People actually believe this crap?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This latin phrase is getting a work out here, recently.

Both sides are engagin in the same faulty causation analysis, if you ask me.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think I spelled this out at some length in some old CB posts, but I am too lazy to dig them out. Suffice it to say that I had and have a more cynical view of the reasons for the war. WMDs were never the real reason. in my mind, that we were going in. I think it was all about establishing a beachhead in the Mid East (and they thought that was not going to happenin a meanginful way in Afghanistan becasue it was such a mess in the first place) and crewating a friendly governemnt that could influence the regioon in a way favorbale to us. I didn't think Iraq would fall apart the way it has, and neither did the Adminsitration. Iraq was to be part of an orchestrated effort to control a region by our presence and throgugh our influence over others. It would give us a base for better intelligence, enhance the chance at democracy spreading there and eventually undermnie Al Qaeda. Thier frointyard, IOW, was the mid east, not just Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think this may be correct. I still think the primary reason was oil driven (as Paul Wolfowitz has suggested, and he was the architect for this invasion).

As the founder of the neo-con movement, Wolfowitz (along with Pearle) legitmately thought that they could spread democracy throughout the Middle East by establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq. Quite clearly they underestimated the difficulty of so doing.

The purpose of spreading democracy was not for democracy's sake, however. It was to further bolster our oil ties to the region. Democracies don't go to war with each other, and economically, it would be quite beneficial to have such a democracy pumping the blood of our economy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

This latin phrase is getting a work out here, recently.

Both sides are engagin in the same faulty causation analysis, if you ask me.

I am not sure what you mean. What causation analysis have I used relying on this same (or another) fallacy?

[tooblue]

Fallacious reasoning is diminishing the "evidence" with retrospective conjecture in the name of being right.

I have not suggested terrorism has stopped ... in fact I am stating it has escalated … notably in Afghanistan and Iraq and not the US! The simplest answer is Al Qaeda’s energy and resources yield the greatest efficacy battling the US and driving them out of the Middle East.

I AM saying the evidence points to placing equal blame on the Clinton admin as is placed on the current administration for terrorism.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I'm not sure you understood my point. They may not have difficulty putting together an attack in the Middle East, but they likely do here (given the RARE attacks on US soil despite their tremendous anger for the US).

Again, objectively looking at the evidence, why do you think this war is evidence that we are stopping terrorism, but not think that Clinton stopped terrorism (since we actually went LONGER without an attack on US soil under Clinton)?

I am not saying Clinton protected us from terrorism. I don't know the answer to that either. I AM saying there is AS MUCH evidence for that (no attacks in the US during his presidency) as there is for your claim that the war is preventing attacks in the US.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your "evidence" is simply fallacious reasoning.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying and if so, then my bad. Still, the US was attacked by terrorists while Clinton was in office - the first time the World Trade Center was bombed, Feb. 26th, 1993.

[tooblue]

No it wasn't, that was a ruse, a ploy of the Illuminati who now have their pawn, GWB in power!!!!

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I am not sure what you mean. What causation analysis have I used relying on this same (or another) fallacy?

Well, maybe you didn't, I can't recall, but I said in my post both SIDES, and by this I meant it is impossible to say that we haven't had attacks becasue of the Iraq war and it is impossible to say that we didn't have attacks before Iraq becasue of Clinton's good works.

"After this, therefore because of this" applies to both of these situations.

[tooblue]

You will NEVER win the battle of ideas with an American ... you may never win with guns and bombs, but atleast you will gain favor with The Almighty having died in his name.

That is 'your' argument from the perspective of a Radical Muslim.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Again, objectively looking at the evidence, why do you think this war is evidence that we are stopping terrorism, but not think that Clinton stopped terrorism (since we actually went LONGER without an attack on US soil under Clinton)?

I am not saying Clinton protected us from terrorism. I don't know the answer to that either. I AM saying there is AS MUCH evidence for that (no attacks in the US during his presidency) as there is for your claim that the war is preventing attacks in the US.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. This is like going to the dentist with a rotted out tooth, getting a root canal, taking pain killers and then saying, you know, the current absense of my pain is not evidence that the pain killer is working or that the root canal was necessary because during the 15 years I ignored that tooth it was just fine and I was pain free. There is no more evidence that the dental procedure and the pain killers prevent pain any better than does neglect.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your "evidence" is simply fallacious reasoning.

If so, then so is absolutely everything that has ever been said on this subject. All your "logical fallacy" demostrates is the unknowablility of causal relationships. The common argument that there are more terrorists now than before the invasion is defeated by this, as are a dozen others.

While one event following another does not NECESARILY show causation, it can be circumstantial EVIDENCE of causation. The way you and others seem to be using the principle you would have it mean chonology of events can never mean anything. It is only a fallacy when stated in the absolute, but when stated as being EVIDENCE of something it is not a fallacy at all.

Patirent: Doctor my foot hurts.

Doctor: When did the pain begin?

Patient: Well it felt fine until I stepped on a nail. Can you have a look down there?

Doctor: No, it would be a logical fallacy to believe that just because your foot began to hurt AFTER you stepped on the nail, that the nail is the source of the pain. Now let me give you a rectal exam.

I don't mean to be harsh, but several of you keep trotting this "fallacy" oout as your trump card and don't appear to understand what it means.

[Archaea]

bravo.

The fallacy is useful in understanding such commonplace analogies as if the stock market is down then the Super Bowl Champion will be from the NFC and vice versa.

To use it to defeat any causal relationship is also a fallacy.

Well done.