[Vortex (old)]

Terrorism...

Quote

...the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

By definition, this has to be a terrorist act. I agree with what Slackin says about the new image of the word.

I also saw that on Wikipedia, it said:

Quote

At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.

Maybe this is how America can get away with lying about what happened simply to avoid mass confusion and, of course, terror.

Anyhow, all the bullshit I read about America makes me feel awfully happy to be Canadian. (Even if people resort to petty stereotypes aboot igloos, eh?)

[gr1m (old)]

Vortex, on 19 February 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

Maybe this is how America can get away with lying about what happened simply to avoid mass confusion and, of course, terror.

Anyhow, all the bullshit I read about America makes me feel awfully happy to be Canadian. (Even if people resort to petty stereotypes aboot igloos, eh?)

Yeah yeah... I have noticed that canadians and europeans never miss a chance to whine about Iraq.

Now, the thing is, I am a libertarian who was against going into Iraq.
However, I just love how some people just harp on this topic as if they really give a crap about that part of the world. You never hear these people railing for the rights of the Kurds who got gassed and nearly genocided by Hussein from these people, do you? Why? Because it doesn't make them happy in the pants like bitching about America does.
Now, my comment about caring about the Kurds or other people in that part of the world makes it sound like I supported police intervention there. I don't. I just hate hypocrites, and I like to point out when they are selective about what they harp on, and point out what I think motivates them.

[GlaD-slackin]

Lets keep it on track? This isn't about europe or canadians or iraq, this is about a TERRORIST attack that happened yesterday and the meaning of the word terrorist.

Look at the first or second post by zero, this kid is a 15 year old american boy who is wondering if its possible to define this as a terrorist attack. He is young, keep this in mind, probably 6 when 9/11 happened. And he is having trouble seeing to obvious that it is a terrorist attack despite the fact the guy was american, cause the media has brainwashed this poor kid into believing a terrorist has to be a different nationality. Pretty sad if you ask me. And the rest of you don't even care enough to actually see the REAL problem here.

Thankz to Mitsu, nexu, DJ, and vortex for keeping the topic on track as much as possible hitting points that actually matter to the topic poster, and the topic at hand.

[aI|klabauterman]

Oh man, Godwin's law confirmed below 10 posts


And about the topic?

I quote Mr. Stack:

"zombies wake up and revolt"

Indeed, it was meant as a terrorist attack.

[gr1m (old)]

The problem with defining something as "terrorism" is the politics of it.

There doesn't seem to be any way to divorce the question from politics, and there is a logically valid reason why:
The question wouldn't even get asked if not for a political will.

In other words, the only real motivation (that doesn't include a passing curiosity about what fits a definition) to ask and continue to debate about whether an even is terrorism is for reasons of motive.
That is evidenced about various comments from differing perspectives about how somethings should and shouldn't be called terrorism, and when you explore the explanations of those, you will find a desire to attack or protect political perspectives.

For example, the current administration has said that they will not use the words "war on terror" and will not classify muslim extremists who commit acts of violence as terrorists but instead as criminals... and without getting into a value judgment about their motives for this, you may find that those who agree with that decision might well be quick to call this single event by one person (not planned by a group with an agenda) a form of domestic "terrorism". Why?
Without getting into a debate about various political perspectives, the objective answer is simply that the reason why there can be apparent double standards is indeed politics itself.

So, let me finish by saying that there is no reason to start a thread like this and avoid a politically charged debate.
The question itself is inherently political.

[aI|klabauterman]

gr1m,

now a quote of Chomsky about terrorists comes into my mind.

But I won't say it coz I don't agree with him.

[mitsubishi]

when i hear those arguments about nobility i only hear 'bs bs bs bs bs', not because americans aren't noble, but because nobody is really noble; people just try to survive another day; americans in this case just got panicked and did whatever shit the bush cabal told them would 'avenge' them; without even going into why it's so particularly important to only "help" regions full of oil, something also hitler wanted.

PS. Hitler had two legs; we're all evil.

[|it|Nexu]

mitsubishi, on 19 February 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

PS. Hitler had two legs; we're all evil.

The source of all evil: 2 legs.

This post has been edited by Nexu: 19 February 2010 - 06:21 PM

[{C9}Wolverine (old)]

slackin, on 19 February 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

You KEEP talking about hitler, KEEP comparing hitler to iraq, thats just insane:

1) We wanted NOTHING to do with WWII until pearl harbour, we were quiet comfortable watching europe get destroyed by hitler.

2) Hitler killed MILLIONS N MILLIONS in a couple years, and was trying to take over THE WORLD(how is this ANYTHING like iraq?)

3) Every country in europe was BEGGING for our help with hitler, who asked us to come to iraq?

Actually Slackin, it is quite sane to compare Saddam to Hitler. Genocide is Genocide no matter who is doing it.

1. Maybe we should have just destroyed Japan and let Hitler have Europe.

2. No shit? Really? I didn't know Hitler killed "millions and Millions" in a couple of years. Why didn't you tell me this before? <sarcasm>

3. Well, I say, next time they beg for our help, we ignore them. That way there will be less people to forward their agenda of trashing the USA for everything we do.

I also see that some of the main points I have brought up have been completely ignored. Seems some people love to take things out of context and ignore that which they have no answers for.

I will say this. I will cheer on any country that goes in and destroys a genocidal regime and brings to justice those responsible. I will despise and spit upon and country or person that allows such to continue. Why? 2 reasons. Mendel Sittsamer and Zdzislawa Sittasmer, my great great aunt and uncle who died in the Mauthausen concentration camp, located in upper Austria.

gr1m, on 19 February 2010 - 04:11 PM, said:

You never hear these people railing for the rights of the Kurds who got gassed and nearly genocided by Hussein from these people, do you? Why? Because it doesn't make them happy in the pants like bitching about America does.
Now, my comment about caring about the Kurds or other people in that part of the world makes it sound like I supported police intervention there. I don't. I just hate hypocrites, and I like to point out when they are selective about what they harp on, and point out what I think motivates them.

Truth.

[{C9}Wolverine (old)]

I disagree with this being a "terrorist" act. Why? If he had gone in with a gun and shot up the place it would have been considered murder similar to Amy Bishop who shot and killed 3 people at the University of Alabama. However, because he used a small personal plane it is now "terrorism".

As for the "definition" of terrorism "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature", we could say this about any murder that occurs. A gangbanger who shoots and kills his drug dealing rival and causes the people in the neighborhood where he does business to live in fear is engaging in a behavior that forwards his ideological goal. So, this makes him a terrorist if you accept that definition.

Quote

An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions.

This post has been edited by {C9}Wolverine: 19 February 2010 - 08:08 PM