Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[LittlePinky82]

You don't hear about it much. If it was happening more often, it would be all over the news.

How is that proof it's rare? Sorry but that doesn't work as proof.

 

[kai]

To Kai for your benefit. I'm going to now list each post number in this thread where I've asked you time and time again to show me proof these groups are influential with stat numbers so you can go back there and look for yourself and see that I have not changed or added anything to my request. So here they are listed in numerical order:

205
208
210
214
219
220
222
223
227
231
233
244
246
248
250
251
256

Wow Kai that's a hell of a lot of post's for me asking you to do one simple task! All of them asking for the same exact thing. Proof of how influential those groups are in Iraq. When you gave the Wiki page the most those pages talked about was tactics of the group. I didn't ask for that. You made the point that these groups are influential in Iraq. To be influential you have to have majority of the population on your side whether because you're afraid or you agree. I'll give you an example. Right now George Bush's approval rating is somewhere in the early to mid 20's which means the population as a whole does not find him influential at all and the people probably don't pay much attention to what he says if at all unless you're job is to do that whether you're a politician or work for the media in some way whether print or television or radio etc. That's not influential. After 9/11 George Bush for whatever reason had around a 90% approval rating. At that point in time everyone pretty much listened to what he had to say and his policy's had influence on the people and the politicians. See the difference of being influential? Do you get it now?

STRAWMAN


again ,post 254 #you are blocking the thread

 

[LittlePinky82]

STRAWMAN

Definition of "strawman" from dictionary.com:

2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

All I did hon was show you where you were wrong. You claimed I was adding in new request's and I'm showing you how I've been asking you to do the same things over and over again multiple times within the last two/three pages. Are you ever going to do it? Just say no so I can go on with my life and admit you don't know what you're talking about. For there to be a strawman you have to have an argument first. I wasn't arguing hon.

 

[kai]

Definition of "strawman" from dictionary.com:

All I did hon was show you where you were wrong. You claimed I was adding in new request's and I'm showing you how I've been asking you to do the same things over and over again multiple times within the last two/three pages. Are you ever going to do it? Just say no so I can go on with my life and admit you don't know what you're talking about. For there to be a strawman you have to have an argument first. I wasn't arguing hon.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted

WIKI

thas what you have done , you have misquoted me non stop and set up an argument over facts i have not made ,i never had an argument to refute , i just suggested you do some research.

 

[LittlePinky82]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted

WIKI

thas what you have done , you have misquoted me non stop and set up an argument over facts i have not made ,i never had an argument to refute , i just suggested you do some research.

Uh no I haven't hon. All I've done is to ask you to back up your claim that these groups are influential. Here's where it all began hon:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kai
could be but no its not , do some research
Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
Al-Qaeda
Jama'at al-Tawhid wal- Jihad

you might understand a little about whats going on there, and thats not sarcasm

My response:

They still are not accounted for majority of Iraqi citizen's who are left there and hadn't either left the country by foot or death. You have not shown any figures. __________________

All I've been doing since this post was ask you the same thing over and over again. Never have I misquoted you. If I have prove it.

 

[kai]

Uh no I haven't hon. All I've done is to ask you to back up your claim that these groups are influential. Here's where it all began hon:






All I've been doing since this post was ask you the same thing over and over again. Never have I misquoted you. If I have prove it.

its right here in this post where did i claim these groups are influential


and here post 252" I mean hell you even made the post earlier that no study has been done on how influential they are." in case you dont get it, thats a strawman i have not said that ,but you use it to argue against me. what i actually said was
"i have neither the time nor the will to trawl around looking for statistics on the influence of Islamist groups on the general pulation of Iraq because there probably has never been a study

 

[LittlePinky82]

its right here in this post where did i clam these groups are influential

From post number 193:

are you joking? or do you know nothing of what goes on in Iraq?

there is a particularly nasty group of individuals that operate in Iraq called Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn

this group is very small way less Than 5% of the population but its two favorite methods of promoting its ideological goals are to suicide bomb crowded areas and behead people, this makes them probably one of the most feared groups in Iraq.


you would be amazed how much the beheading of your village elder would influence a whole village. or the effect blowing up a Shia Mosque would have on the whole of southern Iraq.

So are you going to ever prove these groups are influential? How many pages is it now? I can keep going. I'm very good at arguing.

 

[kai]

From post number 193:



So are you going to ever prove these groups are influential? How many pages is it now? I can keep going. I'm very good at arguing.

keep going theres only one group there ,and i made no claim that they were influential,

this is not a statement of fact its personal observation

you would be amazed how much the beheading of your village elder would influence a whole village. or the effect blowing up a Shia Mosque would have on the whole of southern Iraq.

 

[LittlePinky82]

keep going theres only one group there ,and i made no claim that they were influential,

this is not a statement of fact its personal observation

you would be amazed how much the beheading of your village elder would influence a whole village. or the effect blowing up a Shia Mosque would have on the whole of southern Iraq.

Yes you did. You said how the group is influential by their acts of terrorism and I asked you to prove how they are influential. You just yapping about it is not proof. Once again making the claims about the groups and still no proof. Prove how these groups are influential. Still haven't done this for how many pages now?

 

[LittlePinky82]

One minute you claim these groups are powerful and influential and than turn around and say they are about less than 5% in Iraq. So how can they be influential? It makes no sense. Do you think the Iraqi people are that stupid? Not by what I've been seeing.

 

[kai]

Yes you did. You said how the group is influential by their acts of terrorism and I asked you to prove how they are influential. You just yapping about it is not proof. Once again making the claims about the groups and still no proof. Prove how these groups are influential. Still haven't done this for how many pages now?

strawman! you have invented an argument and ask me to prove one side of it

 

[kai]

One minute you claim these groups are powerful and influential and than turn around and say they are about less than 5% in Iraq. So how can they be influential? It makes no sense. Do you think the Iraqi people are that stupid? Not by what I've been seeing.

no i havnt! you have put those words ( powerful and influential)into your own argument and asked me to prove it .Hence the strawman.

this group is very small way less Than 5% of the population but its two favorite methods of promoting its ideological goals are to suicide bomb crowded areas and behead people, this makes them probably one of the most feared groups in Iraq.

thats what i said! no statement of fact just my personal opinion.do not alter it and then use it in an argument against me .thats a classic strawman .



the groups is mentioned on page 24 othe Country of origin information report Iraq April 2007 issued by the home office it also has some very informative links to commisions etc on sectarian violence for anyone interested in Iraq . and it is updated every year





Do you think the Iraqi people are that stupid? Not by what I've been seeing. No they are far from stupid,and what have you been seeing? and from where?

 

[LittlePinky82]

no i havnt! you have put those words ( powerful and influential)into your own argument and asked me to prove it .Hence the strawman.

thats what i said! no statement of fact just my personal opinion.do not alter it and then use it in an argument against me .



the groups is mentioned on page 24 othe Country of origin information report Iraq April 2007 issued by the home office it also has some very informative links to commisions etc on sectarian violence for anyone interested in Iraq . and it is updated every year





Do you think the Iraqi people are that stupid? Not by what I've been seeing. No they are far from stupid,and what have you been seeing and from where?

Nope. All I did was ask you to prove what you were claiming. Nothing more and nothing less. And from reliable resources not Wikipedia where any faceless boob in their parents basement can put up "information." I'm not asking for that information. I'm asking for numbers. Do you know what that means? You can go back and read all these post's yourself. I was even nice and made a list of all the times I repeated the same exact thing. Nothing more and nothing less. You're the only one who has gone around and changed your own words hon. All I've done over and over again is ask you to prove it with numbers. Why is this so hard for you? Is it perhaps the proof doesn't exist and you're afraid to say so? If I'm wrong I'm not afraid to say so. Maybe you should try it. It's not the end of the world if you are wrong about something.

