1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[ReillyT]

It also necessitates a deliberate action with intent to deceive.
Can you show a deliberate intention to convey the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

An implication doesn't suggest dishonesty. Cheney may very well have believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Yes.
But again, supporting AQ and its aims doesnt in any way mean there was involvement in 9/11. That's a leap in logic that is impossible to make with any degree of intellectual honesty.

You are talking about logic, and this isn't a circumstance of logic. Saying Iraq was connected to AQ and Atta doesn't necessitate anything. It suggests it. It isn't a logic argument. It only opens the door to further speculation of a kind that the Adminstration favored.

The administration stated for the record that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Given that, any argument to the contrary is unsupportable.

It said that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11. It never ruled out the possibility. The other statements it made suggested that this possibility was a viable one. People believed what they wanted to believe, and the Administration did little (one statement aside) to convince them otherwise.

 

[ReillyT]

You and I have a common cousin.
I tell someone that you and I have a common cousin.
Am I suggesting that you and I are related?

It depends on how it is said. If I say "our cousin is a doctor," many people will jump to the conclusion that we are related. I don't know if this qualifies as an implication (as there would clearly be no intent), but the conclusion that many people would draw would be a natural one, even if it were wrong.

 

[ReillyT]

No, that;s your rinferrence.
Unless, of course, you can show that there was intent.

The question is, of course:
Why would someone with at least a basic understanding of reason and logic infer such a thing, rather than take it at face value?

Because it was not a time of reason and detached logic. People were upset and angry about 9/11 and wanted to exact vengeance for the act on the perpetrators. If you give them a target, they will react to it. The Adminstration gave them a target, and I believe that the Adminstration knew how people would interpret what they were hearing and would react accordingly.

If the Adminstration didn't want this connection to be made, there was plenty of time in the lead up to the war to address the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. The Adminstration (with one statement aside) did not avail itself of that opportunity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An implication doesn't suggest dishonesty.

Yes, you're right - but it -does- necessitate intent. If you are implying something, then you are deliberately trying to indirectly convey an idea.
To argue that they made the implication means you need to show intent.

Cheney may very well have believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

He stated exactly the opposite, for the record.

You are talking about logic, and this isn't a circumstance of logic. Saying Iraq was connected to AQ and Atta doesn't necessitate anything. It suggests it. It isn't a logic argument.

It IS if you reach a conclusion froim that supposed suggestion, because you MUST have used some form of logic to reach that conclusion.
And its pretty clear that -some- people here HAVE reached that conclusion.

 

[ReillyT]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/19/182128.php

Learning To Read - Fallacies And Misleading Language

Cheney:

[Iraq has]...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Now that was well scripted. Did you miss it? Yeah, I know. Alot of people did, including the news agencies. Lets break it down.

"Iraq had a geographic base of terrorists that have had us under assault for some time now."


This does not imply that the terrorists came from Iraq. Lets split this up another way:

...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Hey! What happened to Iraq? Where did they go from the statement? Yeah, many people still don't get it. *sigh*

Cheney made a tie between the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and Iraq. He then made a separate tie between Al-Qaeda and 9/11. He did NOT make a direct tie between Iraq and 9/11. If that's what you thought you have been used and abused by the English language.

I realize that the language can be parsed, but the fact that it need be is what leads to the conclusion that an implication was being made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it was not a time of reason and detached logic. People were upset and angry about 9/11 and wanted to exact vengeance for the act on the perpetrators. If you give them a target, they will react to it. The Adminstration gave them a target, and I believe that the Adminstration knew how people would interpret what they were hearing and would react accordingly.

Of course you do.
Its great to hold an opinion that doesn't require any shred of support.

But, as noted before, the argument is one of intentional implication by the administration, a notion you CANNOT support.

And so you believe what you want to believe, regardless of what facts you have to support it.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes, you're right - but it -does- necessitate intent. If you are implying something, then you are deliberately trying to indirectly convey an idea.
To argue that they made the implication means you need to show intent.

I agree with this.

He stated exactly the opposite, for the record.

Cheney stated definitively before the war that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? Not just that there is a lack of evidence, but that we know this to be the case?

I would be surprised if this were the case, but even if it were, it comes down to a question of noise. What messages are being sent out? What is the frequency and volume of those messages? What messages are people hearing?

It IS if you reach a conclusion froim that supposed suggestion, because you MUST have used some form of logic to reach that conclusion.
And its pretty clear that -some- people here HAVE reached that conclusion.

No, you need not use logic at all. It is not an A=B and B=C, so A=C sort of endeavour. People can even reach different conclusions from the same suggestion, none of which need be illogical.

 

[ReillyT]

Of course you do.
Its great to hold an opinion that doesn't require any shred of support.

But, as noted before, the argument is one of intentional implication by the administration, a notion you CANNOT support.

And so you believe what you want to believe, regardless of what facts you have to support it.

I guess if what you require is a memo from Cheney saying that it was important to make the people believe that 9/11 and Iraq were related, then you are right that I don't have that kind of proof. What do we have? We have statements from the adminstration that to many listeners (not yourself obviously) implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. We have a large percentage of the population that believed that there was a connection (where did they get that idea?). We have minimal attempts by the Administration to persuade people otherwise.

From this, I form one conclusion. You see it a different way. In the end, history will make its own judgment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with this.

So, can you show that the administration deliberatly acted to imply there was a relationship?

Cheney stated definitively before the war that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? Not just that there is a lack of evidence, but that we know this to be the case?

Logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative.
You can aruge that 'maybe he did believe it but could not prove it' all you want, but then you need to show that there was such a belief.

No, you need not use logic at all. It is not an A=B and B=C, so A=C sort of endeavour. People can even reach different conclusions from the same suggestion, none of which need be illogical.

If you dont use logic, then your conclusion is necessarily unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess if what you require is a memo from Cheney saying that it was important to make the people believe that 9/11 and Iraq were related, then you are right that I don't have that kind of proof.

And so, you refuse to give up on the notion that the administration implied that relationship. because...?
Remember that implication necessitates intent.

We have a large percentage of the population that believed that there was a connection (where did they get that idea?).

Ths is correlation = causation. Unsound reasoning.

We have minimal attempts by the Administration to persuade people otherwise.

Given that the administration clearly stated there was no involvement, why keep stating what's already been stated?

From this, I form one conclusion.

Which is based on unsupported terms and locial falacies.

 

[ReillyT]

So, can you show that the administration deliberatly acted to imply there was a relationship?

Definitively prove, like with the Cheney memo example? No.

Logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative.
You can aruge that 'maybe he did believe it but could not prove it' all you want, but then you need to show that there was such a belief.

You are right, you cannot prove a negative (well, actually you can, but it is very hard). However, this isn't a math problem. It is a question of people's perceptions and how they obtained those perceptions, and whether they should have been disillusioned as to those perceptions, were the government acting responsibly.

If you dont use logic, then your conclusion is necessarily unsound.

Only if we are talking about issue of logic. See above.

I can't prove to you that the Adminstration intended for people to conflate 9/11 with Iraq. I think only a few select people could tell you with certainty what their intentions were, and I don't trust their honesty a great deal in any event. All I can do is show you how many people inferred a relationship between the two, and point out the statements by the Adminstration that would have led to such an inferrence. Taken with singular lack of effort (one or two statements aside) on the part of the Administration to set the record straight in the face of these misperceptions, I draw a certain conclusion. You draw another. I think this is where we reach an impasse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Definitively prove, like with the Cheney memo example? No.

So, how do you support the position that the connection was implied?

You are right, you cannot prove a negative (well, actually you can, but it is very hard).

And so, it would have been logically impossible for Cheney to say anything other than he did. Right?

I can't prove to you that the Adminstration intended for people to conflate 9/11 with Iraq.
All I can do is show you how many people inferred a relationship between the two,

AHA!!
So, we'e talking about INFERENCES, not IMPLICATIONS.
That is, an action taken on the part of the audience, not the speaker.

You probably didnt see this part of the discussion as it happened 20+ pages ago, but the issue was that the administration LIED about the connection between Iraq and 9/11, as evidenced by the factthat 70% of the people believed there was a connection.

OBVIOUSLY if the sentiment was drawn from inference rather than implication, the claim that the administration lied is unsupportable.

Thank you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No...it is never OK to lie about the reasons to go to war.

and of course his opinion is as good as mine.... I have never suggested otherwise.

Actually that is not true. You have on several occasions made just such a claim, in fact I have one quoted in my signature line.

 

[ReillyT]

AHA!!
So, we'e talking about INFERENCES, not IMPLICATIONS.
That is, an action taken on the part of the audience, not the speaker.

You probably didnt see this part of the discussion as it happened 20+ pages ago, but the issue was that the administration LIED about the connection between Iraq and 9/11, as evidenced by the factthat 70% of the people believed there was a connection.

OBVIOUSLY if the sentiment was drawn from inference rather than implication, the claim that the administration lied is unsupportable.

Thank you.

No, I don't think the Adminstration lied (with the possible exception of one Cheney statement that it appears he should have known was groundless). I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case. I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist. I think the Administration, knowing that a misperception existed, declined to correct (at least vigorously correct) that misperception.

As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent. If one is talking about a person, intent might be necessary. If one is talking about a statement, obviously no intent would be necessary (as a statement cannot possess intent).

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I don't think the Adminstration lied

Great! We are in agreement!

I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case. I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist.

There you go with the implication thing again.
Unless you can show intent...

As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent.

Implication, in this context at the very least, is a deliberate act, as you are -trying- to suggest something rather than state it explicitly.
Deliberate acts require intent.

 

[ReillyT]

There you go with the implication thing again.
Unless you can show intent...

Implication, in this context at the very least, is a deliberate act, as you are -trying- to suggest something rather than state it explicitly.
Deliberate acts require intent.

I thought that at first too, but now I don't think so. Definitely not as to statements and probably not as to people.

If to imply is to suggest, why need there be a deliberate intent? Surely, I can unintentionally imply something.

If I say "I had never had Mexican food before I went to Mexico," surely the implication is that I had Mexican food in Mexico. However, this need not be the case - logically speaking. Regardless of my intent in making the statement, either I am implying such, or my statement implies such.

 

[ReillyT]

This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11. Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.

The more I think about this argument, the dumber it seems to me. If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities. If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities. It is silly to say that Iran and Syria support a terrorist organization, but suggest that this implies no support for terrorism. Support of a terrorist organization in its goals implies support for the specific terrorist actions, whether one is briefed on them or not.

 

[jillian]

No, I don't think the Adminstration lied (with the possible exception of one Cheney statement that it appears he should have known was groundless). I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case. I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist. I think the Administration, knowing that a misperception existed, declined to correct (at least vigorously correct) that misperception.

As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent. If one is talking about a person, intent might be necessary. If one is talking about a statement, obviously no intent would be necessary (as a statement cannot possess intent).

I understand your argument. Where I think I have trouble with it is that I'm not sure I see a significant difference between a lie and a refusal to correct a "misimpression" that resulted from a false inference, particularly when that false inference seems to have been intentionally fostered.

 

[maineman]

Why?

You gonna be a Real Big Man(tm) and attack them, after whining about keeping family members out of it?

If you can't stand getting dirty, you little priss, don't sling mud.

no...just curious.

do you have any more insults to direct at my parents? my mom is 84 and in a wheelchair and my dad died in March, but feel free to dump on either one of them.

 

[maineman]

Actually that is not true. You have on several occasions made just such a claim, in fact I have one quoted in my signature line.

I am disappointed that you would deliberately mischaracterize my statements like that. really disappointed.

the quote from me in your signature line had nothing to do with my saying, in any way, that my opinion was more valid than yours...only that your opinion as to a matter of law settled at the supreme court has no real value.

I really thought you were more principled than that.

live and learn, I guess.