Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
[Edit of comments which contribute nothing to the discussion]
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. |
Yes, it's about sentient creatures thinking *emotionally* instead of taking a step back and looking at *FACTS*!!!
Quote:
|
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.
|
You are conflating two entirely separate parts of the discussion here.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.
|
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.
|
SWW once again, if you want to have a reasonable debate, *please* don't make comments like this because they add nothing to the discussion.
Quote:
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.
|
"The only one"? I'm the only one in this *discussion* who *may* have done such a thing, but that's rather a different matter.
And "completely destroy"? Nope, weaken, maybe. Destroy no. Curiously enough, that's what I think the terrorists are trying to do to us...
Quote:
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?
|
I'm saying that perhaps my assumption that you highlight is wrong. However in the absence of any other evidence, I still consider it to be valid.
Quote:
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.
|
Why do you seem to treat this as some sort of fight? I'm not trying to "invalidate" your suggested motives, but comment on them from *my* viewpoint.
Yes, I agree there are a range of motives that the terrorists have, however the aim of these are to bring about a worldwide Islamic state.
Quote:
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.
|
The point is they *have* the crude, but *we* then come in, and buy it all up, yet *they* see little return from it.
Quote:
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.
|
Yes, that's a possibility. I'm not a terrorist, I can't read their minds, but I know what I might try to do were I in their place.
Quote:
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.
|
Of course, did you expect otherwise? After Germany surrendered in WWII there were groups like the SS Werewolves who ran terror campaigns to try to bring back the Reich.
Quote:
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.
|
Oh dear, have you *really* missed the point *that* badly? I was talking about their reaction to the *GERMAN* invaders...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.
|
No it doesn't.
|
<panto>Oh yes it does...</panto>
Care to back that up with something?
Quote:
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.
|
You brought the quote up! Now you're saying that the validity of the quote isn't relevant!! Sheesh!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.[/quote]
*WHICH* ones?
Quote:
|
They may not stand up to your scrutiny, but they will to others.
|
If they fail to stand up to
any one particular scrutiny unless it is based on incredibly narrow criteria, then it it generally reasonable to assume that they fail.
Quote:
|
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.
|
In which case you think very, very *wrong*.
Quote:
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.
|
And now we're back to personal insults instead of reasoned debate...