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: , , , ,

21 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 11:57 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    " In the face of evidence that the sailors were clearly in Iraqi waters, this action amounts to an act of war"

    No they weren't and no it isn't. The only thing clear is that the British have invented a border in the Shatt that has never been seen before. And why were they boarding an Iranian ship?

    I don't know why you believe western propaganda so readily. We lie like everyone else.

    Good on the Russians and the Chinese for sticking up for the truth. Someone has to. You'll need bigger better lies ti launch another illegal war on another defenceless country whose only crime is to not submit to blackmail or have its economy raped by American neoliberals.

     
  • At 3:27 AM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    And....why is there no outrage from you regarding the 5 Iranian DIPLOMATS kidnapped and now held hostage by US stormtroopers.

    I bet their families would be positively overjoyed to see them alive and well on TV.

    Of course rather than "islamic head scarfs" they'll be spending their time with canvas bags over their heads and duct tape over their mouths.

    We are SO much more civilized.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger LASunsett 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 3:03 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    "I will wait for the truth to come out about the actual activities of these so called diplomats"


    But you haven't waited for the truth to come out about the British marines. You've just parroted the party line, which is in fact full of holes.

    The Iranians have named their officials and given details of their functions. This has not been challenged by their kidnappers.

    Double standards aplenty.


    "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?"


    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.

    The territorial evidence presented by the UK is false in fact. That they refused to pass a resolution that would have allowed a military action in law on the basis of a clear falsehood, is the moral and correct course, no matter any other unconnected actions you may imagine or know of them.

    Your analysis of my attitude is a strawman. I am skeptical of all people and all nations' regimes. I look for empirical evidence rather than swallow propaganda without question. If more Americans did the same we wouldn't be killing oil rich middle easterners by the tens of thousands.


    AICS "I have not outrage regarding anything we do to Iran at the moment"

    Why? Because you are told that they are evil? Where is the evidence?

    Do you think malfeasant Western interference in their affairs since 1953 is of pure and angelic intent? Do you think controlling their oil reserves will change their civilization for the better?

    Think this through.

    They have stayed within their borders for centuries. They have been attacked by the west and western backed arab powers and they've been the subjest of belicose rhetoric and threats for decades.

    Yet somehow they are the aggressors?

     
  • 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 4:33 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    Sigh.

    The 1979 revolution was a direct result of the 1953 CIA coup on behalf of big oil and 26 years of brutal oppression.

    Context is everything.

    Again, where is the empirical evidence of "feeding the violence in Iraq"? AND as a proponent of the military occupation of Iraq, how does feeding violence sit with you?

    What about the admitted violence being perpetrated on Iran by US funded terrorist groups? Do you think "regime change" is a morally defensible aim?

    Feeding violence in Lebanon?

    Surely you mean supplying the shiite population with the means to defend their land from Israeli expansion and aggression don't you?

    The zionists have always had designs on South Lebanon and the water from the Litani. Are you aware of that established, known, proveable FACT?

    The billions of US$ per annum that you give to Israel to maintain their occupations and to oppress the indigenous population/s is not "feeding violence"?

    Again, your propaganda based morality is naive black v white, good v evil. You need to disavow yourself of this blinkered thinking.

    Wars are created by the elites for treasure and control of treasure. The elites are made up of men, there are no gods or moral righteousness involved. Men create propaganda to serve their interests in the motivation of the people who pay for their wars in cash and blood.

    It has always been so.

     
  • 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 4:56 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    My views are not black and white at all.

    Are you saying that WW2 wasn't about treasure?

     
  • 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 LASunsett 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 11:45 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    The japanese and the Germans were after oil.

    The other guy...

    "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."


    No, I haven't done that. You could read what I say literally instead of assuming anything. The Russians and the Chinese have said that there is insufficient evidence.

    The Iraqi coastgaurd and much of Britain's maritime establishment agrees. The border offered as proof by the British doesn't exist.

    A red herring is to introduce non-pertinent facts that don't bear on the actual argument. That is what you did. Russia and China's press freedoms have nothing to do with it, and I've taken noone's word as gospel which is what AICS has done.


    "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."


    Can you point to a strawman of mine? You can't or you don't understand the concept, therefore....

    "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."


    ....is just piffle. Your argument is as illogical as your analysis.

     
  • At 4:41 AM, Blogger LASunsett 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 5:07 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    Do you honestly expect me to take sophistry of such low standard seriously?

    There is a basic logical fallacy in your argument. Not to mention the original red herring that I was relying on the Russian and Chinese view, which was either an assumption on your part, or a deliberate lie, or just the way your belief system works.

    The most credible rubbishers of the Blair propaganda line are actually British and Iraqi sources in the service of the aggressors who've attacked and destroyed Iraq and are itching for a cassus belli to do the same to Iran.

    Maybe its just too complicated for you to understand that there are more than 2 positions to take?

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

    AICS said they were "clearly in Iraqi waters". Noone except the propagandists and their high RWA followers in wingnut world can actually say that it is clear at all.

    I believe that the British marines will be better treated and more accessible than the Iranian diplomats who were very clearly illegally kidnapped by US stormtroopers in Irbil.

    If you want to use international law to demonize the countries whose treasure you covet, then you actually have to respect it and follow it yourself.

    Otherwise you are a hypocrite, outside of wingnutworld where anything WE do seems to be acceptable, including killing people for their accident of race and/or religion. Anything THEY do is not only illegal but evil.

    And this is what you Americans call an enlightened society.

    No thanks.

     
  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger LASunsett 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 9:04 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    "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."


    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"?

    That, my friend is hyperbole and isn't pertinent to the original point.

    All they have posited is that the British position is unproveable.

    So...."Do you deny that the things I said in that instance are true"

    Yes. It is a strawman. You are deliberately misinterpreting my position and that of the UNSC resolution.

    You accuse me of hijacking yet you are going off on a tangent i.e. the truthfulness or otherwise of Russians and Chinese regimes.

    You are accusing me of using the very rhetorical trickery that you are so overtly using.

    Are you for real?

    If you are trying to play the moral relativity game and asking me whether I believe that the Russians and the Chinese have more credibility that Bush Blair etc then just ask it.

    Actually, don't bother. In relative terms, yes I do. In absolute terms I don't believe any of them without empirical evidence, but Bush/Blair?howard et al have consistently lied about everything for years.

    "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. "

    What an utterly bizarre position to take.

     
  • At 4:21 AM, Blogger LASunsett 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.

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    No, that is not a strawman. Your conclusion is laughable.

    The unrelated to this issue record of the Russians and the Chinese is irrelevant.

    The logical fallacy is yours, and you've not shown any strawman from my comments.

    This is typical wingnut tactics. Ignore facts and attack the strengths of the opposition with the very charges that you yourself are doing.

    You may well convince other wingnuts. So what?

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    "I took one part of your argument that was ridiculous and refuted it"

    Where?

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home