The News Thread

[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.

 

[CiG]

His point wasn't about dictionary definitions and specifically mocked Tech for changing the argument to dictionary definitions. His initial point was entirely based on legal definitions, which actually don't support his claim that without political motivation it is not terrorism.

I really don't care about the autistic etymology debate. News programs often run "wild animal terrorizes the neighbourhood" stories. It can be applied to anything.

 

[Einherjar86]

I really don't care about the autistic etymology debate. News programs often run "wild animal terrorizes the neighbourhood" stories. It can be applied to anything.

I find etymology fascinating, not autistic...

Anyhoo, you're right that we use "terrorize" in that way. But you have to admit, there's a distinct difference in tone between saying that an animal "terrorized" a neighborhood and an animal committed an "act of terrorism." Those two phrases imply quite different things, and one doesn't really make sense.

 

[CiG]

I find etymology fascinating, not autistic...

I'm fascinated by it too, I just mean it's autistic in this context because the argument was about legal definitions and CF implied that Tech is a checkers player to his chess player for shifting it from legal to dictionary.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fucking words man. What a terror.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

First of all, there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism.

You did not answer my question you little weasel, so i'll ask it again.

What if that stranger continued following you around and kept trying to harm you? Would that not qualify as terrorism to you? Answer this question please.

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

Oh shit we have a google warrior here. I said they were charged with PC422 "TERRORIST THREATS", that is literally what it said on their paperwork. The name of that charge was changed about a year ago to "criminal threats" and that's what the name of that charge was here for decades. And the worst part is that there is no way you did a google search and didnt know this, just shows how far you will go to push whatever it is you are trying to argue about. About as pathetic as it gets tbh.

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

You are 100% incorrect, which is the reason you cant even answer my first question, babygirl. Myself and others here have already proven how incorrect you are here numerous times with stone cold facts, and im surprised that a wannabe intellectual like yourself is even still pushing this.

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.

for fucks sake, the word terror in "Reign of Terror", comes from the Latin word Terror which literally mean "TO FRIGHTEN". How fucking dense can you possibly be?

Now for my final question, and i would like @crimsonfloyd to answer this too. Are antifa terrorists and is what they do considered terrorism in your opinions??

 

[tagradh]

You're a funny guy, TB.

 

[CiG]

Going by every definition mentioned in here, AntiFa are terrorists.

 

[Einherjar86]

You did not answer my question you little weasel, so i'll ask it again.

What if that stranger continued following you around and kept trying to harm you? Would that not qualify as terrorism to you? Answer this question please.

No, I wouldn’t call that terrorism. I’d call it harassment. And if the stranger did harm me, I’d call it assault. I wouldn’t say they’ve committed an act of terror.

Oh shit we have a google warrior here. I said they were charged with PC422 "TERRORIST THREATS", that is literally what it said on their paperwork. The name of that charge was changed about a year ago to "criminal threats" and that's what the name of that charge was here for decades. And the worst part is that there is no way you did a google search and didnt know this, just shows how far you will go to push whatever it is you are trying to argue about. About as pathetic as it gets tbh.

I feel like you think I’m arguing that terrorism must be political; but all I’m actually saying is that when people use the word “terrorism” it generally implies a political dimension or motivation. I also think that extending “terrorism” to any kind of harassment and/or assault says the word of any significance.

You are 100% incorrect, which is the reason you cant even answer my first question, babygirl. Myself and others here have already proven how incorrect you are here numerous times with stone cold facts, and im surprised that a wannabe intellectual like yourself is even still pushing this.

It’s mostly for entertainment at this point.

for fucks sake, the word terror in "Reign of Terror", comes from the Latin word Terror which literally mean "TO FRIGHTEN". How fucking dense can you possibly be?

Looks like we have a google warrior...

Anyhoo, its entry into English was via a political context. That was all I said.

Now for my final question, and i would like @crimsonfloyd to answer this too. Are antifa terrorists and is what they do considered terrorism in your opinions??

I’d say Antifa can definitely qualify as terrorists.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

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.

There's such a thing as left wing nationalism (i.e. Cuban Revolution) and those movements have had their fair share of political extremism and violence as well.

As for black nationalists, it's complex. There are some elements that are more left leaning, i.e. some of Marcus Garvey's ideas about pan-Africanism, but most other elements correspond to right-wing ideology (emphasis on tradition, traditional family values, anti-liberalism, and a desire to minimize the role of the federal government). Also, the racism, anti-semitism and homophobia that can be found in the movement correspond to far right nationalist ideologies.

Now for my final question, and i would like @crimsonfloyd to answer this too. Are antifa terrorists and is what they do considered terrorism in your opinions??

When they instigate violence (rather than act in self-defense or in defense of others) as a means of achieving political aims, then that would qualify as terrorism. However, when they use violence or the threat of violence as a means of defending themselves or others, then this not terrorism. That's self-defense. I would argue both have occurred under the ANTIFA banner.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

On a different note, it's funny how everyone was saying there was "no blue wave" but now it looks like the Democrats picked up 30 seats with a number of elections still not called. If results hold, they'll pick up 6 more seats, for the most since Watergate.

