Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.
|
Says Master Graham.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.
|
Clear superiority complex.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
and try to understand what I'm talking about.
<snip>
Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.
|
You just don't get it, do you? It's not about the numbers. It's not about facts and figures. It's about sentient creatures with emotions, not computerised robots.
So your maths is spot on. Wow. Have a gold star.
That doesn't mean you're any better at judging the terrorists motives than I am, or anyone else.
Yet you try to suggest that you are.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.
|
Yes, I can
really say that - in fact I did. And yes, you can make people believe almost anything, even that the impossible is achievable.
Not having met them, or seen the terrorists CV or academic qualifications, I'm not sure if I can make a valid judgement of their stupidity - clever of you that you can.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.
|
And you are the only one that has excluded that possibility without having any evidence, except that to accept the possibility would completely destroy your own pet theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.
|
(Emphasis mine)
Hang on, I got it wrong. You are saying that maybe you've got that wrong.
So maybe what I said is not so non-sensical or illogical after all?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".
I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.
|
So now you're trying to invalidate my suggested motives by changing them around a bit? Point made being that there are a range of motives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)
|
Next time they need food/water/medicines we'll send them a few barrels of crude instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.
|
You've already said that maybe they're not being logical. So they may not be following the pattern you suggest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?
|
I was talking immediately after the liberation. At that point nothing had as yet been imposed, yet as soon as Saddam was out of the picture there were others ready to take over where he left off.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
See also the French Resistance in WWII...!
|
Yeah - I notice that as soon as we stormed the Normandy beaches they started pelting us with stones and shooting us. Ever since we liberated them they've been trying to kill us.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.
|
No it doesn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.
|
Conan Doyle is not contributing to this debate, so the ropeyness of his argument is not in question here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.
|
I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.
They may not stand up to
your scrutiny, but they will to others.
In fact, I don't think it is possible for you to accept the possibility of a flaw in your reasoning, hence you have to dismiss any and all reasoning or evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.
|
Indeed. Your belief in your own infallibility is only second to your arrogance.