In Texas, we'll be able to use our brand-new hate crime legislation against people involved in these incidents.
To answer shanna: Terrorists are usually tried on charges of conspiracy because it carries the death penalty and is usually easier to prove than murder. On the above article, I really feel bad for Sikh's in particular. For those who don't know, the Sikh religion is a division of the Hindu religion. The men do no shave their beards or cut their hair. The women do not cut their hair either. They are a VERY peaceful people. There is a rather sizeable Sikh community in Houston. I know this because my wife actually took yoga classes from a Sikh woman a couple of years ago. My sister-in-law told me that a guy who was with her at lunch saw a woman in a sari (the traditional Indian dress for women) and said that she shouldn't wear that in public not even realizing that she was very likely Indian, a country that has been at near war with Pakistan, an Islamic country, for years. I also heard a dj on local radio go on and on about a billboard advertising a new movie with an upside down flag. Like an idiot, he kepts saying how they had desecrated the flag's image until his partner told him that the upside down flag is a symbol of distress and that, in war time, those in trouble hung the flag upside down to show they needed help. The movie apparently has to do with that. What is frustrating to me is the level of ignorance of people. I understand the anger, but that isn't an excuse to act like an idiot.
RichRocket, Now I know what you are saying. It's still a tough thing to do though man: comparing murders and saying that one case is so much more deplorable than the other that it would be a "disservice" to the victims of the former to describe the murderers in the latter as terrorists. It's all horrible man. I don't think you're bad or evil or anything, but don't you see how you can come off sounding a little cold? Like you don't give a crap about innocent Muslims being murdered? (I'm not saying that you don't, just that the way you write is easily interpreted as so) Everything that has happened wrong is horrible and I'm not sure what good it does comparing the relative horriblenss of the actions. We probably should just focus on how to prevent all the horribleness from happening ever again.
shanna: No doubt terrorism has a complicated meaning. I don't know what it is. Your point about the Palestinians has validity, but I don't think the first acts of revenge there or here duly qualify as terrorism. Over time, surely it can become terrorism. I don't know where the line is. Do you? Terrorism has political overtones. Anger-motivated revenge just doesn't seem to qualify in my opinion. To lump these idiots in Texas or Arizona in with Bin Laden's real terrorists seems a distortion. I'm sure there are laws governing terroristic acts on the books, but I wouldn't know any of the specifics. I'm a peace-loving family man! Kim: two incidents in Texas and Arizona involved "one-on-one" killing. The other four incidents involved killing every man, woman, and child on the airplane and whomever else they could inflict mortal damage to. I'm sorry that any innocent person has to die, but I just don't see the two as that comparable. Everyone who died was innocent EXCEPT the terrorists on those four planes. Equating the two kinds of crimes was the original comparison made which I objected to. I would never have compared them except to distinguish them. Other didn't; that's why I spoke up. IN MY OPINION, it is a mistake to do so.
The movie in question is the new Robert Redford/Tony Soprano movie called "The Last Castle" about an uprising at a military prison. The poster art is being changed to take the upside-down American flag off the poster.
Frustrating isn't the word in some of these instances. A more appropriate word could be "sickening". Hate crimes in the name of patriotism and nationalism when they're really in the name of bigotry/racism/prejudice. By the way, I really enjoyed the re-defining of "terrorism" in this thread... pardon me while I go laugh somewhere.
DoD: If you "terrorize" a kid at a Halloween haunted house, does that make you a terrorist? I await your answer.
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.
Good Lord, that is a stretch. And it's sad to have to make such a leap to try and defend your argument. Please stop trying to grade the level of tragedy in this whole thing. Hate is hate, blind anger against any community is still blind anger. You can't see the correlation?
It's nice to know that when all of humanity has been violated, we can count on people to pull together.
Give me a break. Being American has nothing to do with it. Are you expecting me to forgive Tim McVeigh?! Lump McVeigh in with these Bin Laden nuts, but leave the isolated cases of murder out of it. They don't belong in the same conversation except one dedicated to innocent victims. All the dead are to be mourned, but there is terrorism and there is murder. If you can't see the distinction based on A) scale, B)conspiracy, and C) political overtones, God help you. Don't try to twist my meaning to imply that I don't have compassion for all of the victims. That is self-serving on your part. My focus has been solely on the perpetrators of the violence and their intent. Rokkit, of course it's a stretch... THAT WAS MY POINT. Just because there is terror involved, does not make something a terrorist act. I"m still waiting for The Doctor of Dunk's irrefutable definition of terrorism. He chides us for re-defining it, while we're just trying to grasp its distinctions. 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.
I think you've become schizofrenic. When you've been soundly beaten logically, you shrilly fall back to reliance on authority (Bush's advisors know more than you!), or simply pull that wonderful, condescending "my experience means that I'm right." When you get beat intellectually, you berate us for being stuck in an "ivory tower" and not taking into account the human factor, emotion... in short, anything and everything. But now, we're all somehow illogical and retreating intellectually. Intellectual? There wasn't a single syllogism in your last argument. Not an invalid one, not one ruined by faulty premises. No syllogisms, at all. It's rare to find an argument so completely devoid of any logical structure. How can we logically debate blind assertion? Liberals are about half the world. They're not all idiots. I really doubt that they're, on whole, any less decent than conservatives. I firmly believe the opposite is true as well. Among my friends, there's probably a 60-40 liberal conservative split. You self-righteously declaim our supposed personal attacks, then slander an entire category of people. Well, I'm sick of it. I'll put it this way: I don't think you've ever won an argument against the "liberals." And that doesn't go for all conservatives. Bob Rainey, as annoying as he can be, is a superb debater. I think he's managed draws in situations where I really think the facts were against him. MadMax, BrianKagy, Pole, TheFreak, and even Timing often have very good points that I listen to, consider, and even occasionally are persuaded by. In return, I've seen them examine their own opinions (particularly MadMax). You don't. And now, once again to refresh our memories, the marvelous conclusion of your last post: You ask us to stick to logic, not editorialize, and then stick that comment in the back. Do you not think of what you're typing, or are you simply so petty that you can't refrain? Hypocrite. Whatever you may think of the rest of my post, that was hypocritical textually. This is the most angry I've ever been at a fellow poster. I apologize in advance for anybody other than RichRocket who think's it applies to them. It doesn't have any bearings on any other of the many intelligent conservatives on this board.
If you can "logically" describe an equation of Murder and Terrorism that includes the components of conspiracy, scale, and political agenda then we have something to talk about. I think those are valid factors that would set the two crimes apart. On the other hand, if you have better definitions, share them. I know that calling names is much more satisfactory. If you don't, won't, or can't offer a better description consider mine or shut the hell up. You disagree with me and pronounce yourself the winner. That is a tough victory. Why are you so hung up on winning arguments? You're a debater; I'm not. Go judge a debate; don't score me by your rules. I have made many excellent points and some not-so-excellent I'm sure. So have you; I don't keep track, nor do I keep score. Why do you? You're so damned hung up on winning. I'm trying to exchange ideas. I don't expect you to articulate mine. I do that. You articulate yoursl You closed your mind to my arguments a long time ago. So be it. That's your liberal education for you-- demonize the "enemy." I had a syllogism once, but the doctor said he got it all. You know you've done it again here. You attack me personally because my views are different than yours. My opinion "stuck in your back" is not directed at you, haven. It's not slanderous; we've argued about it before. It is a simple observation about an argumentative tendency that I have observed for 15-20 years-- one which you have revived here again in your last diatribe-- moreso than ever before. Isn't self-rightously the ONLY way to deter a personal attack. Who did the attacking here and took it to a personal level? Who is inappropriately self-righteous really? When did I elevate McVeigh from being a terrorist to being "misguided" (your words) because of his American birth certificate? What a laugh. You are so busy wanting to disagree with me that you don't even understand what I am saying.
Are you doing it based on political, racial, bigotry, prejudice, or religious hatred? Is it meant maliciously? If not, then, no. You have my answer. Let me know when you need to be further educated in the ways of common sense.
Get it right. I didn't just chide, I also laughed at your attempt. Especially that Halloween analogy. Some of us happen to disagree with your comment and are in disbelief that you can actually say some of the things you say. If you have an argument, stand up like a man and be refuted. Your response should be one of a logical defense. You have yet to provide one (Halloween Defense not withstanding). Hot damn... all these years I've considered myself a conservative and now I'm a liberal. But of course it's never an argument based on common sense, it always has to end up liberal vs. conservative. Usually that shot is volleyed by someone running away, too. Imagine that. You know Rich, this is exactly why I stay out of political "debates". Often it has nothing to do with educating one another or finding a common ground. It rarely has anything to do with using common sense. It rarely has anything to do with someone just saying "you know, he has a point". It almost always ends up being "liberal vs. conservative". Politics suck and your last comment above is exactly why I believe it's true.
What do bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and ignorance have to do with being a conservative? I am offended at this misuse of the conservative position.
I am repeatedly amazed by DoD. Sometimes I even allow myself to think that he is a smart guy. Rich, I will try to help out in this discussion, without resorting to negatvity, etc.: "If you can't see the distinction based on A) scale, B)conspiracy, and C) political overtones, God help you." Honestly, I think you are a little off here. Scale with "terrorist" attacks has ranged from one dead to now thousands. With the Israel, PLO struggles, there have been many small scale killings in the street. With conspiracy, it seems to be the same. You have events such as this that have been planned for multiple years, but you can also have random outbursts. There are Americans right now walking around looking for "Arab-looking" people to harrass...to injure...to kill. I have heard many on the streets claim that they all should be sent away, they do not deserve to be here, they are the enemy. Does that at all sound familiar? It is similar to terrorist language throughout the world. Two guys sitting in a living room saying, "hey remember that mosque...let's go get it" is enough of a conspiracy. On a personal note...my sister could not sleep one night (Tues or Wed, I think) so at ~3 am, she took her dog out to an area right outside her apartment (but still within her gated complex). Suddenly, she is confronted by two men, "in full camo outfits) who ask her if she knws (insert Arabic name). She says, "no" and they then hurry into their beige truck, peel out, and drive away. She saw things in the back of the truck, but could not make out what it all was. Anyway, this was in Dallas...apparently an hour or so earlier a mosque had been bombed...witnesses described men in a beige truck fleeing the scene. The same? Who knows. Regardless, these were groups of men roving around (in stealth outfits) late at night looking for targets. In regards to political overtones...by that definition, bin Laden is not a terrorist. He does nothing for politics. He feels that Islam is being attacked (both by the West and by corrupt Islamic leaders). He feels he is defending his peoples, their way of life, and their morality. This, too, sounds familiar to what these over-zealous Americans are thinking now. Of course there is a difference in event between Tuesday and a mosque being fire bombed, however, that does not define terrorism. Why was the mosque bombed? The answer is that it is a vigilante "counterstrike." It was only targeted for its ethnic and religious symbolism. It, too, was bombed to send a message. Basically, "go away." Again, I spent a great deal of time with the issue of terrorism. It is not defined by minumum, maximum, quality, or quantity. It is defined by various levels of intent and various levels of result. You asked not to equate it with the cold-blooded, cold-hearted terrorists. I ask what these bombings, attackings, and killings are, if not cold-blooded. It is true that in many ways they are reactionary, but at the same time the people doing this did not need much push. An event like Tuesday will not suddenly send a "normal, well adjusted" person to commit such acts. They already need the hatred, the violence, and the feeling of superiority within their hearts and minds. That is the true horror. Thes are people who have had this itch. Tuesday just provided them with the reason, the excuse, to scratch. I do understand what you are trying to say, but I also think that it is not that simple of a dileneation. Further, your seeming defense of these people, that they are "not so bad" is what is making people upset. I hope that you can understand from where they are coming and not judge. I also do not understand what conservative/liberal has to do with discussions about defining terrorists and terrorism.
DoD: I offered a logical defense which defines terrorism with aspects of conspiracy, scale, and political agenda that murder does not. You write: "Are you doing it (killing?) based on political, racial, bigotry, prejudice, or religious hatred? Is it meant maliciously (only killing in self-defense is not malicious, isn't it)? If not, then, no." You dealt with one aspect (~politics) that I've suggested should be considered in defining Terrorism. What about Conspiracy (who was involved, how was it planned and financed) or Scale of the crime (was it a short-term retaliatory event or a protracted event involving planning and traveling to commit, was collateral damage an intended factor)? Do those components have any place if setting apart Terrorism from Murder? It seems to me they should. No one has said why they shouldn't? They just accuse me of being biased in calling Americans Murderers instead of Terrorists. My argument is rooted in the definition of terrorism I think is a functional one--- NOT in the nationality of the evil-doers. Get it haven? haven accused me of being soft on the criminals associated with events in TX and AZ because they are Americans. All I said is that they were not Terrorists; they were Murderers. A "logical" extension of his argument would find me being soft on Tim McVeigh; needless to say I was never soft on McVeigh. Nationality has nothing to do with whether an act is terrorism. Both McVeigh and Bin Laden's (or whomever) men were terrorists, some from home and some from abroad. Neither you nor haven have "refuted" my definition adequately. Your idea of how this should go is pre-ordained that I stand up and say "Uncle." (You actually tell me to stand up and be refuted!!!!!!!!) I have offered a logical argument of a way to distinguish Murder from Terrorism. Haven ignores it and DoD only partially deals with it. You have offered nothing else convincing. You just disapprove of my conviction. The Halloween analogy was meant as sarcasm to point out that terror alone does not define terrorism. Why do you expect people to find common ground and agree just because a few people type a few thousand keystrokes and express differing ideas? What you really expect is for my views to succumb to yours and for me to say "Uncle." In recent days both shanna (about the Palestinians) and glynch (about Falwell) asked me tough questions. I admitted that the questions were difficult to answer but I answered them honestly and respectably using LOTS of common sense, I thought! Much of this is grey area. I've thought out my positions and express them here as food for thought. Getting personal attacks is not part of the plan. I'm willing to discuss the ideas and just let the chips fall. Why can't you? rimbaud: thanks for your input. I never said it was an easy definition to make. I was trying to make a distinction between Murder and Terrorism while others don't even want to bother to make a distinction. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that a distinction needs be made. I NEVER SAID IT WAS NO BIG DEAL THAT PEOPLE WERE KILLED. I NEVER SAID THAT SOMEBODY WAS "NOT SO BAD." I just said that their killers were not terrorists. What is the motive for people to mis-report that other than to damage my reputation? Even you in your well-reasoned response here have misreported THAT FACT based, I assume, on what others are saying in response to me. Well that is wrong and inaccurate and I won't roll over for it. Over time, if they continue, these murderous acts will morph into terrorism as in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If Bin Laden seeks refuge and protection from a government he is a political animal.
rimbaud: the whole liberal/conservative thing only came up because haven took some personal shots at me. He called me a hypocrite and insinuated several other not-so-nice things. It had nothing to do really with the discussion about terrorism.
