No. of Recommendations: 4
And you engage in Logical Fallacies. The one you're using is called "Appeal To Authority"
Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Not in this case, and here's why.
For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject. -and-
Legitimate Appeal to Authority. Legitimate appeals to authority involve testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is within the realm of their expertise, such as a real estate lawyer giving advice about real estate law, or a physician giving a patient medical advice.
It is indisputable that Austin is qualified - but you are welcome to try. All both you and Mike have done is make unsupported statements, and you dismissed it the ad hominem remarks.
Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution
So you committed a logical fallacy.
Here, in this instance, it is offered to support that your completely unsupported assertions were considered at the time, and these are the reasons that the military said they didn't do it.
You can, if you wish, support your assertions by showing, but are not limited to:
1. taking 5000 troops to defend it is incorrect, and have a reputable source, and/or
2. we would not have had to stay at war with Afghanistan to retain it, and /or
3. it actually was worth retaining even if 1. or 2. are true,
I have shown you the military thinking at the time, and you have shown nothing but statements. Given that it is evident that this was criticized, it should be easy for you to find some - adios.
