"pretty sure" does not equal "sure." When something is purported to be a casus belli, the standard of proof is very high. You wouldn't impose the death penalty on someone based on being "pretty sure." The standard of proof here should be higher, because when you escalate a war, you're imposing the death penalty on innocent civilians.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/9/13 12:25 AM, Gar Lipow wrote: > > f you think you know for sure, or even with a reasonable degree of > > certainty, who was responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria, you > > are wrong. > > > > > http://strawberryrevolution.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/if-you-think-you-know-who-used-chemical-weapons-in-syria-you-are-wrong/ > > > > I too am opposed to Obama taking any action but anybody writing > seriously about these issues has to pay attention to: > > 1. the exhaustive analysis found on the Brown Moses blog > > 2. the NYT article that quoted an MIT scientist/weapons specialist who > crusaded against Reagan's SDI. He was pretty sure based on the existing > evidence and what is generally known about rebel capabilities that it > was the Baathists who did it. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
