Countering Rhetorical Tricks - "9/11 and the Successful War"

(Washington, DC) Stratfor Global Intelligence just published an essay announcing that the nation's rulers have conducted a "successful war" on terror following the events of 9/11. The author, CEO and Stratfor founder, George Friedman, dressed up the standard Bush - Cheney justification for the past ten years of foreign misadventures and domestic decline

"…one of the most extraordinary facts of the war that begin on 9/11 was that there have been no more successful major attacks on the United States." George Friedman, September 6

That's the argument pure and simple. How do you counter that?

First, the statement excludes the most important fact about 9/11. It was a "successful major attack on the United States." The event caused human tragedies accompanied by the shock that the most powerful nation on earth left its centers of governance and finance unprotected.

Friedman and those he defends have one overriding imperative in discussing 9/11, exclude the event itself as a topic of discussion. Move on as though history starts after the successful attacks. Never ever let the topic focus on Bush administration's command negligence surrounding 9/11.

The Art of Debate

After spending September 11, 2008 at Ground Zero and engaging various members of the public on subject of 9/11, I thought to share a few common points of informal debate that frequently ensued on the street.
It is interesting to note that logical hazards can occur on either side of deliberation and that a refined understanding of an issue is traditionally considered to be the prime objective.
Those more educated in polemics, please feel free to correct and inform the thread. Please also note that I’ve marked arguments as [counter and (mutual per 9/11 skepticism.
Finally, although I believe our discussions are of civic and intellectual value, it would seem that that the most effective method of understanding the events of 9/11 is through a trial subject to due process in court.


Definition: formal method of suppositional argument, including rules and appeals to reach agreement on an issue