4 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoHe is not the one talking about going to war.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoHe's not?
- jtc331 13y agoSure, 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 agoI 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 agoWhy 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.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago> known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA If you were the guy in charge of those when they got raided, I wouldn't blame you if you were reluctant to inform your superiors that you dropped the ball on that. =P
- 13y ago
- nhebb 13y agoI agree that we shouldn't go to war. My point was only that, while ad hominem attacks are not a valid form of argument in a debate setting, I think they are when it comes to heads of state.