Muhammad Cartoon Contest....

[GoIrish41]

You are absolutely correct. These people are terrorists. If Muslim protesters were outside a Christian Church or an American Embassy carrying weapons and shouting anti-American and anti-Christian phrases, we would have no trouble calling them terrorists.

You are the one who said:



So, according to this, any child who threatens violence is a terrorist. I was trying to point out that you cannot just make up your own definition, and then make up your own exceptions to that definition. You either go by the accepted definition, as found in the dictionary, or you simply don't use the term. You can't say "I want to call this person a terrorist, so I am going to say that terrorism is defined as "X". But when you point out a ridiculous example that would obviously also fit that definition, then I am going to claim that logic clearly dictates that that example would be an exception to my 'rule'." It just doesn't work that way. You can call them inbred rednecks, you can call them ignorant hillbillies, you can call them bigoted assholes. But they do NOT fit the Merriam-Webster criteria for terrorism, so don't call them terrorists. You don't have to call them terrorists to express your disapproval of them and hatred for them.

As I pointed out, there is no universally accepted definition. I am not sure I would consider the Merrill-Webster definition the definitive word on determining what should and should not be considered terrorism. Look in a few other dictionaries. The definitions are not the same from one to the next. Or better, look at the definitions of the various national security organizations. There is no agreement among them eithe rin what constitutes terrorism and what does not. I have stated what I consider terrorism -- using terror .as a political weapon. A HS bully does not fit that definition. It is not an exception.

 

[kmoose]

As I pointed out, there is no universally accepted definition. I am not sure I would consider the Merrill-Webster definition the definitive word on determining what should and should not be considered terrorism. Look in a few other dictionaries. The definitions are not the same from one to the next. Or better, look at the definitions of the various national security organizations. There is no agreement among them eithe rin what constitutes terrorism and what does not. I have stated what I consider terrorism -- using terror .as a political weapon. A HS bully does not fit that definition. It is not an exception.

You're free to keep viewing the world from your narrow little mindset, and giving new meaning to words to reinforce your personal worldview.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think non-government actors using violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to advance political goals is a pretty good working definition.

Like everything else in this world, terrorism isn't a yes or no thing. Organizations that target empty areas of buildings with small bombs and al-Qaeda both are "terrorists" in a way, but the scale of what they do is very different. These Arizona protestors seem to be less "terroristy" than either of those examples. Certainly, there was a threatening aspect to the contest. I don't think we have to label it "terrorism" to agree that implicitly threatening innocent people at their place of worship is pretty distasteful.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're free to keep viewing the world from your narrow little mindset, and giving new meaning to words to reinforce your personal worldview.

What new meanings am I giving to words? Siri just told me her definition of terrorism. She says it is "the calculated us of violence or the threat of violence against civilians that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Siri is always right, moose. As I have said, feel free to find your own definition, as there seems to be a lot to choose from out there. If I use your logic I could look at the definition above and say that you are the one who is trying to give new meaning to words to reinforce your personal worldview. But I understand that there is no clear definition it is an open question and will not stoop to your level by attempting to be insulting. Unfortunately that seems to be your "go to" when you have run out of arguments to make. Not surprising that you arrived at this place since defending terrorists is tricky business.

 

[AvesEvo]

This thread demonstrates perfectly why one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. These motherfuckers are terrorists.

 

[kmoose]

If I use your logic I could look at the definition above and say that you are the one who is trying to give new meaning to words to reinforce your personal worldview.

I am using a dictionary definition, and a VERY reputable dictionary at that. You are the one who keeps saying "I say yes", "I say it is", and "there are all kinds of definitions out there". So who is interjecting their own wishes into the definition?

 

[GoIrish41]

I am using a dictionary definition, and a VERY reputable dictionary at that. You are the one who keeps saying "I say yes", "I say it is", and "there are all kinds of definitions out there". So who is interjecting their own wishes into the definition?

Dictionaries do not set policy. If they did, the policy would not be coherent because almost no two sources are the same. In the absence of a universally accepted definition I think for myself and draw my own conclusions. Incidently you are doing the exact same thing just as everyone in this country would have to do if they were having this discussion -- unless this discussion has somehow shifted to which is the best dictionary without me noticing.

