Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded

spud_meister · Mar 24, 2011

j-mac said:
Ok, what do you see it biases to be?

The bias comes from sentences like this:

Israeli police blamed Palestinian militants, calling the blast a "terrorist" attack.

Putting terrorist in quotes, as though it's something else, that, and similar sentences are the bias.

roll your eyes all you want, fact is fact.

It was ridiculous partisanship that has no bearing on the discussion.

That in itself is just the first sign....but you know that already and are employing a rather transparent tactic....It should be named the "Wha....? Nooooo...." tactic. A fallacy. now if you really want to talk about the despicable act that some Palestinian carried out on innocents then by all means, but at least find a fair article to start from.

j-mac

Sorry, what fallacy am I committing? And are you denying it was the first terrorist attack in several years in Jerusalem? That the statement wasn't anything but a fact?

nonpareil · Mar 24, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Then according to you people shouldn't throw the label murderer either at people who deliberately kill innocent people, and instead we should treat them the same as we do with people who accidently cause the deaths of other people. For example, a person who crashed into another person's car and killed him in a road accident will be called the same as a person who sneaks into a person's house and murders him with multiple knife stabs as he's sleeping.

Admit it, there is no logic to your claims here that there is no difference between terrorism and an accidental cause of death during war. It's merely because of a radical political agenda that you choose to promote such illogical claims to begin with.

Did I say anything about treating people? The Law clearly says what are the sentences for "1st degree Murder", "2nd degree Murder", "manslaughter", "self defence" etc. If the court found that it's "murder", then I would say its "murder" since that's the correct legal term. It's illogical to claim that it's anything else when relating the conviction. Before that isn't it better to use the term "kill" or "attack" since they describe exactly what happens.

The term "murder" is also being used as an emotional label by the pro-life to attack the pro-choice.

"Terrorism" also has its legal definition, but as it's used by most people, it's an emotional term to label "them" from "us". We know American courts have convicted people of terrorism associated with 911 and we all agree with it, not saying it can happen or that I would want it to happen, but what if American pilots were held to trial in an Iraqi Court and found guilty of "terrorism"? Would any of us accept it? I highly doubt that.

Talking about logic or the lack of one, nice try with the ad hominem, what "radical political agenda" do I have?

Apocalypse · Mar 25, 2011

nonpareil said:
Did I say anything about treating people? The Law clearly says what are the sentences for "1st degree Murder", "2nd degree Murder", "manslaughter", "self defence" etc. If the court found that it's "murder", then I would say its "murder" since that's the correct legal term. It's illogical to claim that it's anything else when relating the conviction. Before that isn't it better to use the term "kill" or "attack" since they describe exactly what happens.

The term "murder" is also being used as an emotional label by the pro-life to attack the pro-choice.

"Terrorism" also has its legal definition, but as it's used by most people, it's an emotional term to label "them" from "us". We know American courts have convicted people of terrorism associated with 911 and we all agree with it, not saying it can happen or that I would want it to happen, but what if American pilots were held to trial in an Iraqi Court and found guilty of "terrorism"? Would any of us accept it? I highly doubt that.

Talking about logic or the lack of one, nice try with the ad hominem, what "radical political agenda" do I have?

Are you suggesting that there's any doubt that this was a terrorist attack?
Because that would be answering your question in the last sentence quite perfectly so.
I also don't remember when a court of law has decided that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, so does that mean according to you that it cannot be considered as such?
Once more, simply admit that logic was not a factor in your choice to make those repulsive claims.

nonpareil · Mar 25, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Are you suggesting that there's any doubt that this was a terrorist attack?

I replied to a post about the use of the term "militants" as being a rationalisation. You chose to reply to my post, so I assume you have at least followed what it was in reply to.

Because that would be answering your question in the last sentence quite perfectly so.

It doesn't. So what "radical political agenda" do I have?

I also don't remember when a court of law has decided that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, so does that mean according to you that it cannot be considered as such?

Wrong. Indictment of ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI

Once more, simply admit that logic was not a factor in your choice to make those repulsive claims.

Once again you would rather depend on fallacy rather than using logic and fact to refute my arguements. To claim that "terrorism" is used as an emotional label is a "repulsive claim"? And you want to claim an upperhand on logic?

alexa · Mar 25, 2011

spud_meister said:
The bias comes from sentences like this:

Putting terrorist in quotes, as though it's something else, that, and similar sentences are the bias.

