Explosion in Boston?

#426
#426
Thrasher865 said:
Ridiculous. Not everything has to be an opportunity for you to ridicule the president.

I feel sorry for you people that live so far on the right or so far on the left that literally every story you hear has to be about how somebody on the other side has done something wrong. What a miserable attitude to have.
Click to expand...

The lack of a response to post #410 is interesting.
 
#427
#427
tim said:
They wouldnt be scared. Theyre e-tough.
Click to expand...

Does not matter whether the individuals are actually scared, what matters is the intent. If the intent is to scare others, then one is engaging in terrorism, by definition. Or, if the intent is to use unauthorized violence to achieve political aims, then one is engaging in terrorism, by definition.
 
#429
#429
therealUT said:
Well, do you want our government making premature statements because they think this is "probably terrorism"? Or, would you rather they wait until they are certain of the motives?
Click to expand...

Is this said post you are referring to? If so, my answer is yes to both. If they do not know for sure they can qualify the statements.
 
#436
#436
In one of her old books, I recall Claire Sterling defining terrorism as criminal violence committed to change peoples' political behavior. It harkens back to the Clausewitz definition of war, "policy by other means." People may not always think of it as such, but terrorism does denote political objectives. Here is the FBI's definition: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."
FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
 
#437
#437
Vol Main said:
In one of her old books, I recall Claire Sterling defining terrorism as criminal violence committed to change peoples' political behavior. It harkens back to the Clausewitz definition of war, "policy by other means." People may not always think of it as such, but terrorism does denote political objectives. Here is the FBI's definition: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."
FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
Click to expand...

Don't forget about the third or fourth definition that constitutes instilling fear. That one's real important.
 
#438
#438
Thrasher865 said:
Ridiculous. Not everything has to be an opportunity for you to ridicule the president.

I feel sorry for you people that live so far on the right or so far on the left that literally every story you hear has to be about how somebody on the other side has done something wrong. What a miserable attitude to have.
Click to expand...

I'm not far right, and it's my right to question why the POTUS won't call a spade a spade. It was left out on purpose, I'm asking why
 
#440
#440
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I'm not far right, and it's my right to question why the POTUS won't call a spade a spade. It was left out on purpose, I'm asking why
Click to expand...

Have you bothered reading the past 2 pages?

There's no proof that this is a terrorist act yet. IT could just be a heinous bombing. That happens sometimes.
 
#442
#442
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I'm not far right, and it's my right to question why the POTUS won't call a spade a spade. It was left out on purpose, I'm asking why
Click to expand...

But you don't appear to want a real answer. It seems that you just want to vent your own bitter resentments, which you continually fixate on the President as if they have taken over your mind.
 
#443
#443
DinkinFlicka said:
There's no proof that this is a terrorist act yet. IT could just be a heinous bombing.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that still be terrorism? Foreign or domestic, politically motivated or not, I consider this terrorism. The term has a very blurry line, though, and I don't fault Obama at all for not referring to it as a terrorist act.

Because the moment he does, you know the entire nation will immediately jump to a middle eastern terrorist group. Then, when it turns out to just be some loony white guy(s), everyone would accuse him of jumping to conclusions or trying to use the word terrorism to incite fear in the American people to forward some political agenda, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#444
#444
Thrasher865 said:
Wouldn't that still be terrorism? Foreign or domestic, politically motivated or not, I consider this terrorism. The term has a very blurry line, though, and I don't fault Obama at all for not referring to it as a terrorist act.

Because the moment he does, you know the entire nation will immediately jump to a middle eastern terrorist group. Then, when it turns out to just be some loony white guy(s), everyone would accuse him of jumping to conclusions or trying to use the word terrorism to incite fear in the American people to forward some political agenda, etc.
Click to expand...

The term actually has a well defined line. People just associate carnage, explosions, and mass murder with the word when it's still just carnage, explosions, and mass murder.

People obsess over and fear terrorism moreso today than any other day and age in American history. Therefore, people flock to the term when something comparable happens.
 
#445
#445
Vol Main said:
But you don't appear to want a real answer. It seems that you just want to vent your own bitter resentments, which you continually fixate on the President as if they have taken over your mind.
Click to expand...

That would be your opinion. What else is there to talk about since we don't know who did this?
 
#446
#446
DinkinFlicka said:
Don't forget about the third or fourth definition that constitutes instilling fear. That one's real important.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the word can have broader connotation in public thinking, but specialists in the field typically link it to political objectives. I wonder if it is sometimes just an expression of hatred or revenge.
 
#448
#448
I consider it terrorism:

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized
Click to expand...

But terrorism can also be considered a method of political motivation so that's probably why it hasn't been labeled yet. Or, is referred to as "an act of terror."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top