Just to answer your other post > do you think Mohammed Atta was a terrorist
I think he was a terrorist, but he's not a convicted terrorist. I don't believe he's been convicted of anything to this day.
> Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power.
Like I said, the definition of terrorism presented was characterized as "well accepted", but as I predicted, you've now presented an amendment to what was already purported to be definitional. If the definition given by the other poster isn't the well accepted one, how can I be sure yours is? How are you sure it is?
Your own definition of "Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power" is equally unsatisfactory. Governments bring violence specifically against their own civilians all the time to gain political power.
In fact, the Snopes article provides what I would say is a generally accepted definition of terrorism, 18 USC § 2331(5), which offers a concise framework we can use to evaluate the case of Rosenberg. Crucially, applying this framework would require facts that have not been established in a court of law. You can say to yourself that the application of the facts fit this code as you see them, and that's valid. But at the same time this code is not a criminal statute, and moreover itself contains a subjective assessment of intent -- "...appear to be intended...". Therefore it's quite hard to get from "I think this person is a terrorist" to "this person is a convicted terrorist".
So I would say that the general accepted definition of terrorism actually is itself subjective, and would hinge heavily on the issue of proving intent, or at least the appearance of intent.
> their audience was acting in good faith.
Please stick to the topic, let's not turn this into personal attacks, thank you.
> likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism
Literally I'm not. You can't even agree with the other poster with your definition, or the US Code for that matter. Within the span of 3 posts we now just as many "definitions" for terrorism.
And anyway, we are not talking abut common definitions here, we are talking about criminal statutes when the word "convicted" is thrown into the mix. I simply reject the notion that "convicted terrorist" was meant as anything other than "someone convicted of terrorism". And we really don't have to speculate on the intent of that phrase, because the next sentence of the post under fact check was:
She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc
Which is a flat out not true. She was not convicted for those acts. It's true she was convicted of possessing weapons and bombs. It's true she was convicted for having forged documents. It's not true she was convicted for terrorism, and it's not true she was convicted for a single bombing, let alone three. Given this, I don't see how anything other than a mixed verdict is okay.
> I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.
If you don't want to engage with me, or the other poster doesn't want to, neither of you have to stick around. I'm happy to keep talking about this issue, but please keep the personal attacks to a minimum, thanks.
In fact if you want to know what my football team is, I'm a pacifist and I find the Weather Underground and its members abhorrent. Rather than assume things about me and using those assumptions to draw conclusions about my intentions, you could have just asked me my personal opinions. If I'm rooting for a football team here, it would be the team of nuance in political discussions, rather than labeling people "convicted terrorist" and "convicted for ... bombing[s]" when they literally are not.
> as I predicted, you've now presented an amendment to what was already purported to be definitional.
Please read the post you’re replying to, which specifically addressed this point.
> let's not turn this into personal attacks
You have not been personally attacked. I insisted you were an intelligent person and understood the logical conclusion that terrorism has to be targeted at civilians, and your actions are in bad faith. Criticising your actions is not a personal attack.
Why? What specifically did I say that is taken in bad faith? I've engaged with all your points, I've replied to you extensively, I've given responses with citations and spoken directly to the facts in front of us... and yet you say that my intent here is to deceive? How is that not attacking me, if you are saying my intent in posting here is deceptive? This sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. I'd prefer to stick to arguments relating to the actual Snopes article, and not your interpretation of my intentions.
If you really think I'm acting in bad faith, why are you still engaged in this conversation?
> Please read the post you’re replying to, which specifically addressed this point.
It really didn't, and neither did you. Let's just back up a step and get some perspective. The original claim under fact check was this:
“This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc.”
Let's sidestep the fact that the second sentence is flat out wrong; Rosenberg was not convicted for any bombings.
Your problem with the Snopes result of "mixed" is that it hinges on the idea that the definition of domestic terrorism is not universal or well accepted, making the determination that she's a terrorist subjective. You are arguing that there is in fact a generally well-accepted definition of terrorism. In support of your position, you proffered a definition that you claimed is a "logical conclusion" and flatly asserted it's generally well-accepted. Notably, you have not provided a citation for your claim, you haven't provided a proof (I assume you have a logical proof, since you said it's a logical conclusion), and you haven't grappled with the fact that your definition is so broad that it applies to literally all governments on Earth.
