[pclayton]

han, on Oct 9 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

Vandalist?

Somebody who destroys property and is careful not to hurt any people is not a terrorist. Not every criminal is a terrorist.

Han, he said bomb.

A vandal (not "ist") is someone who tags building or slashes tires.

[cherdano]

Terrorist has become a very vague word. Some use it as synonyms for groups of people conspiring to set bombs. Others seem to use it as a synonym for s.th. like "enemy of the state".

Terrorism is a tricky word to define. I really don't think throwing a bomb into an empty Google cafeteria (at night after carefully checking there are no janitors or cleaning staff around) in order to protest privacy violations should be denoted "terrorism".

[blackshoe]

I think it depends on your purpose. If animal rights activists who set off a bomb in an empty lab do so with the intent of striking fear in the people who work there (perhaps fear that the next bomb will be set off in the middle of the work day) then IMO they're terrorists. The guy protesting (carefully) privacy violations isn't a terrorist, he's a vandal. Unless someone does happen to get killed. Then he's a murderer.

[mike777]

As a practical matter not sure how one carefully checks no guards or people are around before a bomb goes off but it sounds like a swell thing in theory. Not sure how we can make sure no fireman dies in fire aftermath but ok.....lets assume the vandals are that good.

I agree getting a perfect definition of terriost is tough. In general Ithink most of us think of them as bombing for some political, non monetary purpose,but agree that is not a perfect definition.

USA dropped atom bombs for several reasons but one of the big ones was to strike terror in the political class to surrender.

Fire bombing of Toyko and other cities were meant to strike terror among other reasons.

One can argue, no declared war and set off "small" bombs is terror.
One can argue that even terrorists have declared war...just no one bought it!



But no matter what; huge bombs are acts of war....

But I think the more interesting discussion is.......the debate:

We can never win a war fighting ..."you fill in the blank"......now what?

[helene_t]

Since Phil (and he may not be alone) seems to define the word "terrorist" as "bomb planter" then I will be careful with using the word, just to avoid misunderstandings. Nice to know.

[vuroth]

Someone who plants a bomb hoping to make people afraid is a terrorist.

Someone who plants a bomb hoping to create chaos is an anarchist.

Someone who plants a bomb, but isn't trying to scare anyone, is an optimist.

[han]

If we are in a war on terror, does that mean that the terrorists are no longer terrorists but soldiers? If so, then maybe it makes perfect sense to attack some country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks?

[hrothgar]

Some of the events of the last few days give me cause to revisit some comments from the early stages of the previous “Palin as VP” thread.
At the time Palin was chosen as the Republican candidate for VP I made a couple predictions:
First: I argued that Palin would implode. More specifically, I noted that Palin would rally the far right of the Republican base but would push the alienate the political center and drive them into Obama’s camp. The choice struck me as a Hail Mary pass. At a very superficial level Palin looks quite attractive. McCain was praying that her negatives wouldn’t catch up with her positives before the first Tuesday in November.

Second: I also predicted that the Palin selection would lead to an extremely polarized election. At the time I made these comments, most people chose to focus on my own suggestion that I didn’t think that McCain had a prayer of winning without election night chicanery in battleground states like Ohio and Florida. I also claimed that I wouldn’t be willing to recognize the election results were McCain to win under these types of circumstances. (I also predicted that many Democrats would act in a similar manner). Some of my other claims were lost in the shuffle: More explicitly, I commented that Palin was whipping the uglier portions of the Conservative base into a frenzy. I felt that said individuals probably wouldn’t deal with things too well when their candidate went down in flames come the first Tuesday in November.

Its been quite interesting watching the political coverage from Palin/McCain’s recent campaign events. Nothing I’ve seen so far dissuades me from my original views. Palin, especially, is working very hard to demonize Obama. Its not playing well with anyone except for the hard right base, but they’re drinking it up.

Election night and the weeks following are gonna be UGLY

[han]

I watched Saturday night live yesterday and I thought the debate was quite funny. I agree that the commercials were ugly. (mostly because they seemed to take more time than the program itself, how come anybody is still watching this sh*t?)

[kenberg]

Some years ago I lived next door to a man who had spent some years in prison for his role in the bombing of an abortion clinic. I don't know the details but I think he drove the car and I think no one was killed or injured. For purposes of discussion, suppose that this is correct.

What should be my approach? When I first met him I thought him intense and a little scary. In fact, he was a fine neighbor. He had eleven kids, one each year except when he was in prison, partly making up for this gap with twins one year. (Eventually I believe his wife put her foot down, or put something down.) He home schooled his kids through grade school. (Actually, he also taught some other kids who had been in trouble in the school system.) The oldest, a girl, found that when she went to high school she was a good deal ahead of most other students. They moved before all the kids were grown but his oldest son got into (and succeeded at) the Air Force academy and, I believe, joined the paratroopers. When the kid was younger we employed him to do odd jobs and he was both trustworthy and extremely competent. He came around a couple of times for help with his math and he was a serious student and a quick study. He was competitive at wrestling in the home school league and later on the high school team.

If I had any reason to believe that my neighbor was still making bombs I would have called the FBI. I had no reason to believe this. He brought up some political issues once, I explained my views, and after that we pretty much had a undeclared agreement to avoid such topics. Living next door, it was obvious that we were not churchgoers. He did not suggest that we come to his.

It's easy to say "Oh, he pals around with terrorists". People have a past, but they also have a present.

[pclayton]

Just so there's no ambiguity here:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorist

Pretty clear that someone who isn't trying to kill someone but wants to scare the ***** out of them by planting a bomb at night is a terrorist.

Would any of you hesitate to label someone who supported the 'right to life' who blew up an abortion clinic at 3AM as a terrorist? I surely would and I hope you would too.

The 'cause' of the person, no matter how sympathetic we view it, should never obfuscate our definition of things like terror.

[helene_t]

Those definitions are fine with me.

It says nothing about which tools are used to intimidate and coerce. As Arend and Lobbowolf said, the aim (to intimidate and coerce) is crucial.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy said:

the United States has increasingly become its main target

Realy? I thought most current terrorism is targeted at civilians in Middle East, Pakistan and India.

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Oct 10 2008, 07:42 AM, said:

It says nothing about which tools are used to intimidate and coerce.

I have to be really careful here. I'm planning on a bitchin' haunted house for Halloween. I plan to scare and intimidate the bejeezus out of the the neighbor kids.

I hope no one calls me a terrorist

[han]

Quote

The 'cause' of the person, no matter how sympathetic we view it, should never obfuscate our definition of things like terror.

I agree with that.

But let's say Greenpeace sinks a whale hunting ship, nobody aboard. Are they trying to scare anybody? What if they use a bomb?

If nobody is scared and scaring people isn't the point, then they aren't terrorists.

Note I'm just giving examples, I'm trying not to be judgemental about greenpeace activist, google bombers or anti-abortion lunatics.

[TimG]

han, on Oct 10 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

But let's say Greenpeace sinks a whale hunting ship, nobody aboard. Are they trying to scare anybody? What if they use a bomb?

The boat owners/people who work on the boat, will think "wow, I could have been on the boat" and that will scare them. Even if the bombers did not intend it to be scary.

[Lobowolf]

han, on Oct 10 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Note I'm just giving examples, I'm trying not to be judgemental about greenpeace activist, google bombers or anti-abortion lunatics.

If this is intention irony, it amused me. Hard to tell online sometimes.

If it wasn't, please disregard this message.

[pigpenz]

I am curious
as Palin riles up the republicans to say things like lets go get him, kill him, etc.
where are the secret service agents???

If any of us did this in public against any of the 4 candidates we would be arrested on the spot.

[awm]

I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians. Attacking people who are actually fighting you or doing the thing that you oppose is a little different from attacking random people hoping that this will scare those random people into pressuring your actual enemies to change policy.

Someone who blows up a US Humvee in Iraq because they don't like the US occupation there is a soldier. We may not like their methods or agree with their cause, but they are fighting directly against the military force that they oppose. Someone who blows up a high school in the US because they don't like the US occupation of Iraq is a terrorist -- they are striking at innocent high school students who have nothing to do with the occupation in the hope that this will cause Americans to get scared and pressure their government to do something.

[kenberg]

pigpenz, on Oct 10 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

I am curious
as Palin riles up the republicans to say things like lets go get him, kill him, etc.
where are the secret service agents???

If any of us did this in public against any of the 4 candidates we would be arrested on the spot.

I have been hearing some about this. It is a bit scary and I hope that John McCain will make a serious effort to get some of these folks back on track. They do him no good and they have the potential for serious trouble.

Conservatives sometimes talk about irrational hatred of George Bush by liberals. There was and is some of that but it pales in comparison to how some conservatives viewed either Clinton, and now this response to Obama leading and presumably beating their guy is getting truly ugly. Someone whom they will listen to should tell them to cool it, pronto.

[RichMor]

This just in

My Webpage

A column by Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckly.