Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on June 30, 2006, 08:55:15 am
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/
hint: competance (Sp?)
-
Have you ever seen The Power of Nightmares, Kaz?
-
no, but would i be able to guess the content with one try?
-
no, but would i be able to guess the content with one try?
Perhaps, but you should watch it regardless. It's very interesting. I think you'd like it.
-
To the point, I disagree, they have been learning and attempting to do attacks. 9/11 was just a culmination of training and planning and IN ACTION by previous administrations. Yes, Al Qaeda is more powerful in certain terms as the war in Iraq has both hurt and helped their message.
-
how has iraq hurt them?
sure they've had a few of their members killed - but they've replaced them many times over with the recruitment we're enabling having ruined the economy and stability of the region.
you MUST take in the causes and the enablers of terrorism into account when fighting terrorism - this guy is talking about that, and you disagree :doubt:
-
To the point, I disagree, they have been learning and attempting to do attacks. 9/11 was just a culmination of training and planning and IN ACTION by previous administrations. Yes, Al Qaeda is more powerful in certain terms as the war in Iraq has both hurt and helped their message.
Those were most likely other organizations that were just using the Al-Queda brand name.
Even then how exactly did attacking Iraq hurt those organizations?
-
In so much as they are also showing the muslim world the horrific nature of fanaticism. Currently you have groups basically butchering and a general reign of terror in Iraq. And even the fundamentalists that speak out against them end up dead. The point is that I cannot for a second think that all of that is really a positive impact on the image of Al Qaeda. Yes, many of the quacks there are not officially card carrying members of Al Qaeda, but as a whole, the violence in Iraq isn't as positive for fanaticals as one might think. I am not going to deny the affects of US foreign policy and terrorism. I will be the first in line to tell you how much the israeli partition that the US supported led to where we are now (sorry sandwich). But the idea that the al qaeda movement is where it is now because of foreign policy alone and the war in Iraq is nonsense. Economic conditions play a significant role in so much as al qaeda gets alot of its money from sales of oil by middle eastern countries. Yes they wouldn't be funded if it were not for the partition. I do not disagree with the idea that US foreign policy has helped al qaeda grow as well as the war in Iraq.
-
In so much as they are also showing the muslim world the horrific nature of fanaticism.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
islamic fanaticism of christofascist fanaticism?
they're doing nothing of the such! they've only succeeded in creating a breeding ground for fanaticism!
Currently you have groups basically butchering and a general reign of terror in Iraq. And even the fundamentalists that speak out against them end up dead.
odd that i never heard about that
Currently you have groups basically butchering and a general reign of terror in Iraq. And even the
The point is that I cannot for a second think that all of that is really a positive impact on the image of Al Qaeda.[/quote]
maybe because you aren't thinking about it deep enough? economic collapse, political instability, no gaurantee of safety, no real law enforcement, what law enforcement there is there is often corrupt and part of the problem
it's a breeding ground for extremism - PLEASE PLEASE for the sake of our country learn what facilitates the growth of fanataicism!
Yes, many of the quacks there are not officially card carrying members of Al Qaeda, but as a whole, the violence in Iraq isn't as positive for fanaticals as one might think.
how is it not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?
-
how is it not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?
but you forget - the US army is VERY good at killing. :D
-
I'm going to leave aside your happy broken logic for the moment, Kaz, because frankly it is not worthwhile; you are incapable of recognizing or admitting error. Which is a big problem in and of itself. But I am going to dissect your argument based solely on its argumentative values as a successful, or ****ty argument.
Why? Because I can. I already know you won't listen. But I like poking people with a stick on occasion. And the reaction should be quite amusing.
islamic fanaticism of christofascist fanaticism?
You realize, I hope, you do your arguments incalcuable injury with statements like that. Of course, somehow I don't think you do. Hell, you're saying one of the admins fellates Microsoft in your sig. You can't persuade, you can only piss. Both off, and in terms of argumentative quality.
That's of course aside from the implied ad hominem.
they're doing nothing of the such! they've only succeeded in creating a breeding ground for fanaticism!
Logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
Simple consideration of facts impinges your ideas, as well. People who come with fanatical will are one in a million, quite literally. For most it has to be instilled, and you can't instill anything with chaos. You need order to do that. You can recruit in Iraq. But you need to make fanatics elsewhere. Suicide bombers come from the West Bank, but they spent some time in Syria or Lebanon before they blew themselves up.
I'll also note that you've provided no support for your statements, making their veracity questionable to pretty much everyone.
odd that i never heard about that
Logical fallacy. Proof of absence is not absence of proof.
Considering you speak in very general terms, one would be inclined to believe you don't know because you aren't paying attention. Unfortunately, I know this for a fact. I haven't been paying much attention myself, but it's been in the newspaper a few times. Guess you don't read the LA Times.
maybe because you aren't thinking about it deep enough? economic collapse, political instability, no gaurantee of safety, no real law enforcement, what law enforcement there is there is often corrupt and part of the problem
Another paragraph starting with a logical fallacy; ad hominem this time. Oh, you're wondering about the large red text? It's because turnabout is fair play, Kazan. And if it annoys the hell out you, well, guess what, it annoys us too.
it's a breeding ground for extremism - PLEASE PLEASE for the sake of our country learn what facilitates the growth of fanataicism!
There's an interesting element of schizophrenia here. You've insulted him already, several times, now you're pleading.
how is it not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?
I can make two assumptions here. No, three actually. Either you support the fanatics (reasonable, I suppose, you're pretty fanatical yourself), you're agreeing with redmenace and your wording sucks, or your wording sucks period. I will assume the last, because it makes the most sense.
Again with the same argument, again unsupported. One might wonder who you're really trying to convince, us, or yourself? You're making an unsupportable claim too; recruiting faster then they're being killed? That's great. Prove it. Wait...YOU CAN'T! I doubt they even know their recruitment figures and casuality rates. Certainly nothing they'd tell anyone else is trustworthy.
To summarize: I was not kidding, nor was I incorrect, when I observed earlier that the quality of your arguments is piss-poor. In this rather brief post alone, where most of the space was actually taken up by quotes, you have commited two formal and four informal logical fallacies; plus the unproveable, which could be counted as either. Your arguments are poorly formed, poorly worded, and totally unsupported. Your ability to persuade even someone without a basic grounding in logic is nonexistant. Anyone who bothered with a Philosophy 100 class is liable to ignore you.
-
note: i didn't address everything in chronological order - but went and tried to insert some things i addressed later in proper order - excuse any out-of-order errors
you are incapable of recognizing or admitting error.
factually false, and the fallacy of poisoning the well
I already know you won't listen.
factually false, and another attempt to poison the well.
You realize, I hope, you do your arguments incalcuable injury with statements like that.
demonstrating how a statement is factually dubious does not damage my arguement. Unless you wish to attempt to make the claim that there is no a surge in christian-based fascism in the United States (Please, make my day and do so).
Quoting my signature as an argument against my attacks constitutions an argumentum ad hominem - something about pot and kettle.
You can't persuade, you can only piss. Both off, and in terms of argumentative quality.
for someone complaining about me making statements that you claim are ad hominem, but cannot be considered ad hominem, you're sure making blatant ones
PS: my statement could not even been considered implied argumentum ad hominem because I did not suggest that my opponant was a christofascist, nor did I make an argument against his based upon any attempt to label him as such!
Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
this is factually incorrect
neither is it a "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" error
the USA invasion of Iraq turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism in the following ways:
1) Collapsed the economy of the country
2) Destroyed the infrastructure (electricity, water, gas distribution) of the country
3) continued the situation in which citizens were not gauranteed security of their persons or posessions
People who come with fanatical will are one in a million, quite literally.
factually incorrect- demonstrably incorrect by the law of very large numbers
6 billion times 1/1 million = 6,000 - there are far more extremists of every type around the world than this right now at this instant and you very well know it. Maybe I misunderstand you and you are only refering to LEADERS of extremist movements, not followers.
For most it has to be instilled, and you can't instill anything with chaos.
quite correct, but you're failing to make certain logical steps. In an environment of chaos people will latch onto whatever order or security they can find - that makes it easier for the leaders of extremist movements to recruit because they are offering a form of order to people desperate for any form of order.
