revprez Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly. Unless you 1) have access to information we don't, 2) take the word of unknowns at face value, and/or 3) magnify a small set of allegations beyond all reasonable proportion, you have no basis for that belief. Based on this statement... ...across the world, people are accusing the US of violation of human rights... ...it appears 2) dominates your reasoning. That's pretty short shrift you're giving Americans in uniform. ...intentionally seeking out loop-holes in the geneva convention which allowed them to contrevene there human rights... I'm not sure if you'll ever understand this, but 3GC doesn't offer protections to unlawful combatants period. We do not address international crime according to 3GC, so why would it apply in the case of terrorists? ...in a way, it is irrelevant wether the US has done so: for a contry which is preaching gloabal human rights, it is damaging to be seen violating them... Its not so damaging, but in that it is we can point to the dishonesty of the critics. The US is experiencing a global character assassination effort that only rivals the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel. (even if the perseption is innacurate); and also the more the terrorists can daemonise the US (and the way in which they appear to have handeled the detainees definately facilitates the daemonising of the US), the easyer it is to recrute new terrorists to fight against the US. We've heard countless assertions about the alleged positive impact of anti-Americanism on terrorist recruiting efforts. I challenge you to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. ...even if the detainees treatment is justified (which im still not convinsed about), I think that the US should have handeled it in a way which included more instantly recognisable safe-guards to the detainees human rights... Let's see. Unlawful combatants are held in facilities where they receive the highest standard of humane treatment 3GC expects prisoners of war to enjoy. The only difference between their treatment and that ideally of POWs is that we interrogate them and we restrict their ability to communicate with the outside world. The critics offer only two alternatives--release some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world or try them as civilians. In a game with guns and bombs, we can weather slander better than we can weather turning over terrorists to a permissive system of criminal justice. Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 21, 2005 Posted June 21, 2005 Hi troll! hows it going. i notice that youv strawmanned me quite a bit. Unless you 1) have access to information we don't, 2) take the word of unknowns at face value, and/or 3) magnify a small set of allegations beyond all reasonable proportion, you have no basis for that belief. Based on this statement... ...it appears 2) dominates your reasoning. That's pretty short shrift you're giving Americans in uniform. no. i never said that the fact that many people believe it makes it true. however' date=' the fact that many people believe it means that many people believe it. this is the issue which i was addressing, as i made clear in my post. as for the soldures: they follow orders. they do not have the liberty of disreguarding orders because they dont agree with them. I'm not sure if you'll ever understand this, but 3GC doesn't offer protections to unlawful combatants period. We do not address international crime according to 3GC, so why would it apply in the case of terrorists? yes. i know. i read your link. i comprehend. that doesnt change the fact that many people believe that the US has intentionally found loop holes to exploit. are you trying to argue that lots of people arent accusing the US of doing this?Its not so damaging, but in that it is we can point to the dishonesty of the critics. The US is experiencing a global character assassination effort that only rivals the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel.i think not. for a start, america's allies and own citisens are joining in the citisism. i also fail to see how being percieved (correctly or otherwize) of human rights violations can be anything other than damaging to a contry which is trying to protect peoples human rights across the globe, including in areas where they have no soverighnty: it makes them appear hypocritical. note the word appear.We've heard countless assertions about the alleged positive impact of anti-Americanism on terrorist recruiting efforts. I challenge you to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. plonk (pdf) This paper investigates the relationship between popular support and terrorist activities. The idea is quite simple: popular support makes terrorism stronger and may guarantee its long-run survival. The main resource of any terrorist organization is its militants; membership is generally recruited from the pool of supporters. knowing your disinclanation to actually bother to read peoples sourses' date=' here are the most relevant bits, which quantatatively show the relationship between public oppinion and terrorism's perpetuation: public support for terrorist activities at time t, St, is assumed to be a linear function of past terrorist activity, Tt-1: St = β + λTt-1 (1) where the positive parameter β captures the underlying political support of the terrorist cause independent of terrorist activity. The parameter λ captures the marginal impact of terrorist activities on public support and is also