Rekna

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?

Zodiak

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

samcol

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.

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.

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.

filtherton

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.

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.

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

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.

powerclown

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

StanT

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?)

Northern Ireland and the IRA, where a negotiated political approach has proven much more succesful than a military one.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

Mantus

Frankly I am more scared of getting hit by lightning then I am of being a victim of a terrorist act.

muckluck

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.

__________________

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.

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.

You lost me with your first nine words, since they were incredibly lacking in perspective. The rest followed suit.


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.

Interesting that (a) the Palestine situation is considered resolved, and (b) you consider negotiation to have resolved those situations.


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.

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.

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".

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.



But what if he was likening terrorists to alligators in the manner of being ferocious and lashing out for illogical reasons?

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.



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

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.?

Zodiak

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

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

Johnny Pyro

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

Zodiak

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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:

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

Rekna

How about spain? They are being left alone now and all they had to do was pull troops out of Iraq.

Rekna

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.

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? 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

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.

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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

alansmithee

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.

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

Rekna

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.

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.

- 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.

alansmithee

In reverse:

Then why do the mistakes make the initial posts points incorrect?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

Xazy

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.

Mantus

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.

Indulge

It would be nice to get back to discussing the point at hand.. no? maybe?

Jocose

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