gbaji wrote:
Sufficient: The cause "causes" the effect. Logically: If A then B. If cause A exists, then B will occur. This is the type I'm talking about
Simple logic. Logic 101.
But then he goes on to say:
gbaji wrote:
Cause and effect relationships do not require that only that cause could generate the effect in question, or that the cause will *always* generate the effect in question. They exist if they *did* cause that effect.
gbaji wrote:
Clearly you can't interpret my statement to mean "any nation that has troops in SA will cause them to suffer a 9/11 type attack", since "any nation" includes the Saudi Arabian government as well.
No, infidel troops, I believe was the quote from OBL you were using. Used by a Muslim, it refers to non-Muslims.
gbaji wrote:
The cause was specifically US troops in Saudi Arabia (as I stated repeatedly throughout this thread). Changing who has soldiers there and why changes the condition "A" in that relationship (and therefore the certainty of "B" occuring). Obviously, those soldiers being US soldiers is part of the conditions that "cause" the 9/11 attack to occur. This was so obvious I figured I didn't need to make special note of it. Apparently, what is obvious to some just isn't very obvious to others (or others choose to be deliberately dense on some topics).
Wait, did you repeatedly state it, or was it so obvious you didn't have to? You're contradicting yourself with such rapidity I can't keep up.
I wrote:
Note the use of "always".
gbaji wrote:
Oddly, I don't see the world "always" in the quote. Whatever (edit: Found it. Um... that's your word. Sheesh! Strawman much?).
You are right. My mistake.
gbaji wrote:
Let me explain (again!). The presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the prime cause of OBL directing attacks at US targets around the globe, and ultimately resulted in the 9/11 attacks occuring. US troops were present in Saudi Arabia as part of the UN operations against Iraq (and protection of SA from Iraq).
So now it is the prime cause? So here gbaji is agree with me, earlier, when I said it was a contributing cause - perhaps the main cause - but in my opinion not sufficient to always result in attacks.
Since he disagreed with me then, I assumed he would still disagree with me now. How silly.
As I predicted when I waded into this mess:
I wrote:
In his head, gbaji is actually right. Everything he says is actually self-consistent. When I think of that, he is so much funnier. He is his own strong antropic principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle in that he redefines his words as he uses them.
He creates the truth by speaking it. He can simply redefine (or circularly define: a cause is what causes it) terms as he wishes to make it true later.
He creates the truth by speaking it. He can simply redefine (or circularly define: a cause is what causes it) terms as he wishes to make it true later.
At this point I hate to continue; gbaji is continues to make the assylum what it is today.