post-hoc reasoning about Iraq?

[specious_reasons]

I heard this on NPR last night:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/02/sprj.irq.main/index.html

[L. Paul] Bremer said "an influx of both foreign fighters and foreign terrorists" had augmented the Baath Party loyalists recently, making Iraq "one of the battlefields in the worldwide war against terrorism."

I'm not sure if I understand this. Is he justifying the war in Iraq, because terrorists are entering the country to attack US forces?

Post-hoc reasoning, or am I just misinterpreting his statement?

[Crossbow]

Post-hoc reasoning is nothing new for this war. There has been nothing but post-hoc reasoning ever since the war was ended.

[c0rbin]

The impression I got was that he was justifying the continued US (and hopefully UN) military presence.

With the influx of foriegn fighters and terrorists, Iraq is still unstable and in need of muscle.

One does not need to look too hard to find post hoc reasoning for Iraq, though.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I'm not sure if I understand this. Is he justifying the war in Iraq, because terrorists are entering the country to attack US forces?


I don't think he was really justifying the war; I see it as more or less stating what is happening.

Personally, I can actually see a small advantage for the US by having terrorists fighting in Iraq. The way I see it, terrorists would be attacking targets anyways. At least by having them in Iraq, there is a chance that they can be stopped by US military forces before they accomplish their mission.

Better that the terrorists have to face armed soldiers trained to defend themselves, instead of innocent civilians hanging around in night clubs.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Better that the terrorists have to face armed soldiers trained to defend themselves, instead of innocent civilians hanging around in night clubs.

That's funny. The US certainly has no problem with shooting unarmed civilians in Iraq. And beating up unarmed civilians. And bombing unarmed civilians. And each time, the explantion is: This is war. These things happen.

Sounds like the reasoning of the terrorist to me: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

[Crossbow]

Anyone else remember when George W. said to the terrorists of the world "Bring it on!"?

Perhaps he has actually motivated them to attack.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Anyone else remember when George W. said to the terrorists of the world "Bring it on!"?

Perhaps he has actually motivated them to attack.

You are so right, I had forgotten that witty remark by Bush.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Anyone else remember when George W. said to the terrorists of the world "Bring it on!"?

Perhaps he has actually motivated them to attack.

The terrorists would have to be a special kind of stupid to base their decisions on what to attack based on the comments by Bush.

Terrorist 1: "Hey, are you ready to start our master plan to blow up Washington?"
Terrorist 2: "Well, I was, but then Bush said he wanted the terrorists to attack them in Iraq"
Terrorist 1: "Oh, well, in that case forget about slaughtering infidels in Washington, lets get over to Bagdad and try to kill some well-armed American soldiers!"

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


That's funny. The US certainly has no problem with shooting unarmed civilians in Iraq. And beating up unarmed civilians. And bombing unarmed civilians. And each time, the explantion is: This is war. These things happen.


Right, because the U.S. is targeting those unarmed civilians.......:rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

That's funny. The US certainly has no problem with shooting unarmed civilians in Iraq. And beating up unarmed civilians. And bombing unarmed civilians. And each time, the explantion is: This is war. These things happen.

Sounds like the reasoning of the terrorist to me: you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

I see I was right in that other thread: you think the goals of the terrorosts are acceptable or equivalent to our goals. Why am I not surprised.

[Rayn]

I'm going to have to agree with Segnosaur on this one, I don't think that Bremer was necessarily trying to justify anything. The fact is that Iraq has become a terrorist battlefield now, due to the fact that the country is so de-stabilized and there are quite a few more "targets of opportunity" for the terrorists, namely young American soldiers.

DrChinese, I agree that it is deplorable (to use extreme understatement) that the US has killed unarmed civilians, but I also believe that the US went to the greatest lengths ever to minimize such casualties as possible. Of course they were not adequate to completely eliminate such casualties, but at least there were some in place. Mosques, hospitals and other areas of cultural/societal importance were noted and avoided, hence Sadaam's usage of placing weaponry around these areas. I'm not saying our war plan and execution was perfect, but I'm glad that such preventative measures were at least in place (even, to be as un-charitable as possible, they were merely for show).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Rayn
I'm going to have to agree with Segnosaur on this one, I don't think that Bremer was necessarily trying to justify anything. The fact is that Iraq has become a terrorist battlefield now, due to the fact that the country is so de-stabilized and there are quite a few more "targets of opportunity" for the terrorists, namely young American soldiers.

DrChinese, I agree that it is deplorable (to use extreme understatement) that the US has killed unarmed civilians, but I also believe that the US went to the greatest lengths ever to minimize such casualties as possible. Of course they were not adequate to completely eliminate such casualties, but at least there were some in place. Mosques, hospitals and other areas of cultural/societal importance were noted and avoided, hence Sadaam's usage of placing weaponry around these areas. I'm not saying our war plan and execution was perfect, but I'm glad that such preventative measures were at least in place (even, to be as un-charitable as possible, they were merely for show).

Don't buy into the idea that what is going on in Iraq today has much of anything to do with external terrorists. Iraq is an occupied country, and the people want to get rid of the US ASAP. If we were occupied, I would do the same things. If I did anything and everything to rid the US of a foreign invader, I would be called a freedom fighter. Why are Iraqis called terrorists for attacking an invasion force? Be reasonable and apply the same standards you would want applied if the situation wer reversed.

As to the US attempts to "minimize" civilian casualties: we have done some things, it is true. However, the results are much the same and the justification is 100% identical: the end justifies the means when it comes to civilians. Other than Germany, we have killed more targeted civilians in the last century than any other country. Not a pretty legacy, even if it is not Bush's.

My only point here is that the same standards should be applied on both sides. The people of 1930's Germany didn't think they were the bad guys. We shouldn't lie to ourselves, or we will end up in the same hell they did. Bush has put himself - and us - on a slippery slope. And it scares the hell out of me.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The terrorists would have to be a special kind of stupid to base their decisions on what to attack based on the comments by Bush.

Terrorist 1: "Hey, are you ready to start our master plan to blow up Washington?"
Terrorist 2: "Well, I was, but then Bush said he wanted the terrorists to attack them in Iraq"
Terrorist 1: "Oh, well, in that case forget about slaughtering infidels in Washington, lets get over to Bagdad and try to kill some well-armed American soldiers!"

Er, excuse me, but perhaps you do not realize the import of the President of the USA. Everything he says is news and these days news gets around very fast so even just a few words can have a good bit of impact.

Not to sound glib, but have you ever heard what professional sports teams do a few days before a big game? Both sides will scour the sports pages and other sources of sports news to find out what the other team is saying about them, and if something rather striking is said by the team that they will be playing then you can be sure a copy of it will be posted in their locker room.

Coaches have found it a great way to build team unity and spirit, so I expect that such things would happen among teams of highly motivated and professional killers as well.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The terrorists would have to be a special kind of stupid to base their decisions on what to attack based on the comments by Bush.

Terrorist 1: "Hey, are you ready to start our master plan to blow up Washington?"
Terrorist 2: "Well, I was, but then Bush said he wanted the terrorists to attack them in Iraq"
Terrorist 1: "Oh, well, in that case forget about slaughtering infidels in Washington, lets get over to Bagdad and try to kill some well-armed American soldiers!"

I agree, it strikes me as unlikely that the terrorists who are training for the next big attack would not be pulled for guerilla war in Iraq.

However, it does seem likely that the great masses of the "faithful" might be willing to attack armed US soldiers....

It does make me wonder how many fanatics were mobilized into action as a result of Gulf War II.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Don't buy into the idea that what is going on in Iraq today has much of anything to do with external terrorists. Iraq is an occupied country, and the people want to get rid of the US ASAP. If we were occupied, I would do the same things.

I've brought up this same point to many of my colleagues here, and we agree in principle, but not in the specifics. If the US were occupied, regardless any justifiable reason, I'd want the occupiers out.

