I know you are talking about Otrotierra. And, since we have invoked the author’s name, I’m not sure Dr. Raheb would agree with you about Israel acting solely in self-defense.

And likewise pro-Israel factions do not see Israeli action as terrorism. It would be helpful if you could try to be objective. Or at least attempt a sympathetic reading, instead of jumping to cries of “fallacy” straight away.

No sir – as of right now you have laid out no facts. You have told Otrotierra that (s)he is guilty of moral equivalence, and then have given no proof, but have rather dodged into a pro-Israel apologetic. I am more than willing to hear your facts, but they have not yet come.

Targeted exclusively at the military? Are you aware of where the civilian casualties fell in the Israeli/Syrian war? Just today, Israeli troops demolished the only mosque in Mafqarra in the West Bank. Was that supposed to be a military target? No, destroying a mosque is not self-defense. Terror is terror, Drew, regardless of who is the perpetrator. The irony here is that you are accusing Otrotierra of moral equivalence, when (s)he calls all terror by its true name. Meanwhile, you are attempting to call all Israeli military action self-defense – which sounds an awful lot like moral equivalence to me.

If you think I have not answered your question, then you are not paying attention. Also, you are now misusing the word “bloviate” to divert the argument. I have presented more than you, at this point. Who is it that is bloviating? Quite frankly, Drew, you’re beginning to sound like Frank – heaping up the same empty phrases in the hopes that your opposition will give in out of sheer frustration. And you’re also racking up quite a score in Fallacy Bingo. You will not convince anyone of your point until you quit with your false dichotomies, and arguments ad hominem, and your moral equivalences. I like you, Drew, which is why I will not let you get away with poor argumentation. Please, try again.

I apologize – it was unfair of me to draw you into this as an example of bad arguing. Especially since you had no part in this until I rudely mentioned you.

” I’m curious to know why you are pro-terrorism and pro-Hamas; it fascinates me.” This alone proves you are not interested in discussion. You are interested in trolling with your false dichotomy. We are done here, until you are able to discuss rationally.

I will answer your question once you provide one that is not loaded. “Why do you promote terrorism” is a loaded question, and not worth my time or anyone else’s.

I say you are not listening, so your response is to say “I know you are, but what am I?” I know you can’t find this on a Wikipedia logic page, but I call that the Pee Wee Herman debate tactic (or, as some would say, “projection”).

Not only do you seek to discredit everything I say rather than discuss it, but now you are assuming my questions are “trick questions” rather than answering them. Again, a disgusting way to engage in dialogue, to discredit or avoid everything I say.

I’m ask the question one more time, and I challenge you to answer it, without avoidance or qualification or stalling or changing the topic. No more hemming and hawing, beating around the bush, crying foul… what do you define as terrorism?

I hope you realize that the struggle between us on this thread is predominately the truth that I want to have a conversation with you whereas you want to avoid having a conversation. Whereas I ask questions, you respond by evading and avoiding and answer none of my questions. Saying my answers are fallacies is not a substitute for explaining why what I am saying is fallacious; saying you can predict what I am going to say is not a substitute for actually having a conversation and listening/responding to what I say; changing the subject is no substitute for legitimately listening to my question and responding. I hope that deep down inside, you are interested in having conversation rather than trying to prove to yourself how brilliant you are by predicting the entirety of our conversation before it happens.

I was hoping for a more robust answer than “terrorism is terrorism.” Maybe this is why you avoided our conversation… you really have nothing to say. : ) However, you did give one, limited definition – attacks that target civilian populations. Finally, some “red meat” that we can discuss!

So let’s dive into this – you say that terrorism includes attacks that target civilian populations, and then point to the civilian casualties at Israeli hands. You have only proved that civilians have been killed, not that civilians have been targeted. Do you have proof that Israel targets civilians? Of course not; Israel targets terrorists.

Of course, the question remains why civilians are killed. Two primary reasons – Palestinians live in a high-density place, and that Hamas uses Mosques, Schools, Hospitals, and Humans all as shields. Hamas does this to put Israel in a lose/lose situation – if Israel doesn’t respond, Hamas wins. If Israel does respond, Hamas can win the PR battle with the extremely gullible Arab and liberal Western World.

On the flip side of this, Hamas indiscriminately has shot tens of thousands of rockets over a decade, with no target other than to hit Israel. The only reason the civilian casualties are not as high is because Hamas lacks the quality of weapons and quality of training while Israel has Iron Dome, warning systems, and other defense mechanisms.

So, by your definition of terrorism, at least in terms of civilians, you have failed to demonstrate anything. Just because civilians die does not mean they are “targeted,” and just because civilians live doesn’t mean that they weren’t “targeted.” That is pretty thin analysis of the situation, don’t you think?

