Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So you believe what I have written is harmful ??????
Harmful to what exactly ?
What does "exactly" mean? So you believe what I have written is harmful ??????
Harmful to what exactly ?
You use what ability you have on arguing the shadows and completely forgoing the substance. By your own words you seek to make illegitimate a legitimate action by your love of exercising that which means nothing. What you know all too well is that those who are just mentally armed enough to read, but not reason, pick up on garbage like this and run in multiple directions. Mostly they do so out of the need to feel a belonging or identify with some quasi peer group or use like half truths to appear enlightened to others in the place of real intelligence. The result is obvious.
You are the Org's Barnum..lots of show and the only substance is manufactured past reality.
Originally Posted by Odin:
@ tribesman
so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?
Statistically thats improbable.
The problem with this type of poll is that is can be interpreted as "do you dislike the Taliban?" or "did the Taliban deserve a good hiding?", the answer to which is obvious - they were a repugnant regime.@ tribesman
so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?
Statistically thats improbable.
But as the question is "Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?", then I would still have to say no, as there was no justification. September 11th, the official pretext, was not any justification as the Taliban were not involved in that attack, they may be accused of harbouring terrorists but I think you'll find that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan all fit the category of some of the many countries harbouring terrorists. The undemocratic nature of the regime is also not justification for it's removal because there are many undemocratic countries in the world that the US does not invade in order to install democracy there. The non democracy thing is usually the secondary pretext anyway. When the primary excuse for war doesn't go down well with the masses, the usual "they're undemocratic" line gets recycled.
It was the same with Iraq. There were no WMDs, both the UK and US governments were blatantly lying and fabricating evidence (the so called dodgy dossier), but never mind all that, they were "undemocratic", part of the so called "axis of evil" (another one of these inventions such as "the war on terror" and "anti americanism") and Saddam, formerly a great ally of the British (back in the days when he was a friendly evil dictator like Pinochet and a few others) needed to be removed.
Also, Afghanistan is not any better off for the invasion. It is still as war torn and factionalised as it ever was, Taliban resurging, even more dependent on the opium crop and women's rights didn't just improve over night either. In short it didn't work and will never work. So do I think it was justified? No. Was it a success? No (and neither is Iraq). Am I having my doubts because I'm not part of the current 82.43% in favour? No.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Really ???
What was it then , the ultimatum that is , it must have been something mustn't it , after alll its got a latinish word base and eveything , it must mean something ....so what does it mean (not from the big Red book please)tell me some other logical reason where an ultimatum is not an ultimatum and cannot be an ultimatum.(there is an answer , but it would only further reinforce waht I said)
Your attempt here is noted for what it is. If you want to play silly little games, your not going to get anywhere. Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.Really ???
What was it then , the ultimatum that is , it must have been something mustn't it , after alll its got a latinish word base and eveything , it must mean something ....so what does it mean (not from the big Red book please)tell me some other logical reason where an ultimatum is not an ultimatum and cannot be an ultimatum.(there is an answer , but it would only further reinforce waht I said)
Originally Posted by :
The ultimatum by its nature is the final step before things happen , all steps on the way are part of the process . The final step is that which is used , which as it is used is the justification .
Your getting warm - but you continue to fall back into the arguement that the ultimatum by itself is the justification. That is not correct. If its the final step, as you just agreed, that in itself does not mean that its the justification for the invasion. Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.The ultimatum by its nature is the final step before things happen , all steps on the way are part of the process . The final step is that which is used , which as it is used is the justification .
Originally Posted by :
The final step is flawed in this case .
No way round it , like I said initially its sad , its a real bugger , but there can be no other answer .
Saying that the invasion of Afganstan was not justified is the answer that you wish to express, I don't have a problem with that postion at all. However your use of the ultimatum as the justification for invading Afganstan is a false arguement.The final step is flawed in this case .
No way round it , like I said initially its sad , its a real bugger , but there can be no other answer .
The ulitimatum was not the justification for the invasion, it was just one of the steps in the process.
Originally Posted by :
Unless of course someone can show that the ultimatum isn't bollox , or that the ultimatum that was used as the justification isn't the ultimatum that was used as the justification .
That was never my arguement. Again if your not understanding that is your issue. The justification was never the ultimatum it was just part of the process leading to the attack.Unless of course someone can show that the ultimatum isn't bollox , or that the ultimatum that was used as the justification isn't the ultimatum that was used as the justification .
Originally Posted by :
No arguements from me about the justification of action agsinst Al-Qaida or the fundynutters , the question is the justification that was used .
The ends cannot justify the means (basic morality lesson#1).....end of story(though the ends are still very uncertain)
The question on the justification that was used to invade Afganstan has not been addressed by yourself, you have been argueing a false premise for the last several pages.No arguements from me about the justification of action agsinst Al-Qaida or the fundynutters , the question is the justification that was used .
The ends cannot justify the means (basic morality lesson#1).....end of story(though the ends are still very uncertain)
Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan, its only a part of the process as you have alreadly agreed.