But the specifics are that I wouldn't want them out without regard for consequences. That is the same thing here.
In central and south Iraq, the populace wants the US out, but not yet. If anything, they want the US to take a harder stand against what most people see as criminal and terrorist acts. It is a common thing for Iraqis to come to us either spontaneously on the street or calculatedly in the midst of a meeting and suggest that the US take a harder line.

In the Kurdish area, though, our shared supposition does not apply at all. The Kurds do not want us to leave at all. My last trip there (about 10 days ago), I was told, and I quote, "You stay one hundred years." That was from a barber. The sentiment was echoed by both the Prime Minister and Minister of Education of Arbil/Dohuk as well as the Governor of Ninawah Province.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Other than Germany, we have killed more targeted civilians in the last century than any other country. Not a pretty legacy, even if it is not Bush's.


This is quite simply false. Stalin killed far more civilians than we ever did. Oh, but they were his own civilians. That doesn't count with you, does it? Can't count that against them, it didn't infringe on another country's precious sovereignty.

Edit to add: you wanna back up your claim with a number? How many civilians has the US killed in the last century? How many did Germany kill? How many did Russia kill? How many did China kill?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


This is quite simply false. Stalin killed far more civilians than we ever did. Oh, but they were his own civilians. That doesn't count with you, does it? Can't count that against them, it didn't infringe on another country's precious sovereignty.

Edit to add: you wanna back up your claim with a number? How many civilians has the US killed in the last century? How many did Germany kill? How many did Russia kill? How many did China kill?

Lives lost are lives lost. But no, I wasn't referring to Saddam's killing machine, or Stalin's. Germany: 6 million? US: 100,000? Russia: ??? China: ???

Sad, truly sad. By any measure. And now, more reasons for war and fewer for peace thanks to post-hoc justifications. The end justifies the means - the antithesis of civilization.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Garrette
Originally posted by DrChinese


I've brought up this same point to many of my colleagues here, and we agree in principle, but not in the specifics. If the US were occupied, regardless any justifiable reason, I'd want the occupiers out.

But the specifics are that I wouldn't want them out without regard for consequences. That is the same thing here.
In central and south Iraq, the populace wants the US out, but not yet. If anything, they want the US to take a harder stand against what most people see as criminal and terrorist acts. It is a common thing for Iraqis to come to us either spontaneously on the street or calculatedly in the midst of a meeting and suggest that the US take a harder line.

In the Kurdish area, though, our shared supposition does not apply at all. The Kurds do not want us to leave at all. My last trip there (about 10 days ago), I was told, and I quote, "You stay one hundred years." That was from a barber. The sentiment was echoed by both the Prime Minister and Minister of Education of Arbil/Dohuk as well as the Governor of Ninawah Province.

Some good information, great to hear from someone close to what is going on. Care to add any more?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Lives lost are lives lost. But no, I wasn't referring to Saddam's killing machine, or Stalin's. Germany: 6 million? US: 100,000? Russia: ??? China: ???

Sad, truly sad. By any measure. And now, more reasons for war and fewer for peace thanks to post-hoc justifications. The end justifies the means - the antithesis of civilization.

You made a claim to support your argument that you not only can't back up, but apparently never had any reason to believe in the first place, since you don't even have ballpark estimates on Russia or China. We're not following a philosophy of "the ends justify the means". But we're actually considering what the ends are. If you want to look for the antithesis of civilization, look to the Taliban, look to Saddam, look to those who bombed the UN not because it was helping us but because it was helping the Iraqi people.

So how far off were you? Well, China killed around a million civilians during its civil wars, and millions more (as in maybe 20-30 million) during the cultural revolution and other purges. Numbers diverge on how many Russian civilians Stalin killed, but they range from around 8 million to 50 million. Around half a million died in Rwanda in 1994. Over 3 million people have died in fighting in the Congo over the last decade. Even your Germany number (6 million) pretty much only refers to the holocaust, it doesn't include the millions of civilians killed in military actions or non-jewish concentration camp victims. Note these are just civilian deaths I'm tallying here. When you actually look at the numbers killed in past wars, you'll realize that not only did the US take great care to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties, we were in fact very successful at that. We have not been following a simple "means justify the ends" approach you imply, we have been VERY careful about the means we employ.

