But he "argues" like typical conspiracy nuts: someone authoritatative, Prof "Angry Arab" in this case, has alleged this. Refute that because, despite his academic qualifications, he gets simple things wrong about what was actually said in the NYT report he criticises, and you get accused of racism. There's no acknowledgment of any error.

Then further junk is added, refute that, they move on to other allegations, smears, etc. Refute them, they dig up an obscure paper of little merit and quote selectively from that. Show the inadequacies of that - no admission - they will move on in the next few days.

Then they go back to the original source, etc.  Round and round. Chomsky wisely pointed out that he doesn't get into debating conspiracy theories like 9/11 was a gov job, obviously ludicrous, but you can get sucked into debating at what temperarture  metal melts etc. As Chomsky says, having people get into these arcane debates about patently absurd ideas suits those in power very well. But it was fun :-) and I agree with Progressive Mag's editor that Gene Sharp is an international treasure and worth defending.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.