Kabul and Responsibility

[kazoolaw]

"I bear responsibility for, fundamentally, all that's happened of late."
-President Biden, August 26, 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/26/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terror-attack-at-hamid-karzai-international-airport/


Understanding that Biden is not solely responsible for what has happened, how should each person/entity responsible be made accountable for their roles?

[Chuck Naill]

Taking responsibility is what leaders, parents, managers, mature people do. This shouldn’t be an anything surprising unless you’re in HS.

[kazoolaw]

Correct.
But that wasn't the question.
With having responsibility for failure, what should be the consequences be for having failed?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The way you ask the question suggests you are looking for some kind of direct retribution against the person of interest.

Consequences for failed political action can vary enormously. A lot depends on the nature of the failure, of course, as well as the intent behind the action. The Afghan situation involving US forces is historically (though arguably only nominally) an action that stems from the Oval Office. If that is considered a failed policy it is not Biden's. Similarly all the failures leading to the present day are not Biden's. However, as duly elected leader of the US he inherits the situation from his predecessors.

So, Biden has to make decisions based on the intel he is given by his aides, and somewhat constrained by the 'deal' that his immediate predecessor engineered with the Taliban. It's possible that there is no correct solution to this highly fluid situation, only solutions offering different balances of advantages and disadvantages.

The statement 'I bear responsibility...' also needs context. When I hear this from a national leader, and the action they are talking about is of national policy, I interpret the statement to mean that the person takes responsibility as the head of government, and for that government, and not as an individual.

The consequence can be anything. One consequence could be an overhaul of the system used for strategic analysis. Systems like DIME and PMESI have been shown to be vulnerable to incorrect assessment in the face of non-regular opponents. That's just an example, I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

[dneal]

The issue is that the immediate problem is not resolved. Apologizing for spilling the milk, while you continue to spill it, is the wrong answer.

Humans demand vengeance. Today's mobs (left and right) are thirsty for it. Staff will be sacrificed first. There are grumblings of impeachment, but I think the country has had more than enough of that. The 25th Amendment is plausible, particularly if the cabinet realize it's them or Joe.

[kazoolaw]

No EoC, you've inserted your own,motives.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

That's your argument because someone didn't interpret your words as you think they should? Perhaps your words or their intent weren't sufficiently clear.

All I've done is attempt to answer your question on consequences. You can insert almost any name instead of 'Biden' in my previous post and it wouldn't change my answer.

So, what exactly is my motive, hmm?

And seeing as you haven't provided anything of substance yet, what do you think the consequences should be?

[dneal]

U.S. officials provided Taliban with names of Americans, Afghan allies to evacuate (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957?fbclid=IwAR1x8PXz7s2C2Cz7IHwoRukB6kH9XRjPF1 Nx7v6B6z4V3SZFFEWOeqQoDXs)

Dear god.


“Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,” said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”

[kazoolaw]

That's your argument because someone didn't interpret your words as you think they should?

No EoC-
My reply wasn't an argument about the issue, but pointing out that your post was based on a false premise that l'm out for vengeance. I'd be satisfied with justice.
Your post contains no consequences for those who made the mistakes.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You could have simply said that you meant justice and not vengeance and we could have moved along smoothly. You may think that what you write clearly conveys your intent, but you would be wrong.


My post also contains no consequences. I'm not going to argue with you there, as it clearly wasn't my intention to list possible consequences - which I suspect would be an impossible task, and is why I expressed a generalised opinion.

Edit: I also note that you did not answer your own question that I turned back to you. What consequences would you like to see happen?

[kazoolaw]

EoC-
Let's agree that the word "vengeance" did not appear in Post 1 and move along, shall we?

I didn't outline my position because I wanted to see what the reaction of others would be.

Looking at your Post 4, you focused on Biden alone. The initial post mentioned Biden, and his quote, and moved on to "each person/entity responsible." There's not a right/wrong response, the focus just on Biden is interesting.

Then you focused on political responsibility. I'll not pretend to know the first thing about politics in your country. Four quickly identifiable political consequences here are (1) failure to be re-elected, (2) recall from office, (3) requesting the resignation, or the firing of, cabinet level officials, or (4) impeachment in the case of the President.

The direct occasion of Biden's quote was the Kabul airport bombing, not some generic foreign policy. This was a disaster owned by Biden and the current military and intelligence leaders. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan was not initiated by Biden, but neither were the details of U.S. withdrawal inherited from his predecessors.

And here I skip from your Post 4, "The consequence can be anything," to your Post 10 "... it clearly wasn't my intention to list possible consequences - which I suspect would be an impossible task...." Can anything be a consequence, yet it be impossible to list any possible consequences? To be clear, I refer to adverse, negative consequences to individuals for their failures.

Let's call a short roll of failures in the withdrawal from Afghanistan:
-allowing the release of thousands of Isis-K prisoners
-being offered the chance by the Taliban to control the entire city of Kabul but choosing to be confined to the airport
-totally failing to accurately assess the swift takeover of the country, and confidently stating there was plenty of time
-turning American citizens back at the gates to the airport, refusing entry
-giving lists of American names to the Taliban
-relying on the Taliban interests (acknowledged not to be nice people) helping us and not weighing it
acting in its self- interest (see, Isis prisoner release)
-giving up a fortified military air base, and its armory, for a limited and constricted airport surrounded
by a city
- then there's the public acts personal to Biden: brushing off Afghans falling from planes as "four or
five days ago as if there's a sell-by date for horror, the viral photo of Biden checking his watch as the
dead servicemen come home, announcing that Americans left behind are being entrusted to the
Taliban

So what consequences should be imposed? America's history provides some examples. President Lincoln sacked a number of generals for their failures. After Pearl Harbor I think both an admiral and a general were relieved of command for their failures. I've never been military so I can't comment on courts martial, but "firing" generals seems very possible.

Civilian intelligence personnel can be fired. "Incorrect assessment in the face of non-regular opponents" is such a bland term. Ever since Russia got booted out of Afghanistan there has been a constant theme of the heroic Afghan tribesmen defeating the high tech, mechanized Soviet army: it couldn't have been a surprise. Did you hear about WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, being used for communication by the Taliban? If I did, why didn't our intelligence community either shut it down, or tap it as a source of counter-intelligence.

And as we approach Tuesday, August 31, we hear of more and more Americans being told they'll have to stay behind. Those who participated in that decision should be identified publicly, and should be sacked.

To do nothing in the face of these multiple mistakes leaves these same failures in position to fail again in the future. It also cheapens the worth of those who died , those left behind, and those in the future who find themselves in harm's way.

[Chuck Naill]

It often is the case that you respond with words that no one said. This is why I question your reading ability, but perhaps it’s an intentional work of a troll. Now you want EOC to agree . He rightly assessed your OP. It was glaringly obvious. Next time take more time thinking before you start a thread. Or, don’t…lol!

[kazoolaw]

It often is the case that you respond with words that no one said. This is why I question your reading ability, but perhaps it’s an intentional work of a troll. Now you want EOC to agree . He rightly assessed your OP. It was glaringly obvious. Next time take more time thinking before you start a thread. Or, don’t…lol!

Chuck,
Sorry today's not a good day for you.
Get some rest.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My personal view of consequences is that they should be commensurate both with the nature of a failure and whether that failure is part of a pattern suggesting an egregious lack of good judgment. If I was the commander of anything I wouldn't want to lose good staff because they dropped the ball once. If they had a history of dropping the ball...


EoC- Let's agree that the word "vengeance" did not appear in Post 1 and move along, shall we?

The word 'vengeance' did not appear in Post #1. but it was implied by your choice of words.


Looking at your Post 4, you focused on Biden alone. The initial post mentioned Biden, and his quote, and moved on to "each person/entity responsible." There's not a right/wrong response, the focus just on Biden is interesting.

Used only to address the Biden quote itself, and to explain why I interpret the quote a specific way, nothing else. Not really that interesting, or relevant to anything else.


I don't claim to know anything about US politics. That is why I made a general statement about consequences. Sure I could cobble together a list of possible consequences, but if I did it would always be incomplete. So I didn't, hence generalisation (again).


Your list - there are some items in there that require explanation from the decision makers, and some that don't lend themselves to precise analysis. As I noted in my other post, there are some situations, often rapidly unfolding ones but this applies to any kind, where there simply isn't a perfect solution. These situations don't permit perfect analysis and often devolve to trying to evaluate which of the various undesirable outcomes we would prefer.

I'm going to take one of your example 'failures':
-totally failing to accurately assess the swift takeover of the country, and confidently stating there was plenty of time

If you were familiar with the Millennium Challenge* you would see that this is not a failure of an individual but of a system.


*WIKI for a brief breakdown. Of special interest is the sections titled 'Exercise Action' and 'Exercise Suspension and Restart'. LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)



As for your final couple of paragraphs, I would say that a consequence also needs to be evaluated, much like a failure does, and should only be applied under reasonable assurance that the rate of similar failures or further failures are reduced. This is not always possible no matter what the consequences are, and so I return to the uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument here is still implying a search for a scapegoat.

[Chuck Naill]

It often is the case that you respond with words that no one said. This is why I question your reading ability, but perhaps it’s an intentional work of a troll. Now you want EOC to agree . He rightly assessed your OP. It was glaringly obvious. Next time take more time thinking before you start a thread. Or, don’t…lol!

Chuck,
Sorry today's not a good day for you.
Get some rest.


I’ll have plenty of time while you attempt to respond to EOC’s post, but don’t worry as I’ve had a wonderful day. 👍👍😉

[kazoolaw]

"...uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument is still implying a search for a scapegoat."
Your discomfort is the result of your "feeling" being a search for an absent implication. Perhaps projection on your part.
A scapegoat bears the sins of others placed upon it. Nowhere have I suggested that an innocent take the blame for another's failure. It is enough that a person be responsible for their own actions.

[kazoolaw]

I’ll have plenty of time while you attempt to respond to EOC’s post, but don’t worry as I’ve had a wonderful day. 👍👍😉

Happy dreams

[Empty_of_Clouds]

"...uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument is still implying a search for a scapegoat."
Your discomfort is the result of your "feeling" being a search for an absent implication. Perhaps projection on your part.
A scapegoat bears the sins of others placed upon it. Nowhere have I suggested that an innocent take the blame for another's failure. It is enough that a person be responsible for their own actions.


You may think that you haven't implied this, but in the way I receive your words the implication is there. How often has a performer complained about not being understood by their audience, when often the problem lies in the ambiguity of the performance? This is what happened in this thread.

Scapegoat was incorrectly used by me, and the meaning of my statement was thus confused. It's easy to do. We all make statements that can be interpreted other than what we intended. Nobody is immune to this.


I am going to make a personal comment here regarding threads in this section of the forum. While it is something of a free for all with regard to the subject matter and what positions we may take and so on, it is disappointing to see how often participants resort to name calling, labelling with psychological characteristics based on (at best) the most amateurish attempt at remote analysis, direct insults, and the general impugning of other people's intelligence when they disagree with a proposition. None of these behaviours helps in encouraging and developing discourse. I am sure I am guilty of doing this myself on occasion, though I try not to, but there are some people here for whom these behaviours are at the heart of their communications. The same goes for the passive-aggressive posts.

This thread is a classic example. One poster believes his words are clear in meaning, and another does not. Is one right and the other wrong? Only from their own perspectives. It is important to consider other perspectives. In this thread I accept kazoolaw's additional explanation that he wasn't writing about a search for vengeance. It is incumbent upon him to accept that another person may see a different interpretation of his original words. If you can't accept that other people may see and interpret things differently then you cannot have a reasonable discussion. In my opinion of course. :)

[dneal]

Would it have been so difficult to just ask for clarity? You know, "hey, do you mean this, or something else"?

Instead, you inferred something not intended (and therefore not implied).

No hurt, no foul. Can we get back to the topic now?

At the end of the day, the buck does stop on the President's desk. He's answerable to the people. Is your question the manner with which he will answer for it? and who else might be part of the collateral damage? I suppose it's those cabinet level positions that directly advised. Natl Sec Advisor, SecState, SecDef, etc...

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading an interesting an historical accounting op-ed about the US and other nations activities in the region. All of those efforts have failed. Other presidents said they were going to pull out, but only Biden did. Not to be trite, but there comes a time to fish or cut bait. It could have been different, Biden could have renegotiated a new and perhaps better deal for withdraw. The question I have is, would it have mattered? Sometimes we don't create the mess, but we have to clean it up. It is hard to be criticized that we didn't clean it up the way we did.

I do appreciate EOC's last comments, but it might be casting pearls before swine in some incidences. Yes, we could ask for clarity, but the responsibilty does not lie with the reader.

[dneal]

I do appreciate EOC's last comments, but it might be casting pearls before swine in some incidences. Yes, we could ask for clarity, but the responsibilty does not lie with the reader.

Curious how a guy who is so interested in Biblical interpretation now asserts that responsibility does not lie with the reader. Who is doing the interpreting? The writer?

"Casting pearls before swine" is an interesting attempt to reconstruct "monkey flinging shit".

[dneal]

The consequence can be anything. One consequence could be an overhaul of the system used for strategic analysis. Systems like DIME and PMESI have been shown to be vulnerable to incorrect assessment in the face of non-regular opponents.

How many times have you participated in brigade, division, corps or even theater army planning; using DIME or PMESI (and it's PMESI-PT)? Those are U.S. Military terms/methods (predominately Army). Seven questions is more likely the method you used, as a Brit/Aus/NZ member. I think you just googled that, but hey, I could be wrong.

"Strategic analysis" is national level planning. The CENTCOM Commander (or ARCENT Commander, or CSTC-A...) would never have their staff conduct "strategic" anything. That's the operational level, not strategic. Strategic planning is done at the cabinet level (SECDEF staff coordinate with SECSTATE staff). All plans are approved by the Commander (or Commander in Chief, in this case). The President is where the totality of Constitutional executive authority is vested. One person. All subordinate executive personnel and agencies derive their authority from the office of the President. He is delegating some of his authority.

You can delegate authority, but not responsibility. If his staff bubbas (that he picked) gave him bad info, it's still his responsibility.

[Chuck Naill]

I do appreciate EOC's last comments, but it might be casting pearls before swine in some incidences. Yes, we could ask for clarity, but the responsibilty does not lie with the reader.

Curious how a guy who is so interested in Biblical interpretation now asserts that responsibility does not lie with the reader. Who is doing the interpreting? The writer?

"Casting pearls before swine" is an interesting attempt to reconstruct "monkey flinging shit".

You have me confused with your pal Kazoo. He is the one who introduced Biblical interpretation as a way to scorn Biden.

Regarding EOC's comments, what he is saying, I think, is the writer bears the responsibilty of clarity. It is not the readers responsibilty to be a mind reader.

[dneal]

I do appreciate EOC's last comments, but it might be casting pearls before swine in some incidences. Yes, we could ask for clarity, but the responsibilty does not lie with the reader.

Curious how a guy who is so interested in Biblical interpretation now asserts that responsibility does not lie with the reader. Who is doing the interpreting? The writer?

"Casting pearls before swine" is an interesting attempt to reconstruct "monkey flinging shit".

You have me confused with your pal Kazoo. He is the one who introduced Biblical interpretation as a way to scorn Biden.

Regarding EOC's comments, what he is saying, I think, is the writer bears the responsibilty of clarity. It is not the readers responsibilty to be a mind reader.


I'm reminded of that old curmudgeon Thomas Paine. "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

I italicized the word "interpretation" (if you go back and look at the post you quoted), in hopes you would notice and recognize there is some emphasis connoted in that. That's common technique. Another is ALL CAPITALS, but that's usually commonly considered "shouting" - which is a different way of conveying emphasis.

Since you the reader apparently bear no responsibility for adhering to common convention everybody else does, you focused on the word "Biblical" - missing the point completely. Honestly I still am unsure if this is intentional or if you are really this obtuse. It's amazing to watch at any rate.

[kazoolaw]

You may think that you haven't implied this, but in the way I receive your words the implication is there.

Scapegoat was incorrectly used by me, and the meaning of my statement was thus confused. It's easy to do. We all make statements that can be interpreted other than what we intended.

You have identified the issue: the way you received my message, not the content of the actual message.

The difference between these two examples is that your mind created something that, objectively, was not in the text. We agreed earlier that "vengeance" was not used. I cannot control, or be held responsible, for what you have created in your mind from something that didn't exist.

You used the word "scapecoat." It's there for us to see. I need to infer nothing from your word, your text. Now you say you made a mistake. Mistaken or not, the actual words on the screen said I was trying to make a scapegoat.

You created an implication from a word that wasn't there. I correctly understood the meaning of the word you used. It may be more accurate to say you assumed I was seeking vengeance rather than my words implied that.

[Chuck Naill]

You know what Kaz, if you cannot take critical analysis, it’s you that has the problem and not EOC.

You’ve certainly misinterpreted others posts that was obviously not the intent. It’s why I questioned your reading ability.

This all makes me think you’re really only here to troll .

Good day. 😂

[kazoolaw]

You know what Kaz, if you cannot take critical analysis, it’s you that has the problem and not EOC.

You’ve certainly misinterpreted others posts that was obviously not the intent. It’s why I questioned your reading ability.

This all makes me think you’re really only here to troll .

Good day. 😂

Critical, sure. Mistaken, no.
As you've figured out by now in my "misinterpretations" there's a difference between what you think you said and what appears in print. Words matter.

[TSherbs]

"...uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument is still implying a search for a scapegoat."
Your discomfort is the result of your "feeling" being a search for an absent implication. Perhaps projection on your part.
A scapegoat bears the sins of others placed upon it. Nowhere have I suggested that an innocent take the blame for another's failure. It is enough that a person be responsible for their own actions.


You may think that you haven't implied this, but in the way I receive your words the implication is there. How often has a performer complained about not being understood by their audience, when often the problem lies in the ambiguity of the performance? This is what happened in this thread.

Scapegoat was incorrectly used by me, and the meaning of my statement was thus confused. It's easy to do. We all make statements that can be interpreted other than what we intended. Nobody is immune to this.....

A better word might be "punishment," or "consequence" (more neutral), or even "repercussions."

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The consequence can be anything. One consequence could be an overhaul of the system used for strategic analysis. Systems like DIME and PMESI have been shown to be vulnerable to incorrect assessment in the face of non-regular opponents.

How many times have you participated in brigade, division, corps or even theater army planning; using DIME or PMESI (and it's PMESI-PT)? Those are U.S. Military terms/methods (predominately Army). Seven questions is more likely the method you used, as a Brit/Aus/NZ member. I think you just googled that, but hey, I could be wrong.

You are correct, I am speaking as a UK member. However, I was trying to keep it in a US context rather that confusing the (mostly) US audience with terminology from another country. Your systems are not well-known by me, although I did hugely enjoy reading about how Paul Van Riper ran rings around your combined war machine by not playing according to the assumed rules of engagement. :)


@kazoolaw

The difference between these two examples is that your mind created something that, objectively, was not in the text. We agreed earlier that "vengeance" was not used. I cannot control, or be held responsible, for what you have created in your mind from something that didn't exist.

I can only repeat what I said earlier: How often has a performer complained about not being understood by their audience, when often the problem lies in the ambiguity of the performance?

In this specific instance I found your statement on consequences to be ambiguous in its intent. However, part of what led to my interpretation lies in the words used, and part lies in the picture I have of the writer based on reading many of their previous statements - both here and in other threads. It is entirely possible that I would not have made the assumption of vengeance-seeking if I had read the statement cold and not known who the writer was.

There is a common misunderstanding that occurs when someone writes something in that they expect the reader to understand not only the objective meaning of the words but also the intent of the words in the context they are offered.

However, all of this is distraction from what is presumably the intent of this thread - which is what?

[Chuck Naill]

You know what Kaz, if you cannot take critical analysis, it’s you that has the problem and not EOC.

You’ve certainly misinterpreted others posts that was obviously not the intent. It’s why I questioned your reading ability.

This all makes me think you’re really only here to troll .

Good day. 😂

Critical, sure. Mistaken, no.
As you've figured out by now in my "misinterpretations" there's a difference between what you think you said and what appears in print. Words matter.

Go and do likewise, Kaz.

Others have spoken. It might be time to alter your writing .

[Chuck Naill]

At some point , kazoo, you’re going to have to own your words and stop accusing.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-biden-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-trump_n_612e7807e4b05f53eda074ba

Not sure if this is germane to the thread, but thought I'd put here for consideration.

[TSherbs]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-biden-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-trump_n_612e7807e4b05f53eda074ba

Not sure if this is germane to the thread, but thought I'd put here for consideration.Quite germane, thanks. Like nearly all of our more recent military entanglements post 2001, when things are going well, dissent is quelled, particularly from the party in power, but when the shit hits the fan, the party out of power pounces on it to make political hay, even if they once supported basically the same policy. Politics has very little sustained memory, and there is NO political advantage to sharing culpability in a long-term mess like Afghanistan. Both parties pull this bullshit game of blame and vote party lines (except for the cases of attack against US soil). The 2022 midterms are looking large on the radar of both parties.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-biden-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-trump_n_612e7807e4b05f53eda074ba

Not sure if this is germane to the thread, but thought I'd put here for consideration.

Germane, I would say. The title of the piece is interesting to me.

GOP Rips Biden For Working With Taliban After Supporting Trump Doing It

Is it pointing out hypocrisy, or is it “whataboutism”? I suppose the answer varies based on one’s political bias.

[kazoolaw]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-biden-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-trump_n_612e7807e4b05f53eda074ba

Not sure if this is germane to the thread, but thought I'd put here for consideration.

Germane, I would say. The title of the piece is interesting to me.

GOP Rips Biden For Working With Taliban After Supporting Trump Doing It

Is it pointing out hypocrisy, or is it “whataboutism”? I suppose the answer varies based on one’s political bias.

Germane to withdrawal generally, but not the specifics of this withdrawal. Biden and Trump were quoted as Saying they were ending the war. This 20 year campaign is ended: we withdrew from the field and conceded defeat. Only if Afghanistan based/supported terrorism ends is the war over. Too soon to tell, but I doubt it.

Question I've not seen addressed: I understand the US Embassy in Kabulis one of the biggest and best. What's being or been done with that facility and all its high tech contents?

[kazoolaw]

However, all of this is distraction from what is presumably the intent of this thread - which is what?

Drone Hellfire missile strike in Kabul – August 29, 2021

KABUL, Afghanistan — It was the last known missile fired by the United States in its 20-year war in Afghanistan, and the military called it a “righteous strike” — a drone attack after hours of surveillance Aug. 29 against a vehicle that U.S. officials thought contained an Islamic State bomb and posed an imminent threat to troops at Kabul’s airport.
-NYT

Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that it's “possible” the United States will seek to coordinate with the Taliban on counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan against Islamic State militants or others….At a Pentagon news conference with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Milley called the Taliban “ruthless” adding, “Whether or not they change remains to be seen.”
-nbcnewyork Sept 1, 2021

“At the time…we had very good intelligence that ISIS-K was preparing a specific type vehicle at a specific type location. We monitored that through various means and all of the engagement criteria were being met. We went through the same level of rigor that we’ve done for years and we took a strike,”
-Gen. Milley briefing

Subsequently, The New York Times reported that after Defense Department officials bragged that “two high profile” ISIS-K militants who supposedly served as “planners and facilitators” of the Aug. 26 suicide bombing….
-NYT

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon admitted Friday that a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan last month killed as many as 10 civilians including up to seven children.
“As the combatant commander, I am fully responsible for this strike and its tragic outcome,” U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters.
-cnbc, September 17, 2021

{italics added}

...how should each person/entity responsible be made accountable for their roles?
-Post 1 in this topic.

A better word might be "punishment," or "consequence" (more neutral), or even "repercussions."
-Post 28, above.

Should anyone be punished, incur consequences, or receive repercussions for the actions listed above?*
___________________________________
*Though responses are obviously free to range beyond these three choices my intent in writing this post does not.

[Chuck Naill]

There is a op-Ed this morning in the times discussing the failure of academic expertise that recommends proven track records rather than credentials.

[kazoolaw]

Still no call for punishment, consequences, or repercussions?
Anybody out there?
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491
Hardly a right wing source.

[Chuck Naill]

More likely they did before they didn’t.

[kazoolaw]

More likely they did before they didn’t.

Then again:
"Sen Cotton: It’s a simple question. Secretary Austin, he said no senior military leader advised him to lead a small troop presence behind. Is that true or not? Did this officer and General Miller’s recommendations get to the president?

Sec Austin: Personally, their input was was received by the president and considered by the president for sure in terms of what they specifically recommended. Senator, they just as they just said, they’re not going to provide what they recommended in confidence."

[kazoolaw]

New reports that, contrary to earlier information, more that 300 Americans remain in Afghanistan.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/22/state-department-says-its-in-contact-with-americans-left-in-afghanistan/
NBC mentions an investigation by a State Department acting inspector general into the Afghanistan withdrawal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/state-dept-internal-watchdog-launches-investigation-afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-n1281791

[kazoolaw]

Over 2 months later...
Hundreds of family members left behind.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/pentagon-steps-efforts-evacuate-families-u-s-troops-afghanistan-n1283373

[kazoolaw]

Nice tank buddy. Where did you get it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3l2q2vT6e0

[kazoolaw]

It is reported, as of January 11, 2022 that 80 Americans are unable to leave Afghanistan.
Apparently they remain on Biden's I-don't-remember list.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/80-americans-still-want-to-leave-afghanistan-but-evacuation-flights-remain-grounded/ar-AASG5GF

[Chuck Naill]

DAr

[kazoolaw]

Thanks for the bump.

[Chuck Naill]

Just trying to get your reputation up. :focus:

[kazoolaw]

Please continue to post in this topic to show support for the Americans abandoned in Afghanistan.

[Chuck Naill]

Please continue to post in this topic to show support for the Americans abandoned in Afghanistan.

I sure will. There are also Americans abandoned in the states as well. Every life matters.

[kazoolaw]

Again, thanks Chuck for agreeing Biden abandoned Americans in Afghanistan.
Please tell me about the Americans you refer to that he abandoned in the states as well.

[Chuck Naill]

Black and brown and thank you for recognizing this yourself. Like you have said many times, your biggest concern is that trump will
Be re-elected

[kazoolaw]

Uh, Chuck, don't know where you think you are but you're not here.

[Chuck Naill]

So good you’ve come around, Kaz

[Chuck Naill]

Uh, Chuck, don't know where you think you are but you're not here.


I figure if you can do it, so can we. Enjoy 😊 a

[Chuck Naill]

Uh, Chuck, don't know where you think you are but you're not here.


I figure if you can do it, so can we. Enjoy 😊

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, seriously, you need a break.

[Chuck Naill]

:thumb:

[kazoolaw]

“The U.S. government will not be in a position to evacuate American citizens in such a contingency,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a briefing. “Russian military action anywhere in Ukraine will severely impact the U.S. embassy’s ability to provide consular assistance.”
-US State Department

[kazoolaw]

Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Minority Report:

Having wasted 115 days, the
NSC did not conduct its first
senior meeting to discuss the
withdrawal until August 14 at
3:30pm, just hours before Kabul
fell, when evacuations became
life or death for Americans,
Afghans, and U.S. military
personnel.

* * *

The Biden Administration’s
senior leaders have argued the
disaster in Afghanistan was
inevitable and there was nothing
anyone could do about it. These
arguments are indeed true, but
only because after squandering
115 days, events would control
them, not the other way around.

* * *



On August 17, 2021, and at the height of
evacuation efforts, senior State Department
officials leading the evacuation task force
indicated there were 10,000 to 15,000
Americans in Afghanistan, according to the
F-77 report.12 By August 31, when the president
ordered an end to evacuation operations, State
and DoD had evacuated approximately 6,000
American citizens. Even taking the most
conservative estimates from the F-77 report,
this meant the United States left at least a few
thousand people behind.
(emphasis added)
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Risch%20Afghanistan%20Report%202022.pdf

Secretary of State Blinken claimed only 100-150 American citizens were left behind.

[kazoolaw]

DOD Inspector General Report:
Over $7 Billion of US military equipment left behind in Afghanistan.
No inventory of how much remained usable.

https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/3129145/lead-inspector-general-for-operation-enduring-sentinel-and-operation-freedoms-s/

[Chip]

Bush, the idiot, did the invasion.

Trump, the genius, made the deal (cf. The Art of the . . )

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

How is it that you weasels blame Biden for a bad outcome?

[kazoolaw]

George Bush President from 2001 to 2009
Donald Trump, President from January 2017 to January 2021
Joe Biden, President beginning January 2021 to date of this post
First date for withdrawal: May 1, 2021
Biden moves Afghanistan deadline for withdrawal to August 31, 2021

"...ultimately his administration pushed ahead with a plan to withdraw by Aug. 31, despite obvious signs that the Taliban wasn’t complying with the agreement and had a stated goal to create an “Islamic government” in Afghanistan after the U.S. left, even if it meant it had to “continue our war to achieve our goal.”

Biden assured Americans ... that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was “not inevitable,” and denied that U.S. intelligence assessed that the Afghan government would likely collapse. But it did — and quickly.

Asked if he sees any parallels between the withdrawals from Vietnam Afghanistan, Biden responds, “None whatsoever. Zero. … The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.”

Aug. 15 — Taliban fighters enter the Afghanistan capital Kabul; the Afghan president flees the country; U.S. evacuates diplomats from its embassy by helicopter."
(emphasis added)



Did you not read, or do you not understand, the FactCheck.Org material you linked to?

See Post 59: https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35172-Kabul-and-Responsibility?p=358914&viewfull=1#post358914

See Post 60: https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35172-Kabul-and-Responsibility?p=374032&viewfull=1#post374032

See Post 41: https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35172-Kabul-and-Responsibility?p=341123&viewfull=1#post341123

That's how.

[Chip]

I read the linked stuff.

Why do you persist in blaming Biden for a shitfest set up by Bush and Trump?

Are you dimly aware of the Bush-created chaos in Iraq?

Or does the fact that the so-called defense industry got really rich in the process warm your tiny heart?

[kazoolaw]

I read the linked stuff.

Why do you persist in blaming Biden for a shitfest set up by Bush and Trump?

Are you dimly aware of the Bush-created chaos in Iraq?

Or does the fact that the so-called defense industry got really rich in the process warm your tiny heart?

Unfortunately for you I'm able to choose a topic, understand the topic, see that you are trying to distract from the topic, and then return to the topic.

Which is, Biden's screw-up of the withdrawal. The 2021 Commander-in-Chief decided to helicopter evacuate from Embassy, leave millions of dollars of military hardware on the ground, leave military personnel in harm's way, totally screw-up force estimates of the Taliban, abandon Americans and American supporters in Afghanistan, and then think that when he took credit for the rocket strike killing al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri this month we wouldn't notice that the C-i-C was certain that al Qaeda wouldn't return in force to Afghanistan. ++

Did you believe Post 1: "I bear responsibility for, fundamentally, all that's happened of late."
-President Biden, August 26, 2021
Or did you think he was lying then?

++Bonus comment:
Biden said, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons. How many F-15's and nukes did the Afghans have to kick both Russia and the USA out?

[Chip]

So Bush and Trump did a really great job, maybe the best job in the entire history of the world?

Oh, you forgot to mention Beau Biden's laptop.

[Lloyd]

We've been entrenched in the Afghanistan s-tfest for a long time. Which administrations resolved it?... none? Who elected those administrations? Some of them by individuals like you, and some by individuals like me.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

So Bush and Trump did a really great job, maybe the best job in the entire history of the world?

Oh, you forgot to mention Beau Biden's laptop.

Deflect, deflect, deflect, and deny.

[kazoolaw]

We've been entrenched in the Afghanistan s-tfest for a long time. Which administrations resolved it?... none? Who elected those administrations? Some of them by individuals like you, and some by individuals like me.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, a long time.
So long that apparently some folks can't focus on a discrete event.

[Lloyd]

We've been entrenched in the Afghanistan s-tfest for a long time. Which administrations resolved it?... none? Who elected those administrations? Some of them by individuals like you, and some by individuals like me.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, a long time.
So long that apparently some folks can't focus on a discrete event.

There were many discrete events... that's why I referred to it as a sh-tfest as opposed to an event.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

How about just the one in this topic?

[Chip]

Your focus on Biden is a nasty, dishonest, hyper-partisan tactic.

Bush II got us in. Kept us in. The US military lied and cheated to keep the money flowing, and the corrupt Afghan government stole millions or billions, no doubt with kickbacks to the US folks. Bonanza for the so-called Defense Industry.

At long last, Trump spit in the faces of the generals and made a crap deal, to burnish his self-proclaimed genius.

Again, the liars in the US military couldn't admit how quickly their house of cards would collapse after Trump announced he was the pulling the plug.

And still, you insist on blaming Biden?

[TSherbs]

Humans demand vengeance. Today's mobs (left and right) are thirsty for it. Staff will be sacrificed first. There are grumblings of impeachment, but I think the country has had more than enough of that. The 25th Amendment is plausible, particularly if the cabinet realize it's them or Joe.

Well, after a year now, has any of this hyperbole happened (besides, perhaps, some staff firings)?

"The 25th amendment is plausible"?? What does that sentence even mean? "Plausible" is an empty term here. Of course, the 25th didn't happen, nor will it happen over this. What an absurd idea that was.

By the way, the belief that "humans demand vengeance" is a reason for stricter gun control measures. This motivation is exactly how and why many murders occur, especially among men.

[kazoolaw]

Chip, see Post 1.
Read it out loud. Slowly. Roll the words around in your mouth.
Biden was C-I-C. Absorb that fact. It is a fact. Can see you don't like that fact, calling that fact "nasty." Yet the fact remains. Can see you think even stating that fact is partisan.
Your link was honest enough to include Biden mistakes. Did you read it? Do you understand it?
If you want to discuss the Bush and Trump roles in Afghanistan start a Topic. This one is not about that.

[Lloyd]

"I bear responsibility for, fundamentally, all that's happened of late."
-President Biden, August 26, 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/26/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terror-attack-at-hamid-karzai-international-airport/


Understanding that Biden is not solely responsible for what has happened, how should each person/entity responsible be made accountable for their roles?
Your second paragraph in your initial post implies that we're to discuss all those who are to blame not solely Biden.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

If you want to discuss the Bush and Trump roles in Afghanistan start a Topic. This one is not about that.

Start a topic?

You think you get to say what this is about, and confine it to a Biden Attack thread?

Repeat after me: Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

[kazoolaw]

"I bear responsibility for, fundamentally, all that's happened of late."
-President Biden, August 26, 2021
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/26/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terror-attack-at-hamid-karzai-international-airport/


Understanding that Biden is not solely responsible for what has happened, how should each person/entity responsible be made accountable for their roles?
Your second paragraph in your initial post implies that we're to discuss all those who are to blame not solely Biden.

Fair point: what decisions that Bush and Trump made in 2021 with regard to Kabul are you referring to?

[kazoolaw]

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!Benghazi! Benghazi!
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-treat-hyperventilation-syndrome-1298890

Be well.

[Chuck Naill]

I do believe there is an attempt to somehow say that Biden is just as bad as Trump. I do understand. Many here sold their moral selves to Trump, overlooking acts and words that would have made their grandparents blush, all for the sake of this or that grievance.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost and no Trumpian here can claim ignorance.

