teajay1111... What if your house was on fire and someone ran into your burning house and rescued your whole family, and they just so happened to be some one who is totally oblivious to news or international conditions because they spend their lives rescuing people they meet. Now you just got saved and you tell them you are against the terrorist. Next you ask them if they are with you? And the person just says," the only thing I know is I am glad you and your loved ones did not burn to death. But, I don't know you and I don't know who you consider to be a terrorist so it is impossible to be with you. I must depart now to save some one else."

Is that person against you? Perhaps you ...

teajay1111... What if your house was on fire and someone ran into your burning house and rescued your whole family, and they just so happened to be some one who is totally oblivious to news or international conditions because they spend their lives rescuing people they meet. Now you just got saved and you tell them you are against the terrorist. Next you ask them if they are with you? And the person just says," the only thing I know is I am glad you and your loved ones did not burn to death. But, I don't know you and I don't know who you consider to be a terrorist so it is impossible to be with you. I must depart now to save some one else."

Is that person against you? Perhaps you have to redefine the term "against" you from time to time. Like the wind is against you but, not your enemy, just going in a different direction with a different gaol. Some people are only against you because they face you in passing and have put you behind them after they have passed by.

------------
The thing about the fallacy statements is the attempt to try to turn all word logic into math. And to top it off to try to assume that any word math type logic is suddenly a math law. Where math laws are applied to equations. Truths and fallacy are applied to statements. The statements are not necessarily facts or laws them self but conditions, and logic based sometimes on the information available and other times based on the limitations of the person who purports such logic.

For example:

False choice

The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. A modern example of this is George W. Bush's speech of 20 September, 2001, in which he said

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.[2]

The error here is that one may not want to join either camp. It is a variation of a quote by Eldridge Cleaver used during his 1968 presidential campaign: You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. which in turn was a a variation of a quote from The Guthrian seven years earlie...

read more»

For example:

False choice

The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. A modern example of this is George W. Bush's speech of 20 September, 2001, in which he said

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.[2]

The error here is that one may not want to join either camp. It is a variation of a quote by Eldridge Cleaver used during his 1968 presidential campaign: You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. which in turn was a a variation of a quote from The Guthrian seven years earlier: Every person is either part of the problem, or part of the solution.