"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he
just said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard
in the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are
in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted.
This, of course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has
the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and
present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have
names, but those names are not important at the moment.

Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.

How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to grind.
Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.




And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who
go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.

Maybe not. But it doesn't allow for cross-examination of the accuser. If a
general made a claim that may or may not be true, he ought to be able to
(and required to) support that claim under close examination by the public.






As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency
has all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists
from other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the
evening news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot
shots at our President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP
of the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their
opinions.

Meanwhile, "some general" (whose name I've forgotten since I heard the
broadcast a month ago) said that the fighters he was encountering were
mostly locals. You will now say that yes, they could be locals, but hidden
somewhere in a dark basement is their boss, who's Syrian.

Nope. One boss is Jordanian, one is Egyptian, and one is a Saudi...and none
are Iraqi.