Logical fallacy. Proof of absence is not absence of proof.
i was prompting for proof
Considering you speak in very general terms, one would be inclined to believe you don't know because you aren't paying attention. Unfortunately, I know this for a fact. I haven't been paying much attention myself, but it's been in the newspaper a few times. Guess you don't read the LA Times.
I follow the news very closely, I've see nothing to substantiate
And even the fundamentalists that speak out against them end up dead.
however I have seen substantiation of
Currently you have groups basically butchering and a general reign of terror in Iraq.
so your error was one of context, but an excusable one since I overquoted
suggesting that someone needs to think about something more indepth then they already have and then giving them examples of what they missed does not qualify as argumentum ad hominem - because the list of things they missed substantiates it as an attack against the argument not the person
There's an interesting element of schizophrenia here. You've insulted him already, several times, now you're pleading.
pot meet kettle.
pleading is an example of rhetorical argumentation not logical argumentation. Both have a place in politics.
I can make two assumptions here. No, three actually. Either you support the fanatics (reasonable, I suppose, you're pretty fanatical yourself),
incorrect assumption based in factual error
i am not a fanatic by any definition of the term. Though I would be curious as to upon what basis you attempt to claim that I am.
you're agreeing with redmenace and your wording sucks, or your wording sucks period. I will assume the last, because it makes the most sense.
or the fourth option
You are merely unfamiliar with my usage and failed to successfuly parse a statement that anyone familiar enough with my writing and speaking style would be able to parse.
Again with the same argument, again unsupported. One might wonder who you're really trying to convince, us, or yourself? You're making an unsupportable claim too; recruiting faster then they're being killed? That's great. Prove it. Wait...YOU CAN'T! I doubt they even know their recruitment figures and casuality rates. Certainly nothing they'd tell anyone else is trustworthy.
if they were recruiting slower than they are being killed they would have been eliminated or significantly weakened - so this option is eliminated by exlcusion
if they were recruiting at an equal pace to being killed they'd be neither weakening or strengthening - this option is eliminated by exclusion due to their attacks becoming more common
that leaves only one option in this trinary possibility
furthermore the last option makes logical sense due to considerations of what provides a breeding ground for violent extremism: economic collapse/stagnation, little or no hope of improvement (from the POV of the people there), little gaurantee of being secure in their persons and possessions
blah blah blah
the rest of your argument is merely a pointless diatribe as an attempt to dismiss me merely because you disagree with me.
I do not know what got you all riled up ngtm1r - but I suggest next time you attempt to take me out to the woodshed you bother to stick to the facts, refrain from engaging in hypocracy and do not willfully misrepresent my statements.
Go troll some other thread if you don't mind. I don't have time for people engaging in hypocritical attacks upon me out of some unexpliciable hatred of me.
-
Personally, I'm looking forward to Putin sending in his Spetsnaz crazies to find the guys who killed the Russian diplomats. This could definitely get interesting. The Russians, now they now how to wage war. Kill a third of the population to make a point, and let freedom ring! Like Stalin said, no man no problem.
-
Personally, I'm looking forward to Putin sending in his Spetsnaz crazies to find the guys who killed the Russian diplomats. This could definitely get interesting. The Russians, now they now how to wage war. Kill a third of the population to make a point, and let freedom ring! Like Stalin said, no man no problem.
Yeah...I almost chuckled about how screwed those terrorists are.
-
Personally, I'm looking forward to Putin sending in his Spetsnaz crazies to find the guys who killed the Russian diplomats. This could definitely get interesting.
I take it you've heard the story of what they did when a similar situation arose with hostages in Beirut then? :D
-
Personally, I'm looking forward to Putin sending in his Spetsnaz crazies to find the guys who killed the Russian diplomats. This could definitely get interesting.
I take it you've heard the story of what they did when a similar situation arose with hostages in Beiruit then? :D
Please do tell. I don't remember what happened with that one.
It really is a good article...I re-read it. Its good to read these things because the doom and gloom coming out of the various official source never really seem to maintain much credibility. Not after whats happened over the last few years.
-
Go troll some other thread if you don't mind. I don't have time for people engaging in hypocritical attacks upon me out of some unexpliciable hatred of me.
But why on earth could anyone possibly dislike you? :eek:
-
Personally, I'm looking forward to Putin sending in his Spetsnaz crazies to find the guys who killed the Russian diplomats. This could definitely get interesting.
I take it you've heard the story of what they did when a similar situation arose with hostages in Beirut then? :D
Actually, no. Got a link?
Judging by how they "pacified" Chechnya, I'm willing to bet there's someone out there who still has trouble sleeping.
-
In 1985, terrorists stormed the Soviet embassy in Beirut and abducted several Russian officials, demanding that the Soviet ally Syria stop its efforts to drive Palestinians supporting Arafat out of Lebanon. Then Soviet president Gorbachev was quickly able to get Syria to stop its operation, but the kidnappers were slow in releasing the hostages. The SPETSNAZ quickly went into action, rushing to Beirut and giving the extremists 48 hours to free their people. When the terrorists let the deadline pass, the SPETSNAZ actually kidnapped four of the kidnappers and sent one of their decapitated heads in a bag to the terrorist chief, promising further unrestrained action. The captives were quickly freed.
Got the job done I suppose :)
-
Go troll some other thread if you don't mind. I don't have time for people engaging in hypocritical attacks upon me out of some unexpliciable hatred of me.
But why on earth could anyone possibly dislike you? :eek:
oh come now - we all get angry once in a while, but he made outright false claims about me and said i had a mental disorder ::)
-
oh come now - we all get angry once in a while, but he made outright false claims about me and said i had a mental disorder ::)
And what does the bottom line of your signature currently say?
-
oh come now - we all get angry once in a while, but he made outright false claims about me and said i had a mental disorder ::)
And what does the bottom line of your signature currently say?
something completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
and something I need to revise since I had a word with him earlier
-
oh come now - we all get angry once in a while, but he made outright false claims about me and said i had a mental disorder ::)
And what does the bottom line of your signature currently say?
something completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
and something I need to revise since I had a word with him earlier
I would say accusing a person of fellating an executive because you have a disagreement, would weigh very heavily upon the consideration of said accusers responses in general, but maybe that's just me.
-
how is it not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?
but you forget - the US army is VERY good at killing. :D
Unfortunately its not always the right people...
-
I would say accusing a person of fellating an executive because you have a disagreement, would weigh very heavily upon the consideration of said accusers responses in general, but maybe that's just me.
A) I didn't mean it literally or seriously
B) irrelevant to the subject of this thread
-
A) I didn't mean it literally or seriously
B) irrelevant to the subject of this thread
A) Well, regardless, it constitutes a rather personal attack, and quite a cowardly, indirect one at that IMO. As a permanent signature addition, it would have been essentially akin to pouting.
B) I would say the way someone response to another is highly relevant to any topic that person speaks about. Part of the fundamental premise of debating does, after all, require a degree of both respect, confidence and trust in a/the speaker. If said speaker has shown a bit of, as a theoretical example, petty vindictiveness, then that speakers comments are going to be regarded with more distrust or indeed contempt than someone more polite.
-
A) I didn't mean it literally or seriously
B) irrelevant to the subject of this thread
B) I would say the way someone response to another is highly relevant to any topic that person speaks about. Part of the fundamental premise of debating does, after all, require a degree of both respect, confidence and trust in a/the speaker. If said speaker has shown a bit of, as a theoretical example, petty vindictiveness, then that speakers comments are going to be regarded with more distrust or indeed contempt than someone more polite.
which is argumentum ad hominem
-
Logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
No, it wasn't. Before the US came it was a more or less modern, very secular state.
-
Logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
No, it wasn't. Before the US came it was a more or less modern, very secular state.
we couldn't let facts get in the way of flaming a liberal now could we :lol:
-
Logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
No, it wasn't. Before the US came it was a more or less modern, very secular state.
Insofar as it's goes that's true. But then again, Kazan's already accepted the US turns out fanatics. It's also already accepted that Saddam essentially payed the terrorists to stay out of his country. If they'll go after the Saudis, after all, they should have gone after Saddam, all other things being equal. In their eyes he's much worse.
And then of course there's the Republican Guard. Which is institutionalized fanaticism. The fallacy stands.
-
But then again, Kazan's already accepted the US turns out fanatics.
