|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That is by far the most useless argument I've ever heard. "Millions of Americans can't be wrong!!" Yeah... great, let me introduce you to my little friend The logical fallacy: appeal to popularity. People have been made to believe bigger lies than the disinformation we're fed on Iraq and 9/11 and Bush in general, and I don't think I need to specify where and when. With people like Michael Moore leading the crusade against Bush, and people walking out of Farenheit 911 saying it was a "great movie and really opened my eyes", it's no wonder that the Left could gather at least 400,000 supporters (which must be, oh my god, over 0.1% of the USA's current population of 300 million!).
I can't help noticing that neither of these articles present any conclusive proof of what they are trying to say. The first article takes one piece of the Report completely out of context - the report found that there was no direct evidence that the Iraqi government funded the Al-Qaeda network. But the way the article spins it, the report completely "rules out any link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That is totally misrepresenting the actual findings, by making two completely bogus assumptions:
1) That the only way for Iraq to support Al Qaeda would have been government funding (what about weapons, safe havens, or indirect support via either direct support or simple non-prosecution of connected groups?). This is a classic straw-man argument, another well-known fallacy.
2) That the absence of any direct evidence in favour of the premise that Iraq and 9/11 were connected counts as proof against that premise (another logical fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.
The other article takes two conflicting statements from the Administration and apparently uses that to "prove" that only one of them is true. (?)
Now the fact stands that the conclusion of an argument is not necessarily wrong simply because the argument is fallacious, but you'll have to do better than that if you're trying to show conclusive proof of your assertion that Iraq had no stake whatsoever in the 9/11 events.
I haven't read the book personally, but I have friends that have, both on the Left and on the Right, and they say very similar things about it. Mainly that the book is extremely detailed and fair, but as a result of this detail is also frustrating contextless and unclear, and - here's the most important thing they've said to me - that it would be very easy to pick out from the book only those points which specifically support your viewpoint, regardless of what that viewpoint is. Which does not sound like him being "critical" of the "evidence" in the way you say it.
I'll have to read it when I get the chance. I don't doubt the credentials of Bob Woodward at all, but what I've been hearing is that the book really does not bring forward ANY specific opinions about the situation, positive or negative.
It's "facts" intermingled with a ton of opinion and speculation, and taken completely out of context. I suppose I shouldn't call it "left-wing" dribble, just anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Israel dribble.
I can't believe I'm even dignifying this "conspiracy theory" with a response, but Iraq has never been a "prime concern" of Israel - since Iraq opposed Iran, it would definitely NOT be in Israel's best interests to piss them off, thereby eliminating one of their best friends-via-common-enemy. I'm getting REALLY tired of hearing all the Israel/Jewish conspiracy crap. Tell me, why would Israel NEED to spy on the USA? The two countries have had a good relationship for decades.
So you take one website with this information and use it as "proof" that there really is a worldwide conspiracy?
For one thing, I cannot believe you just called neoconservatives "right-wing." Neo-cons are people who were originally on the left-wing but got sick of all the anti-Israel, anti-American sentiment inside it. They're still fundamentally left wing, not right.
Are you serious? Don't tell me you're going to deny the Left-wing media bias? Have you ever seen any of the major networks or newspapers (other than the "extreme Right wing" ones like Fox News or the New York Post) bring in experts on the Right to discuss important issues? The major news media has endorsed every single Democratic president and every single left-wing ideal (affirmative action, new-wave feminism, multiculturalism, 3rd-worldism, the homeless, and countless social programs). So please, don't tell me that lack of coverage by the media elite makes something lacking in credentials. If anything it makes it a worthwhile read.
Got any more for me? |
Those 400000 people were to protest the Bush administration coming to NY for their waste-of-money, shut-down-half-the-city national convention. It wasn't even about Iraq, but since your so brilliant, why don't you do some research into how much support all the "pro-war" rallies garnered just before the war begun. I'm sure you'll be shocked and awed at all the support.
And why is it when you people are losing an argument you start shouting Michael Moore's name? Oh "Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bunch of lies", and "Michal Moore is a fat loser". But speaking of Fahrenheit 9/11, have you even seen it? I would love to hear your opinion on it because I'm sure I would get a good laugh. Are you of the opinion that it was all make-believe? That everything he said was false? That it was just left-wing propaganda? I'll be waiting for your response because it should be funny.
And those articles aren't good enough for you? Dude, I can find a thousand more that make the same conclusions. Would you like one from Faux news just to make you happy? All I see you doing is coming up some excuse as to why they've been spun so people "believe the opposite".
And this quote: "People have been made to believe bigger lies than the disinformation we're fed on Iraq and 9/11 and Bush in general". Please offer some concrete examples or noone is going to take you seriously. You've offered no proof to support your claims, and most of your claims are baseless to begin with. At least make an attempt to redeem yourself and and offer me some (just a little) bit of substantiated evidence to support this claim.
Btw, I love your logical fallacy approach at disproving what I've presented. Who helped you come up with that one hahahaha.
How is "Plan of Attack" anit-Bush dribble? Woodward presents the unbiased FACTS. Thats right, FACTS with some added commentary. Its obvious that your mindset is one that only allows you to believe what you want to believe. And if anything comes by which contradicts your opinion and view point, then it must be left-wing biased, and absurd. Btw, I've got some magic beans to sell you.
If you call the major news networks in the US left-leaning, then your so far right you've swung back around and became left. Please offer me some examples of the following:
"The major news media has endorsed every single Democratic president and every single left-wing ideal (affirmative action, new-wave feminism, multiculturalism, 3rd-worldism, the homeless, and countless social programs)"
What do you mean by endorsing? Are they supposed to come out and flatly say, "don't vote for Kerry" or "don't vote for Bush". Their job is to report the news. Shit dude, it sounds like your part of the KKK based on what you just said in that quote.
-Your Mother
|
Besides, I told Your Mother that I'd respond to any argument that didn't get excessively personal or emotional and he followed through on that, so it was only fair to keep up my end of the bargain!