If you want to assert that your definition of terrorism is generally well-accepted, then prove it. Presumably you can do so without calling me disingenuous. If you can't, then I think you need to reevaluate your original premise: that there's one generally accepted definition of terrorism.
--
Here's my bottom line:
I have a problem with Susan Rosenberg and what she did. However, I would never describe her as a "convicted terrorist" because she wasn't convicted of terrorism. I also wouldn't describe her as being convicted of bombings because she wasn't convicted of bombings. This alone makes the "mixed" fact check verdict well-deserved, and frankly I would be very concerned if a fact checker labeled a thing as "true" which is demonstrably not.
I think it's important to point out that this individual harbors a violent past, but I don't think it's okay to misrepresent her past in doing so. I think the original tweet is deceptive, lacks context, and lacks sourcing; and I think the Snopes article is very thorough, nuanced, and well-sourced. It does not attempt to exonerate or white wash Rosenberg's actions, and actually provides a great summary of all the relevant facts. Reading this article, I am left with a very negative portrait of a violent person, whose past nevertheless was exaggerated and misrepresented in the original tweet. Her past is violent and problematic enough without misrepresenting it.
In short: fewer inflammatory tweets, and more well-sourced nuanced fact checks like the linked Snopes article would benefit political discourse greatly.
>"If I'm rooting for a football team here, it would be the team of nuance in political discussions, rather than labeling people "convicted terrorist" and "convicted for ... bombing[s]" when they literally are not. "
What bugs me the most about this is that someone out there was trying to raise awareness about this person's background. But apparently, they made the fatal mistake of using the word "convicted" and now everyone is fixating on that as the linchpin of the argument. Not only does it feel like misdirection, it feels like missing the forest for the trees.
Using the word "convicted" was not a mistake. They could have raised awareness about Rosenberg's background without lying about it. But sure, let's agree right now that saying "convicted terrorist" was an unfortunate mistake. How do you justify the next sentence:
She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc.
Talk about misdirection, this is 100% false. She was not convicted for any of those bombings. Not in any way, shape, or form. How do you square a perceived innocent intent of the first sentence with this doozy of a lie in the second sentence, which obviously serves to bolster the claim of "convicted terrorist".
I agree it's important to make clear the history of violent people, and to avoid them when possible. At the same time I would say that mischaracterizing and overstating their past is not a good way to do so credibly. Perhaps that may cause people to miss the forest for the trees, but that's all the more reason to keep one's statements moored to facts.
>"In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers’ Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI’s office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
>"However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign."
There we go, people are 100% factually incorrect on the claim that she was a convicted terrorist because of the 1983 bombing. Etch it into stone.
As far as actually evaluating the core message, though, the person on Twitter who wrote this is largely accurate and I am confident I know why that person on Twitter used the word "convicted". This is because she was actually convicted charges that any reasonable person would likely categorize under terrorism:
>"Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: “Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents …; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) …; carrying explosives during commission of a felony"
As for the specific claim that she was convicted for the Capitol bombing, yes, you're right she was never actually convicted for the 1983 event. However prosecutors believed they had sufficient evidence to charge her for her involvement with it and those charges were ultimately dropped on a plea deal. I can see how an average person would use the words they did when trying to warn about this person. The majority of people making statements about anything are not subjecting their words to the kind of legalistic rigor required to satisfy a fact-checker.
>"How do you square a perceived innocent intent of the first sentence with this doozy of a lie in the second sentence, which obviously serves to bolster the claim of "convicted terrorist".
I really don't think it is that much of a doozy of a lie, to be absolutely honest. It is wrong - as has been proven, extensively at this point - but it is not the same kind of "categorically, undeniably wrong with absolutely 0 relation to the heart of the matter" kind of wrong that I sense is being thrown around.
> It is wrong - as has been proven, extensively at this point - but it is not the same kind of "categorically, undeniably wrong with absolutely 0 relation to the heart of the matter" kind of wrong that I sense is being thrown around.
> As far as actually evaluating the core message, though, the person on Twitter who wrote this is largely accurate
But also in very critical and important ways quite inaccurate and therefore misleading. Hence the Snopes rating of the overall claim as "mixed" rather than "false" or "true". Again, I don't see the problem with the fact check. Even you admit that it's not 100% true. Okay, and I've admitted it's not 100% false either. Great. The verdict is "mixed". I think we're in agreement here.
