Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-22-2005, 03:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Are we safer?

With the two bombings in london and now the bombings in egypt are we really safer that we were before the war on terror began?

In my opinion we aren't. You don't stop a fire by spraying a hose at the tip of the flame. Or a better analagy would be you don't stop a fire by dowsing it with gas. While bombs and force may stop an imediate threat what does it do to the long term threat?
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 03:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: From Texas, live in Ohio
I will also vote that we aren't safer. The empirical evidence indicates that not only has terrorism increased around the world, but now it has spread to more countries than it was before the "War on Terror" began. This is not surprising in that the opening strategy of using military action to overtly confront terrorism by invasion, occupation, and privatization while operating under the "us or them" paradigm only hardened positions and served as a recruiting tool for more Islamic fundamantalists. This is what happens when one ignores the true motivations of one's enemies and instead paints them with slogans like "they hate us for our freedoms".

I truly think that "Remember Iraq, remember Palestine" is as powerful a slogan in southern Asia as "Remember the Alamo" was here. Confronting terror with brute force and loss of civil liberties has never worked aginst terrorism in the past. What has worked (and I admit there are few and shaky examples) has either been negotiating with the civilian allies of the terrorists (as in Britain with the IRA, short-lived Israel/Palestine peace) or removing the motivations for terror groups (as the Spanish did with Al Queda). The last method that works that I can think of (but strongly oppose) is to prop up the terrorists to positions of power so their self-interests run in conflict with pursuing terror as a method of achievement. We have done this with numerous tin-pot dictators over the years in pursuit of the Cold War, but in the end, those governments degenerate and their citizens resent our interference.

We should always bring the carrot and the stick when dealing with anyone, friend or foe. Only a fool would limit themselves to only one approach.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha

Last edited by Zodiak; 07-22-2005 at 03:55 PM..
Zodiak is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:09 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
I think there is a bigger threat from the war on terror than the terrorists themselves. The cure is worse than the sickness. So, I'd say we aren't safer but probably for a different reason than most people.
samcol is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:16 PM   #4 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil (or on a US military vessel, other than in the no-fly zone) since 9/11.

A better analogy than any of the above would be that you don't prevent an alligator from attacking you by asking it to stay away.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:29 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil (or on a US military vessel, other than in the no-fly zone) since 9/11.
How long did britain go without a terrorist attack? Then they had two in as many weeks despite being arguably well prepared for them. There will always be cracks in our defense for terrorists to slip through. Such is the price we pay for living in a society where privacy and the ability to travel freely are priorities. We will never be safe from terrorism.

I don't feel safer. I don't feel safer because the war on terror has done absolutely nothing to limit any of the myriad ways by which i am more likely to die. The war on terror has done nothing to cut down on inattentive drivers or cancer rates or random street criminals.

I do feel like another attack within the u.s. is a matter of when, rather than if. As someone who lives within a 20 minute drive of the mall of america, that doesn't exactly make me feel safer. Not that it keeps me up at night.

Last edited by filtherton; 07-22-2005 at 04:32 PM..
filtherton is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: From Texas, live in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil (or on a US military vessel, other than in the no-fly zone) since 9/11.
If the goal is to prevent America from any terror attacks while having them ramp up in the rest of the world exponentially, then yes, your point is valid. I, however, would not advocate for the rest of the world to pay for our strategy with blood in the interest of our protection. There has been too much of that, already, and is reflected in growing world resentment against the United States...an unwelcome development.

Quote:
A better analogy than any of the above would be that you don't prevent an alligator from attacking you by asking it to stay away.
If asking the terrorists to stay away was the only policy I advocated, then this point would be valid, as well. However, that is not the case (strawman argument). Plus this is a false analogy because terrorists have not been demonstrated to be like alligators in that they have human intelligence, emotions, and a motivation that goes beyond food and reproduction. Seriously, we have to get beyond this "they want to attack us!" mentality and begin to understand our enemy rather than personify them as ferocious animals for simplicity's sake.

Sun Tsu (IIRC) says that to best defeat an enemy, one must know and understand his enemy (paraphrased from memory)....I am all for rotting Al Queda from the inside by removing their biggest recruiting tools: western imperialism, poverty, helplessness, and mindless fundamantalism.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha
Zodiak is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 05:44 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
A better alligator analagy is if you don't want the alligator to attack you then give it space and let it mind its own buisness. Stay out of it's territory and you will be fine.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 06:35 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
A better alligator analagy is if you don't want the alligator to attack you then give it space and let it mind its own buisness. Stay out of it's territory and you will be fine.
Don't forget that, originally, it was the Saudis who initiated contact with the United States, and invited the US Military into the kingdom for protection. It was the Saudis who sought the help of US engineers in establishing their oil infrastructure. And it was the Saudis who bought U.S. surveillance aircraft and jet fighters in response to the revolution in Iran.

