Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 279 of 313 (223394)
07-12-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
We'll also have to agree to disagree about who is in command of the facts.
I cited actual passages. Are you calling me a liar or what? How can I agree to that?
This is part of my point on the agree to disagree thing. If you believe that I am not in command of the facts then there is no agreeing to disagree. One can only do that when the facts are accepted and yet can be inconclusive.
What it sounds like you are arguing is that I should agree to stop saying you are wrong, and let you slink out as if that is okay. Well its not. You put forward a position and I have responded with credible arguments.
If you don't wnat to answer them, then just stop responding, but don't try and white wash your hasty exit with a layer of "agree to disagree".

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:52 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 281 of 313 (223406)
07-12-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 11:52 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
We will disagree, but we will not agree to disagree. I am adamantly against your statements of fact and logic. If I see them I will continue to post against them because they are factually and logically errant.
Hence I will not agree to disagree. You ARE wrong.
Neither of us will convince the other of anything, including the greater credibility of our respective sources.
Mine came out of the Koran (as far as Islamic teachings from teh Koran go), and history texts as far as history goes, where did yours come from?
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2005 12:35 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:52 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 12:42 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 283 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 12:53 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 287 of 313 (223422)
07-12-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tal
07-12-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
I am not denying that some Muslims use Islamic scripture to back their militant fundamentalist beliefs. So do Xian militant fundies and Jewish militant fundies.
The point is that one cannot say the Koran says any particular thing, and that inherently Islam is for war until all else are dead, and against democracy.
CS's argument was that only those that are militant fundamentalists are the "real" muslims. That is patently absurd.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 12:53 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 4:00 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 288 of 313 (223425)
07-12-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Modulous
07-12-2005 1:42 PM


Re: pretzel with cheese
I was simply not aware that an argument had been used. I didn't think I was right or wrong.
That simply is not true. If you did not know then you would not be using your comment you hadn't heard it as a counter argument. You'd say instead "Oh, really, I hadn't heard that, how interesting."
Let's put it this way. Perhaps you weren't saying that you thought it couldn't possibly have been said, but you were certainly doubtful that it had been.
Rather than cry strawman everytime your opponent does not seem clear on your position, perhaps take it as a sign that a communications failure of some kind has taken place.
Fair enough. However, it looked to me originally like moving the goal posts. Your explanations of what you meant indicate a strawman to me.
It may be that you honestly keep missing what I am saying, but it seems unlikely to me so I really do think you are constructing a strawman.
In any case the issue is that (intentional or not) you continually misrepresent my position, and build your own argument on that representation, despite my repeated clarifications. I mean how many times do I have to say I'm not saying he should resign because of this, and this was not a result of a policy failure, before you stop representing my position as including those things?
It is exasperating for me.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 1:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 2:53 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 293 of 313 (223453)
07-12-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Modulous
07-12-2005 2:53 PM


