Muzzies, Godwin's, and Liberal Media Bias :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#177 Aug 15 2007 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591777427374

View User Forum

Scholar

2,699 posts

gbaji wrote:

Sufficient: The cause "causes" the effect. Logically: If A then B. If cause A exists, then B will occur. This is the type I'm talking about

Simple logic. Logic 101.

But then he goes on to say:

gbaji wrote:

Cause and effect relationships do not require that only that cause could generate the effect in question, or that the cause will *always* generate the effect in question. They exist if they *did* cause that effect.

emphasis mine.

gbaji wrote:

Clearly you can't interpret my statement to mean "any nation that has troops in SA will cause them to suffer a 9/11 type attack", since "any nation" includes the Saudi Arabian government as well.

No, infidel troops, I believe was the quote from OBL you were using. Used by a Muslim, it refers to non-Muslims.

gbaji wrote:

The cause was specifically US troops in Saudi Arabia (as I stated repeatedly throughout this thread). Changing who has soldiers there and why changes the condition "A" in that relationship (and therefore the certainty of "B" occuring). Obviously, those soldiers being US soldiers is part of the conditions that "cause" the 9/11 attack to occur. This was so obvious I figured I didn't need to make special note of it. Apparently, what is obvious to some just isn't very obvious to others (or others choose to be deliberately dense on some topics).

Wait, did you repeatedly state it, or was it so obvious you didn't have to? You're contradicting yourself with such rapidity I can't keep up.

I wrote:

Note the use of "always".

gbaji wrote:

Oddly, I don't see the world "always" in the quote. Whatever (edit: Found it. Um... that's your word. Sheesh! Strawman much?).

You are right. My mistake.

gbaji wrote:

Let me explain (again!). The presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the prime cause of OBL directing attacks at US targets around the globe, and ultimately resulted in the 9/11 attacks occuring. US troops were present in Saudi Arabia as part of the UN operations against Iraq (and protection of SA from Iraq).

italics mine

So now it is the prime cause? So here gbaji is agree with me, earlier, when I said it was a contributing cause - perhaps the main cause - but in my opinion not sufficient to always result in attacks.

Since he disagreed with me then, I assumed he would still disagree with me now. How silly.

As I predicted when I waded into this mess:

I wrote:

In his head, gbaji is actually right. Everything he says is actually self-consistent. When I think of that, he is so much funnier. He is his own strong antropic principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle in that he redefines his words as he uses them.

He creates the truth by speaking it. He can simply redefine (or circularly define: a cause is what causes it) terms as he wishes to make it true later.

At this point I hate to continue; gbaji is continues to make the assylum what it is today.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#178 Aug 15 2007 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Yoss. Forget the logic. Apparently, you're either incapable of understanding how I'm using those different statements, or are being deliberately dense. Whatever.

Can we just suffice it to say that if someone says repeatedly "I'm directing attacks at the US because of X", that the attacks he directs are caused by "X"?

Is that simple enough for you?

Quote:

gbaji wrote:

Clearly you can't interpret my statement to mean "any nation that has troops in SA will cause them to suffer a 9/11 type attack", since "any nation" includes the Saudi Arabian government as well.

No, infidel troops, I believe was the quote from OBL you were using. Used by a Muslim, it refers to non-Muslims.

Er. No. He specifically and directly refers to US soldiers. Not Brittish. Not French. Not Zimbabwe. US soldiers.

Do I need to repeat the freaking title of his first fatwa again?

Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.

Maybe I'll just post this one sentence over and over until you get it. This is why he was angry at us. Maybe eventually you'll get it...

Quote:

gbaji wrote:

The cause was specifically US troops in Saudi Arabia (as I stated repeatedly throughout this thread). Changing who has soldiers there and why changes the condition "A" in that relationship (and therefore the certainty of "B" occuring). Obviously, those soldiers being US soldiers is part of the conditions that "cause" the 9/11 attack to occur. This was so obvious I figured I didn't need to make special note of it. Apparently, what is obvious to some just isn't very obvious to others (or others choose to be deliberately dense on some topics).

Wait, did you repeatedly state it, or was it so obvious you didn't have to? You're contradicting yourself with such rapidity I can't keep up.

Sigh. I repeatedly stated that his anger was specific to US soldiers stationed in SA.

What I thought was obvious was that having repeatedly stated this, I didn't need to explain that the "cause" was "US" soldiers in SA, and not just any soldiers.

Are you really this dense, or did you require special training?

Quote:

gbaji wrote:

Let me explain (again!). The presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the prime cause of OBL directing attacks at US targets around the globe, and ultimately resulted in the 9/11 attacks occuring. US troops were present in Saudi Arabia as part of the UN operations against Iraq (and protection of SA from Iraq).

italics mine

So now it is the prime cause? So here gbaji is agree with me, earlier, when I said it was a contributing cause - perhaps the main cause - but in my opinion not sufficient to always result in attacks.

Quibbling over semantics. Prime cause *is* the cause. Take it away and the event does not happen. Hence it being "prime".

Let me make it *really* easy for you. Changing nothing else, if we had not stationed soldiers in Saudi Arabia following the first gulf war, do you believe tht 9/11 would have happened?

Yes or no. It's a really easy question. Answering it should provide all you need to know.

It's just amazing to me when people decide that playing semantic games is more important when debating then actually figuring out what the actual facts are? You spend all your time going through my posts trying to find some inconsistency, or a changed word, or a meaning that maybe doesn't quite match the dictionary definition you found somehere, and then pouncing on that like it's some hugely significant thing. All the while ignoring the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

You'd think that would be more important. Style over substance I guess...

Edited, Aug 15th 2007 7:34:38pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#179 Aug 15 2007 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent

paulsol

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Gbajis arguments remind me of this statement made to Ron Suskind of the NYT back in 2004.

Quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

What this means to me is that this White House will continue to define and redefine 'reality', meaning everything from words spoken or written, to actual events and procedures, to suit their purposes at any given time.

A good example would be the way that the WH has managed to turn extraordianry rendition/torture into a noble pursuit designed to protect the frightened masses by denying that it is actually torture (wich it patently is by anyones definition of the word), rather a legitimate way of gathering valuable intelligence from 'suspected' terrorists.

While we're all arguing about wether its actually torture or not, the CIA is busily attaching electrodes to goat-herders ********* in the hope that it might yield something useful.

gbajis idiotic flailing in the morass of his verbosity works in the same way. For him at least.

Its not just this thread where he's employed this method. His arguments boil down to the same drivel each and every time, ie. I'm smarter than you, I'm not as brainwashed as you, I know something you don't know and because you arn't smart enough to comprehend the 'reality' as defined by 'me', and only 'me', you (the rest of the world) will continue to misinerpret the reality (as defined by 'me').

Thats why the Bushies and gbaji and Fox news corp can see 'progress' in Iraq.
Thats why they think that they can 'win' a war on a abstract concept (Terrorism)
That why they can continue to lie, obfuscate and downright bullsh1t, even when they get caught out in the most transparently obvious ways.

Its because the version of reality that they see is the one that they 'want' to see. And if the one they 'want' to see isn't there, they will keep on re-defining whats in front of them until it is the one they want.

The emporer has no clothes! Indeed.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#180 Aug 16 2007 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

Gbajis arguments remind me of this statement made to Ron Suskind of the NYT back in 2004.

Quote:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

What this means to me is that this White House will continue to define and redefine 'reality', meaning everything from words spoken or written, to actual events and procedures, to suit their purposes at any given time.

How convenient that you assume a meaning from those words that match what you already believe and manage to completely miss the point of the worlds (same goes for the writer of the editorial, so perhaps I can't blame you for simply parroting his own conclusions).

What he's actually saying is that while the press sits around and questions and debates and twists and turns, and takes opinion polls and "investigates" everything to death, the Bush White House will act.

That's it. Nothing else. He's basically saying that we're not going to ask the press for approval of what we're doing. Now if you happen to believe that members of the press are the best determinators of good political policy, then you'll likely be shocked at this position. But if (like me) you believe that the press does little except distort and confuse political issues in order to sell papers/advertisements and that those in politics ought to make their decisions based on what's right rather then what will sell well in the media, you'll see that statement as a pretty positive one (except perhaps for the whole "empire" bit).

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#181 Aug 17 2007 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591777427374

View User Forum

Scholar

2,699 posts

yossarian wrote:

OBL wrote:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

see: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Oh by the way the title is: "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders".

This is the one in which he advocates attacking civilians. Earlier ones did not. See, for example, the 9/11 report:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

page 48 (PDF page 66). "Though novel for its open endorsement of indiscriminate killing, Bin Ladinâ€™s 1998 declaration was only the latest in the long series of his public and private calls since 1992 that singled out the United States for attack."

Edited, Aug 10th 2007 11:31pm by yossarian

First, gbaji argued Israel had nothing to do with 9-11.

Second, gbaji argued "the cause" of 9-11 was US troops in Saudi Arabia. In the sense of pure logic. To quote him: "if A then B".

Wrong on both counts. Although he is continuly changing the definiton of what exactly he means by "the cause".

Troops in Saudi Arabia were only a contributing cause.

The fahtaw to which gbaji is still refering is a call for action against US troops. The one I quote above is the one which calls for indiscriminate attacks against civilians - aka 9-11.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#182 Aug 17 2007 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591845841320

297 posts

Nice, I read page one, skip to page 4 and finally someone mentions that the actual biggest cause for islamic terrorism is Israel and the "West's" support for it.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#183 Aug 17 2007 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Dreadkin wrote:

Nice, I read page one, skip to page 4 and finally someone mentions that the actual biggest cause for islamic terrorism is Israel and the "West's" support for it.

Sure. If the issue at hand were generic "islamic terrorism". But the 9/11 attacks had a single specific cause.

And Yoss? Did you bother to read the damn Fatwa you posted?

Quote:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Three reasons listed. First talks about US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia. Second and Third *both* specifically mention the use of those soldiers against Iraq.

The only mention of Israel is a generic "And this all goes to serve some kind of evil zionist movement...". Israel is barely mentioned in the entire thing.

Seriously. Why don't you read it instead of kinda skimming around the edges. It's incredibly obvious. OBL (and others in this one) is pissed at the US because it's got soldiers stationed in SA enforcing sanctions against Iraq.

If you can't draw a line from that to a conclusion that we might just need to change our current strategy with regards to Iraq as a result of 9/11, then I just don't know what to tell you. Again. We can debate whether the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power was the correct choice, but to argue that 9/11 had *nothing* to do with the situation in Iraq is simply absurd. It had everything to do with Iraq. The situation in Iraq was the catalyst for all of this.

Heck. You even quoted that OBL started doing all of this in 1992. What significant event(s) occured just prior to that year that might have caused him to start doing this? Remember, this is the guy who was perfectly happy to work with the US when we were helping him fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. What made him decide that the US was a horrible enemy? What happened just prior to 1992 that would make him come to that conclusion?

It's not hard to figure out. It just isn't...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#184 Aug 17 2007 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent

paulsol

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Gbaji

Quote:

The only mention of Israel is a generic "And this all goes to serve some kind of evil zionist movement...". Israel is barely mentioned in the entire thing.

Fatwah says

Quote:

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance,

Jewish virtual library says

Quote:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals.

If you cant 'draw a line' between Americas unconditional support of Isreal and its behaviour in relation to its neighbours in the ME, and the distrust of the citizens of that part of the world, culminating ultimately in the 'jihad' that is in progress, then you really ar'nt the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

You also seem to forget that OBL (a fundamentalist of the worst kind) and Sadaam Hussein (a secularist) were sworn and bitter enemies.....

Like I (and others) said, the situation in Iraq after GW1 may have provided (yet) another rallying point on the road to jihad. But the festering sore of Israels treatment of the palestinians, and the propping up and support of the some pretty barbaric regimes (SA being one) in a swathe of the countries of the ME, at the expense of the ordinary people of those countries, are the 'reasons' that there was enough hatred in that part of the world to make someone want to drive planes into your buildings.

Iraq and GWII is something that BushCo wanted and persued.

And as pointed out by anyone with an iota of sense back in build up to the war, said war has boosted the recruitment and support for the jihad more than OBL could have possibly hoped for.

In seems to me that the reason that the US is in the horrendous mess that it is in today, is because the WH has the same simple minded singular view that Gbaji displays.

The world isn't so simple a place. To assign a singular cause to the 9/11 attacks (get over it already!) is a pathetically simple way to view the world.

A bit like GWB's "you're either with us, or with the terrorists" satement, really.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#185 Aug 18 2007 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent

Bijou

View User Forum

GBATE!! Never saw it coming

9,966 posts

Holy God in a sidecar..where do I start?

1. The conflict between Islam and...well, everybody else has been going on for roughly 1400 years. The fact that the conflict has been low-key for the past hundred years or so is a quirk of history.

2. Try to remember that Iranians are NOT Arabs. If you don't believe me, go call an Iranian an Arab.

3. The conflict between Jews and Arabs has been going on for roughly 3500 years. At its core, an argument over who inherits the farm. Never gonna end.

4. The US is not at war with anybody. That would require a declaration of war passed by Congress. Last I checked that had not passed.

5. People who do not automatically agree with whatever a US administration says are not "unpatriotic" or "defeatists" or "cowards". They are good citizens who are asking legitimate questions about what their government is doing. THEIR government.

6. People who are clearly not Neo-con Republicans are NOT automatically Democrats or "Liberals".

7. "Liberal" by defintion means open-minded; thinking. Golly, what a terrible thing to call your opponents.

8. Fascist: def. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views. Interestingly, this describes GWB and OBL. And Rove. And Cheney. And Rumsfeld. Ad nauseum.

9. FOX "News" isn't news. It's propoganda. For a clearer idea of what Fox does, read the section of Mein Kampf where Adolph describes how the media should work with and for the Party. Textbook friggin' perfect.

10. For an excellent primer on the Bush family, the Saudi Royal house and all the fun'n'hijinx that goes with them, I suggest you read "Dude, Where's My Country" by Mike Moore.

Just my two cents.

____________________________

remorajunbao wrote:

One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

▲ Page top

Muzzies, Godwin's, and Liberal Media BiasFollow