Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Saying he would never admit being wrong and saying I believe everyones an idiot is simple flamebait.

He isn't saying that you actually think everyone is an idiot, just that you act like you think everyone is an idiot. It's a subtle distinction but an important one.

Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

Be careful what you wish for

ShumaGorath wrote:

I, believe it or not, take my posting here fairly seriously. I post fun bits now and then, and this thread is one of them, but I'm pretty generally regarded as one of the more level headed and fair minded posters here. If I've posted improperly, show me the evidence and I'll either explain my actions or apologize for taking a cheap shot. If you can't or don't, then I'm going to ask you to refrain from calling me out, as it's rude, misleading, and an ad hominem attack. Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

As for this debate, even if you were right, Fraz wasn't going to admit it. Arguing with a wall doesn't make you wrong, you're just a dude yelling at a wall.

Saying he would never admit being wrong and saying I believe everyones an idiot is simple flamebait. You know it is. Also I didn't realize I was debating a wall until I was already in there. Either way, your comments didn't serve the discussion particularly well (except perhaps by ending it, which I suppose was actually a benefit). I'll PM you from now on when I see such things, and no I didn't see the previous post about doing so.

It would be flamebait if it weren't true. There comes a point in a discussion where the tenor and tone of comments can be addressed. The comment was also made to both be funny and to alert the two of you that your discussion probably wasn't going to have value. I'm sorry if you took offense, but frankly you tend to argue from a pretty entrenched position and seldom admit to being wrong, or even that you could possibly be wrong. Maybe it's just the threads I see, I apologize if there are threads full of you conceding points, admitting possible weaknesses in your position, and speaking in a generally confident but not obstinate tone. From what I've seen of your posting you tend to get pretty adamant about your position.

Frazzled wrote:

Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

Be careful what you wish for

I'm just an attention whore. Why do you think I post carefully thought out, well reasoned arguments? It's the only way to stand out here.

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

Polonius wrote:

It would be flamebait if it weren't true.

This, I like!

edit

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe if we're nice he'll forward some pics of Prom Troll, followed by Wage Slave Troll.

My actual visage is horrifying in the extreme, so I wouldn't hope for that...

ShumaGorath wrote:

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

No, it's your actions. If you think that blowing up abortion clinics is ok, you're a radical, and maybe a sympathizer, but not really a terrorist. You have to actively support or carry out the acts to actually be part of that club.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

I would say action that exists outside of legitimate political measures, and much more specifically unlawful actions. The political wing of hamas is not a terrorist organization, however its militant wing is. One is going about things the "right way" the other is most certainly not. Though given the political branches actions it's not really very cut and dry there.

Probably a better example would be the IRAs political side vs its militant past. An extreme position doesn't make you a terrorist, extreme and unlawful actions do. Also you have to do something with the intent of causing terror (or at least thats what it once meant).

Polonius wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

No, it's your actions. If you think that blowing up abortion clinics is ok, you're a radical, and maybe a sympathizer, but not really a terrorist. You have to actively support or carry out the acts to actually be part of that club.

I would argue that if you by your words are convincing other to carry out your manifesto you have walked beyond that line.

If by telling someone that you, as the voice of God tell someone that violence should be done and convince to follow that course of action you can pass into that hellowed realm.

Of course then again I believe any US and Canuck who gave money to the IRA over the course of the Troubles was a terrorist.

But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

ShumaGorath wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

Well duh, but what drives the actions are the opinions/ideas.

sexiest_hero wrote:But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

Yes, but being labeled a terrorist and actually being one are not the same. The term is a brand catchall that these days basically means "anyone the western world opposes" and even then it can be used even more generally.

The term has been diluted to the point of uselessness.

Well duh, but what drives the actions are the opinions/ideas.

But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

sexiest_hero wrote:But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

Well, I'd argue that if you join a group whose goal is terrorism, than you're probably supporting terrorism at least a little bit.

As for simply encouraging terrorism: must like rallies, political speech, even that speech that encourages violence, is protected behavior in the US. In other countries you might be able to charge them, but this is one of those times when the 1st amendment steps in and prevents any real prosecution. This is fairly recent, in the WWI Eugene Debs did time in prison for simply encouraging others to dodge the draft.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

ShumaGorath wrote:But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Ahtman wrote: All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

I think when you think of how to enact your ideology. You can hate group 'x' passionately, but once you start to think of ways to "end" group 'x' you have crossed a dangerous line. I would add that dwelling too much on your hate of group 'x' will naturally led to a 'solution' so it is the start of the fall.

Frazzled wrote:
Now I'm confused Dogma. You're not concerned about the Somalis, one of whom has already blown himself up with two more on the internet espousing their cause, but you're concerned about 10 guys who have in aggregate probably the same amount of teeth between them?

I'm not really concerned about either. Terrorism as a whole concerns me, and that's why I believe that all potential terrorists should be scrutinized, but no one potential terrorist concerns me more than any other. And individual terrorists don't concern me at all.

Frazzled wrote:
Skinheads/NeoNazis are the purview of the FBI. They've been watched and dealt with for years, along with the Klan. They are so frustrated because they moment they get enopugh evidence the FBI nails of few of them. The rest are already in jail (see Aryan nation jail gang).

What more are you proposing be done Dogma?

Nothing. I'm simply proposing that history bears out the notion that domestic terrorists are just as much a problem as international ones.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

While the US supports free speech, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. There's limits. Generally, inciting violence and/or a riot falls into the 'it's not protected' category, whereas making a porno based on a certain female VP candidate is allowed (thank you, Larry Flynt).

George Carlin had some great routine about how he would commit nine sins trying to feel up a girl in high school. It was a sin to want to, a sin to plan to, a sin to figure out where he could, etc.

I think being a 'terrorist' is something of the same (yes, I'm comparing fundalmentalist islam to the man who had the seven dirty words). Now, just because you want to blow up an abortion clinic, the federal building, or something American, you're not a terrorist. But, if you're taking actions to do something violent, whether it's you doing it yourself or helping or aiding others to do it - you're a terrorist.

It is one thing to call an abortion clinic a bunch of murderers, it's another to sit on the sidewalk peacefully, another still to hand out literature to women going there (in a non-conforntational manner). It's another to shove women going there, murder doctors, and set a bomb in the building.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

Would you consider early american slave owners to be terrorists or radicals though? Marxist revolutionaries? Nazis? The gay rights movement? The gun control movement? Where do you decide the point as which someone is a terrorist or radical in that sense? That seems much too open ended to me, there would be billions of radicals on this planet if the definitions are that loose.

dietrich wrote:I support the right to bear arms.

I do not support the right to gun down three law enforcement officers, for any reason.

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

Would you consider early american slave owners to be terrorists or radicals though? Marxist revolutionaries? Nazis? The gay rights movement? The gun control movement? Where do you decide the point as which someone is a terrorist or radical in that sense? That seems much too open ended to me, there would be billions of radicals on this planet if the definitions are that loose.

Were that the sole qualifier, then you'd be right. But at the same time, one man's terrorist is another's hero. Early slave owners were 'normal men' of their day. I'd bet slaves were a little terrified. Marxist revolutionaries were definitely terrorists if you were a doctor or a business man. Nazis... I can't touch that. Gay Rights has some (note- Some) who threaten to force it down the throats of others (doesn’t sound nice). Gun Controllers who use every bullet fired in anger to strip rights and freedoms away from others (and the protection of homes with it) >last one was a stretch<

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

That's really what the law is about though. Not necessarily preventing horrible things from occurring, but acknowledging those circumstances under which horrible things can be permitted. Its meant to structure society so that any given individual can (in theory) understand where his attention must be paid.