- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What? No liberal Slant in the media you say?
What? No liberal Slant in the media you say?Follow
Actually, the original quote never says "Middle East" "West Asia" or that Iraq is merely "part of the region." That was all YOUR inference.
I find nothing in the readers digest version that contradicts the statement in it's entirety.
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
Actually, the original quote never says "Middle East" "West Asia" or that Iraq is merely "part of the region." That was all YOUR inference.
What difference does it make what you call the region.
Iraq is *part* of a region.
That *region* is where terrorist attacks against the US have come from.
One such terrorist attack was that which occured on 9/11.
Show me where this is incorrect logic.
Logic circles folks. If A is in B, that does not mean that everything in B is in A. Classic error of trying to use a logical relationship backwards.
I see it all the time.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
I find nothing in the readers digest version that contradicts the statement in it's entirety.
Please tell me you're kidding? It's as obvious as night and day here Yanari. You did take some kind of reading comprehension class at some point, right?
The first one says that Iraq is part of the region from which terrorist against the US has come.
The second is saying that Iraq *is* where the terrorist attacks aginst the US have come.
Huge difference in meaning.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
If we are successful in Iraq,
Okay, here he's talking about just Iraq itself.
Quote:
if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq
Still just Iraq itself.
Quote:
that secures the region
Here's where it gets sticky. What does he mean by "region?" None of us know for sure. Maybe you could write a letter to Cheney and ask him.
Quote:
so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists,
Since Cheney changed subjects mid-sentence, we don't know if it refers to just Iraq, or the whole region.
Quote:
we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Still fuzzy. What does he mean by geographic base? "Iraq" or "the region?"
---------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Cheney needs to clarify.
---------------------------------------------
Isn't it you, Gbaji who has stated repeatedly that attacking someone personally can and should be interpreted as a capitulation?
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Isn't it you, Gbaji who has stated repeatedly that attacking someone personally can and should be interpreted as a capitulation?
I didn't attack you Yanari. I attacked your argument. I did question whether you'd taken a reading comprehension class, but that's not the same as saying: "Gee. You're a dummy!". But whatever...
Here tricky. Let's trim the quote down "properly".
Quote:
If we are successful in Iraq we will have struck a major
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Is it a bit clearer now?
He's not saying that Iraq is the geographic base of the terrorists. He's saying that success in Iraq will deal a blow to that base. Huge difference. If Iraq was the geographic base, then success in Iraq would "remove" or "eliminate" the base. It would not just "deal a major blow" to it. Clearly the "base", he's talking about is more then just Iraq.
I'm frankly surprised that anyone's arguing against this. It's blatant re-writing of a quote. Absolutely clearcut. No doubt about it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Scholar
20 posts
O my bad.continue on, gentlemen...
~sleezerous
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:11:36 2004 by sleestaklightning
~sleezerous
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:11:36 2004 by sleestaklightning
I dunno... I'm guessing maybe Thundra. We all know he can't really stay away and this sounds a lot like Burnsey did.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Here tricky. Let's trim the quote down "properly".
gbaji wrote:
If we are successful in Iraq we will have struck a major
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Quote:
It's blatant re-writing of a quote.
Who's re-writing quotes now?
If you want to pick apart the quote, how about the phrase "heart" of the base. As we all know "heart" is the organ that makes the whole body run. You can't live without a heart. Therefore, Cheney implies that Iraq is the organ that supports the entire region, and "pumps blood" or "sends support" to the rest of the "geographic base of terrorists."
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:16:14 2004 by trickybeck
Yes. And success in Iraq, is "striking a major blow right at the heart of the base". At no time does he say that Iraq is the entirety of the "heart of the base", else he would have said that succes would "elimiate", or "remove" that heart. It's *part* of it, and success will reduce that heart.
It's a valid analogy. Iraq has the ability to supply weapons and arms to terrorists in the region. Iraq has posted bounties rewarding terrorist acts. "Heart" in this case makes a lot of sense if you think of it in terms of pumping supplies and support to terrorist groups. Iraq is certainly one of those sources.
The problem really is that some people are making an assumption about the "war on terror" that the administration never made: That it's really a "war on Al-queda". Al-queda is one symptom of the problem in the Middle East. Attacking just Al-queda will just mean that other groups will spring up with different names and continue attacks against the US.
Success in Iraq will make it harder for that to happen. He's legitimizing the attack in the context of the "war on terror". He's not saying that Iraq specifically is responsible for 9/11. But he is implying that Iraq, if left to it's own devices, *might* be responsible for the next such attack.
