Now there is an axis of evil if I've ever seen one - bsams and I on the same side of something.

quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
But when the cops make money every time to convenience store gets robbed ... doesn't that kinda make you think?

Oh, well. I guess it takes a lot to make people think.



Cops get paid without an incentive scheme. So even your parallel fails.



* * * * *

Point #1: Le Figaro. Yep, those French don't dig us screwing around in the Middle East, that's true. But boy, it's absolutely inconceivable that a government would lie, isn't it?

Your argument is predicated on the "divine right" of the government, and your trust that they will not lie. You can't go distrusting the French and then putting so much blind faith in our own government. Either governments are to be absolutely trusted, or they're not.


Your argument on the other hand is predicated that governments will go out of their way to deceive. My argument is supported by the fact that Western democratic governments are for the most part open and accountable. So I start from the basis that they're telling thetruth - which if nothing else is supported by the fact that if the "truth" ever came to light, they'd be in a pile of shit that would collapse the American republic, without any doubt (the tyranny clause of your constitution would certainly kick in).

And I'm not distrusting the French government, which is what you suggest - I'm distrusting the single French secret service man who had a friend at Le Figaro.

Even if you could come up with some corroboration, which you haven't (not suprisingly, because we'd have heard about it from the press before it came from you), you'd recall the Iran-Contra Scandal. Rogue elements of the US government do crazy shit from time to time. Even if a member of the CIA had met OBL prior to the attacks, what of it? Does this represent a policy formulated at the highest levels of government, or the machinations of, say, an Army Ranger colonel playing his own game?

You are mounting a slippery slop argument - a false logic chain projecting causality, which says that if one thing happened (the US govt has acting in ways in the past which meant at that time it couldn't be trusted), another thing will happen (the US govt will do it again) and therefore another thing will happen (the US govt conspired to blow up the WTC). Its garbage debating, sorry (most commnly seen used by those people who think smoking marijuana "automatically" leads to harder drugs).


* * * * *

From your second article, Dave:

quote:
Last week, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Air Force Gen. Richard Myers about why the fighters hadn’t been able to get airborne sooner. Myers, since confirmed as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out that far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War.
Senate: "So why didn't your planes get airborne when they were supposed to?"

Myers: "Ummm ... uh ... lack of defense spending! Yeah! We feul our planes with money, see. It's those damn liberals ... they didn't give us enough money to stuff into the gas tanks. That's it."

Ah, yes, I see now. Underfunded planes fly slower. Why didn't I see that before?


You are distorting the report for your own purposes. In logical debate, this is called a strawman argument - you skew the words into something that wasn't said or wasn't meant to suit your own purposes.

Here, you jackknifed from arguing, "why weren't the planes there?" (rebutted by my source, the point not conceded by you - which shows a lack of style, but anyway) to the strawman, "We have less planes on alert since the end of the Cold War => Our planes are underfueled, under-funded and slower". That's not what he said at all. Given the Russians are no longer a threat, its a reasonable response from Myers.

Now, if you were able to find evidence of planes doing slow circles, you'd be more credible. But you can't - those planes were in the air, and were only minutes late.


* * * * *

My source for the surveillance bit is, as I noted, CNN. Figured you wouldn't want to argue with CNN. That's like kicking the Pope, only not as funny.



Which shows you didn't read what I said. Go and re-read the fact that I think the CNN has a pro-American bias. I think al Jazeera is more objective on Arab issues, personally.


* * * * *

Even by the leanest indicators that an investigation is warranted -- means, motive and opportunity -- the Shrub has got to be at the top of the list. As "President," he has the means and the opportunity. As an Oil Boy, he has the motive.


I prefer the more straightforward explanation, using the logical tool called Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor effective means you carve off the unnecessary shit from the argument to reach the most straightforward conlcusion possible (usually used to disprove God's existence) A bunch of guys with a bit of cash hate the idea that the US is blindly backing the Israelis because of pressure from the Israeli lobby in Washington, and hate the idea that there are American, infidel troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia not far from Medina and Mecca. So they attack in the only way they can. There is a much more straight forward explanation that the convoluted insupportable one you have described.

You guys crack me up. You'll go on and on about "survival of the fittest" and "it's human nature for the strong to conquer the weak." But when it comes time to take a critical look at the people in charge, you suddenly defend them as though they were small, fluffy bunnies, harmless and beyond reproach. No, suddenly it becomes impossible that people in our own government would do anything so sneaky or underhanded as killing a few thousand of its own citizens to build up motivation for a profit-earning war ... as though that very thing hasn't happened over and over again in history.

I appreciate the effort to keep me honest, Dave.

But I wanna hear you guys say it out loud (or type it, as the case may be), just for fun.

Tell me that there isn't a pipeline going through Afghanistan.


Sure there is. Commercial opportunism. Welcome to capitalism, Afghanistan.

Tell me that the Shrub would never let innocent people die to make a buck.

What evidence do you have that he would?

I just wanna see if that's where you guys are coming from. If so, any further discussion will be moot ... you're already lost to the dark side.
On the contrary, you're lost in a spooky plane of no-logic, where shadows become real and looking up means you're staring at the ground.

I've alerted you to the logic flaws in your argument, so you can think about them and overcome them if you can. I've told you about how your argument isn't supprted by sources or evidence, and you failed to address that entirely. You're not credible. I am broaded minded enough to always be willing to be convinced by anything - I'm hardly a knee jerk patriot, nor a Republican (hard to be either since I'm not an American) - but you've failed entirely to do that.

Shit now I'm running late - I'll fix typos later.