******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
At 16:31 04-05-15 -0400, A.R. G via Marxism wrote: > >The article that Clay wrote appears to suggest that anyone who >second-guessed US government reports that the Syrian regime committed the >Ghouta attack is a regime apologist What is important isn't identifying this or that individual of being a regime apologist, whether intentionally, unconsciously, or inadvertently. The problem is that this is the discourse that permeates the left, and that becomes reflected in the views of leftists who hear the same sort of talk from almost everyone they speak with, and then go on to repeat that same bullshit themselves. I can only imagine it is not unlike the millions of sincere communists during the 1930's who hated Trotsky because he was without a doubt a counter-revolutionary agent working for the fascists, "as everyone knows." But among those who are more equipped to investigate questions of fact independently and still wind up repeating these lies, I have less sympathy. And I think that's what irks Clay the most: "opinion-makers" who lack integrity. Where all the circumstantial evidence (as well as most subsequently obtained evidence) indicates that the residents of East Ghoutta (a liberated zone) were gassed by the regime and not by themselves, the only reason someone would not only explore but write about the most unlikely (and implausible) possibilities is if they feel extremely uncomfortable with what they realize is almost certainly true. So this no longer has to do with journalism, but advocacy, and then coming up with factual scenarios -- no matter how far-fetched! -- in which the guilty party is let off the hook. There isn't any other explanation for the race to such conclusions other than the prejudices of the purported "fact-finders." During the Vietnam war I don't remember anyone "questioning" whether the US military poisoned the Vietnamese with agent-orange rather than the other way around (which would have explained the many thousands of American troops who were also affected). When arch-bishop Romero and the church women were murdered in El Salvador, I don't remember anyone on the left going out of their way to investigate whether that had actually been the work of the FMLN in order to gain sympathy. Well sure, anything is possible, but if you're doing honest journalism you don't just write in detail about every unlikely possibility. Unless you're actually doing propaganda, and the obvious possibility is too painful to acknowledge. That's when you have to clutch at any straw, and then, in the cases of the journalists we're discussing, use your well-earned reputation to put a cover on what you should (and probably do) know has nothing to do with the truth. - Jeff _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