For more info on the horrifying statistics of war, check out:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

[Rayn]

DrChinese said: Don't buy into the idea that what is going on in Iraq today has much of anything to do with external terrorists. Iraq is an occupied country, and the people want to get rid of the US ASAP. If we were occupied, I would do the same things. If I did anything and everything to rid the US of a foreign invader, I would be called a freedom fighter. Why are Iraqis called terrorists for attacking an invasion force? Be reasonable and apply the same standards you would want applied if the situation wer reversed.

As to the US attempts to "minimize" civilian casualties: we have done some things, it is true. However, the results are much the same and the justification is 100% identical: the end justifies the means when it comes to civilians. Other than Germany, we have killed more targeted civilians in the last century than any other country. Not a pretty legacy, even if it is not Bush's.

My only point here is that the same standards should be applied on both sides. The people of 1930's Germany didn't think they were the bad guys. We shouldn't lie to ourselves, or we will end up in the same hell they did. Bush has put himself - and us - on a slippery slope. And it scares the hell out of me.

I agree that the conceptions of "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" can be extremely culturally relative. Personally, I reserve the former for when I'm actually fighting ;) , but I think this gets to the heart of the matter. What are the conditions necessary for someone to be a "freedom fighter"? Do they need popular opinion to be in their favor (i.e., would Neo be a "freedom fighter" and why)? What ideology is "right"? What is "freedom"?

Personally, I don't understand the minority of those in Iraq that are committing "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" acts. They have no infrastructure, no food, no money, no electricity, etc., and they don't want our help to put one into action. Admittedly, there may be some ulterior motives (Cheney and Halliburton, etc.) on the parts of a few (see previous), but I highly doubt the whole process is rife with corruption.

I do however, believe that if we were not involved, the situation could easily become so, and moreover, an already unstable region of the globe could become exaggeratedly more so, full of war-mongering quasi-states. Outside of an indoctrinated hatred towards the US, I cannot conceive of a reason why a citizen of Iraq would shoot a US soldier in the back of the head while he was buying food (can't find story, but was reported in local paper). So I don't see us as the "bad guys," and I won't until an infrastructure is in place that will provide for the civilians and we decide to stay "a little while longer" or "until the elections are over."

[EvilYeti]

At the risk of offending any armed forces folks in the audience, I can say I would much rather have terrorists streaming into Iraq to engage our armed forces then attacking US civillians elsewhere.

Its the troops job to fight these guys, they are much better equipped to deal with them then civillians or even law enforcement are. Yes, american soldiers are going to die, but that is a sacrifice they make for the greater good of the civillian population. Its part of the job description.

Is the administration engaging in post-hoc reasoning? In my opinion none of them had thought this through and are making stuff up as they go along.

I also am perfectly happy with the various Islamic sects blowing each other up. If anything we should research what we can do to encourage them.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ssibal


Right, because the U.S. is targeting those unarmed civilians.......:rolleyes:

They aim their rifles and they pull the trigger.

[Mr Manifesto]

It's hard to get sources on how many civilians the US killed. Casualties for Vietnam range from half a million to four million. Hard to find casualty lists for other countries.

Korean war 3.5-4million (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/korea.htm)
Guatemala- maybe 100 000 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/)
Indonesia 1958- no figure
Cuba 1959-1961- no figure
Guatemala 1960- no figure
A further 20 bombing campaigns alone which I don't have time to look up the figures for. Here's the countries that were bombed and when:
China 1945-1946, 1950-1953
Korea 1950-1953
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-1969
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Vietnam 1961-1973
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-1973
Peru 1965
Cambodia 1969-1970
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2003
Iraq 1991-2003

A very conservative estimate, based on N Korea, Vietnam and bombing civilian casualties alone would be 5 million. Google the above if you don't believe me, see what picture takes shape.

[Mr Manifesto]

Unconfirmed, obviously, but the body count of civilians in Iraq could be as high as 30 000 (http://villagevoice.com/issues/0336/mondo3.php) or more.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


They aim their rifles and they pull the trigger.

