Do you think the U.S. government exaggerates and exploits the threat of terrorism?

[Desert_Eagle]

I think our government exaggerates and exploits the threat of terrorism.

For instance they try to portray Al Qaeda as an international organization with some kind of central authority even when this is contradicted by most intelligence agencies and experts on the issue. Al Qaeda is a movement, not a central organization.

Furthermore, our government likes to attribute all kinds of terrorist attacks to Al Qaeda even when they have no evidence for such accusations.

And the president uses terrorism as an excuse to do just about anything he feels like doing.

Another thing I wonder is what proof do they have that Osama carried out the 9/11 attacks? The FBI doesn't even cite 9/11 as one of his charges. Why? Because they don't have any proof. The Bush administration simply accused him of doing it, when really it could have logically been carried out by other terrorists independant of his command.

[ScottieIWU]

Terrorism is a threat, but we don't have it nearly as bad as some areas. In Chechnya, Israel and many other areas you can't even walk around without constant threat of dying in a terrorist attack.

9/11 was bad, and it was big, but now the US considers itself the crusader against terror when terrorism has existed and been worse in other countries all along.

Anyway, I have class in 5 minutes so I couldn't type a whole ton, but there are some base ideas.

[Protosschick99]

Imagine what the CIA is keeping from the public? I bet you there are different types of threats everyday but they say nothing to the nation because everyone would be like, "OH MAH GAWD WE'RE GONNA DIE!!" Totally causing panic and for what? Nothing because our government took care of it already :P

[Kingscrab]

For instance they try to portray Al Qaeda as an international organization with some kind of central authority even when this is contradicted by most intelligence agencies and experts on the issue. I'd be interested to see your sources of these contradictions. Al Qaeda is a movement, not a central organization. Label Al Qaeda how you will. I don't care if you call it a book club. Bottom line: You kill Americans, America will not be happy with you... ie. You can probably expect a firey death at some point.

To answer your question, yes, the government probably exaggerates, when hasn't it? *shrug*

[Desert_Eagle]

Imagine what the CIA is keeping from the public?
One can only imagine what they aren't telling us, based upon how many times they have lied and covered up. (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm)

Operation PAPERCLIP
While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) . The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus.
Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Galen was supposed to protect.
1947: Greece
President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created
President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC -there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties as the National Security Council may from time to time direct." This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.
1948: Covert-action wing created
The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy
The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works — the communists are defeated.
1949: Radio Free Europe
The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.
Late 40's: Operation MOCKINGBIRD
The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham head the effort. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.
1953: Iran
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA
Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.
1954: Guatemala
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1954-1958: North Vietnam
CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating American intervention and finally the Vietnam War.
1956: Hungary
Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.
1957-1973: Laos
The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Army Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.
1959: Haiti
The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.
1961: The Bay of Pigs
The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion would spark a popular uprising against Castro — which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Dominican Republic
The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.
Ecuador
The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.
Congo (Zaire)
The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
1963: Kennedy Assassination
1963: Dominican Republic
The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right wing junta.
Ecuador
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964: Brazil
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police that hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.
1965: Indonesia
The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic
A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
Greece
With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
Congo (Zaire)
A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.
1966: The Ramparts Affair
The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveal that the National Students' Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.
1967: Greece
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cyprus, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
Operation PHOENIX
The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."
1968: Operation CHAOS
The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.
Bolivia
A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.
1969: Uruguay
The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.
1970: Cambodia
The CIA overthrows Prince Sihanouk, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971: Bolivia
After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
Haiti
"Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.
1972: The Case-Zablocki Act
Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.
Cambodia
Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Watergate Break-in
President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.
1973: Chile
The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
CIA begins internal investigations
William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal
The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper take up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.
CIA Director Helms Fired
President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.
1974: CHAOS exposed
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired
Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.
House clears CIA in Watergate
The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon's Watergate break-in.
The Hughes Ryan Act
Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report non-intelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.
1975: Australia
The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.
Angola
Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence"
Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.
"Inside the Company"
Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.
Congress investigates CIA wrongdoing
Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.
The Rockefeller Commission
In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.
1979: Iran
The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Lebanon: CIA Trains Phalangists on how to bomb civilians
El Salvador
An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.
Nicaragua
Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.
1980: El Salvador
The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1981: Iran/Contra Begins
The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.
1983: Honduras
The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.
1984: The Boland Amendment
The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.
1986: Eugene Hasenfus
Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.
Iran/Contra Scandal
Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.
Haiti
Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.
1989: Panama
The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington. So out he goes.
1990: Haiti
Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.
1991: The Fall of the Soviet Union
The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.
1992: Economic Espionage
In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.
1993: Haiti
The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country's ruling class.

Here is a short list of CIA death squads that we know about (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/166983.html)

I'd be interested to see your sources of these contradictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda

Label Al Qaeda how you will. I don't care if you call it a book club. Bottom line: You kill Americans, America will not be happy with you... ie. You can probably expect a firey death at some point.

But how do we know that all Al Qaeda "members" (this is a funny word, it would be like calling followers of Bush "Bush members") necessarily kill Americans? A lot of terrorists just go after Israel, or theocratic governments in the Middle East.

The most important question is Can the "War on terrorism" actually be won, by the methods being used to condcut it? If Al Qaeda is a movement and not a centralized organization, how does the administration plan to fight Al Qaeda? More importantly, are these the most effective methods?

[Dark_Magneto]

The most important question is Can the "War on terrorism" actually be won, by the methods being used to condcut it? If Al Qaeda is a movement and not a centralized organization, how does the administration plan to fight Al Qaeda?

