4 ms·
> Except the wide open southern border is an easy point of insertion for Daesh and AQ operatives. > Therefore, it can be claimed as warzone under the AUMF. Ho
by ionised 8y ago
> Except the wide open southern border is an easy point of insertion for Daesh and AQ operatives.
> Therefore, it can be claimed as warzone under the AUMF.
How delightfully convenient and simultaneously nonsensical.
If you are going to be that overly simplistic and reductionist (and willfully ignorant) about what is happening and why then you may as well just come out in support of all-out martial law and start setting up the FEMA camps in case of a terrorist attack.
> Next question.
You say that like you think your answer was a good one.
- huffmsa 8y agoIt's the same answer used by Mr Holder and Mr Obama to justify dropping hellfire missiles in a dozen countries.
- detaro 8y agoAnd it was questionable then too.
- ionised 8y agoThis is argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy that in no way backs up what you are saying), and not a very good one.
- huffmsa 8y agoYour opinion on if it's good or not is inconsequental. It's been good enough to get FISA warrants for surveillance and executions. We might see that it's obviously flawed, but the people we've elected disagree.
- huffmsa 8y agoAs well, contrary to what your debate 101 professor might have taught you, appealing to authority is not always a fallacy. If I had said "Mr Obama and Mr Holder think the border is dangerous" then sure. But what I said was that a US president and attorney general have previously used the loose writing of the 2001 AUMF to expand the "War on Terror" to new theaters. Therefore it is likely a similar case can be made to expand the theater to the southern border.