COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[anticausal]

A rhetorical argument is a persuasive argument. Somehow you equate that as being negative. Necessarily false. It seems that you are so deeply entrenched in negativity that you embrace the things you condemn.

Terrorism is a real well defined thing. The highly leveraged use of atrocities for political gain in an asymmetric situation. You have an Army and a Navy, I have a a few suicide bombers.

I do not equate rhetoric with being necessarily false at all. I don't even know where you picked that up. I meant that your rhetoric is false. I said it is purely rhetorical. There is no logical underpinning. Could I have been any more clear?

Just because there is a definition, does not mean the word and its common usage aren't purely rhetorical, or that the definition even makes sense. By your definition what really makes terrorism terrorism is the asymmetry, not necessarily the terror. Already the definition sneakily diverges from the rhetoric. In essence, they're terrorists because they are challenging established state power. If they do it it's bad, but if the military does it in official capacity, it's justified. That's my whole fucking point. It's just a convenient way of excusing government directed terror like Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc, while also raising a specter in the shadows that can never clearly surrender or be defeated.

The situation is so convenient to a totalitarian state that making sure the terrorists never go away is clearly a very powerful strategy. But you just ignore all of this. It's as if you learned absolutely nothing new about the intentions of the US and Israeli governments since 9/11. We're just out there spreading freedom and good will, while simultaneously turning the homeland into a full fledged police state.

[Chiaki Nitya]

It is the duty of all Muslims to "Jihad" a term which means more than just "terrorism" in the cause of Allah. Jihad can be through migration, education, the establishment of the Ummah (muslim community) in foreign lands with the end of striving for an Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law and this is well underway in western counties where you will see currently that both Sunni and Shia Muslims unite to drive out Jews from Islam's 3rd most holy place Jerusalem the city of peace (which of course has never really had peace).

Islam by its very nature does not submit to any country or government that currently has a Muslim enclave. So are all Muslims terrorists? no, but Islam is.

The Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988

In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah

"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed." (Al-Imran - verses 109-111).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic world is on fire. Each of us should pour some water, no matter how little, to extinguish whatever one can without waiting for the others." (Sheikh Amjad al-Zahawi, of blessed memory).

The Hamas Covenant - Translation | MEMRI

If want to spend the time reading this stuff.

Now do the talmud

[Barry Charles]

I do not equate rhetoric with being necessarily false at all. I don't even know where you picked that up. I meant that your rhetoric is false. I said it is purely rhetorical. There is no logical underpinning. Could I have been any more clear?

Of course I can’t possibly know if you could be more clear. But for sure your distinction between rhetoric and pure rhetoric is confusing. Maybe an example?

[wal]

Now do the talmud

Sure thing.

"You can educate a fool, but you cannot make him think" Talmud

What about Samuel Clemens?

"No amount of evidence will ever persuaded a idiot." or was that Mark Twain, I always get them mixed up.

[Yngvi]

The Clown Word Axis Powers are being opposed by Putin:
According to Putin, These People Are Legit “Legitimate Military Targets” | ZeroHedge

We can only view the current Israeli situation in the context of a broader global struggle.

[Shiva Kaul]

But for sure your distinction between rhetoric and pure rhetoric is confusing. Maybe an example?

There are arguments that sound correct, and there are arguments that are actually correct. Hope this helps.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Here's a cheery little piece from Denninger: So Hell, Then.... in [Market-Ticker-Nad]

No point in quoting any of it, just read the whole thing.

[anticausal]

Of course I can’t possibly know if you could be more clear. But for sure your distinction between rhetoric and pure rhetoric is confusing. Maybe an example?

Fair criticism. It would be less complicated if we only distinguished between "honest rhetoric" and "deceptive rhetoric". The reason I used "pure rhetoric" in this case is because the rhetoric itself isn't exactly deceptive (terror is certainly involved, as it always is in existential warfare) but how the descriptor is used is misleading. I'm not convinced "pure" is the best term, but I'll stick with it for now. "Meta rhetoric" is probably better, but seems overly technical.

Words like "rebel" or "insurgent" would much more properly define the phenomenon attempting to be described, but "terrorist" is chosen purely for rhetorical reasons. And in this case those reasons happen to also be deceptive. The label in and of itself isn't necessarily deceptive, but restricting it to only define challengers of the state definitely is. The words "rebel", "insurgent" or "revolutionary" already exist and do not suffer from this problem, since they clearly mark the asymmetry in their very definitions. "Terrorist" does not. So why coin the new term?

An even better example of "pure" rhetoric is the labels used to describe certain groups. One day "negro" is perfectly acceptable until it isn't. "Latino", "oriental", etc are acceptable, and then all of a sudden they aren't. The terms are not deceptive or misleading in and of themselves, but how they are used to manipulate people certainly is.

[Barry Charles]

Fair criticism. It would be less complicated if we only distinguished between "honest rhetoric" and "deceptive rhetoric". The reason I used "pure rhetoric" in this case is because the rhetoric itself isn't exactly deceptive (terror is certainly involved, as it always is in existential warfare) but how the descriptor is used is misleading. I'm not convinced "pure" is the best term, but I'll stick with it for now. "Meta rhetoric" is probably better, but seems overly technical.

Words like "rebel" or "insurgent" would much more properly define the phenomenon attempting to be described, but "terrorist" is chosen purely for rhetorical reasons. And in this case those reasons happen to also be deceptive. The label in and of itself isn't necessarily deceptive, but restricting it to only define challengers of the state definitely is. The words "rebel", "insurgent" or "revolutionary" already exist and do not suffer from this problem, since they clearly mark the asymmetry in their very definitions. "Terrorist" does not. So why coin the new term?

An even better example of "pure" rhetoric is the labels used to describe certain groups. One day "negro" is perfectly acceptable until it isn't. "Latino", "oriental", etc are acceptable, and then all of a sudden they aren't. The terms are not deceptive or misleading in and of themselves, but how they are used to manipulate people certainly is.

I agree that rhetoric can be intentionally deceptive or honest but the defining feature is persuasiveness.

This poem is considered perfect rhetoric by the people that consider such things.

A note left on the icebox

“This is just to say - I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold“

Roughly 50% of people surveyed would accept the apology. The other 50% would have a fit? But my point is, it is rhetoric without being true or false.

Otherwise I do agree with you that the blanket label of terrorism is overplayed AND is overplayed intentionally. And while there are ongoing acts of terrorism, such as civilian hostages, we all need to tighten our statements up.

[anticausal]

Black guy in Georgia notices the fighting-age-man dump in his own community:

"These our not our people" ... "There's something about to happen"

It's becoming more obvious every day. Remember those mysterious pallets of bricks that showed up in key neighborhoods during the 2020 riots? Just assume something like that, but on a much larger and more dangerous scale.