[Marxism] Glenn Greenwald drinks the anti-Syria Kool-Aid
davecq at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 8 00:46:36 MDT 2012
On Aug 8, 2012, at 1:04 AM, Eli Stephens wrote:
> "Evidence"? No, an unsupported accusation by an anonymous "activist" does
> not qualify as "evidence." There is no "passing muster" here, this doesn't
> even pass "go."
Actually, it is evidence. It's just pretty tenuous. But this is reality, and it does make sense--activists are fighting for their lives against a regime that has proven it will harass, arrest, and kill known anti-government protesters, as well as target their families. Refusing to give a name only makes sense to someone actually fighting in a revolution. I'm sorry it offends your journalistic integrity.
> "Your counter-evidence, though, is even thinner, since it's based on a mere
> projection ("X" in the past has been done) of an assumption. (That is, you
> assume that the Assad gov't is being honest when it states the car-bomb
> attack on the military intelligence facility was done by opposition forces,
> as opposed to believing the SNC, which claims it was staged."
> In the case of the funeral bombing, the article states that "No one claimed
> immediate responsibility for the attack," so there is no question of
> "believing" the Assad govt. or anyone else as to who was responsible, nor
> did I accuse anyone (although I did doubt, and still do, that a car bomb was
> a weapon likely to be employed by government forces).
No. In fact you insinuate that the protesters bombed their own funeral, killing 85, so they could blame the Assad regime.
> However that's neither
> here nor there; the point of my post was to criticize Greenwald giving
> unquestioning credibility to the accusation by the anonymous activist,
> despite its complete lack of factual support. Perpetuating such speculation
> as the absolute truth to discredit an "official enemy" is something I expect
> of CNN or the U.S. government, but not Greenwald.
So talking about the crimes of "official enemies" of the US gov't is not permitted if you oppose the US gov't? Trotsky didn't talk about the crimes of Hitler? We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
> As far as bombing a military intelligence facility, I'm not assuming
> anything about the Assad government. I'm simply using common sense. If the
> Assad government wanted to stage terrorist attacks to discredit the
> opposition, they could easily bomb a bus, or a market, or a mosque, or a
> thousand targets. The idea that they would bomb their own military
> intelligence headquarters is simply beyond preposterous.
Don't be coy. You're lazily employing whatever rationale is at hand to justify your whitewashing of Assad. A desperate ruling elite that has clung to power by arresting and torturing and murdering its political opponents would, of course, never think to stage a bombing at a military intelligence building. It's common sense. However, when it comes to those shifty protesters, of course they would stage a bombing at a funeral and kill their own supporters--look at all the sympathy they have to gain! You are of, course, only being open-minded, dispassionate, scientific, and--dare I say it?--Marxist in considering such things.
This is in fact exactly what we see from CNN and Fox and the NYT, just with a negative sign in front of it. It's old and tired.
> And as to my "evidence" in arguing against Richard Seymour, I believe
> decades of knowledge about the operation of the U.S. government and the CIA,
> combined with what we actually KNOW about what they are doing in Syria
> ("communications equipment" etc.) qualifies as evidence that far surpasses
> ritual denials by U.S. government spokespeople. If you don't share that
> opinion, perhaps you need to read a little more history.
Brilliant. You've just negated the necessity of reading anymore newspaper stories. What will you do with all your time? (Maybe you could read more history...except most history books utilize evidence like newspaper articles. Hmmm...quite the conundrum...)
I didn't originally intend this to be a hostile exchange. I was serious in my statement that if you can prove your case that the Assad regime is defense-worthy, you should take that job seriously. But you reply with half-baked "common sense" and arrogance. Do you really think anyone here is impressed with your "decades of knowledge"? Do you really think Greenwald, or Seymour, or the people who disagree with you here just need to "read a little more history"?
[Is this how you talk with ordinary people when you try to convince them of, well, anything (political or otherwise)? How's that worked out for you?]
More information about the Marxism