Wacko-Logic from Iraq!!!

[faust9]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/international/middleeast/23allawi.html?hp

"They are becoming more deadly because we think they are getting more desperate," said Dr. Allawi

Summary: Insurgent attacks are going up so they must be getting weaker.

WTF kind of logic is that?

The fuel indicator in my car goes up when I fill the tank--guess I'm running out of gas.

These guys are straight-up wackos!!!

Oh, I don't have access to Lexis right now so I can't verify this myself--Didn't Don Rumsfeld or Bush/Cheney say this very same thing a year or more ago?

Enjoy.

[groverat]

Originally posted by faust9
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/international/middleeast/23allawi.html?hp
Summary: Insurgent attacks are going up so they must be getting weaker.

WTF kind of logic is that?

It's called "self-serving logic."

The US military must be the most desparate force ever assembled.

[Beige_G3]

How does anyone take these people seriously? They sound more idiotic by the second. We can not fix the problem until we admit the problem

[Wrong Robot]

Hm, well, it could be argued that attacks of desperation would be more vicious, since they'd be last ditch efforts against an insurmountable force. :\

If star wars has taught me anything...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/international/middleeast/23allawi.html?hp



Summary: Insurgent attacks are going up so they must be getting weaker.

WTF kind of logic is that?

The fuel indicator in my car goes up when I fill the tank--guess I'm running out of gas.

These guys are straight-up wackos!!!

Oh, I don't have access to Lexis right now so I can't verify this myself--Didn't Don Rumsfeld or Bush/Cheney say this very same thing a year or more ago?

Enjoy.

Why are your analogies always so terrible?

Here is a better one. You are going downhill. Your tank is on E. There is a gas station a couple miles off that closes at 10 pm and it is 9:55. You floor it in hopes of being able to have enough speed to coast into the gas station if out of gas, and also arrive before it closes.

The gas station in this instance is John Kerry and the election is closing time. The increase in attacks can cause a change in government via the voters if they lack resolve. We saw this in Spain. We could see it in the United States. If Kerry pulls out with the job half done, the insurgents will definately have time to fill up their tank again as it were.

Nick

[giant]

Funny. A republican that doesn't bother reading Novak.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Why are your analogies always so terrible?

Here is a better one.
Better? :err: :???:
You are going downhill... If Kerry pulls out with the job half done, the insurgents will definately have time to fill up their tank again as it were.
Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention that outlaws brutally torturing a poor, helpless analogy like this?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
Why are your analogies always so terrible?

Here is a better one. You are going downhill. Your tank is on E. There is a gas station a couple miles off that closes at 10 pm and it is 9:55. You floor it in hopes of being able to have enough speed to coast into the gas station if out of gas, and also arrive before it closes.

The gas station in this instance is John Kerry and the election is closing time. The increase in attacks can cause a change in government via the voters if they lack resolve. We saw this in Spain. We could see it in the United States. If Kerry pulls out with the job half done, the insurgents will definately have time to fill up their tank again as it were.

Nick
Oh, OK, I see. The Spanish voters lacked resolve.

Right. It's not that nearly 80% of them opposed the war before the train bombs, or that they were incensed when Aznar immediately claimed that the bombs were the work of Basque separatists days before a general election. No, it's not that their fears of becoming a terrorist target through participation in the Iraq war were fulfilled when 198 people were blown to pieces on a train platform, not at all — the voters lacked resolve.

Hells bells, they share a border with France after all so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
Funny. A republican that doesn't bother reading Novak.

Funny. A leftist doesn't bother reading Kerry.

Try taking an actual position in the future.

Nick

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
Why are your analogies always so terrible?

Here is a better one. You are going downhill. Your tank is on E. There is a gas station a couple miles off that closes at 10 pm and it is 9:55. You floor it in hopes of being able to have enough speed to coast into the gas station if out of gas, and also arrive before it closes.

The gas station in this instance is John Kerry and the election is closing time. The increase in attacks can cause a change in government via the voters if they lack resolve. We saw this in Spain. We could see it in the United States. If Kerry pulls out with the job half done, the insurgents will definately have time to fill up their tank again as it were.

Nick

Well Mr. Smarty Pants how does your "better" analogy account for the increased recruitment? At least I accounted for the increase (filling of the tank) in AQ recruitment and rebel recruitment. Your analogy is only better if you want to believe the Bush admin. I prefer to believe the Generals and various other credible sources that disagree with Bush.

Trump=Bush is always right.
Me=I believe the generals and people who READ the news and understand the ACTUAL situation.

Enjoy your Bush induced purple haze of deceit.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
Well Mr. Smarty Pants how does your "better" analogy account for the increased recruitment? At least I accounted for the increase (filling of the tank) in AQ recruitment and rebel recruitment. Your analogy is only better if you want to believe the Bush admin. I prefer to believe the Generals and various other credible sources that disagree with Bush.

Trump=Bush is always right.
Me=I believe the generals and people who READ the news and understand the ACTUAL situation.

Enjoy your Bush induced purple haze of deceit.

Nice rant.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Funny. A leftist doesn't bother reading Kerry.

Try taking an actual position in the future.
Try reading the article, not just the headline:
Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
Directly followed by:
Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out.
So, in short, your theory is shot.

But it was already shot in a number of places. The Iraq war was one of the two best things to ever happen to these Islamic political groups were are fighting. It played perfectly into their portrayal of the US that forms the basis of their support.

[faust9]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thank you, America! *sniff sniff*

:rolleyes:

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/iraq.main/index.html

You're welcome for the rant BTW trumpt... I was as good if not better than your substanceless reply IMHO.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
Try reading the article, not just the headline:

Directly followed by:

So, in short, your theory is shot.

But it was already shot in a number of places. The Iraq war was one of the two best things to ever happen to these Islamic political groups were are fighting. It played perfectly into their portrayal of the US that forms the basis of their support.

You know giant, after several posts, I've noticed this constant sort of appeal to authority logical fallacy you exhibit. You argue with the words of others and then claim you were arguing about a small point within the larger argument while never actually taking a position. It allows you to pull the thread off-topic, move the argument to an area you claim to have expertise in, and at the same time, never really take a position.

Take a position because until you do, why would I care to argue about whether Novak is a reputable source for judging future Bush actions.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/iraq.main/index.html

You're welcome for the rant BTW trumpt... I was as good if not better than your substanceless reply IMHO.

What are you trying to prove with that article?

Nick

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by trumptman
You know giant, after several posts, I've noticed this constant sort of appeal to authority logical fallacy you exhibit. You argue with the words of others and then claim you were arguing about a small point within the larger argument while never actually taking a position. It allows you to pull the thread off-topic, move the argument to an area you claim to expertise in, and at the same time, never really take a position.

Welcome to arguing on the internet.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
You know giant, after several posts, I've noticed this constant sort of appeal to authority logical fallacy you exhibit.
All you noticed is your imagination. As is so horribly typical.

See if you can keep up:

The point isn't whether what Novak said about Bush is accurate or not,* the point is that your belief that terrorists want kerry elected so the US pulls out of Iraq is fundamentally flawed in many ways, notably because there is clearly just as much of a chance that Bush will quickly pull out early next year, arguably even more of a chance than kerry doing so.

And as noted in the second part of the post, the US invasion of Iraq played absolutely perfectly into our enemies' hands. The image of the west as deceitful occupiers coming into exploit muslim lands and humiliate the people has been solidified more than osama could have possibly hoped for.

*since you probably need it spelled out, that means no appeal to authority, thus making your second main contention of the thread just as invalid as the first

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
All you noticed is your imagination. As is so horribly typical.

See if you can keep up:

The point isn't whether what Novak said about Bush is accurate or not, the point is that your belief that terrorists want kerry elected so the US pulls out of Iraq is fundamentally flawed in many ways, notably because there is clearly just as much of a chance that Bush will quickly pull out early next year, arguably even more of a chance than kerry doing so.

And as noted in the second part of the post, the US invasion of Iraq played absolutely perfectly into our enemies hands.

I see, still not stating a position.


Both Bush and Kerry have the option of pulling out of Iraq. That much is true. The only thing you have presented as evidence that Bush will pull out of Iraq is an article from Novak, whom you don't care is accurate or not. Though it doesn't even matter because you won't state whether you believe Bush is going to pull out of Iraq either. You won't take a position.

Just to make it very clear, your state is that there is just as much or more of a chance Bush will pull out next year. You won't state that it is what you believe, just that your "proof" which you don't care is accurate or not, disproves my "belief."

Nevermind, again state a position and provide some proof for it. Otherwise, why bother with you.

Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by trumptman
Nick :lol: :lol: :lol:

Leave it to Trumptman to come to the rescue where illogic is concerened :lol:

[pfflam]

The problem is is that the attacks are not just stepping up, they are also becoming more organized and coordinated: for instance the recent rocket bombardment of the green zone from several different positions.

This would indicate anything but increasing desperation.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Though it doesn't even matter because you won't state whether you believe Bush is going to pull out of Iraq either. You won't take a position.
This is exactly what is so wrong with your thinking. When faced with incomplete information, you immediately "take a position" and order everone else to do so, too. You think that everyone has to make a judgement and come to a conclusion because the information is incomplete. WTF?
whom you don't care is accurate or not.
And why don't I care? Because I don't and can't know at this point whether it is accurate, and the accuracy isn't even relevant. What's relevant is that it can't be brushed off as impossible or even unlikely. For all you and I know, Kerry could really try to see "success" in Iraq by staying there for a long time and trying to get the world involved, while Bush might planning to leave around the Iraqi elections, stating that any ensuing civil war is the choice of the free Iraqi people.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
This is exactly what is so wrong with your thinking. When faced with incomplete information, you immediately "take a position" and order everone else to do so, too. You think that everyone has to make a judgement and come to a conclusion because the information is incomplete. WTF?

Hahahaha.

Nick

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
What are you trying to prove with that article?

Nick

Damn man do you know how to follow a thread? ShawnJ quoted Allawi's tearful account of how well things are going to the congress today. I Quoted Shawn in the very next reply with the article for others to read then I answered you. It's not that hard to figure out...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
Damn man do you know how to follow a thread? ShawnJ quoted Allawi's tearful account of how well things are going to the congress today. I Quoted Shawn in the very next reply with the article for others to read then I answered you. It's not that hard to figure out...

I didn't ask if you answered me. I asked what you are trying to prove by linking to the article. Shawn summarized. You linked, but you seem to be implying something not stated. I'm not going to waste time guessing, just state what you wanted us to understand by linking to the article.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
^The patients have escaped the asylum! :wow:

Well Shawn, I'll show you the twisted little path giant takes so you can understand it a bit better. I'll even do it without the obligatoy giant insult to your intelligence.

Funny. A republican that doesn't bother reading Novak.

We begin with the first appeal to authority. giant does his often. It is part of his "you are hopelessly uninformed because you don't know X tidbit" gambit. But notice giant won't take a position. he just references Novak.

Then we move to this...

Try reading the article, not just the headline:

quote:Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.


Directly followed by:

quote:Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out.

So, in short, your theory is shot.

But it was already shot in a number of places. The Iraq war was one of the two best things to ever happen to these Islamic political groups were are fighting. It played perfectly into their portrayal of the US that forms the basis of their support.


You see here the quotes from the Novak article and giant saying my theory is "shot." It is not "shot" because of something giant has said or even something Bush has said. It is "shot" because of a "well-placed source" in the administration.

giant is saying he is right because of a Novak source. Giant himself will not take a position. It is an almost pure form of a the appeal to authority as a fallacy. We have no proof that Novak or his anonymous source are authorities on the president's actions. I asked giant if he would at least take a position on the matter to warrent the time of arguing about the source, he wouldn't so why bother. Giant is saying my argument is "shot" because of a "well-placed source." If you want to give credence to that, you are welcome to do so but don't call it logical.

Then we get to some fun.

See if you can keep up:

The point isn't whether what Novak said about Bush is accurate or not,* the point is that your belief that terrorists want kerry elected so the US pulls out of Iraq is fundamentally flawed in many ways, notably because there is clearly just as much of a chance that Bush will quickly pull out early next year, arguably even more of a chance than kerry doing so.

And as noted in the second part of the post, the US invasion of Iraq played absolutely perfectly into our enemies' hands. The image of the west as deceitful occupiers coming into exploit muslim lands and humiliate the people has been solidified more than osama could have possibly hoped for.


Notice now how giant doesn't care about Novak, but is trying to stand on his shoulders for support logically speaking. Again this is a tactic he does often so I have gotten used to it. He doesn't care if Novak is accurate because Novak is a fallacy, a distraction. However now that be believes he has an "authority" to discredit with, he finally states what he wants to assert. (Though not really, giant prefers to just try to discredit and declare himself right in a vacuum)

Giant has claimed (via Novak's authoritative anonymous source) that Bush is just as likely to pull out of Iraq as Kerry. He tosses up some dust by mentioning that the assertion about Kerry and pulling out troops (which actually comes from Kerry, a truly authoritative source for Kerry info) is flawed in many ways. (none that he cares to cite) The only issue he cares to address is via the Novak authority is the position that Bush is just as likely to pull out as Kerry.

But again, I simply keep asking giant what his own position is on the matter. He doesn't want to say because the real point is to trick someone into a discussion about how authoritative Novak is with regard to Bush. I won't bite. I just keep asking him for his own position to discuss. We get this in return.

This is exactly what is so wrong with your thinking. When faced with incomplete information, you immediately "take a position" and order everone else to do so, too. You think that everyone has to make a judgement and come to a conclusion because the information is incomplete. WTF?

And why don't I care? Because I don't and can't know at this point whether it is accurate, and the accuracy isn't even relevant. What's relevant is that it can't be brushed off as impossible or even unlikely. For all you and I know, Kerry could really try to see "success" in Iraq by staying there for a long time and trying to get the world involved, while Bush might planning to leave around the Iraqi elections, stating that any ensuing civil war is the choice of the free Iraqi people.

Again, no position. He just wanted to create a little dust up about Novak. In fact we actually see that by his reasoning there isn't enough information to conclude anything or judge anything. Of course he claimed my own conclusion was already "shot" thanks to an anonymous source that he doesn't care about and can't vouch for with any accuracy (again definately clear criteria for the fallacy) but at least (by his reasoning) it is out of the way. Now he can insert some conjecture about Kerry and Bush (For all you and I know) in which Kerry and Bush can actually trade postion with regard to their previously stated plans of action, etc.

But as you can see, someone who wants to use the authority of someone for whom they care nothing about the accuracy or relevence does indeed belong in the asylum. Even more insane, giant attempts via that authority to discredit a position he claims not to have even discredited himself within his own thinking. (information incomplete, can't draw a conclusion/judgement yet)

But then again, that is what you get when using fallacies.

Nick

[giant]

Man, you really have a mighty unhealthy obsession (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=629980&#post629980) there. Borderline stalker. It's really pretty creepy, trumpt.

Oh, BTW, if I find you peeking through my windows or going through my trash, you're going to jail.

[tonton]

You know we coulda won Vietnam. Cept those pussies feare'd a johnkerry and them faggots complainin about them babies dyin and all. We coulda won.

And we're gonna win iraq and the world will be happy planet for america.

[New]

Originally posted by tonton
You know we coulda won Vietnam. Cept those pussies feare'd a johnkerry and them faggots complainin about them babies dyin and all. We coulda won.

And we're gonna win iraq and the world will be happy planet for america.

Well, there is always the bomb.

[talksense101]

Originally posted by New
Well, there is always the bomb.

Re-elect Bush and he will bring back the draft to resolve the Iraqi situation.

There aren't enough forces in Iraq to maintain law and order and the international community was ignored by the US when they asked for restraint before the war. Economic blackmail and greed has motivated "allies" to provide a minimal number of troops who are promptly pulled back after a hostage situation. The world sees it as America's problem. So...