A Gigantic Hole in Neo-Con Logic

[TheEvilDetector]

If you watch http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/02/intv.ron.paul.cnn

You will see that (amongst other things) Ron Paul says "the real reason they come here, the word is occupation, and if for any reason we continue to believe this naively they continue to attack us because we are rich and we are free we can't take care of this problem so that is crucial"

Let me summarise the gigantic logical flaw with the neocon dogma.
(All the insanity below is neocon line of thinking)

Terrorists attack us because they hate our prosperity and freedoms. This is why we have the "War On Terror".

A) Their goal accordingly would be to impoverish the nation and destroy her freedoms.

B) Our goal accordingly would be to prevent realisation of terrorist objectives and destroy the terrorists.

1. Let us assume to begin with that US will continue to remain free and prosperous for all time in spite of terrorism because we will not let the terrorists achieve their objectives.

2. (1) implies, that short of destroying terrorists completely and permanently they will continue to try and attack US for all time to destroy prosperity and freedoms while we defend ourselves in the war on terror.

3. (2) implies the war can never finish, if complete and permanent destruction of terrorism isn't achieved.

4. Paradoxically US actions in this war on terror with the goal of destroying terrorism have expanded the terrorist numbers.
See another post in this thread with death metrics for proof.

5. (3) and (4) imply the war can never be won and will expand.

6. (5) implies US will have to pay ever increasing amounts out of public funds to cover incessant military spending
and suffer all the inflation that war always brings.

7. (5) implies US will institute the draft, to continue the expanding war into more and more countries that harbour terrorists (also put in place various civil liberties unfriendly legislations to aid in war on terror).

8. (6) and (7) imply US will lose prosperity and the freedoms.

9. (8) implies the terrorists will stop attacking us once again according to neo-cons.

However, (1) and (8) contradict and therefore neo-con War On Terror is deeply flawed.

Also (8) and (9) imply that the terrorists have won.

:-)

[ButchHowdy]

That's an extraordinary deduction Dr. Evil!

[Ron Paul Fan]

The terrorists will stop attacking us when everyone of them is dead! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?

[Tina]

The terrorists will stop attacking us when everyone of them is dead! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?

That this is sociopathic thinking and your motives are not true.

[risiusj]

That this is sociopathic thinking and your motives are not true.

Those that buy into the neo-con philosophy don't think so.

[Ron Paul Fan]

That this is sociopathic thinking and your motives are not true.

So what you're basically saying is that we should take our marching orders from Al Queda if they want us off the Arabian Penninsula?

[TheEvilDetector]

The terrorists will stop attacking us when everyone of them is dead! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?

Cars will not stop killing people until everyone of them is taken off the road! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of road accidents all over the United States occurring every single day and killing thousands of people constantly!

[TheEvilDetector]

So what you're basically saying is that we should take our marching orders from Al Queda if they want us off the Arabian Penninsula?

I am saying, that we should take our marching orders from the constitution.

[Magsec]

and if for any reason we continue to believe this naively they continue to attack us because we are rich and we are free we can't take care of this problem so that is crucial"

Oddly enough, by that logic, the terrorists won't attack us again since OUR NATION IS GETTING POORER by the day and our government is TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS.

Why do we have to go over to the Middle East and kill them when we're doing their bidding already? These Neo-Cons, they are staging a fascinating blight.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Cars will not stop killing people until everyone of them is taken off the road! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of road accidents all over the United States occurring every single day and killing thousands of people constantly!

Cars don't come to our cities like on September 11th and blow us up, sir. We must avoid another September 11th at all costs. The American people must unite together if they want to be kept safe from another terrorist attack like on September 11th. We are one nation. The United States of America, not the Divided States of America. September 11th.

[SwordOfShannarah]

The terrorists will stop attacking us when everyone of them is dead! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?


All you have to do is point to Iraq and say, "Thats what you said last time and you were 100% wrong."

[Tina]

Those that buy into the neo-con philosophy don't think so.

Of course not, part of the disorder is not seeing things as they are, but only as they relate to you and your goals. Also, the inability to see another point of view, and lack of empathy towards another. Although empathy will be feigned if it suits their own aims.

That is the true futility of trying to convert a true neo con, some of them have just been brainwashed by the media, those types can be helped with logic.

[TheEvilDetector]

Cars don't come to our cities like on September 11th and blow us up, sir. We must avoid another September 11th at all costs. The American people must unite together if they want to be kept safe from another terrorist attack like on September 11th. We are one nation. The United States of America, not the Divided States of America. September 11th.

Cars are evil, cars come to our country from overseas, they kill people.

In a year over 40,000 americans die because of cars and this is far more than 911.

We must avoid having cars at all costs.

Thousands upon thousands of americans would be alive today if it wasn't for cars.

Who in the government is brave enough to outlaw cars?

The american people DEMAND "War On Cars" and they DEMAND IT NOW!!

Ron Paul is weak on Cars. He wants to bow to car-fascism while they come here and kill us!!

[constituent]

If you watch http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/02/intv.ron.paul.cnn

You will see that (amongst other things) Ron Paul says "the real reason they come here, the word is occupation, and if for any reason we continue to believe this naively they continue to attack us because we are rich and we are free we can't take care of this problem so that is crucial"

Let me summarise the gigantic logical flaw with the neocon dogma.
(All the insanity below is neocon line of thinking)

Terrorists attack us because they hate our prosperity and freedoms. This is why we have the "War On Terror".

A) Their goal accordingly would be to impoverish the nation and destroy her freedoms.

B) Our goal accordingly would be to prevent realisation of terrorist objectives and destroy the terrorists.

1. Let us assume to begin with that US will continue to remain free and prosperous for all time in spite of terrorism because we will not let the terrorists achieve their objectives.

2. (1) implies, that short of destroying terrorists completely and permanently they will continue to try and attack US for all time to destroy prosperity and freedoms while we defend ourselves in the war on terror.

3. (2) implies the war can never finish, if complete and permanent destruction of terrorism isn't achieved.

4. Paradoxically US actions in this war on terror with the goal of destroying terrorism have expanded the terrorist numbers.

5. (3) implies the war can never be won.

6. (4) implies US will stop being prosperous, because of the incessant military spending and all the inflation that it comes with.

7. (4) implies US will institute the draft, to continue the expanding war into more and more countries that harbour terrorists (also put in place various civil liberties unfriendly legislations to aid in war on terror).

8. (6) and (7) imply US will lose prosperity and the freedoms.

9. (8) implies the terrorists will stop attacking us once again according to neo-cons.

1 and 8 contradict, neo-con logic is flawed.

:-)

exactly. have you read Joseph Heller's Catch-22?

This phenomenon isn't neo-con specific. Great post though, enjoyed it very much!

[Ron Paul Fan]

Cars are evil, cars come to our country from overseas, they kill people.

In a year over 40,000 americans die because of cars and this is far more than 911.

We must avoid having cars at all costs.

Thousands upon thousands of americans would be alive today if it wasn't for cars.

Who in the government is brave enough to outlaw cars?

The american people DEMAND "War On Cars" and they DEMAND IT NOW!!

Ron Paul is weak on Cars. He wants to bow to car-fascism while they come here and kill us!!

Cars don't kill people, terrorists kill people! Evil terrorists who want to come over here and take away your freedoms! Since you're sympathizing with them, I bet you are one! You're a terrorist and a pinhead! So take your islamofascist arguments and your flaky Congressman and shove them up your ass because I want to stay alive! Freedom is about authority!

[TheEvilDetector]

Cars don't kill people, terrorists kill people! Evil terrorists who want to come over here and take away your freedoms! Since you're sympathizing with them, I bet you are one! You're a terrorist and a pinhead! So take your islamofascist arguments and your flaky Congressman and shove them up your ass because I want to stay alive! Freedom is about authority!

You are a traitor, you are covering up for the fact that cars are evil and they cause deaths. I bet your are harbouring cars in your garage. I bet you aid and abet those cars by refuelling them and giving them regular servicing. Those that harbour and aid cars are against us in the War On Cars!!.

I will report you to the Domestic Peacekeepers and they will give you enhanced questions.

That will teach you to harbour and aid those cars in your garage.

Traitors to the Democratic State of Global Happy Earth will hang!!

[Pharoah]

LOL

Cars have shown a willingness to gas their own people with exhaust fumes.
Traffic injuries are also the leading cause of death in people aged 10 to 24 around the world - accounting for 400,000 deaths per year.

It follows that we cannot allow the worlds most dangerous drivers to be in possession of the worlds most dangerous weapons. The goal should be to prevent regimes that sponsor cars from threatening America or our friends and allies with cars of mass destruction. Germany continues to flaunt its hostility toward American cars - and to support its own industry. South Korea is a regime arming with cars from Hyundai and Kia. Japan aggressively pursues car development and exports cars.

Auto-makers like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an Axle of Evil.
By seeking cars of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these cars to terrorists, giving them the means to travel in comfort - while saving many dollars at the pump.

[filmmaker58]

Neocons proudly point out how well the surge is working, and how our military has won many battles against the "insurgents" in Iraq. The real question is: How many of these "Insurgents" would have posed a threat to American lives if we had never gone into Iraq. I would hazard to guess that 99 percent of them are freedom fighters against an occupying army, and the other one percent would never be able to carry out an attack here, especially after are borders are secured.

[TheEvilDetector]

LOL

Cars have shown a willingness to gas their own people with exhaust fumes.
Traffic injuries are also the leading cause of death in people aged 10 to 24 around the world - accounting for 400,000 deaths per year.

It follows that we cannot allow the worlds most dangerous drivers to be in possession of the worlds most dangerous weapons. The goal should be to prevent regimes that sponsor cars from threatening America or our friends and allies with cars of mass destruction. Germany continues to flaunt its hostility toward American cars - and to support its own industry. South Korea is a regime arming with cars from Hyundai and Kia. Japan aggressively pursues car development and exports cars.

Auto-makers like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an Axle of Evil.
By seeking cars of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these cars to terrorists, giving them the means to travel in comfort - while saving many dollars at the pump.

Pure win.

+1

:)

[TheEvilDetector]

Neocons proudly point out how well the surge is working, and how our military has won many battles against the "insurgents" in Iraq. The real question is: How many of these "Insurgents" would have posed a threat to American lives if we had never gone into Iraq. I would hazard to guess that 99 percent of them are freedom fighters against an occupying army, and the other one percent would never be able to carry out an attack here, especially after are borders are secured.

Excuse me, but since when do we allow common sense to encroach upon our discussion?

Mmmm?

[micahnelson]

The terrorists will stop attacking us when everyone of them is dead! How we achieve this goal doesn't matter! How much it costs and how many liberties we have to give up is all moot because the purpose of government is to keep us safe! We cannot wait for the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud!

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?

What is the capacity of the terrorists? They can take our lives, but they cannot take our freedom. I think you would agree we are not dealing with a force that will have an occupying army. At most, we risk losing a city if a terrorist organization obtained a nuke, had the intelligence to use it, and the logistics to get it into a major city. Terrorists will not be able to march into Washington DC and take over the country as they do in some third world nations.

Our rights and freedoms are not at risk, but lives and property. Not to say these are not important, just making the point. Terrorists only threaten lives and property, since there is no chance of the USA adopting Islamic rule.

In order to fight the terrorists we have given the government very broad powers, chiefly monitoring citizens, classifying people as terrorists without judicial review, and indefinite incarceration. You likely believe these to be necessary since the terrorists do not fight fair. Regardless since you are a Republican, do you want Hillary Clinton to have these powers? What about some future president a few years from now who is even worse? By giving the executive the powers we have given them, we have put our rights and freedoms at risk. Remember, the terrorists can only take lives and property. Only our government has the ability to "take our freedoms", and we have given them that right. We have enabled the government to do this, and are naive to think that the power given to them will be used honorably. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The founding fathers believed that the most important thing for a society was liberty- This is why they took a peaceful society to war in order to attain it. Give me liberty or give me death, they would say. A society designed to maximize liberty looks like the America created by the founders, limited government and heavy representation. A society designed to maximize safety looks like a police state. Certainly the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments would not have been written if they were intended to be sidestepped in the future.

So how can following the constitution keep us safe from terrorists, the people who want to take our lives and properties? By giving Americans the liberty to protect themselves and their property, we have the best chance to be safe. For example, FAA regulations did not require cockpit door locks on planes. FAA regulations barred airlines from having armed security guards. If the government had allowed the airlines to defend their property, 9/11 would not have occurred- plain and simple. If given the liberty to do so, Americans can defend themselves better than a regulatory board.

If the government wishes to play a role in defending the country, they can start by protecting our border and currency. These are things Ron Paul would accomplish immediately. Would you like to know more?

[johngr]

Cars are evil, cars come to our country from overseas, they kill people.

The least safe, least fuel efficient and most polluting cars are domestic -- "inside" cars, if you will. And how can a foreign car cause 3 buildings to collapse at free-fall speeds? :)

[TheEvilDetector]

The least safe, least fuel efficient and most polluting cars are domestic -- "inside" cars, if you will. And how can a foreign car cause 3 buildings to collapse at free-fall speeds? :)

roflmao.

all i have to say to that is: cars hate us for our bicycles.

[Corydoras]

4. Paradoxically US actions in this war on terror with the goal of destroying terrorism have expanded the terrorist numbers.

The biggest challenge in strengthening your argument is that you have to get them to admit this.

"But the Taliban are out of power, so fighting terrorists works! And the Iraq surge is working! We can make it happen, but the funding has to keep coming! No half-ass measures here! USA! USA! USA!"

[TheEvilDetector]

The biggest challenge in strengthening your argument is that you have to get them to admit this.

"But the Taliban are out of power, so fighting terrorists works! And the Iraq surge is working! We can make it happen, but the funding has to keep coming! No half-ass measures here! USA! USA! USA!"

US
http://icasualties.org/oif/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=5c7ed199-7f4e-3e5f-a048-f60f1403ca10_chart_RadChart1&imageFormat=Png&random=0.0450697806873684

Iraqis
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/dbtimeline.php

Vehicle Bomb Deaths Per Day
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/carbombs.php

From: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
"Documented civilian deaths from violence

75,971 – 82,776"

Real number is probably 10 times bigger.
http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/iraq_deaths_topper.gif

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
Excerpt

"As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion."

By the way 654,965 deaths is the equivalent of a 911 attack (2974 dead) happening in Iraq once a day for 220 days straight.

Doesn't this make you wonder who produced more terror, suffering and death as a consequence of their actions?
The 19 cave dwellers who supposedly smashed some planes into buildings or the illegal military invasion of Iraq that dismantled
the government and unleashed a violent insurgency.

Let's enter Bush's mind for a second and accordingly take on the belief that Iraqi lives do not matter, however
let's assume Bush cares about American lives. Well more americans have already died than the number killed in 911 due
to the invasion. I don't get it, what is the point of what the neo-cons are doing? It certainly has nothing to do with
preventing 911 style death tolls or wide-spread terror.

PS. By the way, does this strike you as absurd?
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=26

[Ron Paul Fan]

You are a traitor, you are covering up for the fact that cars are evil and they cause deaths. I bet your are harbouring cars in your garage. I bet you aid and abet those cars by refuelling them and giving them regular servicing. Those that harbour and aid cars are against us in the War On Cars!!.

I will report you to the Domestic Peacekeepers and they will give you enhanced questions.

That will teach you to harbour and aid those cars in your garage.

Traitors to the Democratic State of Global Happy Earth will hang!!

American foreign policy had nothing to do with September 11th! They came and attacked us because of the freedoms that we have. Our freedom of religion and freedom for women. Cars don't attack us because they hate who we are and they can be controlled by the person driving them. Terrorists cannot be controlled unless we kill them all! If we kill a few innocent civilians, who cares? It's a small price to pay in order to keep me safe. Whether we should have gone into Iraq is a debate that historians can have. But we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We have a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has ever served in the military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. Thank God George Bush is our President! Remember, remember the 11th of September!!!!!!!!

[TheEvilDetector]

American foreign policy had nothing to do with September 11th! They came and attacked us because of the freedoms that we have. Our freedom of religion and freedom for women. Cars don't attack us because they hate who we are and they can be controlled by the person driving them. Terrorists cannot be controlled unless we kill them all! If we kill a few innocent civilians, who cares? It's a small price to pay in order to keep me safe. Whether we should have gone into Iraq is a debate that historians can have. But we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We have a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has ever served in the military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. Thank God George Bush is our President! Remember, remember the 11th of September!!!!!!!!

You are either with us or against us. Since you are defending cars you are a terrorist.

[Ron Paul Fan]

You are either with us or against us. Since you are defending cars you are a terrorist.

You are either with us or against us. Since you are defending the terrorists, you are a terrorist. And you don't support the troops. You're also un-American.

[TheEvilDetector]

You are either with us or against us. Since you are defending the terrorists, you are a terrorist. And you don't support the troops. You're also un-American.

Since you used the "you are with us or against us" against our "you are with us or against us" you must be against us therefore you are the real terrorist and not me.
Because I said so. I am the decider not you, so ner ner.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Since you used the "you are with us or against us" against our "you are with us or against us" you must be against us therefore you are the real terrorist and not me.
Because I said so. I am the decider not you, so ner ner.

Hey EvilDetector, Al Queda called and they want their suicide bomber back! So could you please return to them immediately and resume murdering our women and children just because you hate our freedoms? Remember, remember the 11th of September!

[Bluedevil]

Great job on the original post. You should turn it into an article and submit it to some publications.

Really liked it.

[Bluedevil]

Scratch the should, please turn it into an article.

[Jimmy]

American foreign policy had nothing to do with September 11th! They came and attacked us because of the freedoms that we have. Our freedom of religion and freedom for women. Cars don't attack us because they hate who we are and they can be controlled by the person driving them. Terrorists cannot be controlled unless we kill them all! If we kill a few innocent civilians, who cares? It's a small price to pay in order to keep me safe. Whether we should have gone into Iraq is a debate that historians can have. But we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We have a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has ever served in the military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. Thank God George Bush is our President! Remember, remember the 11th of September!!!!!!!!


Never understood the freedom argument...alot of other nations are free around the world, and they don't attack them. Seems people are attacked by these crazied people because they move in on there grounds or work to change anything or interfer in some way.....in there eyes.
Why did 911 happen?
Ask you this..... If United States had NO military presence in the region at all...ever...then would they still have attacked us? I don't think so........so under that line of thinking....something about that presence set them off. One either excepts this and changes the policies OR do the same thing we've been doing and expect the same reaction....were right, there right, man on the moons right.... doesn't matter concerning this point. Won't change the outcome of them wanting to attack us, even kill themselves in the process.
Continue being there or do what were doing then/now and get the same reaction.... and we'll have to kill em all for true peace.....and that would work, if they all were dead, no more trouble. Lot of killing though throughout the world in most every country on earth.. for generations....including in countries we now give HUGE foreign aid to that have heavy popluations of terriosts...far greater than Iraq ever had. I certainly don't think one could force a culture change...Could they beat the love for America out of us and make us change short of killing everyone??


(So take that :D...my personal favorite)

[Electric Church]

I think this is what the neo-con rebuttle would be so how do you respond?


show them "Loose Change."

[Electric Church]

Cars don't kill people, terrorists kill people! Evil terrorists who want to come over here and take away your freedoms! Since you're sympathizing with them, I bet you are one! You're a terrorist and a pinhead! So take your islamofascist arguments and your flaky Congressman and shove them up your ass because I want to stay alive! Freedom is about authority!

spirit of a true neocom...

[TheEvilDetector]

Hey EvilDetector, Al Queda called and they want their suicide bomber back! So could you please return to them immediately and resume murdering our women and children just because you hate our freedoms? Remember, remember the 11th of September!

The first thing I will do for my homeland security is report all the cars in my neighborhood to the Ministry of Peace.

The second thing I will do for my homeland security is report ungoodthinkers like you to the Ministry of Peace.

:)

DoublePlusGood