[eDebate] this post is 100% unmanipulated by the CIA
Wed Jul 8 02:38:20 CDT 2009
in reply to,
you really have a penchant for self-serving characterizations of your
opponents based on meaningless, random factors: if i respond in two
days, it must be because i'm having trouble coming up with answers
(not that i'm, you know, busy or something), but if i respond overnight,
it'll probably be because i'm desperate to immediately refute what i
must secretly know to be the truth. such attacks work *too well* -
that is, they apply to all possible behavior. if i reply later than usual,
or earlier than usual, or as per usual, there's a potential yarn to be
spun about how it proves an argument that, in fact, is completely
unrelated to such irrelevant details. this ability to tell stories, while a
skill highly coveted by fiction authors, may be bad form for an honest
debater, but it's certainly an errorenous way to interpret world events.
"your position is the CIA was not involved."
no. my position is i have heard no reliable evidence they were, which
has remained my position since reading your exchange with hester. so,
you are guilty of misrepresentation.
"apparently, mr. confusion's new position is that he doesn't have to
defend the CIA because the CIA wasn't involved. that's a circular argument,
no. saying there's no evidence the c.i.a. was involved is *not* a defense,
anymore than saying there's no evidence north korea was involved would
be a defense of kim jong-il's dictatorship. so, you have failed to point out
a circular argument. you also dropped my 'reductio ad absurdum' retort:
by your own logic, aren't you guilty of 'whitewashing the possibility' that
the c.i.a. was involved in outsing the honduran president? or was involved
in the death of michael jackson? or is actually a front for the illuminati? if
merely saying there's insufficient evidence to support an accusation is a
defense of whomever the accusation targets, then you're defending the
c.i.a. as well from all those above charges. so, why do you love the c.i.a.
so much?, is the real question.
"...despite millions of dollars of CIA funding specifically earmarked for
iran as part of an official policy to destabilize the iranian government
and despite mousavi's links to the CIA through the iran-contra scandal."
having past links to the c.i.a. doesn't mean acting in concert with any
and all future c.i.a. programs (a lesson us panamanians learned due to
the handiwork of one general manuel noriega). mousavi's involvement in
iran-contra doesn't prove anything. similarly, having a foreign policy goal
of destabilizing a particular regime doesn't mean orchestrating any and
all destablizations that happen to befall that regime. the c.i.a.'s having
a budget on iran doesn't prove anything either. these are your only two
warrants and they barely get you to 'plausible' - still very far from 'likely'
and farther still from 'what really happened'.
"if you're not defending the CIA, then what the fuck are you doing, moron?"
i'm demonstrating that you misrepresent people's arguments and fail as
a debater. i was also speaking in defense of the iranian protesters who
you were unjustifiably and insensitively treating as dupes.
"the original argument was that the election was not stolen and that the
media hoax that it was stolen most likely originated with the CIA. you have
agreed that the election was not stolen from mousavi but presented no
counter-version of how the hoax was perpetrated."
ah finally, a logical argument. first, i disagree that the most likely source
for the popularizing of the allegations of a stolen election was the c.i.a.
because, as you've shown, there's no evidence that the c.i.a. was so
involved. second, my 'counter-version' is what we all saw happen, so i
don't feel any need to fill in plot-holes with conspiracy theories, since,
at present, i don't see any gaps. here i follow reese erlich's account,
which i've quoted multiple times, and hasn't been successfully refuted.
to recap, many if not most mousavi supporters went to bed thinking their
candidate had won, and when ahmadinejad won by a landslide, they
cried fraud. given the predispositions of the mass media outlets we're
discussing, they were inclined to believe these supporters and mousavi
above ahmadinejad and his supporters. i'd also mention in passing two
contributing factors: one, people took to the streets and were beaten
down, and two, these outlets were censored by the regime. also, you're
use of the word 'hoax' is inaccurate. a hoax is 'a *deliberate* attempt to
deceive a group of people into believing that something is real *when the
hoaxster knows it is not*'. there is no evidence of any hoax, since you
haven't shown us that anyone deliberately deceived anyone about the
election results - which is to say, i take mousavi and his supporters, as
well as obama and his goverment, at their respective words, unless it's
demonstrated otherwise. contrary to defending imperialists, it's my belief
that wild paranoiac speculation hurts the anti-imperialist cause. they've
done enough horrific things which are in the historical record; we don't
need to be in the business of writing fictions. we also shouldn't overlook
the 'irreducible moment' in mass protest; these were the largest protests
since '79, and nothing can take that away.
"why do you remain on edebate if your job is to confuse and frustrate
a question better asked of the man in the mirror, jack.
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman