[lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:47:58 -0800
From: "Lawrence Helm"
Several here on Lit-Ideas have expressed their disdain for logic, Aristotelian thinking,
reasoning, etc.
Here's one of your favorite arguments:
Saddam was Islamic.
Saddam was militant.
Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant.
Where is the error? You're being logical about a form, without seeing whether the
definitions apply.
1) Saddam was not Islamic. He was secular. Look up the theory and history of the Baathist
Party.
2) You use the word "militant" in two senses: using a military against his neighbors and
using a military against the West. He fits the first sense, so you use that in the second
sense. An attack on Kuwait becomes an attack on Florida.
Thus, the proper argument is:
Saddam was secular.
Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors
Therefore Saddam was a secular military threat to his neighbors.
But you twist this into:
Saddam was secular.
Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors.
Therefore Saddam was an Islamic military threat to the West.
See? By mixing up definitions, you produce a conclusion that is not supported by the
argument.
We can test this against reality.
Bush has a new strategy: escalation and Iraqification. He appointed an Iraqi to be in charge
of his strategy. Who is this Iraqi? One of Saddam's generals. Yep:
"Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant" turns into "An Islamic militant (one of Saddam's
generals) is in charge of US strategy for Iraq." That's obviously nonsensical: the enemy is
in charge of our battle against the enemy.
In the 60 Minutes interview, Bush himself had to swallow this bitter pill. The interviewer
asked him if Moqtada al-Sadr was an enemy of the USA. al-Sadr and his militia are the
political and military foundation of the Iraqi government. His militia also attacks the USA.
To put it in plain talk, our main Iraqi ally is our enemy. By supporting Iraq, we are
supporting our enemy: giving him weapons and money so he can attack kill American troops.
Bush refused to say it in plain words because it is a very bad idea.
So, Lawrence, why all this logic stuff? Well, that's obvious.
You lost on the facts: Iraq is a disaster and even you've admitted it.
You've lost on the theory: the neocon project is in shambles and even its neocon proponents
attack it.
So what's left? The purity of logic. You're going to logically convince us that you're
right. Forget facts and theory. It's logic now.
Well, I just demolished your Aristotelian logic.
What's next? Abstract dance? You're going to do an interpretive dance for us? Naked,
swinging a rooster?
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