Now, to the two other points you made. I cannot respond to the last one, “the terror in which Palestinians live.” Again, this is not a very robust statement, so I will wait until you have a more robust definition. The other point I will respond to is about the mosque being destroyed. Israel claims that there was no permit for the mosque to be built, and Hamas and other Islamic terrorists have a history of firing weapons from mosques. However, I do admit it odd, that if it was fully built, that they would wait until it was fully built to tear it down. Can I say definitively that the act was Israel flexing its muscle, getting revenge, or trying to terrorize Palestinians? I’m not sure I can, not unless I got more information. Right now we’re only hearing the Palestinian response, and not necessarily Israel’s rationale.

Feel free to respond how you wish, but I do ask that you respond to what I actually said before changing the subject, if you wish to take the discussion to another point.

I realize you have provided three one-time incidents. I was hoping for more robust proof or a pattern, rather than anecdotal stories, such as tens of thousands of rockets fired over a decade, hundreds of suicide bombers, and thousands of mortar rounds fired, mostly unprovoked.

Re: Types of ammunition, I’m not sure why they used white phosphorus, but Israel was still targeting terrorists. Was Israel intentionally hoping to hurt civilians, did Israel not care if they hurt civilians, or did they decide to use the ammunition they deemed fit to target the terrorists and thought that outweighed the consequences? I’m not sure.

Re: “Marked” UN Buildings, what you leave out is that Olmert claims that Islamic Terrorists were committing terrorism from that building. This demonstrates Hamas using human shields and civilian buildings, not that Israel is intentionally causing terror.

Re: Demolition of the Mosque, I already told you Israel’s response, that they did not have a license to build the mosque and that the Islamic Terrorists have frequently used mosques and built mosques for terrorism.

I’m not trying to argue that Israel has *never* done anything wrong. What I am pointing out is the lopsidedness of what is happening. The few article you find of isolated incidents on a Google search cannot compare with tens of thousands of rockets fired over a decade, hundreds of suicide
bombers, and thousands of mortar rounds fired, mostly unprovoked. I haven’t even got around to mentioning Iran, whose leader wants the genocide of Israel, and is supplying Hamas with the rockets in hope they will wipe out Israel.

I am glad that you have been unable to rebut the majority of what I have written. I think you finally realize that I had an opinion, and instead of respecting my opinion, you sought to argue against my opinion. Once you learned my rationale, you refused to rebut it, but rather, circled back to the fact that you did not like my opinion. I say that by putting Israel and Hamas in the same sentence it is equivalence and dichotomy, while you say it is not. Why not realize that we view the sentence a different way and move on?

I do have sympathy for the innocent, of course. However, I also want justice to occur, and support Israel in their Romans 13 quest to protect the citizens of Israel so that they can live the 1 Timothy 2 exultation of government providing a peaceful and tranquil life for its people.

The fact that Hamas has poor weaponry does nothing to negate the fact that they are launching tens of thousands of rockets a decade at Israel. The fact that Israel has strong weaponry does nothing to negate the fact that they are targeting military personnel and installations and that Hamas uses schools, hospitals, and civilians as human shields, because they are depraved.

I am not saying civilian casualties are acceptable, nor am I saying that we should do nothing to limit civilian casualties. What I am saying is that every war ever fought has had civilian casualties, and that there comes a point when a military response trumps potential collateral damage.

Furthermore, the civilian casualties are made worse when Hamas operates not as an army but as a terrorist organization, and civilian casualties are made worse when Hamas operates out of dense areas, mosques, hospitals, schools, and uses human shields. Should Israel tell Hamas that they will not fight Hamas as long as they fire rockets from schools or have human shields, thereby giving Hamas authority to attack Israel under certain conditions? Chew on this for a while, that the more depraved a terrorist is, the less willing you are to confront the terrorist.

Are you and Ben neighbors? Because otherwise, I don’t know how you know where Ben lives. Not that the ad hominem argument actually amounts to anything – otherwise, we could and would say the exact same of you, Drew. You are arguing from the comfort of your computer, and are completely removed from the reality of the issue. If that invalidates Ben’s argument, it invalidates yours as well.

I made no such argument, and your strawman is ill placed. My entire argument in this instance is that you have used a fallacy, and need to stop it.

Yes, Drew, I am able to detect sarcasm. And I am able to detect fallacies as well. You are using them in every single post. Please stop.

To summarize: through his sarcasm, Ben suggested that Israeli actions were indeed acts of terror. Your response was to attempt to discredit him by saying that he was “safe in his basement” and therefore knew nothing. I pointed out your fallacy, and you responded by crafting a false dichotomy where, in order for Ben to believe Israel commits acts of terror, he must support Hamas. I pointed out the strawman, and you have now responded with another ad hominem, this one attempting to discredit me because I “burn with hatred.” Now that all of your fallacies have been called out, are you prepared to use actual, logical argumentation?

“Frankly, I’m deeply disappointed and embarrassed by this dialogue.” As am I, Drew. Can we start over, with actual logic this time?

It might be helpful if someone defines terrorism