|
Post by tangent on Jan 7, 2020 17:05:54 GMT
Thanks Bob, you represent my views very well. You explain so clearly that the word 'terrorist' is a label. So...bob is to be our arbiter of what is correct usage of the term 'terrorism'. I would like to join Bob as an arbiter of the correct usage of the term 'terrorism'. I would feel privileged. I think the name [terrorist] or wording changes overtime. I have a problem with that. The American definition of terrorist is wide ranging. That enables the US government to label anyone they don't like as a terrorist. Prison sentences are increased from a few years to dozens of years because, you know, we need to protect our country. British police have extended powers to detain someone who is a 'terrorist'. If 'terrorist' is loosely defined, they can apply it to anyone. We are creeping towards a police state. The British public have a firm view of who is a terrorist. He (not she) is a young Muslim wearing a suicide vest. All Muslims are terrorists until they are proved otherwise. Let the public change their definition of 'terrorist' to accord with whom they hate and we are back to white supremacy.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jan 7, 2020 20:49:26 GMT
Cheeses....There are times that I think I already live in a police state. See my comment about law enforcement officers shooting unarmed citizens in the back.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jan 8, 2020 1:04:48 GMT
So...bob is to be our arbiter of what is correct usage of the term 'terrorism'....I'm betting that my definition is wider than yours. And, I did appreciate your inclusion of 'parents' in your list. I guess you've never experienced an abusive parent. Lucky you. LOL, I appreciate your nomination, whollygoats. But I doubt I'll get much endorsement from anyone else for that post. Just having an opinion (we both can do that) doesn't qualify me to do more than express it.
Yes, obviously your definition is wider than mine; that's what I'm complaining about.
Your last paragraph is more evidence that you don't get it. As long as you think calling someone a terrorist is merely "demonizing" him, as you put it, you reveal what you mean by widening the term to include so many others. More important, you prevent yourself from being able to think about whether the term is accurate—whether it means anything more than "bad person". Yes, I was indeed blessed in my parents; but what has that do with anything? (Can you pronounce "ad hominem"?)
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jan 8, 2020 1:13:53 GMT
I think that Hitler WAS a terrorist. Apropos of nothing. He killed a lot of people to achieve an ideological/political aim. The difference between Hitler and a terrorist, as I see it, Moose, is that a terrorist tries to spread the killing to people he does not perceive to be the problem. He does this in order (I believe) to get the victims of terrorism to pressure their governments to capitulate to his demands, or to the demands of his sponsors. Hitler (again, as I understand it) claimed and may even have believed that the Jews were the problem; by trying to exterminate them he was addressing what he claimed was the cause of Germany's problems.
Whollygoats will say, I gather, that this excuses Hitler's actions or even puts them in a favorable light. I can't agree; Hitler's actions were a great evil, they just weren't terrorism by the definition I understand.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 8, 2020 3:05:27 GMT
Hitler, whether he intended it or not, caused the deaths of millions of people - including those that he might have looked upon 'favourably,' by his actions. To me that IS terrorism but .. to an extent it does not matter what label we do or do not put on it. It WAS a great evil.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jan 15, 2020 20:37:02 GMT
Hitler, whether he intended it or not, caused the deaths of millions of people - including those that he might have looked upon 'favourably,' by his actions. To me that IS terrorism but .. to an extent it does not matter what label we do or do not put on it. It WAS a great evil. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jan 20, 2020 17:41:24 GMT
So, bob....
Is brandishing a firearm in the face of an elected official, in an attempt to get them to behave in a political fashion that the person brandishing the firearm deems appropriate...Is that 'terrorism'?
What if you multiply that one person brandishing one firearm to hundreds, decked out in faux military gear and clearly voicing their violent intents? It is basically a threat of violence.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jan 25, 2020 3:03:36 GMT
Harking back to the definitions I gave before, I would say not—to both questions. I think. Let's talk it through; I may change my mind:
1) "...brandishing a firearm in the face of an elected official, in an attempt to get them to behave in a political fashion that the person brandishing the firearm deems appropriate": Definitely not terrorism by the definition I'm advocating. The assailant is directly targeting what he perceives to be the source of the problem, a particular elected official. A terrorist, by the classical definition, would shoot up a crowd of people—ideally people who voted for or at least vocally support that official, but often terrorists don't stick even to that ideal.
