pclayton Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Just so there's no ambiguity here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist Pretty clear that someone who isn't trying to kill someone but wants to scare the ***** out of them by planting a bomb at night is a terrorist. Would any of you hesitate to label someone who supported the 'right to life' who blew up an abortion clinic at 3AM as a terrorist? I surely would and I hope you would too. The 'cause' of the person, no matter how sympathetic we view it, should never obfuscate our definition of things like terror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Those definitions are fine with me. It says nothing about which tools are used to intimidate and coerce. As Arend and Lobbowolf said, the aim (to intimidate and coerce) is crucial. the United States has increasingly become its main target Realy? I thought most current terrorism is targeted at civilians in Middle East, Pakistan and India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 It says nothing about which tools are used to intimidate and coerce. I have to be really careful here. I'm planning on a bitchin' haunted house for Halloween. I plan to scare and intimidate the bejeezus out of the the neighbor kids. I hope no one calls me a terrorist :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 The 'cause' of the person, no matter how sympathetic we view it, should never obfuscate our definition of things like terror. I agree with that. But let's say Greenpeace sinks a whale hunting ship, nobody aboard. Are they trying to scare anybody? What if they use a bomb? If nobody is scared and scaring people isn't the point, then they aren't terrorists. Note I'm just giving examples, I'm trying not to be judgemental about greenpeace activist, google bombers or anti-abortion lunatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 But let's say Greenpeace sinks a whale hunting ship, nobody aboard. Are they trying to scare anybody? What if they use a bomb? The boat owners/people who work on the boat, will think "wow, I could have been on the boat" and that will scare them. Even if the bombers did not intend it to be scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Note I'm just giving examples, I'm trying not to be judgemental about greenpeace activist, google bombers or anti-abortion lunatics. If this is intention irony, it amused me. Hard to tell online sometimes. If it wasn't, please disregard this message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I am curiousas Palin riles up the republicans to say things like lets go get him, kill him, etc.where are the secret service agents??? If any of us did this in public against any of the 4 candidates we would be arrested on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians. Attacking people who are actually fighting you or doing the thing that you oppose is a little different from attacking random people hoping that this will scare those random people into pressuring your actual enemies to change policy. Someone who blows up a US Humvee in Iraq because they don't like the US occupation there is a soldier. We may not like their methods or agree with their cause, but they are fighting directly against the military force that they oppose. Someone who blows up a high school in the US because they don't like the US occupation of Iraq is a terrorist -- they are striking at innocent high school students who have nothing to do with the occupation in the hope that this will cause Americans to get scared and pressure their government to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I am curiousas Palin riles up the republicans to say things like lets go get him, kill him, etc.where are the secret service agents??? If any of us did this in public against any of the 4 candidates we would be arrested on the spot. I have been hearing some about this. It is a bit scary and I hope that John McCain will make a serious effort to get some of these folks back on track. They do him no good and they have the potential for serious trouble. Conservatives sometimes talk about irrational hatred of George Bush by liberals. There was and is some of that but it pales in comparison to how some conservatives viewed either Clinton, and now this response to Obama leading and presumably beating their guy is getting truly ugly. Someone whom they will listen to should tell them to cool it, pronto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichMor Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 This just in My Webpage A column by Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians. Attacking people who are actually fighting you or doing the thing that you oppose is a little different from attacking random people hoping that this will scare those random people into pressuring your actual enemies to change policy. Under your definition, bombing the office of a doctor who performs abortions as a way to protest abortions would not be considered terrorism. Not that I would definitively claim you are wrong, but I expect most would consider such a bombing an act of terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians. Attacking people who are actually fighting you or doing the thing that you oppose is a little different from attacking random people hoping that this will scare those random people into pressuring your actual enemies to change policy. Under your definition, bombing the office of a doctor who performs abortions as a way to protest abortions would not be considered terrorism. Not that I would definitively claim you are wrong, but I expect most would consider such a bombing an act of terrorism. True. Not every crime is a terrorist act. If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely. Now what if I think my neighbor is a serial killer but I'm wrong? Well, then if I shoot my neighbor I'm a murderer. Certainly I have committed a crime, should be punished, etc. But does the fact that I was wrong about my neighbor's murderous habits make me a terrorist? No. I think the abortion doctor killing falls under this category. Crime, yes. But terrorist, not really. Bombing a hospital, on the other hand, because there may or may not be doctors there who may or may not have aborted a fetus sounds like terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Note I'm just giving examples, I'm trying not to be judgemental about greenpeace activist, google bombers or anti-abortion lunatics. If this is intention irony, it amused me. I don't understand the words irony and sarcasm so I cannot answer your question. It was on purpose that I contradicted my own words and I'm glad you found it amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Pretty much agree with Adam's definition of a terrorist. It is interesting to me that some of you consider almost any kind of violent crime a terrorist act. Of course, it is just a matter of words, but apparently we use the words very differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 BTW I was going to post "wtp http://dictionary.reference.com/terrorist " etc but I found that they basically give loads of circular defintion nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians.If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely.Not by your own definition: the serial killer is not an innocent civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 BTW I was going to post "wtp http://dictionary.reference.com/terrorist " etc but I found that they basically give loads of circular defintion nonsense. I'm quote ok with using one of Merriam Webster's definitions of "terror" and then extrapolating that to "terrorist" 4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 True. Not every crime is a terrorist act. If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely. No. But unless he is in the act of killing someone, or is likely to do so before the cops can show up, you're a murderer. There are over a hundred different definitions of "terrorism". Given that no consensus as to which fits bests exists amongst governments, I don't think it likely that we will reach a consensus here. Perhaps it falls into "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 This is simply unbelievable. Disagreeing with your opponent's policies is one thing, but defending threats of violence? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...10/1529529.aspx Earlier today, Obama remarked on recent outbursts of "Traitor!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" at McCain campaign events. "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States." In response, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace released this statement, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports. "Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom." "Attacking our supporters is a new low for the campaign that's run more millions of dollars of negative ads than any other in history." *** UPDATE *** McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers adds in another statement: “Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Unbelievable. The McCain campaign is officially pure evil, there is no other way to put it. I'm not saying I would ever up-end my life and do it, but him being President is the kind of thing that would make me think about packing up and moving to another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Those definitions are fine with me. It says nothing about which tools are used to intimidate and coerce. As Arend and Lobbowolf said, the aim (to intimidate and coerce) is crucial. the United States has increasingly become its main target Realy? I thought most current terrorism is targeted at civilians in Middle East, Pakistan and India. here's the definition i used in this thread~~~my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed ~~~i still like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 ~~~my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed ~~~ 1. was the vietnam war a declared war?2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims? hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 ~~~my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed ~~~ 1. was the vietnam war a declared war?2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims? hmmmm And hasn't Al Queda declared war against Americans (among many others)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 The Alaskan legislative council voted 12-0 to release the troopergate report. The full report can be accessed here: http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/...affiliate.7.pdf The short form is: She's guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 The Alaskan legislative council voted 12-0 to release the troopergate report. The full report can be accessed here: http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/...affiliate.7.pdf The short form is: She's guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty... And the long form is that it's all a liberal conspiracy <_<. I bet we'll will see a lot of talk about "terrorists" over the weekend to try and draw attention from this story.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.