[Ed.] Ziad Jarrah, second doubts?

[boloboffin]

I would appreciate not being addressed in a condescending tone and would prefer that you address the argument I made, not what you think of me personally.

Personally, I like terriers.

 

[GreNME]

Personally, I like terriers.

I'm not going to engage you in a flame war. You expressed exception to my criticism of your statement, and I'm now offering you the opportunity to clear up what you said. This thread is about Zaid Jarrah and his involvement in the events of 9/11, so I think you explaining your statement regarding the depth of his involvement with al Qaeda could be edifying for me, as I am under the distinct impression that he was, at best, a small cog in a wider network of loosely-connected extremists.

How would the defection of Zaid Jarrah have possibly caused the destruction of al Qaeda?

 

[boloboffin]

I'm not going to engage you in a flame war. You expressed exception to my criticism of your statement, and I'm now offering you the opportunity to clear up what you said. This thread is about Zaid Jarrah and his involvement in the events of 9/11, so I think you explaining your statement regarding the depth of his involvement with al Qaeda could be edifying for me, as I am under the distinct impression that he was, at best, a small cog in a wider network of loosely-connected extremists.

How would the defection of Zaid Jarrah have possibly caused the destruction of al Qaeda?

My criticism of your statement is about how it's really attacking me.

 

[GreNME]

My criticism of your statement is about how it's really attacking me.

I can't really be any more clear on this. I have, from the start, attacked your statement. If you cannot separate yourself from your statement I can't change that for you. That is your decision to take it personally. So far, the only one who has made active judgments about the other's personal character here is you, and you have yet to respond to the criticism of your original statement except to complain because you are taking it personally.

I am telling you that I have no control over you taking personally when criticism of your statement takes place. That is something you are going to have to deal with yourself. I have no part of your own personal character on this matter. I find it dishonest of you to complain about attacks on your personal character only to follow it up with a personal attack on my character, but once again that's your problem, not mine.

Now, all you have to do is simply qualify why you claimed Zaid Jarrah's defection would have destroyed al Qaeda. Do you actually believe the statement you made? If so, can you explain why you believe this statement?

You see, I believe we are at an impasse here until you can answer those questions. I would like you to give some basis to what seems to me like a baseless claim, and you are still focused on a personal issue that doesn't exist (for me, at least). I am pretty sure that both of those things can be solved by you simply explaining why you claimed a defection by Zaid Jarrah would have destroyed al Qaeda. You get personal satisfaction in showing that I was indeed incorrect and I get a response to my original criticism. Everybody's happy, and we can move on from there.

 

[boloboffin]

I can't really be any more clear on this. I have, from the start, attacked your statement. If you cannot separate yourself from your statement I can't change that for you. That is your decision to take it personally. So far, the only one who has made active judgments about the other's personal character here is you, and you have yet to respond to the criticism of your original statement except to complain because you are taking it personally.

I am telling you that I have no control over you taking personally when criticism of your statement takes place. That is something you are going to have to deal with yourself. I have no part of your own personal character on this matter. I find it dishonest of you to complain about attacks on your personal character only to follow it up with a personal attack on my character, but once again that's your problem, not mine.

Now, all you have to do is simply qualify why you claimed Zaid Jarrah's defection would have destroyed al Qaeda. Do you actually believe the statement you made? If so, can you explain why you believe this statement?

You see, I believe we are at an impasse here until you can answer those questions. I would like you to give some basis to what seems to me like a baseless claim, and you are still focused on a personal issue that doesn't exist (for me, at least). I am pretty sure that both of those things can be solved by you simply explaining why you claimed a defection by Zaid Jarrah would have destroyed al Qaeda. You get personal satisfaction in showing that I was indeed incorrect and I get a response to my original criticism. Everybody's happy, and we can move on from there.

Apologize to me first.

 

[GreNME]

I'm not sure we're properly communicating.

I am telling you that I refuse to engage you on a personal level. You keep insisting it. I keep refusing it. This is the crux of our impasse.

