Osama bin Laden is dead

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The text quoted above is yet another example of a strawman argument. The proverb "the enemy of

my enemy is my friend" is used to illustrate that one of two parties who have a common enemy can use the other party to advance common goals. If the Pakistani military is harboring Bin Laden, I hardly think that puts any of the Pakistani military on the Taliban's enemy list.

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

That sounds like the Taliban, but persuasion by terrorism doesn't make a strong ally.

[smc]

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You can twist and turn the argument as much as you want

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

Originally Posted by smc

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?

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.

Originally Posted by smc

and look strictly at the method of argument that has unfolded will see clearly that "crap" is the appropriate term to use.

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

"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.

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.