Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Is 2500/18000+ Enough?
Topic Started: Jun 16 2006, 08:03 AM (742 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 08:20 AM
No Rick, not backed into a corner.  You make the outlandish allegations that the Iraqi PM is trying to direct violence against American troops, and that I think this is a good idea.

I have neither interest nor inclination to unravel your bizarre convolutions of reason and logic. 

You've yet to learn how to take an opponent's argument on its own terms and discuss it intelligently and coherently. All you can do is try to distort it to your own liking and try to drag it on to grounds that suit your purposes and hope that you can defend.

That is the essence of your Zimmerian Dialectic(tm), so when you see Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) don't think "capitulation".

It is simply shorthand for "you've gone off the rails once again".

Let's see how this played out in the discussion....

1. You introduced the issue of the amnesty proposed by the Iraq leader -- taking a jab at Democrats by saying they were hypocritical to support amnesty for undocumented aliens but oppose it in Iraq. I did not set the terms of this discussion, you did by claiming hypocrisy on the part of Democrats and drawing a parallel beyween their positions on two very different forms of amensty for very different purposes. I simply took up the challenge to explain the legitimacy of the Democrat's position.

2. In order to define the terms, I then outlined what al-Malaki's amnesty plan was by pointing out that what he said was that those who had attacked American or Coalition forces would be granted amnesty but those who attacked Iraqi forces would not be. I saw this as a clear statement by the Prime Minister to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans, for which they will not be held accountable for attacking, and it would not be to their benefit to attack Iraqi troops and civilians, for which they would be punished for attacking.

3. You accused me of being naive, for not understanding that Iraqi tradition calls for this sort of thing and that al-Malaki's proposal to forgive attacks on the US but not forgive those on Iraqis was understandable and was a necessary part of any peace agreement.

4. I then stated I was more concerned with the lives of American troops than with Iraqi tradition and that I supported those who found al-Malaki's differentiation as abhorent and one which encourages the insurgents to go after Americans. because they would have impunity then.

I also agreed with you that amnesty of some sort would likely be part of any settlement, but it did not have to be announced while the violence rages and Am,ericans remain on the front lines.

I further said that it was OK with me if you found al-Malki's position good or acceptable (note, I gave you the option of it being acceptable as opposed to good). But I did not agree that it was either good or acceptable. Indeed, I found it bad and unacceptable.

5. You then threw up your arms at the Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) and decided not to discuss this any further.

So tell me, what did I misconstrue? And where did I put words in your mouth?

Do you deny that if an Iraqi insurgent is concerned about his ultimate fate that he would rather attack those for which he is to be given amnesty for attacking rather than go after those for which he will be punished?

Do you deny that you claimed al-Malaki's words were understandable and acceptable under the circumstances?

Do you deny that I laid out why I disagreed with you, but accepted your right to have a different opinion?

So, just tell me. Where did I put words in your mouth, rather than just follow your own logic and point out why I found I could not accept the results of that logic?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Your entire argument is predicated on your view that the PM made a clear statement to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans. Unless you can substantiate the intention of that, all you could cogently argue that it is an unintended consequence, but that is all. The rest is your conjecture.

In order to defend your conjecture you resort to your typical rhetorical devices, which are indeed tedious.

If an Iraqi insurgent is concerned about his ultimate fate -- and what does this mean? amnesty or 72 virgins? -- then he perhaps ought not engage the US military in a fight.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 10:30 AM
Your entire argument is predicated on your view that the PM made a clear statement to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans.  Unless you can substantiate the intention of that, all you could cogently argue that it is an unintended consequence, but that is all.  The rest is your conjecture.

Sorry, I thought you kept up with the news.

From the Washington Post (the first that came up in a google news search of "Iraq Amnesty")

Quote:
 
BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."


(I added the emphasis in both places)

Note, his government has now "clarified" this, after those damned hypocritical Democrats and the US Press protested immediately and vehemently. Please also note that I mentioned the existence of the clarification in my original post challenging your hypocrisy claim -- so I was not even hiding that.

So, based on your quote above, the only real mistake I made was to not include a source for my claim that the Prime Minister was intending to offer amensty for those who attacked Americans but not Iraqis.

I guess I just assumed that since you were attacking the Democrats for hypocrisy, you knew the rudiments of the story.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 11:41 AM
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 10:30 AM
Your entire argument is predicated on your view that the PM made a clear statement to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans.  Unless you can substantiate the intention of that, all you could cogently argue that it is an unintended consequence, but that is all.  The rest is your conjecture.

Sorry, I thought you kept up with the news.

From the Washington Post (the first that came up in a google news search of "Iraq Amnesty")

Quote:
 
BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."


(I added the emphasis in both places)

Note, his government has now "clarified" this, after those damned hypocritical Democrats and the US Press protested immediately and vehemently. Please also note that I mentioned the existence of the clarification in my original post challenging your hypocrisy claim -- so I was not even hiding that.

So, based on your quote above, the only real mistake I made was to not include a source for my claim that the Prime Minister was intending to offer amensty for those who attacked Americans but not Iraqis.

I guess I just assumed that since you were attacking the Democrats for hypocrisy, you knew the rudiments of the story.

Once again you distort your argument to your own benefit. It was obvious from the initial posting that the amnesty was aimed at those who did not shed Iraqi blood. It was the press's conjecture that "The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops,

You took it a step even farther and allege that it was intended to be a "a clear statement by the Prime Minister to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans,.

That is not substantiated by what you just posted.

You wrap yourself so far in your own thinking that you don't seem to even realize what you are doing, or how illogical it is. Maybe Zimmerian Monolectic(tm) is a more appropriate descriptor for the fevered internal discourse that goes on within your mind.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 11:09 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 11:41 AM
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 10:30 AM
Your entire argument is predicated on your view that the PM made a clear statement to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans.  Unless you can substantiate the intention of that, all you could cogently argue that it is an unintended consequence, but that is all.  The rest is your conjecture.

Sorry, I thought you kept up with the news.

From the Washington Post (the first that came up in a google news search of "Iraq Amnesty")

Quote:
 
BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."


(I added the emphasis in both places)

Note, his government has now "clarified" this, after those damned hypocritical Democrats and the US Press protested immediately and vehemently. Please also note that I mentioned the existence of the clarification in my original post challenging your hypocrisy claim -- so I was not even hiding that.

So, based on your quote above, the only real mistake I made was to not include a source for my claim that the Prime Minister was intending to offer amensty for those who attacked Americans but not Iraqis.

I guess I just assumed that since you were attacking the Democrats for hypocrisy, you knew the rudiments of the story.

Once again you distort your argument to your own benefit. It was obvious from the initial posting that the amnesty was aimed at those who did not shed Iraqi blood. It was the press's conjecture that "The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops,

You took it a step even farther and allege that it was intended to be a "a clear statement by the Prime Minister to those who wanted to upset the current power structure that it was to their benefit to turn their attention on the Americans,.

That is not substantiated by what you just posted.

You wrap yourself so far in your own thinking that you don't seem to even realize what you are doing, or how illogical it is. Maybe Zimmerian Monolectic(tm) is a more appropriate descriptor for the fevered internal discourse that goes on within your mind.

My goodness, Thumps.

You ask for substantiation of what I said and I gave it to you.

Tell me, how else would you interpret ""who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," " than to exclude from the group those who have shed Iraqi blood.

Now you want to change the nature of the discussion to the terms you want to have it on -- and make the discussion solely on how one would interpret that phrase.

My congratulations to you for learning the Zimmerian Dialectic™ so well!

:wink:
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick: My logic is entirely consistent with the understanding of Iraqi dynamics that I listed before. All you have is conjecture and an extrapolation and unintended consequences, and you conclude that the PM is intending to have the insurgents target coalition forces with impunity. That to me is a bizarre stretch, but if it works for you, run with it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 11:30 AM
Rick: My logic is entirely consistent with the understanding of Iraqi dynamics that I listed before. All you have is conjecture and an extrapolation and unintended consequences, and you conclude that the PM is intending to have the insurgents target coalition forces with impunity. That to me is a bizarre stretch, but if it works for you, run with it.

Why thank you.

So, we are right back to where I had brought the discussion before you raised Zimmerian Dialectic™, in which I agreed to let you hold your opinion and I would hold mine.

And of course, our differences come from where we start in many of these types of discussion. You give the benefit of the doubt to whomever has official authority and, at least initially, accept what they say on face value and I start with skepticism about authority, especially their initial statements.

This difference plays itself out in many of our disgareements and will likely play itself out again in the future.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 12:50 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 11:30 AM
Rick:  My logic is entirely consistent with the understanding of Iraqi dynamics that I listed before.  All you have is conjecture and an extrapolation and unintended consequences, and you conclude that the PM is intending to have the insurgents target coalition forces with impunity.  That to me is a bizarre stretch, but if it works for you, run with it.

Why thank you.

So, we are right back to where I had brought the discussion before you raised Zimmerian Dialectic™, in which I agreed to let you hold your opinion and I would hold mine.

And of course, our differences come from where we start in many of these types of discussion. You give the benefit of the doubt to whomever has official authority and, at least initially, accept what they say on face value and I start with skepticism about authority, especially their initial statements.

This difference plays itself out in many of our disgareements and will likely play itself out again in the future.

Oh Rick -- I don't take any authority for granted. You often make authoritarian statements and I hardly ever agree with those. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 11:56 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 12:50 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 11:30 AM
Rick:  My logic is entirely consistent with the understanding of Iraqi dynamics that I listed before.  All you have is conjecture and an extrapolation and unintended consequences, and you conclude that the PM is intending to have the insurgents target coalition forces with impunity.  That to me is a bizarre stretch, but if it works for you, run with it.

Why thank you.

So, we are right back to where I had brought the discussion before you raised Zimmerian Dialectic™, in which I agreed to let you hold your opinion and I would hold mine.

And of course, our differences come from where we start in many of these types of discussion. You give the benefit of the doubt to whomever has official authority and, at least initially, accept what they say on face value and I start with skepticism about authority, especially their initial statements.

This difference plays itself out in many of our disgareements and will likely play itself out again in the future.

Oh Rick -- I don't take any authority for granted. You often make authoritarian statements and I hardly ever agree with those. :wink:

That's because my authoritarian staments are seldom traditional. :thumb:
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
That's because my authoritarian staments are seldom traditional:thumb:

You added too many letters: t RA di TIONAL.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 17 2006, 12:26 PM
Quote:
 
That's because my authoritarian staments are seldom traditional:thumb:

You added too many letters: t RA di TIONAL.

touche' !

:biggrin:
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3