Mullah Omar is in Pakistan and everyone knows it: France

[SMC]

It doesnt matter if its true or not. What matters is how many people believe it enough to allow that belief to guide their actions.

Thats where Pakistan is struggling today..

When you say that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, do you really mean it? Because that's a very weak argument to begin with, since obviously it does matter what is true or not. Relying on perceptions forever won't work out.

Btw, your reply is a diversion to begin with. Many Indian people DO use logic such as - if many people believe it, it must be true.

 

[foxbat]

When you say that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, do you really mean it? Because that's a very weak argument to begin with, since obviously it does matter what is true or not. Relying on perceptions forever won't work out.

Yes. I really mean it. And its not a weak arguement. Specially since its not an arguement at all. I am not trying to prove that the statement from France is true or not.

Simply that if a person (specially some one leading a nation) believes something to be true, he/she will act accordingly. Now I believing Pakistan being a sponsor of terrorism doesnt mean anything since I am not big enough to have my actions guided by that belief make any difference. But if instead of me, PM of UK or President of France believe that, then their actions, guided by this belief can make a difference. Now as long as their actions get guided by this belief, it doesnt matter whether their belief is true or false. Because the impact of their actions will be same in both cases.

As they say.. Perception drives reality....

Btw, your reply is a diversion to begin with. Many Indian people DO use logic such as - if many people believe it, it must be true.

How is this a diversion? And I am not using this logic of many people believe it and hence its true, because as I said above... Its inconsequential whether its true or not. What matters is if people believe it enough to have their actions guided by that..

 

[SMC]

Yes. I really mean it. And its not a weak arguement. Specially since its not an arguement at all. I am not trying to prove that the statement from France is true or not.

Simply that if a person (specially some one leading a nation) believes something to be true, he/she will act accordingly. Now I believing Pakistan being a sponsor of terrorism doesnt mean anything since I am not big enough to have my actions guided by that belief make any difference. But if instead of me, PM of UK or President of France believe that, then their actions, guided by this belief can make a difference. Now as long as their actions get guided by this belief, it doesnt matter whether their belief is true or false. Because the impact of their actions will be same in both cases.

As they say.. Perception drives reality....

The problem with this argument is that you're ignoring any reality based on proof and only using perceptions to drive actions. In a logical sense, that's absolute BS. I understand what you're trying to say, but as long as you can't prove it, your statement will never be taken concretely.

I mean look at how many people believe that Bin Laden or Mullah Omar is in Pakistan. Outside India or Afghanistan, it's very few, and those who do believe it are also not a 100% sure about it. Even those in India or Afghanistan are not sure about it.

But more importantly, you're lacking any intent to find out the reality. All you're concerned with is how rumours affect perception. And considering how Indians used to talk about logic, rationality, et cetera, relying on perceptions is quite the opposite of being logical and rational - since you're suggesting is that reality is irrelevant and perceptions is all that matters.

Also, another word to refer to perceptions that are based on no proof is conspiracy theories.

How is this a diversion? And I am not using this logic of many people believe it and hence its true, because as I said above... Its inconsequential whether its true or not. What matters is if people believe it enough to have their actions guided by that..

It is a diversion because you should be answering whether this statement is true or not, and why you believe either answer to be so.

You said that it is irrelevant whether it is true or not - which it definitely is not.

If you rely on perception, it will not work out in the end. Because one day, the reality will come out. It can take a long time -- a really long time -- but it will come out.

Look how Bush relied on perception before Iraq War to attack Iraq. It didn't work out for him. Perceptions are temporary - reality is permanent.

 

[foxbat]

The problem with this argument is that you're ignoring any reality based on proof and only using perceptions to drive actions. In a logical sense, that's absolute BS. I understand what you're trying to say, but as long as you can't prove it, your statement will never be taken concretely.

See.. You are not getting it.. I am not out to prove whether French Minister's statement is true or not. That onus is on the one making the statement. I am simply looking at a possible impact. And again, my having to prove it is nonsense since I am neither making that statement nor exclaiming that its true. It is what it is. That is what the French believe..

I mean look at how many people believe that Bin Laden or Mullah Omar is in Pakistan. Outside India or Afghanistan, it's very few, and those who do believe it are also not a 100% sure about it. Even those in India or Afghanistan are not sure about it.

If they dont believe it 100% then they will act accordingly. Tentatively at best. But looking at the British PM and French minister's statement, they seem to be a little bit close to 100%. Again, not arguing that its true or false, but what these folks seem to be believing

But more importantly, you're lacking any intent to find out the reality. All you're concerned with is how rumours affect perception. And considering how Indians used to talk about logic, rationality, et cetera, relying on perceptions is quite the opposite of being logical and rational - since you're suggesting is that reality is irrelevant and perceptions is all that matters.

You are right. I dont have the means to find out it Mullah Omar is in Pakistan and also dont have any intent to do that.

However Logic is not bound to facts alone. Dont underestimate perception. In absence of absolute certainity, its the perceptions that drive you. When you see a vicious dog running towards you in an agressive manner, you dont know if it will attack you for sure, but you will act on a perception that is driven by your past experiences. Is that illogical.. Dont think so...

Lets take the example of Iraq.

Reality--- No WMDs
USA Perception--- Yes WMDs

What drove the action. Reality or perception??
[/QUOTE]

Also, another word to refer to perceptions that are based on no proof is conspiracy theories.

Only when you try to convince others of your perceptions

It is a diversion because you should be answering whether this statement is true or not, and why you believe either answer to be so.

Why should I be answering whether its true or not when neither of us can know that for a fact. And its not me who made this statement..What I believe is that French authorities seem to believe it and their actions will be guided by that.

You said that it is irrelevant whether it is true or not - which it definitely is not.

If you rely on perception, it will not work out in the end. Because one day, the reality will come out. It can take a long time -- a really long time -- but it will come out.

Look how Bush relied on perception before Iraq War to attack Iraq. It didn't work out for him. Perceptions are temporary - reality is permanent.

Exactly same example used up there.. Did it matter that Iraq didnt have WMDs? It was attacked and ravaged. Bush completed his 2 terms as president and Saddam was hanged. Not so temporary.. Is it??

 

[SMC]

See.. You are not getting it.. I am not out to prove whether French Minister's statement is true or not. That onus is on the one making the statement. I am simply looking at a possible impact. And again, my having to prove it is nonsense since I am neither making that statement nor exclaiming that its true. It is what it is. That is what the French believe..

I am getting very much what you're saying - that perceptions is what matters. Problem is that it is not logical to just look at perceptions.

If you're here to say that a French minister believes that Mullah Omar is in Pakistan, well we can see that quite clearly so there's no point in dancing around that.

If they dont believe it 100% then they will act accordingly. Tentatively at best. But looking at the British PM and French minister's statement, they seem to be a little bit close to 100%. Again, not arguing that its true or false, but what these folks seem to be believing

They are politicians hence they have to sound confident. I don't care how confident they sound. Cameron kept changing his 'what I meant' statement quite a bit. Cameron also said that Iran has nukes (for what it's worth).

You are right. I dont have the means to find out it Mullah Omar is in Pakistan and also dont have any intent to do that.

However Logic is not bound to facts alone. Dont underestimate perception. In absence of absolute certainity, its the perceptions that drive you. When you see a vicious dog running towards you in an agressive manner, you dont know if it will attack you for sure, but you will act on a perception that is driven by your past experiences. Is that illogical.. Dont think so...

Lets take the example of Iraq.

Reality--- No WMDs
USA Perception--- Yes WMDs

What drove the action. Reality or perception??

It was perception that drove the war, but my point is that Iraq war is considered very unpopular and one of the biggest blunder. Why? Because perception was found out to be false.

Only when you try to convince others of your perceptions

Not at all. Well the French minister is also trying to convince people hence..

