So Randy, using your logic was the US military also 'EVIL' when its propaganda cameras rolled and it spun the tale of the 'rescue' of Jessica Lynch?

Of course the military uses propaganda. The question is, is it anti-American for the U.S. media to be skeptical of the military and to call it out when it is caught in an untruth?

I say that our world would be a much scarier place if the media didn't turn a skeptical eye to the military. And I'm not bashing the military. I know it has its reasons for propagandizing.

Thats the most inane thing Ive ever seen on this board. You idiot.

Jewish World News. Fab.

yes, I have seen that rcecale, or least I think i have, I couldnt see you clip for some reason.

It saddens me that you cant tell the difference.

Methinks thou hast been blinded by thine hatred.

Let go of the rage, stu, it's eating you alive. It's already devoured your vision. :rolleyes:

Randy

That wasn't his point at all, silly. He was demonstrating by a similar example how ridiculously untenable Stu's position was. If one lie within a group of people makes the entire group liars, then the Arabs are all liars, too. The assertion is just asinine.

Thanks for explaining it to him, Dan. I'd have done it myself, but I am just so tired of having to break things down to a second grade level, just so he can understand it. ;)

Randy

The problem is that you haven't managed to progress beyond that second grade level of understanding about most things of importance.

The world is a complex place full of many competing factions. Once you are able to cast aside your myopic and simplistic view of things perhaps might be able to start viewing the world from a 4000 level college couse level like most of the more educated members of this board do.

But this is the basis of your relationship with him, he is the bratty child, you are the bewildered educator.

Remember it's just a game (to him) - he's going to learn something whether he wants to or not.;)

What, you mean, like logic?

Ok, then let me see if I follow the reasoning in this thread:
1 - Stu posts the argument that if a single lie occurs in an organization, the entire organization is made up of liars. The elements of the offense "false official statement," the substance of the account, the range of a .50 caliber machine gun, and several other discussed items are immaterial to this logical sequence.
2 - Randy posts a counter-argument, demonstrating with Stu's argument that all Arabs are also all liars. This is obviously ridiculous, so Stu's argument must also be ridiculous.
3 - 350hp930 asserts that if all Arabs are liars, then all US military members are also liars, using Randy's argument which was asserted in absurdity to ridicule Stuart's argument, which was ridiculous to begin with. 350 is, therefore, is both mocking Stuart's argument and attempting to support it. This is a logical fallacy.



Meanwhile, on the related topic of the substance of the alleged lie, Stuart has been unable to progress past calling me an idiot and announcing that my simple question is inane. Not only are we calling each other names, we're calling the _questions_ names. Predictably, he'll come back by calling me "Shadowfax," and say some nonsense about how I've been blinded by my Nationalistic tendencies, or maybe I'm just another inane progandistic spokesman with mild delusions. For all of that, I'm having a hard time getting around the coherency of the above argument.


I love PPOT.

Dude, you drive Subs...none of us are worthy. Relax, Stu contains his own solution.
All the best.

Stu
I recently went to Australia for a month or so. After hearing here on PP OT that Aussies were so anti-war...and hearing on the news that there were massive protestests....I went to see one of the "massive" protests myself. Here is a picture that one of guys who works for me took. Is that lonesome guy you Stu?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1121572614.jpg

You named your car "Shadowfax". Seems an odd thing for a grown man to do, but I have nieces who are pony nuts so i understand.

The "coherency of the argument" rests, quite deliberately, with one very simple point. Its unfortunate that you struggle with it. I will make it again for your benefit.

If the US military constructed a fiction around the high profile Tillman case, is it also plausible that this august institution may lie to us on other matters? If so, when should we believe them, and when shouldnt we?

stu, you forgot some important points. Mainly, even after the local military authority reported this incident, they continued probing for information. They interviewed more people involved with this incident, and as more and more information became known, the military CHANGED their report. The Army reported the truth.

Had the Army clung to the original report, despite the information gatehered after the original had been given, I'd be right there with you, stu. But they did not. Seems a pretty honorable thing to do, if you ask me.

I'd like to see a politician do that. (From either side of the aisle.)

Randy

Thanks, Captain. I'm really looking forward to going back to driving submarines. This desk job is killing me. I'm sure you understand.

Oddly, I'm not at all spun up by this thread. I mean, Stu has come out and all but called me a liar, along with every other military man out there, and I'm just not interested. Sometimes I get pretty riled up about these things, but this one just completely failed to get me excited. Maybe I'm getting used to Stu's name-calling and failures to grasp the Big Picture, maybe I just care less than I used to. Maybe I should start a good solid religion thread -- pick an arbitrary doctrinal statement from 4th century Christianity, or maybe something eschatalogical. Nobody understands that stuff. :) Maybe I could assert that modern Roman Catholicism is fundamentally just a pagan religion with different names? I wonder if anybody would be interested in that discussion?

(yawn) But redundantly covering the same ground over and over again with Stu is just getting old.

Dan.............
Nooooo religious threads pleeeeeasee!
Everybody who know anything whatsoever about tha US miliitary knows the score anyways. Polls in this country historically put our profession ahead of almost all others for trustworthiness....and for good reason.
Note the picture above with the protestor in Rockhampton holding the sign "End the War on Terror." That is the kiind of moron we are dealing with....Sure, lets end the war on terrorists and let them have whatever they want. That would really make the stop, wouldn't it...LOL heck, conservatives tried that with liberals for years...and they just wanted more and crazier things.
The part about this thread that I really find in poor taste is actually using poster's names in the title....

Dan,

Heh, I chased you guys to no avail for YEARS...thank goodness for Yankees in the 80's!
I enjoy your posts, get back to the fleet and do that vodoo that you do.
Look me up if you ever get to DC, we have some very interesting roads here if you know where to look.
All the best, Shipmate.

Has anybody mentioned that Pat's parent are livid with the US Army for using his name to spin public emotion for the administrations goals?

Alan Poh
'77 Carrera 3.0

See Dan, there's your problem. You haven't reached that level 4000 level college couse level. Of couse you can't understand how to level the world at that level.

What I find amusing is that you guys who are currently serving/have served seem to take it as a personal affront if it's suggested that an administration or military spokesperson might bend the truth somewhat (for the record I don't think it's limited to any particular party) ESPECIALLY when they're dealing with an emotive area such as war. Do you really think it dosn't happen - is it really such a personal insult? Yawn...