France gets tough

[CapelDodger]

I don't think it was wise of him to do so. But the hysterical reaction to how insulted Muslims who misuderstand what he meant is not Bush's fault; that, in reality, is fear of Islam, and of the acts of terrorist violence "insulted Muslims" have a tendency to commit.

This is irrational.

It is not irrational. It was Bush Minor's fault that he was unable to make himself not misunderstood. The reaction that Bush Minor - and by implication the US - had no inkling of the world as seen by non-US Christians was entirely justified. It's accurate. That's the crucial point, not the word itself but the crass ignorance that led to its use. You seem to expect the Muslim world to understand what "Crusade" means to Bush Minor while ignoring his ignorance of what it means to Muslims and Jews - who were slaughtered by the Crusaders.

 

[Orwell]

Skeptic: that's one of the blunders that really gave many people the the impression that the POTUS was an an ignorant born-again hick. After that blunder, I've heard many people saying that Dubya's rhetoric was no different from that of Islamic fundamentalists. It was just a pretty bad P.R. move all along. The fact that you're still hearing about it amply proves how bad of a P.R. move it really was; verbal ammo for your enemies, basically.

 

[epepke]

Skeptic: that's one of the blunders that really gave many people the the impression that the POTUS was an an ignorant born-again hick.

Um, they couldn't figure that out in 1999?

 

[Orwell]

Um, they couldn't figure that out in 1999?

I said really gave that impression. In my case, before the blunder I was just suspicious.

 

[Art Vandelay]

So you do have less qualms about using disproportionate force with people from poor nations!

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

No. I'm saying that the US gov. tried to link the war against terror to the Invasion of Iraq, but without any concrete proof (they were, to put it bluntly, lying).

Before, you said that they tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda without concrete proof. Do you think that "Al Qaeda" and "terrorism" are the same thing?

But the harm was done: many people became convinced that Iraq had something to do with Islamic terrorism,

Perhaps that was because it did.

I'm disputing the "fact" that presently even one state "sponsors" Islamic terrorism.

So Iran does not contribute to Hizballah? Syria does not donate funds to the families of suicide bombers?

In other words, you don't have anything concrete, but that won't stop you from believing in rumours.

In other words, you feel free to completely rewrite what I say.

If I'm not mistaken, the only country that officially recognised the taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. So Afghanistan wasn't "sponsoring" terrorism, the taliban were.

indeed.
According to that logic, China didn't invade Tibet. Is "Afghanistan sponsored terrorism" a true statement in Pakistan and false everywhere else? Do you really think these semantic games are a good substitute for a real argument?

You are failing to consider the particularities of the Afghanistan case, and trying to use the Afghanistan case as an example of policy applicable to the rest of the middle east.

How nice of you to tell me what I mean. Here I was, thinking that I presented the case of Afghanistan to discuss how an invasion of Afghanistan was justified, when unbeknownst to me I was actually presenting it to discuss how the invasion of every Middle Eastern country is justified. If it weren't for you, I never would have realized that I think the US should attack every single one of those countries.

I did. Maybe you have trouble writing (or thinking) clearly? Or maybe you have trouble reading?

Seeing as how your response completely ignored my question, it's clear that I am not the one with a reading problem. I see nothing unclear about my question, and I'm sure that most people would agree with me.

They're "concerned" but unwilling to do anything concrete about it... Must not upset Israel!

That's not true. The US has been one of the largest forces pushing for peace, and it has often been critical of Israel, so clearly it is willing to upset Israel. In fact, IIRC, the US gives more aid to Palestinians than do Arab countries (and most of the "aid" that Arab countries do give is encouraging more violence, which just makes life worse).

So now simply recognising real historical grievances and doing something about it is "bribing"?

You're not talking about simply recognizing grievances. You're talking about recognizing grievances with the expectation of advancing American interests. That doesn't strike you as at all cynical?

I'll make it even simpler, for your benefit: US unfair to Arab. Arab angry at US.

The US isn't perfect, but for the most part it is fair. Arab anger isn't simply a matter of the US acting unfairly. It's also a matter of us invading Afghanistan, putting troops on Arab land, having a culture which they consider sinful, having views different from theirs, and not abandoning Israel. If this were really about being treated "unfairly", they'd be bombing Turkey; the Ottomans did way more to the Arabs than the US ever did.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Regarding "crusade": is that even the word that made its way to the Arab world? Or was it translated into an Arab word? I do think that there's something a bit disturbing about letting other countries tell us what our words mean. Bush also said that he had a "mandate". Isn't that a word with negative connotations in the Arab world (and much more recently)?

 

[Orwell]

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

Maybe you dispute that that's what you said, but this follows from what you said. It's the logical conclusion to which your arguments lead.

Before, you said that they tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda without concrete proof. Do you think that "Al Qaeda" and "terrorism" are the same thing?

I don't think that all terrorism is related to Al-Quaeda. But the only time I heard someone in the administration connecting Iraq with terrorism was when they tried to make the Al-Quaeda/Iraq connection. If you want to argue that Iraq sponsored other terrorists organisations, you will suffer from a major difficulty: I don't think you will be able to prove it. You can always argue that Iraq was doing what is usually referred to as "state terrorism". But that's a vague term that could be easily used to describe many things, including certain past US practices.

Perhaps that was because it did.

Says who? Where's the evidence?

So Iran does not contribute to Hizballah? Syria does not donate funds to the families of suicide bombers?

Iran probably contributes to Hezbollah (a Lebanese Shi'ite extremist group) the same way that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan contribute to Muslim extremist groups: surreptitiously, and unofficially. You will be hard-pressed to prove it, and if you ask them, they will deny it. As for the Syrian paying for suicide bombers, that's the first time I have heard that one. Evidence?

In other words, you feel free to completely rewrite what I say.

You say a lot of things, but you don't back them that much.

indeed.
According to that logic, China didn't invade Tibet. Is "Afghanistan sponsored terrorism" a true statement in Pakistan and false everywhere else? Do you really think these semantic games are a good substitute for a real argument?

Of course China invaded Tibet. As I said before, you are failing to consider the particularities of the Afghanistan case, and trying to use the Afghanistan case as an example of policy applicable to the rest of the middle east.

How nice of you to tell me what I mean. Here I was, thinking that I presented the case of Afghanistan to discuss how an invasion of Afghanistan was justified, when unbeknownst to me I was actually presenting it to discuss how the invasion of every Middle Eastern country is justified. If it weren't for you, I never would have realized that I think the US should attack every single one of those countries.

It is not my fault you you don't seem to be able to express yourself clearly.

Seeing as how your response completely ignored my question, it's clear that I am not the one with a reading problem. I see nothing unclear about my question, and I'm sure that most people would agree with me.

Your question was "But if people see that legitimate grievances get more attention if advertised through terrorism, won't that encourage terrorism?" So let me get this straight: no matter how just the cause, if people engage in "terrorism" for their cause, the cause must be ignored, because not doing so will cause more terrorism? Also, don't you think that it is much more probable for terrorism to take root precisely when legitimate grievances are ignored? Your question was badly formulated. And it's a loaded question.

That's not true. The US has been one of the largest forces pushing for peace, and it has often been critical of Israel, so clearly it is willing to upset Israel.

Yeah, slaps on the wrist can be really upsetting. "You bad Israelis, you have been mean to the Palestinians. Now here's another four billion dollars. Let this be a lesson for you."

In fact, IIRC, the US gives more aid to Palestinians than do Arab countries (and most of the "aid" that Arab countries do give is encouraging more violence, which just makes life worse).

There you go again, saying things without backing them up.

You're not talking about simply recognizing grievances. You're talking about recognizing grievances with the expectation of advancing American interests. That doesn't strike you as at all cynical?

Decreasing the influence of fundamentalist Islam advances everyone's interests.

The US isn't perfect, but for the most part it is fair. Arab anger isn't simply a matter of the US acting unfairly. It's also a matter of us invading Afghanistan, putting troops on Arab land, having a culture which they consider sinful, having views different from theirs, and not abandoning Israel. If this were really about being treated "unfairly", they'd be bombing Turkey; the Ottomans did way more to the Arabs than the US ever did.

Except that that was back then, almost a century ago, while US meddling is taken place right now. Turkey is no longer a power in the region. But even Turkey has had problems with Kurdish terrorism.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Maybe you dispute that that's what you said, but this follows from what you said. It's the logical conclusion to which your arguments lead.

You see what you want to see.

I don't think that all terrorism is related to Al-Quaeda. But the only time I heard someone in the administration connecting Iraq with terrorism was when they tried to make the Al-Quaeda/Iraq connection.

Either you have very selective memory, very selective hearing, or very selective news sources. There’s been a widespread effort to spread misinformation, such as Iraq wasn’t involved in terrorism, the allegations of terrorism are only with respect to Al Qaeda, 75% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9/11, the invasion was entirely b based on Iraq having WMD, etc. You seem to have swallowed this propaganda.

You can always argue that Iraq was doing what is usually referred to as "state terrorism". But that's a vague term that could be easily used to describe many things, including certain past US practices.

You think there are US actions that are comparable to bombing Israeli civilians?

Of course China invaded Tibet.

When did the Republic of China ever invade Tibet?

As I said before, you are failing to consider the particularities of the Afghanistan case, and trying to use the Afghanistan case as an example of policy applicable to the rest of the middle east.

Maybe if you say it enough times, it will become true.

It is not my fault you you [sic] don't seem to be able to express yourself clearly

People who are determined to misinterpret my statements will find a way, no matter what I say.

Your question was "But if people see that legitimate grievances get more attention if advertised through terrorism, won't that encourage terrorism?" So let me get this straight: no matter how just the cause, if people engage in "terrorism" for their cause, the cause must be ignored, because not doing so will cause more terrorism?

Let me get this straight: you're going to just make up positions for me, and when they have nothing to do with what I actually said, you're going to blame it on my communication skills?

Your question was badly formulated. And it's a loaded question.

How is badly formulated? And how is it “loaded”? By “loaded”, do you really mean “brings up a point I find uncomfortable, so I will twist it into an absurd strawman”?

Look, I asked a simple question. All you have to do is answer the question that I asked. No making up new questions, no pretending that your dishonesty is my fault. Just answer my question. If terrorism results in legitimate grievances being addressed, will that encourage more terrorism? Yes, or no?

Yeah, slaps on the wrist can be really upsetting.

You said that the US doesn’t ever take a position against Israel. You were wrong, and now you’re trying to divert attention from that.

Decreasing the influence of fundamentalist Islam advances everyone's interests.

You’re dodging the issue again.

Except that that was back then, almost a century ago, while US meddling is taken place right now. Turkey is no longer a power in the region.

So the Arabs are angry about what Europeans did nearly a thousand years ago, but the events of less than a century are long forgotten? The influx of Jewish immigrants also occurred about a century ago, but that doesn’t stop Arabs from being annoyed by it. Every country “meddles” with every other country. That’s just the way of the world. Clearly there’s more to it than that.

Oh, and Turkey isn’t a power in the region? What are you smoking?

 

[Orwell]

Ah here we go again... Bickering for sport... You probably already lost track of most of the arguments. I know I did! Anyway...

You see what you want to see.

Yep, just like you. And the imprecise way you express yourself and your bad reading skills make it easy too.

Either you have very selective memory, very selective hearing, or very selective news sources. There’s been a widespread effort to spread misinformation, such as Iraq wasn’t involved in terrorism, the allegations of terrorism are only with respect to Al Qaeda, 75% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9/11, the invasion was entirely b based on Iraq having WMD, etc. You seem to have swallowed this propaganda.

There are no concrete evidence that Iraq was involved in Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. Several high up people in the administration have tried to link Iraq with Al-Quaeda. The administration kept changing the reasons why they invaded. But when they invaded, they invoked WMDs as the main reason for invasion.

You think there are US actions that are comparable to bombing Israeli civilians?

Yes.

When did the Republic of China ever invade Tibet?

The People's Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1955.

Maybe if you say it enough times, it will become true.

We obviously don't agree, and you just called me a liar. So why don't we just ignore each other from now on, mmm?

People who are determined to misinterpret my statements will find a way, no matter what I say.

Your statements are easy to misinterpret. I suspect that this is due to the fact that you keep moving the goal posts.

Let me get this straight: you're going to just make up positions for me, and when they have nothing to do with what I actually said, you're going to blame it on my communication skills?

I believe that you argue in bad faith. I have been able to argue on this forum with people I disagree with. I am unable to do so with you. All you want to do is bicker.

How is badly formulated? And how is it “loaded”? By “loaded”, do you really mean “brings up a point I find uncomfortable, so I will twist it into an absurd strawman”?

Look, I asked a simple question. All you have to do is answer the question that I asked. No making up new questions, no pretending that your dishonesty is my fault. Just answer my question. If terrorism results in legitimate grievances being addressed, will that encourage more terrorism? Yes, or no?

"The loaded question fallacy is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted upon by the people involved – i.e., a premise is included which is at least as dubious as the proposed conclusion. For example, the statement that one should not walk in the woods alone at night because fairies are likely to bewitch you, presupposes that fairies exist – a dubious proposition."

If you want to ask a legitimate question, ask it like this:

"If violence results in legitimate grievances being addressed, will that encourage more violence?" To which I would answer: it depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the type of grievances, the number of grievances, the political context, the local culture, who is responsible for the violence... You seem to be looking for an excuse to not address legitimate grievances. To use violence as an excuse to not address legitimate grievances comes down to letting the extremists dictate the agenda.

You said that the US doesn’t ever take a position against Israel. You were wrong, and now you’re trying to divert attention from that.

Yeah, slaps on the wrist can be really upsetting. "You bad Israelis, you have been mean to the Palestinians. Now here's another four billion dollars. Let this be a lesson for you."

You’re dodging the issue again.

I don't know which issue you are referring to, but I can assure you that I'm not dodging it.

So the Arabs are angry about what Europeans did nearly a thousand years ago, but the events of less than a century are long forgotten?

This statement reveals your profound ignorance of the history of the middle east.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html
That's just a small example.

The influx of Jewish immigrants also occurred about a century ago, but that doesn’t stop Arabs from being annoyed by it. Every country “meddles” with every other country. That’s just the way of the world. Clearly there’s more to it than that.

What more is there, Art? What are you trying to say exactly?

Oh, and Turkey isn’t a power in the region? What are you smoking?

Turkey is not the power in the region it once was, before WWI.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Ah here we go again... Bickering for sport... You probably already lost track of most of the arguments. I know I did! Anyway...

Ah, more projection. Simply because you're bickiering for sport, that doesn't mean I am.

Yep, just like you. And the imprecise way you express yourself and your bad reading skills make it easy too.

You have spent this thread telling me what I mean. If you actually paid attention to what I am saying, perhaps you would discover that it is not imprecise. If you have trouble deciding how to interpret my posts, here's a hint: try taking them to mean what I say, instead of creating positions for me out of thin air. As for my "bad reading skills", I don't know where that's coming from. I guess it's yet another thing that you made up.

But when they invaded, they invoked WMDs as the main reason for invasion.

More precisely, Iraq's lack of compliance with WMD inspection was the main ground for invasion.

The People's Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1955.

I didn't ask when the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet, I asked when the Republic of China invaded. And you say I have bad reading skills.

Your statements are easy to misinterpret. I suspect that this is due to the fact that you keep moving the goal posts.

Ah, more baseless accusations. When have I ever moved the goal posts?

I believe that you argue in bad faith. I have been able to argue on this forum with people I disagree with. I am unable to do so with you. All you want to do is bicker.

Your problem with me is based entirely on what you imagine my motives to be. It seems to me that it is not I who is arguing in bad faith.

"The loaded question fallacy is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted upon by the people involved – i.e., a premise is included which is at least as dubious as the proposed conclusion. For example, the statement that one should not walk in the woods alone at night because fairies are likely to bewitch you, presupposes that fairies exist – a dubious proposition."

Well, that still doesn't answer my question. How does this apply?

If you want to ask a legitimate question, ask it like this:

"If violence results in legitimate grievances being addressed, will that encourage more violence?"

I don't see much difference between this and what I asked, except "violence" instead of "terrorism". Are you saying that there's something illegitimate about the word "terrorism"?

You seem to be looking for an excuse to not address legitimate grievances.

I ask a simple question, you go on and on about how illegitimate the question is, and you accuse me of looking for excuses? It seems to me that you're looking for excuses for not discussing your positon. Simply because someone wishes to discuss problems with a course of action, that does not mean that they are looking for excuses, and your position otherwise suggests that you are rather intolerant of other points of view. You seem to think that even suggesting that there might be drawbacks to something constitutes opposition to it.

I don't know which issue you are referring to, but I can assure you that I'm not dodging it.

I said:

You said that the US doesn’t ever take a position against Israel. You were wrong, and now you’re trying to divert attention from that.

Rather than addressing this, you made a sarcastic response. Are you seriously saying that Israel has never been upset by US policy?

This statement reveals your profound ignorance of the history of the middle east.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

Does your link somehow contradict my statement?

What more is there, Art? What are you trying to say exactly?

I'm saying that your analysis simply doesn't explain the situation.

Turkey is not the power in the region it once was, before WWI.

Before, you said that they aren't a power. Now you say that aren't as much of a power. "Moving the goalposts" indeed.

 

[Orwell]

Art, you're clearly not interested in what I have to say, and frankly, I couldn't give a flying fornication about what you think.

I have lost track of the original argument (if there ever was one), and right now you're just trying to trip me up and annoy me.

I don't play those kinds of games.

Toodles!