THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Cycloptichorn

Welcome!

JM

0 Replies

My sentiment exactly. People (or media) that admits their mistakes wins my confidence.

0 Replies

Again...

Quote:

Sadr agrees to truce: US officials
Radical cleric Moqtada Sadr and a council of Iraqi clerics have agreed on a truce to end fighting in three contested cities between his militia and the US-led coalition, US officials say.

"They appear to have peacefully resolved the situation in Najaf, Kufa and Karbala," a senior US official said.

"This is a significant achievement."

A second US official says the ceasefire agreement "resulted from the efforts of the Shiite clergy to convince Sadr to stop the fighting".

The agreement was reached in Iraq, and details of the plan would be announced tomorrow in Baghdad, the official says.

The first official says the deal would stop the violence by Sadr's large and disruptive private militia, halt their attacks on US troops and end their presence in Government buildings in the three cities.

The agreement also appears to make provisions for the disposition of some members of Sadr's private Mehdi Army, who were allegedly connected to the killing of a rival cleric last year.

--AFP

Source

0 Replies

Quote:

What was the reason for Middle Eastern imperialism in the European world more than a 1000 years ago? Oil? I think not.

I don't know why you ask this question when you supply the answer (imperialism) and a definition of imperialism. (I have access to a dictionary thanks)

Ican states

Quote:

the West pays for and does not steal arab oil

I never said we steal it. I said we control it through our imperialism. And from your helpfully supplied definition of imperialism:-

Quote:

extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

I wrote

Quote:

take away the source of the irritation and there is a chance that the disease could be controlled

Ican asks

Quote:

A chance What is that "chance"? Rather, what is that probability? Specifically, what is the probability that the TMM will dismantle its operations if the west totally removes itself from the Middle East?

I reply
0.26589

Ican asks

Quote:

Why have so many Middle Easterners left the Middle East and emmigrated to the West, if they were treated badly enough to justify their murderering and maiming the West's population

To which I can give no reply because I don't understand it. Ask a proper question and I will endeavour to reply.

0 Replies

ci

I can extend your surgeon cancer-patient analogy.

Mr Bush decides to operate to remove the Ba'athist/Terrorist/Al Qaida cancer from the body politic. He does so, but keeps the tumour and throws away the patient.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)
A great example of Framing, another very commonly found tactic amongst the modern conservative.

No, you are wrong! What you have written here in response to an acronym that accurately characterizes the cultural cancer spreading among us, is truly a great example of framing. Framers try to refute accurate characterizations by attributing such characterizations to the tactics of some allegedly nefarious group or groups of people. Some not all of those on the left as well as some not all of those on the right play the same damn bigoted game. It's disgusting. If you think the TMM characterization is wrong, then defend that thought with logical argument and facts, not bigoted posts.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the rich sponsors are simply duping terrorists into sacrificing their lives, then logically the best way to stop the flow of new terrorism would be to go after these rich sponsors, correct? Once again, going to the root of the problem would help here. But, are we bringing in the hundreds of Saudi families that we suspect are involved in terrorism? No. Why was the Bin Laden family allowed to leave the country after sept. 11th? Why aren't we questioning them now? It seems to me that if we are truly commited to stopping terrorism we shouldn't be ignoring the roots of it for political reasons.

I agree! We must irradicate all those rich sponsors. Saddam Hussein was but one of those rich sponsors. I agree Osama bin Laden is another. Yes, we need to make him too one of those former rich sponsors. We're working on it, not nearly as well as I for one would like. But we're working on it. And we must not overlook the Syrian and Iranian rich sponsors as well as the Saudi rich sponsors.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suppose the fact that the Bush family has major connections with the Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this.

There you go again with your damn bigoted framing.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am referring to the concept that nothing really justifies any sort of terrorism. But people can be pushed to the point where they do unjustifiable behavior out of desperation, ignorance, and hate.

But when they allow themselves to be pushed to that point, it is they who are primarily responsible for their actions, not their alleged pushers. Instead of allowing themselves to be pushed they can--and many of them do--escape. We have significant evidence that securing the liberty of people reduces their tendencies to allow themselves to be pushed in that direction. It is the securing of their liberty that will ultimately kill the cancer in Islam (as indeed it did in curing the same cancer in Christianity). The flight of so many Middle Easterners to other parts of the world (east as well as west), where liberty is in greater supply, shows that. In the meantime, the cancer itself must be eradicated wherever it appears: Middle East; East; and West.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
What was the reason for Middle Eastern imperialism in the European world more than a 1000 years ago? Oil? I think not.

I don't know why you ask this question when you supply the answer (imperialism) and a definition of imperialism.

The word imperialism does not constitute an explanation for why a particular imperialism occurred. Again, I ask :What was the reason for Middle Eastern imperialism. I suggested that it was the coveting of someone else's land.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

0.26589

Excellent! Now please can you supply the rational for or the basis of your calculation of that probability?

Please try to answer this version of my question: Why have so many Middle Easterners left the Middle East and emmigrated to the West, if they believed they were treated badly enough by the West to justify their murderering and maiming the West's population? [/quote]

0 Replies

Quote:

Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging conflict in 50 years
By Kim Sengupta
27 May 2004

Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and Britain, Amnesty International says.

The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused the US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".

The American government is charged with "sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses". This draconian approach, Amnesty says, has "damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous place".

In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores of women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after the war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."

The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers, including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and to provide food, medical care and relief assistance".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311

0 Replies

Nice thread. This may be a little long.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)
A great example of Framing, another very commonly found tactic amongst the modern conservative.

Icann711nm wrote:

Quote:

No, you are wrong! What you have written here in response to an acronym that accurately characterizes the cultural cancer spreading among us, is truly a great example of framing. Framers try to refute accurate characterizations by attributing such characterizations to the tactics of some allegedly nefarious group or groups of people

I was literally speechless while reading this. Not only are you wrong on the concept of framing, you manage to use the tactic several times in order to support your point. It's so ingrained into the conservative viewpoint nowdays that you don't even realize you are doing it.

You call TMM an acronym that 'accurately characterizes the cultural cancer spreading among us.' Three points on this:

First, saying that TMM is the appropriate acronym to use in this case is an assertion, not a fact. I do not at all believe it is appropriate, as it labels terrorists as inherently evil people. This is not empirically provable. What IS provable is that they are people. They have emotions, families, ideas about what is right and wrong in the world.

I'm not trying to excuse their actions. Their actions are despicable. But the pejorative term you use sets up, frames, the argument. It is a specific tactic used to undermine the authority of anyone who disagrees with your position by gaining the upper hand when it comes to definitions. A TMM isn't a person, therefore, they don't deserve the rights of a person.

Second, you call what is going on a 'cultural cancer.' This is a fallacious statement as well. What does it even mean? I can tell you what it DOES do, it invokes people's natural fear of the word 'cancer.' Cancer is an uncontrolled growth of cells in the body which can lead to death. It is not a thinking disease, a person, a problem that must be dealt with in a reasonable manner.

Terrorism is a modern, social problem that cannot be solved simply through brute force (i.e. the scalpel) alone. By using the term 'cancer' you are, whether you realize it or not, making an emotional appeal in order to control the terms of the debate. Not exactly a fair tactic, and a bad analogy anyways - if Islaam is such a radically different culture than ours, what is happening right now is more indicative of a viral invasion than a cancerous one.

Framing is used by both sides in our political struggle, but the difference here is the GOP has spent millions of dollars studying this method, and uses it constantly, with dramatic results. Why does it work so well? Because the unintelligent cannot see through the rhetorical structure of the argument to it's hollow center. This explains a lot about the Republican power base in America - it is based in many ways on emotional response, and not cold logical thought.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suppose the fact that the Bush family has major connections with the Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this.
There you go again with your damn bigoted framing.

Framing is the act of defining terms in an argument in order to gain the upper hand. Citing links between gov't officials is not framing. I never used any adjective to describe the connection above. Framing would have been me saying, "I suppose the fact that the scumbag Bush family has very suspicious connections with the Evil Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this mess." I specifically avoided doing so, and merely stated what I believed to be a relevant point, and even provided a link.

