Printable View
Congressman calls for drug cartels to be considered terrorists. Does that mean that Wachovia and Bank of America should be considered terrorist organizations? They have been caught laundering money for the drug cartels. Helping a $39 billion trade that has killed more than 22,000 people since 2006. Wachovia's Drug Habit - Bloomberg Terrorist tag is sought for drug cartels - San Antonio Express-News
They probably should be and I am sure that would make a lot of people happy. Some banks really cause a lot of damage to the economy, and some cost the tax payers billions of the dollars. Even if they weren't considered terrorist groups, I would really like to see them held responsible far more often for their actions. That said, it is probably very unlikely that much will ever happen to them.
The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and others give aid and loans to client fascist regimes that conduct state terror all the time. In fact, client fascist regimes are their preferred customers because they foster a more favorable climate for investment. They loan money and give aid knowing well that portions of this money will go towards funding police states and state terror under military juntas etc that crush labor organizations, suppress dissidents, and instill fear in the population to reduce them to apathy.
I would consider this terrorist behaviour.
"Terrorist" is just a buzz word, it used to mean something, but the Bush administrations overuse calling everyone from actual terrorist Osama Bin Laden to nobel peace prize winner Nelson Mandela a terrorist has taken all of the meaning out of the word. When the government calls someone or something a terrorist, I think: bullshit.
I agree completely with ninja9578. Words are subjective but if banks should be called anything it should be called a Maffia organization.
If we don't negotiate with terrorists, how will we ever get the economy back on track?:D
Terrorists are people who cause terror; say, suicide bombers. They create a culture in which people are scared to go out for fear of being blown up that way, unexpectedly and difficult to prevent. They cause fear disproportionate to their actual impact; see the extra thousand people that died in car accidents as a result of not flying from 9/11.
Banks do most certainly not cause fear in this way, whatever bad qualities they might otherwise have. So no, I'd say they're not terrorists.
Yep, the modern concept of terrorism is a complete fucking farce. But frighteningly most of the public swallows this newspeak without even noticing how ludicrous it is, which is probably the most Orwellian aspect of modern society. Terrorists are people who use terror causing violence to try to get people to submit to their cause, nothing more and nothing less.
The one that always gets me is where that New York bomber who made a car bomb out of some fertiliser or whatever it was, and which failed to detonate, was charged with trying to use a weapon of mass destruction. I can't believe more people weren't up in arms about this. Hiroshima was an example of a weapon of mass destruction. A fucking chemistry project is not a weapon of mass destruction. If it went off, the city is not going to turn into a barren wasteland. The whole concept would be funny if everybody hadn't swallowed it.
Well, if he set it off in a church at the right time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Then what? God would get angry and destroy the whole city..? I don't get it.
Why would people be up in arms defending a dude who tried to set off a bomb in a public place.
So you don't have any problem with being brainwashed? You're not concerned by people swallowing utterly farcical buzzwords in times of danger? Study some history then.
What would you rather happen to the guy, a few hours of community service?
I didn't think you were the type to make shameless strawmen?
First of all, I'm not sure about what exact case you're talking about, but do you think the man was judged too harshly?
did no one follow the links? this isnt about the misuse of the title of terrorist. it is about pointing out who is truly the enemy of a free humanity. dont get sidetracked please. lets not talk about phony terrorist trying to set a fertilizer bomb. focus on the group of people trying to destroy america from within.
...no? If you try to murder innocents in cold blood for whatever cause you have, you should be locked up for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Maybe it was a Catholic church and it was actually just a hilarious pun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Then I don't see what you're complaining about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lseadragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Memo to self: Make less subtle jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
I still don't get it. :(
Then read my post again. It's really not hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If for instance every Muslim who ever committed robbery were routinely charged with terrorism, you'd be fine with that also?
But in this case he was an actual terrorist trying to kill lots of people.
This is what a car bomb with some fertilizer can do:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...T-98-01356.jpg
In that case I guess Saddam did have WMDs all along. Who'd've thunk it.
The thing this guy made had enough power to take out some pedestrians if they were stood next to the car.
Again I don't know which specific event you're referring to, so I can't comment on the bomb's destructive power. A "car bomb with fertilizer" does sound very bulky and powerful though, similar bombs have been responsible for catastrophic explosions.
Sometimes it's not about the raw explosive force of the weapon but about it's capacity to inflict damage in the given scenario. For instance people have been charged with trying to use weapons of mass destruction after failing to detonate shoe bombs on a plane. The explosion itself would be no bigger than that of a grenade, but if you consider that it could down the entire plane with a few hundred people on board, possibly over an urban area... Similarly, if the car bomb was blown up in Time's Square at new years or some other kind of scenario where it had the potential to inflict many casualties, then it would create "mass destruction".
Other times law enforcement is just weird about definitions in an effort to "play it safe" and be strict. For example, Transport Canada says that planes can't perform certain manoeuvres over "open-air assemblies of people". To most people that would sound like a huge crowd, like a concert or a festival, but I know a guy who got pinned when the authorities claimed that seven people in a field constituted an open-air assembly of people. It's not about brainwashing or indoctrination, it's just about being strict, which I don't mind in the case of terrorism.
That would be terrorism but it wouldn't be a weapon of mass destruction. They are two separate things.