Thought police.

The technology isn't there yet, but left unimpeded, it would be eventually.

[Ragnarox]

Thought police.

The technology isn't there yet, but left unimpeded, it would be eventually.

Well we do have a form of Hypnopedia, but it would be difficult and expensive to impliment world wide.

[Kingscrab]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda Um... okay. The Wikipedia definition of Al Qaeeda is the entire basis of your argument? Super. But how do we know that all Al Qaeda "members" (this is a funny word, it would be like calling followers of Bush "Bush members") necessarily kill Americans? A lot of terrorists just go after Israel, or theocratic governments in the Middle East. Have you been living in a cave for the past several years? Grab TV remote control. Hit "ON".

[Desert_Eagle]

Who needs the thought police when you have a ministry of propaganda?

Um... okay. The Wikipedia definition of Al Qaeeda is the entire basis of your argument? Super.

"I'd be interested to see your sources of these contradictions [that Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization]. "

So yes, you claimed you would be interested in my source for the contradictions. Are you no longer interested or...?

Have you been living in a cave for the past several years? Grab TV remote control. Hit "ON".

To my knowledge there is no evidence on any television station which states "all Al Qaeda followers kill Americans."

[GenocideAlive]

Who needs the thought police when you have a ministry of propaganda?
I don't think I'd be overstepping my bounds in saying that American is one of hundreds of nations with a propaganda ministry. I don't know if you're just getting out of puberty and thus are suddenly realizing that the world isn't butterfly kisses and unicorn giggles, but this is nothing new. This is over 100 years old.

And looking at your sources and basis for complaints, I seriously have to laugh, nay, guffaw at your remarks about propaganda.

Yes, Mr. Left-Wing Extremist, I will eat whatever shit you poop, thanks.
So yes, you claimed you would be interested in my source for the contradictions. Are you no longer interested or...?
Just FYI, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a consensus. A bunch of non-experts write and amend their own book of knowledge in the format of an encyclopedia for purposes of edutainment. Thus, when you present things as fact and then follow up with a stunning Wikipedia reference, you're pretty much struggling unless your topic is lore/literature etc.
To my knowledge there is no evidence on any television station which states "all Al Qaeda followers kill Americans."
Are you...dumb? I just figured I had to ask.

Anyway, the government exaggerates the threat of terrorism...yes, no, maybe so. As it stands we know they planned on multiple more building / structure attacks and that's pretty damned consistent with what has happened on 9/11.

[Desert_Eagle]

I don't think I'd be overstepping my bounds in saying that American is one of hundreds of nations with a propaganda ministry. I don't know if you're just getting out of puberty and thus are suddenly realizing that the world isn't butterfly kisses and unicorn giggles, but this is nothing new. This is over 100 years old.

And looking at your sources and basis for complaints, I seriously have to laugh, nay, guffaw at your remarks about propaganda.

Yes, Mr. Left-Wing Extremist, I will eat whatever shit you poop, thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Just FYI, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a consensus. A bunch of non-experts write and amend their own book of knowledge in the format of an encyclopedia for purposes of edutainment. Thus, when you present things as fact and then follow up with a stunning Wikipedia reference, you're pretty much struggling unless your topic is lore/literature etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

Are you...dumb? I just figured I had to ask.

Not as dumb as you, if that helps.

Anyway, the government exaggerates the threat of terrorism...yes, no, maybe so. As it stands we know they planned on multiple more building / structure attacks and that's pretty damned consistent with what has happened on 9/11.

They still exaggerate the threat of terrorism.

[frazz]

Imagine what the CIA is keeping from the public? I bet you there are different types of threats everyday but they say nothing to the nation because everyone would be like, "OH MAH GAWD WE'RE GONNA DIE!!" Totally causing panic and for what? Nothing because our government took care of it already
Men In Black:P

But this is primarily an attack on Bush.
Ok, pinning the 9/11 attacks on Al'queda is a reasonable assumption. The U.S. is primarily protecting peace around the world more than the in the U.S.
A lot of terrorists just go after Israel, or theocratic governments in the Middle East.
That's it! Screw everybody else as long as we're ok!

To my knowledge there is no evidence on any television station which states "all Al Qaeda followers kill Americans."
Nor is there evidence on telivision that you need to breath :rolleyes:
Edit: Also, the poll is nearly unrelated to the topic. Terrorism may be exxagerated, but that doesn't mean Bush is a propaganda spitting liar and Al'queda doesn't hate America. The poll should be more like "Do you think the U.S. is out of line in the MidEast?" because that is the question you are getting at.

[Yoda]

I think that the entire terrorism issue is exaggerated. I see many, many notices and booklets at train stations saying things which border on hilarity. I do not seriously think that we'll have something like September 11 again, or that Al Quaida is anything near the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars (with America as the other group). They are not going to get anywhere near destroying the non-muslim world as their intention.

On a second note, I don't think that they will capture Osama Bin Laden, and publicly proclaim it anytime soon. They've basically given up.

Terrorism is also useful to George Bush and also to John Howard. I'm not sure about Tony Blair as I do not live in America. It was George Bush's excuse to go into Iraq to hunt down some imaginary weapons of mass destructions, and takes control of the oil fields as a side note. John Howard is (when he is not oppressing the working class into virtual slavery with his IR reforms), from what I last heard, tried to get some reforms in which make it illegal to protest against the government, or draw Howard in a negative manner in a political cartoon. Our glorious leaders are making good use of these terrorists.

