Terrorism

[Zane71464]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

We're going to play a game I like to call Dictionary.com, answers, and simple logic. Who's ready to win big?!

Question one: What is a terrorist?
Dictionary.com defines it as:
–noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others
Quite frankly, it's a person who uses Terror as a weapon. Now what is Terror?
Again we go to my good friends at Dictionary.com and get
–noun
1.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2.
an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3.
any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4.
violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
So, basically fear. Terrorists are people who use Fear as a weapon.
How do we identify people who use fear as a weapon?

A dictionary can't help us here, only logic can. I'll give you 3 examples of people, and you have to guess which one is a terrorist.

A: He's a high school math teacher who has a particular problem. He has a student, Matt, who will not do the work. Our teacher tells Matt that if Matt does not do the work Matt will fail, and have to repeat the class.

B: He's a Police Officer who caught someone driving drunk. On the way to the station our intrepid officer informs the perpetrator of the dangers of driving drunk, and the harm he could cause, and the legal ramifications of driving under the influence.

C: Achmed is a goat farmer in rural Iraq. He has 2 boys who simply will not feed the goats. Achmed warns them that if they do not feed the goats the goats will die, and there will be no food.


If you said none of the above, you are incorrect. The correct answer is all 3. Our teacher used the fear of failing to coerce Matt to do his work, and behave. The Officer used the fear of losing the ability to drive, jail time, and the possibility of injuring innocents to get the driver to never drive drunk again. Achmed used the fear of Goat death, and starvation to get his boys to do their chores. All of them used terror, and are legally Terrorists. Let's go to war with them now.

Everyone of us lives in fear of something, mine is of Deliverance and Zombies. Should Wes Craven be arrested, and held with no trial for making, and remaking Last House on the Left? Maybe for the remake, but we'll ignore that. The fact remains that one point in time we have all used fear to get someone to do something we wanted them to. We are all terrorists, and you cannot identify a violent terrorist just by appearances, nor can you properly defend yourself from terrorism without locking yourself in a room all by yourself with no thoughts.

I'm fairly certain that I'm the only one in this conversation who knew what a Terrorist was before typing up some half cocked, half wit, inbred, country bumpkin praise Jesus and Colt, argument. For the record, I am a Muslim, I have a Trebuchet (A french Catapult), a vast assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, and 2 rifles. Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult?

I totally disagree with you on this. The Math teacher trying to get the student to "get" the math so he can move on and learn the math, a TERROIST? Not in my book!
The police officer telling the drunk driver the consequences of driving drunk...a TERROIST? Not in my book...
And the Goat farmer telling of what will happen if the boys are to damn lazy to feed the goats...they will starve...a TERROIST? What the heck am I missing here????????? I, my friend am not missing nothing here.....the math teacher trying to "help" the student and doing his jon, and the police officer doing his job so that no inoccent lives are lost, and the goat farmer trying to survive and the boys being lazy arse's.....you call that TERROISM? WTH?
I call it common sence.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Zane71464

I totally disagree with you on this. The Math teacher trying to get the student to "get" the math so he can move on and learn the math, a TERROIST? Not in my book!
The police officer telling the drunk driver the consequences of driving drunk...a TERROIST? Not in my book...
And the Goat farmer telling of what will happen if the boys are to damn lazy to feed the goats...they will starve...a TERROIST? What the heck am I missing here????????? I, my friend am not missing nothing here.....the math teacher trying to "help" the student and doing his jon, and the police officer doing his job so that no inoccent lives are lost, and the goat farmer trying to survive and the boys being lazy arse's.....you call that TERROISM? WTH?
I call it common sence.

I call it literal terrorism. If you read the definitions provided you will notice that all the subjects are using the threat of something to coerce someone into something. That is the literal definition of Terrorism. Blowing up a church because you don't like the message isn't terrorism. You didn't use fear as a weapon, you used explosives, and went above terror. Now, if you sent the church a letter saying that you would blow it up in one week if they didn't stop offering cookies to kiddies that'd be terrorism, and when you blew it up it'd be an act of war.