 

[kai]

Nope. All I did was ask you to prove what you were claiming. Nothing more and nothing less. And from reliable resources not Wikipedia where any faceless boob in their parents basement can put up "information." I'm not asking for that information. I'm asking for numbers. Do you know what that means? You can go back and read all these post's yourself. I was even nice and made a list of all the times I repeated the same exact thing. Nothing more and nothing less. You're the only one who has gone around and changed your own words hon. All I've done over and over again is ask you to prove it with numbers. Why is this so hard for you? Is it perhaps the proof doesn't exist and you're afraid to say so? If I'm wrong I'm not afraid to say so. Maybe you should try it. It's not the end of the world if you are wrong about something.

total straw man argument, i have proved you are misquoting me and you are asking me to prove your own misinterpretation of my quotes , and you keep doing it over and over but it doesn't change a thing , i cannot prove, what you claim, i am claiming ,

you have ignored the one to one thread i set up ,
you have clogged up this thread with you astounding nonsense, and it ends
here.
I will not answer your absurd misinterpretation and misquotes of my posts,any longer.
Your deliberately crafting posts to provoke me with the intention of wasting my time and energy. its almost trolling

game over .end of .

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***

Let's keep the comments off of each other and get back on topic please.

Thanks.​

 

[Autodidact]

Cops see crimes happening often. Otherwise, there wouldn't be as many arrests.

Do you honestly think that most arrests happen because the police officer actually observes the crime occurring? That there is no need for confessions, fingerprints, DNA, eye-witness testimony, or any of the other basics of modern police evidence? What percentage of arrests are a result of the police officer actually catching the criminal red-handed in the commission of a crime, would you say?

The case of mistaken identidy is so rare that it is irrelevant. So what if it happens to one or two people? There is a cost for keeping law and order.

It's a hypothetical, and I'd appreciate it if you would actually answer it. It's just one of the many ways that people can be arrested for crimes that they didn't commit. Another way is that the victim of the crime misidentifies the criminal--that's common. Another way is for the person to have actually committed the act, such as assaulting someone else, but for a valid reason, such as self-defense.

Let's say that someone breaks into your house and you shoot him as he's coming after you. Should the police be able to lock you up with no trial for the rest of your life, or should you get a trial to be able to show that it was self-defense?

Although why I'm asking you more questions when you haven't done me the courtesy of answering my first several I don't know. I have now asked you to answer my questions twice, and you have rudely ignored them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you honestly think that most arrests happen because the police officer actually observes the crime occurring? That there is no need for confessions, fingerprints, DNA, eye-witness testimony, or any of the other basics of modern police evidence? What percentage of arrests are a result of the police officer actually catching the criminal red-handed in the commission of a crime, would you say?

It's a hypothetical, and I'd appreciate it if you would actually answer it. It's just one of the many ways that people can be arrested for crimes that they didn't commit. Another way is that the victim of the crime misidentifies the criminal--that's common. Another way is for the person to have actually committed the act, such as assaulting someone else, but for a valid reason, such as self-defense.

Let's say that someone breaks into your house and you shoot him as he's coming after you. Should the police be able to lock you up with no trial for the rest of your life, or should you get a trial to be able to show that it was self-defense?

Although why I'm asking you more questions when you haven't done me the courtesy of answering my first several I don't know. I have now asked you to answer my questions twice, and you have rudely ignored them.

Plan C: No trial because the police tell the judge that someone was in your home uninvited.

 

[Autodidact]

Plan C: No trial because the police tell the judge that someone was in your home uninvited.

I'm confused. If there's no trial, how do the police do anything?
Scenario: 911 call by your neighbor. Police come to your house and find you standing over dead body with a smoking gun in your hand. They arrest you for murder. Should you get a trial?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm confused. If there's no trial, how do the police do anything?

Scenario: 911 call by your neighbor. Police come to your house and find you standing over dead body with a smoking gun in your hand. They arrest you for murder. Should you get a trial?

If they arrest you for murder, yes.

Not everyone who is found with a smoking gun gets arrested. If it's a clear case of self-defense, there may be no arrest made, and certainly no trial.

 

[Autodidact]

If they arrest you for murder, yes.

Not everyone who is found with a smoking gun gets arrested. If it's a clear case of self-defense, there may be no arrest made, and certainly no trial.

so for you, angellous, should this right be reserved for American citizens, or should immigrants have a right to trial in that case as well?