SpaceInvader said:

-There was of course the Project For A New American Century article detailing that in order to gain popular support for a prolonged conflict in Iraq and the Middle East, there needed to be an "event of the scale of Pearl Harbor" to win that support.

-Within hours of the attacks in NYC and DC Rumsfeld declared to his staff that they needed to "go big" in their response and somehow find a reason to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld of course is one of the authors of said article and has lojng been a proponent of deposing Saddam.

-Bush belongs to Skull And Bones, a Yale secret fraternity that purportedly believes in the Hegalian philosophy of taking a thesis, and an antithesis and coming up with a predetermined synthesis. In other words, one plays two sides against each other in order to achieve one's desired outcome.

Interesting stuff, especially when passing around the bong, but who really knows?

While I don't discount the possiblity of Bush and co. doing something that confoundingly evil(re:blowing up the WTC), I find the whole conspiracy thoery highly unlikely. Secret societies and isolated tidbits from right wing magazines don't lend a lot of credibility to such a theory I'm afraid.

What I did find interesting was CNN and the Bush Adminstration ever so quickly shifted the focus after the WTC attack. What started as a genuinely moving coverage and discussion of the tragedy and of the lives lost, quickly turned into an discussion of how they attack someone to rebuild there shattered economy. One week after one of the most devasting attacks on the history of the United States, and the horrible casualities of said event were suddenly an afterthought.

Never in my life have I been so depressed about the media as the 16th of September(I remember the date, that how mad I was). The stories of the people were the fourth story leading into the 6:00 telecast on CNN. THE 4TH STORY IN!!!

Bloody news. Just writing this makes me fuckin' angry.

gramsci

United Kingdom

November 2003

DEC 19, 2003 05:12 PM

Helter said:

gramsci said:
Actually I'm attacking your debating technique, not you. I'm sure you're a straight-up guy. My comments had nothing to do with attacking you personally. If you dont like what I said and take it personally.. but that's different matter.

Attacking the skills or technique of your opponent is still an ad hominem.

All you are doing is reinforcing my point...

gramsci

United Kingdom

November 2003

DEC 19, 2003 05:22 PM

Helter said:

gramsci said:
This thread is running out of steam because Helter is using one of the oldest debating tricks in the books; using the limited frame of debate to argue your opponent into the ground.

Since I've got some time now, I thought I'd respond to some of these a little bit... So, in what way is the frame of debate limited, and how am I using it?

If you notice Helter is continually hammering others' augments with demands for facts,

If you notice, I've only made one request for supporting facts in the discussion, and that was simply for some context to be provided for quotes that were used. That's it. Maybe you were thinking of someone else then?

while at the same time gives none to back up his argument beyond a few simple political and constitutional concepts that most learn in their first year of political science at college.

Ummm, I seem to be the only one actually providing facts in this little discussion. You're still maintaining that it was the US that overthrew the chilean government in '73.

Helter uses "commonly held truths" as argument framework, by repeating these as fact -regardless of their historical interpretation-, Helter puts himself in a position where he doesn't need to back up his argument because his interpretation is a part of the establish "truth".

I've backed up my argument nicely... In fact, I notice that YOU are the one who simply keeps repeating yourself without providing even the faintest of argument or support for your position.

By doing this he is creating a huge problem for an opposing argument. Not because the rebuttal has less merit, but because to build an argument from views that run against the thread or step outside the field of debate requires backing up with facts, lots of facts...

Which I have yet to even ask for...

And fair enough, but in a field of debate such as this or television -basically any medium that has a short attention span-, giving facts that are simple to reference to break down the opposing argument is near impossible.

What short attention span? Discussions/debates can go on for days... How is supplying facts to support your argument near impossible? People do it all the time on the board. Giving facts to break down your opponents argument is easy here, absurdly easy. We're debating on a forum attached to one of the largest repositories of information ever concieved, and over the most robust communication medium in common use. This is the best possible debate forum when it comes to the ease of referencing and using facts to support your argument. If you can't get to the facts here, you can't get to them anywhere, and if you can't support your argument with facts (facts which I haven't even been asking for incidentally), you might want to rethink it.

In a nutshell Helter's simplistic debating skill undermines the totality of his argument.

I think I spy a typo there gram... That should read "undermines the totality of *my* argument.". My argument is fine, yours is the one that's lacking. I've provided my theory, the supporting facts (which you are free to challenge if you'd like) and the rationale behind it. You've done nothing but restate your argument sans support or response to counter and distort or misrepresent what I've said.
Oh yeah, and you told me I was just wrong... there was a compelling argument.

Come on gram, argue the topic. Complaining that I'm making it too hard for you really isn't gonna get you anywhere, especially since I haven't even *begun* to be difficult. I haven't called you for burden of proof *once*.

Nice one! My typing skills -or lack of- are really important!

Sorry man, but all you doing is what I said you were doing.

Look, if you want facts, seek them out! Do you realistically think I can quote congressional records, Amnesty International reports, etc on a post on a porn site? All you've done is present the status quo, and tried to bully other arguments with Political Science 101 arguments.

Be honest, say, "I really think American foreign policy is fantastic and killing innocent people in the name of Real Politick is just fine." If that's what you think, don't be ashamed. Dishonesty is much worse than being wrong...

[Edited on Dec 19, 2003 by gramsci]

Stiles

Oakland, CA

November 2002

DEC 19, 2003 06:38 PM

Gramski -

From where i sit, so far, Helter is on solid ground. You're not, if I might be blunt.

Putting words into his mouth and cutting loose some ad hominems are not furthering your argument.

gramsci

United Kingdom

November 2003

DEC 20, 2003 02:35 AM

Stiles said:
Gramski -

From where i sit, so far, Helter is on solid ground. You're not, if I might be blunt.

Putting words into his mouth and cutting loose some ad hominems are not furthering your argument.

Solid ground?

Sure, if solid ground is repeating the status quo and then expecting me to educate him in complicated international political history over a porn site post...

You just keep repeating the cycle: State a common assumption about a section of history as fact, and then saying "this is just how it is, the facts are there." then claim I'm twisting the facts...

Your statements about China's and the USSR's involvement in Korea and Vietnam were simplistic.

Calling South American countries rubbish before the US turned up is pure arogance.

Dismissing my comments about Kissinger and then not even bothering to have a quick look on the internet to see what I was saying is inexcusable. All you have to do is type "the trial of Henry Kissinger".

The holocaust in Cambodia is well documented by a large number of church and NGO groups, not to mention your own state dept.

US complicity with genocidal dictatorships is still wrong. Regardless of who got the blood on their hands.

How about I provide a reading list? I fully admit I have the burden of proof. But there are lot of academics, NGOs and reporters that are a lot smarter than me, that have worked on and published on all that I have discussed

I'd be happy post a list of books and other sources...

here's the bit where you say "I'm doing to you, what I said you are doing to me..." But I'm offering a reading list that will have plenty of facts to back my case.

I also admit to being a terrible typist...

[Edited on Dec 21, 2003 by gramsci]