> I am confident I know why that person on Twitter used the word "convicted". This is because she was actually convicted charges that any reasonable person would likely categorize under terrorism
If that were the case, why didn't they cite her actual convictions to bolster the claim of "convicted terrorist"? Instead of sticking to the facts, they instead say she was convicted for things that she wasn't. If the crimes for which she was convicted are enough to prove to any reasonable person she is a terrorist, why did this person lie about her convictions?
This may not have been an intentional lie. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the person who tweeted this was just wrong and conflated her history and record. I know the average person knows the words "indicted, charged, convicted, exonerated" etc. but probably can't actually tell you what they mean from a legal standpoint. I feel bad returning to the position of "meaningfully correct, yet technically incorrect" but that's what I sense is really going on. Someone on Twitter said something, it got fact-checked 'till-kingdom-come and now people have wildly different takeaways primarily based on the wording of the communiqué rather than the events it is trying to communicate about.
But if that's the worry, I don't see how this Snopes article actually runs counter to the intent of the original Tweet. If the intent of the tweet was to show that Susan Rosenberg is dangerous, then the Snopes article does a fantastic job of achieving that goal. The tweet was "meaningfully correct, yet technically incorrect", but the fact check was "meaningfully correct, as well as technically incorrect". That's the best kind of correct.
The Snopes article gives ample background context, goes over all the alleged crimes in detail, and it's all fully sourced! It's very hard to come away from this Snopes fact check concluding that Susan Rosenberg is not a dangerous individual.
I think he was a terrorist, but he's not a convicted terrorist. I don't believe he's been convicted of anything to this day.
> Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power.
Like I said, the definition of terrorism presented was characterized as "well accepted", but as I predicted, you've now presented an amendment to what was already purported to be definitional. If the definition given by the other poster isn't the well accepted one, how can I be sure yours is? How are you sure it is?
Your own definition of "Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power" is equally unsatisfactory. Governments bring violence specifically against their own civilians all the time to gain political power.
In fact, the Snopes article provides what I would say is a generally accepted definition of terrorism, 18 USC § 2331(5), which offers a concise framework we can use to evaluate the case of Rosenberg. Crucially, applying this framework would require facts that have not been established in a court of law. You can say to yourself that the application of the facts fit this code as you see them, and that's valid. But at the same time this code is not a criminal statute, and moreover itself contains a subjective assessment of intent -- "...appear to be intended...". Therefore it's quite hard to get from "I think this person is a terrorist" to "this person is a convicted terrorist".
So I would say that the general accepted definition of terrorism actually is itself subjective, and would hinge heavily on the issue of proving intent, or at least the appearance of intent.
> their audience was acting in good faith.
Please stick to the topic, let's not turn this into personal attacks, thank you.
> likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism
Literally I'm not. You can't even agree with the other poster with your definition, or the US Code for that matter. Within the span of 3 posts we now just as many "definitions" for terrorism.
And anyway, we are not talking abut common definitions here, we are talking about criminal statutes when the word "convicted" is thrown into the mix. I simply reject the notion that "convicted terrorist" was meant as anything other than "someone convicted of terrorism". And we really don't have to speculate on the intent of that phrase, because the next sentence of the post under fact check was:
Which is a flat out not true. She was not convicted for those acts. It's true she was convicted of possessing weapons and bombs. It's true she was convicted for having forged documents. It's not true she was convicted for terrorism, and it's not true she was convicted for a single bombing, let alone three. Given this, I don't see how anything other than a mixed verdict is okay.> I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.
If you don't want to engage with me, or the other poster doesn't want to, neither of you have to stick around. I'm happy to keep talking about this issue, but please keep the personal attacks to a minimum, thanks.
In fact if you want to know what my football team is, I'm a pacifist and I find the Weather Underground and its members abhorrent. Rather than assume things about me and using those assumptions to draw conclusions about my intentions, you could have just asked me my personal opinions. If I'm rooting for a football team here, it would be the team of nuance in political discussions, rather than labeling people "convicted terrorist" and "convicted for ... bombing[s]" when they literally are not.