======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Eli Stephens wrote:
> [snip]
> Can we GET "proof" any less convincing than that? I doubt it, but evidently
> it was enough for Glenn Greenwald to assert categorically that the Assad
> regime was the source of the bombing.
[snip]
> No claim too preposterous when the bogeyman-du-jour is the object. But I
> never thought I'd see Glenn Greenwald succumbing to such nonsense.
So here you criticize Greenwald for using evidence that doesn't pass (your)
muster. OK, fair enough; I'm all for questioning evidence. Your
counter-evidence, though, is even thinner, since it's based on a mere
projection ("X" in the past has been done) of an assumption. (That is, you
assume that the Assad gov't is being honest when it states the car-bomb attack
on the military intelligence facility was done by opposition forces, as opposed
to believing the SNC, which claims it was staged. But you don't *know* either
way. For what it's worth (which honestly is probably not much), I think either
are possible, with it slightly more likely that it was an attack by one of the
opposition elements (and good for them, too!); and in that case, I think it
equally likely that either the SNC is lying *or* didn't know about it
beforehand because they are not in control of the opposition.)
And precisely one post previous, you criticize Seymour for relying on evidence
you think is weak. What do you provide to counter his claims? Let's see:
On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Eli Stephens wrote:
> LONG after anyone with two brain
> cells together knew that was happening
[snip] and
> let's note the word "apparently," also note the likelihood that
> the U.S. has provided assurances to its allies that it will gladly replace
> any weapons that they transfer to the rebels.
So, you counter his evidence-based argument (weak though the evidence may be),
with a meditation on the word "apparently" and something you pull straight out
of your ass.
Eli, if you're going to add to the debate and convince anyone that the Assad
regime--an erstwhile but open collaborator with and torturer for US
imperialism--is something worth defending, something worth gunning down
protesters in the street and killing them in their homes, then you've got to do
better than that.
soli,
DCQ
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