2) "...hundreds [of people brandishing firearms], decked out in faux military gear and clearly voicing their violent intents": Are they still brandishing their firearms at that one elected official? If so, still definitely not terrorism, and for the same reason.
If they're threatening other people...yeah, that has to be the pivotal point, I'd say. I hesitate a little because threatening violence isn't usually what we call terrorism; we invented the term to cover actual violence committed against (so to speak) "non-participants". But I might stretch a point, if the violence is only threatened but it's threatened against non-combatants.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 25, 2020 10:27:18 GMT
Opinions have been expressed that it doesn't matter how terrorism is defined, and that the definition can change according to public perception tabloid moods. If it's horrid enough, then it's terrorism. I disagree, a clear definition that doesn't change is essential. The British government has laws that apply only to terrorists, the police have special powers that apply only to terrorists, sentences are often harsher for terrorists and in Northern Ireland, internment was possible because terrorists had special status. If we have a loose definition that changes in line with the Daily Mail's headlines and the Sun's opinion columns, the government is able to apply terrorist laws more and more to non-terrorist criminals. And if the public objects, the laws that apply to real terrorists will be weakened.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jan 25, 2020 19:20:13 GMT
Harking back to the definitions I gave before, I would say not—to both questions. I think. Let's talk it through; I may change my mind:
1) "...brandishing a firearm in the face of an elected official, in an attempt to get them to behave in a political fashion that the person brandishing the firearm deems appropriate": Definitely not terrorism by the definition I'm advocating. The assailant is directly targeting what he perceives to be the source of the problem, a particular elected official. A terrorist, by the classical definition, would shoot up a crowd of people—ideally people who voted for or at least vocally support that official, but often terrorists don't stick even to that ideal. Well, it was the state legislature of Virginia at which the intimidation was directed. Those doing the intimidation were self-declared 'militia' armed with fully automatic weaponry and their gear, threatening to bring on insurrection and widespread gun violence unless the duly elected officials of the state agreed to not impose any additional controls on firearms. Yep...Threatening those they perceive to directly be the source...the state legislature. And insurrection is a mite more widespread than carefully selected targets. And, your inclusion of the narrow targeting seems to exclude the likes of J.C. Kopp and his shadowy friends in the Right to Life terrorists, who targeted abortion doctors. That incident was subsequently used to intimidate and terrorize others. That was its purpose. That depends about what you mean by 'they' and 'still'. They were calling themselves 'militia' and parading their assault weaponry around the state capital. There was talk of 'tyrrany' and the potential for insurrection should the state legislature enact new, more restrictive gun safety laws. My impression was that those 'demonstrating' were attempting to suggest that if the elected representatives of the state of Virginia enacted new, more limiting gun legislation, these people were willing to label these legislators as 'tyrants' and engage in all kinds of gunplay and threats to life and limb against them and the wider civil society. It was an explicit threat of widespread gun violence. You tell me whether these clowns are still engaged in mental masturbation over their perceived dominance through threatened violence...I bet they all went home and cleaned their guns and are still dreaming of running in the streets shooting whoever the fuck they want. So...You say wielding an armed mob is not terrorism. Check. Richard Reid was not a terrorist in your definition, he never killed a single person. But, that's stretching your point. To include intent.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jan 27, 2020 2:04:14 GMT
Right, that'd be case #2, not #1; many people threatening many targets. As I said, if they're addressing the legislators then I don't think I'd call it terrorism; if they threatened to attack just anyone, I probably would. (In this case, though, I think you're mistaken in that the threat was never made, only feared. But I may be mistaken; I wasn't paying that much attention at the time.)You're mistaken there. I don't believe I ever said—I certainly wasn't thinking—that it doesn't count as terrorism if the attempt failed to come off. Reid's attempt (I had to look him up) was to kill a plane full of random individuals; I definitely count that as terrorism. Unless you see some aspect that exempts him...?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 27, 2020 13:11:26 GMT
Someone who sends a senator an envelope containing an innocuous white powder is also a terrorist if the aim is to create the fear of spreading anthrax.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jan 30, 2020 2:23:53 GMT
Now, that's interesting! I wonder whether I have to back up at least a little before whollygoats, because I'm used to calling that "terrorism" too—and yet it fits his broader definition and not mine. I'll have to think about that one.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 4, 2020 22:51:58 GMT
I guess our arbiter has cut and run....or, is sitting on his hands.
Given the massive change in situation since his last post, mayhaps we should shift to the topic of 'bioterrorism'?
Are those who pointedly cough on others 'terrorists'?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 4, 2020 23:24:07 GMT
I have been emailing with Bob, I will alert him:)
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Apr 16, 2020 15:31:04 GMT
Probably like me. I just don’t think about social media and take long breaks away from the world.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 30, 2020 3:30:01 GMT
Well, the landscape of public controversy has shifted considerably, in the US, at least, since the beginning of this conversation.
There is now rather open talk of state-sponsored terrorism. It seems more evident to me now that I live in a police state than it was when I posed such a concept six months back.
I'll bet Bob is nowhere to be found. Our arbiter has skipped town under the cover of chaos.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jun 30, 2020 17:05:18 GMT
When was the last time he was on? Let me see. March I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 1, 2020 1:33:51 GMT
I'll alert him ... I think he felt he was not getting much engagement here though.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 1, 2020 16:59:21 GMT
See? That's what happens when you grant someone 'arbiter' status. They up and wander off...
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jul 5, 2020 18:13:20 GMT
Jo wrote to warn me that if my ears weren't burning they should be. WG, I see you still favor me in the role of "arbiter", which is high praise coming from you but I don't hear anyone else seconding your nomination. A humbling experience, that.
Anyway, I suspect we've both said all we have to say on the definition of "terrorism". Maybe another topic? How about materialism vs miracles? Monotheism vs atheism? Mid-trib vs post-trib? I'd suggest backpacking vs canoeing but "one of these topics is not like the others / One of these topics just doesn't belong".
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 6, 2020 16:23:37 GMT
Oh...I think the discussion is far from over. And, here in the US, the discussion has actually been widened.
There is now considerable talk of 'state-sponsored terrorism' on the part of many local police force members.
I'm curious what, and how, you think of these...being an arbiter and all.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Jul 6, 2020 22:54:39 GMT
I haven't been listening that close, apparently; I haven't heard that members of the police are talking about state-sponsored terrorism. That is, we all talk about state-sponsored terrorism—there've been plenty examples of it—but I haven't heard that police officers are talking about it any more than the rest of us. I suppose I can come up with an opinion on what they're saying (as I said before, I'm certainly opinionated enough), but you'll have to tell me first what they're saying....?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 7, 2020 3:45:15 GMT
I am not sure but I think WG might be referring to the rather disproportionate number of young black males who die at the hands of the police each year. That could be considered terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 9, 2020 3:18:59 GMT
Yes. That multiple police forces throughout the nation are staffed by those who would perpetuate a war of terrorism upon the populous. Violence, intimidation, and unnecessary cruelty exercised in their duties as police officers. Predators. Thugs. The police ARE the terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 9, 2020 4:28:27 GMT
I had 'interactions' with the police back in September, as many of you might remember. I found them very kind and sympathetic. And I knew also that, whilst they were being kind and sympathetic to me - a disturbed and yet obviously harmless middle aged woman - they might very well not have treated me in the same way were I am 25 year old black guy.
Though, they did not have guns.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jul 9, 2020 4:42:22 GMT
He’s back! Awesome sauce!
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 9, 2020 19:00:18 GMT
Moose...
1. You are in a completely different nation; 2. You are not of a minority population; 3. Not ALL police officers are corrupt, venal, and untrustworthy. Indeed, the hypothesis of 'a few bad apples' has been forwarded here in the US, but it is repeatedly pointed out that there is all too much in the way of 'looking the other way' and remaining silent in the aftermath of abominations as some kind of 'professional courtesy'. When the officers one might normally expect to protect and serve pointedly ignore perversions within their own ranks, then ALL officers become 'bad' officers; the whole barrel is rotten.
I cannot speak to the police brutality in the UK. I can speak to it here in the US. The police here, in all too large a part, are engaged in an ongoing race war against minority populations.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 9, 2020 21:53:22 GMT
Well that was my point - i am NOT a young black male so I cannot speak to how I would have been treated if I were. Also, our cops aren't armed, usually.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 9, 2020 22:57:55 GMT
I'm surprised ours don't sport little silver skull icons on their black helmets and black body armour.
|
|