My point was simply that Terrorism is an unpredictable, and non physical act. Anyone who assaults someone is a terrorist, when you batter them you lose that title.

Which of the 2 attached is more likely to blow up a building?

[Zane71464]

Neither of the two above, if I would have to make an educated guess, it wouldnt be the above two...enough of this GARBAGE.....your not right "guy"!

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Zane71464

Neither of the two above, if I would have to make an educated guess, it wouldnt be the above two...enough of this GARBAGE.....your not right "guy"!

It is the one above. He's an infamous rebel, has his own holiday and a movie based on him. That's Guy Fawkes. In 1605 he attempted to blow up Parliament with King James I inside. He's a White Christian man who simply believed that King James was an unfair ruler, and tried to blow him up. He was a former Military man, and had a child and a wife. He was by all accounts a good man, until he tried to blow up Parliament. You couldn't tell by looking at him that he posed any threat to anyone, let alone his own King.

I'm sensing that Zane suffers from the horrible condition of Illiteracy, or at least doesn't bear my burden of an education higher than that of fifth grade. I'll put it in simpler terms. By the meaning of the word terror is fear, and if you use fear to get people to do stuff you are terrorising them. Terrorising people is Terrorism, and is a war crime nowadays. Although, the US acted as terrorists to Japan 60 years ago. :/

[Zane71464]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zane71464
Neither of the two above, if I would have to make an educated guess, it wouldnt be the above two...enough of this GARBAGE.....your not right "guy"! "

Now, you didnt get it, did ya....what mosque did you get your, "higher then a 5th grade" education from? Or, are you a "want-to-be" Muslim?

[Zane71464]

.....also, did you read my signature?

[TheDoctor]

I'm not offended by the Flag. I love America, I just hate simpletons who can't even read 2 simple definitions and draw the actual meaning of a word. I love America so much that I can look at it and see the flaws and ideas on how to fix the system. A true Patriot loves his or her country but not blindly. A Blind Patriot is a foolish Patriot.

I didn't get my formal education in a Mosque, that's for Prayer. I was educated in primarily DODEA schools. Look those up, if you don't know. You do know in trying to condescend to me you misused the word, "Then". The one you used is for what comes next in sequential order. You mean "Than" which is the comparative one.

[Zane71464]

Then, you know what I'm saying, don't you...my signature young man ...

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Zane71464

Then, you know what I'm saying, don't you...my signature young man ...

You're implying I should leave here because either I don't like the context of the discussion, or I dislike prejudice. But I really just dislike you. You seem to always miss everything except "They're different than I am, they're bad!" You are the true issue with the United States, hell with the world. You cannot accept a difference in views, nor can you accept facts that directly conflict with yours, even if they are spelled out in front of you. The plain and simple fact of the matter is this. Quite literally everyone is guilty of Terrorism according to the definition of it. We all use fear as a weapon, regardless of race, colour, religion, ethnicity, creed, age, size, gender, what have you. There is no way to defend against it, not to win a war against it. The war on terror is an Oxymoron.

[358 winchester]

OK Children it is time to stop this.
Please don't have admin. come back here and remove this thread!
if you can't agree then don't read each others post..
Don't send me any more emails about how the other person is wrong
in simple terms
STOP URINATING ON EACH OTHER.

[ampaterry]

A terrorist uses TERRORISM.

looking up terrorism instead of terror, we find:

ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Which fits none of your examples.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

We're going to play a game I like to call Dictionary.com, answers, and simple logic. Who's ready to win big?!

Question one: What is a terrorist?
Dictionary.com defines it as:
–noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others
Quite frankly, it's a person who uses Terror as a weapon. Now what is Terror?
Again we go to my good friends at Dictionary.com and get
–noun
1.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2.
an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3.
any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4.
violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
So, basically fear. Terrorists are people who use Fear as a weapon.
How do we identify people who use fear as a weapon?

