rimbaud: "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)." I understood that; I just didn't agree with it as regards these events we are discussing. The scale certainly separates them. Look at the comparable news coverage afforded. I think the political component of the WTC/Pentagon/PA atrocities is much stronger and the planning of the WTC/Pentagon/PA atrocities is much more significant. That is how I draw the distinction. These are only our opinions, so it is impossible to refute them. We can argue them but not refute them. Facts can be refuted but not opinions. As I said in my first post in this thread (I think) if these kinds of senseless acts of violence keep recurring, they will have evolved into a terrorism of our own because they will necessarily involve more conspiracy, more explicit political statement, and perhaps (I hope not) more collateral damage. Right now, we have more a case of idiots lashing back and I don't call it terrorism. You may if you like. It is wrong, dead wrong in either case. At this juncture, I don't see it as terrorism. In time, if it continues, it will evolve into terrorism. Again I say, I was writing my initial response at the same time that you were responding to my post. As soon as I submitted my post, I saw your post. I read over it quickly so as to be able to at least acknowledge it since in sequence it would appear before my response-- didn't want you to think I was avoiding you. The thing that jumped out at me was the mis-statement of my position, so that is what I naturally cited. "Are you now saying that you did not dileneate? Otherwise how could I mis-represent you and continue this personal attack?" The only dileneation I justify is that there is Murder and then there is Terrorism. I have always dilineated those two; it's what has gotten me such criticism here. My only complaint about mis-representation was the "as bad as" stuff. I never used those words, did I? I sought to keep a distinction between Murder and Terrorism, because I think that the law does, the media does, and many do because of the scale, the politics, and the conspiracy of the WTC/Pentagon/PA tragedies. Your "continuation" of the personal attack was simply to mis-represent my position, whether typo or not. Either way YOU expressed it was not an accurate representative of my position. I'm sorry if I over-reacted but you were I think the third person to do that-- along with a lot of other stuff. "I don't understand the "25 words or less(fewer)" bit. Is that some kind of attack?" No. I was facing several critics at once, trying to keep my 2-YO daughter involved in some kind of play, and write responses all. I may have missed something. You may think of me as dense; I prefer to think of it as busy. I was just asking for a focused expression of what you think I missed so I could see if I actually missed it.
rimbaud: it was my 3rd post.... "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? " rimbaud writes: "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 get your drift; I just don't go there. I can't equate some redneck with Bin Lauden for the very reasons that we disagree on. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I JUSTIFY THE REDNECK. IF HE KILLED SOMEONE, HE DESERVES THE DEATH PENALTY.
Rich, My last question was just a joke...I thought you would appreciate it. As far as your continued insistance that I mis-represented you. Again, I point to your initial post in which you called the Americans doing this "overwhelmed and afraid," essentially, while the terrorists were "cold-hearted and cold-blooded." This, to me, means that these Americans are not as bad, thus my paraphrasing of sorts. The language itself points to this division. This is what I have later explained, more than once. I was also trying to point out in that first post that this is probably how others have read it and it is why you are getting some angry responses. My attempt to help you see this, it seems, only made me another of your attackers. Never mind. Believe what you will. Edit: I swear I read through that 3rd post again...just missed it. Thank you for your clarification. Also, I know you are in no way condoning the "rednecks."
What?? At least 2 people are dead, bullet holes in mosques, a car driven into a mosque, continual threats from strangers on the street, etc. etc. Regardless, this is stupid for us to arguing definitions. Define terrorism as you see fit to, but understand that regardless of your definition, these people are being terrorized.
Why so dismissive?: "Never mind. Believe what you will." Don't we all believe what we will. I sure know that you do! Why so reluctant to allow me to do the same? Most of ur "misunderstandings" come from our biases. People are going to "read into" and "paint over" whatever we say with their own extrapolations and interpolations. Holding the minority viewpoint here is no cakewalk.
Yeah, really. Do you read my stuff before you go off in a huff? I said acts of terrorism are USUALLY nationalistic. What about the IRA? Both the IRA and the Basques are nationalist groups seeking independence from their respective governments. I guess you didn't know that. Tim McVeigh targeted an entire building full of civilians as well as FBI. FBI agents are all American government workers, not bound to any particular ethnic group or party affiliation.
Yeah, beliefs here are probably fundamentally closer than 'definitions' are allowing them to apppear. Anyway, RichRocket, thanks alot for http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22116. That is a great read.
<B>I said acts of terrorism are USUALLY nationalistic. </B> In that case, it had no relevence to whether the acts currently taking place here are terrorism or not. If your whole argument is that terrorist acts are USUALLY nationalistic, then you never explained why are these acts not terrorist acts? <B>What about the IRA? Both the IRA and the Basques are nationalist groups seeking independence from their respective governments. </B> Of course they are. Your example, however, was "(ie, all Americans)" -- you used this to differentiate between targetting a subset of people (in this case, Muslims). I simply showed that terrorists CAN target a specific set of people. <B>Tim McVeigh targeted an entire building full of civilians as well as FBI. </B> No, he targetted the FBI (according to Nichols, at least). The civilians just happened to be there. There's a significant difference. Here's the context of your entire post to argue that this wasn't terrorism. Let's break it down: <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.</B> Irrelevent in terms of argument. <B>Acts of terrorism are usually nationalistic, ie against all Americans.</B> Apparently not always though. <B>Hate crimes are contained to very specific groups of people within a nation, ie crimes against Muslims.</b> We've now established that terrorist acts also can fit this. <B>Though there is no excuse for crimes against Muslims, it's a big stretch to say it's terrorism.</B> Now I don't see how the conclusion fits. Terrorist acts aren't always nationalistic (bin Laden's, in fact, are simply religion-based), and they are sometimes committed against a segment of the population. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all to say that these are terrorist acts.
<B>I've been meaning to ask you this for a while: whose debate team were you on?</B> I've never done any organized debate before. Why do you ask? I just love to talk politics, and have pretty strong beliefs. I like to believe they are rooted in logic over emotion, but I'm sure many people would disagree with me on that. This place is cool to do it because there are *so many* disagreeing viewpoints that you get a good spectrum of beliefs and the thought processes that go into them.
What you should ask her is why she selects one portion out people's posts and tries to write a dissertation on that one point while not even reading the very point she's trying to argue against. In that case, it had no relevence to whether the acts currently taking place here are terrorism or not. If your whole argument is that terrorist acts are USUALLY nationalistic, then you never explained why are these acts not terrorist acts? Of course it has relevance. Terrorism is USUALLY nationalistic, this is not nationalistic, hence, probably not considered by most sane individuals to be terrorism but rather hate crimes. The James Byrd murder, is that now an act of terrorism? Of course not, the only reason these crimes are even being compared is because these hate crimes are occuring in response to an act of terrorism. Of course they are. Your example, however, was "(ie, all Americans)" -- you used this to differentiate between targetting a subset of people (in this case, Muslims). I simply showed that terrorists CAN target a specific set of people. You didn't show anything that the IRA targets a subset of people. The IRA targets the English, which in itself has many subsets. When the IRA bombs a subway station, they are targetting ALL English persons there, not some unique subset. There are both Catholic and Protestant Britons, as well as Britons from Irish descent. No, he targetted the FBI (according to Nichols, at least). The civilians just happened to be there. There's a significant difference. The FBI is NOT a subset of Americans but rather a government agency. The FBI is comprised of all segments of American population. He killed many different subsets of Americans, some of which were part of the FBI. Irrelevent in terms of argument. Very relevant in terms of argument. The rich are a subset of Americans. According to Silk's analogy, an attack on rich Americans (which happens a hell of a lot more than attacks on Muslims) is indeed an act of terrorism. Apparently not always though. There are few absolutes in life, except that maybe you continue to try the collective patience of posters here by dividing posts into small increments and then blowing them out of their context. We've now established that terrorist acts also can fit this. You haven't done anything of the sort. You have yet to provide an instance where an act of terrorism targeted a specific subset of people based on ethnicity, religion, etc. to meet a specific political goal. You seem to think that because some people who are victims of terrorism may belong to a particular ethnicity etc that this is the entire basis and goal for the act of terrorism. Now I don't see how the conclusion fits. Terrorist acts aren't always nationalistic (bin Laden's, in fact, are simply religion-based), and they are sometimes committed against a segment of the population. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all to say that these are terrorist acts. Bin Laden has threatened to kill ALL Americans, whether they be Muslim, Christian, women, children, fat, short, tall, rich, whatever. His reasons are both nationalistic and religious Fighting for Palestine, retribution for Iraq, defense of Afghanistan, and anger over his Saudi homeland. It is a big ass stretch to say that hate crimes are acts of terrorism.
