mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (02/18/86)
> Note that he doesn't mention what sort of arms the Israelis are allegedly > providing. Looking the quote, it's clear that it does not stand alone, but > is pulled out of a larger context (note the "has continued"). Somehow I > suspect that an important part of the Observer story is being left out. A. The "larger context" was the $1 billion oil-for-arms agreement which I did mention. You saw it as a an attempt to change the topic! B. "Somehow I suspect" isn't good enough! *Read* the article now that you have a NON-obscure source. Then you won't have to suspect! > In summary, the history of Farzin's argument is as follows: That is, history of Farzin's argument according to Sam Cramer. > 1. An absurd charge (Israel gives arms to Iran, using the Iranians > as a conduit for the supply of anti-Israel terrorists). The "charge" is that Israel has continued to supply arms to Khomeini's regime. Furthermore, Israel is aware that Khomeini's regime trains anti-Israel and anti-American terrorists. > 2. The absurd charge buttressed with the invocation of the name > of an obscure and suspect source, but no quote. A. My first source was obscure but that does not necessarily make it "suspect". B. My first source was not in English. So I could not quote! I could translate and that's what I did. C. My second source (Observer) is not obscure and so far you haven't called it suspect! > Be sure to tune in for next week's installment of "Farzin Mohktarian, Master > Rhetorician": "Chapter Two: the leading question." [Sam Cramer] Yeah, isn't that better than tuning in to: "Sam Cramer, Novice Rhetorician": "Chapter N (N arbitrarily large): More of the same."? Farzin Mokhtarian