Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?

[Tribesman]

You are the Org's Barnum..lots of show and the only substance is manufactured past reality.

Then undoubtably you will be able to show that something I have written is false
Go ahead , until then you have no basis in saying it is manufactured reality do you .

Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.

So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .
That is what you are saying Red .
And that doesn't make sense .
So are you able to redefine "ultimatum" or are you talking nonsense , or perhaps you can show something else that was used as justification , there was lots of justification after all, but it was the non-complaince with the ultimatum that was ultimately used ....And thats the flaw

Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.

Not in the slightest .

Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan, its only a part of the process as you have alreadly agreed.

Ah but it was wasn't it , it was the key element of the process , the key that was actually used to open the door to invasion

BTW

Your attempt here is noted for what it is.

And what do you note my attempt as ?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it an obvious attempt to bash all religeous beliefs again Due to me being a terrorist

[Louis VI the Fat]

My turn I guess...

I intent to buy I car because taking the train takes me too long. I have written down this intent. Now, what is my reason for buying this car - long train travel time or the piece of paper that states my intent to buy a car?

Likewise, a country intents to attack another because of acts of aggression. It issues an ultimatum to the country stating that they should do A and B before C. Now, what is the reason for going to war - the acts of aggression, or the piece of paper that states the intent to retaliate unless?

[Lemur]

Louis takes one for the team ...

[Conradus]

Likewise, a country intents to attack another because of acts of aggression. It issues an ultimatum to the country stating that they should do A and B before C. Now, what is the reason for going to war - the acts of aggression, or the piece of paper that states the intent to retaliate unless?

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.

[Tribesman]

Woohoo

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.

Conradus gets it .
Simple isn't it

[Louis VI the Fat]

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.


If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we will reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a watertight ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easy to comply with.

The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.

The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum did not serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

edit: meh, irritating spelling mistake...

[Redleg]

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.


If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we'll reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a watertight ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easily complied with.


The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum didn't serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

Now Louis someone might take offense to your post. It explains several key points very well.

Are you sure your really not from Switzerland.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Justification has two meanings. It can denote the act of justifying, or the condition of being justified.

This thread is clearly about the latter. There can be no reasonable doubt about that.

Even so, we can argue the topic in either the former or the latter meaning. What we can't do, is confound both meanings, or randomly swap them at will.

The ultimatum-thesis is built on arguing that the 'act of justifying' is flawed. This flawed justification in the former meaning is then transferred to the second meaning, the 'condition of being justified'.
This is a rhetorical fault and renders an invalid argument. The ultimatum-thesis is built on justification being a homonym, a word with different meanings, and confounding its multiple meanings.


If we swap the multiple meanings at will, we will reach absurd conclusions.

We should then accept that whenever the US issues a waterproof ultimatum, they are therefore 'justified' in their actions. For example, America issues an ultimatum to Liechtenstein to rename its capital Vaduz into Jesusville by noon tomorrow or face nuclear destruction. Following the logic of the ultimatum-thesis, the US are now 'justified' into obliterating Liechtenstein, because the conditions of the ultimatum are straightforward and easy to comply with.


The act of aggression entitled the justification in the meaning of the condition of being justified. Failing to meet the terms of the ultimatum served as a justification in the meaning of an act of justifying.

That was for clarities sake. It is besides the point of this post, but I would argue that the ultimatum did not serve, nor should be regarded as, an act of justification at all.

edit: meh, irritating spelling mistake...

Nailed the issue in one neat post (I believe the localjargon is "pwned"). Thank you.

[ajaxfetish]

Ah but it was wasn't it ,

Well . . . no. Still no.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

Well . . . no. Still no.

So ajax you are trying to say that the thing which was used isn't the thing which was used .
Well sorry ajax but that makes no sense at all .

[ajaxfetish]

So ajax you are trying to say that the thing which was used isn't the thing which was used .
Well sorry ajax but that makes no sense at all .

I was about to post something very similar to Louis' post above. Well said. Furthermore, out of curiosity Tribesman, could you link to a statement from the White House saying something along the lines of 'Our justification for invading Afghanistan is the ultimatum we have just presented to them.' ?

Ajax

[Conradus]

I was about to post something very similar to Louis' post above. Well said. Furthermore, out of curiosity Tribesman, could you link to a statement from the White House saying something along the lines of 'Our justification for invading Afghanistan is the ultimatum we have just presented to them.' ?

Ajax

Per definiton of an ultimatum, when one neglects it, that is the justification of the attack, whatever the reasons may be. Because when you send an ultimatum, but then attack them for another reason -even when the ultimatum was accepted/neglected-, why send it in the first place? Sending an ultimatum, having it rejected and then attacking implies that you attack because the ultimatum was rejected. Thus the ultimatum becomes the justification.

[ShadeHonestus]

Do you view what was demanded, which was justified per the acts of aggression, as purely an ultimatum or an opportunity to avoid violence. I guess the Taliban's justification for crying foul against coalition forces, after aiding the projection of violence against them previous, is their refusal of an opportunity to avoid violence. The peaceniks and those who detest worldwide violence should certainly be condemning the Taliban for not taking the opportunity while applauding the U.S. for offering it. If not, then I fear they are illegitimate in their identity and are purely politically agendized.

[ajaxfetish]

Per definiton of an ultimatum, when one neglects it, that is the justification of the attack, whatever the reasons may be. Because when you send an ultimatum, but then attack them for another reason -even when the ultimatum was accepted/neglected-, why send it in the first place? Sending an ultimatum, having it rejected and then attacking implies that you attack because the ultimatum was rejected. Thus the ultimatum becomes the justification.

Please see Louis' latest post.

Ajax

[Redleg]

So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .
That is what you are saying Red .

Once again you are incorrect about what I am saying. The ultimatum was not the justification.

And that doesn't make sense .

Only for those attempting a false arguement about an ultimatum being the justification for war. An ultimatum is only a step in the process of going to war.

So are you able to redefine "ultimatum" or are you talking nonsense , or perhaps you can show something else that was used as justification , there was lots of justification after all, but it was the non-complaince with the ultimatum that was ultimately used ....And thats the flaw

The one attempting to redefine or speaking nonsense is yourself. You continue on with the ultimatum being the justification, after you even admitted that it was a step in the process of going to war. So your going to either have to leave the arguement there, or shall we procede to your normal next step in a discussion where you attempt to ridicule anyone who doesn't see it your way?