Captdon (09-18-2018)
If you're correct, the FBI will be at your door sometime later today to discuss your attitude toward authority.
Seriously, the security theatre put on by the TSA is, in a way, a concession to terrorism, bordering on complicity. One nutjob tries to ignite his footwear seventeen years ago, and we're still taking off our shoes? A university professor is taken off a plane and questioned by federal authorities because a fellow passenger believes that the mathematical equations he's writing are Arabic? "America fears nothing" is a great slogan; too bad it isn't true.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Just AnotherPerson (09-18-2018)
Here's the thing, though, C...there are definitions contained in government documents, there are various legal definitions, depending on what jurisdiction you happen to be in, there are standard dictionary definitions and there are instances of common usage. If someone can make a case that a word - say, "terrorism" - is applicable in a given situation, unless that person is actually filing charges against someone and has to go by the legal definition and its elements, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss their use of the word out of hand.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Your testament is confused and/or wrong.
The term "terrorism" is superfluous, a federally concocted catchphrase that the media loves for the attention it commands. Everything "terrorist" comprising terrorism in this country is already criminal or illegal, and the qualifier "appear(s) to be intended" is nothing but a government hook for 3-4 additional layers of federal and state bureaucracy toward totalitarian government. Every time you acknowledge such a thing as "terrorism", you acquiesce to that end game. You get drawn into their fabricated definition of your reality.
If you disagree with this analysis, I'd like to know why because it's pretty much exactly what's going on.
The federal government was, in fact, for eight years all about letting terrorists into this country, with the goal of a greater central government that nobody wants. Furthermore, one can make the case that Obama Democrats are the greater terrorists, and some very bad people in the world are just too happy to oblige them in their deplorable mission.
Their crimes, however, will be prosecuted within the context of sedition, treason, and other statutes already on the books, as they should be.
Last edited by Lummy; 09-18-2018 at 04:19 PM.
I see your point, but most words are not defined by statute. This one is.
The problem is that if you start taking words with commonly accepted definitions and use them them to mean whatever you want, eventually, they become meaningless.
We have a case going on here locally that has made national headlines. The press has been using the word "terrorism" in association with it since the case came to their attention. The defendants have been referred to as "terrorists". Where they lived has been referred to as a "terrorist compound" and "terrorist training camp". When the judge handling the case, whom I know personally, released them on bail, as REQUIRED by New Mexico law, she began receiving death threats. It got so bad the state actually sent her into hiding for 3 weeks.
The things is, there are no charges related to terrorism being brought against them. None. Zero. They are being charged with child abuse and the Feds decided to get some publicity and hit them with some weapon charges (which won't stick).
Terrorism is a word like "hero" that is so overused and misused that it doesn't really mean anything anymore. People will call any crime they want (Look at some of the examples JAP offered) "terrorism" or "terroristic" or some other derivative. All it does is cloud the issues surrounding true acts of terrorism.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater
Standing Wolf (09-19-2018)
No, you have this wrong. School shooters don't have a message. They have an agenda but no message. None of them leave us a note telling us what they were trying to do.
Mass shooters decided to shoot a lot of people. They also don't tell us what the reason is.
The media would hide it? Our media? They don't get it right a lot but they certainly don't allow the government to push them around.
Terrorists are sending a message. It is that they hate us. They use religion but it's because they hate us and anyone who doesn't is also on their list. They let us know why. Today, they are all Muslims or ":radicalized", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Gangs are sending a message to other gangs or to the neighborhood. They aren't sending a message to the nation. Some of them aren't all that sure what nation they're in.
Terrorism isn't related to the other things.
Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
Pick your enemies carefully.
I would think a terrorist has to actually do something. I'm not a thief until after I steal something. These people didn't actually commit an act of terrorism. That's the point.
Terrorism is the act of doing something to create fear in a mass proportion. Those legal definitions are fine but they still are too confining.
I realize the word is overused. I think you nailed that part.
Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
Pick your enemies carefully.
Part of one of my degrees is a specialization in homeland security and counterterrorism which includes advanced education/training in counterterrorism, terrorist techniques, threat assessments, intelligence/surveillance, and so on. This does not qualify me to be an expert (other than in various threat assessment matrixes), to teach on the topic, to produce academic works, and so forth. But it does give me/has given me a lot more information than your average joe and significantly more research experience than your average joe. Still, an opinion but it needed a preface.
Any and all definitions, including those by the United States government, are deeply flawed. Here is the definition that an academic would give that is still considered flawed:
1. Violence is undertaken primarily for political reasonsa) for political violence to be terrorism there must be an identifiable organization2. Violence or the threat of violence is present
3. Must affect a target audience beyond the immediate victims and influence such audiences in an attempt to gain political or organizational objectives
4. Must be a situation in which the perpetrators, victims or both are non-state actors/governments
5. There is an attempt to improve their power situation
Most definitions fail to take into account groups or individuals that are acting for non-political reasons. Most definitions fail to account for the intelligence that supports that many FTOs have at least partial control of the government or political representatives within the government (Columbian terrorist groups have a foot in the door of government, Boko Haram has multiple bodies inside the door of the government in Nigeria, etc.). By extension, most definitions fail to account for the corrupt law enforcement and military operations in countries with well-organized terrorist groups. Most definitions also fail to consider that some FTOs have financial schemes so highly developed and sophisticated that they may have more capital/potential than some countries/state actors.
Most definitions do not properly account for or responsibly determine what constitutes a domestic terrorist, a domestic terrorist organization, or what domestic terrorist activities are. Hoarding guns is reason enough for federal law enforcement to possibly designate a domestic group as being terrorist in nature. Additionally, FTOs as listed by the State Department and associated agencies are highly subjective, particularly for FTOs near/in Israel.
Those are some of the flaws, definitely not all of them. There is no working definition that properly defines terrorism. Part of that is because terrorism and terrorists are constantly evolving in how they organize, finance, plan, communicate, recruit, and what tactics that will be used. The current "buzzword" (it's a quote) making rounds in academia is by Peter Ustinov: “Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.” The definitions used by institutions like the United States government are likely going to change and adapt to that idea.
Just AnotherPerson (09-18-2018)