Newt Gingrich: "I'm Deeply Worried" About Our Safety - Page 3

Volker · 07-20-08, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

An even more intelligent person would acknowledge 60+ years of sea-pushing ineptitude.

No, this would be the intelligent person's "hope, nothing will happen to them" category. Just ask me.

Dezaad · 07-20-08, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

They allow them to remain in power.

Have YOU, as a poor, downtrodden citizen of a dictator ruled country, ever risen up against that dictator? No? I'd thought not.

jallman · 07-21-08, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezaad

Have YOU, as a poor, downtrodden citizen of a dictator ruled country, ever risen up against that dictator? No? I'd thought not.

No but my country is built upon the legacy of a people who did do just that. I expect no less from other societies.

Hatuey · 07-21-08, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

IIRC, US forces informed all non-combatants (via the city government, leaflets, and loudspeakers) in Fallujah to leave the city and provided ample time for evacuation. Most estimates agree that 80+% of Fallujah inhabitants fled the city before hostilities commenced. Those that remained within the city did so of their own volition.

Alright. Let's see :

Red Dave :

Quote:

[as if dropping white phospherous on civillian areas wasnt being hard enough]

Cherokee

Quote:

Can you provide evidence that we did drop WP on civilian areas?

-----Red Dave provides links ----------------

cherokee :

Quote:

Oh yes the wonderful movie from people who never stepped foot inside Iraq. The film is a fake.

Two threads worth a read.........Damn I miss billo.

Red Dave made a claim. Cherokee demanded evidence. Red Dave provided evidence that is supported by the U.S. military. Cherokee goes on a random non-sequitur about a movie. What am I missing?

jallman · 07-21-08, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Red Dave made a claim. Cherokee demanded evidence. Red Dave provided evidence that is supported by the U.S. military. Cherokee goes on a random non-sequitur about a movie. What am I missing?

The definition of non sequitur, that's what you're missing.

Hatuey · 07-21-08, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

The definition of non sequitur, that's what you're missing.

How does it not follow? Cherokee demanded proof for a particular claim and Red Dave provided it.

jallman · 07-21-08, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

How does it not follow? Cherokee demanded proof and Red Dave provided it.

And Cherokee rightfully questioned the validity of that proof. That's not a non sequitur. It was germane to the topic of conversation.

Hatuey · 07-21-08, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

And Cherokee rightfully questioned the validity of that proof.

Wrong. Cherokee went on some non-sequitur about a movie that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Red_Dave said. His leap from one issue to another one is a non-sequitur.

Quote:

That's not a non sequitur. It was germane to the topic of conversation.

Not if it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand :

Non sequitur (humor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

A non sequitur (pronounced [ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtɚ]) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Its use can be deliberate or unintentional. Literally, it is Latin for "it does not follow". In other literature, a non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it.

What does some movie have to do with the US Military supporting Red Dave's claims that we used WP on civilian areas?

jallman · 07-21-08, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Wrong. Cherokee went on some non-sequitur about a movie that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Red_Dave said. His leap from one issue to another one is a non-sequitur.

Not if it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand :

Non sequitur (humor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does some movie have to do with the US Military supporting Red Dave's claims that we used WP on civilian areas?

So then you didn't read the Wiki article that Red Dave offered as proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The specific aspect of use against humans was highlighted[16] after the documentary film Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre by Sigfrido Ranucci was aired on Italy's RaiNews24 and released on the internet.[10] In the film, Giuliana Sgrena quotes city refugees testimonies from Fallujah about the reported danger of weapons effects:

In particular, some women had tried to enter their homes, and they had found a certain dust spread all over the house. The Americans themselves had told them to clean the houses with detergents, because that dust was very dangerous. In fact, they had some effect on their bodies, leading to some very strange things."
The film also shows U.S. soldiers on film admitting to WP use against insurgents. U.S. officials continued to deny the use of white phosphorus for antipersonnel purposes; U.S. ambassador to UK Robert Holmes Tuttle stated in November 2005, that U.S. forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".[17]

Cherokee was perfectly on topic in addressing this. You either didn't read the article and so you weren't up on the whole of the conversation or you failed to remember this from the article.

I, however, did. Cherokee did not go off on a non sequitur. You simply overlooked a piece of information and decided to throw out big words to try to bolster your argument and discredit Cherokee.

I believe that tactic is called an ad hom.

Hatuey · 07-21-08, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

So then you didn't read the Wiki article that Red Dave offered as proof.

Of course I did and it leads straight to his claim as shown by the huge hyperlink at the very top of the article that says : MAIN ARTICLE : Use of White Phosphorous in Iraq.

White phosphorus use in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."[6]

The article posted by Red Dave supports Red_Dave's claim from the get go :

White phosphorus (weapon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. DoS

We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorus shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article in ... Field Artillery magazine[15], "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes…." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.

Quote:

Cherokee was perfectly on topic in addressing this. You either didn't read the article and so you weren't up on the whole of the conversation or you failed to remember this from the article.

I, however, did. Cherokee did not go off on a non sequitur. You simply overlooked a piece of information and decided to throw out big words to try to bolster your argument and discredit Cherokee.

I believe that tactic is called an ad hom.

Still trying aren't you jallman? That a movie put in focus the use of WP has nothing to do with Red_Dave's claim that :

The U.S. used WP in civilian areas.

That Cherokee chose to launch an attack on a random movie and not Red_Dave's U.S. military supported argument is indeed a non-sequitur.