.Tucker Case;1059007821]I'm not confused anymore. It's clear that you are arbitrarily removing his civilian status so that you can justify an act of terrorism as being correct
All terrorists are "civilians". Do you think they follow the Geneva conventions?
I wasn't discussing his "civilian" status. Osamma bin laden is a "civilian".His rhetoric doesn't remove his civilian status.
oh, okay.I was confused because I assumed your argument was fallacy free until such a point as it became clear that it was based on logical fallacies. Now that the falalcies are clearly present, the confusion no longer exists.
It's not just "rhetoric I disagree with". He is advocating and supporting the idea of 'one brave man' who should murder 300,000 Americans. Do you agree with this "rhetoric"? This has to stop.How could they possibly determine that? It's clear that you feel that terrorism is justified when it's against civilians who espouse rhetoric you disagree with.
WhateverYou do this by dishonestly moving the goalposts on what makes a civilian to mean "innocent", which is another arbitrarily decided term on your part.
Perhaps you should point out this "fallacy".The only reason a perosn would be confused would be if they start from the presumption that your argumetns are based on sound logic instead fo fallacy.
Sure.Once they relinquish this incorrect presumption based on the fact that it is evident that your argumetns are based on fallacious reasoning, the confusion is alleviated.