What Exactly is Terrorism?

[Jim Naseum]

I lived a few miles from the misnaming of Patty Hearst kidnappings by the SLA. So, I remember it all pretty well. I don't recall them referring to Cinque Mtume as a terrorist.

I do recall Earth First! being called eco-terrorists in that era. And I think the weather underground was at times accused of terrorism. Ted Kasckzynski? Not sure. I think they called him just the unibomber. I would call his work terrorism.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece?

The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd.

Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference.

Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic.

They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter.

Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient.

I think you both missing the point on this and have been sucked into the propoganda of your respective political viewpoints. It matters not whether you call it killing babies, or fetuses, or embryos or anything else.

IT IS A CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

We are a nation of laws and the rule of law is one of the things that set us apart.

The LAW sees it the same whether it is an abortion clinic, a Baptist Church, a bank, a post office or McDonalds, and for that matter, at work, at home,

What I am more concerned with is how radicalized the guy in Carolina who shot all the people in their church.

They didn't send thiughts and prayers, they took the flag off the dome, and then finally dragged it off the capital grounds.

What about all the rapists and murderers that Mexico sends us evey year. I would be more worried about them being radicalized.

[Travis In Austin]

I lived a few miles from the misnaming of Patty Hearst kidnappings by the SLA. So, I remember it all pretty well. I don't recall them referring to Cinque Mtume as a terrorist.

I do recall Earth First! being called eco-terrorists in that era. And I think the weather underground was at times accused of terrorism. Ted Kasckzynski? Not sure. I think they called him just the unibomber. I would call his work terrorism.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Look it up.

How about the '72 Olympics. You remember the word terriorists being used then don't you?

It just all really who is doing the reporting and if we are in an election cycle.

[Jim Naseum]

1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece?

The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd.

Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference.

Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic.

They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter.

Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient.

I think you both missing the point on this and have been sucked into the propoganda of your respective political viewpoints. It matters not whether you call it killing babies, or fetuses, or embryos or anything else.

IT IS A CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

We are a nation of laws and the rule of law is one of the things that set us apart.

The LAW sees it the same whether it is an abortion clinic, a Baptist Church, a bank, a post office or McDonalds, and for that matter, at work, at home,

What I am more concerned with is how radicalized the guy in Carolina who shot all the people in their church.

They didn't send thiughts and prayers, they took the flag off the dome, and then finally dragged it off the capital grounds.

What about all the rapists and murderers that Mexico sends us evey year. I would be more worried about them being radicalized.

Actually, I wasn't that interested in the law. My interest was in the moral stance of the public. In deciding right from wrong, they have placed more value on an adult life than on a prospective or future life that has not yet met the scientific definition of a person. A life not yet begun, one could say. For me the law is less interesting than human behavior, psychology and sociology, because it is primarily a political institution.

I've never been impressed by the argument, "the law is x, and the rest doesn't matter." Because the law can be changed like underwear, but human behavior can not.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[BigStewMan]

off topic but i thought of you Travis when i put this on ...

 

[oldtimer]

They say revolution's in the air

I'm dancing in my underwear

'Cause I don't care....

Edited December 5, 2015 by oldtimer

[Wolfbane]

Here's an example of what I would call 'botched terrorism'. Warning it is pretty graphic:

 

[oldtimer]

Terrorism is guerilla warfare directed at civilians as opposed to military or infrastructure targets.  As such it is designed to foment confusion and disillusion and cause the enemy to bring itself down by destroying the fabric of everyday life (commerce).  Guerilla warfare in contrast is a dedicated effort against ruling entities and at the least partially relies on the support of the local people.  Terrorism gets people's attention, but results are long term if they ever come to fruition.  Terrorism as opposed to mass murder is that a cause other than a personal grievance is attached.  It is murder either way, but to be terror inspiring it has to claim a greater motive than killing a dozen or more people.

[garyrc]

How about the '72 Olympics. You remember the word terriorists being used then don't you?

 

Yes, the word terrorists was used concerning the '72 Olympics killings.  I think there was a transition in terminology here.  The Weather Underground was in decline by 1972.   I think their peak came right away, say in 1969.  Their killings (of their own members) appeared to be "collateral damage," i.e., accidental. I don't recall the Weather Underground being called terrorists.  Former members did commit some murders.  A few of the early WU group went to jail, then, I believe, one became a college professor, and another a college instructor.  Most of the New Left, the peace movement, Black Power groups, etc. regarded the WU as being much too extreme. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by garyrc

[Jeff Matthews]

As an aside, the woman gave a false Pakistan address on her K1 Visa application. So, whatever the state department is doing is sloppy and probably pointless. As I said earlier, the government has zero incentive or interest in stopping people from traveling to the USA.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Travis In Austin]

As an aside, the woman gave a false Pakistan address on her K1 Visa application. So, whatever the state department is doing is sloppy and probably pointless. As I said earlier, the government has zero incentive or interest in stopping people from traveling to the USA.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible.

You don't, at least historically. When "war" breaks out you detain and deport "them."

In WW II it was Japanese, Germans and Italians. Those that couldn't be deported, because they were US citizens, were detained in camps, some after they served their country in combat.

There have been, and continue to be, domestic terroristic organizations from right before independence up to the present.

So what we do, time after time, after time, after time, is somehow latch onto some fear mongering politician, or group of them, and agree that it is ok to ignore the rights of whomever the "them" happens to be at the time.

None of this is new, and none of this is lost on experts who run election campaigns. What are motivators? It is well studied and documented in marketing, advertising and psychology.

Water and food obviously are top motivators, but money is a big one, so you have issues loke promises to lower taxes, or a chicken in every pot.

Fear is actually a bigger one according to most studies. During the cold way the fear of being nuked was always exploited in campaigns.

You will see the importance of an issue that involves fear be at the top.

If a campaign or politician can create fear, no matter how irrational, and provide an answer, no matter how ridiculous, he/she will gather a following. That following will build unless, and until, another campaign can either create more fear, provide a better answer to the fear, or effectively communicate how the other is making a tempest out of a teapot.

Sometimes there are legitimate things to be fearful of and addressed, and other times there isn't any substance at all. The key is for people to determine whether there is any substance to it, and if so, who, in anyone, is coming up with the right solution.

[jacksonbart]

Sounds like Fascism, except its not performed by a country per say but with an underlying racist ideology to attack non military targets.  The concept is not to build a better life or conditions but to tear down and bring violence and sadness to those which don't seem to align themselves publicly with those implanting such a strategy.  Back in the day, it was airplane hijackings...  real society as reacted and now its these people attacking other areas.    

 

 

And some people get offended...  well its your right....   

[jacksonbart]

Funny but on a Radical site this discussion could not happen, that's right those folks who don't believe in any of us, including Mr. Catshup would not allow that.  They would not support you, they would kill you.  So large of you to give them the time.  Travel to Syria, you won't be able to tell us how that works out for you. 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

As an aside, the woman gave a false Pakistan address on her K1 Visa application. So, whatever the state department is doing is sloppy and probably pointless. As I said earlier, the government has zero incentive or interest in stopping people from traveling to the USA.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible.

 

You don't, at least historically. When "war" breaks out you detain and deport "them."

In WW II it was Japanese, Germans and Italians. Those that couldn't be deported, because they were US citizens, were detained in camps, some after they served their country in combat.

There have been, and continue to be, domestic terroristic organizations from right before independence up to the present.

So what we do, time after time, after time, after time, is somehow latch onto some fear mongering politician, or group of them, and agree that it is ok to ignore the rights of whomever the "them" happens to be at the time.

None of this is new, and none of this is lost on experts who run election campaigns. What are motivators? It is well studied and documented in marketing, advertising and psychology.

Water and food obviously are top motivators, but money is a big one, so you have issues loke promises to lower taxes, or a chicken in every pot.

Fear is actually a bigger one according to most studies. During the cold way the fear of being nuked was always exploited in campaigns.

You will see the importance of an issue that involves fear be at the top.

If a campaign or politician can create fear, no matter how irrational, and provide an answer, no matter how ridiculous, he/she will gather a following. That following will build unless, and until, another campaign can either create more fear, provide a better answer to the fear, or effectively communicate how the other is making a tempest out of a teapot.

Sometimes there are legitimate things to be fearful of and addressed, and other times there isn't any substance at all. The key is for people to determine whether there is any substance to it, and if so, who, in anyone, is coming up with the right solution.

 

I think you have described the issue correctly, but you have ascribed the wrong motive. You think people are wanting to be racists.  I think the number of people in the category is pretty small.  What I think is happening is a real issue concerning how to react in order to try to save our society from escalating violence.

 

This is not easy issue at all.  I would liken this problem to the catch-22 you see with cancer.  Everybody hopes to find a way to target only the cancer cells, but so far, though a little progress has been made, the state of the art remains to blast patients with radiation and chemo-therapy.  This, we all know, harms the good cells, too.  But if you don't blast everything, including the good cells, the patient will die.

 

We have an argument going on over the politics of containing terrorism.  The state of the art, as far as specific cell-targeting, is clearly not working.  People are arguing the morality of the only options remaining.

[Jim Naseum]

Any reason we couldn't have a refugee camp in say, the vast open spaces of Nevada? Maybe we could reuse the old Manzanar detention camp out in Lone Pine, Ca. It would provide plenty of time to vet them. 

 

Mr. JacksonFive - - I have no clue what you are on about, but I assure you I have no need to stop anyone from saying what they please. I'm the one whose thread was erased from history for making an observation. I promote discussion at every chance I get.

[willland]

Any reason we couldn't have a refugee camp in say, the vast open spaces of Nevada? Maybe we could reuse the old Manzanar detention camp out in Lone Pine, Ca. It would provide plenty of time to vet them. 

 

 

Why, with so many "peace loving"   Muslim countries in the Middle East willing to take the refugees in and make it easier to assimilate, should we take them in?

 

Bill

[Jim Naseum]

What I think is happening is a real issue concerning how to react in order to try to save our society from escalating violence.

 

Well, it has to be a purely defensive strategy, like bullet proof vests becoming a fashion sold at Macy*s. Because there's absolutely no chance that you can mix 350M guns and 310M people and not predict lots and lots of these shootings. That would be naive. It's all about defense. Most of these shootings are in group situations. We haven't seen too many where a guy goes to 15 houses and kills them at each house. It's theaters, auditoriums, schools and work place. Sounds like staying away from those might be a good first defense. If you're going to keep increasing the bullets, you better make an increase in protection.  

[oldtimer]

We haven't seen too many where a guy goes to 15 houses and kills them at each house

 

Truly that would be terror.  Any terrorists reading this?

[Jim Naseum]

 

As an aside, the woman gave a false Pakistan address on her K1 Visa application. So, whatever the state department is doing is sloppy and probably pointless. As I said earlier, the government has zero incentive or interest in stopping people from traveling to the USA.

How do you document the history of a person when there is no documentation of the person's history? This is not a "refusal" as you suggest. It is impossible.

 

 

I assumed it worked like this:

 

US State department calls the Pakistan State department: Hey, does Mary Jane live at 123 Main Street? 

Pakistan: No

Application rejected

Pakistan: Yes

Application moved to the next step. 

[Jim Naseum]

Some of this truly is "common sense." One may not LIKE avoiding common shooting situations, like theaters, but one may not LIKE lots of things in life. As I've said, this IS the country everyone wanted to build, so let's at least hope we can all live with it, and the consequences.