The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, April 02, 2007

They Want to Have Their Agenda and Their Credibility Too

Since bloggers cannot possibly write about everything or even many things, each blogger has a niche that he or she focuses on to write about. As long as transparency is kept in the process this should be acceptable. Consistency lends credibility, but due to time constraints full balanced blogging is not feasible. So most bloggers focus on their desired niche and clearly post they are doing so. This blog is no exception.

However, there are many organizations that either claim or give the appearance to be non-partisan and have the resources to cover a broad range of activities. Many of these organizations have targeted the disgusting but localized actions Abu Graibh. They have also have made great hay about the Gitmo prisoners by taking the word of the detainees above those of the guards. Many are media outlets that claim to be non-biased. Others are organizations allegedly devoted to fighting human rights abuses.

I have been looking at several of these for any mention about the Iranian hostage situation and found very little. First, our new House Speaker Nancy “the Stumbler” Pelosi appears to have “frozen” at the last minute and did not follow the Senate in passing a resolution denouncing it. One news story quotes Pelosi as wanting to make sure she was doing “more good than harm”. Since when has this concern ever stopped her before?

While I have seen the story mentioned in the news, there is very little showing Iran in a bad light. In the face of evidence that the sailors were clearly in Iraqi waters, this action amounts to an act of war. The retaining of the sailors after the evidence was submitted is no less than making the sailors hostages. The parading of the hostages on television is against the Geneva Convention and an act of humiliation. They have added to the humiliation by forcing the female sailor from a modernized liberated country to wear an Islamic head covering. To top things off they are showing so-called “confessions” by the sailors. No military person would volunteer to do such a thing without being under some kind of duress.

The sorry-excuse United Nations fell short of a full condemnation against Iran. Is anybody surprised? Then there are the organizations supposedly devoted to ridding the world of human rights violations. I have been monitoring the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for several days now. If there is any mention of the abuses against the UK sailors I could not find it.

Basically it boils down to credibility. If an organization devoted to denouncing these violations turns a blind eye to clear abuses, how can anything they say be trusted. If they put on their site that they exclude any mention of Western civilization victims, then at least we would know why this situation was excluded. Instead there is a deafening silence and their agenda driven heart is laid bare for the world to see.

Labels: , , , ,

11 Comments:

  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Dennis Prager said on his show that the UN's refusal to condemn Iran was because of the Russians & Chinese. No surprise there.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    //Good on the Russians and the Chinese for sticking up for the truth.//

    That's a switch. Russia and China sticking up for truth?

    Are we talking about the same two countries here? One that kills its journalists that dare to find the truth? And the other that simply imprisons them, while placing filters on the internet to keep their own people from learning the truth?

    CF, your rhetoric of America "all bad" and anyone else that dares to cross America "all good", simply astounds me to no end. I can see why you are confused.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    CF,

    I have not outrage regarding anything we do to Iran at the moment. Either you would claim that they have no participation in the sectarian violence through fighters and funding or you don't care.

    In either case I do care. I will wait for the truth to come out about the actual activities of these so called diplomats.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Yet somehow they are the aggressors?

    um, er, somehow? How about 1979? How about feeding the violence in Iraq? How about the feeding of the violence in Lebanon? And you are not the least uneasy about such radical elements gaining a nuke?

    I realize you don't like the US having nukes because we are "bad". If you are then fine with Iran having them you will put an underline under LA's point with a thick black marker.

     
  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I am curious if you see WWII the same way the rest of the world sees it (I'm not talking about the holocaust as you already addressed that), but in the context of what you just said about all wars.

    I keep trying to find some common ground to begin a more structured dialog but it is like we live in two different worlds.

    You have talked a lot about propaganda. I continue to go through my perspective to see where I may be deluded by it. However, I have difficulty swallowing the notion that your views are free from the influences of some propaganda.

    Oh, and I have just realized what is different between you and others I consider liberal. The others are always so wishy washy seeing everything in gray. You bend to the left yet your views are as black and white as mine. As Spock would say, "Fascinating".

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    My views are not black and white at all.

    My guess is that you took that as an insult. It was not meant to be. Anyway, you know your own views better than I do so you get to choose your own labels. I'll take it back.

    Are you saying that WW2 wasn't about treasure?

