At 09:32 29-9-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: > >I did not post anything inflammatory, John. I said that according to Amnesty > >International, the US and Israel *do* abuse human rights. Nowhere in my post > >did I compare those two countries' human rights records to the human rights > >abuses in countries like Iran, Libya and Syria. > > > >If you read the initial post carefully, you will see it boils down to "Iran, > >Libya and Syria claim that the US and Israel abuse human rights; Amnesty > >International makes that same claim". > >Jeroen, what you posted *was* inflammatory for this reason: > >Iran, Lybia, and Syria call the US a country that abuses human rights as a >means of defending their own human rights record. The seek to intimidate >nations like the US that criticize their human rights record by trying to >insinuate that the record of the US is no better than their record because >they *all* violate *some* human rights. > >By entering into the discussion to defend this statement of Iran, Lybia, >and Syria, you gave the distinct impression of defending the tactic as well.
John, this is absolute nonsense. In the original statement, nothing whatsoever is even mentioned about tactics. I am beginning to wonder if it is at all possible for me to say something without you reading things in my post that are not there, and subsequently feel insulted/attacked/whatever. >Here is where a "concession statement" might have saved everyone a lot of >frayed emotions. AFAIK, you are the only one complaining. Maybe political correctness and fear of possible misinterpreation (and subsequent lawsuits) have grown to such enormous proportions in the US that almost everything written must include concession statements, disclaimers, apologies-in-advance or whatever else. Fortunately, that is not how we do things in Europe. >If you had said, "Now, while I don't agree with Iran's, >Lybia's, and Syria's contention that there is little difference between >their human rights record and the US's human rights record, those countries >do have a point - even Amnesty International recognizes that the US's human >rights record is far from perfect" it would have been quite clear what your >position was. My position was completely irrelevant. I merely stated a fact, namely the fact that Amnesty International says that Israel and the US violate human rights. I see nothing inflammatory in stating a fact. >Instead, the context of what you are writing created the >impression that your position was something quite different. This, of >course, led to further allegations of intentional misinterpretation, and >left everyone feeling quite upset. As far as I can tell, you are the only one feeling "quite upset" about my statement. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
