cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (02/14/86)
Farzin Mohktarian writes > Some people have expressed doubts about credibility of my source (Kayhaan > newspaper). This source said that Israel has been supplying arms to the > Khomeini regime.... > > I will hereby announce another reference: > > The Observer (LONDON again!), February 2, 1986 issue, page 19.... > The Observer verifies my previous source. It states that "Despite the formal > break in relations, Israel *has continued* to supply some arms to Iran..." Note that Farzin's tune has changed a bit. He orginally claimed > ... leaders of Israel don't seem to be among those "outraged people" or they > wouldn't supply arms to Khomeini's regime who trains Arab terrorists. > Certain parties have doubts as to what exactly does motivate you. > ... I think I understand. Israel can not sympathize with those who > engage in terrorism. That's why they fuel their terrorism. After substantial delay, he named his first source - an obscure non-English language paper named the "Kayhaan". Of course, he did not produce a quote to substantiate his charge that Israel "fuels" (fill 'er up, please) terrorism by providing arms to the Iranians who then provide them to terrorists. Next, after this source was challenged, he quoted the Observer stating that "Israel has continued to supply *some arms* to Iran" (emphasis mine). 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. Secondly, how does this quote support Farzin's contention that Israel supplies arms to Iran so they can supply them to terrorists? In summary, the history of Farzin's argument is as follows: 1. An absurd charge (Israel gives arms to Iran, using the Iranians as a conduit for the supply of anti-Israel terrorists). 2. The absurd charge buttressed with the invocation of the name of an obscure and suspect source, but no quote. 3. The charge changed in mid-argument and buttressed with a short quote ripped from it's context in an article from a more recognizable source. 4. And finally, considerable discussion of an alleged and irrelevant Israeli-Iranian missile development deal under the Shah. (This time-honored debaters technique is called "changing the subject.") Be sure to tune in for next week's installment of "Farzin Mohktarian, Master Rhetorician": "Chapter Two: the leading question." Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer arpanet: cramer@sun.arpa -- Sam Cramer {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer