Hacker News Reader

Comment by pipy | Hacker News Reader

I've made my best to explain my position upper in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6357072

>>explain my position

So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time.

You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it...

(Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.)

Edit: HRW also points out the Syrian junta for the chemical attack: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...

Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bombing it? Not up to me. What do you want me to oppose? The case that has never been made?

Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again:

1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action)

2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it.

3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals.

During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal.

There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it.

No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated?

I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal.

I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment.

After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments.

BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization.

Here's my final message: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362643

This is my way of seeing it:

  1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration).
  2. You write about everything else.
  3. I ask for an answer time and again.
  4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument.
  5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me!
  6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer.

Isn't the above true? Well, finally answer the argument:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506

----------------

Some trivial points:

1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.

2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.

3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.

4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.

----------------

And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories:

>>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America

So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad.

(And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)

Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. That's why: you and US propose an action with an obscure goal and of obscure scope. Actually, not even an action, but a first step of an obscure sequence of actions the second step of which is unknown. Furthermore, there is no concrete statements or documents that allow us to link the proposed action (however obscure it may be) to the proposed goal (however obscure it may be).

It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person.

What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place.

My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case.

!!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!!

As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future.

-------

I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.

>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all.

As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.

So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!

Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)

>>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case

You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support.

Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write:

"So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad."

I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write!

For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough.

(I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)

I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time.

There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text.

a). You're a troll.

b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory.

c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality).

I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c).

So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep.

(I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)

I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.

What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it?

Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :)

At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts.

I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.

In this comment, pipy wrote:

>> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.

>>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion?

pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way):

>> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such.

Here is what pipy refused to touch 6++ times (from "Some trivial points"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506

(The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.)

I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment:

As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.

So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!

Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)

[And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]

You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1].

You keep calling me a liar, when all of my statements are supported by extensive footnotes with verifiable evidence. You keep calling me a Putin and Assad shill, when in fact none of the footnotes that I've provided point to pro-Russian, or pro-Assad sources.

At this point discussion with you becomes pointless, since it is the basic logic itself that you don't follow.

On the point of your note about calling the police: IMO, this is a hilarious, `fahrenheit-451-esque` statement. Or, I should say, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[1] On Difference between facts and assumptions: http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html

>> You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1].

I've answered similar garbage repeatedly, so I'll just quote myself:

"As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.

So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!"

>>basic logic itself that you don't follow

I answered that before too, another quote of myself: "That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better."

The admins seems to have stopped me answering pipi. I have already written the same answers repeatedly to the troll's "points" about why he doesn't need to answer mine/Obama's motivation for bombing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com