Sauron

Then he's sabotaging his own credibility by referring to a State Dept document as any kind of objective evidence. By the numbers:

1. The topic of this thread was Syria: is it next?
2. Someone responded that the US would make sure it was next, even if it had to manufacture evidence.
3. Rick responded that no manufacture was necessary; the State Dept already has Syria on its list of terrorist states.
4. My response is that Rick is engaged in circular reasoning, if he uses the US govt's own list of bad guys to rationalize an action that the same US govt will be taking.

I would be far more impressed if he skipped the State Dept reference totally, and just stuck with AI or HRW.

Dr Rick

At least I'm actually posting some evidence on the topic in a coherent manner.

Claiming that other countries sponsor terrorism does not alter Syria's support of it. Claiming that Israel supports terrorism and posting an article on human rights does little to support either your claim or your credibility; State-sponsored terrorism is not synonomous with human rights abuses.

Mistating the contents of a report and then saying it's "meaningless" when you're corrected doesn't make you look so good, either.

You're dismissing a government document because it's from the government. That is not a rebuttal. It is not credible to claim that Syria is not engaged in supporting terrorism just because the US government says it is. Is the presence of Libya on that list also not credible, or are you just going to dismiss those parts that you feel like dismissing?

That explains why you brought-up China, Pakistan and Israel, huh?

At least I stuck with the topic; why didn't you?

Boy, you can't even get that right: I posted that AI, HRW and the UN had already "manufactured" them. I then went on to discuss the State Departments Report on Global Terrorism, and you incorrectly asserted that Israel is on that list when it is not. That doesn't do much for your credibility


It is not circular reasoning to provide evidence from the government being used to criticize another country, and I am not rationalizing anything.

Your claims and posts are not rational. I posted some information from several different sources; you dismiss some of that information out of hand without any rebuttal other than "it's from the US government" Is Syria on somebody's "good guy" list? Has someone refuted the reports of State-sponsored terrorism? Do you know anything about any of this?

Is it your contention that the entire State Department report is all a lie, or just some of it? What's your evidence? Are you disputing the presence of Hamas and Hizbollah in Syria, or are you just posting whatever pops into your mind with nothing to back-up what you say?

Your nonsensical position becomes even more ridiculous if you know anything about the recent events in Syria and Lebannon. Syria has long supported the groups I mentioned. Are you denying that these groups have offices in Damascus or have been provided logistical support the government there?

And what I really wonder is how you somehow connect human rights abuses in China and Pakistan to Syria's support of terrorism?

I have no need to impress a guy who doesn't know the difference between a report on terrorism and a report on human rights, makes all sorts of unsubstantiated pronouncements, posts tangental issues, dismisses out of hand those things that may challenge his point of view, and posts incorrect information about reports he hasn't read.

Rick

peacenik

Bush will begin saber rattling in March or April of next just when the election is starting to heat up, and then they'll invade after "diplomacy has failed" about a month or two before the election after his poll numbers have slipped due to the poor economy that has resulted from the failed policy of trickle down economics(which falsely assumes that the economy is driven by supply rather than demand and consumer spending) and high deficits. Anyone with any public forum for their speech who dare suggests that the President should be defeated in the upcoming election will then be Dixie Chicked(i.e. their carreers will be threatened by the Patriot Police). If this wag the dog tactic works and results in 4 more years of misery for all but the richest 1% of Americans, then he will likely colonize the rest of the Middle East in his second term of office.

Majestyk

?!?!?!? Our capacity for denial always amazes me. It's always someone else's problem. It's never what we do or say that created or exacerbated the problem.

There's a slight difference in saying that our current president should be defeated and saying that you're ashamed to be from the same state. The former is a reasonable position which, would presume that a more qualified or ideologically inclined individual is prepared to sumbit their name for nomination, the latter is an inflammatory insult that provides no content other than to insult the subject and call the espouser's sense of tact into question.

We think that we can let flow any spiteful, rude, conjectured comment that comes into mind and then when, others who have opinions of their own take exception with it and do not respond with a hug and a big sloppy kiss, we accuse them being intolerant and dogmatic. Placing the blame for their reaction fully upon them and accepting no responsibilty of our own.

Kinda like poking a dog with a sharp stick and having it put to sleep when it bites you.

Sauron

Actually, you're not. You are regurgigating State Dept documents and expecting people to take them at face value. You're also mixing two different claims and different types of evidence;

(1) human rights violations and international watchdog organizations; and
(2) the pronouncements of the US State Dept, which is merely an extension of administration foreign policy

You miss the point deliberately.

The USA does not care about state sponsored terrorism. If we did, we'd intervene a hell of a lot more. The USA only cares about state sponsored terrorism if it impacts us directly - we turn a blind eye to it when our allies engage in it.

Huh? I think you need to look again.

I was merely addressing both the discussion avenues about Syria that you yourself opened up - not me. It was you, and not me, who brought up both:

(1) human rights abuses - when you injected data from AI and HRW; and
(2) state terrorism - and the State Dept report

If you didn't want to discuss both aspects, then you probably shouldn't have brought up AI and HRW. Your fault, not mine.