The notion that the United States entered Saudi Arabia of its own accord - without invitation - is historically inaccurate.
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:00 PM   #9 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiak
If the goal is to prevent America from any terror attacks while having them ramp up in the rest of the world exponentially, then yes, your point is valid. I, however, would not advocate for the rest of the world to pay for our strategy with blood in the interest of our protection. There has been too much of that, already, and is reflected in growing world resentment against the United States...an unwelcome development.
The goal is to prevent attacks in America and the rest of the world if we can. We can't control what happens in the rest of the world, although we keep getting accused of trying, no matter what we do.


Quote:
If asking the terrorists to stay away was the only policy I advocated, then this point would be valid, as well. However, that is not the case (strawman argument). Plus this is a false analogy because terrorists have not been demonstrated to be like alligators in that they have human intelligence, emotions, and a motivation that goes beyond food and reproduction. Seriously, we have to get beyond this "they want to attack us!" mentality and begin to understand our enemy rather than personify them as ferocious animals for simplicity's sake.
You are welcome to try to understand terrorists who attack hospitals, shield themselves behind civilians, and willingly blow up innocent children. Unfortunately, when their stated aim is to kill everyone who does not follow their version of "religion," understanding them leads to the logical conclusion that only death will stop them. Which they have said, and demonstrated via their indiscriminate bombing tactics.

Quote:
Sun Tsu (IIRC) says that to best defeat an enemy, one must know and understand his enemy (paraphrased from memory)....I am all for rotting Al Queda from the inside by removing their biggest recruiting tools: western imperialism, poverty, helplessness, and mindless fundamantalism.
With the exception of mindless fundamentalism, a great many areas of the world (Latin American, sub-Saharan Africa and others) have the same problems you mentioned, and they aren't bent on destroying everyone who doesn't chant "Allah Akbar."

I have yet to witness an instance of someone changing the mind of a confirmed religious fundamentalist, whether they be Islam, Christian, or anything else. Until you can provide a proven successful method of doing so, I'll rely on a bullet through the brain of a terrorist as a much better, and more effective negotiating technique than yours.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:04 PM   #10 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
A better alligator analagy is if you don't want the alligator to attack you then give it space and let it mind its own buisness. Stay out of it's territory and you will be fine.
I believe what you're saying is as long as I convert to Islam, renounce modern amenities, pray to Allah three or four times daily, and dress my female family members in burqas, the alligator will allow me to live?

Feel free to point out one example of a time the terrorists have found anything less to be acceptable.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:15 PM   #11 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
I don't think we are any more or less safer than we have been.

Terrorism is just a fact of life and it is going to happen sometimes...
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:22 PM   #12 (permalink)
©
 
StanT's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
We can't control what happens in the rest of the world, although we keep getting accused of trying, no matter what we do.
It's really hard to see the situation in Iraq in any other light. If we aren't trying to control them, what are we doing there? (something else that still involves controlling them?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
I have yet to witness an instance of someone changing the mind of a confirmed religious fundamentalist, whether they be Islam, Christian, or anything else. Until you can provide a proven successful method of doing so, I'll rely on a bullet through the brain of a terrorist as a much better, and more effective negotiating technique than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Feel free to point out one example of a time the terrorists have found anything less to be acceptable.
Northern Ireland and the IRA, where a negotiated political approach has proven much more succesful than a military one.
StanT is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:59 PM   #13 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: From Texas, live in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
The goal is to prevent attacks in America and the rest of the world if we can. We can't control what happens in the rest of the world, although we keep getting accused of trying, no matter what we do.
If this is the case, then we are failing miserably on the latter and still do not have satisfactory conditions for the former according to the 9/11 Commission report (which is not an entirely perfect document, but serves for the purpose of this argument). The truth is that we don't know when or if we will be attacked again. Al Queda takes its time and works very hard to engage in sudden, coordinated attacks often spaced years apart.

Oh, and "accused of trying" to control the world is the rhetoric that you use that flies in the face of the evidence. We definitely interfere in world affairs, especially in the Middle East as of late. Two invaded countries, saber rattling with the rest, attempts to control resources all qualify in the interference category.

