What Exactly is Terrorism?

[Jeff Matthews]

It would provide plenty of time to vet them.

 

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting." 

[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.

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

Actually, contsitutional law takes quite a long time to change once it is defined on an issue.

It took a major war to change Dred Scot and the Civil War Amendments, it took a 100 years to change Plessy and Jim Crow it condoned, Roe v Wade is over 40 years old and still good and enforcable law.

Abortion wasn't even a major national campaign issue in last 4 cycles.

The law should be important to you, because logical argument that you are most capable of doesn't work the Christian right who are typically the most passionate about this issue. They believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (which it very may well be) and that intelligent design is "science," not religion, that should be taught in schools. The courts, based on constitutional law, keep telling them they are wrong, it isn't science, it is religion.

They keep trying to say that a prayer in school that is non-denominational isn't religion, they keep being told they are wrong; that the 10 Commandments are not promoting religion, they just a good summary of basic morals that everyone agrees should be followed, and they are told they are wrong. Every once in awhile you get an elected official that thinks her morality or religion trumps constitutional law and a judge shows her the inside of a jail cell for a couple of days and things start moving forward.

You should be concerned with constitutional law. It is the only thing that stands between you and someone else's morality being forced on you or your children.

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person." There may have been a medical one at one point, but it probably wasn't based on science. The Hyppocratic oath originally prohibited abortion, the modern oath does not I don't believe. It was an ethical/moral issue before Christ, and it will always be a moral/ethical issue. Science doesn't answer those questions, by definition. As soon as you start to apply a judgement it is no longer science. The law determines what a "person" is for purposes of things like murder, wrongful death, corporate "being", etc. When "life begins" is a question used by pro-life advocates in response to the Court's decision that said it wasn't the government's business what happened between a woman and a doctor in the first trimester. Pro-choice legal advicates then tried to prevent abortions by arguing an unborn (pick whatever term you want here and fill in the blank) was a "person" subject to equal protection under the 14th amendment, which, thus far, has been rejected.

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

I would agree with that, very well stated. However, sometimes the political or religious agenda can only be inferred, and is sometimes never fully known. Additionally, a religion can consist of just a very few people, and a political agenda includes hate groups which can consist of a single person.

This would include the Manson Family

Timothy McVeigh

Ku Klux Klan

Unibomber

A tossup would be Zodiac killer, he sent letter to media saying he was going to hijack school bus and kill kids on it. Parents drove their kids to school all over the Bay Area for months.

Don't terrorists usually claim responsibility for their actions in order to effectuate either a change, or protect the status quo (regardless of how misguided it may be)? Should that be part of the definition to distinguish it from a mass murderer?

Is terrorism ever justified?

 

 

 

Absolutely Travis!

 

An example would be the American Revolution!

 

Roger

[Jim Naseum]

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

 

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

[Jim Naseum]

 

It would provide plenty of time to vet them.

 

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting." 

 

They sit. The state department vets.

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Actually, contsitutional law takes quite a long time to change once it is defined on an issue.

It took a major war to change Dred Scot and the Civil War Amendments, it took a 100 years to change Plessy and Jim Crow it condoned, Roe v Wade is over 40 years old and still good and enforcable law.

Abortion wasn't even a major national campaign issue in last 4 cycles.

The law should be important to you, because logical argument that you are most capable of doesn't work the Christian right who are typically the most passionate about this issue. They believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (which it very may well be) and that intelligent design is "science," not religion, that should be taught in schools. The courts, based on constitutional law, keep telling them they are wrong, it isn't science, it is religion.

They keep trying to say that a prayer in school that is non-denominational isn't religion, they keep being told they are wrong; that the 10 Commandments are not promoting religion, they just a good summary of basic morals that everyone agrees should be followed, and they are told they are wrong. Every once in awhile you get an elected official that thinks her morality or religion trumps constitutional law and a judge shows her the inside of a jail cell for a couple of days and things start moving forward.

You should be concerned with constitutional law. It is the only thing that stands between you and someone else's morality being forced on you or your children.

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person." There may have been a medical one at one point, but it probably wasn't based on science. The Hyppocratic oath originally prohibited abortion, the modern oath does not I don't believe. It was an ethical/moral issue before Christ, and it will always be a moral/ethical issue. Science doesn't answer those questions, by definition. As soon as you start to apply a judgement it is no longer science. The law determines what a "person" is for purposes of things like murder, wrongful death, corporate "being", etc. When "life begins" is a question used by pro-life advocates in response to the Court's decision that said it wasn't the government's business what happened between a woman and a doctor in the first trimester. Pro-choice legal advicates then tried to prevent abortions by arguing an unborn (pick whatever term you want here and fill in the blank) was a "person" subject to equal protection under the 14th amendment, which, thus far, has been rejected.

 

 

 

Plus the Law conflicts with earlier established Laws as you are killing a human being!

 

You might argue that a fetus is not life or a human being, but this brings into question the fact that we are killing these fetuses after they are brought out of the woum, and further that we charge for two homicides or manslaughters when a pregnant mother is killed. Justify that?

 

Roger

Edited December 5, 2015 by twistedcrankcammer

[Jeff Matthews]

 

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

 

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

 

 

Brainwashing! Which committee decided on that being our nation's "official" definition?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

It would provide plenty of time to vet them.

 

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting." 

 

They sit. The state department vets.

 

 

I have heard interviews of our state department officials saying there is no reliable information to be had.  I've heard nobody on the other side (or even on the same side) dispute this.  Maybe it has been disputed, though.

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

 

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

 

 

 

 

But we are killing some of these out of utero when they are breathing and have a heart beat and that is being protected by your law. Yet again another conflict of law!

 

Roger

[Travis In Austin]

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.

That is a pretty good definition.

Here is what your government says it is:

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) 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. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52)

[jacksonbart]

This guy is a clown.  No point in continuing any type of discussions. Cheers

[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.

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.

O was just truing to point out what has been stated by much smarter than me, that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it at their own peril.

I don't think people "want" to be racists, I am not sure how that happens. The way they are raised, the biases and prejudices people develop about any number of things I am sure develop for a whole host of reasons, but there is a reason we study things like the Salem Witch trials, McCarthy, the Civil War (War of Northern Agression, trying to be politically correct), Japanese internment and so on. Response to fear results in some pretty obscure and unjust results. Trying to explain failed crops and other calamities from the Bible results in far worse.

Creating fear is going to result in prejudice, and it will result in extremists. Money can motivate people to violence without any regard to their viewpoints on gender, race or religion.

I'm pretty sure Daniel Shays and his 4,000 friends were upset about why farmers were saddled with so much war debt.

The "escalation of violence," I am not too sure about that. From what reference point? There have been mass shootings and bombings in the US since before 1900.

I guess I feel that when you see 25, roughly, political candidates getting their panties in a wad over a shooting they just seem disingenuous when they send their thoughts and prayers and blaming it on some "evildoer" and their beliefs and that is why we need to get 70,000 boots on the ground in Syria. Yet just last week when a cop, along with several others, we don't need to do anything. There are terrorists in the US, born here and anglo-saxon Protestants,

They are real, they exist, and they are plotting. The FBI has a whole list on their website if anyone is interested.

[Travis In Austin]

Terrorism is the use of violence, or threat of violence to further a political or religious agenda.

I would agree with that, very well stated. However, sometimes the political or religious agenda can only be inferred, and is sometimes never fully known. Additionally, a religion can consist of just a very few people, and a political agenda includes hate groups which can consist of a single person.

This would include the Manson Family

Timothy McVeigh

Ku Klux Klan

Unibomber

A tossup would be Zodiac killer, he sent letter to media saying he was going to hijack school bus and kill kids on it. Parents drove their kids to school all over the Bay Area for months.

Don't terrorists usually claim responsibility for their actions in order to effectuate either a change, or protect the status quo (regardless of how misguided it may be)? Should that be part of the definition to distinguish it from a mass murderer?

Is terrorism ever justified?

Absolutely Travis!

An example would be the American Revolution!

Roger

Finally, a shining light.

One's man's revolution is another man's civil war. One man's solider is another man's terrorist, extreamist, radical, reactionary.

Isn't that the point of all of this? Depending on what you call it justifies the response.

Those 23 guys and two gals must think we are all idiots.

Edited December 5, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Travis In Austin]

It would provide plenty of time to vet them.

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting."

They sit. The state department vets.

I have heard interviews of our state department officials saying there is no reliable information to be had. I've heard nobody on the other side (or even on the same side) dispute this. Maybe it has been disputed, though.

Reluable information on what?

[Travis In Austin]

P.S. I don't think there is a scientific definition of a "person."

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth

Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.

The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science.

[xxJPMxx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=girnJH7tvpM

 

 

 

 

Well I'm about to get sick
From watchin' my TV
Been checkin' out the news
Until my eyeballs fail to see
I mean to say that every day
Is just another rotten mess
And when it's gonna change, my friend
Is anybody's guess

So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Wednesday I watched the riot . . .
Seen the cops out on the street
Watched 'em throwin' rocks and stuff
And chokin' in the heat
Listened to reports
About the whisky passin' 'round
Seen the smoke and fire
And the market burnin' down
Watched while everybody
On his street would take a turn
To stomp and smash and bash and crash
And slash and bust and burn

And I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Well, you can cool it,
You can heat it . . .
'Cause, baby, I don't need it . . .
Take your TV tube and eat it
'N all that phony stuff on sports
'N all the unconfirmed reports
You know I watched that rotten box
Until my head begin to hurt
From checkin' out the way
The newsman say they get the dirt
Before the guys on channel so-and-so

And further they assert
That any show they'll interrupt
To bring you news if it comes up
They say that if the place blows up
They will be the first to tell,
Because the boys they got downtown
Are workin' hard and doin' swell,
And if anybody gets the news
Before it hits the street,
They say that no one blabs it faster
Their coverage can't be beat

And if another woman driver
Gets machine-gunned from her seat
They'll send some joker with a brownie
And you'll see it all complete

So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day

Hey, you know something people?
I'm not black
But there's a whole lots a times
I wish I could say I'm not white

Well, I seen the fires burnin'
And the local people turnin'
On the merchants and the shops
Who used to sell their brooms and mops
And every other household item
Watched the mob just turn and bite 'em
And they say it served 'em right
Because a few of them are white,
And it's the same across the nation
Black and white discrimination
Yellin' "You can't understand me!"
'N all that other jazz they hand me
In the papers and TV and
All that mass stupidity
That seems to grow more every day
Each time you hear some nitwit say
He wants to go and do you in
Because the color of your skin
Just don't appeal to him
(No matter if it's black or white)
Because he's out for blood tonight

You know we got to sit around at home
And watch this thing begin
But I bet there won't be many live
To see it really end
'Cause the fire in the street
Ain't like the fire in the heart
And in the eyes of all these people
Don't you know that this could start
On any street in any town
In any state if any clown
Decides that now's the time to fight
For some ideal he thinks is right
And if a million more agree
There ain't no Great Society
As it applies to you and me
Our country isn't free
And the law refuses to see
If all that you can ever be
Is just a lousy janitor
Unless your uncle owns a store
You know that five in every four
Just won't amount to nothin' more
Gonna watch the rats go across the floor
And make up songs about being poor

Blow your harmonica, son!

 

 

- Frank Zappa

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

It would provide plenty of time to vet them.

Letting them sit there in captivity is not "vetting."

They sit. The state department vets.

I have heard interviews of our state department officials saying there is no reliable information to be had. I've heard nobody on the other side (or even on the same side) dispute this. Maybe it has been disputed, though.

Reluable information on what?

 

 

Who these people really are, and the things they have done in their past.  

[minermark]

For those that are thinking of a little peace of mind.

 

#1 Got a buddy who has guns?

#2 Find Out his Favorite Beer.

#3 Mancave chat time.

#4 Let him know you wish to protect you're family.

#5 Ask what is a good all-around simple, wife friendly weapon would be.

#6 Youtube the Chit out of it, get to know the ONLY real Chance you have of living out you're years.

 

I have lived this mindset for the better part of 50+ years, NEVER, ZERO, NADDA, problems EVER.

A Gun owner has a certin, AURA/Karma.

It is not the same as when we grew up, reality sucks.

[minermark]

Lets just see if i stepped over the FKN line AGAIN on this thread?

[oldtimer]

No one fucks with me either.  I'm not so sure aura needs guns.