Again. It's simply a logic issue. Iraq is part of the heart. The heart is part of the base. The base is where the terrorists come from. Some of those terrorists were responsible for 9/11. You can't run the logic backwards. You cannot conclude that the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11 were from Iraq, or supported directly by Iraq. They are part of a set of "terrorists", which exist in a "geographical base", of which Iraq is one part.
I'm still mystified how you can read those two statements and not see that the second is a gross change of the meaning of the first. It really changes a forward looking statement: "Success in Iraq will make it harder for future 9/11 type attacks", into a backwards looking one: "Iraq was responsible for 9/11". Total change of meaning.
It's a valid analogy. Iraq has the ability to supply weapons and arms to terrorists in the region. Iraq has posted bounties rewarding terrorist acts. "Heart" in this case makes a lot of sense if you think of it in terms of pumping supplies and support to terrorist groups. Iraq is certainly one of those sources.
The problem really is that some people are making an assumption about the "war on terror" that the administration never made: That it's really a "war on Al-queda". Al-queda is one symptom of the problem in the Middle East. Attacking just Al-queda will just mean that other groups will spring up with different names and continue attacks against the US.
Success in Iraq will make it harder for that to happen. He's legitimizing the attack in the context of the "war on terror". He's not saying that Iraq specifically is responsible for 9/11. But he is implying that Iraq, if left to it's own devices, *might* be responsible for the next such attack.
Again. It's simply a logic issue. Iraq is part of the heart. The heart is part of the base. The base is where the terrorists come from. Some of those terrorists were responsible for 9/11. You can't run the logic backwards. You cannot conclude that the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11 were from Iraq, or supported directly by Iraq. They are part of a set of "terrorists", which exist in a "geographical base", of which Iraq is one part.
I'm still mystified how you can read those two statements and not see that the second is a gross change of the meaning of the first. It really changes a forward looking statement: "Success in Iraq will make it harder for future 9/11 type attacks", into a backwards looking one: "Iraq was responsible for 9/11". Total change of meaning.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
Who's re-writing quotes now?
Um. All I did was remove the part of the quote that defines what "success in Iraq" means.
Look at it this way:
If we are successful in Iraq
Conditional statement. Starts off the quote and defines the conditions for the rest of the statement.
if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists,
Definition of the first statement. This is Cheney defining what "success in Iraq" is.
we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Result. This is what will happen if we are successful.
You can remove the middle bit and the quote retains the same meaning. The middle bit does clarify things a bit, and helps in the interpretation, but you can trim it to simplyfy the statement, in the same way you can change "Joe, the quarterback of the local football team, which has a 10-0 record, and who is a very popular guy, walked to the store", with "Joe walked to the store", and the meaning is unchanged.
Got it? This is 6th grade English stuff..
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
You did take some kind of reading comprehension class at some point, right?
Boy, my reading comprehension must be terrible!
gbaji wrote:
You can remove the middle bit and the quote retains the same meaning. The middle bit does clarify things a bit, and helps in the interpretation, but you can trim it to simplyfy the statement, in the same way you can change "Joe, the quarterback of the local football team, which has a 10-0 record, and who is a very popular guy, walked to the store", with "Joe walked to the store", and the meaning is unchanged.
Got it? This is 6th grade English stuff..
Got it? This is 6th grade English stuff..
What if the original statement was "George W. Bush, the President of the United States, who is never wrong, and is the best president we've ever had, and will lead our country to greatness, walked to the store."
And it was changed to "George W. Bush walked to the store."
Meaning may be unchanged, but relevant parts of the quote are left out. If someone left out the middle part of that quote, you'd be all over them.
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:40:33 2004 by trickybeck
I would have to say that this is the "region" that was being discussed in the quote:
The Region
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:45:36 2004 by Platanum
The Region
Quote:
With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that also included terrorist groups from Eqypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did. With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.
Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:45:36 2004 by Platanum
gbaji wrote:
Yes. And success in Iraq, is "striking a major blow right at the heart of the base". At no time does he say that Iraq is the entirety of the "heart of the base", else he would have said that succes would "elimiate", or "remove" that heart. It's *part* of it, and success will reduce that heart.
No, he never says Iraq is the entirety of the "heart."
But he also never says it's *part* of it.
again: he needs to clarify.
Furthermore, you write something like this:
And when any disagrees with you, you berate them.
You assume anyone who interprets something differently is stupid, and that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically doing so because they're liberal.
Quote:
Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees a blatant change of meaning between those two...
Comments? Excuses from the left? Anything?
Comments? Excuses from the left? Anything?
And when any disagrees with you, you berate them.
You assume anyone who interprets something differently is stupid, and that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically doing so because they're liberal.
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
What if the original statement was "George W. Bush, the President of the United States, who is never wrong, and is the best president we've ever had, and will lead our country to greatness, walked to the store."