assumed to be positive New recruits of the terrorist organization' date=' Rt, are gained according to the linear function:(2) R[sub']t[/sub]=a + bSt where the parameter a stands for the number of believers that enlist in the terrorist organization (hard-core terrorists). The term bSt is the number of supporters that are recruited via popular support for terrorist activity, with b capturing the effectiveness of recruitment. although of course the paper goes into much greater deapth than the mere snippets that iv shown above; youll have to read it, even if only to see how completely i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. so you see, it has been established that the more valid that the terrorists can make their campeighn appear to the public, the more recruts they will have. my point about the percieved mistreatment of the detainees being an issue wether there treatment was justified or not still stands. Let's see. Unlawful combatants are held in facilities where they receive the highest standard of humane treatment 3GC expects prisoners of war to enjoy. The only difference between their treatment and that ideally of POWs is that we interrogate them and we restrict their ability to communicate with the outside world. The critics offer only two alternatives--release some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world or try them as civilians. In a game with guns and bombs, we can weather slander better than we can weather turning over terrorists to a permissive system of criminal justice.theyre not the only options (nor are they the only options sujjested by the critics, as you full well know). maybe all that would be nessesary is a better public explanation of why the detainees were denied PoW status, and maybe an independant commision to ensure theyre humanitarian treatment.
revprez Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 no. i never said that the fact that many people believe it makes it true. however, the fact that many people believe it means that many people believe it. this is the issue which i was addressing, as i made clear in my post. Which, of course, is blatantly untrue. In your own words: "i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly." Either you believe the charge has substance or you do not... as for the soldures: they follow orders. they do not have the liberty of disreguarding orders because they dont agree with them. ...and apparantly you do. yes. i know. i read your link. i comprehend. that doesnt change the fact that many people believe that the US has intentionally found loop holes to exploit.are you trying to argue that lots of people arent accusing the US of doing this?i think not. Then again I'm not arguing that the critics are honest, no am I? for a start, america's allies and own citisens are joining in the citisism. Which is something you'd expect the dumbest of critics to say. After all, who else would claim that Israel is not criticized by her allies and a minority within her own borders? i also fail to see how being percieved (correctly or otherwize) of human rights violations can be anything other than damaging to a contry which is trying to protect peoples human rights across the globe, including in areas where they have no soverighnty: it makes them appear hypocritical. note the word appear. Read: "I cannot fail how being perceived as hypocritical isn't damaging, after all you have the appearance of hypocrisy." Care to rephrase? although of course the paper goes into much greater deapth than the mere snippets that iv shown above; youll have to read it, even if only to see how completely i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. I think you need to re-read the paper, and maybe brush up on your math. Let's define net material benefit to be the net strength of terrorist organizations in terms of bodies; specifically trained and operational ones. I suggest you actually apply equation (3'') to show that terror recruitment is up. so you see, it has been established that the more valid that the terrorists can make their campeighn appear to the public, the more recruts they will have. Pointing out a tautology (an effective recruiting campaign increases the number of recruits) doesn't address my challenge even remotely. my point about the percieved mistreatment of the detainees being an issue wether there treatment was justified or not still stands. No, it doesn't, anymore than pointing out that deadly terrorist attacks kill people or the sky is blue. theyre not the only options (nor are they the only options sujjested by the critics, as you full well know). No, they are the only two options advanced by the critics. Close Guantanamo and try the terrorists or release them. Keeping them in close custody without charge is anathema to them, and throughout this discussion its clearly been bothering you. ...maybe all that would be nessesary is a better public explanation of why the detainees were denied PoW status and maybe an independant commision to ensure theyre humanitarian treatment. There is an independent "commission." The Red Cross. And they've been no help. Throwing out non-answers doesn't separate you from the pack of dishonest, America-hating critics clamoring shutdown Guantanamo. Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 All quotes from revprez unless otherwize stated. Which, of course, is blatantly untrue. In your own words: "i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly." Either you believe the charge has substance or you do not...yes, and if you read my own words withing their original context, you can see that the reason i feel that they have handeled it ineptly is because of the fact that they have allowed it to appear as if human rights violations have occoured. it doesnt mean that human rights violations definately occoured, but the fact that it seems as if they might have in-and-of-itself is damaging. this bit, from the same paragraph, makes my meaning clearin a way, it is irrelevant wether the US has done so: for a contry which is preaching gloabal human rights, it is damaging to be seen violating them (even if the perseption is innacurate)again, stop quoting me out of context...and apparantly you do.i actually pointed out that, within the context of the point that i was trying to make, wether or not the accusations are true or not is irrelevent. wether or not i believe the accusations to be true is equally irrelevant. not that your 'point' has any relevance to my statement that you quoted. wether the accusation that the detainees treatment was unnaceptable is true or not, soldures cannot disreguard orders. it was in responce to your accusation that i was giving "short shrift" to the "americans in uniform", which i took to mean soldures. even if the treatment of the bay detainees was unnaceptable, the soldures are not to blame, and thus i am in no way shape or form giving "short shrift" to american soldures. to head of a potential side track upon which i feel you may embark, im well aware that there are circumstances under which soldures can disreguard orders, and im equally aware that they dont apply in this case. Then again I'm not arguing that the critics are honest, no am I?1) stop misquoting me. the 'i dont think so' at the end of the quote is from the next paragraph, which is in responce to another issue, as is made clear by the fact that theres another quote inbetween. it may not seem relevant, and in this case it hardly changes the meaning of the quote, but, all the same, dont do it again. 2)and nor am i. im arguing that there are alot of people who believe that the US acted in violation of human rights, and that this wide-spread belief has a significant and negative impact upon the US's interests. Read: "I cannot fail how being perceived as hypocritical isn't damaging, after all you have the appearance of hypocrisy." Care to rephrase? america is preaching human rights. america has cited human rights as a justification for parts of its foreighn policy. to be seen to not be honoring human rights itself would throw doubt on its motives. this could lead to less cooperation from other nations, which could feasably make americas promotion of human rights in other nations less easy. I think you need to re-read the paper, and maybe brush up on your math. Let's define net material benefit to be the net strength of terrorist organizations in terms of bodies; specifically trained and operational ones. I suggest you actually apply equation (3'') to show that terror recruitment is up.no, lets not use that restrictive definition of the net strength of terrorist organisations. equasion 3" is Tt = αRt + δTt-1 - Ω, in which terrorist recruitment power, Rt, has already been defined, so its not possible to show a link between popular support for the terrorists and there recruiting power using just equasion 3", which i suspect is why you chose it. if, however, we dont chose to ignore the rest of the paper, we could say this: equation 2: Rt = a + bSt this shows a direct rise in number of new recruits, Rt, as public support of the terrorists, St, goes up. if we now look at equasion 3" again, you can see that Rt has a positive effect on Tt (the number of terrorist attacks). as public support for the terrorists, St, has a positive effect on Rt, which in turn has a positive effect on Tt, it is true that public support, St, has a positive effect on the number of terrorist attacks, Tt. not to mention that the paper actually states "This paper presents a dynamic model linking popular support to terrorist activities". Pointing out a tautology (an effective recruiting campaign increases the number of recruits) doesn't address my challenge even remotely.what about the fact that i pointed out that public support for terrorists increases the number of recruits. if you have to ignore parts of what i say, and twist what remains into an easyer to rebuke shape, i would sujjest considering conceding. or in other words, if you cant soundly argue against it, dont argue against it. No, it doesn't, anymore than pointing out that deadly terrorist attacks kill people or the sky is blueyes it does. percieved mistreatment and hypocracy would increase public support. this would increase the terrorist activities. as proved above.No, they are the only two options advanced by the critics. Close Guantanamo and try the terrorists or release them. Keeping them in close custody without charge is anathema to them, and throughout this discussion its clearly been bothering you.and yet, in the very next quote, you highlight a few other optionsThere is an independent "commission." The Red Cross. And they've been no help. Throwing out non-answers doesn't separate you from the pack of dishonest, America-hating critics clamoring shutdown Guantanamo.so now im a dishonest america-hater, am i? at least i dont molest goats, like you do. and yes, the red cross were an indipendant 'commision', so to speak. maybe it would have been advisable to have heeded them before they made a public condemnation of americas treatment of the bay detainees.
