If you are going to use words like "strawman argument" you ought to know what that means. First of all, the straw man component of an argument requires misrepresenting your opponent's position. I defy you to show how I misrepresented your position. After all, I quoted you directly: "If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US." Unless you want to argue that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States, then I submit -- and again defy you to prove otherwise -- that your statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The adage means that your enemy does something to aid your fight against your other enemy, but 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.

Attacking a straw man requires creating an illusion, refuting that illusion, and then claiming to have refuted your opponent in the argument's original proposition by refuting the illusion. I did not do that. I stated a direct opinion about the Pakistani military, which you did not refute.

So, Tracy Coxx, before you go off making accusations, I suggest you read up on the methods of argument that you want to mention in your posts so you at least are in the ballpark of what they actually mean. Perhaps then you can find the right ones to accuse me of.

As for why they kill Pakistani military recruits, one could speculate that it is designed simply to instill terror. Join the military, rather than Al Qaeda, and this may be the fate that awaits you. Have any truck with the Pakistani authorities, some of whom ARE sympathetic to U.S. interests, and you may be killed.

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.

This is the argument that makes the most sense and I believe is the truth.

Oh my, Tracy and SMC are at it again.
I find this verbal backgammon rather boring. What is very interesting is the discovery of a stash of porn at Bin Laden's hideout. If this supposedly Pius Muslim was sitting in front of his TV wanking to porn, it is more than hilarious. With numerous wives he needs porn? Humm, what kind of porn? Interesting.:eek:

"Accuse others of what you do." - Karl Marx

I stand not just by one sentence that you've taken out of context, but by all that I have written. I think I have explained it well enough so that anyone without an axe to grind can follow. Anything else you add to that are your own words, not mine.

And we're done here. Take your vitriolic speech and bestow it on some other TLB member.

Yes, I thought this was rather humorus. His numerous wives probably didn't have cocks, so he could have been unfulfilled.

You see, on the Internet it's not supposed to work this way. You're supposed to be able to say whatever you want and get away with it. At least that appears to be what you were always hoping for, as any review of your numerous political posts and responses to being challenged on them reveals.

Yes, we're done here, because honesty is the coin of the realm and apparently your purse is empty.

I think I read somewhere that bin Laden had only three wives at his compound so naturally he was bored and needed something else to do. [/SARCASM]

Actually with all the people living in the compound it is not really possible to say who was looking at the porn. The situation, though, is quite humourous.

A few years ago, a coworker went on vacation to the Virgin Islands. When she arrived she noticed lots of Arabs and lots of very beautiful blond women. At a bar one evening she got to talking to one of the blonds. She said they were there for the Arabs. They are crazy for blonds and are paying $10,000 for a lay,we are getting rich down here, she said.
My friend didn't arrive back with blond hair, by the way. :innocent:

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

Report: Stealth Drone Watched UBL

Why do we need to know this, or any other details about the operation? Someone in the DoD or CIA has loose lips.

Yeah, and the cobbled up reporting immediately after the assassination was irresponsible. Each subsequent report was a different version of what happened. Now it looks like the operation almost failed and they had to abandoned the original carefully laid plans of attack.

Also, Pakistan is a basket case, the most dangerous country in the world with nuclear missals, rockets and Al Qaeda and the Taliban just waiting to take over. aaargh!

They'll be bringing a fission bomb to a fusion fight. Besides, nuclear war is MADD.

Most of the opinions here are the same as on the news. Anyway I saw (on the news LOL) the bin laden guy declared war on america, so I guess he lost and america won. he started a war and fired on people so no surprise they topped him. the people having parties out front of the white house was in bad taste the way it was reported.
Now where are my keys again

Hi there.

They kill him (Yay!!!), but then they give him a naval burrial...

Dammed, i tought the americans were beter budinessmen than that, they should have burried him in a shrine near where the world trade center was and charge $20.00 to piss on his grave.


John Dowe.