[TimG]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

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.

Under your definition, bombing the office of a doctor who performs abortions as a way to protest abortions would not be considered terrorism. Not that I would definitively claim you are wrong, but I expect most would consider such a bombing an act of terrorism.

[awm]

TimG, on Oct 10 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

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.

Under your definition, bombing the office of a doctor who performs abortions as a way to protest abortions would not be considered terrorism. Not that I would definitively claim you are wrong, but I expect most would consider such a bombing an act of terrorism.

True. Not every crime is a terrorist act. If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely.

Now what if I think my neighbor is a serial killer but I'm wrong? Well, then if I shoot my neighbor I'm a murderer. Certainly I have committed a crime, should be punished, etc. But does the fact that I was wrong about my neighbor's murderous habits make me a terrorist? No.

I think the abortion doctor killing falls under this category. Crime, yes. But terrorist, not really. Bombing a hospital, on the other hand, because there may or may not be doctors there who may or may not have aborted a fetus sounds like terrorism.

[han]

Lobowolf, on Oct 10 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

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.

I don't understand the words irony and sarcasm so I cannot answer your question. It was on purpose that I contradicted my own words and I'm glad you found it amusing.

[han]

Pretty much agree with Adam's definition of a terrorist. It is interesting to me that some of you consider almost any kind of violent crime a terrorist act. Of course, it is just a matter of words, but apparently we use the words very differently.

[gwnn]

BTW I was going to post "wtp http://dictionary.re...e.com/terrorist " etc but I found that they basically give loads of circular defintion nonsense.

[TimG]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians.

If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely.

Not by your own definition: the serial killer is not an innocent civilian.

[Echognome]

gwnn, on Oct 10 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

BTW I was going to post "wtp http://dictionary.re...e.com/terrorist " etc but I found that they basically give loads of circular defintion nonsense.

I'm quote ok with using one of Merriam Webster's definitions of "terror" and then extrapolating that to "terrorist"

Merriam Webster (terror) said:

4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Merriam Webster (terrorism) said:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

[blackshoe]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

True. Not every crime is a terrorist act. If there's a serial killer living on my block and I shoot him, does that make me a terrorist? Unlikely.

No. But unless he is in the act of killing someone, or is likely to do so before the cops can show up, you're a murderer.

There are over a hundred different definitions of "terrorism". Given that no consensus as to which fits bests exists amongst governments, I don't think it likely that we will reach a consensus here. Perhaps it falls into "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

[akhare]

This is simply unbelievable. Disagreeing with your opponent's policies is one thing, but defending threats of violence?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...10/1529529.aspx

Earlier today, Obama remarked on recent outbursts of "Traitor!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" at McCain campaign events. "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States."

In response, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace released this statement, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports. "Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom."

"Attacking our supporters is a new low for the campaign that's run more millions of dollars of negative ads than any other in history."

*** UPDATE *** McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers adds in another statement: “Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies

[jdonn]

Unbelievable. The McCain campaign is officially pure evil, there is no other way to put it. I'm not saying I would ever up-end my life and do it, but him being President is the kind of thing that would make me think about packing up and moving to another country.

[luke warm]

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

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.

here's the definition i used in this thread

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

i still like it

[matmat]

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?
2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims?


hmmmm

[jdonn]

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?
2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims?


hmmmm

And hasn't Al Queda declared war against Americans (among many others)?

[hrothgar]

The Alaskan legislative council voted 12-0 to release the troopergate report. The full report can be accessed here:

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/...affiliate.7.pdf

The short form is: She's guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty...

[akhare]

hrothgar, on Oct 10 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

The Alaskan legislative council voted 12-0 to release the troopergate report. The full report can be accessed here:

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/...affiliate.7.pdf

The short form is: She's guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty...

And the long form is that it's all a liberal conspiracy .

I bet we'll will see a lot of talk about "terrorists" over the weekend to try and draw attention from this story....

[kenberg]

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

Nonetheless, the tone is getting really ugly. Bad things happen when the tone gets angry. McCain can do himself and the nation a favor by addressing this. Even if such crap was helpful to his campaign, he might ask himself if it is worth it. But it is not helpful. No matter the ugliness of the slur, the speaker still only gets one vote and he turns away other potential supporters.

McCain needs to get some better advice. Or think things through for himself. I think he would come to the correct conclusion.

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

You must have gotten that from Fox News. What really happened is, with McCain and Palin exhorting them on, it was the entire crowd that repeatedly chanted it.

[matmat]

Lobowolf, on Oct 10 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 10 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found  no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

You must have gotten that from Fox News. What really happened is, with McCain and Palin exhorting them on, it was the entire crowd that repeatedly chanted it.

you are mistaken... they were shouting "Palin" and it just sounded like "kill him."

[kenberg]

Lobowolf, on Oct 10 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 10 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found  no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

You must have gotten that from Fox News. What really happened is, with McCain and Palin exhorting them on, it was the entire crowd that repeatedly chanted it.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQdKB_...5eyQlueyGvsmt7g

Here is part of it:

The alleged threat was made when Palin was speaking of Obama's relations with former 1960s radical Bill Ayers, whose group "The Weathermen" carried out a series of attacks in protest against the Vietnam War.

"We take every threat very seriously. Every time we receive or are reported information like that, we follow up," said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.

However, he cautioned that at the McCain rally, "no Secret Service agent overheard any threatening statement and no threatening statements were reported by law enforcement or the general public."

"We did make some inquiries after the Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a someone had yelled 'kill him,'" he added.

Donovan said it wasn't clear whether the threat was actually vocalized or, if so, if it was meant for Obama or even Ayers, both of whose names were uttered by Palin at that moment in her speech.

For those reasons, he added, the investigation was dropped.




Not Fox News. I certainly hope the NcCain supporters can take a deep breath and think a little before they go into their chants. Arguing that we should vote for McCain because Obama's middle name is Hussein will not be getting them my support. Otoh I also think that if the Secret Service finds no evidence that someone shouted "kill him" we should allow for the possibility that no one did shout "kill him".


Generally speaking, I am not fond of chants.

[TimG]

Someone was arrested in Florida in connection to threats made at a rally or prior to it. Weren't they?