Snopes acknowledges that a convicted terrorist (ie, someone that targeted civilians to enact political change) sat on the board of a BLM funding body then concludes 'mixture' because there is no universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'.
> In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
I'd like to watch them sweat if you forced them to fact check "The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists" using the same priors.
> In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions of Mohamed Atta - leading a group of young men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
It's kind of beside the point, but Mohamed Atta would never be considered a domestic terrorist. He travelled to the United States on a tourist visa, specifically to engage in terrorism. That disqualifies his actions from being 'domestic'.
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the claim was that she was a “convicted terrorist”, when in fact she was not convicted of terrorism. That’s just a fact. You can look at her convictions, and there is no conviction for terrorism.
There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it. That’s why they say it’s mixed and subjective, because there is no objective fact you can point to that would back up the position that she was convicted of terrorism. She wasn’t.
You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays.
The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective.
”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
What was this left-wing revolutionary doing with hundreds of pounds of illegal explosives? Starting a mining company?
It’s just splitting hairs to such a degree you try and weasel out of a perfectly rationale take.
It’s like saying someone is a “convicted robber” then saying the claim is “mixed” because they weren’t convicted of robbery but rather assault and theft. Well, ok, but clearly that’s a distinction unworthy of calling out?
This Snopes fact check goes into a measured analysis of the claim. It presents all sides fairly. It arrives at a conclusion that one aspect of the claim is subjective, and they aren’t wrong about that. Therefore they give split rating with caveats and context.
You and others are arguing an absolutist position that removes all the nuance, and blurs technical crimes with subjective interpretations of those crimes. Moreover, you claim those who engage with the nuance are weasels playing fuck fuck games (I know you didn’t say that but you endorsed the comment that did).
For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? No, there is a lot of nuance here that is lost if I do that.
> For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists?
If they're convicted of planning an attack on civilians then yes. How many instances of this happening do you know of?
"Convict and a robber" seems like the appropriate description to me.
They could also be convicted of any number of things, that aren't robbery.
By saying convicted robber, you're assigning more certainty to your claim that they're a robber than there is. You're trying to argue that they're a robber when you're saying somebody is a robber and they haven't been convicted of robbery. Saying that they're a convicted robber pretends that it's already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which it hasn't
I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me.
You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument?
Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. A verdict of “mixture” given this split seems appropriate.
By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective.
To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”.
Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives.
But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.
That's not a well accepted definition though. It doesn't matter if it's a civilian or military target. Any violence done by somebody without social/economic/political power on somebody with that power is labeled terrorism
Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
> > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives.
> the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
It seems you didn't read the comment you were replying to, which addresses this point.
> no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective.
That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that.
- Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement
- Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement
- Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism.
> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power.
If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law.
> the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.
Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist".
You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist".
I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?
"Susan Rosenberg sits on the board of BLM and I believe she is a terrorist." That would be a factual statement (although as the Snopes article points out there's a little bit of nuance about being on the "board" of BLM. She's on the board of a group that works closely with fundraising for BLM, but is not exactly BLM).
>> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power.
>If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government.
Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power.
> I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted.
I think it's rather than the person you're replying to assumed their audience was acting in good faith. I believe that you are an intelligent person and likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism, acts have to be specifically targeted towards civilians. 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.
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 don't know how to clearly capture my sentiment. Is there a logical fallacy for completely missing the intent of the argument because one aspect of it can be legalistically interpreted as completely invalid?
I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.
Snopes acknowledges that a convicted terrorist (ie, someone that targeted civilians to enact political change) sat on the board of a BLM funding body then concludes 'mixture' because there is no universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'.
> In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."