I maintain that you have no factual standing for the claim of yours I referenced, and even after you personally attacked my character I have maintained only my criticism of the claim of yours I referenced. You continue to make statements assuming I am attacking or have attacked you personally. However, I haven't bothered to complain about or demand apology for your attack on my character, because I have no desire to engage you personally on this matter. Instead, I maintain that you have no factual basis for your original claim that Ziad Jarrah's defection would have caused the destruction of al Qaeda.

You can solve this by qualifying your statement that Ziad Jarrah's defection would have led to the destruction of al Qaeda. I am not saying this because I want you to do as I say-- I have no control over what you decide-- I am saying it because it simultaneously addresses both parts of the impasse. Neither you nor I have control over what the other thinks personally about ourselves. Neither you nor I have control over whether the other is going to post what we would like to see them post. Nothing that either of us say is going to change this fact.

 

[boloboffin]

I'm not sure we're properly communicating.

I am telling you that I refuse to engage you on a personal level. You keep insisting it. I keep refusing it. This is the crux of our impasse.

I maintain that you have no factual standing for the claim of yours I referenced, and even after you personally attacked my character I have maintained only my criticism of the claim of yours I referenced. You continue to make statements assuming I am attacking or have attacked you personally. However, I haven't bothered to complain about or demand apology for your attack on my character, because I have no desire to engage you personally on this matter. Instead, I maintain that you have no factual basis for your original claim that Ziad Jarrah's defection would have caused the destruction of al Qaeda.

You can solve this by qualifying your statement that Ziad Jarrah's defection would have led to the destruction of al Qaeda. I am not saying this because I want you to do as I say-- I have no control over what you decide-- I am saying it because it simultaneously addresses both parts of the impasse. Neither you nor I have control over what the other thinks personally about ourselves. Neither you nor I have control over whether the other is going to post what we would like to see them post. Nothing that either of us say is going to change this fact.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[GreNME]

I rest my case.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am not sure, but it maybe the word "ridiculous". Regardless of your intent GreNME, the word ridiculous will almost always be taken as a personal insult when used.

"That dress you're wearing looks ridiculous"
"Your opinion is ridiculous"
"Your behaviour is ridiculous"

I could be wrong, but I suspect this word may have been the deal breaker.

TAM

 

[GreNME]

No, the actual deal breaker was that he knew he didn't have a case for making that claim and instead chose to take it personally. No matter which way you spin it, what I was addressing was an absolutely ridiculous claim, based on absolutely nothing but imagination, and a statement that is the kind that conspiracy types use as their "proof" of disinformation. Do I think bolo has any nefarious purpose? Of course not. It was a comment said in that "oh, everybody knows..." kind of manner that is rarely based on fact but on overemphasis.

For example, the best equivalent to such a statement he made would be the one about Hanjour not having been a good pilot. More often than not, the people who say such things have absolutely nothing to use as proof for this conclusion, except that other people may have said it before. It's one of those claims that gets more "truthy" the more it is repeated, not unlike the political Iraq-al Qaeda truthiness connection.

The reality is that Ziad Jarrah was a cog on the machine of one cell's terror operation. Inflating his importance is just as ridiculous or ignorant whether it is a truther making such a statement-- and similar statements have formed whole threads here-- or a person who is not a truther making such a statement. Taking it personally is not the fault of what I said, it's the fault of someone disliking that I am challenging their statement when I am supposed to be "on their side" of the debate, hence the claim that my criticism was "well poisoning." I'm not on any "side" on this except for the one that looks at factual basis to make conclusions. This forum has enough people as members who treat the subject like it's JREF versus the LC forum (or the whole truther movement). I have no need to belong to such a cause and I don't agree with baseless claims made on either side, and I see no problem with pointing them out.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of taking part in the worst of the anti-truther campaigning, but I am saying that the adversarial approach has affected the responses in a lot of post content I've seen in my short time here. I was not aware that this forum is some group that needs to post in full solidarity that should not feel free to criticise the ridiculous statements that each other may make. I'm actually a little bothered at the implication that I should somehow feel guilty or apologize for doing so, because that has nothing to do with critical thinking or reason, and has a lot more to do with an ideological affinity. That I have to sit here and explain why I feel it should be expected that pointing out ridiculous and basless statements is not a personal issue but a criticism of a statement is a bit baffling.

Worst of all, I have little doubt in my mind it would even be an issue if this were a truther who was making this stink at what I said.

 

[T.A.M.]

Do I think bolo has any nefarious purpose? Of course not. It was a comment said in that "oh, everybody knows..." kind of manner that is rarely based on fact but on overemphasis.

and this is the reason why I didn't given him much of a hard time about it, as I knew it was not up for SERIOUS debate, but an "off the cuff" comment.

For example, the best equivalent to such a statement he made would be the one about Hanjour not having been a good pilot. More often than not, the people who say such things have absolutely nothing to use as proof for this conclusion, except that other people may have said it before. It's one of those claims that gets more "truthy" the more it is repeated, not unlike the political Iraq-al Qaeda truthiness connection.

The reality is that Ziad Jarrah was a cog on the machine of one cell's terror operation. Inflating his importance is just as ridiculous or ignorant whether it is a truther making such a statement-- and similar statements have formed whole threads here-- or a person who is not a truther making such a statement.

Agreed, however, I would also state that Jarrah was the weakest in terms of committment, based on the information I have read, wrt the pilots for the attacks. I agree with you that the suggestion that this would some how dismantle, or put into disarray they al-qaeda network is stretching it, and probably wasnt thought out...like I said, off the cuff.

Taking it personally is not the fault of what I said, it's the fault of someone disliking that I am challenging their statement when I am supposed to be "on their side" of the debate, hence the claim that my criticism was "well poisoning."

I would suggest that taking things personally can often be the result of the tone in which the argument is made, more so than the argument itself.

I'm not on any "side" on this except for the one that looks at factual basis to make conclusions. This forum has enough people as members who treat the subject like it's JREF versus the LC forum (or the whole truther movement).

Yes, and I am usually one of them, though i do admit there is a grey area that consists of people unsure. It is actually those people we try to reach here.

I have no need to belong to such a cause and I don't agree with baseless claims made on either side, and I see no problem with pointing them out.

Also agreed.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of taking part in the worst of the anti-truther campaigning, but I am saying that the adversarial approach has affected the responses in a lot of post content I've seen in my short time here.

Agreed. It is why from time to time some of us attempt to have people here self reflect, bring the tone down, and "restart" so to speak.

I was not aware that this forum is some group that needs to post in full solidarity that should not feel free to criticise the ridiculous statements that each other may make. I'm actually a little bothered at the implication that I should somehow feel guilty or apologize for doing so, because that has nothing to do with critical thinking or reason, and has a lot more to do with an ideological affinity. That I have to sit here and explain why I feel it should be expected that pointing out ridiculous and basless statements is not a personal issue but a criticism of a statement is a bit baffling.

Name one person, besides perhaps Bolo, who has implied or suggested you apologize for the CRITICISM, versus a call for less adversarial or condescending tone.

Worst of all, I have little doubt in my mind it would even be an issue if this were a truther who was making this stink at what I said.

You are probably correct, but that is often because the truthers begin their insults, and hostility from the moment they post, and continue it on. For you it seemed to be out of character, and the offense made by Bolo, seemed minor.

I suggest both parties simply drop it and move on.

TAM

 

[boloboffin]

Name one person, besides perhaps Bolo, who has implied or suggested you apologize for the CRITICISM, versus a call for less adversarial or condescending tone.

T.A.M., thank you for being peacemaker here.

I would like to clarify that I have never asked the poster to apologize for the criticism of my remark. The tone was what I objected to at the very beginning, and since the tone did not cease but redouble, I have placed the poster on ignore. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is dropped.

 

[GreNME]

and this is the reason why I didn't given him much of a hard time about it, as I knew it was not up for SERIOUS debate, but an "off the cuff" comment.

Agreed, however, I would also state that Jarrah was the weakest in terms of committment, based on the information I have read, wrt the pilots for the attacks. I agree with you that the suggestion that this would some how dismantle, or put into disarray they al-qaeda network is stretching it, and probably wasnt thought out...like I said, off the cuff.

"Off the cuff" statements like that feed many claims of conspiracy theories. Would you agree with that? Statements made seemingly without thought or overly exaggerated in their premise comprise a meaty portion of conspiracy "proofs." My entire thesis is, and I state this clearly in my first post, there is no need to feed that flame.

I would suggest that taking things personally can often be the result of the tone in which the argument is made, more so than the argument itself.

I attacked the statement, not the person. How many times do I have to point this out? This is the one thing that is starting to bother me about this little issue

Name one person, besides perhaps Bolo, who has implied or suggested you apologize for the CRITICISM, versus a call for less adversarial or condescending tone.

I don't follow why I need to name any other person but the one taking a personal issue with me. The individual who is taking a personal issue with me and refusing to address what I say is what is getting annoying. I haven't been here long enough to get to know a wide enough list of people to start judging the whole forum, but individual experiences like this are an example of some heavy double standards that, even in this one case, give me pause to want to take part as much as I have so far.

Worst of all, I have little doubt in my mind it would even be an issue if this were a truther who was making this stink at what I said.

You are probably correct, but that is often because the truthers begin their insults, and hostility from the moment they post, and continue it on. For you it seemed to be out of character, and the offense made by Bolo, seemed minor.

But I don't think bolo made any offense. I also happen to think I made no offense. What is bothering me isn't an offense being made, it's a double-standard of expectations for a certain type of thinking (in this case truthers), while opposition to such thinking typically gets a pass. That kind of behavior is a bit clique-ish to me, and what concerns me is that I really would rather not be associated with that kind of clique-ish situation. Not in any forum.

I suggest both parties simply drop it and move on.

I've already "rested my case," so to speak. I think the behavior directed toward me by bolo is evidence that my original comment stands pretty much correct, and bolo's choice to address me personally instead of with regard to the actual statement leaves the issue pretty much settled to me. I've been given no other evidence than to think his statement was unnecessarily ridiculous hyperbole. I think I've done due diligence in offering the opportunity to present me with information to correct my opinion, and have received none. I'm not aware that there's any more left to cover on that point. This may change in the future if some information presents itself to change that conclusion, but as it stands my original assessment of the statement remains consistent.

If you have doubt, I propose a test: If one of a truther's supporting arguments was that Jarrah's defection would have caused the destruction of al Qaeda, what would your reaction to that statement be?

I know that you are really not interested in the question over the statement, T.A.M., because you already disagree with the original statement I criticized, but what I am trying to emphasize here is that I am and have been consistently focused on this, not the personal insult someone is incorrectly assuming I've committed. I'm not under any obligation that I'm aware of to meet someone on a personal level here in any way other than not attacking someone personally. Because of this I remain focused on the statement, not the person. That's why I didn't drop into a flame battle with bolo when he was provoking, and why I have consistently pointed out and restated in more than one fashion that I am criticizing the statement. However, I have no control over nor responsibility to someone (in this case bolo) not liking my criticism of the statement as ridiculous. I can't make someone separate themselves personally from what they said, even off-the-cuff, when they want to take offense where none was offered. That choice is out of my hands.

Incidentally, it is also incredibly off the topic of Ziad Jarrah, which is an ancillary reason I refuse to get into it with him.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am merely trying to be the diplomat here, knowing what I know of Bolo through his posts, and through your limited posting here so far. I tried to stay out before, but the physician in me often drags me back in. This time, i think you are both done, so I am going to leave it.

A thought though...

I think to try to avoid some degree of Clique-ishness is near impossible in any forum. I hope you will not allow such to push you away from this forum, as your input has been intelligent, and I think like most of us, you will appreciate the forum for what positive things it does offer.

TAM