<B>What you should ask her is why she selects one portion out people's posts </B> Funny you say this when I addressed every single sentence in your original post... <B>Terrorism is USUALLY nationalistic, this is not nationalistic, hence, probably not considered by most sane individuals to be terrorism but rather hate crimes. </B> I guess then most people on this thread are not sane. Just because terrorists usually do something doesn't make another group not terrorists. Terrorists usually don't hit U.S. Soil - does that mean that WTC attack was probably not a terrorist attack? Like I said, just because it doesn't fit your standard-stereotype terrorism does not mean that its not terrorism. BTW, why can't this be a terrorist action AND a hate-crime? Why is this mutually-exclusive? <B>You didn't show anything that the IRA targets a subset of people. The IRA targets the English, </B> No, the IRA targets Protestants and primarily Unionists (as I already mentioned). They don't target Catholics, and they don't target Separatists, even if they are English. Thus, they target subsets. <B>When the IRA bombs a subway station, they are targetting ALL English persons there, not some unique subset. </B> The IRA targets primarily political targets, not random civilians. Again, another subset. <B>The FBI is NOT a subset of Americans but rather a government agency. The FBI is comprised of all segments of American population. He killed many different subsets of Americans, some of which were part of the FBI. </B> Ummm, the definition of a Subset is a particular portion of a group. "People employed at the FBI" is a specific subset, as are tall people, Airline Pilots, Muslims, midgets, athletes or any other group you pick. Subsets are not only created on racial lines. <B>According to Silk's analogy, an attack on rich Americans (which happens a hell of a lot more than attacks on Muslims) is indeed an act of terrorism. </B> If the reason behind the attack was that they wanted to kill rich people, then hell yeah it's terrorism. But the motivation behind most armed robberies is to get money, not to kill rich people. <B>You have yet to provide an instance where an act of terrorism targeted a specific subset of people based on ethnicity, religion, etc. to meet a specific political goal. </B> You've yet to argue that terrorists don't do this. Palestinian terrorists target Jewish people to meet their goal. Do you think they purposely go after Muslims in Israel? Happy? I thought that was fairly obvious. <B>It is a big ass stretch to say that hate crimes are acts of terrorism.</B> I'd say it's a bigger ass stretch to say people targetting certain groups of individuals and indiscriminately killing innocent people out of hatred and to cause fear is NOT terrorism.
After thinking about it, the closest thing I can think of concerning terrorists who are not nationalistic is abortion terrorism. A non-nationalistic political agenda that targets a specific subset of Americans. I guess then most people on this thread are not sane. Just because terrorists usually do something doesn't make another group not terrorists. Terrorists usually don't hit U.S. Soil - does that mean that WTC attack was probably not a terrorist attack? Like I said, just because it doesn't fit your standard-stereotype terrorism does not mean that its not terrorism. Terrorists hit US embassies, which are US soil, they hijacked planes on US soil, they bombed the WTC and now crashed into, on US soul. The Cole is basically sovereign US soil. McVeigh certainly acted on US soil. Name me more acts of terrorism recently that weren't on US soil. BTW, why can't this be a terrorist action AND a hate-crime? Why is this mutually-exclusive? Acts of terrorism may be both, however hate crimes are most certainly not required to be both. No, the IRA targets Protestants and primarily Unionists (as I already mentioned). They don't target Catholics, and they don't target Separatists, even if they are English. Thus, they target subsets. So when they bomb a subway they know for a fact the religious leanings of everyone there? Obviously that is completely impossible. The IRA targets primarily political targets, not random civilians. Again, another subset. Since when are political targets a subset of civilians? Buildings are civilians now? Ummm, the definition of a Subset is a particular portion of a group. "People employed at the FBI" is a specific subset, as are tall people, Airline Pilots, Muslims, midgets, athletes or any other group you pick. Subsets are not only created on racial lines. Subsets are created on many lines. Particular jobs don't happen to be one that I've ever heard. They don't break down polling into FBI agents, janitors, doctors, pharmacists. They break them down by age, race, religion, party affiliation, and possibly wages. If the reason behind the attack was that they wanted to kill rich people, then hell yeah it's terrorism. But the motivation behind most armed robberies is to get money, not to kill rich people. The motivations behind every attack on a muslim was to kill? I doubt that very much. Does terrorism or hate crime depend on death? Vandalism of buildings are considered hate crimes, are they terrorism too? Or is that part of the obvious difference between the two. Name me one building that was ever vandalized that you consider an act of terrorism. You've yet to argue that terrorists don't do this. Palestinian terrorists target Jewish people to meet their goal. Do you think they purposely go after Muslims in Israel? Happy? I thought that was fairly obvious. Palestinians target ISRAELIS. When they go into a restaurant and blow it up, are they all Jewish? Probably not. I thought that would be terribly obvious. The burden of proof is on you to back up your argument, not on me to counter an argument you can't substantiate. I'd say it's a bigger ass stretch to say people targetting certain groups of individuals and indiscriminately killing innocent people out of hatred and to cause fear is NOT terrorism. So now targetting people to scare them is terrorism? That's great. We are the most terroristic society on Earth then. Thanks for playing.
Subsets are created on many lines. Particular jobs don't happen to be one that I've ever heard. They don't break down polling into FBI agents, janitors, doctors, pharmacists. They break them down by age, race, religion, party affiliation, and possibly wages. What about 4 out of 5 dentists?
Here is a definition of hate crimes by the Attorney General. Any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution. You will notice that neither nationality or profession is part of the subsets considered to be part of a hate crime. Neither is FBI agent by the way.
<B>Terrorists hit US embassies, which are US soil, they hijacked planes on US soil, they bombed the WTC and now crashed into, on US soul. The Cole is basically sovereign US soil. McVeigh certainly acted on US soil. Name me more acts of terrorism recently that weren't on US soil. </B> Fine. Change "US Soil" to "Mainland USA" or "New York City". The point is exactly the same. Just because it doesn't fit your "well most terrorist acts are done this way.." doesn't mean something is or isn't a terrorist act. Therefore, it's irrelevent to determining if this was a terrorist act. <B>Acts of terrorism may be both, however hate crimes are most certainly not required to be both. </B> Well, if acts of terrorism can be hate crimes, then why can't these hate crimes by terrorist acts? That's not to say ALL hate crimes are, but why can't these be? <B>So when they bomb a subway they know for a fact the religious leanings of everyone there? Obviously that is completely impossible.</B> For the fourth time, targetting a certain group is not the same as killing a certain group. For that matter, subway bombings are not even targetting Londoners -- they are targetting the government. The Londoners are simply method to an end. <B>Since when are political targets a subset of civilians? Buildings are civilians now? </B> Ummm, you do know that political targets can be people, right? When you try to blow up the leader of a certain party, that's a POLITICAL TARGET. <B>Subsets are created on many lines. Particular jobs don't happen to be one that I've ever heard. They don't break down polling into FBI agents, janitors, doctors, pharmacists. They break them down by age, race, religion, party affiliation, and possibly wages. </B> Really? Because I was always under the imression that anti-abortion bombers targetted abortion doctors. <B>The motivations behind every attack on a muslim was to kill? I doubt that very much. </B> Who's talking about every attack on a muslim? We're talking about specific acts that occurred over the last several days. And yes, when they shoot up people and drive away, I'd say the intent was to kill. What did you think the intent was? <B>Palestinians target ISRAELIS. When they go into a restaurant and blow it up, are they all Jewish? </B> We still seem to have a serious problem between targetting people and hitting people. If there are two restaurants -- one full of Israeli Jews and other the full of Israeli Muslims, which one do you think the terrorist will target? <B>The burden of proof is on you to back up your argument, not on me to counter an argument you can't substantiate. </B> LOL.. You're the one who said these aren't terrorist acts because "usually" terrorist actions are nationalistic and later admitted thats not always the case. I have nothing to prove to you, given that you have yet to give any logically reason why these aren't terrorist actions. <B>So now targetting people to scare them is terrorism? That's great. </B> Umm.. Terrorism has one ultimate purpose: to terrorize (ie, scare). Through that terror, the aim is to scare a certain portion of the populace into submission/leaving/giving up/etc (IRA, Israel, etc). What exactly do you consider terrorism to be?
<B>You will notice that neither nationality or profession is part of the subsets considered to be part of a hate crime. </b> Great, but again irrelevent. Targetting FBI agents isn't a hate crime -- I agree. That has nothing to do with whether its a terrorist act or not. This is my last post on this subject. It's obvious we're simply going in circles at this point.
Really, Rich, this is tiring...look at the context. I was saying, believe what you will about me attacking you because me saying that I wasn't obviously was not working...you still felt I was part of your enemies. I guess I should not be reluctant to allow you to think I was just trying to continue an attack on you. Why should I care, right? Once again, all I seem to do is oppress you and your beliefs. Damn, I am horrible.
