Osama bin Laden is dead

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

80 Dead in Bin Laden Revenge Attack

Taliban bombers kill at least 80 at a paramilitary training center in Pakistan, claiming the attack is the 'first revenge' for the U.S. raid that killed Usama bin Laden.

To quote Captain Kirk:

According to a well informed person in Pakistan, the army could round up all the Taliban in Pakistan in a matter of hours. Why don't they do that? Billions of dollars from the good ol USA.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

According to a well informed person in Pakistan, the army could round up all the Taliban in Pakistan in a matter of hours. Why don't they do that? Billions of dollars from the good ol USA.

Odds are that the Pakistani military did know Bin Laden was living right next to their equivalent of West Point and allowed him to live there in secrecy. The military in Pakistan is much more independent than in the US and is more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than the US. Our billions may have gone to the government of Pakistan. But if the government presses too hard on the military to go after Al Qaeda then they will simply sieze control of the country.

The Taliban attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center. If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Odds are that the Pakistani military did know Bin Laden was living right next to their equivalent of West Point and allowed him to live there in secrecy. The military in Pakistan is much more independent than in the US and is more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than the US. Our billions may have gone to the government of Pakistan. But if the government presses too hard on the military to go after Al Qaeda then they will simply sieze control of the country.

The Taliban attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center. If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US.

What I have bolded above may well be the most ridiculous application of the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that I have ever read on this site, and there has been some ridiculousness of epic proportions posted here in the past.

The Pakistani military is, by all less-than-facile analyses, is not a monolith. Many of its officers were trained in the West, just like officers in the Egyptian armed forces, and thus often have somewhat dual value systems. The analyses by most of the foreign policy institutes in Washington suggest that the rank-and-file soldiers in the Pakistani military are more likely to have Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathies than officers, although there is nothing absolute about that. Most important is to draw a clear distinction between the Pakistani military and the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency. It is with the latter that the bigger problem for U.S. interests lies.

[TracyCoxx]

What I have bolded above may well be the most ridiculous application of the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that I have ever read on this site, and there has been some ridiculousness of epic proportions posted here in the past.

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.

So why do they attack Pakistani military recruits? Why has Al Qaeda killed at least as many muslims as Americans. Intelligence isn't one of their strong points.

[smc]

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.

So why do they attack Pakistani military recruits? Why has Al Qaeda killed at least as many muslims as Americans. Intelligence isn't one of their strong points.

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.

[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.

[ila]

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.

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

[randolph]

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.