Quote:
You are welcome to try to understand terrorists who attack hospitals, shield themselves behind civilians, and willingly blow up innocent children. Unfortunately, when their stated aim is to kill everyone who does not follow their version of "religion," understanding them leads to the logical conclusion that only death will stop them. Which they have said, and demonstrated via their indiscriminate bombing tactics.
We have attacked hospitals in the war on Iraq, we have used napalm-like weapons in residential areas, we have unleashed tons and tons of atomized depleted uranium on a population, we have refused to count civilian deaths, we have privatized a country's resources wihout the consent of the people (see also Paul Bremer's conditions of sovereignty..they're quite unfair and give little wiggle room), we have tortured prisoners who may not have even been guilty, and we have engaged in collective punishment in Iraq. Would you say that under these conditions that the Islamic fundamentalist shouldn't even consider understanding us? At some point, someone is going to have to be the better peoples and stop this madness. I am not given to "kill 'em all" speech because such speech predicates every horrible violent event in human history. We should be above such pejoritive simplicity.


Quote:
With the exception of mindless fundamentalism, a great many areas of the world (Latin American, sub-Saharan Africa and others) have the same problems you mentioned, and they aren't bent on destroying everyone who doesn't chant "Allah Akbar."
This is not true. The Sudan and many other sub-Saharan African countries have been completely destabilized, violent, oppressive, and full of suffering for a great while. Al Queda is present in many of these countries and conduct operations there like any other place. Remember when we bombed the Sudan? That was direct action against Al Queda. In Central and Latin America, upheavals (often spurred by US intervention, see also Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina) have been responsible for many paramilitary incursions who practice terrorism in an attempt to preserve ideology for tin-pot dictators who engage in terrorism to subjugate their populace into complaince with the trade policies of wealthier nations that prop them up.

Quote:
I have yet to witness an instance of someone changing the mind of a confirmed religious fundamentalist, whether they be Islam, Christian, or anything else. Until you can provide a proven successful method of doing so, I'll rely on a bullet through the brain of a terrorist as a much better, and more effective negotiating technique than yours.
Fundemantalism doesn't get the recruits....oppression, hopelessness, misery, and revenge do. Religion only serves for sloganeering and rationalization. Mind you also, that American General Boykin has asserted his own fundamentalism by asserting that "our god is greater than their god", so such language can also be construed as religious rationalization for the invasion and oppression of the Middle East. the truth is that both sides have acted deplorably, but religion is a thin vaneer over the overacrhing strategic and economic reasons for this war.

As asserted upthread with two examples, terrorism has been curtailed by negotiation but not brute force both in Ireland and in Palestine (back when there was a peace process) and tentatively, Spain, who used the method of removing motivation for terrorism. This is not appeasement; it is treating one's enemy as a human being, no matter how we are reviled by their practices. Believe me, they are quite reviled by ours.

I am highly suspicious that either you did not read what I had posted above or are deliberately ignoring it. The truth is, one method has worked in the past and the other has never worked at all. Even though the evidence is shaky, there is still more supporting evidence for my hypothesis than yours because I have actually mentioned examples. As many have noted on this thread, a bullet to the head does not make any of us feel safer because it doesn't work. The empirical evidence supports that assertion, as well.

I have seen no supporting evidence for your hypothesis at all. I find it rather unfair that, in light of no evidence, you are demanding that I "prove" my assertion without even raising a legitimate counterpoint. Proof is a two-way street, and I would be more than happy with anecdotal examples rather than have you go off on an extensive google search.

ON EDIT: Thank you for the parry, StanT. You beat me to the "submit" button.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha
Zodiak is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 09:39 PM   #14 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Frankly I am more scared of getting hit by lightning then I am of being a victim of a terrorist act.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 10:33 PM   #15 (permalink)
Psycho
 
As long as man walks the Earth he will fall victim to terrorism. I don't think the war on terror worsened any hate toward anyone. Al Queda was a threat before and is a threat still. You can't protect people walking a street or people getting on a bus from a bomb. Since carrying big bags on mass transit is normal it's easy to conceal a bomb. Since the attacks in London happened twice subway stations around me have been patroled by police doing <b>random</b> bag searches. I've seen the Path train (subway system connecting Northern New Jersey and New York City) during rush hour, and it would take a massive force to check every bag on that train.
__________________
muckluck is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 11:22 PM   #16 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiak
If this is the case, then we are failing miserably on the latter and still do not have satisfactory conditions for the former according to the 9/11 Commission report (which is not an entirely perfect document, but serves for the purpose of this argument). The truth is that we don't know when or if we will be attacked again. Al Queda takes its time and works very hard to engage in sudden, coordinated attacks often spaced years apart.
Of course. We WILL be attacked again, but so far, recent methods of deterring them have been far more effective than all of Bill Clinton's appeasement. For empirical evidence, Google "terrorist attacks" during the time of his presidency.

Quote:
Oh, and "accused of trying" to control the world is the rhetoric that you use that flies in the face of the evidence. We definitely interfere in world affairs, especially in the Middle East as of late. Two invaded countries, saber rattling with the rest, attempts to control resources all qualify in the interference category.
By your definition then, we "interfered" in Germany and Japan around sixty years ago. Your viewpoint was definitely not common in that period. The recent philosophy thatwe should get so little credit for all of the good the US has done is quite frankly, amazing.