I took the liberty of putting in red some words that were omitted from your simplified definitions. Unfortunately for your argument, these words are crucial to understanding the definition of "terrorism."

A dictionary can't help us here, only logic can. I'll give you 3 examples of people, and you have to guess which one is a terrorist.

A: He's a high school math teacher who has a particular problem. He has a student, Matt, who will not do the work. Our teacher tells Matt that if Matt does not do the work Matt will fail, and have to repeat the class.

B: He's a Police Officer who caught someone driving drunk. On the way to the station our intrepid officer informs the perpetrator of the dangers of driving drunk, and the harm he could cause, and the legal ramifications of driving under the influence.

C: Achmed is a goat farmer in rural Iraq. He has 2 boys who simply will not feed the goats. Achmed warns them that if they do not feed the goats the goats will die, and there will be no food.


If you said none of the above, you are incorrect. The correct answer is all 3. Our teacher used the fear of failing to coerce Matt to do his work, and behave. The Officer used the fear of losing the ability to drive, jail time, and the possibility of injuring innocents to get the driver to never drive drunk again. Achmed used the fear of Goat death, and starvation to get his boys to do their chores. All of them used terror, and are legally Terrorists. Let's go to war with them now.

Everyone of us lives in fear of something, mine is of Deliverance and Zombies. Should Wes Craven be arrested, and held with no trial for making, and remaking Last House on the Left? Maybe for the remake, but we'll ignore that. The fact remains that one point in time we have all used fear to get someone to do something we wanted them to.

Using consequences ("fear") to coerce a single person has always been defined in one of two ways: 1) corrective instruction (e.g. parenting), or 2) bullying. Attempting to bully an entire group of people is called "terrorism."

Only one of those is found to be socially unacceptable, and surely you're not such a simpleton--as you seem inclined to call people--to group the two as one.

We are all terrorists, and you cannot identify a violent terrorist just by appearances, nor can you properly defend yourself from terrorism without locking yourself in a room all by yourself with no thoughts.

No, we are not all terrorists. There is a fundamental difference between threatening to take away dessert and threatening to murder an entire family. "Intense," "overmastering fear" and "anxiety" is not a normal response to missing ice cream, repeating a math class, or having malnourished goats. It is a normal, acceptable response to threats of death to one's family.

For the record, I am a Muslim, I have a Trebuchet (A french Catapult), a vast assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, and 2 rifles. Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult?

I, too, have a trebuchet (though mine is designed to throw only tennis balls). It is a great device; a fun study of history and a great way to play with my dog. I also have several blades, handguns, and rifles.

I am a not a threat to my neighbors for any of these. Neither are you a threat to your neighbors based on items in your possession; a person can only come to threaten others based on his/her actions. If you choose to threaten or terrorize your neighbors--based on your religion or any other reason--then you are a terrorist.

[oscarmayer]

to the doctor , you are a 21 year old unkowning child, once you've lived a bit you can debate the facts or the facts as you know them. as i noted in another post that vanished fawkes was not a terrorist he was a revolutionary, you need to know the difference you've aslo included uncle ho and castro , again revolutionaries, the people you name had a vision they wanted to change something they felt was wrong or unjust, they didn't kill for the sake of killing. what wrong did the 3000+ do to deserve having a couple planes fly into their work place, what wrong other than be americans ???

[199er]

Posted by the 'Doctor (?)
For the record, I am a Muslim, I have a Trebuchet (A french Catapult), a vast assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, and 2 rifles. Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult?

............I find this thread by the Doctor(?) very interesting and educational............ The arguments supporting his thoughts on what exactly consititutes a 'terrorist or terrorism' are 'illuminating'.

It's given me a clearer understanding of the Muslim process of thought and reasoning.........to sum it up, very telling and downright "insightful" thread!!! (double meaning intended).

