Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Wars aren't financed by taxes. They're financed by treasury bonds, which are essentially a regressive tax that everyone pays whether they like it or not, in the form of inflation.

Doesn't matter, they are still paying with money they don't have, and if they got rid of it they could still get rid of the income tax.

Originally Posted by Alric

Doesn't matter, they are still paying with money they don't have, and if they got rid of it they could still get rid of the income tax.

You want them to keep the income tax and ditch the inflation, not the other way around. Income tax is progressive; the rich pay more than the poor. Inflation is a flat tax that affects the poor and not the rich.

No, I want them to get rid of both! We could get by with out either of them. Just need to cut cut cut!

Originally Posted by Alric

No, I want them to get rid of both! We could get by with out either of them. Just need to cut cut cut!

I agree with the sentiment. In fact, I understand that taxes are fundamentally immoral. However, if we have to choose between the two, income tax is better to have.

everyone gets angry and does things for their own reasons. the victims just happen to label the action "terrorism." or maybe they're doing it out of greed, but usually, it's some kind of revenge.

it would be no surprise if the American invasion of the middle east was considered "terrorism" to them.

the whole stereotyping middle eastern looking people to be terrorism is natural, it just comes with the terrority. after all, they have been the type to do such actions against America lately. you can't expect everybody to be free of stereotypical prejudice.

Originally Posted by AirRick101

the whole stereotyping middle eastern looking people to be terrorism is natural, it just comes with the terrority. after all, they have been the type to do such actions against America lately. you can't expect everybody to be free of stereotypical prejudice.

Actually, the second largest terrorist attack against Americans ever was done by two white guys.

White guys...the most inconspicuous terrorists of all time.

Terrorist, culturally speaking, is the Communist of the 2000's.

honestly, everyone is making it too complicated. what is so hard about a terrorists is simply someone who plans to or carries out killing innocent people. I dont give a shit whos side you are on or what you are fighting for, if you intentionally target civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict, you are a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Abra

Terrorist, culturally speaking, is the Communist of the 2000's.

Weeeeeeee have a winner.

Originally Posted by AirRick101

the whole stereotyping middle eastern looking people to be terrorism is natural, it just comes with the terrority. after all, they have been the type to do such actions against America lately. you can't expect everybody to be free of stereotypical prejudice.

It doesn't "come with the territory", it comes with the MEDIA. Holy shitballs, a WHITE GUY made a bomb threat on an passenger jet a few weeks ago, and NOT ONCE did the news mention the word terrorist/ism. THERE'S your media. THERE'S the origin of the stereotyping. GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Originally Posted by tkdyo

honestly, everyone is making it too complicated. what is so hard about a terrorists is simply someone who plans to or carries out killing innocent people. I dont give a shit whos side you are on or what you are fighting for, if you intentionally target civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict, you are a terrorist.

Then the US government is the biggest group of terrorists of all. They nuked not one, but TWO cities full of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Then the US government is the biggest group of terrorists of all. They nuked not one, but TWO cities full of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It was legal, rational, calcutated, and effective. That is why I don't consider it "terrorism" although it was very, very horrible. Fortunately, it was a few hundred thousand people, compared to 52 million who had already been killed in the war. The nukes ended the most awful war of all time. Nazi Germany takes the cake when it comes to targetting civilians in that war.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Then the US government is the biggest group of terrorists of all. They nuked not one, but TWO cities full of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

damn right they did, I think its a perfect example of how people can flip what they consider as disgusting in a heart beat given the right conditions. I stand by my statement whole heatedly, where you trying to refute me? I dont see it going on currently.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

damn right they did, I think its a perfect example of how people can flip what they consider as disgusting in a heart beat given the right conditions. I stand by my statement whole heatedly, where you trying to refute me? I dont see it going on currently.

Sorry, I didn't know if you realized the implications. I guess I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was legal, rational, calcutated, and effective. That is why I don't consider it "terrorism" although it was very, very horrible. Fortunately, it was a few hundred thousand people, compared to 52 million who had already been killed in the war. The nukes ended the most awful war of all time. Nazi Germany takes the cake when it comes to targetting civilians in that war.