Quote:
We have attacked hospitals in the war on Iraq, we have used napalm-like weapons in residential areas, we have unleashed tons and tons of atomized depleted uranium on a population, we have refused to count civilian deaths, we have privatized a country's resources wihout the consent of the people (see also Paul Bremer's conditions of sovereignty..they're quite unfair and give little wiggle room), we have tortured prisoners who may not have even been guilty, and we have engaged in collective punishment in Iraq.
You lost me with your first nine words, since they were incredibly lacking in perspective. The rest followed suit.


Quote:
This is not true. The Sudan and many other sub-Saharan African countries have been completely destabilized, violent, oppressive, and full of suffering for a great while. Al Queda is present in many of these countries and conduct operations there like any other place. Remember when we bombed the Sudan? That was direct action against Al Queda. [Wait, I thought our militaristic actions CAUSED terrorism. Now it seems to be the other way around.] In Central and Latin America, upheavals (often spurred by US intervention, see also Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina) have been responsible for many paramilitary incursions who practice terrorism in an attempt to preserve ideology for tin-pot dictators who engage in terrorism to subjugate their populace into complaince with the trade policies of wealthier nations that prop them up.
I didn't say ALL countries. Naming instances such as these is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. And, to use your word, not true in a great many cases. Or are you saying that EVERY Latin American or sub-Saharan country with the problems you mentioned fits your description? If not, my point is proven, even if you don't care to recognize it.

Quote:
As asserted upthread with two examples, terrorism has been curtailed by negotiation but not brute force both in Ireland and in Palestine (back when there was a peace process) and tentatively, Spain, who used the method of removing motivation for terrorism. This is not appeasement; it is treating one's enemy as a human being, no matter how we are reviled by their practices. Believe me, they are quite reviled by ours.
Interesting that (a) the Palestine situation is considered resolved, and (b) you consider negotiation to have resolved those situations.

Quote:
I am highly suspicious that either you did not read what I had posted above or are deliberately ignoring it. The truth is, one method has worked in the past and the other has never worked at all. Even though the evidence is shaky, there is still more supporting evidence for my hypothesis than yours because I have actually mentioned examples. As many have noted on this thread, a bullet to the head does not make any of us feel safer because it doesn't work. The empirical evidence supports that assertion, as well.

I am highly suspicious that you refuse to accept a viewpoint other than your own. I believe there is empirical evidence regarding the paucity of deaths caused by Hitler after 1945, Abu Nidal after 2002, or most recently, Saddam.

Quote:
I have seen no supporting evidence for your hypothesis at all. I find it rather unfair that, in light of no evidence, you are demanding that I "prove" my assertion without even raising a legitimate counterpoint. Proof is a two-way street, and I would be more than happy with anecdotal examples rather than have you go off on an extensive google search.
I find your "proof" to be contradictory at best. I can also see that you will never accept a viewpoint other than your own. Again, the "attacking hospitals" argument was such an incredible distortion of the truth that further discussion is indeed pointless.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 11:39 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiak
If the goal is to prevent America from any terror attacks while having them ramp up in the rest of the world exponentially, then yes, your point is valid.
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".

Quote:
I, however, would not advocate for the rest of the world to pay for our strategy with blood in the interest of our protection. There has been too much of that, already, and is reflected in growing world resentment against the United States...an unwelcome development.
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.



Quote:
If asking the terrorists to stay away was the only policy I advocated, then this point would be valid, as well. However, that is not the case (strawman argument). Plus this is a false analogy because terrorists have not been demonstrated to be like alligators in that they have human intelligence, emotions, and a motivation that goes beyond food and reproduction.
But what if he was likening terrorists to alligators in the manner of being ferocious and lashing out for illogical reasons?

Quote:
Seriously, we have to get beyond this "they want to attack us!" mentality and begin to understand our enemy rather than personify them as ferocious animals for simplicity's sake.
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.



Quote:
Sun Tsu (IIRC) says that to best defeat an enemy, one must know and understand his enemy (paraphrased from memory)....I am all for rotting Al Queda from the inside by removing their biggest recruiting tools: western imperialism, poverty, helplessness, and mindless fundamantalism.
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.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 11:41 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I don't think we are any more or less safer than we have been.

