What strikes me as odd about this article is that it is supposed to address "what-aboutery", but instead the whole article is nothing but "what-aboutery": " Th

What strikes me as odd about this article is that it is supposed to address "what-aboutery", but instead the whole article is nothing but "what-aboutery": " That's why Japan needs to speak up about Burma, the Chinese need to speak up about Africa and Americans about things like Guantanamo Bay. " Nothing about the original article, or the "how to spot a lame argument" are addressed, instead the original author is accused of just "finger wagging" and looking for an excuse to "piss on Dubai". He seems to utterly miss the point of the article he is responding to: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...