Terror Index up to Orange: I guess Bush was BSing the troops.

[RTFirefly]

On the SDMB, Cecil’s goal of fighting ignorance is generally the guiding principle. If somebody posts misinformation, other users feel obliged to point it out. I’m sure some trolls delight in getting others to respond in this way, but the choice is either that or let a troll’s posts stand unchallenged. Ignoring obvious nonsense has some advantages, but what about naive users who may read the falsehood and, seeing nothing to rebut it, believe it? To prevent that, some advocate responding to trolls once and only once. You refute the misinformation and that’s that. Of course, this is often easier said than done, and many people (myself included) simply cannot sit idly by while the troll gleefully continues to post BS.

The other option is to pounce on every last falsehood and fabrication. This can lead to a classic flame war. We’ve had threads on the SDMB with close to a thousand posts as users attempt to get in the last word with an obstinate troll. These battles can be exhilarating but also exhausting. Inevitably at some point you ask yourself: what’s the point?

In short, you’ve got two possibilities–ignore the troll or argue with him. My recommendation is as follows: If the person is a well-known troll with low credibility, post once to point out the flaws and then ignore him. If there’s a real chance he may fool people who don’t know better, knock him down with facts.

–SDSTAFF David and SDSTAFF Ed
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

link

If I’ve posted misinformation, I recommend following David’s and Ed’s recommendations. Knock me down with the facts. It’s the Doper way.

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
** There is no evidence that these aren’t separate and distinct battles - even Bush has said that, even though he continues to link them, usually by simply throwing the two together in speeches, and assuming the psychological connection will be made.

**

This is factually incorrect. There is literally no dispute that following the fall of Baghdad all kinds of unsavory types pored into Iraq, including al Qaeda and others. And there is literally no dispute that those are at least some of the people the allies are fighting now. More specifically, they were at least some of the people whom Bush addressed are fighting.

If that’s trolling, manny, then this whole forum might as well be named Great Trollery, because it’s just as sound an argument as 95% of the stuff you see here.

There’s no question that this forum has been taken over by people who want to dissect every single statement, without context, made by an administration official. Congratulations to contributing to the continuing destruction of this forum. I hope you feel good about it.

**And there was nothing wrong with my OP, other than not being quite so complete as this post. **

And being incorrect in all material respects. And not being a Great Debate by even the loosest interpretation of the word. And it being a troll.

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**I’m not getting into this debate.

Manhattan, however much you may disapprove of Rt’s post and politics**, calling him a troll is COMPLETELY unwarranted, not to mention against the rules. There is a wide, yawning gulf between the medacious provocations of a December or a Reeder, purposely trying to bait people into responding, and arguing a passionate political position.

You owe RT an apology. **

No. John Corrado labeled the OP a fallacy. I said “Not a fallacy. A troll.” The OP is a troll and people shouldn’t feed it. I stand by that assertion.

And not for nothing, but the wide gulf is shrinking. Quickly.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Manny, do not call a fellow poster a troll. I don’t buy that “DNFTT” referred to the post, not the poster. As of right now, stop calling anyone or anything a troll in this thread, even if it lives under a bridge and eats billy-goats.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[RTFirefly]

Thanks, gobear. I appreciate the moral support.

Having said all that I immediately need to say here, I think I’ll take a break from this thread for a few hours.

[elucidator]

Apparently, its not so much a matter of knowing the rules, but in knowing whom they apply to, and whom they do not.

[elucidator]

Well, slap my pickles and call me Charlie!

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
** Having said all that I immediately need to say here, I think I’ll take a break from this thread for a few hours. **

As it happens, me too. There’s a whole retail economy to support.

The errors of understanding of others notwithstanding, and whilst I continue to think this post is a troll, I do not consider you to be a troll. So happy shopping!

[pantom]

This is factually incorrect. There is literally no dispute that following the fall of Baghdad all kinds of unsavory types pored into Iraq, including al Qaeda and others.

Dept of Dissection, part deux:Gen Ricardo Sanchez, US Army: No Proof of Al Qaeda in Iraq

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Enough. Any more posts that even use the letters “T” “R” “O” “L” in a suspicious manner will get deleted. I mean it, this has totally hijacked the thread.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[elucidator]

Must…resist…smartass…temptation…

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat back ON]

And luci, kindly give us more than a couple hours to notice a violation before you start wailing about mod bias, and you know very well complaints about admins/mods go in the Pit, NOT here.

[Moderator Hat back OFF]

[elucidator]

Duly chastened.

