Message boards :
Politics :
What is a Terrorist
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Well, BrainSmashR, let's conclude: Be careful... If you hadn't noticed, there are two of them now... In my thread, we can refer to them as BrainSmashR-1 and BrainSmashR-2... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
BrainSmashR Send message Joined: 7 Apr 02 Posts: 1772 Credit: 384,573 RAC: 0 |
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. That's funny, because I'm betting you applied for and are now accepting government hand-outs instead of starving to death. ...but the actions of the extreme left very rarely reflect the propaganda they spew at everyone else. |
BrainSmashR Send message Joined: 7 Apr 02 Posts: 1772 Credit: 384,573 RAC: 0 |
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. I can accept your opinions as long as you are not trying to redefine terms. A terrorist is someone who utilizes fear in order to achieve their goals, not just a person carrying a gun, or a person with strong beliefs and convictions. |
BrainSmashR Send message Joined: 7 Apr 02 Posts: 1772 Credit: 384,573 RAC: 0 |
Well, BrainSmashR, let's conclude: As I indicated before, your desire to mislabel that which everyone readily recognizes will never change the truth. It merely points out the lengths the extreme left will go in order to mislead the reader. Of course it "could" be someone else advertising MY website and MY boincwapstats generator out of the kindness of their heart instead of another machine across town, but on my boincfarm anyway, right? |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
A terrorist is someone who utilizes fear in order to achieve their goals Sorta like, forum bullies? ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
RichaG Send message Joined: 20 May 99 Posts: 1690 Credit: 19,287,294 RAC: 36 |
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. Before this happened, hijackers were negotiated with. There weren't any Air Marshals on the plane. One of the reasons the passengers on the fourth plane fought back was they had heard on cell phones what had happened to the other planes. Red Bull Air Racing Gas price by zip at Seti |
AC Send message Joined: 22 Jan 05 Posts: 3413 Credit: 119,579 RAC: 0 |
What is a Terrorist? One who terrorizes. Usually they don't take into account the loss of civilian lives. Or they don't care. |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
One who terrorizes. Usually they don't take into account the loss of civilian lives. Or they don't care. Why does New Orleans come to mind... ;) ... send in the troops. ... take away the guns. ... don't let em cross the bridge. ... here's some money, oops, fooled ya. It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
AC Send message Joined: 22 Jan 05 Posts: 3413 Credit: 119,579 RAC: 0 |
One who terrorizes. Usually they don't take into account the loss of civilian lives. Or they don't care. I wouldn't equate the two though Jeffrey. While New Orleans was a complete disaster, it wasn't terrorism. Yes I've heard and seen when they were taking guns away from people and thought it was very... notable. Let's also not forget when the Bush administration ordered the media to not take pictures of or record dead bodies. You know, to cover up the fiasco. That reminds me of something governments in the former Eastern Bloc would do. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
One who terrorizes. Usually they don't take into account the loss of civilian lives. Or they don't care. A/C is correct. While the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans was massively FUBAR (from all levels of Government, State and Local, not just Federal), it was not terrorism. I state the following as a survivor of a Major Hurricane. No, not Katrina, but Camille (Gulfport, Mississippi -- August, 1969). Of course guns were 'taken away' from private citizens. After any sort of disaster on this scale, you are going to have looters as well as a breakdown of the rule of law. Rescue workers *were* being shot at. Furthermore, the last thing the authorities needed was either armed gangs looting and doing other criminal behavior, or armed gangs of vigilantes shooting anything that moved. Of COURSE, guns were taken away. As to the news media... The news media in the USA have entertainment as a component of their news coverage (gotta have HIGH ratings!). A saying often applied to the subject is 'if it bleeds, it leads'. Of course the authorities did not want the media 'filming' the bodies of the dead... Out of respect for the departed and their families. How would YOU feel if you found out a friend or relative had died by recognizing their corpse on the 'News'? Or just *thought* the other person had died because you thought you saw their body, only to later get into contact with them? No... In ANY disaster, the 'media' should not film the bodies of the dead, out of respect for the dead and their friends and family. Nothing wrong with filming the destruction, but for a media crew to film the dead in an effort to boost their ratings (therefore boosting the fees they charge the advertisers on their 'shows') is just totally disgraceful. A/C, I can understand that you might have legitimate concerns about disarming people, but I find it hard to believe you have a problem with the News Media being told "don't film the dead". Perhaps my experience with Camille has given me a little different perspective on this. My family and I were lucky to have survived Camile. Several people I knew then were not so lucky. |
Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0 |
ever see the U Tube (Posted - i believe) by Tracy back awhile ago - regarding the Gangs that filmed their 'cohoots' and 'take overs' of certain towns - drug deals / killings (done & planned) how they escape(d) getting caught in the past and actual footage shot by the gangs themselves . . . pretty 'heavy stuff' i might say . . . long story short - the government (certain div) got wind of these videos - and proceeded to apprehend . . . what's happened to them - i don't know . . . though, i have a Question: Do You think THEY are Terrorists??? EDIT: All of the 'Gang Members' were filmed AFTER the Katrina / Orleans etc Storm . . . BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . |
AC Send message Joined: 22 Jan 05 Posts: 3413 Credit: 119,579 RAC: 0 |
A/C, I can understand that you might have legitimate concerns about disarming people, but I find it hard to believe you have a problem with the News Media being told "don't film the dead". The news media does have a way of overdramatizing things and it's bothered me when I've seen them do it in the past. No, you're right, I wouldn't like it if a friend or relative of mine was repeatedly shown like that on TV. It might be a hard thing to watch, but the horrible outcome was a reality of a sad national event. And I believe it's always better to show the reality rather than cover it up in order to defend our sensibilities. The news media should have the right to decide whether or not they want to show it or not, rather than being forced by the authorities. Besides, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. By hiding the images of dead bodies, the authorities could actually be covering up the results of negligence on their part. In my opinion, it was a dictatorial decision, to do just that. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
I have not seen those videos. While it certainly sounds like the residents of those towns were terrorized by the gangs you mention, I am not sure I would term them 'terrorists' or their activities 'terrorism'. Terrorists and Terrorism are usually defined as having some sort of anti-government (sometimes pro-government) goal 'in mind' when they terrorize private citizens. If this gang had the 'mission statement' of 'hey, we can steal some serious loot and get even with our rivals now that law enforcement is weak', then it is, in my opinion, not Terrorism. However, if their 'mission' was 'strike now, in the name of the Revolution, while the Oppressor is weak!', then it has a strong likelyhood of being Terrorism. Me calling it Terrorism would depend a great deal on just exactly who these 'gangs' were and what their goal was. I would have to know a LOT more than just the details you listed before I could give an opinion. A member of the IRA planting a bomb in Northern Ireland or London is a terrorist. A Basque Separatist planting a bomb in Spain is a terrorist. A disgruntled former U.S. soldier blowing up a Federal Building with a truck full of ANFO in protest of a US Government action is a terrorist. A gang of thugs out committing atrocities for fun and profit are not. |
Dominique Send message Joined: 3 Mar 05 Posts: 1628 Credit: 74,745 RAC: 0 |
Terrorists and Terrorism Broadly Defined Is the definition so wide it steps right over the Constitution? Even before President Bush signed the anti-terrorism Patriot Act of 2001 (HR 3162 -- PL 107-56) on Oct. 26, 2001 civil liberty groups had criticized it as allowing unreasonable and excessive and unchecked expansions of police powers including search and surveillance limits. In less-well publicized amendments, lawmakers added language to the Patriot Act very broadly defining terrorism and who the Justice Department and Secretary of State can designate as eligible for investigation and close surveillance according to provisions of the Patriot Act. • You need not be a member of a terrorist group to be considered a terrorist. If you openly represent or seek community support for terrorist acts or a known terrorist organization, you could be declared a terrorist. • Raising money for or giving money to a terrorist group is considered a direct act of terrorism if the funds are used to plan or conduct an act of terrorism. • Providing services or assistance to terrorists can also be declared an act of terrorism unless the accused can prove "he did not know, and should not reasonably have known" the services would be used to assist a terrorist act. Knowingly providing a hideout, transportation, training or firearms are examples of services that could fall under this provision. • Members of terrorists' immediate family may be considered and treated as terrorists themselves unless they can prove to the satisfaction of the Justice Department that they were either unaware of or had openly renounced the terrorist activity. • Spouses and children of terrorists can be treated like terrorists themselves unless "the attorney general has reasonable grounds to believe [the family member] has renounced the activity." What is a "terrorist activity?" Under the Patriot Act, terrorist activities include: • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain" [edit] Oh yah BTW... Who decides who are the terrorist groups? Why it's the Commander Decider Guy and his greasy little sidekick "Speedy" "I don't recall" Gonzalez. [/edit] [double secret edit] I may now be a "terrierist" and on a No Fly List. [/double secret edit] [triple super Top Secret edit] I have no Noo-cu-lar WMDs. [/triple super Top Secret edit] |
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0 |
There is a "terrorist" here in Germany who still is in jail (for 28 years now, because the durance was lengthened after each plea for a new investigation, and later after pleas for pardon) just because of a few circumstantial evidences but there was no real, 100% proof of anything, not even in his involvement in any terrorist deed. If there weren't the accusation "RAF" he wouldn't have been even one day in jail because of the lack of real evidences... As I said: Paranoia. What is the difference between a "normal" killer or hijacker or kidnapper or bank-robber, and a "terrorist" who is killing/ hijacking/ kidnapping/ robbing a bank? I see none. It's just "becoz someone saiz so"! Let's say I don't only hitch-hike, but also give hitch-hikers a ride. Much later it turns out that someone I gave a ride is a wanted "terrorist". Makes this me being a terrorist myself? Nope. That's just sick, folks Account frozen... |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
There is a "terrorist" here in Germany who still is in jail (for 28 years now, because the durance was lengthened after each plea for a new investigation, and later after pleas for pardon) just because of a few circumstantial evidences but there was no real, 100% proof of anything, not even in his involvement in any terrorist deed. If there weren't the accusation "RAF" he wouldn't have been even one day in jail because of the lack of real evidences... There are occasional miscarriages of justice in every nation. The term 'terrorist' is being currently overused. As I said: Paranoia. Its ALWAYS 'because someone said so'. The real difference is a question of motivation. If, for instance, a bank-robber is motivated by a desire for wealth, they are not a terrorist. If the bank-robber is motivated by a desire to make a political change in a government, then they are a terrorist. For an example of this in the USA, google the 'Symbionese Liberation Army'. Let's say I don't only hitch-hike, but also give hitch-hikers a ride. Much later it turns out that someone I gave a ride is a wanted "terrorist". Well, terrorism or not, if you pick up a hitchhiker you had never before met or heard of without knowledge that they were a criminal, and gave them a ride, then never saw them again, I would highly doubt you would be convicted of anything. However, if you knowingly and willingly provide assistance of virtually any sort to a criminal in either the planning, execution, or aftermath of their crime, you are guilty as well. This is a well established part of legal codes, and has been so for hundreds of years. In the US, in modern terminology, it is known as 'being an accessory to the crime'. Lets say that a bank robber, fresh from his latest exploit, shows up at your door. Furthermore, you know he is a bank robber, and you give him a place to 'hide out' from the police for a few days until the heat is off. This makes you an accessory to the bank robbery (therefore a criminal yourself), and you could be put in jail for a number of years. But yes, the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are greatly overused of late. Regardless of the motivation for the criminal act, it is still a criminal act. I don't think we need any new laws to deal with it. A murder is still a murder. No matter which way you slice it, the perp should go to jail. |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
motivated by a desire to make a political change in a government, then they are a terrorist. From The Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" ~ Thomas Jefferson - the first known terrorist... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
AC Send message Joined: 22 Jan 05 Posts: 3413 Credit: 119,579 RAC: 0 |
I don't recall that one nobody. Got any links to the video? |
AC Send message Joined: 22 Jan 05 Posts: 3413 Credit: 119,579 RAC: 0 |
You'd have to do something pretty bad to get labled as one. "• threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials" Dunno about this one. It sounds like it could be interpreted too broadly. |
Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0 |
i mailed Tracy - to ask about it - he's not answered yet . . . i know what i saw . . . hEavy stuff A/C . . . hEavy stuff also - CNN and other News Networks covered it awhile back too . . . mentioned HOW STUPID the gangs were in 'admissions' of their crimes and i beleive there were quite a few gangs - in a few areas - that had taken over complete towns . . . they were 'VERY EXPLICIT' in their descriptors of everything that they were / had been doing . . .DOH!!! i'll lOOk in mi 'reserves' - i have Links / Copies of . . . somewhere BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.