Every new suicide bomber incident that kills a whole bunch of Iraqis in Iraq only proves that our soldiers need to stay in Iraq or the whole place will be one huge mess. If we have a period of a month that goes by in Iraq where violence seems to be down and there are no major suicide attacks, then this proves how important it is to keep our sodiers there in Iraq as they are the ones curbing the violence.
Is there a name for this logical fallacy?
2007-12-12 03:52:42 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
At the moment situation is even if American soldiers leave Iraq incidents of violence will continue.
This govt of Iraq does not enjoy popular support.
Fools paradise
2007-12-12 04:06:29 · answer #1 · answered by rajan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is called the faulty cause fallacy.
FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
(EDIT) but it can also be called the "either way I win fallacy".
2007-12-12 04:02:59 · answer #2 · answered by ningis n 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's one track 'logic'. In other words, in that persons mind all roads lead to the same conclusion... which is the opposite of rational and logic.
Both if the violence increases AND if it decreases... they believe that is a reason to stay. You could make it into a circular argument very easily.. but the way it is stated it's not quite that.
Edit: the second poster about correlation and causation is correct as well. Just because two things are correlated does not mean that one causes the other.
Elevation is correlated with Malaria. You are statistically more likely to get malaria at lower elevations... that doesnt' mean elevation causes malaria.
2007-12-12 03:57:52 · answer #3 · answered by pip 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Iraq is a mess now. Whether we stay or not it will remain a mess as long as Iraqi's refuse to shoulder their responsibilities.
Leaving or at least letting them know that we're not staying forever might motivate them to pick up the slack.
2007-12-12 04:05:38 · answer #4 · answered by loginnametaken 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Bushism? A KBR stockholder's motto?
Heads you lose, tails you lose? Take your pick.
It's obvious there's a power structure at work here that you won't see on any Liberal News Show. We all know it exists, but we're not sure who they are and for what goals they're working. I called it in late 2003 - it's not just about the oil, it's not just about attacking Israel's enemies. It's about permanent bases (which Iraqi parliament has just rejected). It's about global hegemony. It's about fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts. It's about securing the worlds resources of oil, uranium, poppies etc.. It's about becoming and sustaining a global Empire, which always works right? Just ask any Roman!
2007-12-12 04:01:51 · answer #5 · answered by doug4jets 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since they have an elected Parliament, they already have democracy, so how can we bring it to them? Maybe their democracy needs some work, but that would be helping their democracy, not bringing them democracy. Whoever made this statement doesn't understand what type of government Pakistan has.
2016-05-23 05:34:09 · answer #6 · answered by tonya 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the "Cause to Effect" fallacy!
It is mistaking a certain effect (less violence in Iraq) to be caused by something (the presence of our soldiers) that is not the real cause or not the only contributing cause.
2007-12-12 04:02:30 · answer #7 · answered by SoundgearAW100 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Other than "having one's cake and eating it, too," what sort of name are we looking for?
It's not really a fallacy as such; that refers to an argument in which a rule of logic is circumvented by sloppy formulation or slopping thinking.
What we have here is propaganda, aiming at a particular result and therefore claiming any event that occurs as supporting evidence.
2007-12-12 04:01:01 · answer #8 · answered by Samwise 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a logical flaw. That flaw is that they do not alow for longer time frames than a single month. To make the logic flow they should add that as more months go by and attacks remain low then US force reductions would become justified.
2007-12-12 03:57:20 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff Engr 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
we r dooming them
i never heard of such attacks at the time of Saddam
so it tells me one thing who ever is doing it is the same who benefits from our staying in Iraq , go back 20 years if u like Saddam did what he did some did even worse like Israel ta Lebanon , Israel to the Palestinians , Israel to Egypt , Musharraf to his people , Mubarak to his ...and more the u.s cant make the whole world free as we like other people have other point of views of freedom , anyway i think the u.s is paying off someone to do the attacks a reason to stay
2007-12-12 04:05:11 · answer #10 · answered by moe 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