HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 13, 2006 Mike Haran, though himself an Englishman, has little respect for his own language apparently, for his grammatical blunders are numerous. This would not be important if he were not trying to sound as if he had been making a good case for the conclusions he offers. Let me concentrate, however, on his atrocious reasoning. For example, Haran says, “He (Thomas Keyes) goes on to state that Chalabi is currently under investigation for bank fraud in Jordan by several US agencies which itself is kind of a nebulous statement.” I said Chalabi was being investigated by several US agencies, AND is wanted for bank fraud in Jordan .” Chalabi was tried and sentenced in absentia in Jordan in 1992, and sentenced to 22 years of hard labor. There is nothing whatsoever nebulous about my remarks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ahmad_Chalabi Then Haran goes on to make a smart-aleck of himself, saying, “Which agencies? The UCLA, the Democrat national committee, maybe one that Keyes or some of his friends head.” Next Haran brings up the charges against Rove and Bush, which have absolutely nothing to do with my article. He also calls the charges “bogus”, as if Bush didn’t lie about the WMD and the Osama-Saddam connection, when the Senate Intelligence Committee has just demonstrated that there is good reason to believe that he did lie. But my article was about Chalabi, so Haran ’s remarks are totally irrelevant, in any case. This oaf calls me anti-Semitic because I said that Douglas Feith is “a Jewish Zionist and partner in an Israeli law firm”. How can anyone construe that as anti-Semitism? If I call a Jew a Jew, does that make me anti-Semitic? I’m not allowed to say Feith was a partner is an Israeli law firm, even if it’s true? http://www.fandz.com/html/fandz.html Haran continues, “He (Thomas Keyes) then goes on to imply that those of Jewish extraction are somehow tainted. He uses the term 'Zionist' in much the same of way as liberals use the term 'neo con', and 'the so called war on terror 'in order to denigrate conservatives.” I didn’t imply any such thing. I called the Israeli occupation of Palestine an unjustified invasion or infiltration, but I’ve never said that Jews are somehow tainted. Then Haran carries on about ‘liberals’, ‘neo-cons’ and ‘conservatives’. You won’t find a mention of any of these three groups in any of my articles. I never generalize along those lines. My observations are on a much higher plane than that sort of bar-room bluster. I simply cannot imagine why somebody would garble what I said beyond recognition to provide a trumpery defense of his own stupid fallacies. The decision to go to war was a civilian decision, ostensibly made by George W. Bush. So Haran ’s comments about logistics, strategy and the like are irrelevant. Military matters arose only once the decision had been made. I do not criticize the conduct of the war or the behavior of American troops, only the rationalizations and pretexts on which the case for war was built. Haran casts some doubt on the disconnect between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and I cannot honestly say that, before the war, I knew there was no link and there were no WMD. But I did know that the real reason for the war was the pressure exerted by the Israel lobby. In other words, I knew the case for war was fraudulent from the outset. Later developments only proved me right. Can Haran claim that the events have substantiated his suspicions? He began with an invalid set of premises, and, of course, could not expect to be vindicated, so instead he rationalizes and contrives excuses and dodges. Then this dolt goes on to talk about people who think that the 'violence is okay so long as it is perpetrated by the likes of Che Guevara or by Fidel Castro, you know you have to wear a slanted black beret, your hair long, and oh yeah don’t shave too much'. I don’t know why he should include that in an article purporting to rebut my own article. I didn’t say a word about Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned them in all my articles. Is Haran suggesting that I back Fidel Castro? ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
