> What you said was that members of this list, because they announced an
> ANSWER rally, were, therefore, pro-Ba'athist. Now, I don't have any
> evidence that ANSWER is pro--Ba'athist, for one. You can put forward an
> argument, but you have to convince me. And I'm no fan of ANSWER. Then, you
> turned around, and tried to claim that b/c Yoshie encouraged attendance at
> teh rally, the she's pro-Ba'athist.
I never said anyone other than ANSWER was pro-Ba'athist. (Go to WWP's website, workers.org, and read through their Iraq material, esp the stuff about Ramsey Clark hanging with Saddam. See if you can find one criticism of that tyranny.) I said that I found it absurd to attend a "peace" rally co-organized by a group that favored the bloody status quo in Iraq. If you can find a specific quote where I said a listmember is pro-Ba'athist, show it to me.
> Horse Hockey. She's no more pro-Ba'athist than you were pro-Bush for
> endorsing the beliefs you endorsed post-9/11. You had an argument and
> deserved to have your argument taken seriously, not painted as a Bush
> defender.
But I did get attacked as a Bush defender, and an imperialist as well. And instead of running to Doug offline and crying about my mistreatment, I argued directly back.
> The other logical fallacy was to insist that people who hated the Iraq
> occupation but defended China/Tibet were hypocrits.
In my view, they are. They favor state violence and aggression when a "socialist" state does the honors (and China killed far more Tibetans in its invasion than the US killed Iraqis in theirs). Now, I've read some interesting arguments defending the Chinese invasion and occupation, but I haven't been swayed. So it goes.
Again, I'm not preventing anyone from working with ANSWER. I'm merely stating my reservations about doing so. Funny how this riles the pwogs. Such hysteria over something they say isn't important.
DP