[Sterra]

*Originally posted by manhattan *

---

This is factually incorrect. There is literally no dispute that following the fall of Baghdad all kinds of unsavory types pored into Iraq, including al Qaeda and others. And there is literally no dispute that those are at least some of the people the allies are fighting now. More specifically, they were at least some of the people whom Bush addressed are fighting.
**

Do you have any evidence for your arguement? Or would this be like the no dispute about the WMDs before the war?

[elucidator]

As to the effectiveness of the War on Terror on the home front, this from the LA Times

A Flawed Terrorist Yardstick

Too lengthy to cut and paste relevent sections, but it basicly notes that the Admin touts numbers of arrests for terrorism that are inherently bogus, and when pressed for facts does a quick shuffle-off-to-Buffalo. For instance, upon investigation, a number of persons were charged with minor crimes having nothing whatever to do with terrorism, but were entered on the plus side of the ledger.

It seems hardly a matter anymore of whether or not they are lying to us, but as to what, in particular, they are lying about in any given instance.

[pantom]

Sterra, as my cite showed, I hope to everyone’s satisfaction, the use of the word inarguably, besides being highly, um, inadvisable in GD, of all places, was also flatout wrong. Could be that al Qaeda is in fact there. Maybe not. But so far, the evidence isn’t conclusive yet, by the Army’s own admission.
And given the track record, I think conclusive evidence is definitely something we should wait for on this.

[John_Corrado]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
[There is no evidence that these aren’t separate and distinct battles - even Bush has said that, even though he continues to link them, usually by simply throwing the two together in speeches, and assuming the psychological connection will be made.

The fact that we’ve captured Saddam doesn’t make us one whit safer, as Howard Dean correctly said last week, even though we also found documents with him that apparently have given us the keys to the Sunni resistance network. With any luck at all, it will make Iraq much safer, and that’s a very good thing - but still a different one.

The threat from Al-Qaeda is real, and the evidence strongly supports the notion that that threat is independent of our war in Iraq. The threat level could have gone up this week, it could have gone down - and it wouldn’t have had squat to do with what’s going on over there.

But the fact that it went up just a week after our capture of Saddam and the vital intelligence that he kindly provided us, very much highlights the independence of one from the other, despite Bush’s suggestions.

Bolding to highlight the fallacy.

There are at least three fallacious assumptions, there, RT, and you’re smart enough to know better.

1: You’re asserting that an event cannot help the War on Terror unless it leads to an immediate reduction in the Alert Level- something that will help us six months down the road is, therefore, not helping and therefore pointless. By that token, freezing assets of terrorist supporters means nothing because the financial crunch won’t actually be felt by terrorists until months later.

2. You’re asserting that an event cannot help the War on Terror unless it directly affects the United States at home; ergo, actions that lead to a more stable Middle East don’t help the War on Terror because it’s not actually taking place in the U.S.

3. You’re asserting that helping the war on terror is only definable through a lowered alert status- even though an alert status only measures the likelihood of attack, not the size or scope of the attack.

I mean, come on, RT. You’re asserting that because the war in Iraq has not led to an immediate reduction in the terror status, it was wrong. That’s the crappiest argument against the war I’ve ever heard. There are plenty of good reasons to be against the war, and that just ain’t one of them.

[dropzone]

There is no reason why I, a person who
Regards Gaudere as an acquaintence
Or even as sort of a friend, would consider
Laughing at her threats when she is already
Livid at Manny and RTFirely.

[elucidator]

Long as you’re gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well tap-dance.

[elucidator]

I think you’re defining the issue to your own advantage here, John. Of course, the consequences of actions either here or in Iraq is open to question, and no one can flatly state that actions in Iraq cannot have any positive effect on safety in America.

But as I and many other have complained, it is disingenuos in the extreme for GeeDubya to constantly and somewhat surreptitiously connect the war in Iraq to 9/11. We suspect that is the intent when GeeDubya makes these passing comments. We do not accept the notion that these things are unscripted and unconsidered. GeeDubya does not dare subject his innuendo to debate, but he his perfectly willing to slip it in wherever and whenever he can.

You know, and I know, that a goodly portion of the American people believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11. You know, and I know, that not so much as a shred of credible evidence exists to support that proposition. You and I also both know that that specific bit of misinformation is enormously beneficial to the Admin’s political posture.

Mendacity for political benefit is fair game. I have every confidence of your agreement that it is distasteful for GeeDubya to lay on innuendo with a trowel. That’s “trowel”, T-R-O-W-E-L.