I said we created a situation which allowed the islamic fanaticism to breed
as for the US breeding fanatics - you need look no further than our domestric crop of christofascists
It's also already accepted that Saddam essentially payed the terrorists to stay out of his country.
citations pls
If they'll go after the Saudis, after all, they should have gone after Saddam, all other things being equal.
who's they? the us has never gone after the saudis, we kiss their asses
And then of course there's the Republican Guard. Which is institutionalized fanaticism.
yes, so fanatic most of them surrendered without a fight in both Iraq wars
The fallacy stands.
yes your fallacy - the fallacy of factual error
-
Logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
No, it wasn't. Before the US came it was a more or less modern, very secular state.
he ment before we came in the second time, after we left the first time it was realy fuctup.
-
note: i didn't address everything in chronological order - but went and tried to insert some things i addressed later in proper order - excuse any out-of-order errors
you are incapable of recognizing or admitting error.
factually false, and the fallacy of poisoning the well
I already know you won't listen.
factually false, and another attempt to poison the well.
Posioning the well is not a logical fallacy; it's a concept. I can list the informal fallacies for you if you want, I've got my Philosophy book right here. And need I remind you of numerous threads where you fought on beyond all reason against such varied opponents as myself, aldo, and Black Wolf? Hell, let's dig out the Clangers while we're at it. That's always good for a laugh.
You realize, I hope, you do your arguments incalcuable injury with statements like that.
demonstrating how a statement is factually dubious does not damage my arguement.
You make me laugh. Quite a bit. That statement right there is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You must have facts to have an argument. If they're dubious, you're ****ed. End of story.
Quoting my signature as an argument against my attacks constitutions an argumentum ad hominem - something about pot and kettle.
No, it's not. I suppose I shall get out my Philosophy book after all. Ad hominem can be divded into three types; abusive, circumstantial, and tu quoque. What did I do? I demonstrated your penchant for ad hominem attacks. How did I do it? I gave examples. At no point did I offer abuse, circumstantial evidence you were predisposed to this behavior (though arguably you are) or present you as a hypocrite...
...which, funnily enough, is what you did with me just now. However, my hypocrisy, whether it's real or not, is irrevelant to the argument. Whether or not I practice what I preach has no bearing on whether or not what I preach is correct. Tu quoque, Kazan?
You can't persuade, you can only piss. Both off, and in terms of argumentative quality.
for someone complaining about me making statements that you claim are ad hominem, but cannot be considered ad hominem, you're sure making blatant ones
Tu quoque again. That's twice now. Let's keep a running count of the formal and informal fallacies, shall we? More to the point, I chose emotive, evocative langauge, which I later substantiated as correct. Not polite, but correct. You deny you can't argue. Fair enough, but I've got that one nailed down I think. Do you deny you're going to piss people off with your argumentative style? Go on. Do it. I could use the stress relief.
PS: my statement could not even been considered implied argumentum ad hominem because I did not suggest that my opponant was a christofascist, nor did I make an argument against his based upon any attempt to label him as such!
Your statement can be taken as such an implication. I did after all. So, whether you meant it or not, it's there. Regardless I'll give you this one.
Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
this is factually incorrect
neither is it a "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" error
I believe I've already covered this in a previous post. We'll let it stay there.
People who come with fanatical will are one in a million, quite literally.
factually incorrect- demonstrably incorrect by the law of very large numbers
6 billion times 1/1 million = 6,000 - there are far more extremists of every type around the world than this right now at this instant and you very well know it. Maybe I misunderstand you and you are only refering to LEADERS of extremist movements, not followers.
Ignoratio elenchi. Three now. There are more extremists then that. But how many of them were born that way, hmm?
For most it has to be instilled, and you can't instill anything with chaos.
quite correct, but you're failing to make certain logical steps. In an environment of chaos people will latch onto whatever order or security they can find - that makes it easier for the leaders of extremist movements to recruit because they are offering a form of order to people desperate for any form of order.!
Ignoratio elenchi again. Four. They can recruit, certainly. But they can't make fanatics out of them in Iraq. It isn't breeding ground for the fanatics, it's a mine for the raw material. They make them into fanatics elsewhere.
