The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

It's actually not even U.S. law, it's the etymology of the word itself. "Terrorist" and "terrorism" came into English from the French terroriste, which was used in reference to Robespierre's Reign of Terror--an explicitly political context.

The word Terror had been used far longer and its origins were not linked to politics. So yes, let me repeat myself for you "chess players"(lmao). Politics and the "US LAW" do not define words. If i am not mistaken it is an old Latin word which LITERALLY means "to frighten". But dont let that stop you guys from grazing on that nice green grass.

 

[Einherjar86]

The word Terror had been used far longer and its origins were not linked to politics. So yes, let me repeat myself for you "chess players"(lmao). Politics and the "US LAW" do not define words. If i am not mistaken it is an old Latin word which LITERALLY means "to frighten". But dont let that stop you guys from grazing on that nice green grass.

But you were discussing terrorism, no? An indiscriminate criminal act might be terrifying, or even induce terror; but that doesn't make it terrorism.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

An indiscriminate criminal act might be terrifying, or even induce terror; but that doesn't make it terrorism.

Smh, i honestly did not expect this from you.

 

[Mort Divine]

You want to use a dictionary - sure - here you go

"
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

"Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorism

"Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence directed against civilians for the purpose of creating intense fear, which the terrorist hopes to exploit to attain political or ideological goals."

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... and here comes another nitwit stating the obvious. Thanks for pulling out one of the definitions that literally no one here argued against. Did anyone here say that terror is excluded from the world of politics? No, you mushead. What is being argued is that terror doesn't only exist when politics is involved.

 

[Mort Divine]

Sure, terror exists outside of political realms, but terrorism is necessarily political.

 

[rms]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1061168803218948096

wildfire mismanagement is actually legit, probably 100% right

 

[Dak]

I love how the chorus is that it's Trump fault because of the "stripping of funds". Because money just magically makes things be managed better. But it's not really true anyway:

https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/fire-budget-21st-century

Environmentalists have supported policies which put the forests in greater danger by total opposition to logging, just as they have for various wildlife with total opposition to hunting. Forests and herds need culling for health.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Still no answer as to why "political motivation" is so much worse than any other.

Who said it was?

 

[Dak]

Who said it was?

You didn't say it, but you're acting like it. I already linked the data source from your link, which shows no "right wing" source, only "neo-nazis" and "white extremists", and showing that those, "right-wing" or no, are minuscule in both fatalities and injuries compared to run of the mill violent crimes/homicides. Yet you are quite concerned about them, while not about the more clear and present dangers.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i know a few people out here in California who have been charged with "Terrorist Threats"(PC422) for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with politics. You can get even get charged with terrorist threats for threatening to beat someone up. Which i even mentioned a few pages ago during another argument.

 

[Dak]

https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1060621171715162112

Contact theory has been oversold.

I personally believe contact is helpful - As long as "they" (whoever that is, depending on the context) aren't moving in next door. Appreciation of cultures requires distinct spaces for those cultures. Safe spaces, if you will.

 

[Einherjar86]

Smh, i honestly did not expect this from you.

You didn’t expect me to argue about the meaning of words?

What is being argued is that terror doesn't only exist when politics is involved.

I mean, sure—I experience terror when I watch a good scary film, or when an oncoming vehicle drifts into my lane, or even when a stranger lunges at me. But none of those qualify as terrorism.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You didn’t expect me to argue about the meaning of words?

I already linked you to what the meaning of the word straight from the worlds most respected dictionary. But don't let that get in your way my man.

when a stranger lunges at me. But none of those qualify as terrorism.

what if that stranger continued following you around and kept trying to harm you? Would that not qualify as terrorism for you? Because the guy would literally be charged for terrorist threats out here in Cali for that. Do you disagree with "California Law"(which imo doesnt mean shit since the government doesn't define words)? Do you disagree with Webster's dictionary?

Just to be clear, you are saying terrorism only occurs when politics is involved, correct?

 

[CiG]

This is like playing chess with a checkers player. I reference US law and you reference the dictionary. Obviously, terrorism has colloquial meanings, but the legal defintion is the one that actually matters in determining what is and is not terrorism. And that definition specifically identifies terrorism as political violence against noncombatants.

It's actually not even U.S. law, it's the etymology of the word itself. "Terrorist" and "terrorism" came into English from the French terroriste, which was used in reference to Robespierre's Reign of Terror--an explicitly political context.