 

[kmoose]

Dictionaries do not set policy. If they did, the policy would not be coherent because almost no two sources are the same. In the absence of a universally accepted definition I think for myself and draw my own conclusions. Incidently you are doing the exact same thing -- unless this discussion has somehow shifted to which is the best dictionary without me noticing.

Ok, then. I think we can all agree that the US Code of Federal Regulations DOES set policy, and oh look......... they define what is terrorism as well:

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "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).

Force AND Violence. Since there was no violence at the rally, then the organizers and participants are NOT terrorists, in the eyes of the US Government. You can feel differently, but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[EddytoNow]

This thread demonstrates perfectly why one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. These motherfuckers are terrorists.

You are correct again. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ok, then. I think we can all agree that the US Code of Federal Regulations DOES set policy, and oh look......... they define what is terrorism as well:



Force AND Violence. Since there was no violence at the rally, then the organizers and participants are NOT terrorists, in the eyes of the US Government. You can feel differently, but it doesn't mean anything.

Now you are getting it. Now go find the definitions used by the myriad other agencies who have something to do with fighting terrorism. You will notice that they do not agree. They all add or subtract wrinkles in the wording that allow them to prosecute their missions effectively. Honestly, this point was made hours ago and all you seem interested in doing is arguing minutiae while finding the definition that best fits your argument, which originally was that KILLING people (not using violence or force against persons OR PROPERTY) was required for anything to be considered terrorism. That is what began this discussion. You were wrong! Accept it and move on.

 

[kmoose]

Now you are getting it. Now go find the definitions used by the myriad other agencies who have something to do with fighting terrorism. You will notice that they do not agree. They all add or subtract wrinkles in the wording that allow them to prosecute their missions effectively. Honestly, this point was made hours ago and all you seem interested in doing is arguing minutiae while finding the definition that best fits your argument, which originally was that KILLING people was required to be considered terrorism. You do understand that no definition says that, right? That is what began this discussion. You were wrong! Accept it and move on.

No. I was the one who raised the subject, so I am quite sure that I understand how it started. I merely pointed out that calling these people terrorists was inaccurate melodrama. Killing was just used as an example of actually committing violence, as opposed to threatening it but never following through on the threat.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Don't we track and arrest people we call terrorists who never commit a violent act? Sometimes they are just involved in the planning of something that never gets completed. I guess to me these people are no different. I feel they have intent to create violence.

 

[AvesEvo]

Don't we track and arrest people we call terrorists who never commit a violent act? Sometimes they are just involved in the planning of something that never gets completed. I guess to me these people are no different. I feel they have intent to create violence.

Good point.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I thought Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist? I don't remember him committing any violent acts. I mean that's a stretch on my part, but it doesn't technically fit in the definition above.

 

[GoIrish41]

Terrorists cause terror by actually killing people. Have you ever left the United States and traveled anywhere in the world? Timothy McVeigh actually killed people. Those two idiots from this mosque actually killed someone. The 9/11 hijackers actually killed someone. The people gathered outside of this mosque were largely dumbass rednecks and hillbillies who probably don't have the mental acumen to figure out 2+2 without a paper and pencil. They aren't terrorists any more than school bullies are terrorists.

This is actually what you said. Does not sound as though this is an example to me. More like a prerequisite to be considered terrorists. And the two idiots from the mosque killed no one, but I am guessing you think they were undoubtedly terrorists. I bet if I went back and looked I would find that you actually said so.

 

[kmoose]

This is actually what you said. Does not sound as though this is an example to me. More like a prerequisite to be considered terrorists. And the two idiots from the mosque killed no one, but I am guessing you think they were undoubtedly terrorists. I bet if I went back and looked I would find that you actually did.

I was using the killing of people as a contrast to the waving of guns that someone previously had used to justify calling these guys terrorists. I thought that the contrast was obvious, and that I didn't have to spell it out like I was talking to a bunch of children. The two idiots from the mosque did not kill anyone, you are correct. I was mistaken there. They did, however, shoot one of the security guards. Would you call that violent? And was that violence used to further a political agenda?

 

[GoIrish41]

I was using the killing of people as a contrast to the waving of guns that someone previously had used to justify calling these guys terrorists. I thought that the contrast was obvious, and that I didn't have to spell it out like I was talking to a bunch of children. The two idiots from the mosque did not kill anyone, you are correct. I was mistaken there. They did, however, shoot one of the security guards. Would you call that violent? And was that violence used to further a political agenda?