As an end note, I would be very happy if given the offortunity to interview Osama Bin Laden with diplomatic immunity. :smirk:

[Kingscrab]

So yes, you claimed you would be interested in my source for the contradictions. Are you no longer interested or...? If Wikipedia is your only source for every argument you make? Not really... Did you just discover it or what? To my knowledge there is no evidence on any television station which states "all Al Qaeda followers kill Americans." Let me break it down for ya' homie: If you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you are still guilty of helping to kill that person.

ie: If you supply a bomb to someone because you know they are going to strap it to themselves and blow up someone you hate, (thanks to the teachings of your "movement") you are still guilty of killing that person. You don't have to be the trigger man to be a murderer.

Get it?

[Desert_Eagle]

Ok, pinning the 9/11 attacks on Al'queda is a reasonable assumption. The U.S. is primarily protecting peace around the world more than the in the U.S.

War is Peace!

That's it! Screw everybody else as long as we're ok!

No, we have to protect dictators like Saddam Hussein from Islamist terrorist, right?

Nor is there evidence on telivision that you need to breath :rolleyes:

There is plenty actually.

Also, the poll is nearly unrelated to the topic. Terrorism may be exxagerated, but that doesn't mean Bush is a propaganda spitting liar and Al'queda doesn't hate America. The poll should be more like "Do you think the U.S. is out of line in the MidEast?" because that is the question you are getting at.

No, the question is "does the government exaggerate the threat of terrorism?" This question exists independantly of "is Bush a liar" because that is supported by other evidence independantly of whether or not the government exaggerates the threat of terrorism.

Let me break it down for ya' homie: If you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you are still guilty of helping to kill that person.

What if you didn't drive the getaway car, are you still guilty? What if you had absolutely nothing to do with that particular robbery, but you did try to rob a differant bank (or plan to in the future), are you still guilty of that robbery?

If you supply a bomb to someone because you know they are going to strap it to themselves and blow up someone you hate, (thanks to the teachings of your "movement") you are still guilty of killing that person. You don't have to be the trigger man to be a murderer.

Get it?

What if you didn't supply the bomb?

[Kingscrab]

What if you didn't drive the getaway car, are you still guilty? What if you had absolutely nothing to do with that particular robbery, but you did try to rob a differant bank (or plan to in the future), are you still guilty of that robbery? If you helped plan it? Yes. If both crimes are part of a greater conspiracy or plan? Yes. Cops are not going to stop arresting criminals simply because their crimes are independant of each other. What if you didn't supply the bomb? Can you be a little more vague please.

Sure, not all terrorists are Al Qaeda but all Al Qaeda are terrorists. Al Qaeda members have one shared goal. If they did not have that goal they would not be Al Qaeda.

Ray Charles is blind. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_charles)
Love is blind. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love)
Ray Charles is love?

[Neo]

DE i would like to profess my undying love for you for bringing up something different in IR then the standard religious debates.

Its also given me an insight to a few members here -- I never thought we had people like Kingscrab who were so blindly patriotic. Inasmuch as, he doesn't really seem to be posting anything relevent to counteract the main arguement -- somewhat more of a "oh look he uses wikipedia, that means its pointless!!!"

You could probably google al queda and find a great many sources of information -- biased or not, and learn much more about them then you would ever on the news.

The point he was trying to make was this: If you are part of a group of people (read: gang) and some of that group went and robbed a bank (maybe you didn't even know about it at all) would you be arrested simply for knowing // being part of that group? The answer is no.

At least most of the time. For instance, would the cops arrest you if your brother was part of a crime? I mean, you to are both part of the same family no? What if you best friend was part of a crime and you were both in same group/gang/circle of friends/etc...?

This scares me a lot right here:

http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_statement.pdf

I think I saw a couple of them being interviewed and answered No to a question similar to "are we prepared/any safer since 9/11?"

AS long as those garbage trucks have A/C and those dogs have that kevlar armor we're good.

-Neo

[Kingscrab]

I never thought we had people like Kingscrab who were so blindly patriotic. The point he was trying to make was this: If you are part of a group of people (read: gang) and some of that group went and robbed a bank (maybe you didn't even know about it at all) would you be arrested simply for knowing // being part of that group? The answer is no.
I used crime as a mere example. And for what it's worth, again, yes they would. If they could prove you had previous knowledge or gave support to those criminals then you are guilty by association.

We are not talking about bank robbers though are we? We are talking about people who would detonate a nuke in your hometown and not think twice about it. Yeah, i'm a lefty by nature, but Al Qaeda gets none of my liberal backing.

For the record, i DID answer the thread question a long time ago.

[Desert_Eagle]

If you helped plan it? Yes. If both crimes are part of a greater conspiracy or plan? Yes. Cops are not going to stop arresting criminals simply because their crimes are independant of each other.

Comprehension: Poor.

"What if you had absolutely nothing to do with that particular robbery, but you did try to rob a differant bank (or plan to [rob a differant bank] in the future), are you still guilty of that [the one you didn't commit nor plan] robbery?"

So cops are going to start charging people with crimes they didn't commit? For instance if I go rob Bank of America do I also get charged for another robbery that happened in a differant state that I had nothing to do with?

Can you be a little more vague please?

Whats ambiguous about the statement? You said "if you supply a bomb etc. etc." I said "what if you didn't supply the bomb?"

Sure, not all terrorists are Al Qaeda but all Al Qaeda are terrorists. Al Qaeda members have one shared goal. If they did not have that goal they would not be Al Qaeda.

Relevance?

Ray Charles is blind. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_charles)
Love is blind. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love)
Ray Charles is love?

