping generalities -- though you have subsequently used them them to sweep out your own generalities.

Damn, elementary school teachers should get paid more!

But no, that could not be so, because you state BTW -- was that an attempt to make the burden of proof dispositive upon the Palestinians for their reproductive proclivities, in comparison to those of the Israeli's? By extension, should the latter make love, not war?

By further extension, would a linear and global population analysis of the sort you advance place your argument squarely in the laps of neocons?

But no, that could not be so, because you state that you avoid sweeping generalities -- though you have subsequently used them them to sweep out your own generalities.

Posted by elementary teacher

Oops, our altruistic hero for peace and brotherhood, alec, got caught yet AGAIN at using deception to advance his master's agenda? Oh my.

That was just beautiful, Alicia. I think I'm in love.

PS: Remind me never to piss you off.

Alec sounds like Ted Bundy, who couldn't understand what the fuss over killing a few girls was all about----"there are so many", he said.
Lots of Palestinians---don't worry about a few killed here and there.

poa wrote:

"Oops, our altruistic hero for peace and brotherhood, alec, got caught yet AGAIN at using deception to advance his master's agenda? Oh my."

WTF are you talking about? where is the deception, poa? i merley presented some population and economic statistics. master agenda?! sheesh!

alicia wrote:

"But no, that could not be so, because you state BTW -- was that an attempt to make the burden of proof dispositive upon the Palestinians for their reproductive proclivities, in comparison to those of the Israeli's? By extension, should the latter make love, not war?

By further extension, would a linear and global population analysis of the sort you advance place your argument squarely in the laps of neocons?

But no, that could not be so, because you state that you avoid sweeping generalities -- though you have subsequently used them them to sweep out your own generalities."

not quite sure what you're getting at alicia. i was not "attempting to make the burden of proof dispositive upon the Palestinians for their reproductive proclivities, in comparison to those of the Israeli's?" i just shared some statistics, that's all. you are free to draw or not draw your own conclusions.

"should the latter make love, not war?"

i would hope that EVERYONE would make love and not war :)

"By further extension, would a linear and global population analysis of the sort you advance place your argument squarely in the laps of neocons?"

WOULD EVERYONE HEAR PLEASE QUIT WITH THE PARANOIA ABOUT NEOCONS TROLLING THIS BLOG! i mean, c'mon! i'm just a guy. i don't know any "neocons." i'm not a student of their philosophy. i'm a reegistered democrat. further, i don't even know what a linear and global population analysis is. i was simply responding to the accusations that several people have made here about the israeli's "eliminating" and "exterminating" the palestinians in particular and the arabs in general.

i initially was responding to this ridiculous statement from carroll:

"There is also no doubt in my mind that if Palestine hadn't fought back in some way they would all be gone, run out, starved out, bulldozed over and taken over long ago."

are you telling me that you think this is true? c'mon.

alicia wrote:

"But no, that could not be so, because you state that you avoid sweeping generalities -- though you have subsequently used them them to sweep out your own generalities."

huh??? what sweeping generalizations have i made, alicia?

Alec sounds like Ted Bundy, who couldn't understand what the fuss over killing a few girls was all about----"there are so many", he said.
Lots of Palestinians---don't worry about a few killed here and there.
Posted by Relativist at August 26, 2006 07:20 PM

this is disgusting! great community you've cultivated here, steve. bravo.

this is disgusting! great community you've cultivated here, steve. bravo.

Posted by alec

Raining clusterbombs on civilians is disgusting, alec. I might be buying your snake oil if you were as disgusted by actual world events as you are by certain poster's style or rhetoric.

And I did not say "master agenda", I said "master's agenda".

Alec...

Elementary teacher has done an excellent job of totally trouncing your arguement. So I don't have anything to add.....

Except that this is the second time you have argued "birth rates" among arabs as an excuse or arguement for why Israel can't really exterminate the Palestines...that is way too Hitler-lite thinking for me....so I doubt we will ever have a meeting of the minds on this or many other things.

"Except that this is the second time you have argued "birth rates" among arabs as an excuse or arguement for why Israel can't really exterminate the Palestines."

i've NEVER said any such thing! i merely said that israel is NOT "exterminating" palestinians. of course they are a people at war. of course many are dying, but the word "exterminate" has a VERY different connotation; one that i do NOT believe is appropriate hear.

