US Death Squads in Iraq: Solution or Escalation?

[tumor]

Pandora's Box alert! Pandora's Box alert!

What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.Soon you will see US fighting another war for Israel (mark my words) either with Syria or Iran.

 

[the number 42]

I really wonder why I ever bothered trying to communicate with you people.

Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.

 

[the number 42]

What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that discussion of the US & Israel tend to generate more heat than light. I agree that the US is there to 'defend its national interests', but you will get those who are dogmatically opposed to the idea. However, its such an important subject that it is worth going into a some point, not least beacuse many Muslims see what is happening to Palestine as reason enough to oppose the US, never mind Iraq.

 

[the number 42]

I believe it is fairly reasonable to say that most countries are involved in covert operations in foreign countries all the time. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to suggest that any country involved in armed conflict with another country is not involved in covert operations.

I never said that it was ok for the US or any other country to have death squads. Where on Earth are you getting your ideas from? Please take the time to read what I say carefully before you respond to it. If there is something you do not understand then ask me and I will do my best to answer. This can go for everyone on this message board including myself.

Often times we let our emotions respond for us. This is a mistake and this is a perfect example of someone who thinks they read something they did not read and so they responded emotionally to the situation. If they would have thought about it a bit more carefully they would realize what they are saying makes no sense at all.

Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.

 

[the number 42]

Why don't we just call them "Happy Squads"? That would make it more palateable.

Dressed as clowns. This would act as a cover, confuse the enemy once the attack began, and make great TV too. No more covert nasty actions, only fun, happy actions.

 

[Townsend]

Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.

I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

Your argument is that if person A says something that and does not clarify his or her position then it is ok to make assumptions to fill in the gaps. Well you are wrong! And you are acting like a toddler when you do so. I can be as ambiguous as I wish and you cannot say I said ANYTHING more or less than what I actually do say. Filling in information that I left out is counter productive to any discussion at all.

The only point I made in this thread is that people make anti American Knee jerk reactions without taking the time to think about it. I had NO intentions of saying anything more than that! It was your work and the work of SA and that took my words to mean anything more.

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.

I think the only reason that you want to argue some other position of mine is because you are king of the STRAW MAN tactic. Instead of just arguing against my argument you want to argue something completely different and then conclude that my original argument is therefore false. This is a fallacy that you seem to be well acquainted with and are trying to force it on me.

From Wikipedia:

“The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

1. Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
2. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
3. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics.”

You are guilty of #3 in case you were wondering.

Why not just be a man and face the arguments directly?

For the love of human kind everywhere, please stop assuming people say something they did not say. If you really want to know where I stand then ask me and I will more than likely give you an ambiguous answer. Why would I do this you may ask? Because I might not want to discuss my opinion on that particular subject. That is my choice and it does not make it ok for you go on and assume what I think.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.

I left that as completely ambiguous as I could and look at all the information you have filled in for me. I hope you feel smart and mature and all. I have a 10 year old niece who uses this technique to win arguments with her sister all the time. I know that when she grows up she will come to realize that this kind of behavior is childish and stop using it eventually.

By the way, how old did you say you were?

Regards

 

[tumor]

If I'm not mistaken in Vietnam US forcess used groups of soldiers equiped with helicopters etc, who were outside the law and were permitted to just kill and terrorise at will generall populace.
So...if in this war Americans don't have simmilar hit squads I must be Mother Theresa

 

[the number 42]

I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.

Stop! You're killing me! Why don't you just send a few posts like this to the terrorists - they would be helpless within minutes. Seriously, I'm glad to take the right to freedom of expression seriously, but frankly if you aren't prepared to say what you mean - you don't have to commit yourself to a postion, just try to say something that isn't open to misinterpretation - you have no right to expect to be understood, or to get a response. This goes for your straw man idea too. Do you really expect me to respond to every inane comment that is made? Sorry, but I have a life. Perhaps you'd feel happier if you stick to chatting to your nieces.