The equivocation fallacy. Now if you would like to demonstrate how this is related to anything I stated, that would be nice. Be sure to place it in premise-conclusion form.

[Kingscrab]

Comprehension: Poor.

"What if you had absolutely nothing to do with that particular robbery, but you did try to rob a differant bank (or plan to [rob a differant bank] in the future), are you still guilty of that [the one you didn't commit nor plan] robbery?" Thank you. I understood your point. The difference is that Al Qaeda is one group with one goal, and all fighting for the same cause. EX: An Al Qaeda member blows up a US embassy in Country A while at the same time another Al Qaeda member blows up a US embassy in Country B. Obviously they commited different attacks but the attacks are related to a greater cause or end goal. Did I forget to mention that we are at war with Al Qaeda? Whats ambiguous about the statement? You said "if you supply a bomb etc. etc." I said "what if you didn't supply the bomb?" The answer depends on whether or not you are a member of Al Qaeda. If you're a member, you're guilty by default. Did i mention that we are at war with Al Qaeda? Sure, not all terrorists are Al Qaeda but all Al Qaeda are terrorists. Al Qaeda members have one shared goal. If they did not have that goal they would not be Al Qaeda. Relevance? See above.

[Desert_Eagle]

Thank you. I understood your point. The difference is that Al Qaeda is one group with one goal, and all fighting for the same cause. EX: An Al Qaeda member blows up a US embassy in Country A while at the same time another Al Qaeda member blows up a US embassy in Country B. Obviously they commited different attacks but the attacks are related to a greater cause or end goal. Did I forget to mention that we are at war with Al Qaeda?

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the organization. I've already explained to you that Al Qaeda is a movement with cells that operate independantly of one another. Thus you wouldn't charge someone with a crime they didn't commit. The Bush Administration provided no evidence that Osama Bin Laden masterminded the attacks after 9/11, he made that up.

The answer depends on whether or not you are a member of Al Qaeda. If you're a member, you're guilty by default. Did i mention that we are at war with Al Qaeda?

Your guilty of a crime you didn't commit? That doesn't make much sense.

[Dark_Magneto]

If Wikipedia is your only source for every argument you make? Not really... Did you just discover it or what?

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/poison_well.jpg

Some people have the wrong idea. They think (or pretend to think) that an attack on the source of an assertion substitutes for having to listen, understand, and form a cogent counter-argument. This is known as "poisoning the well".

If you notice, Wikipedia cites its sources at the end of their articles (or otherwise have an "unreferenced - source needed" caption after the claim). So it's really not a source in itself, but rather a gateway to other sources.

[Kingscrab]

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the organization. You're right. I have been misinformed by global opinion. Al Qaeda is actually a gaming clan! :rolleyes: Your guilty of a crime you didn't commit? That doesn't make much sense. Yeah, well... war is hell i guess.

WAR 101: You help the enemy you become the enemy. Even my left-wing mind can wrap around that concept.

[Desert_Eagle]

You're right. I have been misinformed by global opinion. Al Qaeda is actually a gaming clan!

Al Qaeda is a movement.

WAR 101: You help the enemy you become the enemy. Even my left-wing mind can wrap around that concept.

Left field maybe, not left wing.

[Kingscrab]

Al Qaeda is a movement. And the point is? Call it whatever you want, a nifty new title doesn't make it less of an enemy. Perhaps even more dangerous.

Please note the bolded part:
al-Qaeda has evolved into a movement "...where the jihad is self-sustaining, where Islamic warriors fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaeda’s bin Laden, and where the name 'al-Qaeda' provides the inspiration for subsequent international attacks."

Left field maybe, not left wing. You got me! ZING! :bonk:

[Neo]

Pretty sure that AQ has more goals then just 'kill americans'.

I'm not that egotistical to think we are the one and only target for a group of terrorists.

-Neo

[Kingscrab]

Pretty sure that AQ has more goals then just 'kill americans'.

I'm not that egotistical to think we are the one and only target for a group of terrorists.

-Neo Sure, whatever. Add Europeans and Muslim "collaborators" to their list. (which often includes random groups of women, children and non-combatants) Hey! Theres that guilt through association thing again! As long as AQ even HAS a "to kill" list, and America is on it, they they get the honor of being on OUR list. Get back to your caves bitches! :2cents:

[King_Critter]

As long as AQ even HAS a "to kill" list, and America is on it, they they get the honor of being on OUR list. Get back to your caves bitches!

Well, they wouldn't be trying to kill us if we wern't trying to steal their oil kill them...

[Desert_Eagle]

And the point is? Call it whatever you want, a nifty new title doesn't make it less of an enemy. Perhaps even more dangerous.

Please note the bolded part:

It does make one party not responsible for crimes of another party, though.

Sure, whatever. Add Europeans and Muslim "collaborators" to their list. (which often includes random groups of women, children and non-combatants) Hey! Theres that guilt through association thing again! As long as AQ even HAS a "to kill" list, and America is on it, they they get the honor of being on OUR list. Get back to your caves bitches!

The list also includes many theocratic Islamist dictators that you support. Should the members who went after these theocratic Islamist dictators be held responsible for acts such as 9/11 which they had no part in whatsoever?

[Kingscrab]

The list also includes many theocratic Islamist dictators that you support. Should the members who went after these theocratic Islamist dictators be held responsible for acts such as 9/11 which they had no part in whatsoever? That i support? Huh? Specifics please. Look, I can be cryptic too. The enemy of my friend is my enemy.

