15 ms·

While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardles

by rosser 13y ago

While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.

akiselev 13y ago
You are right and as I said, I have no qualms with his logic but Putin here is playing international politics. His arguments are not new and here on HN I'm sure few people drink the war on terrorism Koolaid. This article is only notable because his name is attached to it and it is only there for the purposes of international politics, regardless of whether he really cares for peace in Syria or not.
foxhedgehog 13y ago
This is not really what ad hominem means, especially in the context of a NYT byline.
nhebb 13y ago
I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid. Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives based on his character and past actions.
- cdash 13y ago
  He is not the one talking about going to war.
  - foxhedgehog 13y ago
    He's not?
- jtc331 13y ago
  Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win--regardless of who's making it.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I don't think his claims that the rebels are the source of the gas attack are 'perfectly reasonable,' and if you don't sign on to his breezy certitude on this point the rest of his argument falls apart.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - gdy 13y ago
      Why not?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        * There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian military has stockpiles of nerve agents and ballistic delivery systems for them. BTW: thanks, Russia. * The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition. * There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military. * The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage. * For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance. * There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing. The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very credible.
        mladenkovacevic 13y ago
        * There is also in fact video evidence of the rebels possessing sarin and actually using and experimenting with it. In fact an earlier UN inspection group led by Carla del Ponte blamed the rebels for a smaller scale attack that happened earlier in the year. * Syrian military was driving back the rebels in this particular neighborhood just fine without the use of chemical weapons. So Assad in light of this decides to use significant amounts of nerve gas on the very day that he invited UN inspectors to come back? * Who said that the sarin used was stolen by the FSA from government stockpiles? In an earlier bust of a rebel holdout there were nerve gas delivery mechanisms discovered which appeared to have been produced in Saudi Arabia. * Finally there is the case of German warships who were patrolling the area and intercepting Syrian military communications and recordings of Assad repeatedly forbidding use of chemical weapons.
Bulkington 13y ago
>ad hominem Except this is a political discussion, so the text isn't truly the subject. It is relevant that Putin is a KGB gangster AND that he's claiming the moral high ground AND that he's protecting a Syrian hand-me-down regime's use of chem weapons. The punchline is how badly the US has screwed the pooch post 9/11.
- teamgb 13y ago
  If you have proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons please share it with the UN security council...
sliverstorm 13y ago
Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his... history I don't have a fancy French word to back me up, but I'm going to disagree. His arguments shouldn't be dismissed out of hand due to his history, but they deserve to come under extra scrutiny. The simplest reason being, as a politician, he is doubtless lying by omission about something, and as he is a politician whatever that something is undoubtedly changes the value equation of his arguments. I think what I'm saying is given his status as a politician, as well as his history in relation to the subject, we have great cause to suspect him of telling half-truths, which must be evaluated before his arguments can truly be.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  They're actually fancy Latin words.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Glorious. I kid you not, I thought "Latin" and I typed "French".
    - Sagat 13y ago
      Je dirais qu'il y a quand même une petite différence entre les deux...

by rosser 13y ago

akiselev 13y ago

You are right and as I said, I have no qualms with his logic but Putin here is playing international politics. His arguments are not new and here on HN I'm sure few people drink the war on terrorism Koolaid. This article is only notable because his name is attached to it and it is only there for the purposes of international politics, regardless of whether he really cares for peace in Syria or not.

foxhedgehog 13y ago

This is not really what ad hominem means, especially in the context of a NYT byline.

nhebb 13y ago

I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid. Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives based on his character and past actions.

cdash 13y ago
He is not the one talking about going to war.
- foxhedgehog 13y ago
  He's not?
jtc331 13y ago
Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win--regardless of who's making it.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I don't think his claims that the rebels are the source of the gas attack are 'perfectly reasonable,' and if you don't sign on to his breezy certitude on this point the rest of his argument falls apart.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - gdy 13y ago
    Why not?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      * There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian military has stockpiles of nerve agents and ballistic delivery systems for them. BTW: thanks, Russia. * The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition. * There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military. * The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage. * For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance. * There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing. The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very credible.
      - mladenkovacevic 13y ago
        * There is also in fact video evidence of the rebels possessing sarin and actually using and experimenting with it. In fact an earlier UN inspection group led by Carla del Ponte blamed the rebels for a smaller scale attack that happened earlier in the year. * Syrian military was driving back the rebels in this particular neighborhood just fine without the use of chemical weapons. So Assad in light of this decides to use significant amounts of nerve gas on the very day that he invited UN inspectors to come back? * Who said that the sarin used was stolen by the FSA from government stockpiles? In an earlier bust of a rebel holdout there were nerve gas delivery mechanisms discovered which appeared to have been produced in Saudi Arabia. * Finally there is the case of German warships who were patrolling the area and intercepting Syrian military communications and recordings of Assad repeatedly forbidding use of chemical weapons.

Bulkington 13y ago

>ad hominem Except this is a political discussion, so the text isn't truly the subject. It is relevant that Putin is a KGB gangster AND that he's claiming the moral high ground AND that he's protecting a Syrian hand-me-down regime's use of chem weapons. The punchline is how badly the US has screwed the pooch post 9/11.

teamgb 13y ago
If you have proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons please share it with the UN security council...

sliverstorm 13y ago

Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his... history I don't have a fancy French word to back me up, but I'm going to disagree. His arguments shouldn't be dismissed out of hand due to his history, but they deserve to come under extra scrutiny. The simplest reason being, as a politician, he is doubtless lying by omission about something, and as he is a politician whatever that something is undoubtedly changes the value equation of his arguments. I think what I'm saying is given his status as a politician, as well as his history in relation to the subject, we have great cause to suspect him of telling half-truths, which must be evaluated before his arguments can truly be.

mtrimpe 13y ago
They're actually fancy Latin words.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Glorious. I kid you not, I thought "Latin" and I typed "French".
  - Sagat 13y ago
    Je dirais qu'il y a quand même une petite différence entre les deux...