How can something go from “terrorism” to “not terrorism” just by being permitted by authorities? Shouldn’t that call into question your definition of terrorism?
I already said why I think it’s right.
Quit sidestepping all your wrongness. You said MLK Jr. was a terrorist. You said you wouldn’t risk anything at all to help slaves escape. You’ve said many things that are repugnant, and many things that are just incredibly wrong.
In your view.
Terrorism is a crime. If it’s been sanctioned by the state, it’s not a crime, and therefore it’s not terrorism.
You’re revealing your lack of facility with logic. All things that are crimes are not terrorism.
Alternatively, given that you are you, an authority fellator, I should ask: In your opinion, is the fundamental problem with terrorism that it is against the law? Hypothetically, if the Oklahoma City Bombing been granted a permit, would it not have been terrorism?
Not all crimes are terrorism, but all terrorism is criminal.
By definition, yes. It’s not terrorism if it’s legal.
I actually can’t believe people are arguing with you about this… It’s clear that they’re not bothered about what you’re saying, they’re arguing just because it’s you.
Idiots.
Steophan, do you agree with Smapti that blocking traffic is terrorism? I hope so, because it will solidify everyone’s awareness that you’re a fucking moron.
What is terrorism?
So, you take from me saying that not everything he says is wrong, to meaning I must agree with all he says? It’s not me who’s looking like a fucking moron.
Yes or no? You’re the one who couldn’t believe anyone was arguing this point with him, you fucking moron.
No I’m not, you illiterate cretin. You claimed that legal acts can be terrorism, and you also used completely idiotic false logic to claim Smapti thought all crimes were terrorism. The only think I’ve expressed an opinion on is whether legal acts can be terrorism. The answer is no, by definition.
You’re insane.
What the actual fuck? What he said is literally, factually, entirely correct. What possible part of it could you be arguing against?
Krystallnacht was “legal”. Was it not terrorism?
It was ignored by the authorities, not officially sanctioned by them, it wasn’t “legal” in any sense. Not all acts by governments or their representatives are legal.
Okay, see if you can follow this, you fucking moron.
The problem with what Timothy McVeigh did was NOT that he failed to get the proper permits in advance. The problem was that it killed hundreds of people, destroyed a building and caused terror and devastation for millions of people. If he got a permit in advance, the act would still have caused all of those things. Only an authoritarian psychopath excuses horrific behavior because it is sanctioned by authorities.
Blocking traffic causes inconvenience and frustration. It does not cause terror.
The problem with terrorism is not that it is a criminal act. Only a fucking moron, who is also a psychopathic piece of shit like yourself, would think that.
Was the bombing of Hiroshima terrorism?
Good lord you really are stupid. You write rather well, which is why it’s odd that you seem unable to read.
Someone legally demolishing a building would not be terrorism, which is what would have happened had McVeigh got the appropriate permits. There is no legal way for a private individual to blow up a building full of people, so talking about it is absurd. If an army legally blows up a building full of people in a war, that’s also not terrorism.
Also, no-one has claimed the problem with terrorism is that it’s criminal, so I don’t know who you’re talking to there. It’s because terrorism is a problem that it’s illegal. There aren’t legal acts that are terrorist, any such acts would already be illegal. There are plenty of illegal acts that don’t harm people, and no-one’s calling them terrorist.
Terrorism is a subset of criminal activity. There is no terrorist activity that is not criminal. There is much criminal activity that is not terrorist. Do you understand yet?
But hey, if you want to argue that the government demolishing someone’s house despite them not wanting to leave is the equivalent of what McVeigh did, go for it, it won’t make me look stupid.
I’m betting he’ll say yes. Because he finds words hard.