The People Behind The "useful Idiot", How does knowledge feel?

If you say so.

Sonee, welcome to the forum, or back to the forum, as the case may be.

It is always interesting to me to see how people will try to dissect a discussion to advance a notion contrary to the point being made.

You have presented a false dilemma. No one has accused old raven of being anti-American. It seems to be his contention that he can align himself with anti-American organizations and not be anti-American. Clearly this is not possible but he has yet to cite which specific anti-American group he has joined in order for any connection between himself and that organization to be established. As for myself, old raven's membership in any of the groups discussed in this thread has not even been considered. Disparaging though it may be, I discount the opinions of non-Americans when when discussing the attacks of 9/11 and our actions since that time. If we, as a nation, seriously considered the motivations of our enemies as a justification of their actions against our civilian population we would probably just sit back and allow them to lop the heads off the infidels as though we deserved it for not facing Mecca five times daily.

Separate from an opinion, I have provided empirical evidence of the people and organizations that comprise the anti-war movement. These organizations are easily identified as anti-American by their political directives. While being a communist is not anti-American, as we all have the right to decide our political objectives, advancing communism (as is the case of the Communist Party of the United States) can hardly be seen as strengthening the system of government that has resulted in our singular success as a world power and the unparalleled rights of the individual advanced by this system. International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a Stalinist organization, in case you don't remember who Stalin was, he was anathema to the American ideals of freedom, justice, capitalism, etc.

If you had more thoroughly read the previous comments, you would have found this quote contained within:

So, to identify me as "for the war" is not only not accurate, but in direct conflict with my observation, and highly insulting. Your critique portrays me as a fanatic, ready to kill to advance my beliefs. In stark contrast, I wish to live in peace and prosperity. I recognize there are forces that object to me being able to fulfill my desire and accept that war is inevitable. Armed with this knowledge, my desire is to win this war against Islamo-fascism and know from history that a nation divided will be defeated. While the phrase is highly unpopular with left-leaning individuals, the phrase coined by the President; "You are either with us or against us." is so incredibly accurate it should make the choice overwhelmingly simple for everyone.

Apparently, but they have yet to articulate that. This thread is not about being for or against the war, it is about the anti-war movement, as the title states. What has occurred to this point is merely a thrashing of the thread because they object to the content.

While you might wish this to be true, it is not. The war on terror is being fought on many fronts, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and here, in the United States. The enemy we engage in Iraq has identified itself as Al-Queida, part of the islamo-fascist movement that attacked our cities on 9/11/01. Note, I did not say Saddam Hussein attacked us, quite the contrary, we are in Iraq because of U.N. resolution 1441 and his failure to abide by the peace treaty he signed after his defeat in 1991. Attempts to separate the war on terror from our involvement in Iraq is but another logical fallacy presented to advance the anti-Bush movement of leftists in various organizations including the main stream media. A review of the President's State of the Union address in 2003 does a good job of articulating the continuation of the war on terror as it advances from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Actually, the inclusion of the TOS was brought forward by SCShamrock in light of the use of the phrase by certain other members that had been unable to stay on topic and devolved several threads into little "pissing" matches, claiming that just discussing certain topics could be looked upon as direct personal attacks when there were no personal attacks made, as is the case in this thread by certain members.

It would be idyllic if we could move discussions forward, on topic, and refrain from the puerile attacks, however; it seems that when a certain members are not knowledgeable on particular topics they immediately claim harm by claiming association with the subject of discussion. As is the case of this topic, old raven (from his profile, a canadian) and celtic coalition, have taken personal offense to their inclusion in the list of anti-American groups that comprise the orchestrated anti-war movement when they have not been identified previously as members of any of the earlier-named organizations.

An excellent direction for the conversation to remain.

I think the problem, at least as I interpreted it, was this. Oldraven does not support the war in Iraq, but does support the war on terror in general. Oldraven has never stated belonging to or supporting any official anti-war (or anti-american, which my be synonomous) groups.
Oldraven's agreement with ONE belief of an anti-war/anti-american group does not mean that he supports the group as a whole, nor does it mean that ALL his beliefs align with theirs. It means that one belief aligns with theirs.

I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control, however I do believe it should be used, at the pregnant women's discretion, when the pregnancy could cause undue health risks or as the result of a rape. As such, I share some beliefs with both pro-life and pro-choice orghanizations, but I do not belong to either, nor do I support either.
This is a logical fallacy, the old "if you're not with us, you're against us" statement. There are rarely only two options presented to a person, and failure to acknowledge other options does not mean that those other options do not exist.

Sniper, I argue that you have also presented a false dilemma. Oldraven's statements have not shown him to be aligned with anti-american or anti-war organizations, but instead to be in alignment with ONE of their stated beliefs.

Thanks for your perspective subhuman.

While I will cede the point that "with us or against us" is a false dilemma, I have not indicted old raven, he made that decision himself. He has even gone so far as to claim he votes democRATic while his profile clearly states that he lives in Canada. I'm not sure if he is an American fleeing the possibility of the draft or he is not even an American citizen that unlawfully participates in our election process? Certainly it raises many questions in and of itself but it is still not relevant to the topic of this thread.

Precisely what I have been saying from the beginning of this thread pertains with "the people behind the 'useful idiot'". If old raven finds himself aligned with Ms. Sheehan that's all fine and dandy, but to call me on the carpet for identifying the money and power behind this movement and accurately label them anti-American has yet to be challenged.

As I have said several times in this thread, I could care less what old raven "thinks" about the war, or for that matter what he "thinks" about U.S. involvement in the war on terror since he isn't an American in the first place. What I am interested in is building knowledge based on cold, hard facts. Emotion is no place for intelligent people to develop opinions, conversely; conclusions brought about by knowledge of the subject will ultimately be sound, without refute.

As anyone with a shred of intelligence can see, for many of the countries that opposed our pre-emptive attack on Saddam Hussein, "the chickens have come home to roost". While the oil for food scandal has revealed that countries such as Germany and France that were so vociferously opposing our aggression, were bilking the U.S. taxpayer for billions of dollars through under-the-table deals with Saddam for discount oil, Islamo-fascism is literally burning France to the ground and today we find Holland too has been lit ablaze. The failings of the "peaceniks" is to be so ignorant of the political movement identified as "the religion of peace" that they(muslims) really don't give one gnats hair about any country or people that do not violently oppose them. It is their objective to rule the entire world under Islamic law, to turn back the pages of history to once again live in the dark ages.

The forces behind Cindy Sheehan are, one and all, anti-American zealots that have so much contempt for Christianity, moral standards of decency, conservative ideologues, and G.W.Bush, that they gleefully defend the Islamo-fascists which will ultimately destroy them along with anyone else too weak to defend themselves from Islam's stated objectives as directed by their allah.

If you notice old raven's very first comment, he openly admitted to not knowing anything about the organizations financing Ms. Sheehan and her band of anarchists. To me, his admission would be indicative of a person that might be interested in learning more about a subject he already has emotions about. Apparently that is not the case though as he has chosen to interject himself into the topic, possibly for narcissistic reasons, I don't know, don't' care. He is simply not the topic.

I have challenged anyone to identify any anti-war organization that does not have anti-American ties as evidenced by their board of directors or steering committees. This information is public and simple searches will find biographies of many, if not most, of the people involved in these many, over 3000, organizations. To this moment, no one has brought anything to this thread to marginalize my observations.

False Dilemma: possible third option. Dual Citizenship. I know a few people who fall into the category, those who were born and raised in the US but moved to Canada due to work, marriage or various other reasons. They now reside in Canada, but retain their US citizenship along with their new Canadian citizenship.
There are Canadian troops in Iraq- doesn't this entitle Canadians to voice their opinions of the situation?

Oldraven has only posted twice in this thread. The first time was the statement that he was anti-war but not anti-american. The second post he states that he didn't align himself with any groups, but that you did that. I'm sticking by what I originally stated: it appears to me that he agrees with one belief of these anti-war groups, but that does not mean he supports all of their beliefs.

Are you familiar with the theory of "six degrees of separation?" If so, then you have to admit that every organization falls into the category you mention. If you dig deep enough, somewhere you will find a tie to something anti-american. Someone in the group knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who is anti-american. This is why I'm not going to bother to look at the links you posted- I have no doubts that you're correct- if one digs deep enough, the connection is there.

Why, golly gee- all of us posting here are members of Celtic Radio which plays Celtic music, based on and originating from the Seven Celtic Nations- I guess one can draw the conclusion that this is an "anti-american" group that we're all members of.

If you look far enough, the connection is always there.

To entertain your straw man:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion just as they are free to remain ignorant.
There are not now, nor have there been Canadian Troops as part of the U.S. led coalition in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other front in the war on terror.

Canada is what it has always been, a safe haven for communists and cowards.


On topic: No need to seek any degree of separation, the organizations affiliated with Chindy Sheehan are first generation anti-American.

I suggest you check under "current deployment" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces
As well as the Royal Canadian Military Institute here: http://www.rcmi.org/eng/pub/4/page3.asp?t=4&p=3
Allow me to quote from the second:
"Roundtable on ?Terrorism: A Global Reality ? Its Effects on South Asia?
June 2004

With the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, Canadian attention has increasingly focused on the South Asian region, and its continuing problem with international terrorism."

According to the first link, Canadian forces are in Afghanistan, and the second seems to reinforce this.

I notice that you conveniently ignored my point about dual citizenship.

Once again, I am not disputing this. I have already agreed with you, so you can probably stop repeating this.
However you also have failed to acknowledge the false dilemma you presented earlier when you categorized Oldraven in with Anti-American groups because he does not support war.

Indeed this is true. Although we may try to point out facts to you, you are more than welcome to remain ignorant if you so desire.

Noted, Canadian forces number 950 as part of the United Nations forces in Afghanistan.



Straw man noted, disregarded as off topic.

What's with this "straw man" thing? Nowhere in this thread can I find a reference to this. However it is interesting to note that you end the first post in the thread with "Your comments will be appreciated" yet you seem to be ignoring any comments that do not agree with you.
I see that you also bumped this earlier due to a lack of an answer from a person. Allow me to do the same. I point out that now you have replied three times without addressing the fact that Oldraven has not aligned himself with anti-american groups. You have replied twice without replying to my point that he may have dual citizenship.
I also have to question why Canadian troops in Afghanistan are off-topic, you brought them up when you thought it would further your claims. Once I was able to show that Canada does have forces involved in the conflict you write them off as irrelevant.

As I said before, you're within your right to remain that way. However as long as you are, you really have no right to attack others.

Clarification: oldraven is the strawman. speculation about oldraven isn't on topic. Strawman arguments are merely one of many diversions from the debate.
"Ignoring comments that I don't agree with"? Please, I noted your point about Canadian troops in Afghanistan. To my defense, the most vivid memory of Canada's position on the war on terror is their unity with France in opposing enforcement of U.N. 1441. I also verified your point by stating the number of troops involved in the U.N. peace keeping contingency after reading the links you have provided and doing a little more googling of my own. Unlike many people that don't have an open mind, I always acknowledge when I am wrong, as I did in my previous comment to you. I don't have any problem learning, it is what I do, how else could I find the information to start this thread?

Yes, I am still interested in the views of a self-proclaimed anarchist since many of the people, Gail Murphy, Medea Benjamin, Lisa Fithian involved at the heart of the anti-war movement are also self-proclaimed anarchists.

Again, oldraven isn't the topic and speculation about his citizenship doesn't really interest me. I just pointed out the confusion he created by saying he voted democRATic when his profile does not reflect the ability to do so.

As stated above, I have already noted the correction, what more would you expect?

Ignorant sure, we all are ignorant, some just to a greater degree than others.

Exactly who am I attacking?

I honestly don't see any attacking going on here. A blistering debate-yes. Serious disagreement-yes. Inability to reach common ground-yes. In the midst of all this I see the point/counter-point being conducted with fervor, yet respectfully. Kudos Sniper and Subhuman!

[quote]oldraven is the strawman. speculation about oldraven isn't on topic.[/quote[
Thank you for the clarification. As the person who started the thread, you do get to choose the topic(s) of that thread. However it's always been my experience that "posting etiquette" allows continuation of a topic that is brought up by the originator in a later post. Once the moderator of a debate adds a topic, it's "fair game" for parties in the debate to comment on. Compared to the overall debate, Oldraven's citizenship is indeed a moot point. As you mention, it's speculation either way- whether your comment that he can't vote or my comment that he may be able to.
As for inquiring about "straw man" is it not a sound practice for me to ask for clarification of a term that another person uses?
However consider that to be a rhetorical question as we've both agreed that it's not an issue involved in the larger debate. I think we can both consider it closed between us as we have reached an understanding and agreement?

I will agree that Canada did oppose direct action. However once direct action was taken they did join in the effort. Once again, this may be off-topic in your opinion. However as you, the topic originator, brought it in by saying that a Canadian's input isn't relevant I see it as on-topic. Once again, my understanding of forum etiquette as mentioned above. I wasn't asking for or expecting more than an acknowledgement from you regarding Canadian troops. If I gave you another impression I apologize. Now that I've clarified my views on allowed topics I hope you have a better understanding of my earlier confusion.

Perhaps everything I've posted here could be viewed as off-topic. I've never argued or questioned the association between anti-war and anti-American organizations.

[quote]Exactly who am I attacking? [/quote]
Perhaps nobody, I may have misinterpreted your earlier comments. However I do know beyond a doubt that I would consider myself to have been attacked if you said I supported anti-american groups if I said I was anti-war. Since the comment was directed at Oldraven, he may or may not interpret it as an attack. Besides, we're done with that topic.

In summary, if you want to consider this to be a debate, you have to expect people to be able to reply to ANY point that you bring up- not just what you define as the main topic. There are occasions where the only way to prove or disprove an argument is by arguing the basis of the argument instead of the main argument in itself.

My apologies, sniper, for any insults you felt from my previous post. Let me clarify myself a bit, if I can. I was attempting to state what I considered to be the obvious, that there are people who believe there are times when military action is needed in countries that are not our own and then there are those who believe that there is absolutely no reason for our military to be involved anywhere outside our borders. I believe that most people would prefer to avoid military conflict whenever possible but that there are time when it does become unavoidable and that is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. Based on your comments I think you would fall on the acceptence side, that was all I was getting at. It was my feeble attempt to get the conversation back to it's original goal of a discussion of anti-war protesters and anti-american groups being synonomous. Again, any insults generated by my posts were not intentional so please accept my sincere apology.

Now, I may be one of the ignorant masses but, I'm still not quite clear on the whole 'straw man' reference. I assume it has a cultural base, but that alludes me at present. Could someone please enlighten me as to where this reference came from and it's meaning to the post? I know that this is off topic but I'd really like to be up to speed on all the info being presented here!

Sniper, for further clarification, are you saying that all anit-war protesters/groups are also anti-american, or only that the groups supporting Sheehan are anti-american?

I believe Israel falls under this category of nations where military action is never justified. Truthfully, I think Israel should have decimated "Palestine" long before now, and forever claimed the Gaza strip, nay, the entire region with the government of the US taking no exception.

By the way, this is a straw man. The straw man being referenced here is one of the many logical fallacies used in debates. The straw man is an argument where one person will present their side of an issue. The other person will misrepresent that side of the person's issue (usually weak, and always refutable) and then attacks it. Therefore, the point the second person attacked is the straw man--the intentional substitution of the subject of the debate with a more refutable but unconnected point.

Sonee,

First; apology accepted and thank you. Many people take offense when none is intended but your point, in particular, was one I had addressed previously and I, as many do, grow weary repeating myself when all that is necessary is for others not to read into something that is not there.

Prior to the first reset this weekend, I had addressed subhuman and clarified both what the strawman was and why I didn't chose to address it.

Pardon me if I don't elaborate at this time as my time is very limited and the original comment was quite exhaustive and subsequent reply will not be as eloquent or succinct, as my original.

I have decided to make my comments on a word document from now on so any further resets of the board will not result in the loss of such hard work. Allow me, if you will, a few days to catch up on other pressing matters and I will gladly follow up on your questions.
Slainte'