Re: pretzel with cheese
You'd find that the counter argument was actually that I hadn't heard it so it doesn't seem likely the rationale was a principle thing that Blair was trying to convince us of.
How could that be a counter when my position is that that wasn't the principle thing Blair was trying to convince anyone of? I know I've said that a couple times.
Thus, if Blair resigned, it might be decent as a person, but it would characterize him forever as an awful leader of people. Some people think that already of course, but even some of his supporters would join that camp if he bowed out now.
Welcome to an apparently near complete understanding of my position. If he truly cared about the nation... which is being a decent leader... he would do what is right regardless that it would mark him as an awful leader, even to some of his current followers. Instead of doing what is right for the nation, he will do what is right for his image which he identifies as the wellbeing of his nation.
My own opinion is that if Blair should have resigned, it should have been for the actual mistakes and issues such as going to Iraq in the first place, not after some symbollic terrorist attack.
Oh I agree, he certainly should have stepped down earlier. I was only backing someone else's comment that he must feel shaken with his decisions. I noted that he was looking shaken, and hence if he was decent (assuming he was truly shaken) he would step down.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 2:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 6:01 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 294 of 313 (223460)
07-12-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 4:00 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
i said that the terrorist islamists are no less true to their faith
Oh come on, do you really need me to repost your own words? You said that those who were not militant would have to rationalize away the true meaning of the words of their faith. I believe you even said delude themselves.
The above is also true for Xian and Jewish terrorists, and you made some differentiation for them. Thus only errant Xians and Jews would be violent and against democracy and only errant muslims would be against violence and for democracy.
That is because the faith does, in fact, call for war against infidels until all the world is conquered and ruled by islam. And yet, that is so immoral that a great many Muslims have refused to acquiesce and insist on interpreting the faith otherwise.
See this is what I am talking about. That above clearly says that only the militants are acting on their true faith.
By the way there is no call for war against infidels till the world is conquered, I have already shown the excerpts which show otherwise, and others have already pointed out that your clips are taken out of context.
Yes there are militants, just as there are in Xianity and Judaism, who focus on the "war-like" versus to back their power schemes. But they are not following the actual faith, while those who read things in context and so prefer nonmilitance have chosen some errant interpretation.
In the meantime, we westerners haev been dragged into their civil war.
WTF are you talking about? Western powers have been playing imperialist chess with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian territories for well over 100 years. The US's last move against Russia was to fan the flames of militant fundamentalists to crush the moderates in Afghanistan and drive out the Soviets.
Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" were not glorified by imams and politicians
This would be true but it holds true just as much for the Israelis and Xians as it does for Muslims. The first major terror attack was Israeli on Palestinian. I believe that also includes the first bombing. The Palestinians have only been emulating what has happened to them. You will note that now that Israel will be moving Israeli extermists, the same atmosphere is being taken up among the extremists as had been seen in the Palestinian militants.
Indeed it was Israeli militants who killed their own PM, so as to end successful negotiations. And it was Xian militants that created one of the worst slaughters in that region, which was of Palestinians when the Israeli army turned a blind eye.
Mr Cook's notes are somewhat accurate though ethnocentrically biased. Quite the gloss over on Xian and Jewish expansionism and militancy. Apparently if you have better firepower and are on the offensive rather than the defensive, one is now the nonexpansionist and nonmilitant.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 4:00 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 296 of 313 (223470)
07-12-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Modulous
07-12-2005 6:01 PM


Re: pretzel with cheese
It wasn't like Blair was trying to convince us we were safe because of Iraq, if he was, then I'd be more inclined to agree that a resignation would be decent.
Whoa whoa whoa. Yes he was. Of course he was. He just wasn't using it as strongly as he was using all of the other arguments. It wasn't the PRINCIPLE thing he was trying to convince Brits of... though he knows full well that is what Bush is mainly using and so his backing of such garbage to help sell snake-oil to Americans doesn't make me too happy with him.
Actually, you may not know this but after the London bombings Bush used the same argument again, except now saying that Iraq has made the US safer so we don't have to face what happened in London. Guess Bush has included you guys as part of the front line now.
Clearly whether or not it would be good for Britain to have Blair resign is a matter of opinion.
So is whether a decent leader would resign after all these failures. My second post in this thread had that explicitly stated before I said why I thought if he was a decent leader he'd step down. I didn't expect anyone had to agree with me at all.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 6:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2005 10:27 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 308 of 313 (223596)
07-13-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Modulous
07-13-2005 10:27 AM


Re: pretzel with cheese and still more cheese
He has clearly stated that it would make us safer, not safe.
Oh my apologies then. I was not aware that "safer" is not the same thing as "safe", when one is promising something has improved your safety. I guess that goes back to the 100% thing and "prevent".
You are right then, he was not trying to convince people they were "safe", he was trying to convince people it made them "safer"... Which is not 100% safe, indeed only as safe as having the "front line" of combat in another nation, a phrase taken directly from the man standing right next to him who had already said such a thing prevented attacks at home.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2005 10:27 AM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024