What astounds me is your inability to accept the merits of how the election system can be used. You accusing me of trying to steal is no different than me accusing you of trying to steal by trying to drive on the road every day. Except that you actually have driven on the road and I haven’t held office. The only reason your attitude and wild accusations is even remotely within reason is, as I said about Samuelson and nuke building, it comes with the territory. Yet you just finished calling that unlibertarian.
Why would I feel safe around somebody that advocates initiating physical aggression? Why should I trust you? And when you speak with contradictions how can I tell if you are honest?
too many questions
What merits?
I don’t own a car.
Are you really comparing running for MP or acting as an MP the same as driving on a road?
I will ask again, what accusation? Please quote it in context.
Wilderness,
'To some degree." I knew I shouldn’t have said that though, I just figured that you’d understand that there’s a difference between agreeing with some of the things neo-cons say and agreeing with all of it. But perhaps this is my fault for presuming you would make the distinction.
For one thing, it would not be the FBI that would charge bin Laden, rather it would be a military tribunal so I would not expect the FBI to even be the individuals who have the knowledge as to how sound the case against him would go.
See William Vallicella’s discussion about terrorism, which I believe to be a sound analysis of what constitutes a terrorist attack. While one could question whether the bombing of the USS Cole is an act of terrorism since it does not fulfill criterion #2 (the USS Cole is clearly a military target), the bombing of the American embassy in Keyna is an undoubtable act of terrorism.
The Mujahideen, which was the faction supported by the American government during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, does not fulfill criterion #3 of being terrorists (it was clearly a political organization linked to a state). While they were loosely organized guerrilla fighters, they certainly were not terrorists.
Again, the Mujahideen were not terrorists due to the fact that the movement was clearly associated with a nation. Furthermore, this is a tu quoque fallacy.
Contest as you will the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya is definitely an act of terrorism for embassies, by their very function, include civilian workers thus a targeting an embassy necessitates targeting civilians. Furthermore, even if the bombing of the USS Cole was not an act of terrorism, my point here still holds: the harboring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban was impermissible.
Again, the Mujahideen were not terrorists. Again, this is a tu quoque fallacy.
And how does that necessitate that harboring a terrorist/ whatever-you-wish-to-call-bin Laden is morally permissible.
Keep in mind, my comment in response was about them knowing what “anarchy” was. As you have quoted it, it is out of context.
This is a just delusion with little grounding in reality. Object, as you may, the war in Afghanistan, it is not a war for the control of resources, or an excuse to increase military funding.
[:)] [:D][:P] [;)] Cough, chortle, splutter, etc. [But please do carry on with the dispensing of your certain knowledge- highly amusing I must say!]
Wow, it seems I missed all the action working my life away. Seems this debate started on Schiff and switched to foreign policy quickly. I think the original integrity of this conversation has been diluted, but if I may appeal to fellow Austrians. Rothbard said nice things about Ron Paul and even seemed fascinated by him to a small degree. I think a big tent and open discussion is important because if we shoot down every step (by Schiff, Paul, or others) in the right direction do we really think we’ll wake up and have some Anarchistic leap via everyone suddenly becoming convinced?..and this of course after arguing with them every step of the way, lol. If we tear down Schiff and end up with a non-free market republican or democrat (g-d forbid another Dodd) then we ultimately will be doing more than shooting ourselves, which is actually the worst act of intellectual aggression I think an Austrian could ever do. Everyone keep fighting, well at least in self defense, the good fight and just conversate with the idea of converting to anarcho-capitalism via honey, since it will attract liberty much better than vinegar.
He was already on the FBI’s most wanted list for the Cole so this misdirection has failed.
The definition of terrorism is clear. A politically motivated attack on civilians. The embassy is a state institution, and the state is not civilian.
Well, that was my argument, but you have expanded the definition of terrorism outside of political violence against civilians, which is the definition of terrorism. Regardless, the US created Al Qaeda, and supported Bin Laden.
Again, Bin Laden didn’t accept responsibility prior to the 9/11 attack and the US would not present evidence. In fact, the FBI does not have a case to charge him with for that event. And as we have discussed, attacking the US state, is not attacking civilians.
But I enjoyed pointing out the hypocrisy of your appeal to western values being somehow more righteous. This is the land of torture, nuclear holocaust and carpet bombing friend. That is when the leaders aren’t busy killing civilians with economic sanctions.
Don’t preach to me about values, ethics and righteousness. The west was meddling in the lives of Afghanis and middle easterners decades before 9/11.
And this is just an assertion without any proof.
How can you make that statement? The same way you know [sic] that Bin Laden did 9/11? Because it has been repeated so many times you believe it? Or do you actually have knowledge of the nature of the US mission? Do you actually know what their victory conditions are? If so, what are they?
This was an interesting article:
The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan by Michael Gaddy
Or this article that points out that the U.S. is still paying off insurgents while they fight the insurgents. figure that one out:
a quote from the latter: ““In this grotesque carnival, the US military’s contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. “It’s a big part of their income,” one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts–hundreds of millions of dollars–consists of payments to insurgents.””
It would not follow from this fact that the FBI would be the primary prosecutor against bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole.
That is not true. Terrorists must also not be an agent of a state and must strive for political goals, see the article that I linked to in my above post.
Civilians work in an embassy. This is a fact, not something that can be argued against.
Terrorism involves more than just an attack against civilians.
Stop with the tu quoque fallacies. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I’m sorry, but there are some things which I’m going to accept as common sense. That the statement:
has little grounding in reality, is commonsense.
Because it is completely believable that the conventional story about the war in Afghanistan is true. Furthermore, the onus of proof is on you to prove that the general conception is wrong.
So everything the US government spews out is always true? It can be proved wrong from the simple fact that we’ve been involved in occupying the country for nearly a decade- its obviously not a hunt for one man and his associates.
I don’t see why its completely believable that the conventional story is true- and you have yet to explain why you think it is other than the fact that…you think it is.
Anyone who continues to believe the ‘official story’.. which has nothing to do with reality - needs to get their heads checked out.
There were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq… weren’t there? [8-)]
I’d also recommend: The Power of Nightmares - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
That does not mean that the government is not telling the truth.
False. The consequences of taking out the Taliban as apart of the strike again Al Qaeda and bin Laden have resulted in the continuing American occupation.
Because I’ve paid attention to the conventional story, and it is far sounder than any other alternative.
Why do you think its telling the truth?
What were these consequences? That foreigners don’t like being invaded and will fight all American troops that are in their homeland? Do you think its wrong for Afghans to fight American troops? Is the occupation to continue until every last person the US gov’t defines as Taliban is dead?
ok why is the conventional story far sounder than any other alternative? You haven’t told me your reasoning other than the fact that you like the way it sounds.
I never claimed that. You did. Please stop with the strawmen Lam, you’re better than that.
Hand waving.
How is it believable. A few hours ago, you didn’t even know that Bin Laden didn’t confess [sic] to the attacks until after the invasion of Afghanistan. This is like an argument I had recently with a couple objectivists. When I proved that their premises were false, they just kept arguing from the same false premise. How can any debate occur, if you refuse to accept when your knowledge is clearly shown to be incomplete or incorrect?
Seems dishonest to me Lam. It sucks staring at inconvenient truth, but I think a lot of your capacity to reason, and you are refusing to employ reason over dogmatic faith.
So an ad populum fallacy places the burden of proof on me? Wow, this is news.
Like I said, sad stuff. I expected better, and maybe that is my fault.
I’m done. Continue to employ common sense [sic], and believe the government tells the truth and you know when it is and isn’t being honest by the soundness of a dialog they control almost exclusively at the only level that you rely on, mass media. After all, they didn’t lie about Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Iran/Contra, so you know everything they do is on the up and up. [;)]
He’s making an epistemological error here by claiming the conventional story is sounder than any alternative when
- He has the official story wrong
and
- He can’t possibly know every alternative.
The statement, in itself, is one of willful ignorance. It is,
I believe the conventional story, and any unconventional story, regardless of its truth value, will not sway me from convention, even as I do not understand the conventional story vis a vis the facts of the account.
I wonder, LS, what is your own basis for your belief that:
You can feel free to poke holes as much as you want with my analysis, but you have yet to give any reasons for not believe in it. Despite all of your critiques of the mainstream opinion you have yet to show that there is a more sound story. In fact, all that you have hitherto been capable of is tu quoque fallacies in justifying the Taliban’s harboring of terrorists.
And yet you have nothing to prove your own positive assertions.
Because all you need to do to be right is show that I am wrong. Furthermore, all I have done hitherto is mess up relatively small details - yes, the fact that bin Laden did not confess until after October, 2001 is a rather small detail in the big scheme of things. It is a tiny peccadillo compared to your unsupported assertion:
And what proof do you have that you are correct?
The burden has to be somewhere, and it is rightful placed on the person trying to show that the conventional story is false. It tragically forces you to actually create a case for you story, but that is the nature of the onus of proof.
This is one big fallacy. Just because an organization has lied before does not mean that they always lie, nor that we should never believe them. The fact that the government even lied about Pear Habor is still a matter of historical speculation, not an established truth. Furthermore, the story to believe is the soundest analysis, and hitherto the soundest analysis of the actions of the American government in the Middle East in the last decade is the conventional story.
Good riddance.
Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth.
Frankly, only the conventional story stands up to an analysis I would expect of a high school freshman. The alternatives are all fairy tales that attempt to reinterpret reality so that it will fit inside their nice ideological box.
I would hate on him for going this route, but the only reason I’m a libertarian is because Ron Paul ran for president. So, I could be just like everybody here and get on my Stefan Molyneux wannabe soapbox, or I could support an act that will greatly further the popularity of Austrian Economics, even if that act is Schiff being a statist mass murdering sunuvagun.