why must we take sides - either the US or terrorism?

cannot understand why whenever we get into a debate if someone levels a criticism at the US they are instantly accused of condoning terrorism, and if someone is against anything that could be construed as islamic they are instantly accused of being a supporter of the US.
firstly there is a whole world out there that does not necessarily revolve around the muslim faith or the US, believe it or not there are other pressing issues.
yet we always get bogged down in the same silly quarrel e.g. - 'oh you are against what the israeli army are doing to palestinians so you hate the US and think terrorism is ok!'
why must it always come down to this?

 

I think it's because the people supporting the war and supporting Israel don't actually have any decent logical argument to support what they think. So they try to make out that the only reason people can be against the war or against Israel taking land is not because it's wrong, But because they side with the "others".

"you are either with us, Or with them" is a bifurcation fallacy (black & white fallacy or false dichotomy). It's a fallacy where someone presents an argument stating that there are only two possible outcomes. If you are against american occupation of Iraq you must be with the terrorists, If you don't support Israel stealing land you must be with fundamentalist muslims.

 

stOx is on the money. They use the pre-requisite argument that the only way to protect America is interventionism in the Middle East, and so therefore if you are opposed to the interventionism we are practicing in supporting Israel, and policing the Iraqi state, then clearly you are against stopping terrorism.

What these people fail to argue (and always avoid debating) is whether or not interventionism is an effective foreign policy in the fight against terrorism. A lot of people in this forum would argue that a strong defense policy at home, and using smaller, more targeted attacks on terrorism would be the best way to defeat it, but debates on the subject never go anywhere because the other side pre-supposes the idea that we must fight over there, with the massive army we have over there now, to mount any effective defense against terrorism. Until the pro-war side will be willing to debate the merits of preemption vs non-interventionism, threads on the war will go nowhere since they are using, as stOx said,a false dichotomy to support their argument.

 

theres the problem....

Its ok, we all know who you support....death to the infidels and jihad forever, right?

 

See what i mean? This guy probably don't even know what a logical fallacy is. So instead of educating himself and possibly getting to the point where he can raise a grown up logical argument to support what what he thinks he simply comes in to the thread and confirms what everyone else had been saying. Thanks for being a perfect example of the idiocy we were talking about.

 

Actually, thank you...please go back and read my post. In that post, you will see that I did not take any side, nor did I even attempt to take a side. However, I did make a statement that got you all riled up, which goes to show that the ones that really cause the divide are the ones that are easily offended...that is what is happening here. I offended you and your buds, and you got all riled up over it. In this case, you proved your own point.

 

So you use a logical fallacy to defend your point (albeit it seems you intended it more for humor), stOx says "see what I mean, these are the tactics they use", and he's the one in the wrong for getting riled up?

You have to understand, even if you intended it for comedic effect, we don't take someone bringing our patriotism into question lightly. Both our sides agree that actions must be taken to defend against the threat of terrorism, but we want a healthy debate of what the proper action is, so we get offended when your side resorts to the logical fallacy he's referring to. I can only assume you would be offended if I suggested that an interventionist policy in the Middle East is because Christians are trying to bring about the Rapture and end times. That's not true though, you guys truly believe it's a necessary action to save our country. So why should you have to take the time to defend against a ridiculous accusation, when you could actually be debating the topic at hand?

 

You don't need to take sides. Your post implied that because im against the war and against israeli occupation that i would be on the side of islamic extremists, That is exactly the kind of idiocy we were talking about.

 

Oh c'mon now you are a terrorist supporter, you condone firing missiles into Israel. Don't make me get the links to your posts stating such as you will look like a liar.

 

These primitive animals also display the ability to lie and fabricate. Quite an interesting specimen, Almost human. Sadly they don't yet display the ability to read simple English, otherwise they wouldn't continue to use the logical fallacy we preciously pointed out to support their arguments.

 

you don't have to...I already have them...

now stox, care to defend that "logical fallacy" as you call it??

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3467367&postcount=37
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3464145&postcount=24

 

You mean the bit where i said "I defend their cause, Not their actions. I have mearly explained the reasons they may have taken those actions."

Show me where i "condone firing missiles into Israel". Liar.
Your inability to read exposes you as a liar time and time again.

 

Now that's interesting, if anyone were to read this whole post including the quote you replied to:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showp...5&postcount=24

In fact heres the post:

 

So he said he doesn't support their actions, and then said supporting their actions would be better than supporting the execution... by American forces. Sounds like he made clear he doesn't support their actions, but that American's actions are more reprehensible in either case.

 

Both are sick, neither is better, only if you sided with one would you say one is better

 

So you are admitting that i didn't in fact say i supported firing missiles in to israel, And actually said the exact opposite? Anyone who reads the thread posted can see exactly what i said. The very first line is "I defend their cause, Not their actions."

As for the other bit you quoted. The point i was making is that american forces are supposed to be the good guys. We expect the baddies to kill people, don't we? So when our "brave boys" take to raping and murdering children like a bunch of psychopathic paedophiles, It disturbs me that nobody should take offence to that.

 

The US fired missles into Iraq for 10 years before invading. Were they terrorists?

The death count of Iraqi CIVILIANS is rumored to be over 300,000. Does that make AMERICA terrorist?

I'm not arguing for either side, just reminding everyone that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The lines of morality and righteousness are quite blurred. Which is why calling someone a terrorist supporter, more times than not, is just a tactic used in this forum to dumb down the conversation and spark flame wars.

 

it is interesting that as soon as the word 'israel' is mentioned everyone gets so churned up. i mean it is in the middle east, it is not a US state, so what is the deal here? in britain we don't take it so personally if someone has a go at israel over its military incursions into palestinian territories, and we certainly don't claim that anyone who critisizes israel is condoning terrorism.
i can speak out against the loss of innocent lives caused by israel against palestinians and equally the loss of innocent lives caused by hamas against israel. there is no need to be either for or against, we need to take a balanced look at this conflict, otherwise we are fanning the flames.

 

I'm not gathering that he/she was offended.

To me, this statement seems pretty black and white. I highly doubt that there are many people that want "jihad forever". There are those that have very strong views against the US or "the west" or "those that are not with them, are against them", but most probably do not hold these views.

With that thought, it seems we may have our own extremists...

My point is, most people hold fairly moderate views. Most probably do not want to kill other people and would rather live a healthy and happy life. Unfortunately, there are those in the world, in every country, that do not share this way of thinking. That's not to say that people don't change their way of thinking, especially when they are living in a hostile environment or are being continually wronged by others. Just the same, I think most people are relatively peaceful.

 

Jude:

Members of the Republican party over several decades have developed and refined this technique.

Behind it is a sort of argument that at its core is "my way or the highway".

Just do what I want is the bottom line. Any dissent will be characterized as being anti-American and immediately pro-terrorist.

It is a methodology to eliminate or marginalize all dissent or criticism. Ultimately it is a method currently used to limit all decisions on all aspects of any foreign policy issue to the exclusive domain of the administration.

It is limiting, dangerous, and of course brings all debate to the point of stupidity.