Begin forwarded message:
From: R
Date: 25 November 2011 08:39:09 GMT
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Adrian Salbuchi:”Arab Spring”: Spontaneous or US-NATO Sponsored Psy Op?
richard-
this is all very plausible, but the author is not offering any hard evidence. as such, i am not sure this is a responsible piece- at least from a buddhist perspective on right speech….just sayin”….
appreciatively,
r
_________
Hi R,
Thanks for sharing your candid response to the material.
As regards hard evidence, you might note that I seldom include hard evidence in my writings. Like Salbuchi in this article, I usually assume the reader already has some understanding of the background context, and I seek to show how the diverse pieces fit together into one grand picture. Both of us are inviting people to look at things from a new perspective, and to perhaps start considering news reports from that perspective. Note the question mark following the title: an invitation to the reader to think about the views presented.
As regards being a responsible piece, I’m not sure what criteria are leading you to doubt. You mention ‘right speech’. If someone were to accuse a private individual of wrongdoing, without citing appropriate evidence, I would agree that wouldn’t be ‘right speech’. In the case of the US, NATO, and the Pentagon, however, I think ‘right speech’ is defined by ‘honest views aimed at enlightening public understanding’. It is generally recognized that ‘public figures’ – in the interests of democratic process – may be attacked / discussed in a way that would be inappropriate in the case of private individuals.
In addition, Salbuchi and I both publish material on an ongoing basis. To some extent we assume our readers have been following that material, and are aware of the evidence and arguments we have previously presented. In my case, newslog is where I often offer data and evidence, while on cyberjournal I tend more to offer analysis and viewpoints.
rkm