7/7 bombers 'used charity cash'

[tbaldwin]

Dravinian, do you consider the invasion of a sovereign nation with the explicit aim to kill its president and government and knowing it will cost the lives of countless innocent citizens an act of State Terrorism?

salaam.

Wasnt Germany a sovereign nation in 1945?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course the label Terrorist is a value-judgement, you judge the value of the evidence presented. You talk about oppression and reactions to it, but how can you judge that level of oppression without making a value-judgement.

You can judge it as neutrally as possible, that's how you can judge it.

To be honest, I am not even sure what is the opposition to the term. It explains how we create opinions and decisions, we look at the evidence, we make value-judgements on that evidence and we create an opinion.

Why is there debate on this?

I think you need to look up what "value judgement" actually means. It's not , as you appear to think, about the "value" (or worth) of evidence, it's about how your pre-existing opinions, values and prejudices affect the judgement you make.

 

[Dravinian]

I asked for yours. What do you call it.

salaam.

As I said it is a matter of perspective.

You have asked a hypothetical question, with very few bits of information.

Given ONLY the information you have provided it sounds like State Terrorism, but you have hardly been verbose in your description, in fact, you could argue that you have specifically presented a case that realistically can only ever be described as State Terrorism by cherry picking the facts that lead to that conclusion.

 

[Dravinian]

You can judge it as neutrally as possible, that's how you can judge it.


I think you need to look up what "value judgement" actually means. It's not , as you appear to think, about the "value" (or worth) of evidence, it's about how your pre-existing opinions, values and prejudices affect the judgement you make.

Seems both are in operation. I got this when I checked.

value judgment
n.
A judgment that assigns a value, as to an object or action; a subjective evaluation.

value judgment
Noun
a personal opinion about something based on an individual's beliefs and not on facts which can be checked or proved.

I was using the former version of it, but I can see how it could have raised some confusion, I was unaware of the latter use of the word.

eta - really though, its a bit of a faux confusion isn't it? I mean, if you look at the original sentence in which I made use of the term value judgement, it really doesn't make any sense if you use the second meaning of the word.

I said.

I don't know enough about him (Ben Gurion) to make a value judgement.

I don't know enough about him to have a personal opinion based not on facts but my beliefs.

Doesn't really make any sense does it?

If you use the other meaning.

I don't know enough about him to assign any value to his actions.

It seems to make a little more sense.

So really, is this confusion real, or just institgated to create discord and disagreement.

 

[Aldebaran]

As I said it is a matter of perspective.

You have asked a hypothetical question, with very few bits of information.

Given ONLY the information you have provided it sounds like State Terrorism, but you have hardly been verbose in your description, in fact, you could argue that you have specifically presented a case that realistically can only ever be described as State Terrorism by cherry picking the facts that lead to that conclusion.

There is no cherry picking in my descripton.

If the government of a nation orders the invasion of an other sovereing nation without being attacked by that nation first and with - at that - the aim to murder its president and government and knowing - like everyone with a functioning brain would - these orders in fact are ordering the killing of uncountable other citizens of that nation, that government commits acts of terrorism and all who give them their support are supporters of terrorism.

Nothing as simple as that. Do you agree?

salaam.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There is no cherry picking in my descripton.

If the government of a nation orders the invasion of an other sovereing nation without being attacked by that nation first and with - at that - the aim to murder its president and government and knowing - like everyone with a functioning brain would - these orders in fact are ordering the killing of uncountable other citizens of that nation, that government commits acts of terrorism and all who give them their support are supporters of terrorism.

Nothing as simple as that. Do you agree?

salaam.

Well, it isn't quite as easy as that, really, is it? (I know that the subtleties will confuse Dravinian, but ignore him for the moment.)

I am in the situation where a group of people in control of the country that I live in decided to instigate a war, invade another country and kill a load of people for their own monetary and political goals. I was obviously not consulted over this, it was not done in my interests and I do not recall ever giving that activity my support, either explicit or implicit. Nevertheless they continue to use money that they extract from me with threats of force to do this.

The opportunities that I have to change this policy range from mostly convenient but not very effective (marches, angry posts on blogs) to incredibly disruptive (basically, everyday civil disobedience and revolutionary activity, and you know what that gets you, in any state). I am only human and I would like the chance to get on with my life, and thus I tend not to go for the latter.

Does that make me - and I am just pointing myself out as a typical citizen, here, it isn't personal - a supporter of terrorism? It makes me somebody who is not prepared to do their utmost to defeat terrorism, certainly.

 

[Aldebaran]

If you didn't support their actions, silently or outspoken, you are not to blame since you have no direct control over what your government decides. They were elected before you could have known about this.

Suppose someone who did support this war now says: I didn't know they lied over their "reasons" and that is why I supported them and I had no idea about International Law. That is an argument creating an opening for constructive debate on condition it comes with a change in position. It doesn't absolve from guilt though. Only those who have an abnormally low IQ range can be excused for not reasoning like can be expected of an adult.

salaam.

 

[Dravinian]

There is no cherry picking in my descripton.

If the government of a nation orders the invasion of an other sovereing nation without being attacked by that nation first and with - at that - the aim to murder its president and government and knowing - like everyone with a functioning brain would - these orders in fact are ordering the killing of uncountable other citizens of that nation, that government commits acts of terrorism and all who give them their support are supporters of terrorism.

Nothing as simple as that. Do you agree?

salaam.

you could argue that you have specifically presented a case that realistically can only ever be described as State Terrorism by cherry picking the facts that lead to that conclusion.

What about that sentence did you not get? Of course I agree, given the stipulations that you have provided.

However, those stipulations have no bearing on reality, since nothing is ever that black and white.