"..that is way too Hitler-lite thinking for me....so I doubt we will ever have a meeting of the minds on this or many other things."

i have nothing to add. this is beautiful... and sad.

i've never felt like such a bogeyman in my life :)

something tells me this is going nowhere...

almost forgot. one more from carroll:

"Elementary teacher has done an excellent job of totally trouncing your arguement. So I don't have anything to add....."

i didn't know that we were here to trounce arguments. did someone mention that to steve?

"i merely said that israel is NOT "exterminating" palestinians. of course they are a people at war. of course many are dying, but the word "exterminate" has a VERY different connotation; one that i do NOT believe is appropriate hear."

Yet you cannot offer a rationale for their destruction of Palestinian farmlands and olive groves, and you are "not sure" about whether or not these kinds of actions make Israel "safer".

Tell us, alec, what exactly ARE such policies designed to do, if not "exterminate" Palestinians?

"Elementary teacher has done an excellent job of totally trouncing your arguement. So I don't have anything to add....."

i didn't know that we were here to trounce arguments. did someone mention that to steve?

Posted by alec

Yes, I think the word "debate" HAS appeared on this forum occassionally, alec.

snore...

Well, fortunately there are so many Palestinians that even if all their land is taken away, they won't be exterminated.

Actually Alec...

I think exterminate might be a good description...the Israelis treat the Palestines a lot like the ranchers out west use to treat indiginous dogs, dumping posion down their burrows and shooting them for sport...
What the Israelis need is to go up against some real men (and women) instead of against stone throwing teenagers. There is a reason why most of the world considers Hezbollah heros compared to the IDF.

NABLUS, West Bank (Reuters) - Israeli soldiers shot and killed one Palestinian and wounded five others in a clash in the occupied Witnesses said soldiers fired on Palestinians throwing stones at them in the city of Nablus, killing a 16-year-old boy and wounding five others, one seriously.

They said the protesters threw stones after the army surrounded a building where two wanted militants were believed to be holed up. An Israeli bulldozer destroyed part of the three-story building.

The Israeli army said it would not comment because the operation had not ended.

Hey, Alec, keep your head up.

Change your mind when a superior argument comes a long. Question your assumptions. Feel good about the good you're doing, and don't get sidetracked when others denigrate what you're doing for the world. Keep focused on the results you're getting or could get with better or different efforts.

It's all about what you get out of this--not what you can "defend" or how mean you can be.

For my money, a lot of words get twisted on this site if they don't conform to a certain point of view or a certain set of views. Carroll, for example, thinks she studied the relevant history on Isr-Pal conflict, but believes that anti-semitism is just a figment of the Jewish imagination--a neurosis.

In the end, you can't argue with this perspective--and I wouldn't try. Say your piece (or peace) and leave it alone.

MP

Carroll did study the revelant history, sans myth or personal prejudices. That's why Carroll has the opinions she does on the Israel/Palestine situtation. When you are not emotionally involved in either side you see things more clearly.

And while I think there is some true anti-semitism here and there in a very few extreme groups, just like there is against blacks or Arabs, I also think a lot of the fear and hype about anti-semitism has been instilled in Jews and played up by those organizations/agendas who stand to gain by keeping jews in fear and anti-semitism as a big scary bogga boo.
And interestingly enough, the subject of Jews as a group only gets brought into arguements when we are debating Israel/Palestine or now Lebanon...and most often by jews themselves, not by most people discussing Israel's "actions".

When Sharon went to France and pubically urged all the French jews to move to Israel because they were in danger from rampant anti-semitism in France..how did it make you feel?..did it reinforce your fears?..did it make you support Israel even stronger as a refuge for jews because of the world's anti-semitism?

Seems to me anti-semitism got ramped up again by certain groups, after being mostly a non issue for years, right about the same time Israel made it's 2001 move on Palestine and linked itself to the US world wide war on terriers.

priceless stuff, carroll!

Not as priceless as this Alec...

This is a prime example of many things...a Jewish bigot, who will no doubt be backed up by several congressional Gentile bigots, none of whom are representing the best interest of the US..in Lantos case it is his ethnic bigotness, in the Gentiles case it will probably be campaign money and votes bigotness. 99% of all Americans who see Lantos's stand on this will understand it as a case not of just dual loyalty, but of no loyalty to the country he actually lives in and is suppose to serve in his elected position. I have no hesitation in calling Lantos and his ilk actual foreign agents who have infiltrated our goverment and traitors to this country. It couldn't be any more obvious than this.

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A key U.S. legislator said in Israel on Sunday he would block aid President George W. Bush promised Lebanon and free the funds only when Beirut agreed to the deployment of international troops on the border with Syria.

"The international community must use all our available means to stiffen Lebanon's spine and to convince the government of Lebanon to have the new UNIFIL troops on the Syrian border in adequate numbers," said Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives' International Relations Committee.

Lantos said he was putting a legislative hold on Bush's proposal to provide $230 million in aid for Lebanon in the aftermath of the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.

As the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Lantos has the power to hold up legislation.

Lantos, from California, said he would introduce bipartisan legislation to provide more aid to Israel, which already receives more than $2 billion annually in assistance from the United States.

"Lebanon will get help from both Europe, the Arab world and the United States. Unless the United States provides some aid to Israel, Israel receives no aid," Lantos said.

He did not provide any estimate of how much money he would seek for Israel. "

bigotness?
keep going, carroll, your stuff just keeps getting better and better! :)

are you sure you're not secretly writing GWB's talking points?

"I have no hesitation in calling Lantos and his ilk actual foreign agents who have infiltrated our goverment and traitors to this country. It couldn't be any more obvious than this."

really? joseph mccarthy would be proud.

"hmmm... let's do the math. nearly 4 million palestinians reproducing 3 times as fast as the 6 million israelis."
posted by Alec

That was an example of a sweeping generality, indicating that the Palestinians are "reproducing 3x as fast" as the Israelis.

My reason for selecting that example is that your exaggeration can be quantified, using your own data source. The following calculation does not factor the direct effects of war, however. It is hard to take a census when bulldozers are razing the land and bombs are blowing up the children.

Nonetheless, before you quote numbers here, please take about 5 minutes of thought and a calculator to think through the implications of your statements. Please do so for no other reason than to show respect for the human lives you purport to care about. That would be a reflection upon both your professionalism and the institution you represent in your work.

Israel: 6,352,117 (July 2006 est.)
West Bank: 2,460,492 (July 2004 est.)
Gaza: 1,428,757 (July 2006 est.)

Land:
Israel: 20,330 sq km
West Bank: 5,640 sq km
Gaza: 360 sq km

Infant mortality rates:
Israel: 6.89 deaths/1,000 live births
West Bank: 19.15 deaths/1,000 live births
Gaza: 22.4 deaths/1,000 live births

Net migration rates:
Israel: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
West Bank: 2.8 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Gaza: 1.48 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

GDP per capita:
Israel: $24,600 (2005 est.)
West Bank: $1,100 (2003 est.)
Gaza: $600 (2003 est.)

Refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs):
Israel: IDPs: 276,000 (Arab villagers displaced from homes in northern Israel) (2005)
West Bank: refugees (country of origin): 699,817 (Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA)) (2005)
Gaza: refugees (country of origin): 986,034 (Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA)) (2005)

Population density:
Israel: 313 persons/sq km
West Bank: 436 persons/sq km
Gaza: 3969 persons/sq km

Birth rate - infant mortality rate - migration rate/1000:
Israel = 17.97-6.69-0 = 11.08
Gaza: 39.45-22.4-1.48= 15.57
West Bank: 31.67-19.15-2.8 = 9.72
Gaza + West Bank [Weighted (by population ratios) Average] = 11.86

Net difference/1000: [Israel (11.08) - Gaza + West Bank Weighted Average (11.86)] = -.78

GOOD NEWS!...the Europeans are coming!...the Europeans are coming!.

At least I think it might be good news. Europe certainly has more experience and knowledge about the ME and actualy wants peace,unlike Isrmerica. Told ya the US would get shoved aside and we need further shoving...and the sooner and further the better.

EU Enters New Era of Middle East Influence with UN Mission

by Catherine Triomphe
Sat Aug 26, 10:06 AM ET

BRUSSELS (AFP) - European support for the UN force in Lebanon has thrust Europe into a major new political role in the Middle East, a region where it has traditionally been better known as a rich aid donor.

With nearly 7,000 soldiers pledged for the UN force in Lebanon, Europe's commitment marks an "historic opportunity", said Spanish Foreign Minister Miquel Angel Moratinos, himself a former special EU envoy to the region.

"The time has come for European efforts to relaunch peace in the Middle East," he said Friday after his EU counterparts met in Brussels with UN chief Kofi Annan.

