Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

The Palestinians may be turning to the international courts to advance their bid for statehood, but they have lost a first battle in the US courts that could cost them dearly.

Monday’s US ruling was hailed by Israel as a “moral victory”, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying it showed the “hypocrisy” of the Palestinian attempt to join the International Criminal Court to sue Israel for alleged war crimes.

 

Source: Yahoo News, 24th Feb, accessed 17:18.

I’m tired of hearing that not all Muslims are terrorists or jihadists. That may be true, but it’s also irrelevant.

When Islamic terrorists in the Gaza strip launch Kassam rockets at civilians in Israel, the Iron Dome defensive missile system tracks it and launches a counter-missile which destroys it before it lands. We need to develop our own Iron Dome defensive system so that we can neutralise incoming rockets before they do any damage. In this case, it is easily done.

Let’s think about this logically: It may be true to say that not all cats have marmalade coloured fur, but that doesn’t mean there are no marmalade coloured cats, or that there isn’t one wandering around Chartwell right now, in accordance with Churchill’s wishes. As anyone can see by visiting Chartwell’s page on the National Trust website, Jock VI is a real cat. He exists, and there are others like him.

Anyone willing to accept that Jock VI is living at Chartwell can construct an Iron Dome defensive system capable of taking out this particular Kassam, and they can activate that system as soon as an incoming rocket appears on the horizon.

Square of Opposition

Square of Opposition

As we can see from the square of opposition, the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is a contradictory of the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists”. What this means is that both propositions cannot be true at the same time, and both propositions cannot be false. So if the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is false, then the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists” must be true.

Now, if someone says that not all Muslims are terrorists, they are asserting that, where the subject term is “Muslims” and the predicate term is “terrorists”, the A proposition (All S are P) is false. What are we to make of this?

All S are P - A proposition - smaller

All S are P – If this is false, what does that mean?

The intellectual terrorists who fire this Kassam rocket want to kill any serious enquiry into the nature of Islamic terrorism. However, we can shoot down this particular rocket by reminding ourselves that if that A proposition is false, all that means is that the O proposition (Some S are not P) is true: Some Muslims are not terrorists.

Some S are not P

Some S are not P – so what?

What we need to understand is that even if that O proposition is true, this does not refute the assertion that some Muslims are terrorists. If we take that logical point on board, then we will be able to shoot that Kassam rocket down, and the I proposition ‘some Muslims are terrorists’, where the subject term is not distributed, will remain untouched.

Where the subject term is "Muslims" and the predicate term is "terrorists" - Some S are P

The I proposition – Some S are P

So if you switch on the TV and see Muslims killing an unarmed British soldier on the streets of London, or shooting kids outside a school in Toulouse, or killing a soldier in Ottowa, or murdering people in their Paris office for drawing some pictures they didn’t like, you can believe your own eyes. People are dying in terrorist attacks all around the world, and radical Muslims are doing the killing.

After the next Islamic terrorist attack, if anyone tells you that the perpetrators could not have been Muslims because “not all Muslims are terrorists” then fire up your Iron Dome and blow that Kassam rocket clean out of the sky.