I already pasted an image from the actual US Code of Laws that Crimsontard referred to, the meaning therein for terrorism isn't only political, the first definition it offers is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

The US Code of Laws LITERALLY debunks his argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You didn't say it, but you're acting like it.

I never said anything of the sort and am not gonna waste my time debating about what you think I think.

I already linked the data source from your link, which shows no "right wing" source, only "neo-nazis" and "white extremists", and showing that those, "right-wing" or no, are minuscule in both fatalities and injuries compared to run of the mill violent crimes/homicides.

That simply has to do with the way that website classifies terrorist groups. It appears they use the most specific classifications possible, which is great. However, that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to examine whether those categories of terrorism fall under a larger category of right wing terrorism. Nazism is a form of fascism and fascism is a far right wing ideology. Therefore, it would make sense to call it right-wing terrorism. White extremism is a little more nebulous, but for those that identify as white nationalists, it would be totally reasonable to say that they are far-right.

 

[Dak]

I never said anything of the sort and am not gonna waste my time debating about what you think I think.

I didn't say you said it specifically. But you did say:

With all of the right wing terrorism going on in this country, you might be right.

"All of the". Single digit fatalities and less than 30 injuries over the course of a year, including Charlottesville (1 fatality, 19 injuries), where the fatality and injuries were due to a clash, not an "attack". You've got a weird fixation.

That simply has to do with the way that website classifies terrorist groups. It appears they use the most specific classifications possible, which is great. However, that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to examine whether those categories of terrorism fall under a larger category of right wing terrorism. Nazism is a form of fascism and fascism is a far right wing ideology. Therefore, it would make sense to call it right-wing terrorism. White extremism is a little more nebulous, but for those that identify as white nationalists, it would be totally reasonable to say that they are far-right.

It would make as much sense to say democratic socialists and black nationalists are right wing. Maybe you want to go there, maybe you don't.

 

[Einherjar86]

I already linked you to what the meaning of the word straight from the worlds most respected dictionary. But don't let that get in your way my man.

First of all, there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. All I did was mention the etymological history, i.e. the way the word entered the English language.

what if that stranger continued following you around and kept trying to harm you? Would that not qualify as terrorism for you? Because the guy would literally be charged for terrorist threats out here in Cali for that. Do you disagree with "California Law"(which imo doesnt mean shit since the government doesn't define words)? Do you disagree with Webster's dictionary?

You ask a lot of questions boy.

California punishes "criminal threats," if I'm not mistaken. Is that interchangeable with "terrorist threats"?

Just to be clear, you are saying terrorism only occurs when politics is involved, correct?

I'm saying that terrorism is etymologically inextricable from political violence.

I already pasted an image from the actual US Code of Laws that Crimsontard referred to, the meaning therein for terrorism isn't only political, the first definition it offers is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

The US Code of Laws LITERALLY debunks his argument.

Well, I'd have to a pain in the ass and say that intimidating or coercing a civilian population virtually implies a political dimension. Often, civilians are intimidated and/or coerced so that their behavior serves political ends.

 

[CiG]

Well, I'd have to a pain in the ass and say that intimidating or coercing a civilian population virtually implies a political dimension. Often, civilians are intimidated and/or coerced so that their behavior serves political ends.

That would be twisting the US Code of Law's definition to suit an agenda. CF specifically referenced US Code of Law. Now either he didn't read it properly or is such a smug douche he just assumed it agreed with him without checking it.

I suspect the reason their definition is broader than the dictionary definitions everyone is throwing out is because second to political motivation for terrorism is religion and while the two can overlap it's not always the case.

But anyway, CF debunked himself hilariously but he won't admit it or even acknowledge it because he thinks he's too good to read my comments or some such shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

That would be twisting the US Code of Law's definition to suit an agenda. CF specifically referenced US Code of Law. Now either he didn't read it properly or is such a smug douche he just assumed it agreed with him without checking it.

This isn't my argument, but I don't think you can say that pointing out the implications of a definition is "twisting" it to fit an agenda. I simply find it incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario in which a civilian population is terrorized for apolitical reasons.

I don't know what CF's original point really was, I just felt that it was pertinent to comment on the origin of the English word--which, again, comes from the French Reign of Terror, an explicitly political context.