Watch this short interview by Sky News of George Galloway.
Here.
Respond however you'd like. If you agree, make a case to defend his position. If you disagree, give arguments to show why he is wrong or point out flaws in his premises or reasoning. It's tricky: someone like Galloway is effective with his rhetoric and oratory skill, so you have to dig through his words to see the arguments that underlie his passion. The arguments are there, you just have to find them. In fact, that would be a great response to this if someone (or a couple of you) would like to lay out his argument(s) in clear premises and conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Stinky:
OK, you've made a start and you've replied to a couple points Galloway made. But we need to work on laying out arguments more carefully so that you can then respond more clearly -- point by point. (Note: it never adds to your argument's credibility to start out by saying you didn't listen to all your opponent had to say).
As for your response to Galloway on the point of Hezbollah being a terrorist organization or not, you do not refute him -- instead you simply yell back the opposite assertion. He says Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. You then say, "Hezbollah is in fact a terrorist organization."
This doesn't get us anywhere. If you disagree with his claim regarding the terrorist status of Hezbollah, provide REASONS for why he is wrong. The only things that could be seen as reasons in your post is your mentioning that Hezbollah is funded, trained, and supplied by Iran. You also mention that Hezbollah violates LOAC. OK... but you still need to tell us why these should be used as reasons to believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, contra Galloway.
Certainly there are lots of organizations in the world that are funded by various nations -- does this make them terrorist organizations? (If it does, then tell us why). And, again, there are lots of groups that violate LOAC... does this make them terrorist organizations? Why?
Pap,
thanks for your thoughts... one quick question: In your last line you categorize Isreal's actions as "pre-emptive". But earlier you claimed they were justified because of the Hezbollah aggression (the Israeli hostages). So which is it? Is Israeli action pre-emptive or responsive to Hezbollah aggresion?
I'll comment on your other comments when I have a chance.
Pap,
ahh... thanks for the clarification.
It makes sense now.
Post a Comment