Terrorism... or not

Message boards : Politics : Terrorism... or not
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 822366 - Posted: 23 Oct 2008, 21:52:39 UTC

U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish.

Read about it here --->Terrorism or hate crime?... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 822366 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 822468 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 2:05:47 UTC - in response to Message 822366.  

U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish.

Read about it here --->Terrorism or hate crime?... ;)


Jeffery,

My very good friend Ken was working for the Federal Government that day at LAX. Colors my view.

My name appears as a plaintiff on a suit naming Attorney General John Ashcroft in his Official Capacity as defendant. Colors my view.

The major difference is that one of the perps had a lawyer. Second major difference is a cabinet level official got involved in one case where the other was handled at the local level were certainty of conviction is the criteria.

Finally there looks to be a typo in the law proper: [very common]
18 USC 2231
between 5(B)(i) and 5(B)(ii) there is a missing "or" so it could be construed to mean "and." You will see there is an "or" between (ii) and (iii). Courts are required to give defendants the benefit when there are errors in the law. I suspect the perp's lawyer found this and exploited it to make a plea bargain.

Personally I think both are terrorists along with the co-conspirators.

Gary

What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

ID: 822468 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 822487 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 2:58:54 UTC

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

The problem in defining terror is making the definition universal.
One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero. This goes both ways.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in London, who at the last moment witnessed a suicide bomber pulling the pin, the terror was real.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in Baghdad, who at the last moment witnessed a missile fired from an F-18 about to strike them, the terror was also real.

The similarities in these two examples are the large explosions, many civilian deaths and property damage, all following that moment where the victims knew they were about to die.
The only difference between these two explosive moments of death being that one of these acts was sanctioned by a government.

I'm open to anyone's suggestions toward a definitive explanation of the word.

As it stands now from a western perspective, the explanation seems to be;
1) Any act of violence directed at us is terrorism
2) Any act of violence directed at (insert enemy here) is heroic and for the cause of freedom

Maybe it's time to drop the pretense and just admit that ALL extreme violence causing death is terrorism.


ID: 822487 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 822504 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 3:24:52 UTC - in response to Message 822487.  

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

From *MY* experience, a 'terrorist' is "anyone who opposes them"... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 822504 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 822512 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 3:41:27 UTC - in response to Message 822487.  

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

The problem in defining terror is making the definition universal.
One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero. This goes both ways.

This isn't that hard, but given your posts here, it's not surprising that you find it difficult.

Generally, a terrorist is one whose acts are calculated to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about the desired result.

That isn't that hard. Neither is it dependent on the culture in question.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in London, who at the last moment witnessed a suicide bomber pulling the pin, the terror was real.

This likely fits the definition because it fits the points noted in the general definition above. That the victims feel terror isn't really the point--a person who sees a drunk driver about to crush them feels terror, but that does not make the drunk a terrorist.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in Baghdad, who at the last moment witnessed a missile fired from an F-18 about to strike them, the terror was also real.

This does not fit the definition because it does not fit the points above. Again, that people feel terror at their impending doom does not mean that the pilot is a terrorist.

The similarities in these two examples are the large explosions, many civilian deaths and property damage, all following that moment where the victims knew they were about to die.
The only difference between these two explosive moments of death being that one of these acts was sanctioned by a government.

Which, of course, is simply wrong. The difference is in the simple definition of terrorist.

I'm open to anyone's suggestions toward a definitive explanation of the word.

As it stands now from a western perspective, the explanation seems to be;
1) Any act of violence directed at us is terrorism
2) Any act of violence directed at (insert enemy here) is heroic and for the cause of freedom

Maybe it's time to drop the pretense and just admit that ALL extreme violence causing death is terrorism.

Is this like the time you had a really hard time with the term "socialism?" Because it seems that you problems with relatively simple concepts.

To reiterate, a terrorist is one whose acts are calculated to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about the desired result.

The differences between a missile fired from an F-18 that may have missed it's target and an mentally-muddled person deliberately targeting innocent civilians by bombing a London bus are striking.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 822512 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 822514 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 3:56:14 UTC

yes, you can find the definition in book, but how it is used if you read the news, it isn´t used in that definition too many times, in seventies and eighties
and still in nineties the definition was clear but after usa decide to invade iraq, it has used to anyone who, from usa´s point of view is who live outside
of usa, and don´t obey.
ID: 822514 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 822544 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 4:56:49 UTC - in response to Message 822487.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 4:57:19 UTC

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

The problem in defining terror is making the definition universal.
One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero. This goes both ways.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in London, who at the last moment witnessed a suicide bomber pulling the pin, the terror was real.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in Baghdad, who at the last moment witnessed a missile fired from an F-18 about to strike them, the terror was also real.

The similarities in these two examples are the large explosions, many civilian deaths and property damage, all following that moment where the victims knew they were about to die.
The only difference between these two explosive moments of death being that one of these acts was sanctioned by a government.

I'm open to anyone's suggestions toward a definitive explanation of the word.

As it stands now from a western perspective, the explanation seems to be;
1) Any act of violence directed at us is terrorism
2) Any act of violence directed at (insert enemy here) is heroic and for the cause of freedom

Maybe it's time to drop the pretense and just admit that ALL extreme violence causing death is terrorism.



The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose as they try their best to avoid killing civilians(People are not perfect and are not God), Terrorists whole idea is to not avoid targeting civilians as their usually not able to defend themselves as well as a trained Military can do.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 822544 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 822556 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 5:37:26 UTC - in response to Message 822544.  

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 822556 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 822558 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 5:41:32 UTC

darn, you were faster
ID: 822558 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 822573 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 6:19:29 UTC - in response to Message 822487.  

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

The playground bully is a terrorist!
1) The bully uses fear of violence or violence.
2) The bully uses it to intimidate or coerce.
3) The bully wants a course of action from others.

Gosh just like 18 USC 2231, only difference is the scale.
       (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
        of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
          (B) appear to be intended - 
            (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
            (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
          intimidation or coercion; or
            (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
          destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;


or this California law [penal code 422] on terroristic threats:
Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement ... is to be taken as a threat, ... which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety

Then there is the dictionary
terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Think you begin to see a pattern? Not much different than extortion except it isn't money that is the wanted thing.

Gary

ID: 822573 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 822574 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 6:19:56 UTC - in response to Message 822556.  

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Or the German

ID: 822574 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 822607 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 8:27:50 UTC - in response to Message 822556.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 8:48:37 UTC

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Back during the War, Most in Japan were fanatically loyal to the government there back then and It was a War, No apologies from US are needed, The Japanese did far worse, The Bataan Death March which was 60 miles and soldiers were bayoneted by Japanese soldiers if they fell and couldn't go on.


Prisoners on the march from
Bataan to the prison camp,
May 1942. (National Archives)

Route of the death march.
Section from San Fernando
to Capas was by rail.

And besides I'm talking about today, Not 55 or so years ago in WWII.

Also terrorists are not represented by a Government and are no better than thugs(they give thugs a bad name too), Rebels at least can be reasoned with, As to bombing a place from the Air, If one hides behind innocent civilians, Those civvies may get bombed If there's a legitimate target inside, As terrorists using people as Human Shields deserve to die.

Laws of war on bombing civilians clearly states that If a structure has a Legitimate Military target in It, It is allowable to destroy It.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html


Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.

The Assembly,

Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;

Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;

Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;

Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

II. Also takes the opportunity to reaffirm that the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law, as recalled more particularly in the resolution of the General Commission of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of July 23rd 1932, and the resolution of the Council of May 14th, 1938.

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 822607 · Report as offensive
Profile champ
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 03
Posts: 3642
Credit: 1,489,147
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 822615 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 10:04:48 UTC - in response to Message 822574.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 10:05:25 UTC

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Or the German




or the American, GB, France, etc... what ever you want.
ID: 822615 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 822625 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 11:50:21 UTC
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 11:50:51 UTC

or, if we talk last couple of year, citizens who live in iraq and afganistan
ID: 822625 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 822712 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 15:39:05 UTC - in response to Message 822615.  

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Or the German




or the American, GB, France, etc... what ever you want.

The information that I mentioned in My last post means If one shelters or gives aid to a Military objective, then ones structure becomes a valid military objective(target) to be destroyed, regardless of whom is inside, We don't negotiate with Terrorists or those that give material aid or comfort to them, Valid Military Objectives are taken down in a legal matter according to the laws of war, We obey them, Terrorists don't as they take Humans as Shields to hide behind and anyone who hides behind Human Shields has no honor or any regard for Human life.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 822712 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 822714 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 15:41:47 UTC - in response to Message 822544.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 15:42:23 UTC

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose






sadly this is not true
ID: 822714 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 822731 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:02:24 UTC - in response to Message 822714.  

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose






sadly this is not true

Have You ever been in the US Military? If not then You don't know what You are talking about, they live by the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) Which are the Laws of the US Military.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 822731 · Report as offensive
Profile champ
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 03
Posts: 3642
Credit: 1,489,147
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 822760 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:23:20 UTC - in response to Message 822731.  

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose






sadly this is not true

Have You ever been in the US Military? If not then You don't know what You are talking about, they live by the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) Which are the Laws of the US Military.



I second that.
ID: 822760 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 822788 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:47:13 UTC - in response to Message 822731.  

Have You ever been in the US Military?

Yes! And you people scare me more than the 'terrorists' do... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 822788 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 822791 - Posted: 24 Oct 2008, 16:55:25 UTC - in response to Message 822788.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2008, 16:59:09 UTC

Have You ever been in the US Military?

Yes! And you people scare me more than the 'terrorists' do... ;)

If You were enlisted, Did You get an Honorable DD-214 or something else?
Mine is/was an Honorable discharge, I have My dog tags and such still.
If You were an Officer You would have to be Retired, As Officers entering military service must complete a total of 8 years military service before leaving the Military.

That's in Chapter 2(2-1 General) of this pdf here.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 822791 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Terrorism... or not


 
©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.