In reality it is accuracy. There is no universal definition of terrorism. Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The UN tried to find one for quite some time but was unable to.

so, though you may see it as bias, in reality it is accuracy. As there is no universal legal definition of terrorism, it is accurate to put it in inverted commas.

Apocalypse · Mar 25, 2011

nonpareil said:
I replied to a post about the use of the term "militants" as being a rationalisation. You chose to reply to my post, so I assume you have at least followed what it was in reply to.

It doesn't. So what "radical political agenda" do I have?

You've claimed that terrorism is merely a term that is meant to classify people "we" (probably the West) believes are the bad guys. Thus you have clearly refused to recognize that terrorism does exist and that actions such as the one discussed in this thread are indeed acts of terrorism.

I quote: "At the end of the day, labels like terrorists are meant to classify the "good guy" VS the "bad guy" to some people, once you see through it, they mean nothing."

Disgusting.

You also drew comparison betweeen collateral damage in a war and the deliberate take of life of uninvolved innocents for political causes (Terrorism) referring to "American bombing of civilians".

Wrong. Indictment of ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI

So basically you're saying that as long as a person, an individual, is not caught and judged in a court of law and is found guilty for acts of terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism an action cannot be considered terrorism. And that's after you've claimed that terrorism is merely meant to classify the people we consider to be the bad guys. You don't seem to be decisive here.

Once again you would rather depend on fallacy rather than using logic and fact to refute my arguements. To claim that "terrorism" is used as an emotional label is a "repulsive claim"? And you want to claim an upperhand on logic?

Oh really? What fallacy was I engaging in?

spud_meister · Mar 25, 2011

alexa said:
In reality it is accuracy. There is no universal definition of terrorism. Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The UN tried to find one for quite some time but was unable to.

so, though you may see it as bias, in reality it is accuracy. As there is no universal legal definition of terrorism, it is accurate to put it in inverted commas.

Indeed, but if they were questioning the accuracy of the statement, why not put "terrorist attack" in the inverted commas, rather than just the identifier of terrorist? And a search of the MSNBC site reveals that they don't use the inverted commas on any other articles.

Terrorism deaths on increase - US news - Security - msnbc.com

NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period.

Terrorism up in Afghanistan, Pakistan - World news - Terrorism - msnbc.com
Yemen tense before "departure" protests versus Saleh - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

None of these articles about terrorism use the inverted commas.

nonpareil · Mar 25, 2011

Apocalypse said:
You've claimed that terrorism is merely a term that is meant to classify people "we" (probably the West) believes are the bad guys. Thus you have clearly refused to recognize that terrorism does exist and that actions such as the one discussed in this thread are indeed acts of terrorism.

I quote: "At the end of the day, labels like terrorists are meant to classify the "good guy" VS the "bad guy" to some people, once you see through it, they mean nothing."

Disgusting.

You also drew comparison betweeen collateral damage in a war and the deliberate take of life of uninvolved innocents for political causes (Terrorism) referring to "American bombing of civilians".

So basically you're saying that as long as a person, an individual, is not caught and judged in a court of law and is found guilty for acts of terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism an action cannot be considered terrorism. And that's after you've claimed that terrorism is merely meant to classify the people we consider to be the bad guys. You don't seem to be decisive here.

I don't like to engage with people who do not care to read my post with honesty. If you prefer to twist my words rather than make actual arguements, you can enjoy it on your own.

Oh really? What fallacy was I engaging in?

Appeal to emotion.

Apocalypse · Mar 25, 2011

nonpareil said:
I don't like to engage with people who do not care to read my post with honesty. If you prefer to twist my words rather than make actual arguements, you can enjoy it on your own.

I was directly quoting your words, your decision to withdraw from them instead of standing for what you said merely points out that you too understand you were wrong. Fine with me.

alexa · Mar 25, 2011

spud_meister said:
Indeed, but if they were questioning the accuracy of the statement, why not put "terrorist attack" in the inverted commas, rather than just the identifier of terrorist?

I do not think anyone could deny it was an attack. Indeed the BBC wrongly reported this by saying that the attack was being blamed on 'militants'. Instead of putting inverted commas on the word 'terrorist' which would have looked somewhat daft on our tv screens, they changed the word. That does show a different orientation but whether that orientation is bias or lack of bias is a different question.

