@Setanta,
Quote:attacking university staff he certainly was not in a way to effect change in society. For all that university professors are honored for the their learning, they are arguably among the least politically influential people who can be considered prominent in society.
LOL he was attacking the people who made technology change possible at least in his opinion so how in the hell was he not using terror to try to change the society!!!!!
The goal does not need to be rational or possible for that matter.
No matter how many long distant runners the middle east terrorists killed the US is not going to change either it society in doing away with the first amendment for example or it relationships with the middle east governments.
Definitions do change. Similar to early Diagnostic Statistical Manuals (DSM) in psychology defining homosexuality as a mental illness, and today it is referred to as gender confusion at worst (or best), I believe the term terrorism has been enlarged to include many an act that knowingly harms innocent people. Even if there is no political goal, it being the act of violence against innocents, is making some sort of statement for the masses/government/media. So, if an act of violence against innocents is planned/premediated, the act is terrorism by the broad definition is terrorizing the population.
In effect, I believe the prior defintion put the emphasis on the "motivation" of the act, while today's defintion is putting the emphasis on the "result" of the act. Otherwise, in my opinion, if we only focus on the motivation of the act, we might think that an act of violence against innocents is a form of negligence, and disregard for the safety of others. And, to prove terrorism, a motive has to be discerned from the mind of the perpetrator.
Random violence may have become a terrorism of the alienated and disaffected in society. Semantics is just splitting hairs in many instances, and it might be up to others to define terrorism.
@BillRM,
Leaving aside that as usual you show yourself to be a shallow idiot, do you now contend that you know the bombing in Boston was carried out by "middle east terrorists" (a sufficiently vague term)? If you have that kind of reliable information you should be talking to the FBI, not wasting everyone's time here.
@Setanta,
I'll concede the argument on political ends versus other goals.
Before the Cole attack Al Qaida had "declared war" on the US. Not making a value statement on the validity of the claims, if a group declares it is resisting an invading force, then attacks a military target, how is that terrorism? By that definition, all rebels are terrorists (which is how all governments resisting rebels describe them.)
@engineer,
I don't think you should so readily concede on that point.
More that one of the definitions Setanta has cited leave ample room for reasons other than political and ideological.
The definition does matter in the sense that there are laws and resolutions that use the word and in such cases the inferred motivation is probably exclusively political or ideological, however the example of organized crime using acts of violence to instill fear for coercive purposes seems to me to be very much terrorism.
I agree that not every bomber, arsonist and murderer is a terrorist, but if the intent of their violent and destructive actions is to coerce, I think they are.
@engineer,
How did the presence of USS
Cole in the Gulf of Aden constitute an "invasion?" What do you allege was the sovereign territory of Al Qaeda?
To the extent that any revolutionary group uses terror (as opposed to other military and political means) to attain their ends, i have no problem with describing them as terrorists. With the burnings, murders and the execution of prisoners by both rebels and Tories in the American south during our revolution, i would consider it reasonable to have branded both sides as terrorists, at least some of the time.
@Setanta,
Quote: that you know the bombing in Boston was carried out by "middle east terrorists" (a sufficiently vague term)? I
Of course not...............did I somehow leaved out the word if as far as the Boston bombing is concern?
The point that I was making was that there been many many similar plots that there is zero question of having a connected to the middle east and I was talking about that such actions is not likely to change the actions of the US government no matter how many long distance runners or other innocent people that are killed as a results of such plots. So such actions do not have to be rational or logical to be consider a terrorist act.
But I am more then willing to put a bet with you at this moment of a 1,000 dollars that the Boston bombing is so connected.
Would you like to take the bet even money within an hour of this posting?
footnote I never even use the word Boston in the posting you was complaining about only that the fate/deaths of long distance runners would not affect the US government foreign policy.
@Finn dAbuzz,
I see Finn's point, especially with the practices of a variety of cartels who use ghoulish murders to command territories. I see Setanta's point re how we have characterized what terrorism is, as a legal term and I figure people are still, presently, working out what the term terrorism means.
Maybe or maybe not, drug and other types of cartels occur where people have felt both overrun and impoverished by government, and to that extent have worked out a way to survive on their own terms (that was described to me once by a sicilian friend). I think they're plain old thugs, but I figure a case could be made against my view, or could have been made when it all started. Survival is political to some extent.
@ossobuco,
Good point, and could easily lead to a discussion of the definition of "political"
A low level thug trying to work his way to the top is certainly engaged in politics.
@BillRM,
Quote:No matter how many long distant runners the middle east terrorists killed . . .
You not only "left out" the word if, there was no where it reasonably could have been fit into the sentence. I'm never surprised to find that you've made a hash of what you later claim you were saying.
@Setanta,
Quote:You not only "left out" the word if, there was no where it reasonably could have been fit into the sentence. I'm never surprised to find that you've made a hash of what you later claim you were saying.
As I never even refer to the Boston marathon directly just that attacks on such people as long distance runners not being able to change US foreign policy so there was no need to placed an "if" in any case. Your complained about my having or claiming information about the Boston bombing was off target as a result.
In any case do we have a bet by the way?
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
How did the presence of USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden constitute an "invasion?" What do you allege was the sovereign territory of Al Qaeda?
During war, any military unit is a target regardless of whether it was in what AQ claimed as their territory. The US would clearly target an AQ or Taliban unit where ever it was found. Wouldn't that make the Cole a legitimate target?
@BillRM,
The way you squirm and weasel when confronted with what you have actually posted, betting with you on anything would be futile. You're doing it again.
boston police now consider the one surviving suspect a terrorist...
http://able2know.org/topic/212845-1
@engineer,
You used the word invasion, i didn't introduce it. Now you want to talk about legitimate targets in time of war. It appears that you want to continue to speak of Al Qaeda as a sovereign power, in this case one which has legitimately declared war on the United States. You're performing wonders of rhetorical gymnastics to attempt to sustain what i consider a silly claim, which gets sillier as you attempt to sustain it.
On the one hand, you seem to want to call almost any act of criminality which could even remotely be said to intimidate terrorism, while calling any act which has been deemed terrorism to be legitimate warfare. You're all over the road. Remind me never to ride in an automobile with you.
@Setanta,
Betting with me seems would had been a losing idea asshole as both of the bombers had just been reported to be foreign nationals.
One dead and one still on the runs at the moment....we live in interesting times.
@BillRM,
Well, asshole, they are reported to be from the Chechen region of the Russian Federation, so they weren't "middle-eastern." What a ******* idiot. Do you really need to have it explained to you that not all foreign nationals are "middle-eastern?"
So what? Chechnya is not in the middle east, dip-****. This is exactly why no one in their right mind would bet with you on anything.
@Setanta,
Quote:So what? Chechnya is not in the middle east, dip-****. This is exactly why no one in their right mind would bet with you on anything.
It is religion base terrorism of the same kind/religion that resulted in the 911 attacked and my bet is that there will be found ties in to terrorists groups that are base in the middle east.