They also flipped 7 governor seats, including the crucial states of Wisconsin and Michigan. Florida and Georgia are still up in the air (granted they will probably stay Republican).

The only area the Republicans won was the senate and that was no surprise, seeing that Democrats were defending far more seats then Republicans. Even there, things are not nearly as bad as they initially appeared to be. It's looking more and more like Arizona will go Democrat, and there's at least a chance Florida could flip. It looks like it will either be 53-47 or 52-48 when it's all said and done. Granted, that will probably be enough for Trump to push through whatever nominee he wants.

 

[rms]

i saw a fun graphic that something like 1970, the first term election under each presidency has a +25~ or so swing in the house, no matter the party

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Looks like we have a google warrior...

I hate to break it to you but i knew where that word came from long before you were pretending to be some armchair intellectual on a metal forum. And i would never argue anything with anyone after just a simple google search. I'm not one of you guys.

I feel like you think I’m arguing that terrorism must be political

....

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

Oh okay

I’d say Antifa can definitely qualify as terrorists.

nice, this should be framed.

When they instigate violence (rather than act in self-defense or in defense of others) as a means of achieving political aims, then that would qualify as terrorism. However, when they use violence or the threat of violence as a means of defending themselves or others, then this not terrorism. That's self-defense. I would argue both have occurred under the ANTIFA banner.

So antifa are terrorists who have definitely terrorized this country, no? They literally fall right into one of the definitions of the word....

It's literally not terrorism if it's not politically motivated.

that definition specifically identifies terrorism as political violence

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

All this stuff goes back to literally our first exchanges on this topic. Terrorist organization confirmed. And this is what you call playing chess with checkers players. CHECK FUCKING MATE.

 

[Mort Divine]

Sure. There is not a necessary moral claim attached with that though, so don't get so uppity about it as if you won something.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Sure. There is not a necessary moral claim attached with that though, so don't get so uppity about it as if you won something.

says the bearded lady who probably partakes in those terrorist acts.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So antifa are terrorists who have definitely terrorized this country,no? They literally fall right into one of the definitions of the word....

Some of them, yes. This is a loosely affiliated anarchist movement, that in my eyes doesn't even have a unified mission or vision, so it would be absurd to condemn everyone who calls themselves ANTIFA for the actions of some. However, it is perfectly reasonable to condemn those who did instigate violence.

All this stuff goes back to literally our first exchanges on this topic. Terrorist organization confirmed. And this is what you call playing chess with checkers players. CHECK FUCKING MATE.

You proved a point I never said I disagreed with wrong. Way to show me . Maybe checkers is too generous. Stick to tic-tac-toe.

I would point out that an anarchist movement with no centralized voice, vision, or mission, isn't really an "organization" but that point will definitely go over your head.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You proved a point I never said I disagreed with wrong. Way to show me

Are you retarded? "Bububut the left rarely commit terrorist acts .. it's only the right" and "LOOK AT THESE STATS" is basically all you've been trying to say here. All while ignoring the biggest terrorist organization in this country, who fall directly in the far left. And yes, do i need to link you to the definition of that word too? Are you going to argue that they dont organize those "protests" aka terrorist acts? No, only grazing sheep like you would refer to a clear cut terrorist organization as a "movement". You are fucking hopeless.

all you are doing here is continually proving my point that you are the most braindead person on this forum.

i find it ironic that he would say something like that after the fact that antifa and other foaming at the mouth liberals have been literally terrorizing this country for the past few years. It's amazing how separated from reality some people truly are.

And just for some more lulz ....

>Implying that a number of people who perpetrated mass shootings weren't registered Democrats.

Are those people technically left wing terrorists?

....

If it’s not a politically motivated crime, then it’s not terorism, obviously.

lmfao.

A word of advice my softheaded friend, buy yourself a pocket dictionary and keep it on you at all times. It might stop you from looking like a complete dunce when participating in political conversations.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Are you retarded? "Bububut the left rarely commit terrorist acts .. it's only the right" and "LOOK AT THESE STATS" is basically all you've been trying to say here. All while ignoring the biggest terrorist organization in this country, who fall directly in the far left.

It’s not an organization, but there’s no way you’re gonna grasp that, as it required grasping nuance. And with your overwhelming evidence showing that ANTIFA commit more terrorism than anyone else in the country, how could anyone disagree. Oh, wait... you have no evidence? Shocking.

A word of advice my softheaded friend, buy yourself a pocket dictionary and keep it on you at all times. It might stop you from looking like a complete dunce when participating in political conversations.

Empty words, empy words. Such a bore debating someone of your ability level. Go back to the kid’s table, I’m done wasting my time with you.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... you were done a long time ago.