"Europeans are gaining more in credibility, in presence and engagement in the future of this region, which is our region," he said Saturday.

Italy, which will be the the force's biggest contributor with up to 3,000 soldiers and which will take over its command next February from France, was hopeful that the commitment would mark a new era of EU influence in the region.

"It's the first time that Europe assumes such a strong responsibility in the region and we hope there will be a change, not only for the stabilisation of the border between Israel and Lebanon, but also to push peace in the whole region" said Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema.

European countries promised at the meeting of the 25-nation bloc's foreign ministers on Friday to provide not only the core of the expanded UN force, which is due to total up to 15,000 peacekeepers.

Until now, the EU's role in the Middle East has largely been limited to providing aid and trying to play the honest broker in the volatile region's many conflicts.

But the Centre for European Reform's foreign policy director, Mark Leonard, said that the presence of a large number of European troops not only reinforced Europe's credibility with regional players, but could also mark the beginning of a new "strategic" role.

"The EU has not behaved in a very strategic way in the past, it has not used the resources that it's put into the region toward political goals and increasing its leverage," he said from London.

"But if several members states are directly exposed and have troops on the ground, the EU will have both more credibility but will also behave in a more strategic way," he added.

Europe's new found role comes as the United States standing in the region takes a battering due its staunch support for Israel, its difficulties in Iraq and Iran's defiance to back down on its nuclear ambitions.

"For us, the Middle East is a question of stability, our stability. We are so close while for the Americans it's different," said Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

The head of the French Institute for International Relations' Brussels branch, Pierre Defraigne, said Europe's new commitment to the region could level out the influence of United States and its ally, Israel, although ambitious new plans were needed if the EU is to help shape peace in the region.

"In principle, it gives us leverage with the Americans and the Israelis, but on condition that we have a better idea (than theirs) for peace in the region," he said.

"If you don't have grand designs, then you are only filling the leaks," he said, adding that Europe should also focus on improving people's lives in the region if root problems are to be addressed.

As soon as a meeting of EU foreign ministers next Friday in Finland, Solana would "try to get across to everybody that now is the moment to act", said Gallach.

alicia,

i find it curious that you left out the one statistic that i was referring to when i wrote:

"hmmm... let's do the math. nearly 4 million palestinians reproducing 3 times as fast as the 6 million israelis."

POPULATION GROWTH RATE as defined as "The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative."

israel - 1.18% (est. 2006)
gaza - 3.71% (est. 2006)
west bank - 3.06% (est. 2006)

i guess you might want to try telling me again that the palestinian population ISN'T growing 3x the rate of the israelis?!

not a "sweeping generality," just a fact. maybe you should practice what you preach and quit trying to confuse the matter with a bunch of numbers and unrelated statistics.

in regards to disparities in per capita GDP, i guess it's also israel's fault that jordan's is $4,700 and syria's and egypt's is $3,900?

it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that israel has a well established parliamentary democracy and a technologiocally advanced market economy, would it?

also, please note that i haven't said one word about my views on the palestinian/israeli conflict. the funny thing is that you would probably be surprised to hear that i am often a vociferous critic of israel. but, it is obvious that there is a vocal majority of contributors here who demonize israel beyond reason. referring to them as "nazis," accusing them of "exterminating" populations, accusing jewish american's of being "foreign agents" and "traitors" just because they have a different view and different opinions about what is going on between the arabs and the israelis.

in the immortal words of the pissed off american, "this is a bunch horseshit and unmitigated crap!"

Again, you are in error. Using your quoted numbers for the growth rates:

The growth rate for Israel = .0118 x the population 6,352,117 = 74,955

The growth rate for West Bank = .0306 x the population 2,460,492 = 75,291

The growth rate for Gaza = .0371 x the population 1,428,757 = 53,007

West Bank + Gaza = 128,298

128,298 WB+G/75,291 ISR = 1.7 (not 3X)

"maybe you should practice what you preach and quit trying to confuse the matter with a bunch of numbers and unrelated statistics."

posted by Alec

I have practiced it. It is you who are confusing the matter. You were comparing Palestinians and Israelis. You bring in unrelated statistics from other population groups, because you cannot argue your case on the data itself. I already cited a number of references for you about these comparatives and you have not replied to any of them.

I have replied to your details. Can you do the same? You used the term "reproducing" and compared Palestinians to Israelis, you placed a number upon that. Would you like to change your statement and admit error, or just curse because you can't do any better and attempt to sweep away your generality with yet another one?

"...also, please note that i haven't said one word about my views on the palestinian/israeli conflict. the funny thing is that you would probably be surprised to hear that i am often a vociferous critic of israel..."

posted by Alec

What does that have to do with the data?

"but, it is obvious that there is a vocal majority of contributors here who demonize israel beyond reason."
posted by Alec

Again, what does that have to do with the data?

Alec..

In case you haven't noticed everyone here that critizes Israel has also demonized their own USA.

The Israeli goverment, and their minons here in the states and this Bush goverment and his neo's need to be demonized because they are demons. They are as Den said, Monsters,...I really can't think of enough bad things to say about all of them...the normal brain runs out of words to describe the dupilicity, deception and pointless murder of thousands of people by such sick freaks of human nature.

When Sharon went to France and pubically urged all the French jews to move to Israel because they were in danger from rampant anti-semitism in France..how did it make you feel?..did it reinforce your fears?..did it make you support Israel even stronger as a refuge for jews because of the world's anti-semitism?"

Personally, I feel quite safe in the US. I'm not a paranoid type as a psychological thing. I tend to be fairly trusting and take people at their word mostly. I feel a little less safe when I'm called a traitor for supporting Israel.

(As an aside, you might want to Wiki Charles Lindbergh and the American First Committee. History is repeating itself here. The AFC felt that FDR, the British, and of course the Jews were clamoring for the US to enter the war.
CL makes sure everyone knows he's no anti-semite, but then warns the Jews that they shouldn't be trying to get real Americans involved in this foreign struggle--its not in their best interests--and muses about the consequences to them, the Jews that is, if they continue on this--my word--warmongering path.)

As I recall, I think I felt that Sharon was being alarmist. However, I do recognize the strong presence of anti-semitism in France, which pains me particularly because of my love for that country, their language, and culture. But France has been (since when I'm not sure) infected by anti-Semitism. Some of it may be a function of their strong Catholicism, sort of the Pauline strain of anti-semitism. I also recognize the presence of anti-semitism in the US. My father was subject to it, in NYC no less, and I've felt its sting from time to time. But as far as I know, it's never held me back. So, as a rule, I'm not fearful.

Nevertheless, when The Passion can earn as much box office as it did--and probably continues to do--anti-semitism is alive and well, if not as a scream than as a low, pervasive rumble. Fortunately, Mel gave us one of those moments one can only hope for: full front admission that he is, in fact, an anti-semite. So the blather about whether this blockbuster is or isn't anti-semitic in its portrayal of Jews can now be put to bed.

Let's face it: All sorts of weird things are taking place in America. And that makes for some very strange bedfellows. For example, a few threads back, someone posted a link to an evangelical site. The linked article was telling evangelical Christians why they shouldn't support Israel the way many of them do. I skimmed the article.

But then I decided to explore the site a bit, just to see what it was all about. One link was entitled something like: Is Bias the Same as Hate? The point was Christian bias against homosexuality was a reasoned position based on faith and shouldn't be classified as hate. But the real beef seemed to be that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League--a card carrying member of The Lobby--was anti-Christian because it supported hate crimes legislation as regards homosexuals. That is, the Jews had the temerity to call hate hate. And in singling out the ADL, it was clear that the real sin here was the ADL's Jewish affiliation. That is, the Jews had some gall calling Christian hate hate. Something like that. Now, perhaps the person linking to this site didn't understand everything that was on it; saw a Christian, pro-Palestinian piece and liked it. I truly don't know. But it just seems that Jews get blamed for everything. And while I'm not frightened, I do keep my eye on it.

So much weird stuff is mixed up in this twisted argument, it's hard to tease it all out. But is this anti-semitism masquerading as a reasonable, even progressive position? Especially as these folks are big supporters of the Palestinian cause? And may even oppose the war in Iraq? Does it show the anti-semitic face of some aspects of Christianity, even here in America? Yes, I would say so.

(After all, so many OTHER folks support hate crimes legislation--why pick on the Jews?)

I'm not sure anyone really knows what anti-semitism is all about or where it comes from or why.

I find your ideas about anti-semitism bizarre, only because they depart so markedly and blithely--so innocently, really--from reality. I find it hard to believe that anyone reading TWN regularly could hold your views about this topic--but there it is. I'm not angry about it, just puzzled.

And yet, I support and agree with much of what else you say here on any number of other topics. You are a committed patriot; of that I'm sure.

My support for Israel is both complicated and simple. I'll try to explain it some time in a post if you'd like. I do believe this, though: If things ever got to the point where all the Jews in the world had to move to Israel as a matter of naked survival (assuming we could all fit); that is, if it were a matter of, move there or die tomorrow, we and the world would be in very, very bad shape, indeed. Much, much worse shape than we are in now. Jews are often the canaries in the tunnel. Anyway, I don't think we're there yet and I'm doing my bit to make sure we never do get there.

Hope this helps.

Alec,
I have challenged your sweeping use of the term "reproducing" [P reproducing 3x I]. You have taken no account of the reporting errors and skewed distributions involved in gathering the data you used. The information I provided places your numbers in context and has a great deal to do with unjust living conditions. You did not care enough to grapple specifically with infant mortality and migration data, though you report working as a professional in the field of social justice. Instead, you entirely skipped over the facts proffered --whining about anti-Semitism. Please, take responsibility for the data you report and any statements you make to me about those data, and do issue revisions in the light of corrective information.

"elementary teacher" wrote:

"You did not care enough to grapple specifically with infant mortality and migration data, though you report working as a professional in the field of social justice. Instead, you entirely skipped over the facts proffered --whining about anti-Semitism. Please, take responsibility for the data you report and any statements you make to me about those data, and do issue revisions in the light of corrective information."

one more time, alicia, and i'll repeat this as simply and clearly as i can:

POPULATION GROWTH RATE = "The average annual percent change in the population, ***RESULTING FROM A SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) OF BIRTHS OVER DEATHS AND THE BALANCE OF MIGRANTS ENTERING OR LEAVING A COUNTRY.*** The rate may be positive or negative."

israel - 1.18% (est. 2006)
gaza - 3.71% (est. 2006)
west bank - 3.06% (est. 2006)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

you've hereby given new meaning to the definition of the word obfuscation.

p.s. when does school start?

hey, Alec, why don't you try to rationally explain why AMERICANS SHOULD'T BE OUTRAGED in learning the following? I'm certain you will whine about anti-Semitism when you read from V. Thorn's, "9-11 Evil" --

AMDOCS (headquartered in Israel)
they controlled the voluminous records of practically every telephone call made in the U.S. by the 25 largest phone companies. They were also responsible for the billing and directory assistance for 90% of the phone companies in the U.S., and were able to perform "traffic analysis" to determine any "patterns" in communications. Their main computer systems are located in Israel, and they (along with Comverse Infosys) were fingered for selling their telephone records on the sly, putting a definite crimp on certain law enforcement agencies.

COMVERSE INFOSYS
They were the primary source provider of computer equipment to the Feds which, in turn, was used for wiretapping. Stated differently, they were responsible for the installation of automatic tapping equipment into practically every phone across the USA. What this vitally important factor means is that Israel was able to hear nearly every phone conversation in America -- at their discretion -- and the taps could not be detected because they were automatically integrated into the telecom system itself.

How can I conclude that the nation of Israel had access to this source of information? Well, during his four-part series for Fox News, Carl Cameron reported, "Comverse works closely with the Israeli government; and under special programs gets reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry & Trade."

As already noted, Comverse Infosys was caught illegally selling telephone data, and it should also be added that they have the capability to build back doors into their phone systems. Thus, anyone with the technology to do so could eavesdrop instantly on a targeted phone conversation whether this access was authorized or unauthorized.

Finally, Comverse is largely recognized as the company that recorded Bill Clinton's phone sex calls with Monica Lewinsky, and then used them to blackmail him.

ODIGO
An Israeli-owned company that was an industry leader in controlling the instant messaging function of our home computers. They were also the entity which received a warning two hours before the 9-11 WTC attacks, adding further evidence of Israeli foreknowledge.

CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS
Headquarted in Israel, they were responsible for a large percentage of firewalls on computers for both the federal government and large U.S. corporations. What makes this variable interesting is that they were able to install back doors into these firewalls which were reminiscent of the ack doors Israel installed into the notorious PROMIS software after it was stolen by super-spy Rafi Eitan, who was the director of LAKAM (Israeli intelligence). For more information, see Gordon Thomas' excellent book on this subject, "Seeds of Fire", for a more t