Maybe we are all stupid but we were reacting to your words, as you wrote them. I would call it violent and I would call it furthering a political agenda. but I would also say that they would not fit your original definition of terrorists. Your abridged version, yes. Perhaps they were terrorists before they went to Texas because they were provoked by other terrorists. They were on terrorist watch lists after all, even though they committed no acts of violence previously. So were they terrorists before the first art show or not? By your new definition they were not. If you think that I respectfully disagree.

 

[kmoose]

I would call it violent and I would call it furthering a political agenda. but I would also say that they would not fit your original definition of terrorists.

My "original definition" was

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

You just agreed that the two shooters who shot the security guard perpetrated a violent act for political reasons, but you don't think they fit the definition of the use of violent acts to frighten people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal?

I just don't have the time or energy to dance this dance anymore. I'm on record as saying that I don't agree with the people bringing weapons in an attempt to intimidate the presumably innocent Muslims at the mosque, but calling them terrorists is just an attempt to quiet voices by making it sound like they support terrorism if they don't utterly condemn everything about the draw Muhammad contest. But to call them terrorists is just inaccurate. Unless of course you don't want to use any of the legal definitions of terrorism and prefer your own made up definition.

 

[AvesEvo]

My "original definition" was


You just agreed that the two shooters who shot the security guard perpetrated a violent act for political reasons, but you don't think they fit the definition of the use of violent acts to frighten people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal?

I just don't have the time or energy to dance this dance anymore. I'm on record as saying that I don't agree with the people bringing weapons in an attempt to intimidate the presumably innocent Muslims at the mosque, but calling them terrorists is just an attempt to quiet voices by making it sound like they support terrorism if they don't utterly condemn everything about the draw Muhammad contest. But to call them terrorists is just inaccurate. Unless of course you don't want to use any of the legal definitions of terrorism and prefer your own made up definition.

Concerning the definition, I don't think you read what GoIrish said at all.

 

[GoldenDome]

I thought Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist? I don't remember him committing any violent acts. I mean that's a stretch on my part, but it doesn't technically fit in the definition above.

That ends that debate. Ouch!

Notice the non response to strong arguments. It is a recurring theme.

 

[GoldenDome]

I have yet to hear a person claim their freedom of expression is stronger because of these contests. Oh yeah...there not.

The fact is, most people are afraid of certain outrageous speech not because of fear of dying, but because of social norms and its impact on their career. It does not protect you from losing your job, burning bridges, and outing you from society.

If I called my boss a prick, I would be outed, ruin my career, and lose the respect. Fear of not being able to provide for your family is much greater than death.

 

[JughedJones]

Moose, I'd like to point out that you originally stated that "The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims," to using sketchy definitions to prove they're not terrorists.

Perhaps your understanding of this group's motives is fundamentally flawed?

 

[AvesEvo]

Moose, I'd like to point out that you originally stated that "The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims," to using sketchy definitions to prove they're not terrorists.

Perhaps your understanding of this group's motives is fundamentally flawed?

Pun intended?

 

[Irish#1]

I see it's the same "usual suspects" hanging out in here. lol

 

[kmoose]

Moose, I'd like to point out that you originally stated that "The intent of the Draw Muhammad event was not to insult Muslims," to using sketchy definitions to prove they're not terrorists.

Perhaps your understanding of this group's motives is fundamentally flawed?

The stated intent of the event was to utilize 1st Amendment rights to show radical Muslims that Americans will not be cowed by fear like other parts of the planet are. If the intent was simply to insult Muslims, why didn't they sell bacon at it? Or pulled pork BBQ?

So now Merriam-Webster and the United State Code of Federal Regulations are considered "sketchy" definitions? Seriously?

Both of these viewpoints that I expressed were thrown out there in response to specific comments made by others. It's not like I was trying to present some kind of manifesto to support the organizers of the event. I'd just like us to have an honest discussion about it, without all of the emotionally rooted accusations.

 

[JughedJones]

The stated intent of the event was to utilize 1st Amendment rights to show radical Muslims that Americans will not be cowed by fear like other parts of the planet are. If the intent was simply to insult Muslims, why didn't they sell bacon at it? Or pulled pork BBQ?

So now Merriam-Webster and the United State Code of Federal Regulations are considered "sketchy" definitions? Seriously?

Both of these viewpoints that I expressed were thrown out there in response to specific comments made by others. It's not like I was trying to present some kind of manifesto to support the organizers of the event. I'd just like us to have an honest discussion about it, without all of the emotionally rooted accusations.

I'd like you to remember the last time folks acted like this in our country.

Can you remember? When was the last time we armed ourselves outside of anyone's places of worship? When was the last time we brought guns to people's churches and told them to "scram?"

Do you remember?

Sit on that for a second, then shut your mouth. Fuckin Fascist.

 

[IrishLion]

The British considered George Washington a terrorist.


(I have no idea if this fits into your discussion at all.)


I took a "History of Terrorism" course in college. The definition was presented to us by our professor throughout the semester as basically a "working definition," because it is difficult to define, it is always changing, and it is always different based on your perspective.

As has been mentioned, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Basically, the most concrete definition of terrorism that we got was "the use of fear by an individual or group, that sometimes includes the use of violence, to manipulate non-military individuals of the world based on a belief system."

The non-military part is important, because attacking military forces would simply be an act of war, not terrorism... but even then, different situations in this regard can get murky, and there is plenty of room for debate.

I don't think an average, everyday bully at school is a terrorist. He may be using fear and violence to manipulate his school's population, but he's doing it because he's an asshole, not for some higher belief.

But that is just MY personal view.

Terrorism is tricky, and belittling each other about what is right/wrong is silly, because even a textbook on "History of Terrorism" doesn't have a concrete definition for the word/idea.

 

[pkt77242]

The stated intent of the event was to utilize 1st Amendment rights to show radical Muslims that Americans will not be cowed by fear like other parts of the planet are. If the intent was simply to insult Muslims, why didn't they sell bacon at it? Or pulled pork BBQ?

So now Merriam-Webster and the United State Code of Federal Regulations are considered "sketchy" definitions? Seriously?

Both of these viewpoints that I expressed were thrown out there in response to specific comments made by others. It's not like I was trying to present some kind of manifesto to support the organizers of the event. I'd just like us to have an honest discussion about it, without all of the emotionally rooted accusations.

Yet you seem to be ignoring the fact that the two radicalized people haven't gone here in many years (about 5) and left about the time that they were becoming radicalized. I have pointed this out a few times and you seem to never answer? The truth is that many of our citizens who are becoming radicalized are being reached through the internet, not a their local place of worship.

Going to their place of worship and intimidating them and making them feel unsafe to attend their place of worship is not the right way to go about it. I believe that it is good to have a discussion about drawing Mohammed and we should be including Muslims in that conversation. This was about hatred not about having any kind of intelligent discourse, or making any particular point.

 

[Emcee77]

The stated intent of the event was to utilize 1st Amendment rights to show radical Muslims that Americans will not be cowed by fear like other parts of the planet are. If the intent was simply to insult Muslims, why didn't they sell bacon at it? Or pulled pork BBQ?

So now Merriam-Webster and the United State Code of Federal Regulations are considered "sketchy" definitions? Seriously?

Both of these viewpoints that I expressed were thrown out there in response to specific comments made by others. It's not like I was trying to present some kind of manifesto to support the organizers of the event. I'd just like us to have an honest discussion about it, without all of the emotionally rooted accusations.

... by insulting them.

 

[JughedJones]

The British considered George Washington a terrorist.


(I have no idea if this fits into your discussion at all.)


I took a "History of Terrorism" course in college. The definition was presented to us by our professor throughout the semester as basically a "working definition," because it is difficult to define, it is always changing, and it is always different based on your perspective.

As has been mentioned, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Basically, the most concrete definition of terrorism that we got was "the use of fear by an individual or group, that sometimes includes the use of violence, to manipulate non-military individuals of the world based on a belief system."

The non-military part is important, because attacking military forces would simply be an act of war, not terrorism... but even then, different situations in this regard can get murky, and there is plenty of room for debate.

I don't think an average, everyday bully at school is a terrorist. He may be using fear and violence to manipulate his school's population, but he's doing it because he's an asshole, not for some higher belief.

But that is just MY personal view.

Terrorism is tricky, and belittling each other about what is right/wrong is silly, because even a textbook on "History of Terrorism" doesn't have a concrete definition for the word/idea.

100%

The Holy Ghost is a paradox.

I'm a non-believer, but I would die protecting innocents worshiping peacefully.

People bringing guns to temples is terrorism. Look at your Bible... it will tell you how to act in this situation, Moose...