    I don't dare presume anything when I dialogue with you. Can you humor me with a brief comment on what treasure WWII was about. I think we would agree treasure was involved. I'll wait for your answer on the Germany front.

    I will stick my neck out and guess we can agree the Japan front was about oil. Maybe we can leave today with one point of agreement.

     
  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Oh, you do differ from most liberals who think that most wars are over religion. At least I have heard some say that.

     
  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    CF,

    //That is a red herring. Stick to the issue//

    It is not a red herring. It is a valid point that you cannot defend, so you call it a red herring and think it let's you off the hook. The credibility of your sources (China and Russia) are very much an issue, when you are taking what they say and making it gospel. Nice try though.

    //Your analysis of my attitude is a strawman.//

    My analysis of your attitude comes from reading your weak and faulty arguments, which usually consists of you building a straw man out of those that you disagree with, so you can call them a straw man.

    If you want to say that you don't agree with something that an author says, it is customary to take what you disagree with and attempt to refute it. But to call things red herrings and straw men just because you are unable to do so, invalidates your entire argument.

    Basically you are only spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.

     
  • At 4:41 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    CF,

    You said:

    //The Russians and the Chinese have said that there is insufficient evidence.//

    And I am calling into question your sources, because of the reasons I stated. That's part of debate, that's part of an intelligent argument. Never once did I say that I agreed or disagreed with anything else at that point. All I did is question the sources based on past performances. You then, launched into this:

    //That is a red herring. Stick to the issue, otherwise your statement appears to be that which you accuse me of, in reverse. i.e. US good, everyone else evil.//

    That's not sticking to the issue. That's a red herring. You could've/should've countered with evidence that demonstrated China and Russia could be trusted. But you didn't, because there is very little. Therefore, you are guilty of what you accuse me (and AICS) of.

    Remember, you are the one that made the claim that Russia and China were sticking up for the truth. I merely pointed out that they are not known for their affinity for truth.

     
  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    CF,

    //I note that you haven't actually addressed the original issue.//

    Okay, I will try one more and then I will let this rest.

    I am not arguing for or against anything, except for what I am saying right here:

    I challenged you on your using China and Russia as a beacon of truth. Look back at the argument, if you don't believe me.

    What I see you doing is avoiding my argument by going off on some entirely unrelated sideline that has no bearing on my claim. My claim is that Russia and China is not known for their truth. Now it's your turn to refute my statement. I used my examples. Now you are free to use all of the examples of how China and Russia should be considered trustworthy in any statement, and why I should not view them skeptically.

    I will reserve my opinion of whether they were or were not in Iranian waters, until I hear the more from the British government, after the hostages have been released.

    Until then, the only thing I want you to focus on here is your statement:

    //Good on the Russians and the Chinese for sticking up for the truth.//

    To which I replied:

    //Are we talking about the same two countries here? One that kills its journalists that dare to find the truth? And the other that simply imprisons them, while placing filters on the internet to keep their own people from learning the truth?//

    You cannot keep calling something a red herring, just because you cannot defend your statement that I called into question. (You can, but your argument will suffer greatly and you will demonstrate very little credibility.)

    Do you deny that the things I said in that instance are true. Or do you seek to divert the argument back to one that I am not arguing, because I am right on the particular point that I AM arguing.

    If this is the case, you are guilty of the fallacies here. You are the one using the red herring, when you take off into the many other areas that I am not willing to argue right now. (But may be, when more is known.)

    You have to focus on specifics here CF. You cannot have things both ways. You cannot just keep throwing around accusations of using fallacies without objectively refuting them with valid support for your claims.

    That's all.

    Your turn now, give it your best shot.

     
  • At 4:21 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    CF

    //How do you get from the Russians and the Chinese refusing to legitimize a clearly false position and my affirmation thereof, to a "beacon of truth"?//

    Easy.

    I took one part of your argument that was ridiculous and refuted it. You have spent that last few exchanges tap dancing around, trying to justify your inability to counter it, by placing all of the blame on me for not allowing you to divert the attention because of your inability. That's a straw man.

    It's here now, part of the record for all to see. We can now let the others decide for themselves. It is quite clear that you have no intention of addressing my argument directly, so au revoir for now.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home