What is a Terrorist


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What is a Terrorist

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605572 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 19:53:07 UTC - in response to Message 605566.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 20:00:35 UTC

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 . . .

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605617 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 20:40:40 UTC - in response to Message 605540.

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? ;)


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.
____________

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605620 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 20:46:15 UTC - in response to Message 605566.

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?



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.
____________

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605621 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 20:49:30 UTC - in response to Message 605572.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 20:59:39 UTC

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... ;)



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?
____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605645 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 22:06:55 UTC - in response to Message 605620.

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 . . .

Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 3,724,815
RAC: 779
United States
Message 605657 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 23:12:58 UTC - in response to Message 605566.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 23:18:57 UTC

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?


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
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605859 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 11:40:52 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jul 2007, 11:46:00 UTC

What is a Terrorist?


One who terrorizes. Usually they don't take into account the loss of civilian lives. Or they don't care.


____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 606031 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 18:47:45 UTC - in response to Message 605859.
Last modified: 19 Jul 2007, 18:56:14 UTC

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
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607382 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 16:58:37 UTC - in response to Message 606031.
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 17:11:05 UTC

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.


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.
____________

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1627
Credit: 940,050
RAC: 178
United States
Message 607392 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 17:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 607382.
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 17:56:18 UTC

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.


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.


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.

Profile Dr. C.E.T.I.
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 00
Posts: 15993
Credit: 690,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607399 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 18:24:04 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 18:25:36 UTC


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
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607411 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 19:03:32 UTC - in response to Message 607392.
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 19:06:29 UTC

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.


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.

____________

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1627
Credit: 940,050
RAC: 178
United States
Message 607416 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 19:10:05 UTC - in response to Message 607399.


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 . . .




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.

Profile Dominique
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Mar 05
Posts: 1629
Credit: 74,745
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607423 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 19:34:38 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 20:01:39 UTC

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]



____________

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 607501 - Posted: 22 Jul 2007, 23:04:04 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jul 2007, 23:06:51 UTC

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...

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1627
Credit: 940,050
RAC: 178
United States
Message 607525 - Posted: 23 Jul 2007, 0:28:03 UTC - in response to Message 607501.

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.

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"!


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".
Makes this me being a terrorist myself? Nope. That's just sick, folks


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.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 607528 - Posted: 23 Jul 2007, 0:44:29 UTC - in response to Message 607525.

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
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607631 - Posted: 23 Jul 2007, 11:27:50 UTC - in response to Message 607399.


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 . . .


I don't recall that one nobody. Got any links to the video?

____________

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607632 - Posted: 23 Jul 2007, 11:34:51 UTC - in response to Message 607423.


[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]


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.



____________

Profile Dr. C.E.T.I.
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Feb 00
Posts: 15993
Credit: 690,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 607638 - Posted: 23 Jul 2007, 12:10:16 UTC - in response to Message 607631.


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 . . .


I don't recall that one nobody. Got any links to the video?


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 . . .

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What is a Terrorist

Copyright © 2014 University of California