Quote:

But when they allow themselves to be pushed to that point, it is they who are primarily responsible for their actions, not their alleged pushers. Instead of allowing themselves to be pushed they can--and many of them do--escape. We have significant evidence that securing the liberty of people reduces their tendencies to allow themselves to be pushed in that direction. It is the securing of their liberty that will ultimately kill the cancer in Islam (as indeed it did in curing the same cancer in Christianity). The flight of so many Middle Easterners to other parts of the world (east as well as west), where liberty is in greater supply, shows that. In the meantime, the cancer itself must be eradicated wherever it appears: Middle East; East; and West.

This doesn't make much sense at all. Lots of assertions in this paragraph, little facts if any. You say people 'allow' themselves to be pushed to that point, whereas I would remind you that while we can discuss this in dry, philosophical terms, on our break at work or while drinking a morning coffee, these people are getting the living sh*t shot out of them. Their house was blown up. They don't have any money. Their mother was killed by shrapnel the other day, who knows if it was the Americans or the Iraqi rebels? Don't seek to judge what you have no real way of understanding! Until you are placed in that same level of stress you can't chide them for 'allowing' to be pushed to the point of terrorism.

You say that freedom cured the same cancer in Christianity. Can you elaborate?

Great discussion btw.

For more on framing, see:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well

1 US (not Imperial) gallon (of anything, but in this case oil) = 3.7854 litres of oil.

Mulitiply this by the probability that bin Laden will start a terrorist dynasty (latest CIA estimate .980)

= 3.7097

Divide by the number of dates in the average box (15)

= 0.247313

near my original estimate but not exact, for sure.

But then there is the Belgian Chocolate Fudge factor. Will Belgium send any troops to Iraq? Or if they have any there now, will they withdraw them? this is a difficult one.

My Belgian/French/German friend assures me that there is a very slim chance of Belgium doing anything at all. When pressed he/she/it said this probability was in fact 0.018547 (The Brussells statistical office would not be drawn to any further accuracy).

This of course has to be added, and NOT multiplied by the previous probability, so we have

0.247313 + 0.018547 = 0.26586

I originally calculated 0.26589, which was accurate to within 0.02%, not bad as I'm sure you'll agree.

0 Replies

Also see: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml?507=
Retired General Assails Planning for Iraq War

By Mike Allen

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former U.S. commander in the Middle
East, charges in a book to be published today that "everybody in the
military knew" that the Bush administration's plan for Iraq consisted of
only half the troops that were needed, and says that country is now "a
powder keg" that could break apart into warring regions.

Zinni has been a critic of the Iraq war since before the invasion and
served briefly as a special envoy for President Bush. He wrote that he was
moved to speak out by "false rationales presented as a justification; a
flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our
allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from
real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched
military."

"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a
minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst,
lying, incompetence, and corruption," he wrote. " . . . If there is a
center that can hold this mess together, I don't know what it is. Civil war
could break out at any time. Resources are needed; a strategy is needed;
and a plan is needed."

The harsh new critique is being released just as Bush heads to the U.S.
Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., to present his latest strategy
for Iraq in a prime-time address at 8 p.m. today. Zinni is hitting the
interview circuit at a time when Republican lawmakers have turned sharply
pessimistic about the situation in Iraq and the White House continues
trying to restore confidence in its handling of the war despite falling
poll numbers and continuing revelations about brutality against detainees
in Iraq.

The book, "Battle Ready," is by novelist Tom Clancy, with Zinni and Tony
Koltz. Zinni was U.S. special envoy to the Middle East for Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell from November 2002 to March 2003. In several
interviews and statements at the time, Bush mentioned Zinni's presence in
the region as one reason for his optimism about the peace process and said
he was looking forward to his recommendations. Referring to himself and
Vice President Cheney, Bush said during an exchange with reporters in the
Oval Office, "We both trust General Zinni."

A passage written by Zinni voiced support for the views of retired Gen.
Eric K. Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, whose estimate that
several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq was
dismissed by the administration as wildly off the mark. "Recently, the Army
chief of staff testified that we would need 300,000 troops to pacify Iraq,"
Zinni wrote. "Everybody in the military knew he was right. But the party
line down from the Pentagon decreed that the number was half that, and he
was pilloried."

Zinni, 60, appeared last night on CBS's "60 Minutes" and said that staying
the course in Iraq is not feasible. "The course is headed over Niagara
Falls," he said. "I think it's time to change course a little bit or at
least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course." He said
the current situation is the product of "poor strategic thinking" combined
with "poor operational planning and execution on the ground."

Zinni was one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the war and
remains highly regarded in the military. He was commander of the U.S.
Central Command from 1997 to 2000. He wrote that when he left, he had a
preliminary plan for attacking Iraq. "I'm not sure where it went after I
left. As far as I can tell, the plan was pigeonholed," he said.

His successor, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, prosecuted the war past the fall of
Baghdad and is now retired. Discussing the Iraq war with The Washington
Post in December, Zinni said he believed that "the American people were
conned into this."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Hussein Sharistani has declined the position of prime minister of Iraq.

Shame. I read a portrait of him in a Dutch paper that made me think he was a Good Guy. Wasnt going to translate it for here, tho, but thats OK, cause here's another one, but in English:

THE ACCIDENTAL CANDIDATE

Do read the full interview with the Philidelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin, who apparently's known him for years. Looks like he really would have been a good one, both in terms of shown-principle-and-strength-against-Saddam and wouldnt-be-afraid-to-stand-up-against-the-US-if-necessary. Ah well. Power politics, eh?

0 Replies

A healthy and welcome second look:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I was literally speechless while reading this. Not only are you wrong on the concept of framing, you manage to use the tactic several times in order to support your point. It's so ingrained into the conservative viewpoint nowdays that you don't even realize you are doing it.

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 1frame
Pronunciation: 'frAm
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): framed; fram·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to benefit, construct, from Old English framian to benefit, make progress; akin to Old Norse fram forward, Old English fram from
transitive senses
1 : to construct by fitting and uniting the parts of the skeleton of (a structure)
2 a : PLAN, CONTRIVE <framed a new method of achieving their purpose> b : SHAPE, CONSTRUCT c : to give expression to : FORMULATE d : to draw up (as a document)
3 a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge) b : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured c : FIX 7b
4 : to fit or adjust especially to something or for an end : ARRANGE
5 obsolete : PRODUCE
6 : to enclose in a frame; also : to enclose as if in a frame
intransitive senses
1 archaic : PROCEED, GO
2 obsolete : MANAGE
- fram·able or frame·able /'frA-m&-b&l/ adjective
- fram·er noun

Please pick the definition(s) you mean here. The ones I inferred you meant were:

Quote:

3 a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge) b : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured c : FIX 7b
4 : to fit or adjust especially to something or for an end : ARRANGE

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You call TMM an acronym that 'accurately characterizes the cultural cancer spreading among us.' Three points on this:

First, saying that TMM is the appropriate acronym to use in this case is an assertion, not a fact. I do not at all believe it is appropriate, as it labels terrorists as inherently evil people. This is not empirically provable. What IS provable is that they are people. They have emotions, families, ideas about what is right and wrong in the world.

TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) refers only to those persons who terrorize other persons by threatening to murder or maim them, or by actually murdering or maiming them. This acronym constitutes a label for a definition of a kind of personal behavior. All those persons who exhibit this specific kind of behavior are TMM--no exceptions. Theoretically, the number of persons who exhibit that behavior could be zero.

I use the term murder in this context to mean the intentional killing of a person or persons for reasons other than defending one's self (or those one loves) against bodily harm.

I use the term maim in this context to mean the intentional causing a person or persons bodily harm other than bodily death for reasons other than defending one's self (or those one loves) against bodily harm.

Neither the acronym or its definition says anything about inherent evil; it merely describes a particular kind of behavior. This is true regardless of how many if any exhibit this behavior.

However, I do in deed think that all those who are TMMs are evil regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, prior histories, wealth, other accomplishments, other intentions, states of mind, personal aspirations, cosmetic attractiveness or unattractiveness, rationalizations, or excuses. I think this because I think that the intentional killing or the intentional maiming by a person of another person (or persons) for reasons other than for self-defense is evil. Protecting one's self or protecting those one loves against the threats of bodily harm by another is what I mean by self-defense.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not trying to excuse their actions. Their actions are despicable. But the pejorative term you use sets up, frames, the argument. It is a specific tactic used to undermine the authority of anyone who disagrees with your position by gaining the upper hand when it comes to definitions. A TMM isn't a person, therefore, they don't deserve the rights of a person.

The term TMM does nothing more than propose a perspective and/or context for argument. You are free to accept or reject that perspective or context for whatever reasons you care to state as long as you propose an alternative perspective or context. It has nothing to do with "gaining the upper hand." It has everything to do with an honest and open attempt to conduct meaningful and rational discourse free of sophistry.

[more to follow]

0 Replies

Joe Nation, With the media coverage telling us that Saddam had WMDs, how can we not be influenced from them. Some of us may be sceptical about what our government tells us, but we rely more on media to "tell the truth." If we are told by both the politicians and the media that Saddam has WMDs , who amongst us would challenge it, since none of us has the wherewithal to do our own investigation. Although I was against the war in Iraq, and I communicated my position to Senator Feinstein, she told me that the information they had convinced her that war was justified, so I told her that I would support her decision. Not long ago, Senator Feinstein made public that this administration lied, and that many of the senators that voted to go to war would not have voted for it if they knew the truth. It's too late now, but I can understand why most people, including me, felt that Saddam had WMDs.

0 Replies

(continued)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

You call TMM an acronym that 'accurately characterizes the cultural cancer spreading among us.' Three points on this:

...

Second, you call what is going on a 'cultural cancer.' This is a fallacious statement as well. What does it even mean? I can tell you what it DOES do, it invokes people's natural fear of the word 'cancer.' Cancer is an uncontrolled growth of cells in the body which can lead to death. It is not a thinking disease, a person, a problem that must be dealt with in a reasonable manner.

I think TMM is analogous to cancer of the human body in several respects. First, we do not yet know for sure its true causes, yet we are nonetheless able to eradicate many cancers from human bodies before those cancers kill the human body in which they reside. Second, cancer is impersonal in the sense that it attacks a human body regardless of that body's relative merits to the human race. Third, it cannot be negotiated with for the purpose of attempting to satisfy its wants in return for its withdrawal--its death or its removal by surgery is the only way it can be caused to withdraw. Fourth, its rate of multiplication is independent of how one chooses to combat it: its rate of multiplication is independent of whether one negotiates with it; the only thing that affects its rate of multiplication is its relative eradication.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Terrorism is a modern, social problem that cannot be solved simply through brute force (i.e. the scalpel) alone. By using the term 'cancer' you are, whether you realize it or not, making an emotional appeal in order to control the terms of the debate. Not exactly a fair tactic, and a bad analogy anyways - if Islaam is such a radically different culture than ours, what is happening right now is more indicative of a viral invasion than a cancerous one.

First, some cancers are currently believed to be caused by viruses. Second, terrorism, is a human disorder (I call a cultural cancer) as old as the written histtory of the the religions of the human race. Third, I am not "making an emotional appeal in order to control the terms of the debate;" I am making an analogy (valid or invalid) to help me communicate my point of view and reasoning. Fourth, it is not my claim that Islam "is such a radically different culture than ours;" for example, it is my claim that the "cultural cancer" I describe first began occurring in Christianity more than a thousand years ago, and so it is not merely a modern phenomenom.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...Framing is used by both sides in our political struggle, but the difference here is the GOP has spent millions of dollars studying this method, and uses it constantly, with dramatic results. Why does it work so well? Because the unintelligent cannot see through the rhetorical structure of the argument to it's hollow center. This explains a lot about the Republican power base in America - it is based in many ways on emotional response, and not cold logical thought.

Funny, I thought that was less characteristic of the GOP and more characteristic of the current Democratic Party, and (about 70 to approximately 60 years ago) more characteristic of a well known political party in Germany. However, except for perhaps humorous diversions like you just presented, I do not wish to be distracted from our debate here over whether TMM is or is not appropriate to a discussion of how to end current terrorist murderings and maimings.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Framing is the act of defining terms in an argument in order to gain the upper hand. Citing links between gov't officials is not framing. I never used any adjective to describe the connection above. Framing would have been me saying, "I suppose the fact that the scumbag Bush family has very suspicious connections with the Evil Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this mess." I specifically avoided doing so, and merely stated what I believed to be a relevant point, and even provided a link.

Please

You are citing a distinction without a difference. But again, after a few gigles, let's not let that divert us from a discuission of how to end current terrorist murderings and maimings.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This doesn't make much sense at all. Lots of assertions in this paragraph, little facts if any. You say people 'allow' themselves to be pushed to that point, whereas I would remind you that while we can discuss this in dry, philosophical terms, on our break at work or while drinking a morning coffee, these people are getting the living sh*t shot out of them. Their house was blown up. They don't have any money. Their mother was killed by shrapnel the other day, who knows if it was the Americans or the Iraqi rebels? Don't seek to judge what you have no real way of understanding! Until you are placed in that same level of stress you can't chide them for 'allowing' to be pushed to the point of terrorism.

I'll try to do a better job making it clear. Neither Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or other sponsors of the behavior I label here for my convenience as TMM suffered any of the horrors you describe up to the time they embarked on their sponsorships of TMM. In fact they didn't suffer these horrors until the US and some others nations acting in their own self-defense, and defense of those they love, set out to eradicate the TMM in (not of) Islam. It is these sponsors who allowed themselves to be pushed to the point of being among the TMM; it is they the pushees who are primarily responsible for their actions. All those human beings who were in turn pushed by their sponsors into the TMM, were responsible for their own actions. Instead of allowing themselves to be pushed they could have refused to participate and either be murdered as innocents (why is suicide thought to be more noble--Joan of Arc didn't think so), or as some have done, pretend to comply and then turn themselves over to their sponsors' enemies. Many of them have escaped altogether to lands of greater liberty.

We have significant evidence that securing the liberty of people reduces their tendencies to allow themselves to be pushed in evil directions. It is the securing of their liberty that will ultimately kill the cancer in (not of) Islam (as indeed securing liberty did ultimately cure the same cancer in Christianity). The flight of so many Middle Easterners to other parts of the world (east as well as west), where liberty is in greater supply, shows liberty has a very wide if not universal appeal. In the meantime, until that liberty is secured for every human being on the face of this earth and the fundamental cause of TMM no longer exists, the TMM cancer must be eradicated wherever it appears: Middle East; East; and West.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You say that freedom cured the same cancer in Christianity. Can you elaborate?

One brief example (it's late. I'll explain further tomorrow):

The Bill of Rights (1791)

Quote:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Liberty cured it in the US, hopefully for a long time to come.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Well

1 US (not Imperial) gallon ... so we have

0.247313 + 0.018547 = 0.26586

I originally calculated 0.26589, which was accurate to within 0.02%, not bad as I'm sure you'll agree.

Thank you for supporting my point in an enjoyable but subtle manner.

Laughing

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANCES ARE OF SOLVING THE TMM PROBLEM IF THE US PULLS OUT OF IRAQ IN PARTICULAR AND OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN GENERAL.

0 Replies

And neither do you Ican.

Thats why I could only give a flippant answer to a question I did not take seriously.

There is a war going on, I accept that. There are some people out there who wish us harm. In a war people get hurt and worse.

But you and others arguing from similar position seem to take the simplistic view that this has literally all come out of the blue, that Islam was the motivation behind 911, that it is a war of good against evil, and we are the good guys. (Funny that the Islamists see it just the same way...with role reversal).

Islam might provide some heavenly reward for suicide bombers, but its not the reason they blow themselves up, or fly planes into buildings. They do it because they see themselves in a war against western and American imperialism. We see it as direct action against us. They see it as a reaction against our unGodly economic aggression. I'm not saying one side is good, the other bad. I'm just stating how it is, imo.

What's the solution? Not easy. But it must involve recognising legitimate Arab grievances, and some sort of equitable agreement over how we manage the world's hydrocarbon fuels. Will it happen with George Bush in the white house? Not a chance. With Kerry? I doubt it.

I believe the American elite knows full well the world is plunging headlong into a series of resource-wars (inevitable as a result of climate change), out of which few will emerge to enjoy the high standard of living we take forgranted.

0 Replies

Ican, your vapid and windy posts have demeaned and diluted this thread, but I for one am glad there are people willing to refute your nonsense, people with more patience than I.

0 Replies

Icann, did you read the article on framing that I linked to? The definition of 'framing' in a political debate isn't listed in m-w.

Icann wrote:

Quote:

The term TMM does nothing more than propose a perspective and/or context for argument.

Exactly! That is exactly correct, you have finally hit the nail on the head. By choosing the TERMS of the argument, you control the STRUCTURE of the argument, thereby gaining the upper hand right away.

I'm not making this stuff up! The crazy thing is, you don't even realize you are doing it!

Quote:

You are free to accept or reject that perspective or context for whatever reasons you care to state as long as you propose an alternative perspective or context

Right off the bat, I am forced to argue definitions, which makes any side of a debate look weak. I cannot accept your use of the term TMM (wonder why noone else uses this if it is so descriptive?) and therefore cannot move on to your policy position until that is solved. So it's like an uphill climb from the start.

Republicans are great at doing this.

Quote:

Fourth, its rate of multiplication is independent of how one chooses to combat it: its rate of multiplication is independent of whether one negotiates with it; the only thing that affects its rate of multiplication is its relative eradication.

I really think you have a somewhat sophmoric understanding of how people work. To say that the rate of multiplication of terrorism is independent of our actions is just plain ludicrous. Our actions, the growing terrorism in the world, our response to it, they are all a complex system that is intertwined. Your cancer analogy fails badly.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Framing is the act of defining terms in an argument in order to gain the upper hand. Citing links between gov't officials is not framing. I never used any adjective to describe the connection above. Framing would have been me saying, "I suppose the fact that the scumbag Bush family has very suspicious connections with the Evil Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this mess." I specifically avoided doing so, and merely stated what I believed to be a relevant point, and even provided a link.

Icann wrote:

Quote:

Please You are citing a distinction without a difference. But again, after a few gigles, let's not let that divert us from a discuission of how to end current terrorist murderings and maimings.

There is a distinction, and there is a difference. You cannot simply assert that without proof and expect it to be taken seriously. Please use more logic to support your assertions, you won't have to resort to vapid analogies if your arguments are sound.

Quote:

I'll try to do a better job making it clear. Neither Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or other sponsors of the behavior I label here for my convenience as TMM

These people are not the terrorists. They are funding the terrorists. The actual 'tmm' is the guy who blows himself up or someone else up. This is analagous to calling GW a soldier. He isn't, he is a leader. A man who owns a welding company is not a welder, he is a business manager. These sponsors you mention are sponsors of terrorism, not terrorists.

Do you think that it perhaps would be more likely for a young man to be recruited into Al Quaeda after his house has been hit by an American tank shell? After his family has been killed? THESE are the people you are labelling TMM's. THESE are the people we create more of by our actions. Yes, they are doing despicable things, but many of them were NOT inherently evil before they had their life destroyed by <gasp> us! Are they all that way? No, of course not! But your blanket use of the term reduces them to a concept, and takes away their humanity.

I doubt Osama Bin Laden ever personally killed anyone. Is he still evil, a bad person? In my opinion, yes, of course! Does that make him a murderer? Not unless you are willing to label our own leaders the same way. GW's orders lead to the death of over 10k civilians in Iraq. You can sit here and argue that that is different than Bin Laden's orders but the fact remains that all those innocent people are still dead.

Quote:

We have significant evidence that securing the liberty of people reduces their tendencies to allow themselves to be pushed in evil directions.

Nope. We have significant evidence that when people secure their OWN liberty, it reduces their tendencies to be pushed in evil directions. And I really hope you don't trot out the tired old Germany/Japan argument on me.

Icann wrote:

Quote:

-except for perhaps humorous diversions like you just presented
-again, after a few gigles

Yaknow, if you want to continue having this political debate with me, you can jam comments like that up your ass sideways. You don't see me poking fun at your inablity to undertand basic modern argumentative tactics, or your lack of empathy for humans who have had a different life than you, or your simplistic view of the world. Please act in a more mature manner.

Steve wrote:

Quote:

What's the solution? Not easy. But it must involve recognising legitimate Arab grievances, and some sort of equitable agreement over how we manage the world's hydrocarbon fuels. Will it happen with George Bush in the white house? Not a chance. With Kerry? I doubt it.

Absolutely. This is directly in counter to the 'cancer' analogy, but this statement sums up exactly what we need to do to combat terrorism - treat them as people, and not as an analogy. Icann stated that cancer's rate of spread is unaffected by our actions until it is removed. We can affect the actions of terrorists (and avoid creating potential NEW ones) by examining which of our own policies have lead to the unbelivalby crappy situation in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn

p.s. more on framing for ya:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mlk22/frame_contests.html

http://acij.uts.edu.au/old_acij/reportage5/R5Forests.html

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know