3 ms·

Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bomb

by pipy 13y ago

Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bombing it? Not up to me. What do you want me to oppose? The case that has never been made? Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again: 1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action) 2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it. 3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals. During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal. There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it. No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated? I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal. I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment. After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments. BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization. Here's my final message: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362643

berntb 13y ago
This is my way of seeing it: 1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration). 2. You write about everything else. 3. I ask for an answer time and again. 4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument. 5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me! 6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer. Isn't the above true? Well, finally answer the argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent. ---------------- And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories: >>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad. (And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)
- pipy 13y ago
  Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. That's why: you and US propose an action with an obscure goal and of obscure scope. Actually, not even an action, but a first step of an obscure sequence of actions the second step of which is unknown. Furthermore, there is no concrete statements or documents that allow us to link the proposed action (however obscure it may be) to the proposed goal (however obscure it may be). It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person. What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place. My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case. !!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!! As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future. ------- I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.

by pipy 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

This is my way of seeing it: 1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration). 2. You write about everything else. 3. I ask for an answer time and again. 4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument. 5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me! 6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer. Isn't the above true? Well, finally answer the argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent. ---------------- And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories: >>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad. (And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)

pipy 13y ago
Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. That's why: you and US propose an action with an obscure goal and of obscure scope. Actually, not even an action, but a first step of an obscure sequence of actions the second step of which is unknown. Furthermore, there is no concrete statements or documents that allow us to link the proposed action (however obscure it may be) to the proposed goal (however obscure it may be). It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person. What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place. My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case. !!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!! As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future. ------- I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.