View Single Post
Old 10-06-2007, 12:59 AM   #55
RobQel-Droma
Blah
 
RobQel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up yours. X0
Posts: 2,216
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
My apologies, Jae.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The statement that I made to you was:
I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

...after you had said:
Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

So at no point did I say that you did, however I have been waiting for you to clarify your statement for over a week.
First of all, you brought forth an idea of collateral damage being not as bad as torture, which I never put forth.

But, anyways, I have been answering your want of clarification for over a week now. Perhaps you remember my little piece about collateral damage being most often either unavoidable or unknown until after the fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
My argument was that I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture. If you're not telling me that you don't, then that's fine, however that would appear to contradict the tone of your earlier statement.

You said you attack contradictions, but you just made one yourself. You said you never said I didn't say that I condoned collateral damage (lol, mouthful), but you just said:

I'm not sure how one condones collateral..... -snip-

Who are you talking about there? Nobody did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
No, we didn't have evidence. In fact, we had an operative go the the country where Saddam allegedly bought the nuclear materials that came back and said that there was nothing. We had U.N. weapons inspectors in the country looking where the intelligence told them the weapons were and saying there was nothing. So, no, we didn't have any evidence.

Instead of saying all over again what was said just above by Totenkopf, I will refer you to what he said very well. I agree - It's just too bad that you find it ok to bash my source by his connections or suppposed beliefs, but you fail to examine your own source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And since your argument seems to be built entirely upon Saddam having a bomb (which we now know for certain he did not) then it would seem that the your reasoning falls flat.

Er... maybe in your opinion. First of all, he had the plans for one, and secondly, he was building other weapons to try and move against his neighbors. It's not just about a bomb, it's everything else Saddam was doing. Which we warned him not to do, but he ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Really? When did I ask that?
You asked why we were in Iraq, and then asked why we weren't in Afghanistan where the al-qaeda training camps were, as I remember....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
No, I caught that, I'm just waiting for something from a credible source (i.e. not an neo-con think tank that helped to orchestrate the invasion of Iraq)

Nice "spin" on discrediting the guy. I'm waiting for you to come up with something else other than just calling the guy a "neo-con think tank". Which, just an FYI, isn't a very strong argument. Now, just what could I say about your "sources"? I'm sure I could give Russert and Charles Ferguson various baseless attributes as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It shows that the "evidence" isn't evidence. It's like calling a bank after you find out there's been a robbery and then believing the robber when he answers the phone and tells you that everything's fine.
I fail to see the analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
E) All of the above.
I see. I hope that is not your way of discrediting info, by bashing everything connected to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It's called questioning sources and identifying potential sources of bias. It's key to critical thinking. snipped
Lol. Says the man who is right now, believing "No End in Sight" and Tim Russert. I wonder what is basis of faith in these sources is? I'd like to figure out that one. I guess I just mean: do you think that they might, just might be some bias in your sources as well? If it is the key to critical thinking, I would hope you would apply it to yourself as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That the members of the PNAC probably squealed like small children on christmas morning on September 11, 2001.
So, let me get this straight. You are accusing them of celebrating the murder of thousands of innocent Americans?

And, just to let you know, I don't see this as any more than another weak attempt to smear someone in connection with the evidence I presented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That's one way to put it. You're free to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.
I don't really think I need to. At this point in our discussion, I think I'll let other people make the judgement on your decisions regarding my source, and your "reasons" for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It's entirely possible, but your accusation is not going to persuade me. You'll actually need to provide some sort of evidence that should cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the information presented (i.e. flawed methodologies in the data collection, etc). Kinda like what I did when I pointed out that your source is the mouth piece of a neo-con think tank.
It is rather hard to take this seriously. Your statement is almost funny, if you look at it. You talk about "some sort of evidence that should cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the information presented". So this method is all well and good - but shall we look at your example of how to do this?

Here it is: You point out that a good example of this superior type of reasoning was making a statement of how he was a "mouth piece of a neo-con think tank."

So, is calling someone names (i.e. a mouthpiece) and smearing their connections the new way of discrediting evidence?

In fact, it's even funnier when you consider that you have no evidence for this first "evidence". All you said for your reason of your accusation was: Kristol founded an organization that made some comment that (you think) meant they were celebrating on 9/11.

I think most would agree that your "example" or your reasoning method is, well.... a little weak, to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
All you offered was "What?" so I'm not sure which part you need help with.
As I said, the only part there.

But I will rephrase. What are you pretending is not happening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Was this a counter-argument to something? This seems very out of context for the section you quoted.
I was asking you if you could explain why I would believe the movie, to put it differently.

Because the director Charles Ferguson is really just a usual war-hating liberal who had the usual indoctrination through college, where he was most likely taught by biased liberals.

So, was that a good job of discrediting him?

Just kidding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
In fairness, I think I might see the source of the division in our thinking. I would like the U.S. to be a good example of leadership for the world, aka a role model of other nations. It would seem though that you just want to U.S. to be in charge regardless of how we're viewed or how we get there.
Not quite. But we got there by ourselves. We don't depend on people to tell us what we should do and shouldn't do. I'll explain more:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Yes, you can lead by fear and intimidation, but that only goes so far for so long and usually there are consequences. Not how I prefer to do business.
I hope that is not want you see America as doing. But if you want us to do business, than I agree. Let's do business - lets take care of these terrorists like we know we can, but haven't put our full force into.

But, let me say this. We don't need other countries to tell us what is right or wrong. To use an analogy like you did, it is like letting the other kids in the playground decide what you do, whether it is right or not. No, you do what is right regardless of what any other third-world country or other thinks. You don't decide not to do something because of their opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
King of the hill...for now. Yay for us.
I agree. God bless America.

And we will be for a long time, if we start getting back to being the strong nation we once were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Of course it does. If the terrorists come here, we've got troops here to defend the citizens that are here. Armed guys in uniforms at the airports. Fighter pilots ready to scramble. National Guard guys at large public events to help act as security.
I'm really glad your not in charge of this kind of thing, because that is not how you defend a country unless you are completely hemmed in.

I will, again, refer you to what Totenkopf said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Right, like when you realize that the bombs that you drop may have killed innocent civilians. Our guys have to live with that. And we have to live with the reputation that sort of action earns us around the world.
No we don't. We take out who we have to, and those guys are going to have a much easier time if they do.

Are you suggesting that we not drop bombs on any targets unless there are absolutely zero civilians or "maybe civilians" near the target?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I would suggest that we follow the instructions of the Framers and the Constitution and avoid foreign entanglements. As I have been trying to point out in this thread, foreign entanglements is how this situation got started in the first place (via our support of our allies in the early 20th century and again via our direct actions during the 70's-90's).
I'm interested to hear your views on World War I and II.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Who's "slamming" them?
Several of the prominent - or not - people on your "side" (for lack of a better word), to put it bluntly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
If you're a small guerrilla force trying to fight off a militarily superior occupying army?
Exactly. They are a small guerilla force. Why would they sacrifice members to blow up perhaps a dozen troops? That is not how they operate. Otherwise, it's going to be a really short war.

[quote=Achilles]Sure. I don't like it and I don't condone it, but as you keep pointing out, war is hell.

I do? Lol. I never remember saying that, but it doesn't matter, b/c its not like I don't agree with that somewhat.

Oh, and I thought you said that it was the people over their had justification to hate us and want to suicide bomb us?

[quote=Achilles]Which part? The holy land part? Don't take my word for, Osama bin Laden will tell you himself. He's been trying to tell us for more than a decade.

I'd love to believe him. But strangely, his place on my trusted source list falls just short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The blowback part? It only stands to reason. You're more than welcome to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.
They hated us long before then, man, it's been like this for a while. It doesn't help when half of the religious leaders are preaching the idea of "convert or die" to the masses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The condensed version is that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which is where Mecca is (you know, the place that all muslims face when they pray 5 times per day). It also happens to be where Medina is. These two places are considered sacred and that infidels are occupying these lands really, really pissed off devout muslims (aka fundies, aka islamic extremists). So Osama bin Laden decided that the king was now in bed with the devil (figuratively, but maybe literally too) and that action must be taken against said infidels (aka us). When he didn't get our attention with the embassy bombing in Africa, the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the world trade center, or the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, he decided to set is aims higher.
And that is ok with you? Because it is "our" fault?

And so the proper action is to bomb buildings and kill civilians? What?

Oh, and I didn't miss your little "devil" part, of "figuratively but maybe literally". So, now you are calling America the devil - or very close. I honestly hope I misunderstood you.

I'm not even going to try and get to the issue of stationing troops yet, because I think that this issue should be resolved first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Wow.
I meant every word of it. We need to end this "lifestyle" of suicide bombing and hating all Western Powers a.k.a "infidels". Otherwise, more Americans will die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Yes, that sounds exactly like what I said.
Before I just let your previous quote speak for itself (at this point I don't think we'll convince each other of anything on this specific issue), I would like to ask you this:

What should we do? Take our beating?

As before, this is something else that I will let other people make the judgement, because there's not much else I could say right now. (short of flaming or some other pointless action)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Not an extreme I'm willing to adopt, but it's a free country and you're welcome to your opinion.
How far are you willing to go, hmm? When does it become "all right" for America to go to war?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Within reason, yes, that's precisely the argument that I am making.
Well.... interesting belief, I'll say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And splitting hairs wins you what?
.....Whatever.

I really don't care. I was wondering, however, how you got your idea of those wars. I wasn't splitting hairs - just trying to clarify exactly what your opinion of those wars were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It seems to me that there is either conventional warfare or unconventional warfare. Since unconvential warfare is almost the exact definition of "guerrilla warfare", I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove here.
I spoke about guerilla groups earlier, so I won't repeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Just whom are you suggesting we “completely eradicate”? If you are taking about al-Qaeda then I completely agree, but it sounds like you are talking about the Islamic people. I’m going to assume you are not condoning genocide of a people based on where they live or their religious belief.
Oh, lol, you really don't think that do you? Of course not, I'm not proclaiming genocide. If that was what being a Muslim is, then I don't know, but I was clearly referring to the Al-Qaeda and other assorted terrorists in that region.

I mean, seriously, you do realize that we have many Muslims in the U.S. who feel no need to blow themselves up for this "cause".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Are you speaking to 911 about people attacking the U.S. and blowing up civilians? If you are speaking of 911 what does that have to do with the people of Iraq?
I already talked about this earlier. Al-Qaeda has many different connections. In fact I just mentioned some in my previous two posts....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Try being one without having people “decided” you are a leader. Without followers, there cannot be a leader. Of course a leader can pay people to following them, but the followers still decide that the pay is enough to give there allegiance. A leader can use threats and fear to obtain followers, but the followers still have to decide if the peril is real.

Taking a stand may get someone admiration from people that believe similarly, but it does not by its self make someone a leader
On the contrary, I believe it does, because it shows you to be the leader just by the action, if you understand me. Just because people vote you to be a leader does not mean you really are one, no? It has to do with the individual, or country in this matter. People tend to flock around a leader, you can see it happen everyday; and it usually doesn't matter too much if there is a difference of opinion. That is why they are "followers" and that one person is a "leader", lol. I'm not saying we should do whatever we want, but it is not up to the "followers" to tell the "leader" what is right.

Well, they can tell them, but as a leader, you usually do what they want just because they want it. I understand what you mean. The line between "I can do whatever I want" and "I operate by my own creed although I do listen to my followers" is very slim. However, I guess my real point is that the leader in this situation is the one who makes the decision, and people will fall in behind. You don't suck up to your followers, right?

Besides, countries would support the U.S. It might not be out of admiration, but if it is because we did the right thing and they didn't want us to, who cares? You don't let that dictate your policies. What America needs now, and I believe this, is to do just that: "take a stand", and show people what we are and what we stand for. Simply showing strength will do a lot to stopping terrible things such as terrorist suicide bombings, and whatnot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foolproof
But alas, since you and Mr.RobQel-Droma make yourselves out to be such American history experts, human rights experts, and seem to have about a dozen Ph.D's in many various fields (judging from how you make statements propaganda, and the "9/11 attacks"), this probably isn't news to you.
Geez, someone takes offense at our opinions. I hope you don't mind if I treat you the same way.

Oh, and BTW, giving us info about the Vietnam War which may or may not be legit really does nothing for this discussion about the Iraq war. So I will let you wait for your 30 years - then you can tell us about these unknown atrocites that you, however, know are happening right now.

I guess you must be the new "American future" expert.
RobQel-Droma is offline   you may: