Wow, even though I tried so very hard to be even-keel, I am still "attacking your reputation?" Sorry, your person is not the center of all of my concerns in discussions. A few notes: I typed incorrectly, I apologize. That was to read, "not as bad." Not, "so." The point was, sure they arenot as bad because they are not killing as many at one time, but they are still "as bad" for they hatred and evil they are promoting. And, no, I was not going off of what others were saying to destroy your reputation (really, that notion is beyond absurd in regards to the intellectual parameters I establish for myself). It stemmed from this: "Silk: get real! While these actions are a shame, don't equate some people overwhelmed with fear and/or grief (and having an anger management problem) with the cold-blooded, cold-hearted terrorists that really do exist." This is your dileneation, your words. Thes hate-filled, cold-hearted Americans are only "overwhelmed with grief and fear." I was trying to promote that people who only have those feelings do not go "hunting for A-rabs!" My point was that they, too, are cold-hearted and cold-blooded and really do exist. If you want to play this game, I can further point out the fact that you clearly misrepresented my post from one line (taken out from a very lengthy post full of non-combative information) from what I wrote in order to put me in a "them" category with your other "enemies." You did not respond to me to discuss anything, only to make me appear bad along with others who have disagreed with you. Do you see how useless and counterproductive arguments like the one above are? If I were truly saying that, you would respond only with anger. We get no where. By the way, DoD, be careful over there in Dallas. Try to avoid any of these "overwhelmed' Americans who may want to hurt you because you could be mistaken (out of complete ignorance) for Arab. Indian people and establishments have already experienced such "mistakes."
For what it's worth. All of our lives we (Americans) have been shown the steretypical definition of terrorist as opposed to any dictionary version. A terrorist is one who wreaks havoc, death and terror upon nation, religion or people. We have seldom, if ever been, told that Americans are terrorists (this somewhat changed with McVeigh). As an example, whenever a crime is committed against a religion or race by an American, we classify that as a "hate-crime". Also, what about Columbine? We did not classify the killers as terrorists, yet if a 26 year old Muslim did the same thing at the same time in the same school, it would have been a terrorist act. I would veture to say that we have a Pollyanna-esque view of ourselves. We don't think of ourselves as terrorists. When the Challenger exploded, most of the first thoughts were <i>foreign</i> terrorists. When the Oklahoma City bombing took place, again we initially thought of <i>foreign</i> terrorists. Are the idiots fire-bombing mosques and beating up Arabs/Muslims terrorists? In the dictionary sense of the word, yes. In our (American) learned version of the word, no.
quote from rimbaud: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where did somebody say this? Did I just miss it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was referring to RichRocket's words in this thread regarding the recent terrorist acts on muslims and sikhs across the country, and his characterization of these views as those of a conservative stance. Sorry for the confusion.
rimbaud: I thanked you for your "reasoned" post at the very outset. I'm sorry that you feel abused, but I think you can understand my concern about such a gross misrepresentation about my position being furthered in what was otherwise a very thoughtful post on your part. I didn't have a chance to deal with your response more substantially because it was not up when I was writing my response-- which took about 40 minutes because I have my 2YO daughter with me! "Not as bad" or "not so bad" are not my words. I said that they were Murderers instead of Terrorists. Ay of it is horrible; I never said otherwise. They don't have cold hearts or they would have killed these innocents Muslims/Sikhs BEFORE the 11th. These are crimes of passion, committed in a heated retaliation. Somewhere a line will be crossed and as time passes these kinds of atrocities will become terroristic. I said that in my very first post before this discussion dissolved from being on-topic. It only is about "me" when people start attacking "me" on a personal level. That's what happened. My request has been to keep the discussion on topic. Too many people are too busy passing judgement instead of just carrying the discussion forward. pippendagimp: can you show me what I wrote to which you are referring? As I recall, I only injected the "liberal" tag to identify what I classified as a liberal methodology whereby haven "insulted" me when he couldn't futher his argument. I never threw the liberal vs. conservative argument into the discussion about terrorism.
Haven's first post in this topic: "RichRocket: Why is it when American's commit acts of hateful bigotry it's misguided and wrong, but when others do it it's abominable evil? I think that both are abominable evil. Did the KKK commit terrorism? If the answer is yes, then I say these people are as well. I think we're getting too caught up in the definition, though. It's murder, either way, and completely wrong." Maybe I'm not seeing something but I find no evidence for a personal attack here. He may have inccorectly extrapolated something from your earlier statements but that is not a personal attack. Your next post: "Why do so many of you critics try to editorialize on me and not just stick to the argument? I think I'm making an intelligent disctinction and you use it as a launch point to insult me. I call it the way of the liberal." Here is where you insult an entire class of people. The post after this is where haven called you a hypocrite. Anxiously awaiting your response in which you accuse me of trying to smear your character...
Damn RR, you are still trying to defend yourself hear. Do you not see how your comments are completely offensive and downright scary to Americans??? You say the events "don't equate", which gives me the impression you think persons going on a rampage killing innocent Americans (perhaps for the "sport of it") because they have physical or clothing similarity to Arabs and/or Muslems in the Middle East is morally distinguishable than the acts of the suicide bombers. I really hope you get a different perspective on this over time. The greatist threat to America and the American way of life is not from foreign terrorists but from how we act from here forward with our fellow countrymen.
Rich, You obviously did not get the point I was trying to make, as your reaction indicates. I will not waste our time by trying to explain it again. Oh well.
This is the same guy who only a couple months ago preached for 2pages in a thread that posters should not dare desecrate the noble hero that is Rusty LaRue. Today, we should be more sympathic to American terrorists b/c they have emotional reasons for their acts. What will it be tomorrow - incest in Bluefield, W.Va. is ok if they use protection??
My original comment was not specifically aimed at haven. I was more irritated by DoD's usual commando tactic of "ridicule and run." If you re-read it, you'll see that it came after directly addressing DoD. Sorry if I didn't re-construct the sequence correctly, but it is really immaterial. The point is that I made the comment after DoD's arrogant remark about going away to laugh (I believe that's what he said) which is tantamount to a personal attack. He added nothing to the discussion at that point. Don't be too anxious because YOU are in control. Call me a name and I'll accuse you too!
unlawful use of force or violence= mentioned in original post person or an organized group= some people doing crimes in the name of america intention or intimidating or coercing societies or governments= the intimidating of the Islamic community ideological or political reason= anti islam retaliation. *** when the same groups that did that dispicable act in the WTC bombed public places such as a club in Israel like a month ago, it was under simialar situations. This IS terrorism. and even if i were to concede that it wasnt, terrorism is wrong for the reason that it puts innocent people at risk. terrorism is not wrong because of the number of people, the quality of people, it is wrong for the precious lives it takes. what is going on in the US right now is just as bad as terrorism. (and if the first thing that comes to your mind after reading that sentence is "well the world trade center was much worse", though i might agree, you have to ask yourself does it really matter that it was?)
Id like to add that i am very proud of the fact that Mayor Lee Brown has opened a special hotline number to the muslim community and those of arab descent or appearance so that they may better protect their american citezens from acts of hate.
pippendagimp: you are lame... Rusty LaRue! Yes, that's a great comparison. I notice that you didn't even try to answer my question. rimbaud: I think I got your point. Is it too much to ask to have my viewpoint represented accurately and to object when it is not. You got lumped in with the others because you passed on the same mis-information. Try re-stating your point in 25-words or less. DesertScar: you are entitled to your opinion. The outward threat is much greater than the inward threat. Our "terrorists" will be charged and go on trial by our government. They will get their's. Outreach and education will tame the inflamed feelings toward people that "resemble" the terrorists. Which events are the news oriented towards? That will tell you something.
I would guess by the end of this year over 75% of the murders in our country will be done by our fellow countrymen. This is not to discount the horrific tragedy of the events last week (although the Murray building, brought on by homeborn, homebread Americans, was a very large scale event too), but we are still by far the greater threat to one-another than foreign nationals. We should do all we can to rid the world of terrorists while sparing innocents as we do this, but Americans are by far the greatest threat to America than any foreign nation or terrorist bands are. We should remove the threat of anyone who acts with violence and terrorize our own people, including the perpetrators that lead to the creation of this thread. If we showing more leniency or "understanding" to these wretched humans than any other murderers and terrorists then we are on a slope that our country may not overcome because it is directed within. That is what Bin Laden's and his wretched companions want us to do, kill and mutilate ourselves.
Even though I specifically refuted this claim, and illustrated my reasoning, you persist without even paying attention to what I said? YOU argued for dileneation of the two types. I argued against that, saying that they are the same in all but scale (just these incidents specifically, but not with all terrorist acts). Are you now saying that you did not dileneate? Otherwise how could I mis-represent you and continue this personal attack? I don't understand the "25 words or less(fewer)" bit. Is that some kind of attack?
They are finally addressing this at the Federal level. I just heard that 48 events are being investigated by the FBI as potential hate crimes, including 2 deaths. The FBI has requested that all events be reported to them.
Yes Cohen, I just saw Attorney General Ashcroft address these situations - very appropriate. I think it would benefit the country if the media gives more focus to the killings in Texas and Arizona and the President publicly sends his condolences to the victims' families.
For some reason, I keep wanting to explain this... Rich, You said: "They don't have cold hearts or they would have killed these innocents Muslims/Sikhs BEFORE the 11th. These are crimes of passion, committed in a heated retaliation. Somewhere a line will be crossed and as time passes these kinds of atrocities will become terroristic. I said that in my very first post before this discussion dissolved from being on-topic." First, your last sentence is incorrect. You did not say that in any post (that I could find) leading up to this one cited. Now for the beginning. My first response is to see what I said earlier -- there has to be hate and cold-bloodedness there already to commit these acts. People that do not have it are not going around targeting people. Next, bin Laden would not be targeting the West if: 1. The USSR hadn't attacked Afghanastan. 2. The US, 2 years after #1 ended, hadn't "interfered" with the Iraq/Kuwait mess, and further "occupied" the Holy Land ever since. The above is from his own words, how he "sees it." He fears for Islam. What is the difference? The similarities are much closer. Both types are willing to kill, injure, and destroy property because of their misguided hate. The number they are able to kill is irrelevant.
I agree. All of these events are horrible, but a Sikh! How totally sad and reprehensible is that. Could you imagine anyone being more non-violent than a Sikh??? Some principles: *The goal of human life is to break the cycle of birth's and deaths and merge with God. This can be accomplished by following the teachings of the Guru, meditation on the Holy Name and performance of acts of service and charity. *Sikhism rejects all distinctions of caste, creed, race or sex. *Vand Chhakna, sharing with others is also a social responsibility. The individual is expected to help others in need through charity. *Honest labour and work (Kirat Karna) are the approved way of living ones life. It is considered honourable to earn ones daily bread through honest work and not by begging or dishonest means. * Seva, community service is also an intergral part of Sikhism. The free community kitchen (langar) found at every gurdwara and open to people of all religions is one expression of this community service.
Silk you must be a lawyer. With your line of thinking we can call an armed robbery an act of terrorism on the rich. Acts of terrorism are usually nationalistic, ie against all Americans. Hate crimes are contained to very specific groups of people within a nation, ie crimes against Muslims. Though there is no excuse for crimes against Muslims, it's a big stretch to say it's terrorism.
<B>Silk you must be a lawyer. With your line of thinking we can call an armed robbery an act of terrorism on the rich. Acts of terrorism are usually nationalistic, ie against all Americans. Hate crimes are contained to very specific groups of people within a nation, ie crimes against Muslims. Though there is no excuse for crimes against Muslims, it's a big stretch to say it's terrorism. </B> Really? You think Basque terrorists are committing acts again all of Spain? What about the IRA? They target only Catholics and Unionists. Homegrown terrorists always target only a portion of the population and ignore those who they don't consider enemies. Terrorists commit acts against a certain group of people - that can be all Americans, or only a segment of the population. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but his supposed target was only the FBI agents (others were simply collateral damage).