[oscarmayer]

great point and yes very telling indeed. scold a child you're a terrorist, warn a drunken driver you're a terrorist show displeasure with a student you're a terrorist....... no wonder our lives mean nothing to these despicable people.

[199er]

Posted by the Doctor (?)
For the record, I am a Muslim, I have a Trebuchet (A french Catapult), a vast assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, and 2 rifles. Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult?

Why did the Doctor ask "Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult"? and not include his "assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, & 2 rifles in that question???

Anyone see a 'trip wire' here regarding this omission about the personal weapons in his question????????????????? I do, especially since this is a firearms forum!

Yes, a very good lesson in helping me (us?) understand the Muslin thought process Doctor.

[Regular Joe]

Just making sure. I've just read thru this entire thread, and I don't see how page 2 has anything in it that is remotely related to the OP, or to most of page 1. The point of this thread is to say that we are already infiltrated.
A friend and I were talking yesterday, and I mentioned that WHEN the US goes to war with Iran, I wonder if ALL Muslims will be interred, as the Japanese were in WWII? Don't bet on it.
Just search your memories of examples of terrorism that have already happened in places where Jihad has surfaced over the last 20 years. This is all coming to a community near you. Whatcha' gonna do?

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I took the liberty of putting in red some words that were omitted from your simplified definitions. Unfortunately for your argument, these words are crucial to understanding the definition of "terrorism."



Using consequences ("fear") to coerce a single person has always been defined in one of two ways: 1) corrective instruction (e.g. parenting), or 2) bullying. Attempting to bully an entire group of people is called "terrorism."

Only one of those is found to be socially unacceptable, and surely you're not such a simpleton--as you seem inclined to call people--to group the two as one.



No, we are not all terrorists. There is a fundamental difference between threatening to take away dessert and threatening to murder an entire family. "Intense," "overmastering fear" and "anxiety" is not a normal response to missing ice cream, repeating a math class, or having malnourished goats. It is a normal, acceptable response to threats of death to one's family.



I, too, have a trebuchet (though mine is designed to throw only tennis balls). It is a great device; a fun study of history and a great way to play with my dog. I also have several blades, handguns, and rifles.

I am a not a threat to my neighbors for any of these. Neither are you a threat to your neighbors based on items in your possession; a person can only come to threaten others based on his/her actions. If you choose to threaten or terrorize your neighbors--based on your religion or any other reason--then you are a terrorist.

I didn't say Fawkes was a terrorist, I said he was inclined to committing crimes that we would consider Terrorism to this day. In his time had Terrorism been a hackneyed term then he would have been called one. Batista felt that Castro was a terrorist, his supporters felt that he was a liberator and a revolutionary. Hell, the Red Coats thought that the Colonial Revolutionaries were terrorists, but we see them as heroes. The only real difference between Terrorism and Freedom Fighting is which side of the wall you're on. Bin Laden is a hero to some people, they feel he's just in his actions.

I can link you to the source of my definitions if you'd like, you can see where I got my "simplified" answers from. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1285821589 Here's one site, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror. The fact remains that according to these sites using the fear of anything negative is an act of Terrorism. I was once on a forum with a person who had been charged with Acts of Terrorism because he threw the side door on his ex wife's van open to get his daughter. He put his ex in fear, didn't cause massive damage, didn't injure millions. Didn't do anything that Al Qaeda does. He simply pulled his child from a van. Does that fit your definition? And again my stance on terrorism, and terrorists is based on the Literal meaning of the words. I am answering the question of the OP with a you can't, because the guy selling you the gun to protect you from the guy he says you need to defend yourself from is using the same tactics as the BG. They're both using the fear of your imminent demise to get you to do something. Regardless of any concrete or abstract factors we have all used the fear of something serious to motivate, or coerce, someone to do something we want them to. That is using terror as a weapon, which is the basis for Terrorism. How is it so hard to grasp?

Originally Posted by 199er

Why did the Doctor ask "Am I more of a threat to the safety of my neighbours because of my religion, or my Catapult"? and not include his "assortment of bladed weapons, multiple handguns, & 2 rifles in that question???

Anyone see a 'trip wire' here regarding this omission about the personal weapons in his question????????????????? I do, especially since this is a firearms forum!

Because my Catapult is a WMD. My religion is viewed as a terrorist religion. Therefore the question is Am I more dangerous because I built a WMD, or because I'm from a faith of Violence? Mind you, the Catapult is roughly 16 inches high and was built to launch grapes for school.

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

.
.


I can link you to the source of my definitions if you'd like, you can see where I got my "simplified" answers from. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1285821589 Here's one site, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror.
.
.

In your original post, you claimed the definitions you gave were from Dictionary.com.
Camping Josh proved you misquoted to make a point.

Now you claim they are from these two links.
Checking these, NEITHER ONE gives the definitions you 'quoted' in your initial post.

Did you actually think you could make false claims that were so easily exposed and no one would bother to check?

Terrorism does NOT fit any of the examples you gave in that original post, and making up your own definitions does not change that fact.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by ampaterry

In your original post, you claimed the definitions you gave were from Dictionary.com.
Camping Josh proved you misquoted to make a point.

Now you claim they are from these two links.
Checking these, NEITHER ONE gives the definitions you 'quoted' in your initial post.

Did you actually think you could make false claims that were so easily exposed and no one would bother to check?

Terrorism does NOT fit any of the examples you gave in that original post, and making up your own definitions does not change that fact.

No, I copypasta'd from Dictionary.com exactly, then I sited another source.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Terrorism My original quotes are from here for Terrorism. If you also read my initial claim, and Camping's claim I didn't misquote, he claims I ignored certain words; however, he did the same. He saw a few select words, i.e. INTENSE, SHARP, OVERMASTERING, etc. and ran with those. In all the definitions of Terrorist/ism you can find I bet you'll notice one major connection. In order to be a Terrorist you have to use Terror, or Fear, to be a terrorist. Hence the point that everyone has been one at one time. Law makers tell us that without their laws we would descend into Anarchy and be defenseless against whatever "evil" they're trying to fight. That's using the fear of that evil be it Hijackers, Sickness, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, et cetera. Weapon makers would have us believe that without their craft we'd be subject to death at the hands of lawless criminals. The police would have us believe that without them we would be at the mercy of any two bit thug who wants to push their criminal ways into our gated communities. The Government/Military would have us believe that without them we would be invaded by the Godless enemies in a millisecond, despite not once being invaded since 1812.

All of those groups play on a primal fear in order to establish their necessity to us, and well they may be needed, some more than others, it is still using our fear as a weapon. Why is it so hard to believe that Terrorists are just people who simply use Fear to manipulate us? Can no one break down words into their basic and honest meanings? Does a Guitarist now not use a Guitar for his craft? Is he now a Chimpanzee trainer?

[oscarmayer]

is this some type of homework assignment for you "doctor" or is your goal in prove a point. and if it's to prove something what might that be ? with muslims/islam it ok to be a terrorist because everyone in your narrow view of the world i.e teachers, cops, parents etc....practice terrorism. would you at least acknowledge the type of terrorism practiced by islamic extremist groups goes above and beyond any examples you've half wittedly tried to include in your blanket statements ? do you have an opinon ? rather than cut and paste or rehash crap you've be handed by the less than totally informed please explain your thoughts on islamic extermist and the type of terrorism they pracatice .

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Terrorism My original quotes are from here for Terrorism. If you also read my initial claim, and Camping's claim I didn't misquote, he claims I ignored certain words; however, he did the same. He saw a few select words, i.e. INTENSE, SHARP, OVERMASTERING, etc. and ran with those. In all the definitions of Terrorist/ism you can find I bet you'll notice one major connection. In order to be a Terrorist you have to use Terror, or Fear, to be a terrorist.

If you look at all the definitions of "dog," you'll see this major connection of them being animals. But that doesn't mean that every animal is a dog. You can't take a concept, reduce it from its original meaning, and then apply it to everything that fits your new meaning.

Your conclusion does follow your premises, but your premises don't follow FACT. Too bad.

Hence the point that everyone has been one at one time. Law makers tell us that without their laws we would descend into Anarchy and be defenseless against whatever "evil" they're trying to fight. That's using the fear of that evil be it Hijackers, Sickness, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, et cetera. Weapon makers would have us believe that without their craft we'd be subject to death at the hands of lawless criminals. The police would have us believe that without them we would be at the mercy of any two bit thug who wants to push their criminal ways into our gated communities. The Government/Military would have us believe that without them we would be invaded by the Godless enemies in a millisecond, despite not once being invaded since 1812.

All of those groups play on a primal fear in order to establish their necessity to us, and well they may be needed, some more than others, it is still using our fear as a weapon. Why is it so hard to believe that Terrorists are just people who simply use Fear to manipulate us? Can no one break down words into their basic and honest meanings? Does a Guitarist now not use a Guitar for his craft? Is he now a Chimpanzee trainer?

On another issue of fact, the United States was invaded during the War of 1812, but the actual invasion and burning of Washington, D.C., occurred in 1814.

We're not arguing that terrorists don't use fear as a weapon. Our basic argument is that fear and terror are not interchangeable words. It is possible to use fear to coerce an action without using terror. They are different words with different meanings.

Is English your first language?

[Double Deuce]

I guess we could take a long time and try to define what terrorism really is and argue every detail and meaning of every word that describes it. To me terrorism is an act and I dont need to know every miniscule detail of the definition of terrorism to know what it is when I see it.

I guess we could argue the whole actions speak louder than words but if I see someone commiting a terroristic act, regardless of race, color, religion or creed in my definition they are a "terrorist".

The examples given in the 3 scenarios were not terrorists because their actions did not induce terror. The poster did not say how Matt, the drunk driver or the 2 boys responded. Now all things being equal Matt most likely did not care if he had to take the math class again because most teenagers dont care. The drunk driver again was probably to drunk to care or else he wouldnt have been drinking and driving in the first place. And the 2 sons werent terrorized by the warning they probably wanted a job in town cause who really wants to tend goats?(sarcasm).

The actions of the people in the 3 scenarios did not fit the definition of terrorism, now if the teacher beat and raped Matt and then told him not to fail again, if the cop handcuffed and then decapitated the drunk driver and hung his body on the town bridge, and if Achmed killed his sons and then drug their bodies through the streets, I would call them terrorists, just like I would call anyone the same who did that. Now does that mean all math teachers, cops, or goat hearders are terrorists? NO! There is good and bad in all things, how I will tell is by their actions.

Again we can debate the meaning but in the end other than maybe understanding the word better does it really change what we think it is? Or do we want to agrue what the meaning of the word "is" is?

[Regular Joe]

This thread has denigrated so far from the title and OP that it cannot be saved. I tried once, and the detractors would not allow it. Please, Admin, lock this pointless garble.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Regular Joe

This thread has denigrated so far from the title and OP that it cannot be saved. I tried once, and the detractors would not allow it. Please, Admin, lock this pointless garble.

Welcome to TFF, Joe!

Our forum is a rather informal place. Very few of our threads read like a technical manual on a particular topic; they almost always drift with the conversation.

Most of us here are far less interested in writing an encyclopedia article than we are in sitting on the porch and shooting breeze with some friends. And whenever a group of men sit down to chat, God only knows where the conversation will go.

I'm sorry we offended you with our thread drift, but please don't take it personally. The new topic was far more interesting to us that the original, and we wanted to keep the conversation going.

Again, welcome to TFF. We're glad to have you here with, and we hope you stick around to share with us.