When - like I quoted in another thread - an interior minister thinks about shooting down hijacked passenger airplanes, I think he is thinking like a terrorist himself: wanting to kill the x innocent victims of this hijacking.

When police officers are ordered to go into a peaceful demonstration or strike just to provoke them to become a mob -- those people who ordered this are in fact the terrorists.

When secret services undermine a terror organization in the year of their very first appearance and don't do anything to stop them later I think these secret services are a bunch of terrorists themselves and this organization is just their instrument. Like the German terror group RAF which was undermined by the BKA (the German equivalent to the FBI) and the Verfassungsschutz (Defense of the Constitution) very early and which later - in their "second/ third generation" -- killed only influent people inconvenient to the supporters of pure locust capitalism. Like the CIA having taught and supported terrorists like Bin Laden in the past, having supported counter-revolutions and uprisings as long as it helped to destroy other kinds of democracy.

When landlords throw their old tenants out of affordable flats to rebuild the houses into apartment houses with three or four times the price per square meter, causing homelessness and suicides, they act like terrorists, too, IMO.

---

Account frozen...

When - like I quoted in another thread - an interior minister thinks about shooting down hijacked passenger airplanes, I think he is thinking like a terrorist himself: wanting to kill the x innocent victims of this hijacking.

When police officers are ordered to go into a peaceful demonstration or strike just to provoke them to become a mob -- those people who ordered this are in fact the terrorists.

When secret services undermine a terror organization in the year of their very first appearance and don't do anything to stop them later I think these secret services are a bunch of terrorists themselves and this organization is just their instrument. Like the German terror group RAF which was undermined by the BKA (the German equivalent to the FBI) and the Verfassungsschutz (Defense of the Constitution) very early and which later - in their "second/ third generation" -- killed only influent people inconvenient to the supporters of pure locust capitalism. Like the CIA having taught and supported terrorists like Bin Laden in the past, having supported counter-revolutions and uprisings as long as it helped to destroy other kinds of democracy.

When landlords throw their old tenants out of affordable flats to rebuild the houses into apartment houses with three or four times the price per square meter, causing homelessness and suicides, they act like terrorists, too, IMO.

Well Said Thorin - 'You 'ave hit the nail on the head' - *squarely*, i mighten add . . .

watCh out!

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

Odd that you probably have a job, and I don't... ;)

Nothing odd about it at all.

You're apparently unemployed and blame the system for this condition rather than any failure on your part. I'll even go as far as to say your local McDonald's is hiring but you choose to remain unemployed....for whatever reason you deem satisfactory.

You fit the profile of the majority of extreme leftists I encounter IRL and on the 'net, therefore I don't find your behavior particularly odd, or constructive/beneficial for that matter, in any way.

---

The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

Odd that you probably have a job, and I don't... ;)

Nothing odd about it at all.

You're apparently unemployed and blame the system for this condition rather than any failure on your part. I'll even go as far as to say your local McDonald's is hiring but you choose to remain unemployed....for whatever reason you deem satisfactory.

You fit the profile of the majority of extreme leftists I encounter IRL and on the 'net, therefore I don't find your behavior particularly odd, or constructive/beneficial for that matter, in any way.

Like I said in another thread: only those get a career and step up the ladder who are convenient to their bosses. You must be really important to the company to be able to afford the luxury of an own opinion which is in opposite to your bosses. But since I believe in free speech I don't care who is in front of me, as long as the discussion is friendly, reasonable and full of mutual respect. To me all people are similar, no matter what they wear, or what they earn: their character, not their economic or social position is important to me. I've always said my opinion and I won't stop this behavior in the future.
But like I am able to admit mistakes I've done and try make it better next time, I expect the same from others.

The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

Please don't throw welfare receivers, burn-outs (burn-out really is officially a psychic sickness), dope users, hippies (once a peace movement, you remember?), criminals and perverts into one mishmash. I already realized from former posts that you seem to be slightly right-wing, but I don't want to believe you were close to fascistic. There is nothing like a "social degenerate"

---

Account frozen...

When - like I quoted in another thread - an interior minister thinks about shooting down hijacked passenger airplanes, I think he is thinking like a terrorist himself: wanting to kill the x innocent victims of this hijacking.

When police officers are ordered to go into a peaceful demonstration or strike just to provoke them to become a mob -- those people who ordered this are in fact the terrorists.

When secret services undermine a terror organization in the year of their very first appearance and don't do anything to stop them later I think these secret services are a bunch of terrorists themselves and this organization is just their instrument. Like the German terror group RAF which was undermined by the BKA (the German equivalent to the FBI) and the Verfassungsschutz (Defense of the Constitution) very early and which later - in their "second/ third generation" -- killed only influent people inconvenient to the supporters of pure locust capitalism. Like the CIA having taught and supported terrorists like Bin Laden in the past, having supported counter-revolutions and uprisings as long as it helped to destroy other kinds of democracy.

When landlords throw their old tenants out of affordable flats to rebuild the houses into apartment houses with three or four times the price per square meter, causing homelessness and suicides, they act like terrorists, too, IMO.

1. The death of a few far outweighs the death of thousands. This is not terrorism, it's common sense and a frightening reality in a post 9/11 world just like AIDS, Earthquakes, car wrecks, and everything else.

2. Being ordered to enter and disperse a crowd is not being ordered to "provoke" a mob. Hundreds of people cannot peaceably assembly on the street unless you live in BFE, end of story.

3. Providing aid to an ally is not terrorism EVEN if said ally turns against you 20 years down the road. Unless of course, you don't support our cause....compound that with not having a say in our political system, and your opinion becomes quite irrelevant......to me anyway.

4. Landlord's property, Landlord's source of income, Landlord's Life, Landlord's choice. That's not terrorism, that's ownership.

Said Landlord is not utilizing fear to achieve any goal, he is maximizing his profit potential in an attempt to secure a brighter future for his OWN family. Redefine terrorism as you see fit, that doesn't make it a reality.

---

The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

Odd that you probably have a job, and I don't... ;)

Nothing odd about it at all.

You're apparently unemployed and blame the system for this condition rather than any failure on your part. I'll even go as far as to say your local McDonald's is hiring but you choose to remain unemployed....for whatever reason you deem satisfactory.

You fit the profile of the majority of extreme leftists I encounter IRL and on the 'net, therefore I don't find your behavior particularly odd, or constructive/beneficial for that matter, in any way.

Like I said in another thread: only those get a career and step up the ladder who are convenient to their bosses. You must be really important to the company to be able to afford the luxury of an own opinion which is in opposite to your bosses. But since I believe in free speech I don't care who is in front of me, as long as the discussion is friendly, reasonable and full of mutual respect. To me all people are similar, no matter what they wear, or what they earn: their character, not their economic or socal position is important to me. I've always said my opinion and I won't stop this behavior in the future.
But like I am able to admit mistakes I've done and try make it better next time, I expect the same from others.

What you fail to understand is that my job is a means to live my life, not the other way around. I don't disagree with my boss because they provide the job that allows me to own a house, a car, the American dream, etc, etc, etc.

I do what is required to succeed, and THAT makes me happy...seems overly simple if you ask me.

Please don't throw welfare receivers, burn-outs (burn-out really is officially a psychic sickness), dope users, hippies (once a peace movement, you remember?), criminals and perverts into one mishmash. I already realized from former posts that you seem to be slightly right-wing, but I don't want to believe you were close to fascistic. There is nothing like a "social degenerate"

Hello, a social degenerate is anyone who doesn't conform to the norms of society.....possessing the ability is irrelevant.

---

When - like I quoted in another thread - an interior minister thinks about shooting down hijacked passenger airplanes, I think he is thinking like a terrorist himself: wanting to kill the x innocent victims of this hijacking.

When police officers are ordered to go into a peaceful demonstration or strike just to provoke them to become a mob -- those people who ordered this are in fact the terrorists.

When secret services undermine a terror organization in the year of their very first appearance and don't do anything to stop them later I think these secret services are a bunch of terrorists themselves and this organization is just their instrument. Like the German terror group RAF which was undermined by the BKA (the German equivalent to the FBI) and the Verfassungsschutz (Defense of the Constitution) very early and which later - in their "second/ third generation" -- killed only influent people inconvenient to the supporters of pure locust capitalism. Like the CIA having taught and supported terrorists like Bin Laden in the past, having supported counter-revolutions and uprisings as long as it helped to destroy other kinds of democracy.

When landlords throw their old tenants out of affordable flats to rebuild the houses into apartment houses with three or four times the price per square meter, causing homelessness and suicides, they act like terrorists, too, IMO.

1. The death of a few far outweighs the death of thousands. This is not terrorism, it's common sense and a frightening reality in a post 9/11 world just like AIDS, Earthquakes, car wrecks, and everything else.

2. Being ordered to enter and disperse a crowd is not being ordered to "provoke" a mob. Hundreds of people cannot peaceably assembly on the street unless you live in BFE, end of story.

3. Providing aid to an ally is not terrorism EVEN if said ally turns against you 20 years down the road. Unless of course, you don't support our cause....compound that with not having a say in our political system, and your opinion becomes quite irrelevant......to me anyway.

4. Landlord's property, Landlord's source of income, Landlord's Life, Landlord's choice. That's not terrorism, that's ownership.

Said Landlord is not utilizing fear to achieve any goal, he is maximizing his profit potential in an attempt to secure a brighter future for his OWN family. Redefine terrorism as you see fit, that doesn't make it a reality.

I disagree.
1.) Innocent lives can't be outweighed by the death of other innocent lives.
2.) The order (as known to me by an ex-cop) was not to enter and divide, but to undermine and provoke violence against the police that the uniformed units had a reason to enter and divide: they should act as "agents provocateur", like the French would say. And I saw even that even thousands could assembly and demonstrate peacefully unless the police began to ride in and bully or provoked the crowd by using the water cannon. And even then only a tiny minority protested against this one-sided violence.
3.) What about to these counter-revolutions causing death and poverty to many, and making new attainments undone? What about the RAF I mentioned?
4.) That's just inhumanity.

---

Account frozen...

1.) Innocent lives can't be outweighed by the death of other innocent lives.

What about the case where you have an airliner full of people that has been hijacked by terrorists and it is known that those terrorists will fly it into a building full of people. Would you be justified shooting it down? The people in the airplane are dead either way, but you save the people in the building.

---

BOINC WIKI

1.) Innocent lives can't be outweighed by the death of other innocent lives.
2.) The order (as known to me by an ex-cop) was not to enter and divide, but to undermine and provoke violence against the police that the uniformed units had a reason to enter and divide: they should act as "agents provocateur", like the French would say.
3.) What about to these counter-revolutions causing death and poverty to many, and making new attainments undone? What about the RAF I mentioned?
4.) That's just inhumanity.

1.IMO, that's being irresponsible, and you cannot sit there and say you would be satisfied with the death of 3000, when the death of 300 could have saved 2700 lives. Remember, you're not in control, all you can do is react.

2. So you are speaking of one particular incident. I bet you can't provide evidence to substantiate this claim either, huh?

3. Not my country, not my problem....I have no control/influence/say over the RAF in any way, shape or form.

4. Sorry, but you don't deserve to live simply because you were born. Someone works for every single piece of food that goes into your mouth. That's reality regardless of how inhumane you find that to be.

---

1.) Innocent lives can't be outweighed by the death of other innocent lives.
2.) The order (as known to me by an ex-cop) was not to enter and divide, but to undermine and provoke violence against the police that the uniformed units had a reason to enter and divide: they should act as "agents provocateur", like the French would say.
3.) What about to these counter-revolutions causing death and poverty to many, and making new attainments undone? What about the RAF I mentioned?
4.) That's just inhumanity.

1.IMO, that's being irresponsible, and you cannot sit there and say you would be satisfied with the death of 3000, when the death of 300 could have saved 2700 lives. Remember, you're not in control, all you can do is react.

2. So you are speaking of one particular incident. I bet you can't provide evidence to substantiate this claim either, huh?

3. Not my country, not my problem....I have no control/influence/say over the RAF in any way, shape or form.

4. Sorry, but you don't deserve to live simply because you were born. Someone works for every single piece of food that goes into your mouth. That's reality regardless of how inhumane you find that to be.

Imagine you had children. One of your children were in one of these airplanes, and one of your children in one of the buildings - which one would you wish to offer?
IMHO they could have avoided this disaster if they had put two or three Air-Marshals per 100 flight passengers into each airplane so they could have overwhelmed the hijackers easily without harming anyone except the hijackers -- if everything was like the media told us.

---

Account frozen...

1.) Innocent lives can't be outweighed by the death of other innocent lives.
2.) The order (as known to me by an ex-cop) was not to enter and divide, but to undermine and provoke violence against the police that the uniformed units had a reason to enter and divide: they should act as "agents provocateur", like the French would say.
3.) What about to these counter-revolutions causing death and poverty to many, and making new attainments undone? What about the RAF I mentioned?
4.) That's just inhumanity.

1.IMO, that's being irresponsible, and you cannot sit there and say you would be satisfied with the death of 3000, when the death of 300 could have saved 2700 lives. Remember, you're not in control, all you can do is react.

2. So you are speaking of one particular incident. I bet you can't provide evidence to substantiate this claim either, huh?

3. Not my country, not my problem....I have no control/influence/say over the RAF in any way, shape or form.

4. Sorry, but you don't deserve to live simply because you were born. Someone works for every single piece of food that goes into your mouth. That's reality regardless of how inhumane you find that to be.

Imagine you had children. One of your children were in one of these airplanes, and one of your children in one of the buildings - which one would you wish to offer?
IMHO they could have avoided this disaster if they had put two or three Air-Marshals per 100 flight passengers into each airplane so they could have overwhelmed the hijackers easily without harming anyone except the hijackers -- if everything was like the media told us.

That choice is not something I would want to make and I don't think it would be easy for anyone. Hope that you never have to make a choice like that...

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

I do what is required to succeed, and THAT makes me happy...seems overly simple if you ask me.

Only for those who lack personal integrity and possess no moral compass... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

'You 'ave hit the nail on the head' - *squarely*

Yes, he most certainly did... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I do what is required to succeed, and THAT makes me happy...seems overly simple if you ask me.

Only for those who lack personal integrity and possess no moral compass... ;)

Funny you're not above stealing from MY paycheck.

You be sure to let the rest of us know when your morals and integrity put food on your table.....or gets you out of the unemployment line for that matter.

---

Imagine you had children. One of your children were in one of these airplanes, and one of your children in one of the buildings - which one would you wish to offer? IMHO they could have avoided this disaster if they had put two or three Air-Marshals per 100 flight passengers into each airplane so they could have overwhelmed the hijackers easily without harming anyone except the hijackers -- if everything was like the media told us.

Once again, as a clueless and uninvolved third party, you still seem to think that the VICTIMS have a choice in which lives are taken by acts of terrorism.

It is not a situation of one or the other, If the jet is allowed to slam into the building, my LACK OF INTERVENTION will result in the death of BOTH of my imaginary children.

BTW, we already KNOW hindsight is 20/20....that tid bit of information just now reaching your neck of the woods or do you think suggesting what we SHOULD have done is beneficial in any way?

Interesting that you think a couple of extra air marshals could accomplish what several hundred other human beings could not in 3 out of 4 air planes hijacked on 9/11.

---

Imagine you had children. One of your children were in one of these airplanes, and one of your children in one of the buildings - which one would you wish to offer?

Ummmm, hey rocket scientist, in your scenario they're both going to die anyway, whether I choose to "offer" them or not.

So yeah, you shoot down the plane. Either killing 300 to save 3000, or killing one kid to save the other. Still better than letting both kids die.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What about the case where you have an airliner full of people that has been hijacked

How about taking control of the plane from the ground?

Or in the heat of the deception have we all forgotten about the autopilot feature... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

What about the case where you have an airliner full of people that has been hijacked

How about taking control of the plane from the ground?

Or in the heat of the deception have we all forgotten about the autopilot feature... ;)

No means of taking control of the plane from the ground and autopilot doesn't get the hostages on the ground safely or out of harms way....and let's not forget how "conveniently" you forgot that the terrorists had flight training which I'm sure included turning the autopilot on and off.

Nice fantasy world you live in, but I've got one question. How many hostages would the terrorist(s) be allowed to kill before you deemed a ludicrous excuse like utilizing the autopilot a total failure since we know you consider shooting the plane down, a 100% loss a total failure, even though that action would potentially manifest itself in 10 times as many saved lives at the target destination....say the WTC for instance.

---

You be sure to let the rest of us know when your morals and integrity put food on your table.....or gets you out of the unemployment line for that matter.

I'm not afraid of death... Are you? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Well, BrainSmashR, let's conclude: You and I disagree in my statement that a couple more Air Marshals - with experience in fighting in such close places like airplanes - could be (or have been, if you want to understand it that way) more helpful than some hundred scared tourists with no experience in close combat. Fine with me. That's just one more point in the list of differences between our points of view. I respect your view, and hope you respect mine.

----
But to come back to the thread title:

What makes a person a terrorist? Is it having a gun? Many people have guns. Is it a strong believe/conviction? There are many people out there with strong faith/conviction and guns who are no terrorist. Is it a tendency toward violence? Even this you can find among those "righteous", strong believers or strongly otherwise convicted gun-carriers out there. What kind of people can be seen as (even potential) terrorists?

---

Account frozen...