[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
It is sad to know that you posted that in this thread in post #225, **elucidator ** only took out extra bits that showed that indeed you are referring to Iraq, saying that regime change was caused by “hiding terrorists within a country” (Iraq is the pivot) is a statement that needs a big fat cite as support;
[/quote]
Elucidator does this to me all the time. He makes the false attribution, and demands I address it and keeps harping on it until he gets other people to think he might be right. Then, at length, ad nauseam, I am forced to address it and prove his false attribution and the accusation are both of full of shit. The debate is hijacked into a semantic argument and all interesting debate ceases until this is done.
Then, a post, or a thread later, he does it again.
Ok. So let’s waste my time and get it over with:
You are saying that in post 225 that when I say “hiding terrorists within a country” I am referring to Iraq, in spite of the fact that I repeatedly assert that I am not. Why you simply don’t wish to take me at my word on this and move on like a normal person, I don’t know.
However, if we are to determine what I am referring to we will need to look at the full quote in the context of the discussion rather than making assertions based on fragments of sentences.
Here it is:
" Yeah. Regime change is the new strategy. As for the dozen wars ahead, maybe not. This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change. It will become a deterrent.
Regardless of whether it works or not, a country that is harboring terrorists that are attacking is at war with us for all intents and purposes, so if we can’t deter them from aiding in attacks against us we might as well remove them."
In this I am responding to an earlier post of col_10022 in which he says:
“So regime change is the new strategy? By this rationale we have about a dozen wars ahead. I vote for a different strategy.”(post 216)
This in return is responding to a post of mine in which I say:
" with every stick there has to be a carrot. The best carrot also functions as a stick. The carrot that we offer is freedom, self-determination, humanity, our western values of equality and fair-play. After removing the old regime we help the occupants of the country attain this." (post 204)
This is the original post from which the above exchange occurs. We are responding to each other back in forth, quoting each other point by point.
In this post I am talking about the reasons for the war in the context of 9/11 and the Bush doctrine. I am talking about both the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. With Col, as the point develops we are also talking about future possible invasions and the rationales for them.
It’s not just about Iraq.
First I talk about Afghanistan:
“the first logical step is to take out Afghanistan which was an active sponsor of Bin Laden, and 9/11. No longer will countries be able to disavow the activities that occur or are planned or supported within their borders. We will no longer respect the sovereignty of a country that harbors terrorists. So, we do that.”
Here, I am clearly saying that Afghanistan is harboring terrorists, and also saying that others countries that do can expect the same.
Next I talk about Iraq and give some reasons for Iraq:
“Will this solve the problem? No. We need to fight this enemy on all its fronts and all its havens. People seem to forget that Hussain provided financial support, rhetorical and moral support to these terrorists. Hussain had also started a war of aggression against one of our allies and staunches strongholds of western values by attacking Kuwait. Saddam Hussain was in violation of the terms of peace after that war and was actively flaunting them to make us look like a paper tiger. He had committed genocide against his people and we were committing serious resources to the half-measure of containment.”
Please note that I specifically did not say “harboring.” I specifically said “financial, moral, and rhetorical support.” I left “harboring” out because to the best of my knowledge I cannot demonstrate that he was “harboring” them in terms of providing them a physical home within his country which is how this term is usually used (Please note that it is accurate to say he was “harboring” them in the 3rd sense of the word which is “nurturing.” Financial, moral and rhetorical support are clearly nurturing. I didn’t because I wanted no confusion on this point)
Later still, Col and I clarify the “financial support”
OK so far?
Clearly here the discussion is referring to the Bush doctrine in terms of the war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and possible future military actions.
We are speaking generally and not always specifically about Iraq. We are speaking about the rationale for invasions with the Bush doctrine, and we are doing so largely but not exclusively within the context of Iraq.
Clearly, we can see that I made the deliberate choice not to say “harboring” while specifically referring to Iraq, but I feel free to say it in reference to Afghanistan and other possible future actions.
Now that we’ve taken the full context into consideration we can go back to the original quote that was used to generate the accusation.
"Yeah. Regime change is the new strategy. As for the dozen wars ahead, maybe not. This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change. It will become a deterrent.
Regardless of whether it works or not, a country that is harboring terrorists that are attacking is at war with us for all intents and purposes, so if we can’t deter them from aiding in attacks against us we might as well remove them."
Note that I say “Regime change is the new strategy,” and am talking about the rationale for the dozen wars ahead (not specifically about Iraq). The subject here is not Iraq, but the “dozen wars ahead” in the context of the Bush doctrine.
Next I say “This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change.”
I am saying here how the previous wars will serve as a detterent to avoid the dozen in the future. What will be deterring?
“hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable.”
“hiding terrorists within a country (Aghanistan)” and “aiding them (Afghanistan and Iraq)” is no longer viable.
From this context and from the earlier post which is the genesis of the exchange I have clearly taken pains not to say that Iraq is “harboring” terrorists.
What a fucking pain in the ass that is to explain! The bitch of it is is that if you go back and read the exchange from the beginning, in order, in context, it is very clear that I am in no way arguing Iraq is “harboring” terrorists, and, in fact, took pains and had a very specific clarifying exchange with Col to determine precisely what Iraq was doing with regards to "aiding terrorists (giving $ to widows of suicide bombers.)
Elucidator knows this. However, he sees within this exchange the opportunity to confuse things, make a false attribution that I must stop and defend, thus hijacking and derailing the thread.
He has done this, and similarly dishonest tactics many many times in the past.
It’s extremely annoying, and it’s lying.
It’s extremely frustrating since I deliberately took pains not to make the allegation he claims I did.
The only way he can make the claim is to take sentence fragments out of context and apply a different context. It is clear from context that the text in question was referring to the rationale for wars both present in future in the context of the Bush doctrine.
So. I guess elucidator because he forces me to respond to his lies in detail.
In our last exchange he accused me at length of “altering” a quote from John Kerry when it should have been pretty obvious that I had done no such thing, and had been very careful to do any such thing.
The discussion ended as I had to discuss that specious accusation at length.
No. I’m using the “elucidator lied and took partial sentence fragments out of context and inserted his own context to generate a specious accusation and hijack the thread, as per his standard operating procedure” defense.
