FREE TAPATALK APP

Thunder · 25th October 2007, 09:17 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

Ziggurat · 25th October 2007, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.

fuelair · 25th October 2007, 09:55 AM

existential is an interesting word in that circumstance. I would more normally use it as
"Wow, I just had an existential moment,there!".

I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her).

corplinx · 25th October 2007, 10:03 AM

Headline doesn't match the story? Man, the press is becoming more like slashdot every day.

Ziggurat · 25th October 2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her).

That's not what the term means in context. An existential threat means a threat to the very existence of whatever you're talking about. And that meaning preceeded the philosophy school of that name.

Cleon · 25th October 2007, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.

Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case.

Ziggurat · 25th October 2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case.

Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline.

Cleon · 25th October 2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline.

To a lesser extent. He's basing his statement on the overall content of the article, and you are focusing on a single word (a word, mind you, that was put there by the journalist, and not by Livni).

Of course, the other angle is that this is the Foreign Ministry--the equivalent of the US State Department. Their main concern is foreign relations, not military security, intelligence, or what have you. It is significant if they don't feel Iran is a major threat (whatever you get out of "existential"), but that may or may not be the feeling of the Israeli government as a whole.

Oliver · 25th October 2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

The list of people who think the Bush Administration is a bunch
of crazy [fill in the blank] is getting longer and longer...

- Israeli Foreign Minister: Iran Nukes Do Not Pose Threat to Israel
- Powell urges talks between US, Iran
- Hans Blix, Former Weapons Inspector
- German parties blast Bush remarks
- Putin rejects using force against Iran
- Putin: No saber-rattling over Iran
- Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store
- N ew Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejects Pro-War Stance Toward Iran
- IAEA chief: No psywar on Iran
- Hersh: No support for Bush against Iran

Oh, and then there is this idiot:

Fox News Sunday: William “The Bloody” Kristol’s Bloodlust for War with Iran

Puppycow · 25th October 2007, 11:38 PM

Without getting into the article's substance, I thought the following juxtaposition was curious:

Quote:

Related articles:

# Livni: Iranian nuclear weapons pose little threat to Israel
# Livni: Iran poses greatest threat to world's values

Of course, these are merely headlines, but they look strange together.

FWIW, there is a big difference between "little threat" and "not an existential threat."

egslim · 26th October 2007, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.

How can nuclear weapons pose any other threat than an existential one to a small country like Israel? Either they would pose no threat at all, or the threat has to be existential. By discounting the latter Livni automatically indicates she believes the former.

geggy · 26th October 2007, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html

you can also chdeck out the timelime of US's confrontation with Iran here

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...t_iran_nuclear

25th October 2007, 09:17 AM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Iran Nukes No Threat: Israel FM http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran.

25th October 2007, 09:39 AM	#2
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by parky76 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran. Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

25th October 2007, 09:55 AM	#3
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,326	existential is an interesting word in that circumstance. I would more normally use it as "Wow, I just had an existential moment,there!". I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her).
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,326

25th October 2007, 10:03 AM	#4
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Headline doesn't match the story? Man, the press is becoming more like slashdot every day.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

25th October 2007, 10:19 AM	#5
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by fuelair I do agree, my concern would be real/substantial threats rather than philosophical ones (which seem to concern her). That's not what the term means in context. An existential threat means a threat to the very existence of whatever you're talking about. And that meaning preceeded the philosophy school of that name.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

25th October 2007, 10:20 AM	#6
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Funny, but if you read the article, the text doesn't actually match the headline (something I've seen quite often in news reports). The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes. Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

25th October 2007, 10:25 AM	#7
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Cleon Word-parsing a translated summary of a series of discussions that were not conducted in English is probably not the best way to make your case. Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

25th October 2007, 11:05 AM	#8
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Maybe not the best way for Parky to make his case either, but that's essentially what he did too. He just spent less effort on it, because he accepted the parsing of whoever wrote the headline. To a lesser extent. He's basing his statement on the overall content of the article, and you are focusing on a single word (a word, mind you, that was put there by the journalist, and not by Livni). Of course, the other angle is that this is the Foreign Ministry--the equivalent of the US State Department. Their main concern is foreign relations, not military security, intelligence, or what have you. It is significant if they don't feel Iran is a major threat (whatever you get out of "existential"), but that may or may not be the feeling of the Israeli government as a whole.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

25th October 2007, 03:49 PM	#9
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by parky76 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html Honestly, if the FM of Israel is saying this, we need to reevaluate the supposed threat from Iran. The list of people who think the Bush Administration is a bunch of crazy [fill in the blank] is getting longer and longer... - Israeli Foreign Minister: Iran Nukes Do Not Pose Threat to Israel - Powell urges talks between US, Iran - Hans Blix, Former Weapons Inspector - German parties blast Bush remarks - Putin rejects using force against Iran - Putin: No saber-rattling over Iran - Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store - N ew Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejects Pro-War Stance Toward Iran - IAEA chief: No psywar on Iran - Hersh: No support for Bush against Iran Oh, and then there is this idiot: Fox News Sunday: William “The Bloody” Kristol’s Bloodlust for War with Iran
	__________________

25th October 2007, 11:38 PM	#10
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,044	Without getting into the article's substance, I thought the following juxtaposition was curious: Quote: Related articles: # Livni: Iranian nuclear weapons pose little threat to Israel # Livni: Iran poses greatest threat to world's values Of course, these are merely headlines, but they look strange together. FWIW, there is a big difference between "little threat" and "not an existential threat."
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 25th October 2007 at 11:40 PM.

26th October 2007, 03:08 AM	#11
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The text says, "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel" (bolding mine). Does that mean that they pose "little threat to Israel", as the headline claims? No, it really doesn't. On Sept. 10, 2001, did Al Qaeda pose an existential threat to the US? No. But did it pose a real and significant threat? Hell yes. How can nuclear weapons pose any other threat than an existential one to a small country like Israel? Either they would pose no threat at all, or the threat has to be existential. By discounting the latter Livni automatically indicates she believes the former.
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856

26th October 2007, 03:11 AM	#12
geggy Muse Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 520	Quote: Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15 Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy." Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago. Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html you can also chdeck out the timelime of US's confrontation with Iran here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...t_iran_nuclear
geggy Muse Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 520