Terrorism is just a fact of life and it is going to happen sometimes...
But couldn't this attitude be just as easily applied to a number of other man-made behavioral patterns, such as spousal abuse, murder, etc.?
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 04:35 AM   #19 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: From Texas, live in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Of course. We WILL be attacked again, but so far, recent methods of deterring them have been far more effective than all of Bill Clinton's appeasement. For empirical evidence, Google "terrorist attacks" during the time of his presidency.
If we will be attacked again, then the argument that there have been no terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 is made disingenuously to prove that Bush is our successful protector. I also am aware of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, but the perpetrators of that attack were convicted and jailed. The score between Bush and Clinton for Al Queda attacks on American soil is 1:1. Also, Clinton's "appeasement" came in the form of cruise missiles. I will accept the argument that the missile attack was ineffective, but it hardly rates as appeasement or negotiation.

Quote:
By your definition then, we "interfered" in Germany and Japan around sixty years ago.
Non-sequitur and a false analogy. There is a difference between a declared war with nation-states and the invasion of a country without a causus belli with the subsequent hijacking of resources. Our noble actions in WWII does not automatically exonerate our imperialistic endeavors after that war. If terrorists were upset about our direct actions against Germany and Japan in WWII, then I suppose the argument would be valid.

Quote:
You lost me with your first nine words, since they were incredibly lacking in perspective. The rest followed suit.
If you disagree with something, that is fine, but if you want links, then ask instead of insulting my perspective while providing no evidence of your own.

Quote:
US strikes raze Falluja hospital

A hospital has been razed to the ground in one of the heaviest US air raids in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

Witnesses said only the facade remained of the small Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. There are no reports on casualties.

A nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were damaged as US forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3988433.stm

Or was it the napalm-like weapons line that made you think I have no perspective?

Quote:
FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?

By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor


US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html

Of course, the US denies using the weapons, but the Brits have caught them in the lie that the weapons were used at all.

Quote:
Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
US Lied to Britain Over Use of Napalm in Iraq War
by Colin Brown

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defense minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."
From the Independent, July 17th, 2005

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061705E.shtml
(sorry to not have a primary source, but the original link is broken)

Quote:
I didn't say ALL countries. Naming instances such as these is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. And, to use your word, not true in a great many cases. Or are you saying that EVERY Latin American or sub-Saharan country with the problems you mentioned fits your description? If not, my point is proven, even if you don't care to recognize it.
I responded to your generalization that Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America do not have terrorists (which, admittedly I had to surmise from the colorful expression "people willing to kill anyone who doesn't say "Allah Ackbar"). A few of these countries do, as demonstrated with my example of the Al Queda presence in the Sudan as well as the terror tactics of the Death Squads in El Salvador. My examples were to disprove your generalizations, not a statement of generalization on my part. You are putting words into my mouth (strawman argument).

Also, if your point is proven, there is no need to say it. The evidence should stand for itself.

Quote:
Interesting that (a) the Palestine situation is considered resolved, and (b) you consider negotiation to have resolved those situations.
Negotiation allowed for peace to reign during the peace process, which eventually was derailed. This was caveated in my post (please re-read it), but you ignored it in favor of this strawman argument. Please limit yourself only to what I state, not what you wish me to state.

Quote:
I am highly suspicious that you refuse to accept a viewpoint other than your own. I believe there is empirical evidence regarding the paucity of deaths caused by Hitler after 1945, Abu Nidal after 2002, or most recently, Saddam.
The first part of this post is an accusation that I am dogmatic. How can this be said after I have only been here a few days? The second part of this is a non-sequitur. Just what do the muderous insticts of Hitler, Saddam, and Nidal have to do with any part of my argument that two examples beats no examples? Hitler and Saddam were evil dictators who ruled over nation-states and Nidal killed himself after a long illness. The first examples are hardly comparable to Islamic terrorists and the second wasn't killed by direct military action, plus terrorists are still killing for Nidal's values (Palestinian terrorists).

Quote:
I find your "proof" to be contradictory at best. I can also see that you will never accept a viewpoint other than your own. Again, the "attacking hospitals" argument was such an incredible distortion of the truth that further discussion is indeed pointless.
Your assertion that I am contradictory is based only on my example of Palestine/Israel, which was caveated to only include "during the peace process", and you ignored the caveat in favor of a strawman argument. The other two assertions (the IRA and Spain) were not challenged. There is no way you can confidently make the second assertion because I have not been here long enough for you to know whether I am dogmatic or not, and the last line has now been sourced. You can disagree with how I said it (deliberately attacked), but you cannot characterize it as an "incredible distortion" because we have bombed hospitals with weapons that normally target accurately enopugh to avoid a giant hospital. You provided no counter argument other than to dismiss my assertion completely and thereby dismiss me as a poster.

This is not acceptable behavior in a "mutually respectful" debate, in my opinion.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha
Zodiak is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 04:43 AM   #20 (permalink)
Hey Now!
 
