quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I would think that perhaps a more logical question would be whether the girls inhabiting this school were going to be Sunni  or Shia? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I would think that perhaps a more logical question would be whether the girls inhabiting this school were going to be Sunni  or Shia? 

I am not sure that is a relevant question, domiguy.

If we believe the government that Al Qaeda is somehow involved, despite the vast amount of evidence to disprove the claim that Al Qaeda is involved in Iraq, as well as the complete lack of evidence to support it, then perhaps their statement "The administration believes Al Qaeda is responsible" might hold some water.

They dont bother to say why the believe it.  They just want us to trust them when they say it.

Which is why I posted Dr. Venkmann's comment.  Nobody but Al Qaeda in a country which is in general anarchy between half a dozen, or more, different battling factions, planting bombs to kill people, could possibly plant a booby trap to kill girls in a school.

Did Al Qaeda write their name on the bombs?

Did they produce the hardware to manufacture the bombs in some Al Qaeda training camp not already blown up?

Did they use a cell phone registered to Al Qaeda as the detonator?

I personally find the administration's claim that it was definitely Al Qaeda to rank up there with other twaddle they have been shovelling, like WMDs, etc.

Sure, it might possibly be Al Qaeda, but since I dont think the administration could find their ass with both hands if they wrote Al Qaeda on it with a Marks-A-Lot, I think it makes more sense to doubt their claim then jump on the "It Must Be Al Qaeda" bandwagon.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Sinergy, what I was alluding to is that there is a potential that based upon what muslims were planning on attending this school if it were to be predominantly  Sunni or Shia the other side would love to see it go up n flames.  Not necessarily al Qaeda.

quote:

That is just your opinion, and your opinion is valid to you. I do not agree with your opinion, and I still stand behind the point if you find someone to be a liar some of the time, you cannot trust them.. Now I do not know if you trust liars, because you did not state that you do, but you seem to think it illogical that I do not. I just happen to see the world a little differently

quote:

About courts, lets say just a regular person lies on the stand, a judge will admonish the jury to disregard their testimony, since you did not like the cop analogy, I think you might understand a more simplistic version of it

quote:

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics.

quote:

Oh, I understood it just fine (but thanks for the condescension).  It's just that the prior version was both weak and inaccurate, whereas this version is merely weak

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics.

What are my politics? ( I refer you to my sigline)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics.

What are my politics? ( I refer you to my sigline)

Your politics are transparently obvious to everyone who reads this board, and for you to pretend otherwise is pretty silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

The reason I didn't address it is because it's a fallacy.  Specifically it's a fallacy called "poisoning the well".  It's not something you can debate.  It's a subjective opinion, which you're entitled to, but it isn't debatable because it isn't logical.

Suppose I say to you, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution."

You ask, "Why?"

And I answer you, "Well, it's obvious -- because evolution is a scientific theory and scientists have been wrong about so many things in the past.  They were wrong about Piltdown Man, they were wrong about the coming Ice Age, they were wrong about the theory of the Ether.  They've been wrong about so many things, why should I believe them now?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

That's not a very good example of poisoning the well, and on top of that, it's a flawed analogy.

"Poisoning the well" is a kind of argumentum ad hominem.  It's an attempt to cast aspersion on someone's argument by presenting unfavorable information about him or her.  "Don't listen to him; he's a spokesman for the tobacco lobby" is a perfect example of poisoning the well.  (Not that I have any love for the tobacco lobby.)

quote:

The example you gave isn't apt because the scientists who perpetrated the Piltdown Hoax, the scientists who were wrong about Ether, and so on, are not the same scientists as the scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution today.  The fallacy you're portraying in your example is more like what is known as the fallacy of Division.  "Scientists generally have presented all kinds of theories that turned out to be false; therefore, these particular scientists today must also be wrong about evolution."

quote:

Second, it's a flawed analogy because theories like ether and evolution can conceivably be verified by independent investigators, but there is no way for a reader of this news report to verify its accuracy.  And that's exactly the problem that juliaoceania is talking about.  Hell, I don't know if this story true, and maybe it is true (although I'm personally convinced that there must be more to the story than was released).  But none of that is the point.  The point is that I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING that it's true, and in fact I DO know that the armed forces in Iraq have in the past made false reports about things that were similarly unverifiable.  So why on earth should anyone believe them now?

quote:

I think it's logical to have a healthy skepticism about reports coming out of the military, and to seek independent verification.  Nothing wrong with that.

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics.

quote:

I think it's logical to have a healthy skepticism about reports coming out of the military, and to seek independent verification.  Nothing wrong with that.

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics

quote:

(which you never seemed to come up with exactly what my political affiliation is, but hey, it's all good)

quote:

(I am assuming you think me a democrat, very humorous really)

quote:

You are confusing party affiliation and politics.  They're not the same.  I said your politics are transparent, not your party affiliation.  I don't know your party affiliation, and frankly, I don't care.  But as to your politics, they are completely transparent and utterly predictable.  You reveal them every time you post.  There's no need for me to "come up" with anything -- you broadcast them yourself, loud and clear.  Unless you're actually a closeted right-wing zionist neocon global-warming denier and this is all some kind of act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

I addressed that question before.  Maybe you missed it:

quote:

I think it's logical to have a healthy skepticism about reports coming out of the military, and to seek independent verification.  Nothing wrong with that.

I think it's illogical to treat everything the military says as a de facto lie, in order to shield yourself from facts that don't accord themselves with your politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Julia pointed out about three times that she only said that it would not surprise her ... and it didn't seem to matter to some people. It's nice of you to have her back, but it probably won't matter. 

I'm going to add in ... it wouldn't surprise me either. That doesn't mean I think it's true, or a lie ... only that neither would really surprise me at this point.

For Julia ...
http://www.amatex.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

They hate and fear women so much over there I am not shocked. Killing little girls probably makes them dance for joy. It would be interesting if for some reason they suddenly couldn't have any more female children and  had only boys, then they could marry as many camels as they see fit.

~Lashra

quote:

That is just your opinion, and your opinion is valid to you. I do not agree with your opinion, and I still stand behind the point if you find someone to be a liar some of the time, you cannot trust them.. Now I do not know if you trust liars, because you did not state that you do, but you seem to think it illogical that I do not. I just happen to see the world a little differently

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I have studied global warming in college. It was not a political exercise, it was an academic one.