Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you believe in terrorism?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."
    Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.
    The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by jazzcyclist
      Originally posted by lonewolf
      The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."
      Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.
      The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.
      Therein your defintion.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by jazzcyclist
        Originally posted by lonewolf
        The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."
        Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.
        The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.
        As I quoted on another thread:
        Originally posted by George Orwell
        All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
        Also:
        Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh, July 31, 2006
        Here's the thing. And I know some people disagree with me on this that the civilians and the citizens in these tyrannical regimes are irrelevant. But one of the ways -- how do you think a terrorist organization, which cannot compete with us or anybody else militarily, how else does it support itself, how else does it entrench itself? It does so by making the local population depend on its existence, making the civilian population depend on them. Until civilians -- frankly, I'm not sure how many of them are actually just innocent little civilians running around versus active Hezbo types, particularly the men, but until those civilians start paying a price for propping up these kinds of regimes, it's not going to end, folks. What do you mean, civilians start paying a price? I just ask you to consult history for the answer to that.
        and:
        Originally posted by Osama bin Laden, March 1997
        We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal . . . As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places.

        Comment


        • #19
          Gernany declares war on America. Years later America targets factories that are producing the Nazi war machine for night bombings knowing that innocent Germany citzens will die horribly in the firestorm.....is this terrorism?
          phsstt!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            Gernany declares war on America. Years later America targets factories that are producing the Nazi war machine for night bombings knowing that innocent Germany citzens will die horribly in the firestorm.....is this terrorism?
            Not according to my definition:
            9) In war, the goal is to diminish your enemy's war-making capability. Therefore, the target must be a military target or military-related infrastructure, such as a bomb factory.
            The key point is whether or not the civilians were targeted or the war making facilities were targeted. I don't consider an employee in a bomb factory to be a civilian. And I would guess that everyone at the U.S.'s nuclear weapons plants undergoes a thorough background check comparable to what CIA agents go through. And I don't consider CIA spooks to be civilians either, though they wear no uniform.

            Comment


            • #21
              I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Marlow
                Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.
                Excellent - I'm using that in class.
                I have seen this quote a few times before, and am in violent
                disagreement.

                Taken too its extreme, this rule would reduce the ``true'' moral
                position of almost everyone to an extremely egoistical and
                opportunistic level---and it would do so in a manner which is contrary
                to what I would consider being the core of true morality and ethics.

                This core is the ability to view situations abstractly and neutrally,
                and base decisions on what is right and wrong upon rational thought.

                Notably, there are models for development of morality used in e.g.
                child psychology. The ``true'' morality that would result from the
                quoted principle typically corresponds to the very lowest level of
                development---found mostly in young children.

                On a closely related (but not identical issue): I consider anyone who
                approaches right and wrong based on their own expected reactions to be
                a hypocrite. (Hypothetical example: If I were starving, I would resort
                to robbery; thus, robbery is not immoral if one is starving.) To
                instead acknowledge that ones own morality can be imperfect is a sign
                of maturity. (...; thus, I am not a perfectly moral human.) In fact, I
                would recommend the following alternative to the original quote:

                Everyone compromises his moral principles. You only find out too what
                degree and under what level of duress.

                (Obviously, the above examples are based on the premise that the
                apriori view on robbery-while-starving is negative. It is quite
                possible that a legitimate opposing view, based on other lines of
                reasoning, can be found.)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                  I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.
                  I was about to post the same link.

                  Possible next VP won't say bombing and killing innocent people to further a cause is terrorism.

                  Wow.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by imaginative
                    On a closely related (but not identical issue): I consider anyone who
                    approaches right and wrong based on their own expected reactions to be
                    a hypocrite. (Hypothetical example: If I were starving, I would resort
                    to robbery; thus, robbery is not immoral if one is starving.) To
                    instead acknowledge that ones own morality can be imperfect is a sign
                    of maturity. (...; thus, I am not a perfectly moral human.) In fact, I
                    would recommend the following alternative to the original quote:

                    Everyone compromises his moral principles. You only find out too what
                    degree and under what level of duress.

                    (Obviously, the above examples are based on the premise that the
                    apriori view on robbery-while-starving is negative. It is quite
                    possible that a legitimate opposing view, based on other lines of
                    reasoning, can be found.)
                    When I hear people speak of moral principles, it's understood that everyone prioritizes their principles since they will inevitably conflict with each other from time to time. For example, "not stealing" is one of my moral principles. But "not starving to death" is a greater principle. I don't know of anyone who criticized the folks who looted food and water from the stores after Katrina flooded New Orleans, but they certainly criticized the ones who looted TV's.

                    Even anti-abortion folks like Sarah Palin believe that saving the life of the mother is more important than saving the life of the unborn fetus. However, the other day I had a discussion with a fervent pro-life co-worker who said that he doesn't know how he would feel if his daughter was raped. However, when I asked him whether he believed that fetuses that are the product of rape are as innocent as other fetuses, he said "yes". At that point, he realized that maybe he would have to change his mind about the idea of "abortion being murder".

                    Nat Turmer was a terrorist according to my definition, but I still haven't met anyone who blames him for doing what he did.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',
                      In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:

                      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
                      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
                      3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

                      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
                      Take good care of yourself.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mojo
                        Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                        I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.
                        I was about to post the same link.

                        Possible next VP won't say bombing and killing innocent people to further a cause is terrorism.

                        Wow.
                        Saw Palin again on tv last night. How many hours left before her ignominious yapper stops bombing our ears?
                        Take good care of yourself.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mennisco
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',
                          In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:
                          Nah :wink: Halloween produces neither terror nor horror. It does produce fright occasionally (BOO!). Huge difference.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Originally posted by Mennisco
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',
                            In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:
                            Nah :wink: Halloween produces neither terror nor horror. It does produce fright occasionally (BOO!). Huge difference.
                            You must see nothing but great art wherever you experience Hallowe'en.
                            Take good care of yourself.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

                              cman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by cullman
                                I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

                                cman
                                Please elaborate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X