We do not know who did this crime yet and no' terrorist' organisation has claimed responsibility though it seems to be generally felt it was not Hamas. At this stage if one wants to be totally unbiased, then it has to be said that the perpetrator of the crime is unknown. When said person or people are found we will know whether they belong to a terrorist organisation or are motivated by political ends. Till then it is just guesswork, so to say it is the activity of 'terrorism' though it may be accurate has not be shown to be the case. Judging things before evidence is found for a prosecution is not very different from vigilante activity. Look what happened in response to a recent such activity Max Blumenthal

The paper avoided calling whoever did this terrorist. The reason they did it is unclear but some valid reasons would be
1. that there is no universal definition of terrorism.
2. Using the term 'terrorism' before a culprit or culprits has been found can itself be bias and give freedom for such activities as the above link.

spud_meister said:
And a search of the MSNBC site reveals that they don't use the inverted commas on any other articles.

Terrorism deaths on increase - US news - Security - msnbc.com

Terrorism up in Afghanistan, Pakistan - World news - Terrorism - msnbc.com
Yemen tense before "departure" protests versus Saleh - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

None of these articles about terrorism use the inverted commas.

There are groups who are Universally accepted as terrorist and when they have been found to have committed a crime, then clearly they are 'terrorist' crimes.

nonpareil · Mar 25, 2011

Apocalypse said:
I was directly quoting your words, your decision to withdraw from them instead of standing for what you said merely points out that you too understand you were wrong. Fine with me.

You twisted my words:

Apocalypse said:
You've claimed that terrorism is merely a term that is meant to classify people "we" (probably the West) believes are the bad guys. Thus you have clearly refused to recognize that terrorism does exist and that actions such as the one discussed in this thread are indeed acts of terrorism.

And then quote me as if it support your twisted interpretation and follow it with another emotional appeal.

What English teacher taught you that: 'labels like terrorists are meant to classify the "good guy" VS the "bad guy"' = "clearly refused to recognize that terrorism does exist and that actions such as the one discussed in this thread are indeed acts of terrorism"? At this point, I don't know if your problem is with logic or comprehension.

What next, you are going to claim I "refused to recognize" that "Murder" exists because I said the term is used by the pro-life to attack the pro-choice?

It's not surprising that you quote me out of context either. I clearly referred to how the family of those killed by Americans might feel:

nonpareil said:
America drops bombs that has killed thousand of innocents - to you that's war and collateral damage, to the family of those people, what's the difference between getting killed in their village VS in a bus to work? Why wouldn't they think Americans are the terrorists?

Answer the question: to those people, how is the fact that the people who killed their family members are military changes the reality of losing their loved ones? Have not American planes ever drop bombs that they know will kill innocent people? Why are these people less entitled to view American pilots as "terrorist" than the family of the 911 victims? Is their loss less significant? But are American pilots "terrorist"? God no. That's why the term is a subjective emotional appeal in most cases.

And to cap it off you put another spin on what I say:

Apocalypse said:
So basically you're saying that as long as a person, an individual, is not caught and judged in a court of law and is found guilty for acts of terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism an action cannot be considered terrorism. And that's after you've claimed that terrorism is merely meant to classify the people we consider to be the bad guys. You don't seem to be decisive here.

No where did I say that "as long as a person, an individual, is not caught and judged in a court of law and is found guilty for acts of terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism an action cannot be considered terrorism", "basically" or not. I don't even know where that come from, and I can't respond to such illogical reasoning because I can't follow such gaps in logic.

I can stand for what I say, but I hate wasting my time with people who prefer to spin and is dishonest.

Apocalypse · Mar 25, 2011

nonpareil said:
You twisted my words:

And then quote me as if it support your twisted interpretation and follow it with another emotional appeal.

What English teacher taught you that: 'labels like terrorists are meant to classify the "good guy" VS the "bad guy"' = "clearly refused to recognize that terrorism does exist and that actions such as the one discussed in this thread are indeed acts of terrorism"? At this point, I don't know if your problem is with logic or comprehension.

What next, you are going to claim I "refused to recognize" that "Murder" exists because I said the term is used by the pro-life to attack the pro-choice?

Not at all, but were you to claim that "Murderer is a label that is meant to classify the 'good guys' vs the 'bad guys', it means nothing" then indeed it would mean just that. It would have been just as absurd as your claim about terrorism.

