?? I see you asked the question.. but if say hundreds of kids attended a summer camp to learn how to advocate for civil rights and teach rural southerners how to register to vote and conduct tutoring session for others.. Would it be only okay if the other side.. say of Segregation and the denial of voting rights was presented as well?
For years the Communist Party in the USA and Socialist Workers Party.. and SNCC and CORE etc etc have all held summer camps to work with kids. If the Tea Party goes ahead with their planned summer camp it would be a tradition thats been going on for years. I guess I’m saying I’m stunned that you are stunned.
A state of war can produce a state of terror in a populace. Particularly if the armies attack civilians as in days of yore, in parts of Africa among other places. By modern warfare, like the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the opposite of terror. We’ve taken great pains to protect civilians, not shoot and rape them in order to dial up the “terror”.
Nope. Your definition is so selective as to beg the question. The Locherbie bombing, the Achile Lauro incident, 911, the bombings in England, Spain, and Bali, 911, to name just a few, all were incidents of the larger tactic of terror used by Muslim extremists who despise Israel and the West. The power of the incidents exceed the horror of the incidents themselves because they instill terror, i.e., thinking that the next attack can occur anytime, anywhere, with more innocents being the victims.
I disagree. It simply requires a common ideology, a common cause, and the subscription to the idea that the larger tactic of terror. Bin Laden, Nadal, the wanna-be Times Square bomber, those responsible for the bombing in London, Spain, and NYC are all part of a larger effort. THAT is the strength of their tactic. THEY know it. Why you refuse to see the common denominator is exceedingly odd. Evolution is mad at you for refusing to recognize patterns. Especially when the perpetrators of each of the singular events tell us that they are acting in common cause.
Again, I’d say you’re wrong. I’d say a single event can point to a possibility terrorism—like the incidents in Oslo—but if thee guy is taken off the street, the terror aspect is pretty much gone. Now, if another incident occurs, or even if the authorities give credence to his latter claim that there were other cells, then we get closer to terrorism, even with the one act thus far.
The nuts who kill abortion doctors, people who fly planes into IRS buildings, and people who kill innocents due to their stance on immigration in another country on another continent my all be classified as coming more from “the right”, but they hardly acting for some common cause. You seem just as desperate to manufacture connection where there is none (or is tenuous, or coincidental) as you are to ignore the blaring connections of Muslim extremists. Do the words “Allah Akbar” sound familiar at all?
I was pissed that the BEST photo the media could find of him was him in full Masonic regalia. I saw that, and I thought, “Way to go, Breivik. Way to feed the fires of the Anti-Masonic party. Fucking dumbass. And way to go, mainstream media for making it seem like all Masons think the way Breivik does.” Won’t be able to wear my Masonic ring for months. Don’t get me wrong, I found his actions to be deplorable. But he basically went and violated his Obligation to God and to his Brothers, which is just as bad.
I’m wondering: Just how many bombings and killing sprees with the expressed motivation of causing terror to support one’s case is needed before you’re able to suck it up and actually acknowledge that there’s terrorism going on? Or is this a question whose answer depends on whether the atrocities are performed by brown-skinned madmen crying “allah akbar” or by white-skinned madmen wanting to cleanse the western world for muslims?
When did the RAF turn into a terrorist organization? At the second politically motivated murder? The fifth? The tenth? Or is it at all possible that they became a terrorist organization the moment they chose violence and terror as their main political tool? If the latter, then Breivik is a terrorist, even if he was taken off the street after his first terrorist action. If one of the former, I’d like to see a consistent, race and religion independent definition of what you regard as terrorism.
I don’t know why you’re so fixated on race. It’s the actions that matter, and the degree to which they generate, you know, TERROR. This really isn’t that hard. Yes, Muslim extremists (which points to a belief system, not color or race) are a good example. Why because there actions—unified by their common hatred of Israel and The West—generate…wait for it…TERROR. A little clue that their acting in unison are the websites that seek to recruit new terrorists and , oh yeah, the little clue of them screaming “Allah Akbar”. Unless you’d like to chalk that up to coincidence.
But if I go out tomorrow and set off a bomb killing Boston Red Sox Fans and am caught right afterwards, do you really think there wold be “terror” in the population of Red Sox Fans? Or would the attitude be more, “what a friggin asshole nut”?
This really isn’t that hard if you aren’t over-eager to classify every murderous non-Islamic extremist act with terrorism in order to subvert their current ownership of the tactic.
magellan01, again: Since “only” one bomb attack or mass killing (or combination thereof) with the expressed motivation of causing fear and terror for one’s own case isn’t enough to qualify, how many are required? 2? 5? 10? 100?
If you’re really all that interested, read the posts I’ve already made. The answer is there. The key element is that the people have to feel great fear, aka “terror”, that a subsequent related bomb will explode at any time. If you don’t have that, you don’t have terrorism. Like I said, it’s really not thathard. Unless…
What if a guy sets off a dozen bombs, with the intent to instill terror, but he does it in a place where everyone is, like, a total badass, and not scared of bombs?