Logical fallacy. Proof of absence is not absence of proof.
i was prompting for proof
You made a statement. You did not ask a question. This is, at best, poor technique. And at worst you're scrambling to cover your ass right now. We will however off you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and write it off as poor technique.
so your error was one of context, but an excusable one since I overquoted
Not hardly. I knew what you referred to, despite the overquote; the killing of those who speak out against the violence on both sides.
suggesting that someone needs to think about something more indepth then they already have and then giving them examples of what they missed does not qualify as argumentum ad hominem - because the list of things they missed substantiates it as an attack against the argument not the person
You list things that are painfully self-evident, however, so either you think redmenance is a total dolt, or you think he can't read/listen/see. Or you are attempting to portray him that way to the audience (which is somewhat more subtle then I'd expect from you). Or all of the above. So it's still there. Sorry.
There's an interesting element of schizophrenia here. You've insulted him already, several times, now you're pleading.
pot meet kettle.
pleading is an example of rhetorical argumentation not logical argumentation. Both have a place in politics.
There's that nasty tu quoque again; worse then that, unsubstantiated. I've been insulting the whole time, perhaps somewhat politely and rationally, but then again, my whole premise is that you can't argue worth a damn, and if that's not insulting then I don't know what is. Five and a formal fallacy. The point also stands.
I can make two assumptions here. No, three actually. Either you support the fanatics (reasonable, I suppose, you're pretty fanatical yourself),
incorrect assumption based in factual error
i am not a fanatic by any definition of the term. Though I would be curious as to upon what basis you attempt to claim that I am.
See my first response. In any case the correctness of the assumption is irrevelant to the larger argument. Your assertion of christofascism the first time you used the term, in the face of massive opposition, well thought out, and considerably more articulate then you...well, that should be enough proof to convince most people.
you're agreeing with redmenace and your wording sucks, or your wording sucks period. I will assume the last, because it makes the most sense.
or the fourth option
You are merely unfamiliar with my usage and failed to successfuly parse a statement that anyone familiar enough with my writing and speaking style would be able to parse.
Let me lay it out for you.
"how is it not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?"
There are only a few reasonable assumptions which can be made based on your placement of that "not". These involve it either being a mistake (which I have covered) or your believing that the fanatics having what you say they have is a good thing (in which case you support them, which I have also already covered). The only possible fourth assumption, which I chose not to invoke (giving you the benefit of the doubt...should I cease to do so?) is that your grasp of the English langauge is below the level of the average high school student. Perhaps it is; your failures of capitalization and punctation are rampant. There's one in that very sentence.
If your English really is that poor, that can only add weight to my thesis that you could not logically argue your way out of a paper bag.
Again with the same argument, again unsupported. One might wonder who you're really trying to convince, us, or yourself? You're making an unsupportable claim too; recruiting faster then they're being killed? That's great. Prove it. Wait...YOU CAN'T! I doubt they even know their recruitment figures and casuality rates. Certainly nothing they'd tell anyone else is trustworthy.
if they were recruiting slower than they are being killed they would have been eliminated or significantly weakened - so this option is eliminated by exlcusion
Incorrect. They began with something, not nothing, so they have a core over and above recruitment...who would by the same token be the better ones. Also assumes that the casuality rate is fixed; this is so blindingly obvious as to begger the imagination how you missed it. They would have spent some time in the beginning building up a core force, and for a time after they moved surprise, and the need on the US part to assemble information to strike at them, would give them lower casualities then the current rate. Also ignores the fact that attrition comes in several scales. If they already have 5000, say, recruit 100 a month, and lose 101 a month, it will take some time for the results to be evident, will it not? In five months their force levels will be down by five men; not significant, but more have been killed then were recruited.
Five and two.
if they were recruiting at an equal pace to being killed they'd be neither weakening or strengthening - this option is eliminated by exclusion due to their attacks becoming more common
This is also false reasoning. There are many reasons why they could maintain the same force levels but attack more often. Most of them boil down to being unable or unwilling to use their total force before that point. Morale, equipment, information, training time, defensive assignment of force, etc.
Five and three.
that leaves only one option in this trinary possibility
It would. If you were right. But you're not.
furthermore the last option makes logical sense due to considerations of what provides a breeding ground for violent extremism: economic collapse/stagnation, little or no hope of improvement (from the POV of the people there), little gaurantee of being secure in their persons and possessions
Irrevelant to the discussion.
blah blah blah
the rest of your argument is merely a pointless diatribe as an attempt to dismiss me merely because you disagree with me.
Quite the opposite. You have failed to refute me in points, you cannot hope to refute me on the argument as a whole. Consider it an attempt to explain why even your political allies feel the need to argue with you.
I do not know what got you all riled up ngtm1r - but I suggest next time you attempt to take me out to the woodshed you bother to stick to the facts, refrain from engaging in hypocracy and do not willfully misrepresent my statements.
Have, tu quoque again that's six and three, abusive that's seven and three.
Go troll some other thread if you don't mind. I don't have time for people engaging in hypocritical attacks upon me out of some unexpliciable hatred of me.
Abusive that's eight and three, tu quoque nine and three, abusive ten and three.
Ten informal and three formal logical fallacies. Your argumentative skills have not improved; perhaps they have not gotten worse, this was a longer post. But again, even a cursory examination of your argument shows that you are not to be taken seriously.
-
It's also already accepted that Saddam essentially payed the terrorists to stay out of his country.
citations pls
Forgive me for believing you had the ability to find them yourself. Go find one of Iraq's official budget documents pre-invasion.
If they'll go after the Saudis, after all, they should have gone after Saddam, all other things being equal.
who's they?
That's a rather silly question. Who was the last person or person(s) mentioned?
And then of course there's the Republican Guard. Which is institutionalized fanaticism.
yes, so fanatic most of them surrendered without a fight in both Iraq wars
You asked for it.
All Republican Guard units that were engaged in Desert Storm stood and fought...and died. 1st Armored annihilated the Madina division. The Marines and Arab Coalition sent two others to an early grave. Airstrikes destroyed a fourth as it attempted to escape to fight another day. (At Saddam's orders, for he wished to have a force in being; they did not flee.) The other two were not commited to the battle area. By the time of the second war, the Republican Guard had been rebuilt in men but not in weapons. The embargo had taken its toll. Their armor was gone. Their heavy weaponry was gone. They were a lot of light infantry against a heavily mechanized force. Marshall Henri Petain put it best, during the First World War; "Fire kills." Not men. Fire. They tried to fight (you think the casualities suffered in the intial weeks were caused by friendly fire or something?), but pitting men against fire gets you dead men and nothing to show for it. WWI demonstrated that easily; if you need further proof you can witness the debacles attendant to the Imperial Japanese Army in WWII.
Long story short: do not confuse the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army. They are wholly different organizations.
The fallacy stands.
yes your fallacy - the fallacy of factual error
Sorry, not how its. Wishful thinking.
-
A) I didn't mean it literally or seriously
B) irrelevant to the subject of this thread
B) I would say the way someone response to another is highly relevant to any topic that person speaks about. Part of the fundamental premise of debating does, after all, require a degree of both respect, confidence and trust in a/the speaker. If said speaker has shown a bit of, as a theoretical example, petty vindictiveness, then that speakers comments are going to be regarded with more distrust or indeed contempt than someone more polite.
which is argumentum ad hominem
Well, I'd like you to suggest an occasion when human perception of information is not changed by delivery and the context of that delivery. Like, would you trust a liar? And soforth.
-
I always thought that, post desert storm, the Republican Guard were just bogey men designed to scare little American kids who didn't do as they were told.
Oh and, Spetsnaz kidnapping the kidnappers ? That's cool.
-
"Remember how it started, they kept talking about 'the Elite Republican Guard' in these hushed tones like these guys were the bogeymen or something. Yeah, we're doing well now, but we have yet to face-THE ELITE REPUBLICAN GUARD. Like these guys were twelve feet tall, desert warriors. KRRASH. NEVER LOST A BATTLE! KRRASH. WE **** BULLETS! Yeah, well, after two months of continuous carpet bombings and not one reaction at all from them, they became simply, 'the Republican Guard.' Not nearly as elite as we may have led you to believe. And after another month of bombing, they went from 'the Elite Republican Guard' to 'the Republican Guard' to 'the Republicans made this **** up about there being guards out there, hope you enjoyed your fireworks show"
Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.