It is naive to try paint the protesters as only native born people wanting freedom .A fair portion of them were radicalized refugees from America's war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another significant portion of them were religious fanatics , many of which had returned from fighting America in Iraq and AfghanistanThere was also backing from foreign nations, both regional and international. Saudi was a big player in this respect.
"But to whom exactly are the interveners lending succour? There's been great vagueness here, beyond enthusiastic references to the romantic revolutionaries of Benghazi, and much ridicule for Gaddafi's identification of his opponents in eastern Libya as al-Qaeda.
In fact, two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue." http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-b...
Not mention that America planned to invade Libya years before the Arab spring. So there was probably CIA backing of the protesters such as America has a long history of doing.
I'm seeing you playing the Blame Game. To what end? Normally, we only blame folks for foreseeable consequences of their actions, but I don't think the actors you are blaming had these consequences in mind.
To use an analogy, suppose you give someone a bicycle to help them save gas, but then they are run down while on their bike, according to your concept of responsibility, you would be blameworthy for giving them a bike.
Now, what I do see is you fixing blame but offering no solutions. Get back to us with those solutions when you have them, okay?
When you point out policy mistakes, that's easy. Easy because your argument is fallacious. You're committing the fallacy of The Road Not Taken. When one makes a choice and it seems to turn out badly, it's easy to assume that taking a different approach would have worked out better. Easy because you have no evidence to support your view. In fact, making a different choice might have turned out much better...or much worse.
"To what end? Normally, we only blame folks for foreseeable consequences of their actions, but I don't think the actors you are blaming had these consequences in mind."
Just because they hoped it would turn out differently does not mean they did not also foresee the pitfalls. The military is also usually ridiculously thorough in risk assessments and I don't know why you think this was magically different. For instance the US knew very well that a Muslim caliphate could form in Syria and Iraq from their actions before it happened and how our allies like Saudi Arabia wanted this. You know our dear ally Saudi Arabia who is the head of the UN human rights committee and is also funneling weapons and money to ISIS . You know the same ISIS which was responsible for last nights attack in Paris.
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Paragraph 8-C. Recently declassified US military document from 2012."
"To use an analogy, suppose you give someone a bicycle to help them save gas, but then they are run down while on their bike, according to your concept of responsibility, you would be blameworthy for giving them a bike."
But we weren't giving our friend a bicycle, we were giving religious extremists guns and rockets and Toyotas . I feel that is a rather important distinction.
"When you point out policy mistakes, that's easy. Easy because your argument is fallacious. You're committing the fallacy of The Road Not Taken. When one makes a choice and it seems to turn out badly, it's easy to assume that taking a different approach would have worked out better. Easy because you have no evidence to support your view. In fact, making a different choice might have turned out much better...or much worse."
That is bullshit, just because you can imagine some convoluted scenario where the opposite action was even worse does not excuse any atrocity. Maybe by some freak chain of events if Hitler was never born something worse would have happened but that in no way, shape or form excuse what Hitler did.
"Now, what I do see is you fixing blame but offering no solutions. Get back to us with those solutions when you have them, okay?"
I have plenty of suggestion like stop supporting religious extremists , prosecute those responsible for the illegal wars in the middle east, etc etc But at this moment I would like nothing more than for the US to stop treating international law like toilet paper .Please.
I think that the European nations should have foreseen the likelihood of attacks like yesterday's as a consequence of letting refugees in wholesale.
You continue to treat an unprovable conjecture as fact based on what? Faith?
"You continue to treat an unprovable conjecture as fact based on what? Faith?"
Where we wrong to prosecute Nazi's in the Nuremberg trials because we were "committing the fallacy of The Road Not Taken."? It is after all impossible to prove that if Hitler did not start WW2 and commit genocide on the Jews that things would have turned out even worse.
The Nuremberg standard that it is not an excuse to argue one was following orders places soldiers in an impossible conundrum. I'm sure it felt good at the time, but expecting soldiers to accept facing the firing squad because they feel what they are being asked to do is wrong is totally unreasonable. You can't have military discipline with soldiers viewing their orders as optional.
Sure, things could have turned out worse had Hitler never grown to adulthood. Germany was ripe for a fascist dictator. It
Unseen that is not what I am arguing and you know it. I am asking if because we don't know what would have happened if the Nazi's did not start WW2 and kill 6 million Jews does that then mean they should not have been prosecuted at all? Just your so called fallacy would make a mockery of every justice system in the world. Could you Imagine a lawyer standing up in court and arguing "well yes judge, he did murder and rape a dozen people but but the prosecution can't prove that if he did not murder and rape a dozen people then something worse would not have happened and therefor you can't prove that what my client did was wrong" ?
Hell can you even point me to the wiki link for your "road not taken fallacy". Been searching for it and all I found was the poem.
I did find the historians fallacy but that does not count here as it was known back then that this war was illegal , that the evidence for the war was grossly overinflated and they did predict that the outcomes could be disastrous.
My point was that "following the rules" is always a legal excuse. For example, a cop accused of murder for killing someone because his Taser triggered a fatal heart attack or his pepper spray triggered fatal asthma really can't be convicted if his use of the Taser or spray was what department policy prescribed under those circumstances. And I didn't bring up Nuremberg, you did.
I'm not going to even try to find the fallacy online because it's so obviously a fallacy to think that when one chooses one horn of a dilemma, and it turns out badly, to conclude that the other choice would have turned out better. It satisfies the definition of a verbal fallacy: that the conclusion (the other choice would have been better) in no way follows.
"I'm not going to even try to find the fallacy online"
So in other words you know it is bs and does not exist. And I love how you try equate illegally invading another country with a cop using a taser and having bad luck. Again I am not arguing that the other option would have necessarily turned out better, I am arguing that what the US did was effing Illegal.
Congress authorized it. Congress makes the laws.
It may have been wrong to invade. But it wasn't illegal.
Rocky, whether a mode of reasoning is a fallacy doesn't depend on it being cataloged by Google. You're either being silly or obstinate. It's probably known more widely by another name than the one I learned.
At any rate, not only is it a verbal fallacy, it's also a formal fallacy. To wit...
Eating sugar causes obesity OR Smoking cigarettes causes cancer
I ate sugar and became obese
Therefore I would have been better off smoking cigarettes
The only difference is that, unlike in that syllogism, in real life we are often confronted with choices without knowing the outcome of taking the other choice. And in most real life situations, as in the one we're discussing, we'll NEVER know because we don't get do overs.
I assume even you can see that it's a fallacy now.
BTW, one of my profs referred to fallacies of this sort as "the fallacy of the unavailable statistic." Simply because one can imagine things being better is no proof things might have been better.
You can make an emotional argument for your position but there's no way you can prove it.
Steve ever heard of this little thing called international law? Remember what Hitler did to the Jews was legal by German laws, that did not stop them being prosecuted.