You cannot compare the killing of civilians as an accident of warfare to a deliberate murder of innocent uninvolved civilians due to their nationality, from the same reason that you cannot compare the stabbing of a sleeping person to death and the killing of another person as a result of a road accident.
You may claim that the victim's family suffering will be the same in both (even though I think it's wrong) but that would not change the fact that one is a murderer and one is a person who has killed another in an accident.
Likewise, would not change the fact that one is a terrorist and one is a person who killed another in an accident during warfare.

Answer the question: to those people, how is the fact that the people who killed their family members are military changes the reality of losing their loved ones? Have not American planes ever drop bombs that they know will kill innocent people? Why are these people less entitled to view American pilots as "terrorist" than the family of the 911 victims? Is their loss less significant? But are American pilots "terrorist"? God no. That's why the term is a subjective emotional appeal in most cases.

I have already pointed out the absurdity in that claim of yours.
One casualty is an accident and another is a deliberate murder for political causes.
If we are to suggest that the two are the same, that there is no difference between terrorism and the killing of civilians by mistake during warfare, then we would abandon any kind of moral sense and would might as well claim that there is no difference between a man who kills another by accident and a man who murders. That is the meaning of your words from every single perspective, there is no denying to that, and that is what I am disgusted with.

I can stand for what I say, but I hate wasting my time with people who prefer to spin and is dishonest.

It doesn't seem like you can stand for what you say, since you've chosen to be dishonest about your own words.

nonpareil · Mar 25, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Not at all, but were you to claim that "Murderer is a label that is meant to classify the 'good guys' vs the 'bad guys', it means nothing" then indeed it would mean just that. It would have been just as absurd as your claim about terrorism.

That's exactly what the pro-life does, it's to classify them as the "Good guys" and the pro-choice as the "bad guys". So I do say that it means nothing in that context and it still doesn't mean that I'm saying that "Murder" doesn't exist. Saying something is misused is just not the same as saying something doesn't exist.

You cannot compare the killing of civilians as an accident of warfare to a deliberate murder of innocent uninvolved civilians due to their nationality, from the same reason that you cannot compare the stabbing of a sleeping person to death and the killing of another person as a result of a road accident.
You may claim that the victim's family suffering will be the same in both (even though I think it's wrong) but that would not change the fact that one is a murderer and one is a person who has killed another in an accident.

Likewise, would not change the fact that one is a terrorist and one is a person who killed another in an accident during warfare.

That's where you're wrong. You can have a second degree murder from a car accident. Accused drunken driver charged with second-degree murder in five-car crash in Ypsilanti Township - AnnArbor.com

So, I give you credit for actually trying to make a proper arguement, but it's still wrong.

I have already pointed out the absurdity in that claim of yours.

No you have not.

One casualty is an accident and another is a deliberate murder for political causes.

And how is that different to the victim family?

If we are to suggest that the two are the same, that there is no difference between terrorism and the killing of civilians by mistake during warfare, then we would abandon any kind of moral sense and would might as well claim that there is no difference between a man who kills another by accident and a man who murders. That is the meaning of your words from every single perspective, there is no denying to that, and that is what I am disgusted with.

Again back to the twisting, or maybe you just have a very illogical way to process information. No where did I say that "we would abandon any kind of moral sense and would might as well claim that there is no difference between a man who kills another by accident and a man who murders". That wasn't the meaning of my words from any perspective (well maybe except the illogcal ones you appear to pocess).

Someone calling it Murder or not, terrorism or not, doesn't change the facts. Iraqis calling American pilots (some of whom drop bombs they know will kill innocent, not just by accident) doesn't change the facts or convince Americans that there pilots are terrorists, we calling that the insurgents terrorists doesn't mean the Iraqis agree with us. All it does it make it seems as if what "they" are doing is wrong but what "we" are doing is right. There's nothing "disgusting" in pointing that out. That kind of emotional appeal is illogical and distract from the facts. If our moral value is that killing someone with intent is wrong it's still wrong, calling it "collateral damage" or "terrorism" shouldn't make a difference. You wouldn't change your mind about the wrongness of this attack just because the Palestinians call it "collateral damage", would you?

It doesn't seem like you can stand for what you say, since you've chosen to be dishonest about your own words.

Except I have not been dishonest.

Tashah · Mar 26, 2011

Moderator's Warning:

Let's dispense with the personal rhetoric.

Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

nonpareil

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

nonpareil

alexa

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

nonpareil

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

alexa

nonpareil

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

nonpareil

Tashah