Of course it was "legal". The US government did it. That's not a valid argument at all. For example, if Kim Jong Il declares it legal to kill South Korean children on sight, is that now somehow an argument for why it's not terrorism? I also don't see why effectiveness comes into it. Are you saying that an act of violence is moral if it's effective? The Nazis effectively killed millions of Jews. Does this make it morally correct to do so?

And your comment about Germany killing the most civilians is quite dubious. Not even including the nukes, the Allied carpet bombing campaigns were MASSIVELY larger in scale than the German campaigns. In fact, I think the Final Solution is the only factor that even makes it conceivable that the Germans killed more civilians.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Of course it was "legal". The US government did it. That's not a valid argument at all. For example, if Kim Jong Il declares it legal to kill South Korean children on sight, is that now somehow an argument for why it's not terrorism? I also don't see why effectiveness comes into it. Are you saying that an act of violence is moral if it's effective? The Nazis effectively killed millions of Jews. Does this make it morally correct to do so?

Correct. That is not "terrorism". It is still immoral. The Nazis did not commit "terrorism". They committed genocide and unjustifiable take over.

You are confusing the definition issue with the morality issue. They are separate.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

And your comment about Germany killing the most civilians is quite dubious. Not even including the nukes, the Allied carpet bombing campaigns were MASSIVELY larger in scale than the German campaigns. In fact, I think the Final Solution is the only factor that even makes it conceivable that the Germans killed more civilians.

I was talking about what single country did, but the Axis Powers killed more civilians than the Allies, I think. Don't forget about how the Germans took over one country after another and used bombs to do it. They would pull air raids and wipe out entire towns at a time, definitely not for the greater good.

Originally Posted by Kiloisalb

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom. So, yeah, they fight freedom. But at least they blow up restaurants full of kids so they can say, "Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!" It accomplishes a great deal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom.

Is this seriously what is perpetuating this thread?

Is there really someone out there who says, "I hate freedom! Kill it!" cause I really want to see that quote. Someone of this mentality ought to at least be pretending that freedom is what their "goal" is. I'm looking at you, Mahmoud Ahmadinejaad.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is there really someone out there who says, "I hate freedom! Kill it!" cause I really want to see that quote.

Here's one...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...evil+democracy

That was said by the "freedom fighter" Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the former leader of the Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. He's the guy who used to get on video and cut off the heads of American civilians who were helping to build up Iraq. Fortunately, the U.S. military terminated him.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Here's one...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

Naw naw naw, you said "freedom" not "democracy". I am really curious to see a quote against the explicit word 'freedom'. Is there seriously a quote of someone saying something along the lines of "I hate freedom" or "freedom must die" etc.?

~

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

A system of government is not the same as freedom.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Naw naw naw, you said "freedom" not "democracy". I am really curious to see a quote against the explicit word 'freedom'. Is there seriously a quote of someone saying something along the lines of "I hate freedom" or "freedom must die" etc.?

~

What other type of freedom oriented government is there?

Besides, Zarqawi and Bin Laden and the fellas settle for nothing short of a government run by the Koran, a kind of government where pretty much everything fun is illegal. That is hatred for freedom. Those people are clearly not fighting for freedom.

Read the answer to Q2 of this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Maybe the word "freedom" is not mentioned specifically in it, but it is freedom that he is speaking out against.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

A system of government is not the same as freedom.

Then I ask you the same question. What other type of freedom oriented government is there? If the people don't rule, they are not free. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What other type of freedom oriented government is there?

You know as well as I do that anyone of their own beliefs is under the impression that their government is the "best". In this respect, I suspect that most would say that they consider it "best" because they are free to judge it as "best". Hence, I highly doubt it is valid to say that someone out there is "against freedom". While we can argue political plateau's against one another, the thing is that "freedom" is closely tied to the benefits and ethics attached to government. This is the crux of political debate usually and why "terrorism" is so difficult to define because of it's obvious relative and subjective nature which is so commonly given a mask of truth.