Originally Posted by :
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 You are the Org's Barnum..lots of show and the only substance is manufactured past reality.
Go ahead , until then you have no basis in saying it is manufactured reality do you .
Originally Posted by :
Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.
So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .Again the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan.
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
Originally Posted by :
Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.
Not in the slightest .Your playing word games and you just trapped yourself in a false arguement.
Originally Posted by :
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 invasionAgain the ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion of Afganstan, its only a part of the process as you have alreadly agreed.
BTW
Originally Posted by :
Your attempt here is noted for what it is.
And what do you note my attempt as ?Your attempt here is noted for what it is.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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?
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?
Louis takes one for the team ...
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Ah but it was wasn't it ,
Well . . . no. Still no. Ah but it was wasn't it ,
Ajax
Originally Posted by :
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 . . . no. Still no.
Well sorry ajax but that makes no sense at all .
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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?
Woohoo 
Simple isn't it
Originally Posted by :
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 .The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.
Simple isn't it
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.
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...
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.
Originally Posted by Conradus:
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. The reason is the act of aggression, but the justification for that war would be neglecting/failing the terms of the ultimatum.
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...
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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.' ?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 .
Ajax
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
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.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
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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. So the ultimatum wasn't an ultimatum then .
That is what you are saying Red .
Originally Posted by :
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. And that doesn't make sense .
Originally Posted by :
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?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
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.
Originally Posted by 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'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.
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.....
Originally Posted by Conradus:
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. 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.
Ajax
Originally Posted by 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 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.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...
I voted GAH!
In the days that followed the 11 september 2001, my greatest fear was that to see the us choose to transform Pakistan into radioactive ashes.
Given the fact that those attacks had obviously their roots into this islamist ideological nest, the war to Afghanistan seemed a logical and correct answer.
But.
Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.
The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.
Fanatics only deserve to be hung with their own guts and this is not limited to Afghanistan, but launching a war to a whole country is not the best way to reach this objective.
The closest historical example of a war after a terrorist attack and an ultimatum to a government supposed to host terrorist organizations was between the Austria-Hungary empire and the little Serbia in 1914. As Austria-Hungary did not exist anymore four years and nine millions dead latter, one can question the relevance of a full scale military response to a terrorist attack.
So I would say that the military invasion would have been justified if it had effectively targeted the removal of islamist power in the area and that it was not if it was limited to pushing the god suckers a little bit farther.
In the days that followed the 11 september 2001, my greatest fear was that to see the us choose to transform Pakistan into radioactive ashes.
Given the fact that those attacks had obviously their roots into this islamist ideological nest, the war to Afghanistan seemed a logical and correct answer.
But.
Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.
The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.
Fanatics only deserve to be hung with their own guts and this is not limited to Afghanistan, but launching a war to a whole country is not the best way to reach this objective.
The closest historical example of a war after a terrorist attack and an ultimatum to a government supposed to host terrorist organizations was between the Austria-Hungary empire and the little Serbia in 1914. As Austria-Hungary did not exist anymore four years and nine millions dead latter, one can question the relevance of a full scale military response to a terrorist attack.
So I would say that the military invasion would have been justified if it had effectively targeted the removal of islamist power in the area and that it was not if it was limited to pushing the god suckers a little bit farther.
Originally Posted by :
Nailed the issue in one neat post (I believe the localjargon is "pwned"). Thank you.
Nope , not at all , the condition and the act are part of the same parcel , if any part of the process is flawed then the whole process is flawed . Nailed the issue in one neat post (I believe the localjargon is "pwned"). Thank you.
An interestingly silly example Louis used though .
So Louis this Jesusville ultimatum , this final demand ,what would the process of reaching that final demand be ? It seems that all steps in that process are flawed .
Originally Posted by :
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.
So another one arguing that the ultimatum isn't an ultimatumThat 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.
Originally Posted by :
So Louis this Jesusville ultimatum , this final demand ,what would the process of reaching that final demand be ? It seems that all steps in that process are flawed .
We shouldn't look at all the steps in the process. We should focus on the ultimatum. There is a clear ultimatum with demands Liechtenstein could easily comply with. This ultimatum is used by America as its justification for the attack. Unless you want to argue that an ultimatum is not an ultimatum, America's nuclear destruction of Liechtenstein is therefore justified. So Louis this Jesusville ultimatum , this final demand ,what would the process of reaching that final demand be ? It seems that all steps in that process are flawed .
Or is it?
No, of course not. What I demonstrated above, is a reversal of your position. It uses the same rhetorical fallacy as your argument about Afghanistan below, the heart of your argument.
I've demonstrated the nature of the fallacy in my previous post.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
Gah! Petrus wrote a great post. We should be discussing his arguments. 
Originally Posted by :
No, of course not. What I demonstrated above, is a reversal of your position. It uses the same rhetorical fallacy as your argument about Afghanistan below, the heart of your argument.
I've demonstrated the nature of the fallacy in my previous post.
No you havn't since there is no grounds for the ultimatum you presented so it is flawed , whereas there were grounds for the other ultimatum but the ultimatum itself was flawed .No, of course not. What I demonstrated above, is a reversal of your position. It uses the same rhetorical fallacy as your argument about Afghanistan below, the heart of your argument.
I've demonstrated the nature of the fallacy in my previous post.
if any part of the process is flawed then the whole process is flawed .
Originally Posted by :
Gah! Petrus wrote a great post. We should be discussing his arguments.
He has a good point , however .....The Taliban regime was the only period of peace in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion which means that the resources required to replace it effectively were huge and success not guaranteed.Gah! Petrus wrote a great post. We should be discussing his arguments.
It wasn't a period of peace , before they withdrew in the face of the coming invasion the war in the north was still ongoing, they had just fought against 3 large rebellions in the South and East(supposedly their secure heartland) and had narrowly avoided a massive Iranian invasion .
Originally Posted by :
Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.
Any thoughts on the clashes between the Aghan government army and the Pakistan army in Afghanistan last week , or the reports that the US delegation ambushed in Pakistan (and the US soldier killed in that ambush) were attacked by Pakistani soldiers ?Afghanistan was the islamist equivalent to a Pakistani protectorate, so limitation of the response to this country was not enough to cut the roots.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
No you havn't since there is no grounds for the ultimatum you presented so it is flawed , whereas there were grounds for the other ultimatum but the ultimatum itself was flawed .
Am I correct that your argument is then that the US was initially justified, but that they lost their justification by isuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon it?No you havn't since there is no grounds for the ultimatum you presented so it is flawed , whereas there were grounds for the other ultimatum but the ultimatum itself was flawed .
Originally Posted by :
Am I correct that your argument is then that the US was initially justified, but that they lost their justification by isuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon it?
Yep in the same way as catching a murderer red handed but then convicting them on made up evidence makes the conviction unjust .Am I correct that your argument is then that the US was initially justified, but that they lost their justification by isuing an unworkable ultimatum and acting upon it?
yep they would be a murderer , yep they would deserve punishment , but the final part of the process was flawed so the action of actual punishment becomes unjustified .
What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Yep in the same way as catching a murderer red handed but then convicting them on made up evidence makes the conviction unjust .
yep they would be a murderer , yep they would deserve punishment , but the final part of the process was flawed so the action of actual punishment becomes unjustified .
Worst analogy ever. Yep in the same way as catching a murderer red handed but then convicting them on made up evidence makes the conviction unjust .
yep they would be a murderer , yep they would deserve punishment , but the final part of the process was flawed so the action of actual punishment becomes unjustified .
Let's try to fix it:
It's like catching a murderer red-handed and offering to cut him a break if he testifies against his accomplices. For whatever reason (heck, maybe the "accomplice" was even innocent), the murderer can't or won't testify. Then, the murderer receives the full punishment that he rightly deserves.
There, much better.
Originally Posted by :
Worst analogy ever.
Xiahou .Worst analogy ever.
trouble reading ? or just trouble understanding ?
Its a good anology since there was no need for made up evidence , but it was used , which makes the conviction unjust .
Originally Posted by :
What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
Are you trying to tell me that you are trying to argue the point without even reading it ??????What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
that explains a lot .
Hey Louis when you wrote this...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.
had you actyually read the title of the topic or the question in the poll ?
It helps if you read yhe words and not go on what you think the words might be .
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
It seems as though the demonized ultimatum is that which was commented on during Bush's address of Sept 20, 2001. The directly relevant parts follow with the entire speech easily found around the web for further context.What exactly was this ultimatum, which demands were in it?
--------------------------
There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.
They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.
Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.
It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.
By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
The Taliban must act and act immediately.
They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
--------------------------
Here is more precise narrative of the actual exchange taken from a googled site:
COMPERE: But first this evening, US President George Bush today delivered his ultimatum to the Taliban: Hand over Osama bin Laden and all the members of his organisation and let US troops onto Afghan soil to destroy bin Laden's camps or suffer the consequences.
To Washington for an account of the speech, in a moment.
First though to breaking news, with the Taliban response to the US ultimatum.
ABDUL SALEM SAEEF: Religious followers demand that the united nation and organisation of the Islamic conference conduct neutral and meticulous investigation to find, [indistinct] and prevent unjustified harassment of innocent people.
The votes of our school of religion write that if infidels attack the territory of a country of Muslim, Jihad becomes an Islamic obligation for the Muslims of that country.
The voices of the Holy Koran, scenes of the holy prophet, [indistinct] and all votes [indistinct] of the school of religion [indistinct] to wage Jihad.
COMPERE: The Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan, Abdul Salem Saeef, at a media conference in Islamabad a short time ago.
He also maintained that his government would not force Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan. Asked if bin Laden was still in the country, he said he did not have specific information about his movements.
The Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan also said that giving information that leads to attacks on Afghanistan would be seen as an act of murder.
------------------
Also to note is that the final ultimatum wasn't given until around Nov 28th I think...so over a month from the speech and I'm unclear on how long from the actual delivery of the first official declaration of the ultimatum.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO