Civil War?

[Mark]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

Stalin murdered 22 million of his own people, but I have never heard it referred to as civil war. Same with the Nazis murdering Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies.

 

[CapelDodger]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

I'd say they were the result of repression, although some date, I think, from the post-Kuwait Shia uprising, which I would classify as a civil war -until the Baathists won it.

There has always been a degree of Kurdish secessionism (?), but it's a tricky question as to whether an opposed secession does constitute a civil war. To me, for the term "civil war" to be useful it has to mean armed conflict over the nature of the state, rather than over its borders.

 

[corplinx]

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.

The problem being, this isn't about the Bush administration.

 

[corplinx]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

There were acts of genocide and repression. These were acts of the government in control destroying other factions.

There was never a countergovernment or faction that could provide enough resistance to lauch a full out civil war.

 

[WildCat]

There were acts of genocide and repression. These were acts of the government in control destroying other factions.

There was never a countergovernment or faction that could provide enough resistance to lauch a full out civil war.

My point was to highlight the efforts to define a civil war to make it appear that Iraq is in the midst of one now, while past sectarian violence gets denied the "civil war" label.

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's too bad you so often choose to make ad hominem attacks on those you disagree rather than substantial debate.

I believe Rik made an elegant argument for his points, and your only response is to say, "look at what you've said!" Do you have an actuall refutation?

Too bad, too bad ...

* shakes head *

"Elegant argument"?

Rik has not made an elegant argument for his points. He has made a raving, frothing, lying, and indecent attack on people who disagree with him, based on his Stupid Magical Made-Up Fantasies of what they (really, secretly, without saying so) Really Really Mean.

It's not true, it's not sane, and it's not decent.

 

[CapelDodger]

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.

That seems a reasonable summation. The term is used for its effect on a non-critical audience. The Iraq War is what it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.

Just to poke at Rumsfeld and/or Rumsfeld's people, he should never have said "Our policy is to avoid civil war ...", that's just crass. Egregious, even. "Insurgency"," terrorist", "9/11", "legitimate government", stuff like that, fine. If hit with "Is this a civil war?" respond "There's no question of that!". Don't use the words "civil war".

D'oh!

 

[Darat]

The problem being, this isn't about the Bush administration.

Since they are one of the primary sources of information about activities in Iraq then in some ways it is about the administration.

To come to a conclusion (i.e. is it a civil war or not) we need to determine the facts and if we use information from a particular source (i.e. what the administration is telling us) we need to be confident in the veracity of that information therefore considerations of whether a source has been truthful or not in the past does becomes relevant to our conclusion (provisional conclusion of course since this is a sceptic's board).

 

[Mycroft]

I can see no post where you have set out any logic - can you link me to it?

I've already suggested a method by which we could better understand each other when I said, "Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?"

Why would you ignore that?

 

[Mycroft]

Too bad, too bad ...

* shakes head *

"Elegant argument"?

Rik has not made an elegant argument for his points. He has made a raving, frothing, lying, and indecent attack on people who disagree with him, based on his Stupid Magical Made-Up Fantasies of what they (really, secretly, without saying so) Really Really Mean.

It's not true, it's not sane, and it's not decent.

Again you choose ad hominems over substance.

You could describe what you think is wrong with Riks arguments instead of just gainsaying them.

 

[Darat]

I've already suggested a method by which we could better understand each other when I said, "Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?"

Why would you ignore that?

Because it is a type of question which I believe is called the "excluded middle principle" or a false dilemma.

My point was not about Saddam having or not having weapons of mass destruction but rather if it is reasonable, if an administration has repeatedly lied about a certain subject (in this case Iraq), to start with the premise that anything they say about Iraq in future should be treated suspiciously.

Could you please link to where you have set out your logic to support what you said? As a reminder it was this "Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn't a civil war." that prompted me to ask you where was your explanation of this logic, in other words I do not see how this follows from the statement of headscratcher4's that I had quoted and responded to.

 

[Mycroft]

Because it is a type of question which I believe is called the "excluded middle principle" or a false dilemma.

I understand the concept of the excluded middle or the false dilemma, but I don't understand how you claim it's relevent here. Could you please make yourself more clear?

My point was not about Saddam having or not having weapons of mass destruction but rather if it is reasonable, if an administration has repeatedly lied about a certain subject (in this case Iraq), to start with the premise that anything they say about Iraq in future should be treated suspiciously.

Except we don't need to depend on the administrations claims to determine if Iraq is in civil war or not. That's an objective fact that can be verified independently of any statements from the administration.

Could you please... ?

No. You are capable of going back to headscratcher's post and looking for yourself. I don't see why I should do this work for you.

 

[Darat]

I understand the concept of the excluded middle or the false dilemma, but I don't understand how you claim it's relevant here. Could you please make yourself more clear?

See my last post and the paragraph starting "My point was..", your question was in the form of a false dilemma regarding the point I was making.

Except we don't need to depend on the administrations claims to determine if Iraq is in civil war or not. That's an objective fact that can be verified independently of any statements from the administration.

This has nothing to do with the point I was making nor the claim I have asked you to substantiate.

No. You are capable of going back to headscratcher's post and looking for yourself. I don't see why I should do this work for you.

What has this got to do with headscratcher4's post? I have been asking you for a link to one of your own posts that you claim to have made.

You claimed that a certain conclusion logically followed from an argument put forward by headscratcher4 i.e ."...Following headscratcher’s logic,". I stated I could not understand that logic and asked you to provide your reasoning to which you replied "I believe I already have." therefore since you claim you have already put forward the logical argument I asked you to provide a link to it because I cannot find it in this thread.

Since you are refusing to provide what should for you take only a moment i.e. a link to one of your own posts in this thread that you claim provides your logical argument for your claim that "Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn't a civil war." I really have no other option but to discount your claim.

 

[Mycroft]

See my last post and the paragraph starting "My point was..", your question was in the form of a false dilemma regarding the point I was making.

Except my question offered no dilemma, false or otherwise. That’s why I asked you to explain.

This has nothing to do with the point I was making nor the claim I have asked you to substantiate.

Of course it does. Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.

What has this got to do with headscratcher4's post? I have been asking you for a link to one of your own posts that you claim to have made.

I decline because I don’t believe you’re acting in good faith because the logic you asked me to explain was self-explanatory. I said:

”Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war. “

Headscratcher provided a list of things to consider, none of which had anything to do with the actual definition of “civil war” or objective facts we should look at to determine if there was one or not.

There is nothing needed to understand this other than looking at Headscratcher’s post and observing that none of the things he mentioned have anything to do with civil war.

…I really have no other option but to discount your claim.

As far as threats go, this is lame.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Of course it does. Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.

And as I said I do not understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

I decline because I don’t believe you’re acting in good faith because the logic you asked me to explain was self-explanatory. I said:

It was not self-explanatory to me then nor is it now that is why I have asked you explain the logic. (I take it that you are now retracting your second claim that you had previously posted an explanation of the logic you used?)

”Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war. “

Headscratcher provided a list of things to consider, none of which had anything to do with the actual definition of “civil war” or objective facts we should look at to determine if there was one or not.

Again this does not explain the conclusion you reached from his statement that you quoted because it does not as far as I can see logically follow from what he actually posted. Perhaps you have misunderstood what he has posted and therefore your starting premise was wrong?

There is nothing needed to understand this other than looking at Headscratcher’s post and observing that none of the things he mentioned have anything to do with civil war.

This does lend support to my idea that you have misunderstood his statement that you seemed to be have been responding to. His point was about the determining the veracity of a primary source of information and to do so it is reasonable and rational to view the past accuracy of such a source.

As far as threats go, this is lame.

What threat?

 

[Mephisto]

Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.

I think Headscratcher's claim was perfectly clear. He was asserting that Bush rejecting the use of the terms "civil war" in Iraq should be called into question BECAUSE of the Bush administration's inaccurate past predictions.

Why would Headscratcher make a claim regarding the possibility of a civil war in Iraq using issues related to a civil war? It wouldn't make much sense had Headscratcher made the claim: "Well, Iraqis are blowing each other up in the streets, it looks like a civil war."

As far as threats go, this is lame.

I don't see where Darat threatened you.

 

[gnome]

Oddly I find myself hesitant to use the term "Civil War" yet... until the new Iraqi government does not primarily rely on us for power, is it a significant enough presence to be considered different from American forces? As long as I sense the insurgency is mostly about us, rather than about Iraq's government, it doesn't seem like a civil war to me.

 

[Mycroft]

I think Headscratcher's claim was perfectly clear. He was asserting that Bush rejecting the use of the terms "civil war" in Iraq should be called into question BECAUSE of the Bush administration's inaccurate past predictions.

The claim is easily understood, it just doesn't logically follow.

If Iraq is in civil war or not is an objective fact that can be observed. All you need to do is arrive at a definition of "civil war", then observe if the activities that are happening over there fit the definition or not. The opinion of the Bush administration doesn’t enter into it.

The logic Headscratcher proposes would make sense if the issue were something that could not be independently verified. Suppose the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had transported all its weapons of mass destruction to Syria in the days before the war, but said they could not divulge the details of how they knew this. Then, in judging a claim that couldn’t be independently verified, you would have no choice but to fall back on your assessment of the credibility of the one making the claim.

Make sense?

Why would Headscratcher make a claim regarding the possibility of a civil war in Iraq using issues related to a civil war? It wouldn't make much sense had Headscratcher made the claim: "Well, Iraqis are blowing each other up in the streets, it looks like a civil war."

Does this say what you meant it to say?

I don't see where Darat threatened you.

”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”

It was a lame threat; meaning the consequences he threatens, discounting my claim, are mild and not likely to change my behavior in the way he wants. If it seemed I was claiming he was making a more serious threat, that wasn't my intent.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”



...snip...

That is not a correct paraphrasing of what I have posted anywhere in this thread.