Why should I be answering whether its true or not when neither of us can know that for a fact. And its not me who made this statement..What I believe is that French authorities seem to believe it and their actions will be guided by that.

But you stay relevant to what I said BY answering what I said. You can't just say that I will not answer it but what I am saying is relevant. That's a contradiction - since to stay relevant, you HAVE to answer what I said, not go off tangent on how reality matters little. You can choose not to answer my question and not reply at all. What you did was go off tangent, which by definition IS a diversion.

Exactly same example used up there.. Did it matter that Iraq didnt have WMDs? It was attacked and ravaged. Bush completed his 2 terms as president and Saddam was hanged. Not so temporary.. Is it??

But the reality is out in front of the world. Bush will not be remembered for good reasons, and everyone knows that Iraq had no WMDs. That's the point I am trying to make.

 

[majesticpankaj]

perception hawa mein ban ker nahi aata, it develops over a period of time, which depend upon past experience and knowledge. france FM is not that stupid to give the statement for the sake of giving statement.

 

[mjnaushad]

perception hawa mein ban ker nahi aata, it develops over a period of time, which depend upon past experience and knowledge. france FM is not that stupid to give the statement for the sake of giving statement.

So was bush and blair stupid that they said "iraq have WMDs and we'll smoke'em out".

 

[majesticpankaj]

So was bush and blair stupid that they said "iraq have WMDs and we'll smoke'em out".

they took the complete advantage. they have achieved their strategic goals(oil). they are not stupids, they are the real winners

 

[foxbat]

I am getting very much what you're saying - that perceptions is what matters. Problem is that it is not logical to just look at perceptions.

Logical or not, perceptions are what drive most people.

It was perception that drove the war, but my point is that Iraq war is considered very unpopular and one of the biggest blunder. Why? Because perception was found out to be false.

That doesnt help either Saddam or Iraq. Does it? The perception of powerful people about Iraq was bad and Iraq paid the price

But you stay relevant to what I said BY answering what I said. You can't just say that I will not answer it but what I am saying is relevant. That's a contradiction - since to stay relevant, you HAVE to answer what I said, not go off tangent on how reality matters little. You can choose not to answer my question and not reply at all. What you did was go off tangent, which by definition IS a diversion.

Dude. I am not trying to debate the importance of reality (i believe you are doing that), but the impact of the perception..

But the reality is out in front of the world. Bush will not be remembered for good reasons, and everyone knows that Iraq had no WMDs. That's the point I am trying to make.

Bush will be criticized (All politicians get that)
Saddam is dead and Iraq is in a mess.
Doesnt matter to either Saddam or Iraq that Bush was wrong

 

[Rafael]

they took the complete advantage. they have achieved their strategic goals(oil). they are not stupids, they are the real winners

At the cost of America's economy!

 

[mjnaushad]

At the cost of America's economy!

plus thousands of american soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqi and Afghan civlians.

 

[majesticpankaj]

At the cost of America's economy!

nope, they are shrewd people, IMO they had done COST BENEFIT analysis before going into war. see, they have now control over the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world and iraq was also the biggest threat to them. isse kehte hai ek tir se 2 sikhar kerna.

 

[mjnaushad]

nope, they are shrewd people, IMO they had done COST BENEFIT analysis before going into war. see, they have now control over the 2nd biggest oil reserves in the world and iraq was also the biggest threat to them. isse kehte hai ek tir se 2 sikhar kerna.

Iraq was a threat???? Are you kidding me.....

 

[majesticpankaj]

Iraq was a threat???? Are you kidding me.....

dont you forget kuwait's war, to control the oil, which was against US interests ???

 

[somebozo]

In any case the war will turn into a massive benefit for american..remember when they were suckin out the saudis their economy was chugging like a train..since the end of contract in year 2000 their economy has been in constant decline while debt keep rising. 9/11 was part of same chain to get these arabis declared terrorist and invade them.