Johnny Pyro's Avatar
 
Location: Massachusetts (Redneck, white boy town. I hate it here.)
In my opinion we are safer, but not completly safe. America and the powers to be are more on alert than before(911). We are safer though, if you want to look at it that way.
__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell
Johnny Pyro is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 05:53 AM   #21 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: From Texas, live in Ohio
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.
__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha

Last edited by Zodiak; 07-23-2005 at 06:03 AM..
Zodiak is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 08:31 AM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
I believe what you're saying is as long as I convert to Islam, renounce modern amenities, pray to Allah three or four times daily, and dress my female family members in burqas, the alligator will allow me to live?

Feel free to point out one example of a time the terrorists have found anything less to be acceptable.
How about spain? They are being left alone now and all they had to do was pull troops out of Iraq.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 08:37 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Of course. We WILL be attacked again, but so far, recent methods of deterring them have been far more effective than all of Bill Clinton's appeasement. For empirical evidence, Google "terrorist attacks" during the time of his presidency.

Assuming your statement here is accurret (which I don't believe, especially if you consider certain bombings in Iraq and Afganistan) correlation does not mean causation. Given the fact we are in a war in two countries in the middle east that has put the focus of the terrorists to act within those countries and most of the time people don't count bombings in those countries as official terrorist attacks do you think it is possible that your link between Clinton could be wrong? This is just one plausible reason.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 10:26 AM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
How about spain? They are being left alone now and all they had to do was pull troops out of Iraq.
Are you saying that Spain is enjoying the result of a decision that voters there, made in response to the March, 2004 Madrid bombings? How are you arriving at that conclusion? My research makes it impossible for me to "know" that.

Polls in Spain conducted just before the election showed that the vote had an acceptable probability of going "either way", and "the record" demonstrates that overwhelmingly, Spaniards did not want their troops in Iraq, because, as in the rest of Europre (and in most of the world, except at the time, in the U.S.) people could not see a connection between invading Iraq and fighting terrorism.)
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=45
host is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 10:34 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiak
...snip a lot of superflous nonsense

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.
My whole point in the above was to show the rediculousness of trying to have meaningful discussion by using high-school debate tactics to rebut your opposition, especially when the very criticisms levelled against others can be levelled against you. I'm sure many of us here can name and recognize many logical fallacies, and those who can't could easily google them if they were interested. To attempt to pick apart another post while supposedly naming off said fallacies reeks of arrogance, and does little to encourage any meaningful debate. It's little better than picking apart the spelling and grammar of a post. And as far as I know, there is nobody here being graded on what they post, so there is no benefit gained by anyone outside of the pseudo-Socrates who feels the need to pick through posts in such a way.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 12:01 PM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hannukah harry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
My whole point in the above was to show the rediculousness of trying to have meaningful discussion by using high-school debate tactics to rebut your opposition, especially when the very criticisms levelled against others can be levelled against you. I'm sure many of us here can name and recognize many logical fallacies, and those who can't could easily google them if they were interested. To attempt to pick apart another post while supposedly naming off said fallacies reeks of arrogance, and does little to encourage any meaningful debate. It's little better than picking apart the spelling and grammar of a post. And as far as I know, there is nobody here being graded on what they post, so there is no benefit gained by anyone outside of the pseudo-Socrates who feels the need to pick through posts in such a way.
if i may ask, is what you're basically saying is "if there are logical fallicies in peoples posts, don't point them out to show how they are wrong, that's boring. using proper debate tactics is boring. calling us out on them is nothing but arrogent."

that's basically how your statement reads to me. it sounds like you're just rehashing the 'anti-intellectual' rhetoric that seems to prevail through the current conservative populace. which really doesn't make sense to me... after all, who is going to give you a more correct answer to why the sky is blue... someone with a phd in physics or a farmer who dropped out of school in the 8th grade? i'd say odds are on the phd.

/sorry for thread jack.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer
hannukah harry is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 01:07 PM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
if i may ask, is what you're basically saying is "if there are logical fallicies in peoples posts, don't point them out to show how they are wrong, that's boring. using proper debate tactics is boring. calling us out on them is nothing but arrogent."

that's basically how your statement reads to me. it sounds like you're just rehashing the 'anti-intellectual' rhetoric that seems to prevail through the current conservative populace. which really doesn't make sense to me... after all, who is going to give you a more correct answer to why the sky is blue... someone with a phd in physics or a farmer who dropped out of school in the 8th grade? i'd say odds are on the phd.

/sorry for thread jack.
No, what I'm saying is essentially "don't be an ass". Point out if you think they are wrong, but don't try to win points or enlarge your e-peen by running off textbook definitions of logical fallacies when your own posts aren't up to this texbook standard. Especially when said individual tries to use textbook definitions and fails, such as using informal fallacies as a test of validity of an argument (fyi, informal fallacies deal with the truth of an arguments premises, whereas validity only deals with the form of an argument). And also be aware that politics isn't something that can have strict rules of logic applied, since many views when broke down to their essential elements do not have premises that can be categorically proven to be true or false. It has nothing to do with the pseudo-intellectualism practiced by many liberals.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 03:35 PM   #28 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
And also be aware that politics isn't something that can have strict rules of logic applied, since many views when broke down to their essential elements do not have premises that can be categorically proven to be true or false. It has nothing to do with the pseudo-intellectualism practiced by many liberals.
/thread jack

I am honestly perplexed by this statement. If a political viewpoint cannot be broken down to it's essential elements and an effort made to provide a categorically proof, then don't you have nothing more than one person's opinion?

In the context of this topic, "Are we safer now", we could simply post a "yes" or a "no" but that provides little illumination. My "opinion" is that we are not, but doesn't that obligate me to provide some evidence to support my belief? It is unlikely that I could prove my opinion to everyone's satisfaction, but I would have presented points that would be open to discussion and, hopefully counterpoints that might alter my opinion.

I have found nothing in Zodiak's posts that suggests to me that he is being arrogant or an "asshole." I do believe his intention is to raise the level of political discourse here, which we have all been asked to do by our mods. It would be more respectful to challenge the poster's premise, backed by why you believe it to be inaccurate, than deriding the poster.

/end thread jack
Elphaba is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 03:44 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Are you saying that Spain is enjoying the result of a decision that voters there, made in response to the March, 2004 Madrid bombings?
No i'm saying spain pulled out of Iraq and in response Al Queda said they were off limits. There have also been countries who were in Iraq and had nationals kidnapped. They then pulled out and got their nationals back.
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 06:08 PM   #30 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
My whole point in the above was to show the rediculousness of trying to have meaningful discussion by using high-school debate tactics to rebut your opposition, especially when the very criticisms levelled against others can be levelled against you. I'm sure many of us here can name and recognize many logical fallacies, and those who can't could easily google them if they were interested. To attempt to pick apart another post while supposedly naming off said fallacies reeks of arrogance, and does little to encourage any meaningful debate. It's little better than picking apart the spelling and grammar of a post. And as far as I know, there is nobody here being graded on what they post, so there is no benefit gained by anyone outside of the pseudo-Socrates who feels the need to pick through posts in such a way.
alansmithee,

I see nothing wrong with Zodiak calling people out on poor arguments.

- Just because he can make the same mistakes does not make his points invalid.

- Even if he was arogant it would not make his rebutles any less sound.

- It actually does encurage meaningful debate because we would get less BS.

- Nitpicking over spelling and gramar is an attack on the posters character therefore there is quite a bit of difference between pointing out a logical falacy and a gramar/spelling error.

- You are being judged on how you post. The more BS people post the less others will wish to have discusions with them. There are certain members on this forum who I won't even bother with.

- The benefits are many. You certainly don't have to take it to the same level, but if we all simply attempted to pose sound arguments rather then then flinging the same old pre-constructed BS at each other it would go a long way to improving this forum.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-24-2005, 01:23 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
In reverse:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
alansmithee,

I see nothing wrong with Zodiak calling people out on poor arguments.

- Just because he can make the same mistakes does not make his points invalid.
Then why do the mistakes make the initial posts points incorrect?

Quote:
- Even if he was arogant it would not make his rebutles any less sound.
True, but it might make people less receptive to what he has to say. And also, arrogance is a sign of disrespect, which is something I thought this board tries to shy away from.

Quote:
- It actually does encurage meaningful debate because we would get less BS.
No, there's the same amount of BS. As you said above, making a mistake in form or substance isn't necessarily something that will render a post valueless. However, if we all get bogged down in showing how everything isn't textbook perfect, there will be little room for anything relevant to be posted.

Quote:
- Nitpicking over spelling and gramar is an attack on the posters character therefore there is quite a bit of difference between pointing out a logical falacy and a gramar/spelling error.
It is one thing to say if you think something is illogical. But the manner in which you do it matters. And btw, I don't see how correcting spelling is any worse, nor where it rises to a character attack.

Quote:
- You are being judged on how you post. The more BS people post the less others will wish to have discusions with them. There are certain members on this forum who I won't even bother with.
And I as well have certain people I don't bother with because I think they have nothing worthwhile to say. I was pointing out one members BS.

Quote:
- The benefits are many. You certainly don't have to take it to the same level, but if we all simply attempted to pose sound arguments rather then then flinging the same old pre-constructed BS at each other it would go a long way to improving this forum.
Again, you can constructively debate/discuss/whatever, or you can all get more worried about form over content. And testing many arguments for strength is extrememly difficult do to the fact that there is often little that can be conclusively proven to be absolute truth in politics.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
/thread jack

I am honestly perplexed by this statement. If a political viewpoint cannot be broken down to it's essential elements and an effort made to provide a categorically proof, then don't you have nothing more than one person's opinion?

In the context of this topic, "Are we safer now", we could simply post a "yes" or a "no" but that provides little illumination. My "opinion" is that we are not, but doesn't that obligate me to provide some evidence to support my belief? It is unlikely that I could prove my opinion to everyone's satisfaction, but I would have presented points that would be open to discussion and, hopefully counterpoints that might alter my opinion.

I have found nothing in Zodiak's posts that suggests to me that he is being arrogant or an "asshole." I do believe his intention is to raise the level of political discourse here, which we have all been asked to do by our mods. It would be more respectful to challenge the poster's premise, backed by why you believe it to be inaccurate, than deriding the poster.

/end thread jack
Of course you should provide as much proof as you think necessary. But when dealing with politics, absolute truth is hard to find, because of the relativeness of what people discuss and the lack of absolute authority in deciding what is "right" and "wrong". For instance, if I am having a discussion about the war with someone who places no inherent value on life, what we think are acceptable casualties might be very different. But honestly, it will be impossible to say who is truly "right" without making a judgement call. Many ideas/concepts are unable to be quantified, so determining which is truly "better" can be a difficult task. Take this thread, how can you PROVE if we are safer or not? Then, how can you assign the proper amount of cause/effect to the activities in Iraq to the increase/decrease in safety?

As to what you and Mantus thought of what Zodiak said, honestly I'm not stunned in the least as you both (based on prior discussions) agree with what he/she said. You both most likely saw it as some rube conservative being put in his place. A more conservative person would probably see it as a pseudo-intellectual snob ineffecively trying to argue by looking more at the form/structure of an argument than the meaning of it.

But if people would rather go the way of petty nitpicking thorugh every post, go ahead and start with this one. Just don't expect any meaningful discussion to take place.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-24-2005, 04:02 AM   #32 (permalink)
People in masks cannot be trusted
 
Xazy's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
You have to consider for a minute how terrorism exists, and their thoughts. It is something that is taught, bred from childhood (for the most part). It is something that is brainwashed into people. It also needs funding. Most of this all took place in Iran, Iraq, Syria. With Iraq for the most part out of supporting, Iran is now in internal revolution with the students, and Syria already being forced to behave more (look at Lebanon), I think it is a slow win.

I feel it is a war, and in a war there are more casualties, but what the thought is to remove the training grounds, to remove the schools that brainwash children. If someone told me that Iran students is getting support, from the US and other Western European countries I would not be surprised (hell I would bet on that), the goal is to remove the funding, the free reign these groups have in that area.

But the question is going to be, how quick things will happen, and also that as long as a person is willing to kill themselves, they will be able to strike.
Xazy is offline  
Old 07-24-2005, 10:58 AM   #33 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
My previous post was poorly writen and didn't get my point across.

alansmithee,

You may feel that Zodiak's post had a patronizing tone. I think it had a hint of that as well. However I don't feel that his naming of logical falacies had much to do with that. If someone attempts to counter a point with say a strawman argument, are we supposed to ignore it, take the bate, or call them out on it?

The reason I am taking heart to Zodiak's style of making his case is because I am so sick and tired of reading poorly contrived and completely irelivant replies to various topics. Though I agree with you that it can be taken too far since politics is shady business making logically sound arguments difficult because we never know all the facts.

I do feel that your responce came off as an attack on logical thinking and logical discusions. To call Zodiak's style of debate "high-school debate tactic" is rather poor taste in my opinion. I guess it hit a nerve.
Mantus is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:02 AM   #34 (permalink)
Upright
 
It would be nice to get back to discussing the point at hand.. no? maybe?
Indulge is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 04:53 AM   #35 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
While bombs and force may stop an imediate threat what does it do to the long term threat?
That depends on how effective the bombs and force may be at destroying the structure, financing, stability and population of the enemy. Frankly, it is impossible to fight a war against people you only see when they are killing you. You have to stir up the terrorists in order to get them out in the open. Otherwise, the only time you'll see them is when they are flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up on buses and trains. We've stirred up a hornets nest, sure, but we've gotten them out of their nest and out into the open where they can be killed. We have to keep doing this, while at the same time destroying the ideology that encourages terrorism (by encouraging Islamic Reformation).
__________________
"There is more selfishness and less principle among members of Congress than I had any conception of, before I became President of the U.S."- James Polk
Jocose is offline  
 

Tags
safer

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360