[Chip]

Be well.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Get well.

[kazoolaw]

Be well.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Get well.

OK:
Get well, Chip.
Feel better now?

[Chuck Naill]

Stupid as always. 🫣

[kazoolaw]

I do believe there is an attempt to somehow say that Biden is just as bad as Trump.

It looks like Trump first appears in this Topic, which began with Biden's quote accepting responsibility, in Post 51.
Perhaps the author of Post 51 was expressing his opinion that Biden is Just as bad as Trump.

[kazoolaw]

Stupid as always. 🫣

The saying on your tee shirt today?
[not really, just too good to pass up]
Enjoy the weekend.

[Chuck Naill]

I do believe there is an attempt to somehow say that Biden is just as bad as Trump.

It looks like Trump first appears in this Topic, which began with Biden's quote accepting responsibility, in Post 51.
Perhaps the author of Post 51 was expressing his opinion that Biden is Just as bad as Trump.


It’s called, “what about this”.

We can go back to Bush, add Obama, Trump, and then Biden.

Here an analogy, let’s say you have an accident and shit on the floor. The next person sees it and does not know what to do or how to clean it up. The next person has never changed a diaper and decides to get out of town fast. The next person is left with a 20 old pile of shit and cleans it up but no one likes how he did it.

[kazoolaw]

Not a bad analogy, but the rest of the story [remember that?] is that the last man announces it's his responsibility to clean it up,takes a massive dump of his own, the toxicity of which kills 100+ people, and announces that it smells like roses.

[Chip]

Dump! That rhymes with Trump.

NEWSWEEK
Scott Dworkin
8/23/21

The images coming out of Afghanistan have been disturbing. But let's be clear: The Trump Administration led us straight into this mess. And President Biden is doing everything he can to get us out of it.

In Afghanistan, President Biden got dealt yet another losing hand from the Trump Administration. Their Doha Agreement with the Taliban violated the most basic principles of self-government for the Afghan people. There was no way to enforce it or make sure the Taliban kept its word. There was no denunciation of al-Qaeda terrorists. Worst of all, the deal didn't mandate the Taliban stop attacks against Afghan security forces.

All of this set the stage for the chaotic scenes we're seeing on TV today.

Trump's deal with the Taliban was flawed from the start, which is why Trump's own officials are now scrambling to distance themselves from it. "To have our Generals say that they are depending on diplomacy with the Taliban is an unbelievable scenario. Negotiating with the Taliban is like dealing with the devil," tweeted Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who certainly voiced no such objections while working for Trump. She was not alone. "Our secretary of state signed a surrender agreement with the Taliban," Trump's former national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told journalist Bari Weiss. "This collapse goes back to the capitulation agreement of 2020. The Taliban didn't defeat us. We defeated ourselves."

Even Mike Pompeo, Trump's Secretary of State and the man who negotiated the deal with the Taliban in the first place, is now denouncing it. He had the audacity to tell Fox News that the "debacle" in Afghanistan "will certainly harm America's credibility with its friends and allies." He certainly didn't seem to think so while he was laying the groundwork for the debacle in the first place.

"We're letting the Taliban run free and wild all around Afghanistan," complained Pompeo, the man who cut the deal to release the Taliban's leader from prison in the first place. Trump ordered the release of 5,000 of the top captured Taliban fighters last year—a decision his own designated "peace envoy" Zalmay Khaliizad said publicly had disturbed him. Those same fighters are now threatening the streets of Kabul.

Republican outrage was also completely absent in the first 45 days of Donald Trump's agreement, when there were over 4,500 Taliban attacks resulting in over 900 Afghan casualties. Where was the Republican outrage about the Afghan army then, when their President handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban? Nonexistent.

https://www.newsweek.com/stop-blaming-biden-afghanistan-hes-cleaning-trumps-mess-opinion-1622049

[TSherbs]

Afghanistan is a quagmire that has undermined every recent US administration. It has done so to Biden, as it did so to Trump, as it did so to Obama, etc. As it will to the next administration.

[Chip]

Didn't work out for the Brits, either. But Bush probably flunked history. Trump never took the course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan

[kazoolaw]

The way you ask the question suggests you are looking for some kind of direct retribution against the person of interest.

Consequences for failed political action can vary enormously. A lot depends on the nature of the failure, of course, as well as the intent behind the action. The Afghan situation involving US forces is historically (though arguably only nominally) an action that stems from the Oval Office. If that is considered a failed policy it is not Biden's. Similarly all the failures leading to the present day are not Biden's. However, as duly elected leader of the US he inherits the situation from his predecessors.

So, Biden has to make decisions based on the intel he is given by his aides, and somewhat constrained by the 'deal' that his immediate predecessor engineered with the Taliban. It's possible that there is no correct solution to this highly fluid situation, only solutions offering different balances of advantages and disadvantages.

The statement 'I bear responsibility...' also needs context. When I hear this from a national leader, and the action they are talking about is of national policy, I interpret the statement to mean that the person takes responsibility as the head of government, and for that government, and not as an individual.

The consequence can be anything. One consequence could be an overhaul of the system used for strategic analysis. Systems like DIME and PMESI have been shown to be vulnerable to incorrect assessment in the face of non-regular opponents. That's just an example, I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

Noted

[kazoolaw]

That's your argument because someone didn't interpret your words as you think they should? Perhaps your words or their intent weren't sufficiently clear.

All I've done is attempt to answer your question on consequences. You can insert almost any name instead of 'Biden' in my previous post and it wouldn't change my answer.

So, what exactly is my motive, hmm?

And seeing as you haven't provided anything of substance yet, what do you think the consequences should be?

Noted

[kazoolaw]

You could have simply said that you meant justice and not vengeance and we could have moved along smoothly. You may think that what you write clearly conveys your intent, but you would be wrong.


My post also contains no consequences. I'm not going to argue with you there, as it clearly wasn't my intention to list possible consequences - which I suspect would be an impossible task, and is why I expressed a generalised opinion.

Edit: I also note that you did not answer your own question that I turned back to you. What consequences would you like to see happen?

Noted

[kazoolaw]

My personal view of consequences is that they should be commensurate both with the nature of a failure and whether that failure is part of a pattern suggesting an egregious lack of good judgment. If I was the commander of anything I wouldn't want to lose good staff because they dropped the ball once. If they had a history of dropping the ball...



The word 'vengeance' did not appear in Post #1. but it was implied by your choice of words.


Looking at your Post 4, you focused on Biden alone. The initial post mentioned Biden, and his quote, and moved on to "each person/entity responsible." There's not a right/wrong response, the focus just on Biden is interesting.

Used only to address the Biden quote itself, and to explain why I interpret the quote a specific way, nothing else. Not really that interesting, or relevant to anything else.


I don't claim to know anything about US politics. That is why I made a general statement about consequences. Sure I could cobble together a list of possible consequences, but if I did it would always be incomplete. So I didn't, hence generalisation (again).


Your list - there are some items in there that require explanation from the decision makers, and some that don't lend themselves to precise analysis. As I noted in my other post, there are some situations, often rapidly unfolding ones but this applies to any kind, where there simply isn't a perfect solution. These situations don't permit perfect analysis and often devolve to trying to evaluate which of the various undesirable outcomes we would prefer.

I'm going to take one of your example 'failures':
-totally failing to accurately assess the swift takeover of the country, and confidently stating there was plenty of time

If you were familiar with the Millennium Challenge* you would see that this is not a failure of an individual but of a system.


*WIKI for a brief breakdown. Of special interest is the sections titled 'Exercise Action' and 'Exercise Suspension and Restart'. LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)



As for your final couple of paragraphs, I would say that a consequence also needs to be evaluated, much like a failure does, and should only be applied under reasonable assurance that the rate of similar failures or further failures are reduced. This is not always possible no matter what the consequences are, and so I return to the uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument here is still implying a search for a scapegoat.

Noted

[kazoolaw]

"...uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument is still implying a search for a scapegoat."
Your discomfort is the result of your "feeling" being a search for an absent implication. Perhaps projection on your part.
A scapegoat bears the sins of others placed upon it. Nowhere have I suggested that an innocent take the blame for another's failure. It is enough that a person be responsible for their own actions.


Noted for the flow

[kazoolaw]

"...uncomfortable feeling that much of your argument is still implying a search for a scapegoat."
Your discomfort is the result of your "feeling" being a search for an absent implication. Perhaps projection on your part.
A scapegoat bears the sins of others placed upon it. Nowhere have I suggested that an innocent take the blame for another's failure. It is enough that a person be responsible for their own actions.


You may think that you haven't implied this, but in the way I receive your words the implication is there. How often has a performer complained about not being understood by their audience, when often the problem lies in the ambiguity of the performance? This is what happened in this thread.

Scapegoat was incorrectly used by me, and the meaning of my statement was thus confused. It's easy to do. We all make statements that can be interpreted other than what we intended. Nobody is immune to this.


I am going to make a personal comment here regarding threads in this section of the forum. While it is something of a free for all with regard to the subject matter and what positions we may take and so on, it is disappointing to see how often participants resort to name calling, labelling with psychological characteristics based on (at best) the most amateurish attempt at remote analysis, direct insults, and the general impugning of other people's intelligence when they disagree with a proposition. None of these behaviours helps in encouraging and developing discourse. I am sure I am guilty of doing this myself on occasion, though I try not to, but there are some people here for whom these behaviours are at the heart of their communications. The same goes for the passive-aggressive posts.

This thread is a classic example. One poster believes his words are clear in meaning, and another does not. Is one right and the other wrong? Only from their own perspectives. It is important to consider other perspectives. In this thread I accept kazoolaw's additional explanation that he wasn't writing about a search for vengeance. It is incumbent upon him to accept that another person may see a different interpretation of his original words. If you can't accept that other people may see and interpret things differently then you cannot have a reasonable discussion. In my opinion of course. :)

Noted

[kazoolaw]

You may think that you haven't implied this, but in the way I receive your words the implication is there.

Scapegoat was incorrectly used by me, and the meaning of my statement was thus confused. It's easy to do. We all make statements that can be interpreted other than what we intended.

You have identified the issue: the way you received my message, not the content of the actual message.

The difference between these two examples is that your mind created something that, objectively, was not in the text. We agreed earlier that "vengeance" was not used. I cannot control, or be held responsible, for what you have created in your mind from something that didn't exist.

You used the word "scapecoat." It's there for us to see. I need to infer nothing from your word, your text. Now you say you made a mistake. Mistaken or not, the actual words on the screen said I was trying to make a scapegoat.

You created an implication from a word that wasn't there. I correctly understood the meaning of the word you used. It may be more accurate to say you assumed I was seeking vengeance rather than my words implied that.

Noted

[kazoolaw]

"Why?"
EoC has made it a practice to insert his interpretation without a basis, and other times try to deny his own plain language. He also deletes his posts when they reflect poorly, when they "expire" or "are no longer needed."
Some posts this noted.

[Chuck Naill]

Wow, someone needs to refill their lithium. At least EOC doesn’t take two months to reply or get into a pissing contest over semantics.

I should have left the typo “replay” and dealt with that for four pages.

[dneal]

And the first internet hyena slinks back to see if it’s safe. Unsurprisingly, it’s the retarded one.

[kazoolaw]

Wow, someone needs to refill their lithium.

It is curious that you refer to yourself in the third person.
Wasn't that an EoC thing?

[Chuck Naill]

I was thinking more of your passive aggressive personality that cannot deal effectively with disagreement.

[kazoolaw]

CN, CN-
I've never shied away from directly confronting you.
The conversation you refer to wasn't with you.
Instead of crying "semantics" you might trying to understand words in their context.
Chin up, old sport.

[dneal]

Instead of crying "semantics" you might trying to understand words in their context.
Chin up, old sport.


That's very difficult for Chuck. As Bertrand Russel noted:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[kazoolaw]

A bookmark to return to; have a SIGAR
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/evaluations/SIGAR-23-05-IP.pdf