Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
False dillema. You show the problem as having only two choices, where there are multiple choices.
Also, you might be making a hasty generalization, as there might not be enough information available to truthfully state that attacks will now "ramp up in the rest of the world exponentially".
|
First, you have taken my quote out of context to show false dilemna. I made that statement in response to the line that "we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11", which implies that no matter what is going on in the world, its okay as long as the US is not attacked. Of course there are other choices, but right now this is the reality. The world has experienced much more terrorism since 9/11, so I am not predicting the future, I am only using the data that has been collected.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Washington post
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601623.html
If you would like for me to change "exponentially" to "geometrically", then that is fine because it is more accurate. 3 times the increase or 9 times the increase, the factor of increase is still in terms of 100's of percentage points.
Quote:
|
You have now used a strong man argument, as you have deliberately decided to misrepresent the arguments given out by the other side, in order to bolster what you believe.
|
The original poster said that they would like to point out that no terror attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11 in response to "are we safer?". I did state that this argument implies that it is okay that terror attacks occur in the rest of the world as long as they do not occur here. If that is a strawman argument, I apologize, although I would argue that such a statement ignores the fate of the rest of the world. The statement ignores the fact that terrorism has indeed gone up in the world and much of it can be directly linked to US action (especially war on Iraq). My response is to the whole notion that it is "better to fight them there than here", which I think is nationalistic attitude that ignores the shed blood of others and treats other countries as surrogates for the hatred imparted to the US.
Quote:
|
But what if he was likening terrorists to alligators in the manner of being ferocious and lashing out for illogical reasons?
|
Then he should have built that case rather than leave the meaning of his words for others to interpret. I do not agree with characterizing one's enemies as animals without qualification...it is simplified thinking. I would agree with ferocious, but I would not agree with "illogical reasons". Their reasons are not illogical (nationalism, oppression, poverty, lack of resources, lack of self-determination); their methods are (and some would argue that those are not illogical because they are, unfortunately, effective).
Quote:
|
A form of ad hominem. You are saying essentially that your oppositions arguments are motivated by sloth rather than logic, with nothing to back up your position.
|
The line on which I commented was two lines long about an alligator attacking a person which was posted in response to a much longer, better-explained post of mine (as if a one-line analogy with explanation negates my entire argument). There was no supporting information and no further explanation for clarity. Only this simplistic analogy.
Simplicity and sloth are not the same thing. When given one-liners, the simplicity is self-evident and I intended no more meaning than just that....simplicity. I would ask that you please retract your accusation of an ad hominem attack because an accusation like that is very serious to make, especially when such an accusation is made by putting words into my mouth (see also, strawman argument).
Quote:
|
Here you make a misapplied appeal to authority-you try to quote Sun Tsu (who might not even be one individual, but a construct of many ancient historical chinese personalities) as an expert at dealing with 21st century geopolitics in relation to islamic terrorism, where he has not the knowledge to be accorded an expert in that area. You then make an unsubstantiated claim about what the biggest recruiting tools for Al Queda are, where you have presented no information that would make anyone believe YOU are an authority on that subject.
|
First, I do not claim to be an authority on any subject other than entomology.
Two, if you want some info, here is the President of Pakistan and Tony Blair agreeing that poverty and illiteracy are some of the root causes of terrorism.
Quote:
World urged to confront root causes of terrorism
The leaders of Britain and Pakistan say the world cannot defeat terrorism by force alone and that it must move quickly to remove its "root causes" such as poverty and political grievances.
At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said there needed to be a "strategic long-term" approach that included the resolution of political disputes and ending poverty and illiteracy.
He said he believed his country was winning its battle against terrorism and that Pakistan was tackling the extremists head-on.
But he said it was time to make a real effort to confront the political issues that inspire militant groups.
"I'm very sure that the situation in the world now is ripe for resolution of these disputes, political disputes, addressing the core and also going forward, social and economic development, while simultaneously confronting terrorism with force," he said.
Mr Blair agreed.
"We have got to take every action that we can ... to fight terrorism militarily, but we would be foolish to ignore the causes upon which terrorism preys," such as political disputes, he said.
-BBC/AFP
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1259893.htm
Three, there is no need to capitalize words in your sentences. I think everyone here is skilled at reading comprehension enough to know where emphasis should be placed. Capitalized words in an argument make the poster seem angry when it may not have been his intention to do so.
Finally, if you disagree with my quoting some of the philosophy of Sun Tsu (or whatever anonymous author you prefer), that is fine. Even without the quote, failing to understand one's enemies while engaging in a war with them is foolish. I don't think you have to be a 12th century Chinese philosopher to understand that simply wishing your enemies dead without attempting to get to understand what motivates them to attack you is not the most strategic way to engage in this war on terror. If you think Sun Tsu's
Art of War is not applicable nowadays, that is your opinion. There are many who would disagree with you, as Sun Tsu is widely studied along with Machiavelli's
The Prince among military leaders and those involved in politics.
The appeal was not that Sun Tsu is an authority on terrorists, but he is a recognized authority on the philosophy of war, which would make my argument by authority valid. If you want an authority on terrorists from nowadays, then I will provide it below:
Quote:
Stern, a professor at Harvard University and one of the nation’s top experts on terrorism, said international terrorism is a complex phenomenon that cannot be defeated by only using a tightly focused military strategy.
“There are necessarily military components to the war on terrorism, but we should not lose sight that we need to win over people. We need to, as the phrase has it, win the ‘hearts and minds’ of people,” Stern said in an interview with The Washington Diplomat.
“The United States is a hegemonic power and will be a lightning rod [in] whatever it does. Unfortunately that’s not the entire story. There is a lot we can do, but the more the Bush administration seems to be fighting a war against Islam, the worse it is for the American war on terrorism,” she said.
According to Stern, a successful American strategy must understand the motivations of terrorists and the political, cultural and financial circumstances that encourage and sustain them. In facing terrorist threats, U.S. leaders should consider practical questions such as: who stands to gain, who is making money, who is receiving benefits of any kind, and who is taking advantage of whom?
|
http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-12/a1_03_12.html
Whether it is Sun Tsu or a modern terrorism expert, both essentially say it is foolish to not undersand what motivates one's enemy.
Now, if you do not mind, I am quite tired after deflecting two full-length counter posts full of strawman arguments, accusations of ad hominem attacks, accusation of intolerance, demands of proof in the absence of counterproof, quoting me out of context, and non-sequiturs. Please understand that this can get rather tiresome quickly and will eventually prompt me to not waste the hour and a half of time I have just wasted in the future.
I will not respond to this thread anymore in the interest of not hijacking it an letting others post their comments. To be fair, please feel free to rebut what I have here...I promise to read it and note publically where I am clearly in the wrong.