Besides, Zarqawi and Bin Laden and the fellas settle for nothing short of a government run by the Koran, a kind of government where pretty much everything fun is illegal. That is hatred for freedom. Those people are clearly not fighting for freedom.

Read the answer to Q2 of this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Maybe the word "freedom" is not mentioned specifically in it, but it is freedom that he is speaking out against.

2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

He is saying that he wants to fight back - not fight freedom. I don't get your point here. It's almost as though you are really mis-representing what he is saying. He feels that he was attacked and his country offended, thus, he is attacking in turn.

We can debate about the political reasons and validity and shit but the point I am making here is that he is not saying "I hate freedom" or "I am against freedom".

Then I ask you the same question. What other type of freedom oriented government is there? If the people don't rule, they are not free. Do you disagree?

You realize you are just about to argue over politics and ethics? Come on, we both know that, even though it may make sense to you, there is obvious disagreement about many political plateau's. Also, no single government is "perfect" or "absolutely free" etc. etc.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You know as well as I do that anyone of their own beliefs is under the impression that their government is the "best". In this respect, I suspect that most would say that they consider it "best" because they are free to judge it as "best". Hence, I highly doubt it is valid to say that someone out there is "against freedom". While we can argue political plateau's against one another, the thing is that "freedom" is closely tied to the benefits and ethics attached to government. This is the crux of political debate usually and why "terrorism" is so difficult to define because of it's obvious relative and subjective nature which is so commonly given a mask of truth.

I didn't ask you what type of government is the best. I asked you what other type of freedom oriented government there is. I don't mean the mere freedom to judge a government inside their heads.

If the people do not rule, are they free?

Originally Posted by O'nus

He is saying that he wants to fight back - not fight freedom. I don't get your point here. It's almost as though you are really mis-representing what he is saying. He feels that he was attacked and his country offended, thus, he is attacking in turn.

The answer is way longer than that. He talks at first about how our infidels are on their ethnocentric holy land, but then he gets into how we allow stock trade, female models, legal alcohol, investment interest, not having the Koran as a law book, and all kinds of other things. He says that the "Islamic nation" will not call off their war on us until we give up all of those things and other freedoms.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You realize you are just about to argue over politics and ethics? Come on, we both know that, even though it may make sense to you, there is obvious disagreement about many political plateau's. Also, no single government is "perfect" or "absolutely free" etc. etc.

I stand by my point. By fighting against this "evil" that is "democracy", the scummy nut bags are fighting against freedom. What they want is not freedom, and what they are against is freedom. Freedom exists only in democracy and anarchy (no government).

I am not at all saying any government is perfect. I didn't even come close to that. I said that democracy is the only freedom oriented form of government there is. A democratic republic is also a republican democracy, by the way. If the people don't have the power to vote their law makers in and out of office, they are not free. If you disagree, I would be interested in knowing why. The insurgents die in the name of preventing the only free category of government. They are therefore against freedom.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't ask you what type of government is the best. I asked you what other type of freedom oriented government there is. I don't mean the mere freedom to judge a government inside their heads.

If the people do not rule, are they free?

You're asking my political opinion. I did not want to give it.

The answer is way longer than that. He talks at first about how our infidels are on their ethnocentric holy land, but then he gets into how we allow stock trade, female models, legal alcohol, investment interest, not having the Koran as a law book, and all kinds of other things. He says that the "Islamic nation" will not call off their war on us until we give up all of those things and other freedoms.

I asked you to quote me someone against explicitly "freedom" and you referenced me Q2 - not the whole thing. I will now use the holy ctrl+f command to look for "freedom" - nothing else:
"This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world"
"The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him"
"You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."
"Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it."
"How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?"
"The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only"

After this, it is now more abundantly clear that your own article can be used against your point. He is arguing the nature of freedom. This was my point. You have your own opinion on what political and governing party offers freedom, and so does he. You can argue about that, but the point is that he is for freedom and believes that democracy is against it.

~