Terrorists don't like Christmas.....
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
:-?
Roman Catholics Reasonable in "having fun?"
*insert priest joke here*
ok ok.... I was just joking...... just a former Roman Catholic Irish guy "Having Fun" before he's "Sent Home"
As I see Terrorism, Terrorism is about taking hostages and/or threatening the lives of the innocent in order to achieve an end goal/demand...... if someone is just plain angry, hateful and wants to just kill or seriously hurt people without any means of negotiation or demands being met, it's not terrorism..... it's called being a crazy lunatic.
Just like all those people who've gone on shooting rampages in high schools, colleges/universities, or at their former job..... many police officials won't label them Terrorists or dub their rampages as Terrorist Attacks..... they're just crazy lunatics.
Therefore if rampaging mass shooters are just crazy lunatics that were isolated incidences, then so too are idiots like this clown who are just filled with anger and frustration who want to cause death and mayhem for whatever reason....... regardless of the weapons they use or their reasons why they did what they did.
If he did not present an end goal other then to cause death or serious injury, if there was no offer of negotiation or hostage taken, then it's not really terrorism, otherwise we should start labeling the white & black folk in our societies who waltz into an office and unload clip after clip of bullets into anybody they see.
A bomb set off in a crowd or a SMG spraying aimlessly into a crowd..... the end result is the same...... indiscriminate death and carnage with no room for negotiating.
But since our governments claim they don't "Negotiate with Terrorists" that makes Terrorism obsolete...... so people now just skip the whole negotiation aspect of it all and just go straight to attacking and killing people.
Agreed, I wouldn't label this entrapment either.
The only time it could be entrapment is if he never once thought about doing this until an undercover officer put it into his head and continually pressured or swayed him into thinking this was a good idea.... then offered to supply him with the resources to carry it through.
If he was already thinking of doing this and officials came across him ranting and raving on a forum or somewhere else online about wanting to perform some violent act..... and he was already actively seeking out the resources to carry it through..... then imo, they did the right thing and it wasn't entrapment.
Neither is it entrapment when some pedophile actively seeks out minors online, comes across one and tries to brainwash the kid into meeting up with him or her, only to end up facing SWAT....... nobody forced them to go seek a minor online, nobody forced them to try and meet up with the kid and they had plenty of opportunity to step away from the computer, think about what they're doing and stop before it got out of hand...... but they didn't, they went ahead with their plans and now they're screwed.
Flawed....
It's a good thing they don't do what you wish (or shouldn't)
Innocent until proven guilty is the way of the land around here..... and regardless of all the evidence and facts against someone, regardless of how much of an evil scum the person may be, everybody is entitled to due process in our societies.
If Robert Pickton is allowed due process with his rights being protected, then so should these goons.
I'm all for an eye for an eye justice...... but I also still believe in Innocent until proven guilty...... and if we tossed out all the rights and charters for people suspected of being a terrorist, I can foresee a lot of innocent people being dragged through an unjustified process and sent through a witch hunt that will only conclude with them being guilty.
Also, if we're so easily willing to toss what we believe in and what we claim to defend aside when we're faced by people we may not like..... what makes us and our way of life any different from those we preach about being the bad guys?
What does it tell the world about us? What does it tell our allies, our enemies about us?
What does it tell you about how safe and secure you are in your own society if the rights and charters out there that protect you can easily be waived based on suspicion and public opinion without facts being presented in a court of law and zero due process?
Sure, you can say that you wouldn't harm anybody, you would have nothing to hide and there'd be no reason for officials to drag you off to your witch trial to have all your rights and freedoms tossed...... and I'm sure Arar thought the same thing when he was on that stop-over in NY for a family vacation.
Though I suppose if you're white, it's less likely the above would happen...... but who's to say it wouldn't eventually?
If our way of life, if our society, our courts, our laws, rights and charters are indeed true and the right way to live, then there should be absolutely no need to strip anybody of those rights and laws that protect all...... those courts, laws, rights & charters should find the accused properly guilty for their crimes based on the supplied evidence..... due process should clearly indicate their guilt and they should be punished accordingly.
If we toss aside the above because we don't like the person they're protecting, then we're just stating to the world that the above systems we all believe in and defend are weak and useless to do the job required.
And if that's the case, why are we so proud of those systems? :-?
Well.... compared to all those uptight Protestants who settled this country... Lemme tell you a true story from my grandfather's youth in southern Ontario early in the 20th century. At least he always claimed it was true, and it certainly could be. There was a young pastor who served two churches a few miles apart and on one particular Sunday a winter storm had blocked the roads. The pastor got to the second church by skating on the river, which had mostly blown clear. The church elders were outraged that he was indulging in recreational activity on the Sabbath and hauled him up on the carpet. They couldn't decide how to censure him appropriately, until one of the brighter ones asked the key question: "Did you enjoy it?" The pastor being no fool said no, it was cold and miserable and he suffered terribly. That made it alright, he was off the hook.
Terrorism can many times be for a noble cause, for example when Fidel Castro overthrew the corrupt and violent dictatorship of Batista
And, how does one distinguish a terrorist from a mentally-disturbed, easily-persuaded youth of any religion, ethnic origin, or race?
Terrorists are the ones attacking your side, the ones on your side are freedom fighters.
Is the recent killing of an Iranian scientist, or drone attacks in Pakistan (resulting in civilian deaths) acts of terrorism by the American government ?
Perhaps you're right. I seem to remember a National Geographic article...
National Geographic Magazine 100 Best Pictures-Afghanistan
Mmmmmm stake.
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister
Terrorists are the ones attacking your side, the ones on your side are freedom fighters.
Which hash did you prefer in the 80's? the CIA "Freeom of Afghanistan" red hash or the KGB black hash?
Ever since they found out there is more money in poppies....you can't buy cheap pomegranate anymore...
Can't, their country is broker than ours. They need their Canadian EI cheques to send home to bail out their state owned banks.
No it isn't. Terrorism isn't a military coup. It's inflicting terror on the public to satisfy some warped sense of vengeance.
No doubt there are Iranians and Pakistanis who'd say so, but as the term is properly defined, no. Terrorism is a deliberate attack on a civilian population for the purpose of spreading fear, alarm, and despondency. The word's been corrupted by being applied to, for instance, the killing of soldiers in active combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan by non-military personnel. A terrorist these days just seems to be any enemy combatant not in the uniform of a national army. Whether a group is called terrorists, rebels, insurgents, the resistance, guerrillas, revolutionaries, what have you, depends which side it's on and who's doing the labeling. Doesn't really mean very much beyond indicating which side the person doing the labeling is on.
You don't appear to know what terrorism is
There isn't a properly defined term for terrorism, a universally agreed definition does not exist.
But the National Institute of Justice classified terrorism into 6 categories , and one of the categories is Official or state terrorism and it's defined as
The U.S government can easily be classified as terrorists under this definition.
Yes there is, I just gave it to you. It may not be universally agreed upon, but that's originally what it meant, attacking a civilian population in order to frighten it. The one you offered, "nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions" doesn't make grammatical sense, I've no idea what the part after the "that" means.
Just in case the boogieman need a few extra bucks to finish the bomb quicker are financial deals that go wrong an easier way to start a war?
<B>Quote: Originally Posted by petros
Let's send all the Irish home.</B>
State banks or are they like us, who don't use their state bank because it's debt was sold to private bank?