Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vniow, Dec 18, 2006.
is it terrorism when the suspect is white and the targets are brown? i've seen little indication from the bush administration or the media that such a person is a terrorist.
i think the rule is it's terrorism only when white people can be scared to vote conservative.
The Bushies are unimportant in stuff like this. The word is so overused, nowadays, it's almost useless. E.g., a prosecutor in Carolina who wanted to use anti-terrorism laws to prosecuted a dope-dealer for threatening witnesses in a trial...
Lots of other words get overused in similar fashion. "Brave" and "hero", among others. I don't really like to pick on the media, but to sell advertising they first must create excitement and make ordinary events into Big Deals...
I love how in talking about abuse or misuse of the terms "terrorist" "brave" and "hero" you immediately forget the Bush administration and blame the media.
Nevermind that the Bush administration has done much worse with their hysterics than sell advertising.
You do have to wonder if this story would have gotten more attention from the media if his planned targets had been white.
Sure you have. They're called eco-terrorists, although they do fit the criteria of scaring up conservative voters. Somehow burning some SUVs is the equivalent of blowing up a dozen civilians...
I don't think the Bushies have misused the label; that's different from not dealing properly with the problem. That's why I said it's more than just the Bushies.
mac, how is the eco-bunch's burning of buildings not terroristic? It's a pattern of action designed to scare people from an activity such as animal research, not just random, "Hmm, I hate SUVs and ski lodges, so I'll burn some." Even the SUV burning is based on the publicly-avowed philosophic view of the ALF and Earth First crowd.
::shakes head:: See folks, I told you eco-terrorists scare the piss --and the vinegar apparently -- out of conservatives. It works almost as good as "boo" or "HillaryRodhamClintonMichaelMooreBarbaraStreisandGeorgeSorosNancyPelosi".
Didn't you just say the term "terrorist" is overused by our society/media 'Rat?
And are you really saying that you see humans and objects as worth the same? Or if you're willing to say that tactics against land designed to inspire fear is terrorism, would you say the Israelis are terrorists for their land policies? Or do you want to have it both ways again?
mac, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I think it's a "word" thing, myabe.
Anyhow, to me, the term terrorism has more to do with the purpose of the action, rather than whether it's against property or person. That is, the intent of the action is to force a change in politics or law. Or behavior across a broad spectrum. (This view is sorta "includes but is not limited to...")
The use of animals for research is a legal activity. The ALF bunch, by blowing up research facilities, is striving to persuade people to quit the research. Insofar as loss of human life, ALF is penny-ante--but IMO their purpose does lie within the definition of terrorism.
Question: Is the painting of hostile slogans or symbols on the house of, say, a black person or a Jew NOT terroristic? Must there be death in order that an action be seen as terroristic?
The implication of an ALF bombing is that, "Next time, you'll be inside when the bomb goes off." Is that not the same sort of implication as brought about by the above-mention painting? Or do we say, "Aw, well, it was just paint. It doesn't really mean anything."
But... I... Like... KFC. Sorry.
Hey, the only problem with KFC is a certain lack of ambience. Had an extra-krispy one-breast meal, just last night. A welcome dish, indeed: I'd already driven 600 miles, with 450 to go before getting back home.
And now I'm home.
I just live about 8 blocks away from the first KFC that ever existed--- Harman's cafe on state and 39th in SLC. Yum!
No, you're making yourself clear. When the label "terrorism" is attached to white supremacist groups or right-wing anti-government groups you go on and on about how the term is so overused as to be "useless" in your words. But when the topic of left-wing groups come up, you jump, ready to stretch the definition of terrorism as broad as it can be. Clear as can be.
Duh. Abortion is a legal activity too, but we don't hear about "Christo-terrorists" that take actions short of killing people now, do we?
Now now, if you're going to ignore my questions, why should I answer yours? Fair's fair after all.
If you think that's ALF's message, you're not hearing it right. Once again you compare apples and oranges, and declare them equal.
'No, you're making yourself clear. When the label "terrorism" is attached to white supremacist groups or right-wing anti-government groups you go on and on about how the term is so overused as to be "useless" in your words."
'Scuse me? The overuse of the word has zilch, zip, nada to do with who uses it or to whom it's applied. What I'm objecting to is calling actions terroristic where there are no politics involved. E.g, IIRC, it was a white DA in Carolina who tried to use terrorism charges against a black drug dealer for witness intimidation, and I've objected to that truly dumb nonsense. From time to time in the daily news, similar misuses of the word pop up. IMO, the media has folks looking for terrorists under their beds. Overuse.
When Bush calls actions like 9/11 terrorism, or the Hezbollah rocketing civilian areas in Israel terrorism, he's correct. That has nothing to do with whatever politico-military or foreign policy decisions he's made; most of us who post here are in general accord about negative views toward him.
Look: To me, "terrorism" in today's world has a political element; maybe MUST have a political element. The actions, generally, are addressed "To Whom It May Concern", as opposed to hitting a specific person. I see it as terrorism when there is no concern for those who might randomly be in the area of the explosion. The Lod airport. McVeigh's Oklahoma City bomb. IEDs in any country. 9/11.
Wasn't it some of the Aryan Nation people who murdered the radio announcer in Colorado (Denver?) some years back? If I have the deal right, yeah, a white supremecist group did a terroristic act, but what others have there been? And what right-wing anti-government groups have been setting off explosions to terrorize supporters of a left-wing government? Around the U.S., the right-wing anti-ZOG crowd is all mouth-music, not action. (Action won't occur until after a serious weight-loss program coupled with extensive remedial phys. ed.--which ain't gonna happen.)
Right now, around the world, the majority of terrorism is perpetrated by a small percentage of the world's Islamics. I don't see what religion has to do with skin color. Or vice versa. Or what skin color has to do with terrorism. A minority group within the arena of terrorism would be the IRA; and, per their actions and their stated reasons therefor, ALF.
Not even close to correct, 'Rat. Try here for some basic information.
Right. Overused when it's used against right wing groups and underused when it comes to left wing groups.
Of course those are terrorist acts. Most of us here are in general accord about it. But that isn't the sum total of terrorism in the world.
Not what you said earlier.
I have no problem with you using either definition really. My problem is with your selective application of it.
McVeigh had a political target 'Rat. There were government agencies in that building. Or is it terrorism when Israel offs a Hamas leader in the middle of a crowd of innocents? To be exceedingly cynical, is it McVeigh's fault that the government hides itself amongst the civilian population, knowing that any attacks against it will kill civilians? Because you've used that argument against Palestinian terrorists time and again.
Now before you get all huffy about this comparison, remember -- I call both of those actions terrorism. You only call one terrorism.
I know, I know. Right wing extremist groups are harmless fat guys, never more than just talk. But those left wing groups man, they're all just one step away from murdering as many random people as they can find.
Please, learn a little about the world of right-wing, Christian-based, anti-government groups before you make such baseless claims. I assure you, Matthew Hale is quite thin.
What are you on about here? Have I ever asserted that religion has something to do with skin color? Or that skin color has something to do with terrorism? Sheesh, talk about your fishing expiditions. Do you need some bait?
For the record:
ALF is not so much a problem as ELF, whose loonies set a development on fire a while back and killed a number of firefighters. FELONY ARSON IS FELONY ARSON. Murder is also murder.
So far as I'm concerned the Right To Lifers who bomb clinics, the KKK, the ELF loonies and the neocons are ALL terrorists but let us not let ALF or ELF off easy because they use furballs as a cause to cause murder and mayhem.
While I'm not going to support ELF anytime soon, there does seem to be a difference between setting a fire, which blazes out of control and kills firefighters, and setting of a car bomb in a public square. Furthermore, isn't there a difference between spiking trees and burning crosses.
The definition of terrorism cannot, in my mind, encompass such disparate actions.
Now 'Rat can use the definitions of right versus left, I find this far less useful than understanding that actions against property are far different than those against human beings, and by pretending that each is equivalent is dangerous. The KKK (and various mouth-pieces and hangers-on) operated as a terrorist group. The ELF, while nuts, is not equivalent to the KKK.
I don't buy the comparison.
But here comes the point I'm making: All that may be true, and you may get a righty to buy off on the idea that blame for the unintended deaths of firefighters lays at the feet of ELF, but they won't say the same when Israel lobs a missile into an apartment block and then claims that all the civilians killed were "collateral damage". To me, that is hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty.
No ones letting anyone off easy. All I'm saying is that arson leading to unintentional death is not the same as plotting to kill innocent people, in the same way voluntary manslaughter is not the same as premeditated murder.
If you think all acts of terror are equal, then you have to call the Israeli and American military terrorists too. But that goes to the heart of the intellectual consistency kick I've been on lately. I guess it all started with the GOP whining about how their being treated SO unfairly as a minority party...