revprez Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 yes, and if you read my own words withing their original context, you can see that the reason i feel that they have handeled it ineptly is because of the fact that they have allowed it to appear as if human rights violations have occoured. Which at the very least means you believe the charges are plausible. not that your 'point' has any relevance to my statement that you quoted. wether the accusation that the detainees treatment was unnaceptable is true or not, soldures cannot disreguard orders. So you believe soldiers are idiots or slaves, and that they have an obligation to accept unlawful orders. Either way, you are insulting them; exactly the sort of pettiness I'd expect from the critics. to head of a potential side track upon which i feel you may embark, im well aware that there are circumstances under which soldures can disreguard orders, and im equally aware that they dont apply in this case. So you believe that unlawful orders were given that the soldiers can't disregard? 1) stop misquoting me. I directly quote you. ...the 'i dont think so' at the end of the quote is from the next paragraph... Then clean up your posts. 2)and nor am i. im arguing that there are alot of people who believe that the US acted in violation of human rights... And that they have a credible case to make. ...and that this wide-spread belief has a significant and negative impact upon the US's interests. Which you fail to even begin to show. no, lets not use that restrictive definition of the net strength of terrorist organisations. No, we will use that definition because I asked you to show a net material benefit. Unless you can show that underlying public support grows at a rate vaster than Ω, then you're full of it. equasion 3" is Tt = αRt + δTt-1 - Ω, in which terrorist recruitment power, Rt, has already been defined, so its not possible to show a link between popular support for the terrorists and there recruiting power using just equasion 3"... I'm sure even you know substitution. [math]T_t = \alpha (a + b S_t) + \delta T_{t-1} - \Omega [/math] ...which i suspect is why you chose it. I chose it because it is the difference equation characterizing terrorist activity. If you cannot replenish the ranks faster than counter-terrorism efforts diminish them, there is no net material benefit to whatever St is at that time. if, however, we dont chose to ignore the rest of the paper... That's a laugh. You stopped at page 3. You'd have to ignore the rest of the paper to show that Rt is good enough as any variable to character a net material benefit. Rt is always zero or positive. if you have to ignore parts of what i say, and twist what remains into an easyer to rebuke shape, i would sujjest considering conceding. I suggest you try brushing up on your math and actually reading your sources. yes it does. percieved mistreatment and hypocracy would increase public support. Which you did not state. You said that hypocrisy makes the US look hypocritical. Say we have Ph represent the public perception of American hypocrisy in units such that [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] is common with [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath]. You haven't even shown that the parameter [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h} >> 0[/imath], let alone that the term [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] increases faster than [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath] decreases. Rev Prez
Douglas Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 and yes, the red cross were an indipendant 'commision', so to speak. maybe it would have been advisable to have heeded them before they made a public condemnation of americas treatment of the bay detainees.To my knowledge, it was the international red cross who made the condemnation, not the American red cross. IMO, the IRC is a little like Amnesty International.
Douglas Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 .yes, and if you read my own words withing their original context, you can see that the reason i feel that they have handeled it ineptly is because of the fact that they have allowed it to appear [/color'] as if human rights violations have occoured. I don't really think that "they allowed it to appear", as much as I think perhaps the media "wanted it to appear".
Dak Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 All quotes from revprez Which at the very least means you believe the charges are plausible.no. this issue, which you are refering to here, is about public oppinion. coincidentaly, i do think the charges are plausable. that, however, is irrelevant. So you believe soldiers are idiots or slaves, and that they have an obligation to accept unlawful orders. Either way, you are insulting them; exactly the sort of pettiness I'd expect from the critics.no. as i said, there are circumstances where soldures can disreguard orders. however, the US is maintaining that these orders are perfectly legal. i dont think that the soldures should be expected to disreguard these orders, irreguardless of there justification. nice ad hominin by the way. tosser. So you believe that unlawful orders were given that the soldiers can't disregard?1/ unjustifyable != illegal. 2/ its not relevant to the aspect of the issue that we're currently discussing. I directly quote you. no you didnt. as evidenced by the unarguable fact that you misquoted me. Then clean up your posts.there was a quote inbetween one paragraph and the next. how more obviouse do you wish the seperation of one paragraph and the next to be? again, if you read my posts instead of just hitting 'quote' and then ranting on, you might actually be able to understand. And that they have a credible case to make.as previously (and repeatedly) mentioned, this is irrelevent within the current context. I'm sure even you know substitution. [math] T_t = \alpha (a + b S_t) + \delta T_{t-1} - \Omega [/math] yes, but i wasnt sure wether you did. your equasion shows that public support (St) is positively related to terrorist activity, Tt. thank you for proving my point. I chose it because it is the difference equation characterizing terrorist activity. If you cannot replenish the ranks faster than counter-terrorism efforts diminish them, there is no net material benefit to whatever St is at that time.no. public support increases terrorist recruitment. other factors may deplete terrorist numbers. if the latter is happening faster than the former, then the number of terrorists will go down, BUT an increase in Rt, even if not enough to counteract the depletion and cause a rise in terrorist numbers (ie, show a 'net gain'), will at the very least slow down the depletion in numbers. concidering that the number of terrorists is related to there effectiveness, and that the more effective they are the more people die, i dont think that you could argue that a decrease in there rate of depletion isnt bad. you also havent shown that there depletion is greater than there replenishment. you should do so, before continuing with this specific line of argument. That's a laugh. You stopped at page 3. You'd have to ignore the rest of the paper to show that Rt is good enough as any variable to character a net material benefit. Rt is always zero or positive.no, i was not showing that. i was showing that an increase of public support has a positive effect on terrorist activities, which i have done so. i am under no obligation to explain the paper to you. its enough that the paper itself states that it shows a link between public support and recruitment.I suggest you try brushing up on your math and actually reading your sources.my, what a constructive comment. i think ill respond with an equally constructive comment: **** off. Which you did not state. You said that hypocrisy makes the US look hypocritical.no. i said appearing hypocritical makes the us appear hypocritical. which is self evidently true. the reason which i stated such a simple fact is because you were being to thick-headed to realise what i was saying. i then went on to elaborate as to why their apparent hypocracy is relevent. Say we have Ph represent the public perception of American hypocrisy in units such that [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] is common with [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath]. You haven't even shown that the parameter [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h} >> 0[/imath], let alone that the term [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] increases faster than [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath] decreases. if people feel that america is acting unfairly, hypocritically, or is violating human rights, then this will lower there oppinion of the US (unless they think that any of those acts are commendable). This will, in turn, undoubtably increase sympathy, and thus public support, for the terrorists 'war' against the US. unless, of cource, you are sujjesting that, in a conflict between A and B, any perceptions of unjustified acts performed by B would not increace sympathy for A?
Dak Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I don't really think that "they allowed it to appear", as much as I think perhaps the media "wanted it to appear".yeah, this is arguably very true. the US could still have done more to prevent the media from being able to portray it in such a fashion tho, imo. The manner in which the bay detainees were treated left alot of options to portray it as wrong.
revprez Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 no. this issue, which you are refering to here, is about public oppinion. And you share this dishonest view. coincidentaly, i do think the charges are plausable. I know you do, and I know you believe that there is a pattern of abuse at Guantanamo without any evidence whatsoever. no. as i said, there are circumstances where soldures can disreguard orders. And in every circumstance soldiers are required to interpret their orders and act in the best interests of the unit, the service and the country. You dishonestly accuse them of generally failing in this regard. 1/ unjustifyable != illegal. More dishonesty. You've admitted that they appear to have acted unlawfully, under orders or no. 2/ its not relevant to the aspect of the issue that we're currently discussing. Sure it is. Unwarranted contempt for the American serviceman is at the heart of this issue; it goes to the critics' motives. no you didnt. as evidenced by the unarguable fact that you misquoted me. I did not. I quoted exactly what you wrote. there was a quote inbetween one paragraph and the next. Then fix your paragraphs. as previously (and repeatedly) mentioned, this is irrelevent within the current context. It is entirely relevant. If they don't, then you're just being plain dishonest. yes, but i wasnt sure wether you did. your equasion shows that public support (St) is positively related to terrorist activity, Tt. thank you for proving my point. That wasn't your point. As you mistakenly claimed: "i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy." All you've shown us is a recursive definition for public support of terrorism. no. public support increases terrorist recruitment. By definition. The authors quite explicitly state that equations 1 and 2 are assumed. ...other factors may deplete terrorist numbers. Which goes to the question of net material benefit. Surely you're not this thick. ...if the latter is happening faster than the former, then the number of terrorists will go down, BUT an increase in Rt, even if not enough to counteract the depletion and cause a rise in terrorist numbers (ie, show a 'net gain'), will at the very least slow down the depletion in numbers. Which has nothing to do with a net material benefit for the terrorists. Losing less than you would have, although not necessarily intolerable, is not a gain. concidering that the number of terrorists is related to there effectiveness An increase in the number of terrorists does not necessarily correspond to an increase in effectiveness (defined here as the the number terrorist attacks) [imath]T_t[/imath]. In fact, you haven't even shown that there is an increase in the number of terrorists; you'd have to show that the membership decay rate is to low to offset the influx of new recruits. I really think you've fundamentally misunderstood what this paper is presenting. It's a metric similar to the one used by DoD, although one in which the authors admittedly use parameters that haven't been empirically measured and use units of incidence instead of casualties. ...and that the more effective they are the more people die, i dont think that you could argue that a decrease in there rate of depletion isnt bad. I'd argue its an inevitable but manageable consequence of depleting the terrorists. You'll not that as the recruitment effectiveness goes down, the effectiveness (as defined the paper) goes up. Once again, there are some second order problems with this model (usually in units), but the relevant information can still be reasonably expected to exist in the parameters α, β, δ, λ, ω, a and b. you also havent shown that there depletion is greater than there replenishment. My challenge was for you to show us that there is a net material benefit. I don't know what the strength of the relevant terrorist organization is or how it fluctuates. But if I must, then we can look at the Patterns of Global Terrorism report to see if we can at least find some evidence that global and regional terror effectiveness (in terms of incidence Tt) is showing a long term pattern of increase. Here are the statistical overviews from 1991 to 2003 ([1],[2], [3]). And here is a trendline: you should do so, before continuing with this specific line of argument. You should address the challenge. no, i was not showing that. i was showing that an increase of public support has a positive effect on terrorist activities, which i have done so. No, you haven't. You've dishonestly or ignorantly presented the definition of terrorist recruitment as evidence of a net material benefit. I ask you this, given just that definition when would you have negative recruitment? If you can't grasp that then you have no business continuing this line of argument. i am under no obligation to explain the paper to you. You are clearly unable to do so. its enough that the paper itself states that it shows a link between public support and recruitment. No, its not. If you can't understand what you read then exactly how can you present it as evidence? no. i said appearing hypocritical makes the us appear hypocritical. Yes, I think we all got the point. You resorted to tautology. the reason which i stated such a simple fact is because you were being to thick-headed to realise what i was saying. Not even God knows what you're saying. You're so confused about this paper its obvious that the only reason you persist is for sick egotistical reasons. And that you're willing to defame American servicemen and women in the process is just plain despicable. i then went on to elaborate as to why their apparent hypocracy is relevent. No, you didn't. You still haven't. if people feel that america is acting unfairly, hypocritically, or is violating human rights, then this will lower there oppinion of the US (unless they think that any of those acts are commendable). Which is another tautology. This will, in turn, undoubtably increase sympathy, and thus public support, for the terrorists 'war' against the US. unless, of cource, you are sujjesting that, in a conflict between A and B, any perceptions of unjustified acts performed by B would not increace sympathy for A? I'm suggesting you've set up a tautology, and that if I ask you to explain why the trendline is as it is you'd say "well, America wasn't being hypocritical at that time because otherwise we'd see terrorist incidences fall off." I'm sorry, this is just too ridiculous. You're done. Rev Prez
revprez Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 yeah' date=' this is arguably very true. the US could still have done more to prevent the media from being able to portray it in such a fashion tho, imo. The manner in which the bay detainees were treated left alot of options to portray it as wrong.[/quote'] Like what, or is this another self-evident truth of yours? Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 all quotes from revprez And you share this dishonest view.1/it is not dishonest just because you do not agree with it, 2/ there are a vast number of views on the subject, and i do not share them all.I know you do, and I know you believe that there is a pattern of abuse at Guantanamo without any evidence whatsoever.no i dont, you self-feltching goit.And in every circumstance soldiers are required to interpret their orders and act in the best interests of the unit, the service and the country. You dishonestly accuse them of generally failing in this regard.again, no i dont, you pimlico. i was, in actual fact, pointing out why they are, in my understanding, exempt from critisism in this matter. ie, the exact opposite view than the one that you have accused me of holding. AGAIN!!! seriously now, ****ing well stop it.More dishonesty. You've admitted that they appear to have acted unlawfully, under orders or no. no. you were accusing me of insinuating that 'unlawful orders were given that the soldures could not disreguard'. i refuted this insinuation. having previously said that i believe the acts in the bay are posibly unjustafiable, i thought id point out that this is not the same as saying that the acts were illegal, which is what i suspected you might be getting confused about.Sure it is. Unwarranted contempt for the American serviceman is at the heart of this issue; it goes to the critics' motives.so i have unwarented contempt for american servicemen now, do i? i actually usually try and leave the soldures out of arguments like this, because i think its unfair that they risk there lifes to carry out orders, only to then get critisised for doing so. so, once again, you have made an incorrect assumption about me. youd have thought that youd give up trying to make assumptions about me by now. I did not. I quoted exactly what you wrote. O4*S, is there anything which you wouldnt argue. i wrote this: yes. i know. i read your link. i comprehend. that doesnt change the fact that many people believe that the US has intentionally found loop holes to exploit. are you trying to argue that lots of people arent accusing the US of doing this?You quoted me as saying this:yes. i know. i read your link. i comprehend. that doesnt change the fact that many people believe that the US has intentionally found loop holes to exploit.are you trying to argue that lots of people arent accusing the US of doing this?i think not.The 'i think not' was not part of my original statement. it is the beginning of my next paragraph, which is patently obviouse as there is a quote in between the two. a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who had been kicked in the head by a horse, could have deduced that there was a break there. WHY CANT YOU?Then fix your paragraphs. (sigh) OK, hence forth i shal wright in ****ing-moron compatible format.That wasn't your point. As you mistakenly claimed: "i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy." All you've shown us is a recursive definition for public support of terrorism. blah blah blah, lots of bullshit along these lines this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replywell, even if i havent shown a net benifit, then my original point still stands. there was no need for a net gain for my point to stand. my point was that the terrorists recruitment would go up due to the percieved way in which the bay detainees were handled. wether it goes up enough to yield a net benifit or not is irrelevent. the fact that its benificial to recrutment power is all that i was stating. this is a new paragraphit seriously doesnt matter if theres a net increase or not. if the level of depletion goes down slower as a result of the bay detainees treatment, then in a years time the number of terrorists will be higher than it would have been if no objections had ever been raised about the treatment of the bay detainees. this statement is still true if the number of terrorists in a years time is lower than it is today, thus not being a 'net benifit', using your definition. No, its not. If you can't understand what you read then exactly how can you present it as evidence? this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyi directly quoted the papers own conclusion that it shows a link between popular support and recruitment. if your arguing with that statement, then your arguing with the paper, not me.Which is another tautology. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyyes: im trying to put things in simple terms for you, so that you can understand. you dont need to shout 'tautology' every time that i do.Not even God knows what you're saying. You're so confused about this paper its obvious that the only reason you persist is for sick egotistical reasons. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replythats rich, coming from someone who had to utilise colonoscopy to obtain there avitar.I'm suggesting you've set up a tautology, and that if I ask you to explain why the trendline is as it is you'd say "well, America wasn't being hypocritical at that time because otherwise we'd see terrorist incidences fall off." I'm sorry, this is just too ridiculous. You're done. this is a new paragraph, addressing a nother part of your replyanswre the question: are you sujjesting that in a conflict between A and B, any perceptions of unjustified acts performed by B would not increace sympathy for A?
revprez Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 it is not dishonest just because you do not agree with it... No, it is dishonest because there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. 2/ there are a vast number of views on the subject... No, there are not. There are two views, one held by 80 percent of Americans and one held by the cretins on the other side. I wonder which side of the divide better reflcets your view? no i dont, you self-feltching goit.again, no i dont, you pimlico. i was, in actual fact, pointing out why they are, in my understanding, exempt from critisism in this matter. Because, in your view, they're either slaves or idiots. ie, the exact opposite view than the one that you have accused me of holding. AGAIN!!! seriously now, ****ing well stop it.no. you were accusing me of insinuating that 'unlawful orders were given that the soldures could not disreguard'. You were. You then said even if they were given lawful orders they lacked the ability to interpret them within the constraints of their mission. You now say they are absolved of all wrongdoing because they have no choice. So either they're idiots or slaves--in your opinion. which is patently obviouse as there is a quote in between the two. a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who had been kicked in the head by a horse, could have deduced that there was a break there. Once again, I suggest you actually edit your posts so that there are paragraph breaks in between quote seperated sections. I'm sure even a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who's been kicked in the head by a horse and is extremely impatient could spare the extra time it takes. it seriously doesnt matter if theres a net increase or not. Then you've failed. Bye. Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 all quotes from rev-im-an-annoying-troll-prez No, there are not. There are two views, one held by 80 percent of Americans and one held by the cretins on the other side. I wonder which side of the divide better reflcets your view?who said we were just talking about americans' oppinions? and the statistic which i believe that your referring to is 70%Because, in your view, they're either slaves or idiots. You were. You then said even if they were given lawful orders they lacked the ability to interpret them within the constraints of their mission. You now say they are absolved of all wrongdoing because they have no choice. So either they're idiots or slaves--in your opinion.i never said that. ever. go find a bit where i said that. and no, not idiots or slaves; but soldures, with a responcibility to do unplesant tasks.Once again, I suggest you actually edit your posts so that there are paragraph breaks in between quote seperated sections. I'm sure even a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who's been kicked in the head by a horse and is extremely impatient could spare the extra time it takes. if the fact that there is a quote there doesnt tip you off as to the existance of a paragraph-break, then you are completely beyond hope. Then you've failed. Bye.by pointing out that public oppinion is linked to terrorists' recruiting power i have failed to substantiate my assertation that the us should have handled the issue of the detainees with greater care, so as to avoid being able to be viewd in such an adverse manner and thus avoid aiding the terrorists with there recruitment programs? of cource iv failed. well done. youv 'won' the 'argument'. you had to resort to the base tactic of ignoring absolutely everything thats been said up until this point, but, by doing so, youv managed to concider yourself to have 'won'. congratulations. now you can go and masturbate your ego to your hearts content, thinking of how you 'beat' the person who was 'stupid' enough to have an oppinon which didnt exactly match yours, and thus was 'incorrect'. congratulations. i really have to hand it to you. no seriously, the strawmans were marvelously fabricated, the ad-hominins believable, and the misquotes handeled with the grace and style. clap. clap. clap. in case you can't tell, im being sarcastic. twat.
Dave Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 This has gone on long enough. Come on people, at least try and listen to what I'm saying here. I'll bring this thread up with the mods, see if we're going to issue warnings etc, since I'm pretty much sick and tired of closing threads that have descended into insults and worthless repetition of the same points. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts