Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
A strawman argument about a strawman argument accusation. I love the irony. You mischaracterize my last posting by implying that I did not show how you mischaracterized my argument. I wrote:
The 2nd bolded text refutes the first bolded text. The Pakistani military is not the enemy of the Taliban, therefore "the enemy[Pakistani military] of my enemy[Taliban]" does not apply here.
You go on to mischaracterize that my "statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"" if I am arguing "that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States". I never argued that, and as I stated above I explained that my comment was not an application of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage because the Taliban and Pakistani military are not enemies.
That sounds like the Taliban, but persuasion by terrorism doesn't make a strong ally.
|
You can twist and turn the argument as much as you want, but until you refute the words you wrote in your original post that started this exchange, then I stand fully behind what I wrote in response. You wrote:
"If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US."
Do you stand by that statement? Or do you refute it? If you stand by it, then you are asserting that the Taliban is helping the United States precisely in the terms of the adage under discussion. And if so, then my statement about how that "friend" characterization has been used through history is valid. I wrote:
"... it also means that you assign to an enemy the 'friend' moniker -- which can have disastrous implications, as the history of various appeasements throughout history clearly shows."
U.S. history is riddled with examples of how the United States backed brutal dictatorships because they were "helping" (your word) U.S. policy against this or that other enemy. Latin America is still recovering, as is Africa.
I trust you will raise the fallacious crap again that this is another strawman argument. But anyone who is willing to put ideology aside -- whether they agree with you or me about anything political -- and look strictly at the method of argument that has unfolded will see clearly that "crap" is the appropriate term to use.