http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/chilcott-inquiry-iraq-blair
How does a Nick Cohen article/book work?
Mainly, by insinuation, ad hominem points and non sequiturs.
As usual.
The first two paragraphs are hard to follow. Precision and clarity are obviously not the aim here. I think insinuation is more the intention.
He then says, "....mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba'athism and Islamism."
Firstly that's not necessarily true. Also, this is not relevant to the question of the legality of the war.
"However much they loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism." Again, this is not relevant to the question posited by the title of the piece.
It is a classic case of dodging the question. He ignores the question of why people loathe Bush and Blair. And he does not admit that people did support the Arabs and the Kurds.
There is no argument here.
The quality of thought here is very poor and shoddy. So this is normal for Nick Cohen and for Anglo-American journalism.
There is never ever an engagement with the view of the opponent - only throwing mud.
In Cohen's case it is the constant refrain that those who oppose the war are indifferent to and/or support Saddam; and therefore they are wrong. A non-argument.
Being opposed to this war almost never meant support for Saddam. Cohen must know this very well.
Opposition to war does not necessarily entail support for anyone.
The argument that if you are against a war you support the proposed enemy is clearly false.
And I must say it is also a very helpful and convenient argument for someone trying to advocate a war.
The following is a perfect example:
However vigorously they seek to pass UN resolution 1,441, the use of "illegal" demonstrates that Tony Blair's lawyerly critics believe that the Ba'athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq's legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.
This is a non sequitur and meaningless.
Typical Cohen - if you don't support the "war" you support "Saddam" - a non sequitur.
Philosophy should be made compulsory in England like it is in France.
Firstly, the first part of the sentence in no way implies the final part - a non sequitur. The correct use of "illegal" with regard to the 2003 "war" emphatically and obviously in no way means that its user means that Saddam's régime was "legal". This "point" by Cohen also totally and conveniently disregards the question of International Law.
If the régime was not a "legal entity", International Law does not mean that the régime is therefore somehow "fair game" and open to attack.
Secondly, it obviously does not engage directly with the arguments of those who correctly point out that the Iraq "War" of 2003 - the (continued) anti-Semitic destruction of Iraq (1991-200?) by the USA and England - was indeed undoubtedly illegal.
Cohen ignores the question of whether or not the "war" was legal or illegal.
He merely says like a peevish schoolboy - "yeah - and since when was Saddam so "legal" then?".
(I cannot remember the correct (Latin) term for this specific kind of fallacious reasoning but I will try and find it.)
This is typical of English debate. As someone said it can sometimes seem that if you propose an idea to a true Englishman he never ever tries to work out if your idea is true or false.
Maybe in Cohen's mind if you didn't support the war you were on the side of the Islamists basically and against the "West". Claptrap.
The title says it all really: "Blair will never be branded a war criminal".
What counts for Cohen is what things are called, not what they actually are.
Sorry to be a rationalist about this, but Blair is factually a war criminal - I do not care what he is "branded" (whatever that means).
Another point is that Cohen is already assuming what the outcome of the inquiry will be!
Maybe he thinks that it is not a proper enquiry? How does he already know the outcome?
Has he heard all the evidence?
If you ask me, it is likely to be another example of that great Anglo-American institution
- THE WHITEWASH.
A true investigative journalist would not acquiesce in this but would ask why it keeps happening and rage against it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The war was obviously illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pinkyshow#p/u/20/1Khut8xbXK8
How does a Nick Cohen article/book work?
Mainly, by insinuation, ad hominem points and non sequiturs.
As usual.
The first two paragraphs are hard to follow. Precision and clarity are obviously not the aim here. I think insinuation is more the intention.
He then says, "....mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba'athism and Islamism."
Firstly that's not necessarily true. Also, this is not relevant to the question of the legality of the war.
"However much they loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism." Again, this is not relevant to the question posited by the title of the piece.
It is a classic case of dodging the question. He ignores the question of why people loathe Bush and Blair. And he does not admit that people did support the Arabs and the Kurds.
There is no argument here.
The quality of thought here is very poor and shoddy. So this is normal for Nick Cohen and for Anglo-American journalism.
There is never ever an engagement with the view of the opponent - only throwing mud.
In Cohen's case it is the constant refrain that those who oppose the war are indifferent to and/or support Saddam; and therefore they are wrong. A non-argument.
Being opposed to this war almost never meant support for Saddam. Cohen must know this very well.
Opposition to war does not necessarily entail support for anyone.
The argument that if you are against a war you support the proposed enemy is clearly false.
And I must say it is also a very helpful and convenient argument for someone trying to advocate a war.
The following is a perfect example:
However vigorously they seek to pass UN resolution 1,441, the use of "illegal" demonstrates that Tony Blair's lawyerly critics believe that the Ba'athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq's legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.
This is a non sequitur and meaningless.
Typical Cohen - if you don't support the "war" you support "Saddam" - a non sequitur.
Philosophy should be made compulsory in England like it is in France.
Firstly, the first part of the sentence in no way implies the final part - a non sequitur. The correct use of "illegal" with regard to the 2003 "war" emphatically and obviously in no way means that its user means that Saddam's régime was "legal". This "point" by Cohen also totally and conveniently disregards the question of International Law.
If the régime was not a "legal entity", International Law does not mean that the régime is therefore somehow "fair game" and open to attack.
Secondly, it obviously does not engage directly with the arguments of those who correctly point out that the Iraq "War" of 2003 - the (continued) anti-Semitic destruction of Iraq (1991-200?) by the USA and England - was indeed undoubtedly illegal.
Cohen ignores the question of whether or not the "war" was legal or illegal.
He merely says like a peevish schoolboy - "yeah - and since when was Saddam so "legal" then?".
(I cannot remember the correct (Latin) term for this specific kind of fallacious reasoning but I will try and find it.)
This is typical of English debate. As someone said it can sometimes seem that if you propose an idea to a true Englishman he never ever tries to work out if your idea is true or false.
Maybe in Cohen's mind if you didn't support the war you were on the side of the Islamists basically and against the "West". Claptrap.
The title says it all really: "Blair will never be branded a war criminal".
What counts for Cohen is what things are called, not what they actually are.
Sorry to be a rationalist about this, but Blair is factually a war criminal - I do not care what he is "branded" (whatever that means).
Another point is that Cohen is already assuming what the outcome of the inquiry will be!
Maybe he thinks that it is not a proper enquiry? How does he already know the outcome?
Has he heard all the evidence?
If you ask me, it is likely to be another example of that great Anglo-American institution
- THE WHITEWASH.
A true investigative journalist would not acquiesce in this but would ask why it keeps happening and rage against it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The war was obviously illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pinkyshow#p/u/20/1Khut8xbXK8