[eDebate] fishy gerbil
Wed Jul 8 10:25:51 CDT 2009
sure are soft in your denials about deliberate confusion and what that might entail?
no answer to the circular argument. "i'm not defending the CIA because the CIA was not involved". dismissing hammond on the likelihood of CIA involvement is defending the CIA. you are going to great lengths to RULE OUT that likelihood. using extreme standards of burden of proof to disqualify hammond's calculation of LIKELY CIA involvement is very CIA-esque. you have an almost perfect argument. this technique has been used on every single occasion of the laundry list of CIA black ops including coups to dismiss the allegations during the time-lag due to a lack of definitive evidence. gerbil just graduated from the school of CIA whitewashing scoring As in his class on plausible deniability.
no answer to the time-lag theory, of course there's no definitive evidence of the CIA soft coup in the weeks following the election but that does not mean there are ZERO signs, as hammond says, pointing to that LIKELIHOOD. according to hammond, it is way premature to rule out the LIKELIHOOD of CIA involvement and 100% whitewash the CIA a la gerbil. misrepresenting hammond as retracting his statement is very CIA-esque. he merely defends his statement from its misrepresentation by reese erlich, your source. CIA plots are never documented definitively in the moment. always takes time. why leverage the time-lag and misrepresent evidence in the process if you're not part of some deliberate confusion? of course, hammond can not provide definitive evidence in the immediate aftermath but he can take a different position than fishy erlich and gerbil which is to claim that the LIKELIHOOD of CIA involvement is preposterous singling out anyone who believes there is sufficient cause to question the TV soap opera.
fishy erlich and fishy gerbil are making the same arguments as kissinger, wolfowitz and mccain on iran. they're not aligned with the protesters. they're aligned with the US foreign policy elite. it's plain fishy how they deploy generic conspiracy theory critiques to create plausible deniability and purify the TV headlines. mousavi's prior relationship to the CIA is circumstantial. millions of dollars to the CIA to destabilize iran is circumstantial.
by the way, erlich implies that the election was stolen contesting that ahmadinejad won. i will repeat because you couldn't answer the first time. erlich uses fishy standards of evidentiary burden of proof where no definitive evidence is necessary to call an election stolen but definitive evidence is necessary to deduce the LIKELY involvement of the CIA in perpetrating the hoax. what's up with the double-standard? why would erlich promote such an inaccurate view that you yourself can't even pretend has merit? why should we take him seriously on his adamant denial of the LIKELY role of the CIA when he is spreading the propaganda that mousavi won?
what happened on TV is not objective and impartial coverage as gerbil implies in his so called "counter version" of the hoax. iran experts, some of whom do work for the CIA, under the umbrella of western media coverage have failed to tell the whole story. the question is why and why does gerbil feign pretense to the "objectivity" of media in his exhausting effort to protect the CIA from its LIKELY involvement:
The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad?s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges ? and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting. The Iranian president?s populism suits the interests of clerics who oppose Rafsanjani; Ahmadinejad is their battering ram. But as Ahmadinejad increases his power, he could turn on his patrons very quickly. In short, the political situation in Iran is extremely volatile, just not for the reason that the media portrayed.Rafsanjani is an extraordinarily powerful figure in the establishment who clearly sees Ahmadinejad and his faction as a mortal threat. Ahmadinejad?s ability to survive the unified opposition of the clergy, election or not, is not at all certain. But the problem is that there is no unified clergy. The supreme leader is clearly trying to find a new political balance while making it clear that public unrest will not be tolerated. Removing ?public unrest? (i.e., demonstrations) from the tool kits of both sides may take away one of Rafsanjani?s more effective tools. But ultimately, it actually could benefit him. Should the internal politics move against the Iranian president, it would be Ahmadinejad ? who has a substantial public following ? who would not be able to have his supporters take to the streets.
Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman