11 of 30 - Controversial Statement II

[aggienaut]

   While eating my breakfast of pizza at 1pm this morning and reading Time magazine, I had another revelation, one I think may be more controversial than my anticlimatic subsidy declaration:

   The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that there was "no cooperation" between Saddam Hussain's government and al-queda in the 9/11 attack.
   Media sources through-out the galaxy have since concluded that statements that there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-queda" are preposterous lies.
   Because they were not involved in a single highly-secret mission does NOT mean that there is no other contact between them. The logical fallacy of concluding that there was absolutely NO relationship based on the lack of cooperation in a single case is becoming ubiquitous and unquestioned.

   On any account, I never entertained the idea that Iraq had been involved with that mission. Cooperation between al-queda and Iraq was likely always at a minimum because Saddam's socialist baathist regime was the the areligious antithesis of al-queda's goals, but as mutual enemies of the "West" I'd imagine that they did cooperate in certain small ways, probably without even being able to admit it to themselves. As such I would say that I believe there was "a relationship" of some kind between these two enemies. The end.

   My weighing in on this subject of course is not motivated by some new-found urge to express political opinions and sway vulnerable minds, but by an absolute hatred of people accepting logical fallacies.


Picture of the Day

Kris and Alex
Kristinehamn, Sweden
© Chris (lastname?) 1999

   This relates to this post because: it'll surely encourage you to take my opinions more seriously.

Posted: 1454 hours

Comments

[nibot.livejournal.com]

Because they were not involved in a single highly-secret mission does NOT mean that there is no other contact between them. The logical fallacy of concluding that there was absolutely NO relationship based on the lack of cooperation in a single case is becoming ubiquitous and unquestioned.

It's true that absense of evidence does not imply absense, but it is often evidence of absense. I have not seen any unicorns lately -- this doesn't prove that they don't exist, but since I've looked pretty hard for them, it's evidence that they don't exist. C.f. Old proving-a-negative problem.

The Administration wants us to think that there's an Al-Qaeda/Iraq tie, and they want us to think that they knew about this tie all along. If there was actually no such relationship known at the time, then this was deceitful. Such deceit might be forgivable if such a relationship actually existed.. but still none has turned up.

Personally I think everyone is being too lenient about the "collaborative" adjective tossed in there. Of course there's a "relationship" of some kind -- that's a vacuuous statement! The relationship could be "have nearby geographic positions". "Collaborative" was necessary to specify that we're talking about them "working together." While the administration is trying the weasel itself through the "collaborative" loophole, the basic fact is that they lied. Or strongly and willingly implied and propaged a falsehood, which I also call "lying" although you might not, given your lawyerly ways.

cf. http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0622/p09s01-codc.html

Iraq & Al-queda

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

An important thing to keep in mind of course is that I continue to have no wish or intention to comment on or make implications regarding our current federal administration or the war against mujahadeen in Iraq.

As such, my comments of this entry address only a wide-spread fallacy I wish to disperse.

Also, legally speaking, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. If anything its "circumstancial" evidence, which as is well known, is not acceptable. Of course the burden is usually on the plaintiff to provide evidence to back up their case, so if the plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence, the case will be found in favour of the defense, but I wouldn't go so far as to say thats the same as proving something through lack of evidence.

Aside from my general loathing of discussions of US national politics, the debate about whether or not there was a connection between Iraq and Al-queda seems further unworthy of debating because it is far from the most pressing issue in either related area; ie (A) any relationship between them was certainly not significant enough to effect whether or not we should have pursued the deconstruction of Al-queda, (B) elimination of Saddam's regime, if warranted, would have been warranted for much more significant reasons than any support they have have provided Al-queda. Therefore, I think its a really pointless area to split hairs on.

Re: Iraq & Al-queda

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

...they have may have

Re: Iraq & Al-queda

[nibot.livejournal.com]

Also, legally speaking, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.

Nonetheless, if someone is alleging the existence of a monstrous conspiracy, the burden of proof is on them.

Therefore, I think its a really pointless area to split hairs

It's not pointless and it's not hair-splitting. They said (implied) they were going to war because (in addition to the WMD's that never materialized), Iraq was somehow related to our good old enemy Al Qaeda. But they didn't have any actual concrete relationship in mind. It was a lie! That is the problem: going to war under false pretenses.

You annoy me.

+2 culture points for spelling "therefore" correctly.

Re: Iraq & Al-queda

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

::shurg:: maybe I'm less thrilled than the rest of the populace because I never believed them in the first place or believed that they believed the implication either. As far as I was concerned there were other reasons for going to war and the implications were just a way to fool the rest of the population, and so unlike the rest of the world I wasn't shocked when this turned out to be the case.