Anti-American Protesters

[Shwenn]

Um ... the video from the original post consists primarily of the protesters' own words and refusal to answer questions. There weren't any fallacies, logical or factual, presented by the makers of the film -- there were some pretty illogical ideas and outright lies presented by those being filmed, though.

No, the argument wasn't explicit. I still think it was there.

CCR is a leftist, anti-American organization that has no fundamental understanding of Constitutional law.

What does CCR have to do with anything? That was the audience, it's irrelevant. That's not what that video was about.

Maybe this will sit better with you, unless you think Congress has no fundamental understanding of Constitutional law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcjsYutrxXc

The video on "war crimes" shows a lack of understanding of what war crimes are -- and what war actually entails. Civilian deaths and injuries in time of conflict are not inherently war crimes and never have been -- by that logic, every soldier in history has been a war criminal. If you believe that, then you're naive and misguided.

The use of chemical weapons is a war crime regardless of the target, intended or not. Most of the victims were insurgents. They didn't hide that fact. They didn't have to.

[Ragoczy]

No, the argument wasn't explicit. I still think it was there.

So provide an example, otherwise the statement is useless rhetoric.

What does CCR have to do with anything? That was the audience, it's irrelevant. That's not what that video was about.

CCR is the source of the video. The source influences the content, just as in the video from the original post, and must be considered. CCR supports the UN Declaration on Human Rights, one of the most reprehensible documents on "rights" ever created. As such, their understanding of "rights" is rather limited.

Maybe this will sit better with you, unless you think Congress has no fundamental understanding of Constitutional law

The US Congress has no fundamental understanding of the US Constitution. This has been an established fact since the first entitlement program and has been getting steadily worse.

The use of chemical weapons is a war crime regardless of the target, intended or not. Most of the victims were insurgents. They didn't hide that fact. They didn't have to.

By the definition presented in the video, all explosives would be considered chemical weapons. Further, you're relying a freakin' YouTube video here -- where's the documentation of the source and that the guy speaking isn't some freak living in his mom's basement?

[Shwenn]

So provide an example, otherwise the statement is useless rhetoric.

I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this.

CCR is the source of the video. The source influences the content, just as in the video from the original post, and must be considered. CCR supports the UN Declaration on Human Rights, one of the most reprehensible documents on "rights" ever created. As such, their understanding of "rights" is rather limited.

The US Congress has no fundamental understanding of the US Constitution. This has been an established fact since the first entitlement program and has been getting steadily worse.

Who does this guy have to tell the story to before you will address the story? You tell me who the audience has to be and I will try to find a video of him telling this story to that audience. FIRST, you have to explain to me how the same guy telling the same story is of no concern to you unless and until you believe he's telling the story to people who understand constitutional law.

By the definition presented in the video, all explosives would be considered chemical weapons. Further, you're relying a freakin' YouTube video here -- where's the documentation of the source and that the guy speaking isn't some freak living in his mom's basement?

I actually have a very intimate knowledge of the whole White Phosphorus scandal and international outrage. The video is a snippet from an Italian documentary on the subject. The U.S. government finally admitted using it in the face of overwhelming evidence, after lying about it repeatedly.

It was a huge deal that you somehow managed to completely miss. The fact that you are unfamiliar with it has somehow convinced you that I am an idiot. Again, I don't see how that follows.

[Thorne]

I would suggest that those people who call this country "Fascist" try to organize their protests in a truly Fascist country. I doubt they would be around for very long.

They are entitled to their opinions, without a doubt. They are entitled to speak their opinions, also without a doubt. But these "Anti-Fascist" so-called peace lovers will rarely give someone with an opposing view the benefit of the doubt. And for that one guy, who seemed to be a foreign national, I would suggest you leave this country you hate and don't come back! Of course, it's doubtful you could get away with your vitriolic platitudes in your own country.

While I never supported the war, and believe that the administration lied, cheated and broke the law in order to get us there, those men and women who are fighting the battles deserve every ounce of our respect and support. They are performing their duties, under severe conditions, with admirable skill and dedication. I salute them all.

[Ragoczy]

While I never supported the war, and believe that the administration lied, cheated and broke the law in order to get us there, those men and women who are fighting the battles deserve every ounce of our respect and support. They are performing their duties, under severe conditions, with admirable skill and dedication. I salute them all.

Now, see, I always supported the war, but for none of the reasons put forth by the administration. My support was predicated on two points that I never heard brought up publicly:

First, that the 1991 war was still in effect. It was in a state of cease-fire, but no official end to hostilities ever occurred. Therefore, there was not a "new" war, but simply the decision to end, through military means, the first one.

Second, that historical precedent for an extended cease-fire and containment strategy was more expensive and dangerous than simply finishing the 1991 war. I could foresee the year 2040 with 50,000 US troops and 3 million land mines on the border between Iraq and Kuwait/Saudi Arabia; with an ongoing "cease-fire" and containment of Hussein's crazy, unstable son who had succeeded him. The parallel here is, of course, the Korean peninsula.

We complain about the cost of the Iraq war, but that "peaceful" containment there has been just as expensive.

[Ragoczy]

I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this.

Who does this guy have to tell the story to before you will address the story? You tell me who the audience has to be and I will try to find a video of him telling this story to that audience. FIRST, you have to explain to me how the same guy telling the same story is of no concern to you unless and until you believe he's telling the story to people who understand constitutional law.

I actually have a very intimate knowledge of the whole White Phosphorus scandal and international outrage. The video is a snippet from an Italian documentary on the subject. The U.S. government finally admitted using it in the face of overwhelming evidence, after lying about it repeatedly.

It was a huge deal that you somehow managed to completely miss. The fact that you are unfamiliar with it has somehow convinced you that I am an idiot. Again, I don't see how that follows.

My original post in this thread was about examining the source of documentary as well as the content. That's why I commented about CCR, the source of one of the videos you linked to. Then you asked me a specific question about the US Congress, which I answered.

I said nothing about the credibility of the specific individual telling his story, simply that the group presenting it, CCR, has an agenda which would likely color their presentation of it. Just as I pointed out the agenda of the creators of the original video in this thread might color their presentation of the protesters.

With specific regard to the gentleman's story, I haven't taken the time to research it and don't typically take testimony at face value without independent research. A lot of people have made accusations, and even Congressional testimony, that had only a passing relationship with the truth.

Again, my point is simply that the source, and the source's possible agenda or prejudices should be considered, as well as independent confirmation of the facts.

With regard to the white phosphorus issue, WP is an incendiary weapon, not chemical, and the US, to my knowledge, is not a signatory to any treaty banning its use. That being the case, I actually have no issue with the US military using WP against enemy combatants.

There is no evidence that the US military "lied" about its use to their chain of command or civilian command structure. Everyone's panties are in a wad about statements to reporters. Again, I don't care if the military, any country's military, lies to the press. In fact, since the press has proven it's incapable of using discretion to keep knowledge that endangers soldiers lives out their reports, I encourage it.

[Ragoczy]

I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this.

Okay, so from my perspective this part of the exchange has gone something like:

You: "I think this video you've posted is ultra conservatives resorting to petty logical falacies [sic]."

Me: "There weren't any fallacies, logical or factual, presented by the makers of the film ..."

You: "No, the argument wasn't explicit. I still think it was there."

Me: "So provide an example, otherwise the statement is useless rhetoric."

You: "I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this."

A fallacy, by definition, is explicit.

Factual: Bob said X ... X is wrong ... here's the proof.
Logical: Bob said X and Y ... these do not make logical sense ... here's why.

You make a blanket statement that there are multiple fallacies then refuse to provide a single example of one. This smacks of demagoguery and perhaps it's you who should examine your intellectual honesty?

[Shwenn]

Okay, so from my perspective this part of the exchange has gone something like:

You: "I think this video you've posted is ultra conservatives resorting to petty logical falacies [sic]."

Me: "There weren't any fallacies, logical or factual, presented by the makers of the film ..."

You: "No, the argument wasn't explicit. I still think it was there."

Me: "So provide an example, otherwise the statement is useless rhetoric."

You: "I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this."

A fallacy, by definition, is explicit.

Factual: Bob said X ... X is wrong ... here's the proof.
Logical: Bob said X and Y ... these do not make logical sense ... here's why.

You make a blanket statement that there are multiple fallacies then refuse to provide a single example of one. This smacks of demagoguery and perhaps it's you who should examine your intellectual honesty?

First, logical fallacies are not explicit by definition. That is a patently false statement. I can use a logical fallacy simply by asking you a question.

"Does your mother know you are a pedophile?"

I haven't put forth an argument, I've not used formal logic. There is no syllogism, no Barbara, yet I've used a logical fallacy. And I've used one of the most famous ones, too.

Now, I feel that, if they had used that particular fallacy and I used that as an example, you would insist that I had no idea what they thought, they might actually believe the person is a pedophile so I'm completely wrong to say it is a logical fallacy.

Frankly, I don't have the energy.

I just get the impression that you will do whatever you have to do to contradict me or try to call me out. If one tact doesn't work, you just go find another. It's how you've been this whole thread.

That strikes me as intellectually dishonest.

Sorry.