|
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
The signature represents irony, an arduous concept to grasp, for some 
|
Quite. And yet I wonder if you even realize the full extent of the irony it holds.
| quote: |
There was nothing to reply to, it was a speculative hypothesis, encapsulated in bias. I've seen conspiracy theories with more credibility.
|
If you have no inferential or deductive challenge to my assertions, I can only interpret these vague challenges as a de facto concession of fact.
| quote: |
And what is an acceptable response? An IDF terrorist attack on Palestinian civilians perhaps? You certainly believe IDF state-sponsored terrorism is legitimate.
|
An acceptable response fulfills the following criteria:
1. It maximizes damage to responsible entities while minimizing damage to non-responsible entities to the greatest extent possible given limited reconaissance and the inherently covert nature of terrorist organizations.
2. It yeilds no concession of any kind.
| quote: |
Arbiter, i sincerely wish it was some pathetic attempt, sadly it isn't. How many lives have been lost at the hands of IDF terrorism?
|
Irrelevant. Influenza kills 50,000 people a year, but to classify the activity of the Influenza virus as terrorism is absurd. The number of lives lost at the hands of a given phenomenon is not a valid criterion upon which to classify it as terrorism. Rather, you choose to commit the fallacious argument from prejudicial language, because you obviously realize that without such emotive demagoguery your argument is easily exposed as one with little or no foundation in reason.
None of these definitions can survive even the most cursory examination.
| quote: |
Example Number 1:
Terrorism: The (1.)systematic use of (2.)violence as a means to (3.)intimidate or (4.)coerce societies or governments
(1.)Systematic: Characterized by order and planning
Is there any plan to the IDFs trips into Palestine, or is it just a fun melee?
(2.)Violence, Fairly self explanatory?
Violence:A turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction
There is not a lot of room to argue on this one
As*sas`si*na"tion\, n. The act of assassinating; a killing by treacherous violence.
(3.)Intimidation: The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do something.
(4.)Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
Societies:An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization
|
When Thich Quang Duc set himself ablaze to protest U.S. activities during the Vietnam War, he certainly planned to do so. It was also, according to the definition you've given, an act of violence, in this case against his own person. And in doing so, he was certainly attempting to coerce the U.S. into reconsidering their activities in Vietnam. However if one draws no distinction between self-immolation and suicide bombing of civilians, then one could quite rightly be said to have a most bizarre and in fact quite depraved conception of "terrorism."
| quote: |
Example Number 2:
Terrorism: The (1)unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an (2)organized group against (3)people or property with the intention of (4)intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
(1.)Unlawful: Not morally right or permissible
Unlawful: Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention
Are there laws in Israel to prevent the theft of land, to preclude the occupation of foriegn military forces, to uphold human rights?
And what of Palestines laws?
Is Israel justly acting in accoradance of International Law, and the Geneva Convention?
Extrajudicial: Beyond the usual course of legal proceedings; legally unwarranted
Assassination equates well with extrajudicial, justice outside of the law
(2.)Organized: Arrange by systematic planning and united effort
Compare this with example 1: the (1)systematic use of (2)violence
Government:The organization that is the governing authority of a political unit
Army: An organization of military land forces
(3.)People plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively
Civilians would be classified under People
Property: Any tangible possession that is owned by someone
(4.)intimidating or coercing societies or governments
Remember the words Intimidating, Coercing, Societies and Government?
|
This definition is little better. According to it, any organized rebellion is an act of terrorism. It draws no distinction between attacking military and civilian targets, but rather tries to equivocate terrorism with resistance, endeavoring to fallaciously insinuate that bombing civilians and attacking military targets are morally equivalent. The perversity of such duplicity should be obvious to even the most simple-minded freethinker.
| quote: |
Third time lucky
\Ter"ror*ism\ n. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation
Apply your new found English skills to this denotation, it's quite concise
|
Obviously the most absurd attempt, according to this definition every government in the world is guilty of "terrorism." After all, every government maintains order through varying degrees of intimidation. Does your average citizen pay their taxes because they enjoy contributing to the well-being of their society? Of course not, but rather, because they are intimidated by the fact that if they do not, they may be punished.
| quote: |
Impossible? Improbable to some maybe, for those who have an equipoise view in regards to the concept “terrorism” the definition it is quite overt.
|
No, it is quite impossible. If I were to assert that the Pacific Ocean is more voluminous than the Atlantic Ocean, and your response was that the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean are, in fact, a single body of water, then you would, by your choice not to make a distinction between the two, be making a rational discussion of the matter at hand quite impossible.
Since you seem so incapable of providing an acceptable definition of terrorism, I'll do you the favor of imparting a definition which, unlike any of yours, actually seeks to elucidate the essence of what terrorism is:
Terrorism: A policy of violence with the intent to inflict injury or death to civilians as a means to coerce the government representing the targeted citizens.
| quote: |
Great, in your own words you have just conveyed to the class the “intent” and “objectives” of Israeli state sponsored terrorism, not so impossible, is it? Now what would the “means” be? Collective Punishment? Willful killing of Civilians? “Targeted Detergence”?
|
I think I've sufficiently answerd this query above, so perhaps you'd care to answer mine: If we reward terrorists by allowing their objectives to come to fruition, can we not expect that terrorism will become an increasingly popular methodology for groups who believe themselves to have been wronged?
| quote: |
No, You're afraid that it is analogous, denial is a self defense mechanism against the epiphanic realisation that you are wrong
|
Working on those irony skills again are we? I've quite clearly demonstrated precisely why your pitiable attempt at an analogy is in fact a false analogy. You, on the other hand, don't seem interested in qualifying any of your assertions with any sort of justification at all. Perhaps that's because you've experienced the "epiphanic realisation that you are wrong", and can see that there is no justification.
| quote: |
In a certain context you are right, I'm sure you have heard of the saying “It all began with Begin” and I'm sure you are aware that the etymology of contemporary terrorism derives from jewish terrorist attacks in the Brittish Mandate of Palestine. As we travel down the timeline, Likud holds the benchmark and is a predictable bellwether for future violence.
|
Knowledge of the origins of terrorism is not particularly relevant to those who seek to eliminate it. Rather, a simple understanding of human behavior should suffice. When we reward behaviors, they become more prevalent. When we punish them, they become less prevalent. If our desire is to reduce the prevalence of terrorism, we punish terrorism.
| quote: |
Your cognitive disposition on the pertinence of the scenario is subjectively skewed towards your acculturative proselytization. The way you refute the irrefragable is merely an indoctrinated and intransigent idiosyncrasy, before rational higher brain functions like logic and reason come into the equation your subconcious mind has dictated that any criticism of the Israeli government is heresy.
|
Ad Hominem
I have no stake in the issue at hand. I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, nor to I adhere to the philosophy of any political group which has traditionally supported Israel. Even any of those assertions were true, it wouldn't be a valid form of argument to appeal to them. Your argument is fallacious in form and incorrect in its premises. In other words, it could not possibly be any weaker.
| quote: |
this argument is pointless |
Most arguments are, when one participant fails to make any attempt to justify his or her assertions, instead endeavoring to obfuscate the issue at hand with vague definitions, fallacious reasoning, and glittering generalities. Sadly, this form of degenerative rhetoric accounts for the vast majority of political discourse.
|