Are you refering to some specific case in which U.S. soldiers knowingly shot to death unarmed civilians for no good reason?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Are you refering to some specific case in which U.S. soldiers knowingly shot to death unarmed civilians for no good reason?

Funny, "no good reason" seems to be in the eye of the beholder!

So it always comes down to what is a good reason. And when the US is involved, US supporters find a good reason. Usually something like "it happens, but we don't like it". As if that makes it OK.

For example: My Lai.

For example: Shooting unarmed Iraqi families in trucks.

But please don't give the good reasons to me. Explain it to the victims' families.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by ssibal


Are you refering to some specific case in which U.S. soldiers knowingly shot to death unarmed civilians for no good reason?

How's this for openers? (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/international/worldspecial/27CIVI.html?ei=1&en=00ae56d2195c0454&ex=1062948766&pagewanted=print&position=)

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 26 — Any of Ali Muhsin's neighbors can describe the scene after he was shot by the Americans.

First he stumbled around the corner, dripping blood, and collapsed near the front door of his home. His neighbors hailed a taxi to take him to the hospital, but then a Humvee roared down the street and blocked the way.

An American soldier leaped out and ran up to Ali, firing a shot in the air to scatter the crowd, then aiming his rifle at the boy. The boy's mother, Rajaa Yousif Matti, implored the soldier not to kill him. She wept and wailed. She pleaded in Arabic that he had done nothing wrong and begged to put him in the taxi. She kissed the soldier's boots. But she could not get through to the American.

<snip>

"He was a very good boy, a very polite boy," Mr. Latif said, echoing a common theme among Ali's relatives and friends. They praised him for being the sole supporter of his mother and five sisters since his father's death earlier this year, and told how he had been trying to save money for an operation for his younger brother's wounded leg.

"All Ali did was go to work and go home," said Qusay Matti, a neighbor. "He had no interest in politics. The Baath party was particularly hated in this neighborhood, at least until now. Now we are all afraid of the Americans. My wife cannot forget him lying on the street asking for water. She wakes up at night crying out, `Ali is thirsty.' "

Ali's relatives and neighbors said his only crimes were being scared of soldiers and wearing the wrong shirt at the wrong place — perhaps by arriving at the overpass shortly after the explosions. The scene afterward on their street convinced many that the soldiers were trigger-happy.

"They seemed confused and arrogant and nervous," said Ali's mother. Other neighbors complained of being threatened with rifles in their faces. They quoted English phrases they said they had heard from the soldiers: "Shut your mouth." "Not your business." "If you speak, I will kill you."

[Frank Newgent]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030903/us_nm/iraq_usa_warplan_dc_3

U.S. commanders were so busy preparing to defeat Iraq's military and directing the fight that they were given too little time to properly prepare for "Phase IV" peace...It also flays planning for so-far fruitless efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The threat from such chemical and biological weapons was cited by President Bush and the Pentagon as a major reason for the invasion.
Everyone's a critic now...

[Crossbow]

Check out this one too if you want to see a good example of a substainal post-war policy shift:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20085-2003Sep3.html

Powell and Joint Chiefs Nudged Bush Toward U.N.

On Tuesday, President Bush's first day back in the West Wing after a month at his ranch, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell walked into the Oval Office to present something close to a fait accompli.

In what was billed as a routine session, Powell told Bush that they had to go to the United Nations with a resolution seeking a U.N.-sanctioned military force in Iraq -- something the administration had resisted for nearly five months. Powell, whose department had long favored such an action, informed the commander in chief that the military brass supported the State Department's position despite resistance by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose office had been slow to embrace the U.N. resolution, quickly agreed, according to administration officials who described the episode.

...

For an administration that prides itself on centralized, top-down control, the decision to change course in Iraq was uncharacteristically loose and decentralized. As described by officials in the White House, State Department and Pentagon, the White House was the last to sign on to the new approach devised by the soldiers and the diplomats. "The [Pentagon] civilians had been saying we didn't need any more troops, and the military brass had backed them," a senior administration official said. "Powell's a smart guy, and he knew that as soon as he had the brass behind him, that is very tough to ignore."