[frazz]

No, we have to protect dictators like Saddam Hussein from Islamist terrorist, right?
In short, huh?
War is Peace!
You're taking the "Screw everyone as long as I'm safe" stance again. Maybe you don't care about eveybody in the mid east, but some people do.

And incase anybody has any question as to wether or not Al'queda would like to kill America...
Al'queda is a movement that is aimed at pretty much making everybody muslim by killing all Christians Jews and anybody else that gets in their way. They would like to see all Israel dead. But the U.S., being the nice guys that we are, don't exactly like that.(we might not do all that much though) So Al'queda figures "Hey, if America is dead, it would be that much easier to kill Jews". Thus, they kill Americans.

[GenocideAlive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well? How cute. Do you understand that the basis for "Poisoning the Well" is an ad hominem attack? I'm stating that the entirety of your arguments are suckerbait for liberalist propaganda. You return that I'm attacking you personally.

So let's run a quick comparison:

Your arguments are total liberal alarmist bullshit

vs.

You have no credibility, and therefore your arguments have no merit
--
A better example of poisoning the well would be this:
Even my left-wing mind can wrap around this concept.Left field maybe, not left wing. See, here Kingscrab states that he's a liberal, and you in turn seize the opportunity to retort that he's crazy--thereby not refuting or addressing any part or whole of his argument, but rather using it as a device to dismiss his credibility.

Of course, you're desperately clinging to the very fragile precipice that Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist group aiming at killing Americans wholly, so any addressing of their organization as an enemy is supposedly therefore corrupt.

As though if your organization stated in their mission statement that they were "going to kill some spics and jews", and then did so in mass numbers in 30 countries. Your reply is that neither Israel nor Mexico could capture members and label them as enemy combatants unless they were specifically caught in their country in the process of attempting to carry out a terrorist plot. Fortunately, the world's governments are that stupid.

Kingscrab finally distilled your argument down to its core components, and rather than address the fact that you'd just been exposed as a hair-splitting semantic fraud, you instead turned to rhetorical insult at Kingscrab as a rejoinder.

[Desert_Eagle]

That i support? Huh? Specifics please. Look, I can be cryptic too. The enemy of my friend is my enemy.

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, etc.

In short, huh?

See above.

You're taking the "Screw everyone as long as I'm safe" stance again. Maybe you don't care about eveybody in the mid east, but some people do.

Who does?

Your switch bating your argument again, this is known as a post-hoc rationalization. First you claim intervention in the Middle East such as the Iraq war was based on self-defense. Now your claiming humanitarian grounds. If your going to stick with humanitarian reasons, you must be consistant in your position. Now adress the issue of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, UAE, etc.

And incase anybody has any question as to wether or not Al'queda would like to kill America...
Al'queda is a movement that is aimed at pretty much making everybody muslim by killing all Christians Jews and anybody else that gets in their way. They would like to see all Israel dead. But the U.S., being the nice guys that we are, don't exactly like that.(we might not do all that much though) So Al'queda figures "Hey, if America is dead, it would be that much easier to kill Jews". Thus, they kill Americans.

Well no, Al Qaedas primary motivation for terrorist attacks is the military presence of the United States in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia.

Al Qaeda does not commit acts like 9/11 to "make everybody Muslim," that demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual reasoning and borders on insanity.

How cute. Do you understand that the basis for "Poisoning the Well" is an ad hominem attack? I'm stating that the entirety of your arguments are suckerbait for liberalist propaganda. You return that I'm attacking you personally.

False, I stated that you were poisoning the well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

So let's run a quick comparison:

Your arguments are total liberal alarmist bullshit

vs.

You have no credibility, and therefore your arguments have no merit

Again, your demonstrating your lack of knowledge in the area of logic. The ad hominem is not against me, it's against wikipedia. Anyone with an elementary understanding of this principle would have picked up on that from the beginning.

A better example of poisoning the well would be this:

Kingscrab: Even my left-wing mind can wrap around this concept.
Desert Eagle: Left field maybe, not left wing.

See, here Kingscrab states that he's a liberal, and you in turn seize the opportunity to retort that he's crazy--thereby not refuting or addressing any part or whole of his argument, but rather using it as a device to dismiss his credibility.

Wrong again. The humorous retort was not an attack on his argument, it was an attack on him specifically (no qualifiers). The fact that he is in left field has no bearing on the validity of his argument, which has been refuted on logical grounds, not his mental state.

Of course, you're desperately clinging to the very fragile precipice that Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist group aiming at killing Americans wholly, so any addressing of their organization as an enemy is supposedly therefore corrupt.

Well no, that is not my claim, but continue anyways.

As though if your organization stated in their mission statement that they were "going to kill some spics and jews", and then did so in mass numbers in 30 countries. Your reply is that neither Israel nor Mexico could capture members and label them as enemy combatants unless they were specifically caught in their country in the process of attempting to carry out a terrorist plot. Fortunately, the world's governments are that stupid.

1. Al Qaeda has been accused of comitting these terrorist acts, the evidence is quite shaky.

2. That is not my reply.

3. If the worlds governments are indeed "that stupid," does that make all of us stupid?

Kingscrab finally distilled your argument down to its core components, and rather than address the fact that you'd just been exposed as a hair-splitting semantic fraud, you instead turned to rhetorical insult at Kingscrab as a rejoinder.

Demonstratably false.

[Neo]

In short, huh?

You're taking the "Screw everyone as long as I'm safe" stance again. Maybe you don't care about eveybody in the mid east, but some people do.

And incase anybody has any question as to wether or not Al'queda would like to kill America...
Al'queda is a movement that is aimed at pretty much making everybody muslim by killing all Christians Jews and anybody else that gets in their way. They would like to see all Israel dead. But the U.S., being the nice guys that we are, don't exactly like that.(we might not do all that much though) So Al'queda figures "Hey, if America is dead, it would be that much easier to kill Jews". Thus, they kill Americans.
You do realize that AQ along with other terrorist groups don't only target non-muslims right? You do realize that some target other muslims right? Hell, some AQ members probably don't give a rat's ass about the US and are more intent on attacking Isrealis or other such things.

And Isreal -- I am sorry -- is fucking annoying. We funnel what, billions, trillions of dollars into them yearly and wonder why muslims are pissed at us? It scares me that Isreal has nukes -- much more then if a terrorist organization got thier hands on one. (Because in all honesty, if a group in the middle east got thier hands on a small nuke, do you really think they are going to drag it half way around the world to blow up some aprt of the US? -- I think they would probably target something a little closer to home eh?).

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

Its easy to act as if you know everything about AQ just from watching the evening news, but theres a lot more to it.

I'm not arguing they aren't evil, or don't need to be taken down, but it just seems to me that backing them into a corner makes them much deadlier then they were before. (ie: a wounded, cornered animal)

Its also kind of scary that we had (some kind of) foreknowledge of 9/11 and didn't really do anything to prevent it.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

False, I stated that you were poisoning the well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well Did you state I was poisoning the well? Because after the Nth time of repeating the exact same phrase and link, it's becoming no clearer. But then, your tactic thus far seems to be to simply repeat your rhetoric rather than to defend it with anything to qualify it.
Again, your demonstrating your lack of knowledge in the area of logic. The ad hominem is not against me, it's against wikipedia. Anyone with an elementary understanding of this principle would have picked up on that from the beginning. I would just like to point out that in the process of both quoting Wikipedia and attempting to insult me, that I am now going to fuck you in the ass with a rusty spiked iron bar. I'm really glad that you walked right into this, because it just goes to show how little of what you're quoting you actually read.

Let's reference Wikipedia for this, because I like irony and it's always nice to slam someone based on their own personal bias. What does Wikipedia say about ad hominem?

First, they state that it's an argument against a person, not a source.

"An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominemLatin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin), literally "argument against the person")"

Let's read a little further down.

"It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments"

So, basically, Wikipedia is neither a person nor the person offering the argument. They are simply the source that you are quoting as a basis for your argument. But am I done? No, indeed. Bite down on that stick, son, because here comes the clincher:

Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility), but to doubt or reject a deduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

And thus, the ad hominem fallacy is completely inapplicable to this situation because I am doubting the evidence based not on the source (you), but rather the evidence you are using (Wikipedia) for reasons of credibility. Feel free to pull more bullshit out of your ass and completely misuse more Latin debatist rhetoric, I enjoy embarrassing you with them.

Wrong again. The humorous retort was not an attack on his argument, it was an attack on him specifically (no qualifiers). The fact that he is in left field has no bearing on the validity of his argument, which has been refuted on logical grounds, not his mental state. Humorous retort? Permit me to make a humorous retort--your'e a shit eating pimple faced dork.

Why that garbage was allowed in the IR is a mystery, but if I'm going to get blamed for flaming regardless of whether I'm flaming or just slamming someone with facts, I might as well get on board. Or at least that's what Reader Rabbit told me.
1. Al Qaeda has been accused of comitting these terrorist acts, the evidence is quite shaky. Yes, videos released by leaders and supporters taking credit for the crimes is always very shaky evidence. Much in the way of me taking your own source and using it to prove that you don't know shit from shineola about debate or its terms is very shaky.

[ScottieIWU]

I'm all for the US realizing that much of the reason that islamic fundamentalists hate us is because of some things that we've done. That said, does it make it okay for them to resort to terrorist tactics?

I'll yield to analogy in this case. A bully starts telling me what to do with my life, takes my lunch money and spends it on things I don't approve of. As a result, I'm very angry. Rather than find some peacable or reasonable way to solve the problem, or hell, even attacking the bully directly, I will instead attack the bully's family, killing each and every one of them in their sleep.

That's kind of like Al Qaeda.

Anyway, I think I'll let Kingscrab, GA and fuck, even Frazz take this because they certainly are handling it just fine.

[Kingscrab]

@ DE - Just so you know, my "left field" comment was an example of guilt by association. Just wanted to clear that up since apparently my post was a bit ambiguous. I will admit that my debating skills are rusty.

ps. I'd keep the personal attacks down, as now GA has schooled your ass. :o

[frazz]

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, etc.
Ok. Howabout you COMPLETELY restate your argument. No more cryptics plz.
(Because in all honesty, if a group in the middle east got thier hands on a small nuke, do you really think they are going to drag it half way around the world to blow up some aprt of the US? -- I think they would probably target something a little closer to home eh?).
Well, it all breaks down to your primary target. Compared to the money to get a nuke, it's not that big of a deal to send it a few thousand miles. Israel is, however, the primary target. And the US is already in such massive debt the government doesn't seem to care anymore. So a few billion dollars to protect a few million lives is ok by me.

[Desert_Eagle]

Did you state I was poisoning the well? Because after the Nth time of repeating the exact same phrase and link, it's becoming no clearer. But then, your tactic thus far seems to be to simply repeat your rhetoric rather than to defend it with anything to qualify it.

Let's review:

You originally stated:

And looking at your sources and basis for complaints, I seriously have to laugh, nay, guffaw at your remarks about propaganda.

Yes, Mr. Left-Wing Extremist, I will eat whatever shit you poop, thanks.

Also: Just FYI, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a consensus. A bunch of non-experts write and amend their own book of knowledge in the format of an encyclopedia for purposes of edutainment. Thus, when you present things as fact and then follow up with a stunning Wikipedia reference, you're pretty much struggling unless your topic is lore/literature etc.

That sir, is poisoning the well by definition.

I replied with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

You then said:

How cute. Do you understand that the basis for "Poisoning the Well" is an ad hominem attack? I'm stating that the entirety of your arguments are suckerbait for liberalist propaganda. You return that I'm attacking you personally.

So let's run a quick comparison:

Your arguments are total liberal alarmist bullshit

vs.

You have no credibility, and therefore your arguments have no merit

That is clearly a false statement. Not once did my argument take the form "you are attacking me personally." I simply stated the fact (by definition) that you were poisoning the well, nothing more and nothing less.

So in lieu of this, I felt that I needed to remind you that I did not in fact say what you claimed (otherwise you would have quoted it, something you cannot do, because I never said that), but indeed I stated that you are poisoning the well. And you still are.

I would just like to point out that in the process of both quoting Wikipedia and attempting to insult me, that I am now going to fuck you in the ass with a rusty spiked iron bar. I'm really glad that you walked right into this, because it just goes to show how little of what you're quoting you actually read.

Let's reference Wikipedia for this, because I like irony and it's always nice to slam someone based on their own personal bias. What does Wikipedia say about ad hominem?

First, they state that it's an argument against a person, not a source.

"An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominemLatin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin), literally "argument against the person")"

Let's read a little further down.

"It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments"

So, basically, Wikipedia is neither a person nor the person offering the argument. They are simply the source that you are quoting as a basis for your argument. But am I done? No, indeed. Bite down on that stick, son, because here comes the clincher:

Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility), but to doubt or reject a deduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

And thus, the ad hominem fallacy is completely inapplicable to this situation because I am doubting the evidence based not on the source (you), but rather the evidence you are using (Wikipedia) for reasons of credibility. Feel free to pull more bullshit out of your ass and completely misuse more Latin debatist rhetoric, I enjoy embarrassing you with them.

Poisoning the well was applied to wikipedia. Thus far, you have not cited a single fact that you call into question. That is, by definition, poisoning the well.

You doubt the evidence "for reasons of credibility," yet have not given any reason for that. That is poisoning the well. It is equivalent to me stating "I doubt Bush is telling the truth that he didn't plan 9/11 for reasons of credibility." Or "I doubt wikipedias article on evolution is accurate for reasons of credibility."

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

Yes, videos released by leaders and supporters taking credit for the crimes is always very shaky evidence. Much in the way of me taking your own source and using it to prove that you don't know shit from shineola about debate or its terms is very shaky.

1. Authenticity of many of the videos are questionable.
2. Al Qaeda has not realeased a video taking credit for every terrorist attack it is accused of comitting.

I'll yield to analogy in this case. A bully starts telling me what to do with my life, takes my lunch money and spends it on things I don't approve of. As a result, I'm very angry. Rather than find some peacable or reasonable way to solve the problem, or hell, even attacking the bully directly, I will instead attack the bully's family, killing each and every one of them in their sleep.

That's kind of like Al Qaeda.

Anyway, I think I'll let Kingscrab, GA and fuck, even Frazz take this because they certainly are handling it just fine.

A better analogy is somebody trampling your rights for over 40 years. Is armed resistance a valid tactic? Our founding fathers thought so.

Howabout you COMPLETELY restate your argument. No more cryptics plz.

How about you read the questions that you ask and find that they have already been answered, instead of me repeating myself 3 times.

Well, it all breaks down to your primary target. Compared to the money to get a nuke, it's not that big of a deal to send it a few thousand miles. Israel is, however, the primary target. And the US is already in such massive debt the government doesn't seem to care anymore. So a few billion dollars to protect a few million lives is ok by me.

What about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with nukes?

[GenocideAlive]

That sir, is poisoning the well by definition.
OK, I will now roll my eyes at you. :rolleyes:

Hey everybody! Calling into question the credibility of a source is now defined as "poisoning the well", as DE has stated 9 times with no new evidence to support his proposition other than a link and accusation for the Nth + 2 time. Clearly, anybody that questions almighty Wikipedia is simply poisoning the well, even though it's like a round block being hammered into a square peg.
1. Authenticity of many of the videos are questionable.

Yay! Negative proof for the third time in three posts! It's not enough that I can prove it with evidence, I now have to prove that my evidence isn't fake!! Yay!
How about you read the questions that you ask and find that they have already been answered, instead of me repeating myself 3 times.
I'm fairly certain you'd repeat yourself regardless. After all, every time I refute something you say, you either bring up negative proof or repeat yourself.

[Desert_Eagle]

Hey everybody! Calling into question the credibility of a source is now defined as "poisoning the well", as DE has stated 9 times with no new evidence to support his proposition other than a link and accusation for the Nth + 2 time. Clearly, anybody that questions almighty Wikipedia is simply poisoning the well, even though it's like a round block being hammered into a square peg.

(For the 5th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 5th time, and be asked a 6th time.

Yay! Negative proof for the third time in three posts! It's not enough that I can prove it with evidence, I now have to prove that my evidence isn't fake!! Yay!

Well yes, and that is not negative proof. Of course you have to prove that your evidence is authentic, can you name any time when this wouldn't be the case?

I'm fairly certain you'd repeat yourself regardless. After all, every time I refute something you say, you either bring up negative proof or repeat yourself.

Give examples.

[GenocideAlive]

Well yes, and that is not negative proof. Of course you have to prove that your evidence is authentic, can you name any time when this wouldn't be the case?
How about when you quote Wikipedia? *Toilet Flushes*

[Desert_Eagle]

(For the 6th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 7th time, and be asked an 8th time.

[ScottieIWU]

And you will probably misunderstand that poisoning the well would be calling into credibility your characer, like me calling you an utter fool.

Calling into question the source of information that you're citing is called intelligence. Wikipedia is not a relevant source.

Fool. <-actual poisoning the well

[Desert_Eagle]

And you will probably misunderstand that poisoning the well would be calling into credibility your characer, like me calling you an utter fool.

Wrong.

Calling into question the source of information that you're citing is called intelligence. Wikipedia is not a relevant source.

Fool. <-actual poisoning the well

(For the 7th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 8th time, and be asked an 9th time.


Why is it so difficult for them to adress this issue? Well because they are simply poisoning the well, and don't have any substance to their claims that wikipedia is not a valid source on this issue.

[GenocideAlive]

I created a thread so you can better understand, since you clearly like hearing yourself talk. Go talk over there--where Wikipedia outlines for itself why it can't be a reliable source.

[Desert_Eagle]

(For the 8th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 9th time, and be asked a 10th time.

Question: Why does he find it so difficult to process such a simple request? Anybody else wondering?

[Mr.Bad]

wikipedia is not a valid source because anyone in the entire world that has access to the internet can edit any subject on wikipedia. I could go under Al'Queda and replace all the information on it with "Bob went to the store". Now if I did this, it will swiftly be changed back to its previous state, but if more subtlety was used, you could get away with falsifying information. Since there is a high probability that this happens often, Wikipedia could be considered a questionable source. (Just to clear that poisoning the well shit up)

[Desert_Eagle]

(For the 9th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 10th time, and be asked a 11th time.

[Kingscrab]

(For the 9th time)

I'll ask again, is there some specific fact that you are calling into question or are you simply poisoning the well?

This will no doubt go unadressed for the 10th time, and be asked a 11th time. Chrissake. Will a mod put this fucking horse out of it's misery sometime soon.

[Desert_Eagle]

Question: Why does he find it so difficult to process such a simple request? Anybody else wondering?

[Neo]

You know hes got a point.

Wikipedia is not a relevant source.

You do realize that wikipedia has links to the sources of said information that they present to you right?

You realize also that sources that are unsubstantiated are presented as such?

And do you also realize that comdemning the WHOLE DAMN THING because you can't actually address any of the problems with it is pretty lame?

DE wants to know what exactly you believe is an error, and I can't for the life of me find any specific example except that there seems to be a lot of hate for Wikipedia around here.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

The fact remains that as of yet nobody here has cited even one single example of a specific fact that they are questioning, yet simultaneously claim they are not poisoning the well. They continue to say that this particular wikipedia article is invalid despite not having any evidence which contradicts the article.

The wikipedia thread makes a good illustration of this. He contradicts his own position by posting that article.

[GenocideAlive]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Contradiction!

Sort of like when you defend SCOOTER LIBBY when he accuses Bush of lying, right? He lies, gets caught, then starts slandering Bush and suddenly he's no longer a Croney, he's a purveyor of truth! Or when you accuse me of "Poisoning the Well", an "ad hominem" / "against a person" attack against WIKIPEDIA, which ISN'T A MOTHERFUCKING PERSON! I know exactly what you mean.

You and Neo can join forces to point out that Wikipedia lists its sources and even though they may not all be pertinent some are and that makes the entirety of the premises they arrived at using all the information true...or wait--that's called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. And we ran through that earlier with your "Patriot Act used to attack homeless and professor jailed because of opposing viewpoint " (appeal to poverty, appeal to pity, proof by assertion, negative proof, etc.) remarks, but amazingly both you and Neo seemed to miss that. I wonder why that was.

Maybe because you're so busy running your Appeal to Motive and Negative Proof scams about Wikipedia that you're completely unable to hold a debate once you start getting refuted, and your lies and exaggerations are called for exactly what they are.

And if you're going to claim that "my statement contradicts itself" because Wikipedia admits that it's not for reliable use as a source and I quoted it, I can only laugh at your amphibology. I'm not using Wikipedia to prove that Wikipedia is false, I'm highlighting a section in which Wikipedia released a clarification on its status and capability as a reliable source.

I'm not "condemning Wikipedia" (which is an Appeal to Motive anyway), I'm simply following Wikipedia's advice about use of it as a source--that it's not reliable and isn't truly an encyclopedia, since any hack with a keyboard and an internet connection can demolish it.

Of course, DE is always at the winning end of the stick--even if his particular jargon is proven inaccurate, he can always go with the Texas Sharpshooter or turn around and post another article! And technically according to own, contradictory version of Wikipedia's fact-status, we must renew our studies of his material in order to prove each new article false. Otherwise, we're poisoning the well--or what would actually prove to be ignoring bullshit that is being validated with logical fallacies.

Or we can just stick ol' Mr. Middle Finger and bullshit master on our ignore list for being a troll. Of course, since Neo is busy kissing his ass and gobbling up every trite piece of rhetoric he spews, he's a troll that's basically going to run/ruin the IR until he's either controlled or gets bored with hearing himself talk. Well, you and Neo have fun, DE.

[Schwitzer]

Bloody hell this circular debate needs to end. None of you are even arguing the original topic anymore.