I did not misstate the contents of the report. They are two different reports, you know.

Your usage of the State Dept report on state-sponsored terrorism is precisely what I said it was: regurgitating the administration foreign policy line and an exercise in circular reasoning. It is meaningless in the hunt for any objective data to support a claim of state terrorism. Given that fact, there was no reason for you to bring it up, since it has no credibility and no probitive value.

I gave the link to the State Dept report on human rights abuses, to show that the abuses in Israel and China are so bad, that even this Administration cannot whitewash them away - and yet, it does nothing to stop them. This was to follow up on the second avenue of discussion that you had opened up earlier, the one where you injected data from HRW and AI.

No, I'm dismissing a US govt document issued by a neoconservative administration that is:

(1) actively engaged in evidence tampering and influencing its own intelligence agencies to issue reports that make its foreign enemies look worse than they really are;

(2) ignoring the crimes and state sponsored terrorism of its allies, as long as they go along with the new "war on (some) terrorism" plan from Washington;

(3) executing a plan for re-making the Middle East in a form that guarantees American sovreignty and access/control of natural resources

Given 1, 2 and 3, anyone would be well-advised to regard the State Dept list with a skeptical eye.

Strawman argument; and a very poor one at that. I said nothing about what Syria is, or is not, engaged in. I merely said that the statement from the US govt cannot be used as evidence.

I brought up those countries to refute your reliance upon the State Dept list of state-sponsored terrorism as solid evidence. The list does not mention China, Pakistan, or Israel, and yet at least two of them are engaged in such state-sponsored terrorism against other countries.

n.b. - I realize you're probably not used to being confronted with your own mistakes, but sheesh; that last one was fairly easy to figure out. Perhaps if you weren't so pissed off you might have seen that, before rushing off a response that only made you look worse.

Actually, your topic wandered quite a bit - you started out by talking about HRW, AI, etc. and documenting human rights abuses. Then you switched gears, and started talking about the state sponsored terrorism.

When I responded on both topics, it was too much for you to keep up with, and you got lost in the discussion.

Again: not my fault.

It is totally circular evidence, if you expect that document to amount to anything more than a re-statement of a previous foreign policy position. Once more, slowly for you:

1. The original poster said:
...Emperor George can manufacture a few massive human rights violations...

2. To which you responded in two parts, one of which was:
Syria is one of the seven countries on the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism. Etc.

3. To which I reply: so what? The US list doesn't prove anything, since the US state dept is not an objective arbitrator of who is/isn't engaged in such activities. And, since the US State dept list is merely an extension of US foreign policy.

Nonsense. You opened two avenues of discussion, and obviously didn't realize that you had done so.

(1) Human rights violations and international watchdog organziations; and
(2) the US State dept list of countries sponsoring state terrorism.

The evidence you offered from (1) is far more compelling than the evidence you offered for (2). You muddled the two issues and the two sources together, and obviously didn't realize you were doing so.

Then, to make your mistake even worse, you seemed to think that (in my opinion) Syria was a model regime -- even though I had stated no position whatsoever on Syria. I was merely pointing out that your source, the US State Dept, was hopelessly tainted and could not be considered objective when the discussion was about state sponsors of terrorism.

Except I do know the difference - I always did. The problem arose when you couldn't keep up with the two different aspects of your own argument, and got lost in the thread.

Farren

Hence my posted link about cautious reform taking place. I was talking about the CURRENT state of Syria. My point was if they dive in now, the situation is such they they could be putting Syria through war when a more peaceful, open society is round the corner

By way of a parallel. Do you think it would have been awfully smart to invade SA for "freedom and democracy" while the CODESA talks were being held between the old government and the ANC?

Dr Rick

What a sad collection of rambling non sequitors, falsehoods, unsupported assertions, ad hominems, and fallacious strawmen.

Rick

Dr Rick

The admin may not be bucking for a war with Syria or other countries on the Bush admins list of "terrorist" states but rather counting on the show of force in Iraq to make their governments more compliant with US demands. That may work, regardless of how one feels about the morality or wisdom of attacking Iraq.

N. Korea this weekend dropped its demand for bilateral negotiations with only the US over its nuclear program, a position the US considered a form of diplomatic blackmail. That was a major sticking point, and it may just be coincidence, but it's doubtful that Kim isn't acutely aware of events in the ME. Other nations on the State Department list of countries that sponsor terrorism have good reason to feel threatened, now

It may not be awfully smart to attack Syria, and I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the Iraqi War, but I don't see the parallel with the apartheid government of SA; do you?

Rick

Larry

I'm with ya, man!

Israel is no better than the rest of those stone age, religious mentality idiots. Maybe Israel should be targeted after Syria....or maybe before.

Religion and politics is a dangerous combination. We may gripe in the US about violations of the separation of church and state, but these throw-back to pre mid evil fucks, don't even have such a clause. Their religion is the state.

Israel has been the cause of so much bloodshed over the years. Yet, according to some, they can do no wrong.

Majestyk

Dr Rick, I gotta say that I'm impressed by the quality and unprejudiced nature of your posts.