3 ms·

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

by 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.

berntb 13y ago
>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation. So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch! Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.) >>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support. Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write: "So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad." I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write! For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough. (I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)
- berntb 13y ago
  I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time. There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text. a). You're a troll. b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory. c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality). I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c). So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep. (I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
  - 13y ago

by pipy 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation. So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch! Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.) >>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support. Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write: "So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad." I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write! For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough. (I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)

berntb 13y ago
I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time. There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text. a). You're a troll. b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory. c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality). I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c). So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep. (I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
- 13y ago