And it was changed to "George W. Bush walked to the store."
Meaning may be unchanged, but relevant parts of the quote are left out. If someone left out the middle part of that quote, you'd be all over them.
It would depend on what part of the sentence they were arguing. If they were arguing about what the quoted person was saying Bush was ( the President of the United States, who is never wrong, and is the best president we've ever had, and will lead our country to greatness), then yes, that part is relevant.
But if they were simply arguing about whether he walked to the store or not, then it wouldn't be. Since the entire argument is essentially over how Iraq relates to the final bit of the statement: "the geographic base of the terrorists who h
ave had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11", then we can remove the definition of success in order to clarify that point (which I did).
If you want to know what success in Iraq means, then we need to include that part. If anything, that part simply further supports my argument though. After all, part of the success is defined as "so that it never again becomes a threat to it
s neighbors or to the United States". That really supports the assertion that if success is "striking a major blow" at something, that something must be external at least in part to Iraq. After all, if Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists", and we've changed Iraq so that they "never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States", then that would be more then "striking a major blow". It would be "elimination of the base" (how many times do I have to exlain this?).
The meaning is obvious if you take the time to read it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. And success in Iraq, is "striking a major blow right at the heart of the base". At no time does he say that Iraq is the entirety of the "heart of the base", else he would have said that succes would "elimiate", or "remove" that heart. It's *part* of it, and success will reduce that heart.
No, he never says Iraq is the entirety of the "heart."
But he also never says it's *part* of it.
again: he needs to clarify.
No. You need to learn how to read for comprehension. As I've said like 5 times now. Success in Iraq, presumably means that Iraq no longer poses a threat to us. Terrorism in this context is a threat to us. Thus, if success only "strikes a major blow" at the geographical heart, then Iraq *cannot* also be that geographical heart. It cant.
If the Yankees win the world series, you don't say they "struck a major blow towards winning the world series". You say they won the series. Same logic. If Iraq was the source of the terrorists (a threat towards the US), and succeeding in Iraq was defined as Iraq never being a threat to the US, then if we were saying that Iraq *was* the source of terrorism (heart if you will), we'd say that we'd eliminated or removed or neutralized that source. But that's not what was said. They said succeeding in Iraq would strike a major blow to that heart. That's like one victory out of many along the way. It's part of the process, that's all...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jesus Christ Gbaji, other people accuse Democrats of doing stawman arguements, you're doing it so obviously that you should be ashamed of yourself.
He is speaking directly of Iraq, he says it's the heart of the geophrphic base of the region, so what region is that? THat's the region surrounding and including Iraq.
It's that fricken obvious, you just want something to bi[b][/b]tch about.
He is speaking directly of Iraq, he says it's the heart of the geophrphic base of the region, so what region is that? THat's the region surrounding and including Iraq.
It's that fricken obvious, you just want something to bi[b][/b]tch about.
Double post
Edited, Fri Jun 18 00:16:13 2004 by Chtulhu
Edited, Fri Jun 18 00:16:13 2004 by Chtulhu
Quote:
Success in Iraq, presumably means that Iraq no longer poses a threat to us.
The largest threat to the American people as a whole is their present government. Their foreign policy is inciting unseen levels of hatred worldwide, and unless they curb these actions there are going to be plenty more 9/11's.
At least they have made the world safer for Americans.
Are they going to cut Paul M. Johnson's head off today or tomorrow, I can't remember.
14 posts
Cheney wrote "we will have struck a major blow RIGHT AT the heart of the base".
Key phrase here is "right at".
The phrase "right at" carries with it the implication that the blow was struck in the same place where the "heart of the base" is. Since he is talking about the occupation of Iraq at this time, we can infer that Iraq IS the "heart of the base".
If he meant the heart of the base was somewhere other than Iraq, the quote would have been "we will have struck a major blow TO the heart of the base".
Key phrase here is "right at".
The phrase "right at" carries with it the implication that the blow was struck in the same place where the "heart of the base" is. Since he is talking about the occupation of Iraq at this time, we can infer that Iraq IS the "heart of the base".
If he meant the heart of the base was somewhere other than Iraq, the quote would have been "we will have struck a major blow TO the heart of the base".
Don't attempt to teach a cat to sing. You'll only frustrate yourself and confuse your cat.
Why not settle this by flying Mr Cheney over Baghdad, shoving him out and seeing whether he lands in Iraq or in "the region"?
I'll leave it to your political affiliations whether you'd use a parachute .
I'll leave it to your political affiliations whether you'd use a parachute .
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Recent Visitors: 240
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (240)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What? No liberal Slant in the media you say?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC