A blogger claims to ask ‘profound,’ questions. A blogger whose profundity of insight is expressed by shouting the admission that ‘I KNOW YOU DIDN”T SAY THAT,’ and then going on to argue as if it has been said. A blogger who makes sly accusations – like falsifying reference material – and then, when shown to be wrong, wriggles and twists through so many contortions of argument trying to show that what was wrong, was, in fact, right that many wonder that he doesn’t disappear up his own, erm, South-facing orifice.
I am accused of hypocrisy. Never mind that I always provide references when arguing about matters of fact, never mind that I always state directly, and for the record, my own views on any matter under serious discussion, the profound blogger – let’s call the blogger, ‘ProfoundO,’ – projects his own view of any argument that is not ‘right-thinking,’ then argues against that.
The latest example of a ‘profound’ question was to ask a completely irrelevant question about a Russian military strike on the city of Grozny during a discussion of the latest terrorist attacks on the Moscow Metro by muslim terrorists. The point of the question was not to inform, nor yet to understand, but to elicit a response which could be turned into yet another attempt to show that I am a hypocrite because, as ProfoundO insists, I support violence in some instances while condemning it in others – this while ProfoundO himself dismisses violence by some as of little significance ‘in the greater scheme of things,’ when trying to demonstrate, ( and failing,) partisan support on my part for violence by one group.
The question was whether or not I considered the strike to be a terrorist attack. The only profundity in question was the profundity of ignorance shown in the questioner, ProfoundO. Ignorance of what is an SS21 missile, particularly its capabilities and limitations – it is an artillery weapon with a CEP of 150 metres, you do not shoot it at anything, except an area. Ignorance of Russian military doctrine and tactics and ignorance of why those tactics have developed – ignorance of the Russian mindset and what has made it – no student of the ‘other point of view,’ he. Finally, profound ignorance of what a terrorist act is – both UK – and EU – legal definitions of terrorism specifically exclude State actors from the provisions of relevant law. (There is no agreed UN or other International definition.) Amnesty International in its report on the incident made no mention of terrorism, though it pointed out neglect of the duty to ‘give civilians effective advance warning of its attacks – “unless circumstances do not permit” – in compliance with international humanitarian law.’
The answer to the question would have been, therefore, ‘No’ – exactly the response ProfoundO wanted in order to further his convoluted reasoning in his attempts to brand me a hypocrite – as ProfoundO admitted, to expose inconsistencies in my position, and never mind the fact that when challenged, he is completely unable to do so. The reasons for this response are given above. The attack on Grozny was, by any definition, not a terrorist attack.
Had the question asked whether or not I considered this attack to be an atrocity, the answer would have been entirely different, and I have made my views on soldiers who commit offences quite clear elsewhere. (Lock ‘em up and throw the key away.) Now, if ProfoundO wants to brand me a hypocrite, let him do so. let him show the hypocrisy in my own words. Let him put up, or shut up.