...

People close to the administration said the Joint Chiefs and Powell (a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs) did not win a bureaucratic battle as much as Rumsfeld lost one. "Rumsfeld lost credibility with the White House because he screwed up the postwar planning," said William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties to the administration. "For five months they let Rumsfeld have his way, and for five months Rumsfeld said everything's fine. He wanted to do the postwar with fewer troops than a lot of people advised, and it turned out to be a mistake."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Not to sound glib, but have you ever heard what professional sports teams do a few days before a big game? Both sides will scour the sports pages and other sources of sports news to find out what the other team is saying about them, and if something rather striking is said by the team that they will be playing then you can be sure a copy of it will be posted in their locker room.


Yeah, but your professional sports team still ends up playing the same team they were scheduled to play before.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Yeah, but your professional sports team still ends up playing the same team they were scheduled to play before.

Can you expand on this theme a bit? I have no idea of your meaning.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ssibal


Are you refering to some specific case in which U.S. soldiers knowingly shot to death unarmed civilians for no good reason?

Is possesion of a camera a capital crime in US controlled Iraq?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Can you expand on this theme a bit? I have no idea of your meaning.

You had suggested Bush's "Bring it on" comment would inspire terrorists, in much the same way that a sports team might use comments made by members of the other team as a way to improve their performance.

For example, if the Dallas Cowboys were set to play the New York Mets (yeah, I know, different sports), the coach of the Cowboys would try to find quotes made by the Mets ("Emmit Smith is a wimp!") in order to get the team to play better. (I assume that that was your point.)

My point is that if the Dallas Cowboys were set to play the Mets, they won't all of a sudden take a comment made by the Toronto Maple Leafs ("Troy Aikman is a wuss") as an excuse to skip their game against the Mets and go right after the Leafs right away. They will stick to their schedule and play the Mets. You're scheduled to play a team, you play that team.

In the same way, if a terrorist is planning on blowing up Washington DC, they are not likely to change plans (which could have been months or years in the making) based on a comment made by Bush. If they did, they'd have to be a very stupid terrorist.

And while it may have sounded like a 'bad' quote, I really doubt "bring it on" would really have the ability to inspire Islamic Terrorists as much as, oh, saying "Muhammad made live to goats." Really, in the grand scheme of things, "bring it on" is incredibly mild.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Funny, "no good reason" seems to be in the eye of the beholder!

So it always comes down to what is a good reason. And when the US is involved, US supporters find a good reason. Usually something like "it happens, but we don't like it". As if that makes it OK.

Who said it makes it OK? I did not. But it is understandable compared to those who seek out and target civilians or those who do not try to avoid civilian casualties.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


How's this for openers? (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/international/worldspecial/27CIVI.html?ei=1&en=00ae56d2195c0454&ex=1062948766&pagewanted=print&position=)



So what is your point? Do you think it was not a case of mistaken identity or that the troops just wanted to shoot anyone?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Is possesion of a camera a capital crime in US controlled Iraq?

Oh I see, they knew he was holding a camera rather than a weapon and just wanted to do some killing.......:rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by ssibal

Oh I see, they knew he was holding a camera rather than a weapon and just wanted to do some killing.......:rolleyes:

Jon is refering to the journalist photographer killed by mistake. He can't understand the difference between an individual screwup and a deliberate policy.

[crocodile deathroll]

The post hoc justificication for this war was the discovery of mass graves which George Bush snr was partially to blame as his encouraged the Shiites to rise up and overthrow Saddam just after the first Gulf war.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Really, in the grand scheme of things, "bring it on" is incredibly mild.
Except that there is probably not a literal translation. It would probably sound something like, "we are not afraid of anything you do", and that doesn't sound too mild to me. It sounds more likely to inspire them to try harder to impress us.

But the truth is, we are afraid, and they know it. We are so afraid that many are willing to give up freedoms in order to protect ourselves from terrorism (e.g. the Patriot Act). Don't think the terrorists are not aware of how they have turned America into a paranoid, defensive nation.

[Rayn]

Tricky posted:
But the truth is, we are afraid, and they know it. We are so afraid that many are willing to give up freedoms in order to protect ourselves from terrorism (e.g. the Patriot Act). Don't think the terrorists are not aware of how they have turned America into a paranoid, defensive nation.

I think this is an extremely slippery slope that we've decided to tread. Just wondering, but are we going to get those rights back? And if so, when?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Rayn


I think this is an extremely slippery slope that we've decided to tread. Just wondering, but are we going to get those rights back? And if so, when?

Good point. I have wondered if Ashcroft wants us to go back to how it was. Not sure really, but I think he may like it.

[Rayn]

Undoubtedly he enjoys it as it serves his purposes: finding sound information on terrorists in the simplest (relatively) manner possible.

As informed as I try to be, I was wondering exactly what the Patriot Act infringes upon? I have heard that it is actually a rather "minor" violation of our rights, buried in a small clause, which I didn't want to read the entire act to find. Anyways, despite the fact that it is a "small" infraction, again it is a slippery slope, and I don't want to be passing out flyers one day and get yanked into the back of a black van.

Though it would be a neat story.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

Except that there is probably not a literal translation. It would probably sound something like, "we are not afraid of anything you do", and that doesn't sound too mild to me. It sounds more likely to inspire them to try harder to impress us.

But the truth is, we are afraid, and they know it. We are so afraid that many are willing to give up freedoms in order to protect ourselves from terrorism (e.g. the Patriot Act). Don't think the terrorists are not aware of how they have turned America into a paranoid, defensive nation.

I don't think the terrorists deserve all the credit for turning USA into a paranoid, defensive nation. I think they had a lot of help from our very own liberal crybabies. We've become a nation that is afraid even when we are doing the right thing. Just another symptom of the "pussification of America", IMO.

[Garrette]

Posted by Segnosaur

For example, if the Dallas Cowboys were set to play the New York Mets (yeah, I know, different sports), the coach of the Cowboys would try to find quotes made by the Mets ("Emmit Smith is a wimp!") in order to get the team to play better. (I assume that that was your point.)

Put serious money on the Cowboys if this happens at Texas Stadium. Bet on the Mets if it’s baseball instead, at least until the first bench-clearing brawl, then it’ll be a Cowboys win by forfeit. (Wouldn’t expect a Canuck to know, but Cowboys and Mets play two different sports…)

Posted by DrChinese

Some good information, great to hear from someone close to what is going on. Care to add any more?

No problem, when I get a chance to think about it more. Right now I’m among the fortunate few who have opportunity to access the internet. It’s one of my ‘down times’.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Garrette

Put serious money on the Cowboys if this happens at Texas Stadium. Bet on the Mets if it’s baseball instead, at least until the first bench-clearing brawl, then it’ll be a Cowboys win by forfeit.

Ha! We Canadians invented Bench Clearing Brawls. Your pitiful cowboys would not last 2 minutes against the might of a Canadian NHL team!

Originally posted by Garrette

(Wouldn’t expect a Canuck to know, but Cowboys and Mets play two different sports…)


I know. That's why I specificially said yeay, I know, different sports in my original post.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I don't think the terrorists deserve all the credit for turning USA into a paranoid, defensive nation. I think they had a lot of help from our very own liberal crybabies. We've become a nation that is afraid even when we are doing the right thing. Just another symptom of the "pussification of America", IMO.

I would think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Ridge might resent being called "liberal crybabies".

[specious_reasons]

Although this thread didn't quite go the way I wanted it to go... I think that Bush's speech more clearly spelled out the desire to link the War in Iraq with the War on Terror, even if the link wasn't present before.

I think my claim of post-hoc reasoning looks more reasonable now.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Although this thread didn't quite go the way I wanted it to go... I think that Bush's speech more clearly spelled out the desire to link the War in Iraq with the War on Terror, even if the link wasn't present before.

I think my claim of post-hoc reasoning looks more reasonable now.

No...really?

I am actually wondering if it is possible to use the word "reasoning" in the same sentence with "Bush" - post-hoc, ad hoc, or otherwise. I think "brainfart" would be more accurate.