• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why we shouldn't worry too much about terrorism at home

Kobie said:
Motive is pretty much what delineates "terrorism" and "not terrorism."
Click to expand...
No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?
Click to expand...

I think the difficulty with that is that it would apply to a great many people or things--the Son of Sam as Kobie mentioned, or the Hillside strangler, or The Night Stalker or even Jack the Ripper would all be terrorists if that is the definition. Hell even Mafia Crime families and street gang activity would be considered terrorists if 'people being terrorized' is the only criteria for terrorism. I think a good way to separate terrorism from other murderous behavior is to recognize that terrorism is killing or inflicting terror to further some political agenda. Killing for sport or turf or out of just shear madness should carry a different label
 
Fletch said:
I think the difficulty with that is that it would apply to a great many people or things--the Son of Sam as Kobie mentioned, or the Hillside strangler, or The Night Stalker or even Jack the Ripper would all be terrorists if that is the definition. Hell even Mafia Crime families and street gang activity would be considered terrorists if 'people being terrorized' is the only criteria for terrorism. I think a good way to separate terrorism from other murderous behavior is to recognize that terrorism is killing or inflicting terror to further some political agenda. Killing for sport or turf or out of just shear madness should carry a different label
Click to expand...

That's why we put adjectives in front of it. I.e. domestic terrorism, islamic terrorism and so forth. Our assclown and chief is just to stupid to do it.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it isn't. People being terrorized makes something terrorism. You do see the root word is terror in the word terrorism do you not? It isn't politicalism. Do you not know how english works?
Click to expand...

So basically, anyone who scares people is a terrorist. Alrighty then.
 
Kobie said:
So basically, anyone who scares people is a terrorist. Alrighty then.
Click to expand...
What does terror mean? What is the root word of terrorist? Again have you forgotten how english works?

We add adjictives to define the "type" of terror. See the Sandy hook clown was a domestic terrorist. Nidal puce pieceof**** was an Islamic and domestic terrorist.

See that is why we have other words in English.
 
Kobie said:
I think it's pretty well established he didn't; he was just nuts.

James Holmes didn't appear to have any overt political aims when he shot up a theater. The VT shooter didn't either. Yet by some, both are considered "terrorist attacks." Why?
Click to expand...

James Holmes converted to Islam after the shooting. It is a way he found to justify his murders. See how Islam does that? Pretty neat.
 
coldjoint said:
James Holmes converted to Islam after the shooting. It is a way he found to justify his murders. See how Islam does that? Pretty neat.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a credible link to that. The Daily Mail and the Moonie Times got it from the National Enquirer.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No you don't. First the dictionary is a lexicon. It explains how words are commonly used. It isn't the god of definitions.
Click to expand...

You're mixing up two different methods to define a word: prescriptive (dictionary) and descriptive (how the words are used).

The major problem with your argument is that both of those methods disagree with you.

You are pulling the root (terror) of the word to assert what the "real" meaning is, in dismissal of the dictionary's actual meaning. You're trying to prescribe your own definition.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation for political aims.
 
Absentglare said:
You're mixing up two different methods to define a word: prescriptive (dictionary) and descriptive (how the words are used).
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. The dictionary doesn't define words we define them and write these definitions into a book. The book changes and gets updated because the definitions are always changing.

The major problem with your argument is that both of those methods disagree with you.
Click to expand...
So terror is synonymous with religion and politics? Show me in the thesaurus.

You are pulling the root (terror) of the word to assert what the "real" meaning is, in dismissal of the dictionary's actual meaning. You're trying to prescribe your own definition.
Click to expand...
No that is what you are doing.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation for political aims.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's also the user of violence and intimidation without political aims. One is political terrorism and the other is psychotic terrorism.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, I'm not. The dictionary doesn't define words we define them and write these definitions into a book. The book changes and gets updated because the definitions are always changing.

So terror is synonymous with religion and politics? Show me in the thesaurus.

No that is what you are doing.

Yes, and it's also the user of violence and intimidation without political aims. One is political terrorism and the other is psychotic terrorism.
Click to expand...

I am referencing the dictionary. You are trying to redefine the word "terrorism" because of the word "terror". Linguistically, your argument is in error.

Consider "social" compared to "socialism"- the doctrine indicated by the addition of the "ism" suffix may be more loosely related to the root word as the "ism" develops.
 
Absentglare said:
I am referencing the dictionary.
Click to expand...
So what it changes all the time words get added new definitions are added and old ones are taken away. It's not the authority on definitions. It's how the word is used.

You are trying to redefine the word "terrorism" because of the word "terror". Linguistically, your argument is in error.
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't fit with the current dictionary definition? That's all your argument really amounts to.

Consider "social" compared to "socialism"- the doctrine indicated by the addition of the "ism" suffix may be more loosely related to the root word as the "ism" develops.
Click to expand...
So?
 
CLAX1911 said:
So what it changes all the time words get added new definitions are added and old ones are taken away. It's not the authority on definitions. It's how the word is used.

Because it doesn't fit with the current dictionary definition? That's all your argument really amounts to.

So?
Click to expand...

You're failing to demonstrate your case in any meaningful way. The dictionary disagrees with you.
 
I am not at all concerned about terrorism. Or I should say it is so far down on my list of things to worry about that it barely registers as a passing thought on rare occasions. I'm a math and data guy. I apportion my concern about things based on the odds.

So no, terrorism doesn't worry me. And the use of the war on terror to justify endless war, consolidation of power and curtailment of our liberties is one of the biggest con jobs our government has ever pulled on us.
 
"Terrorism" or "terrorist" is very much like "conspiracy theorist". Both are mostly never defined terms used by TPTB to keep people afraid and paranoid.

Terms used to confuse the public perception.

Killing another is simply killing another, no matter what the reason or intention of the murderer might be.

It is interesting to know that IF the executive branch declares a person a "terrorist", that person is no longer entitled to Habeas Corpus. Yeah, THAT is progress.
 
Masterhawk said:
The news likes to make terrorism this scary boogeyman and that the only way to stop them is to spy on civilians. Terrorist attacks make easy news because they usually kill multiple people at a time.

However when you look at the statistics, you find that relatively few people die from terrorist attacks, at least in America.
View attachment 67206624

From 1988 to 2005, around a million people died from car accidents. Meanwhile the bar for terrorist attacks is barely visible and a majority of them died in 9/11.

So next time you see Donald Trump on television talking about how Obama isn't doing enough to keep America safe or a campaign ad attacking a candidate who dares support a bill which may limit the ability to find terrorists, remember that you are fare more likely to die in a car accident or a non terrorist homicide than a terrorist attack and I can tell you from experience that I know only 1 person who died from a car accident.
Click to expand...



So how many participants in "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" worldwide menace America's "national security?" How many threaten us so badly that our rulers insist on suspending much of the Bill of Rights to counteract the danger?

Try 184,000. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...re-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml


With around 162 Known and Registered Terrorist Groups in the World, if there are only 184,000 people in all of those groups, that would mean that there are around 1,136 members to each known registered Terrorist organization. Countries Compared by Terrorism > Number of Known Terrorist Organizations Present. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

I think the 184,000 number is for Isil members only...
 
I had forgotten how hilarious this thread was.
 
depakote said:
So how many participants in "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" worldwide menace America's "national security?" How many threaten us so badly that our rulers insist on suspending much of the Bill of Rights to counteract the danger?

Try 184,000. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...re-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml


With around 162 Known and Registered Terrorist Groups in the World, if there are only 184,000 people in all of those groups, that would mean that there are around 1,136 members to each known registered Terrorist organization. Countries Compared by Terrorism > Number of Known Terrorist Organizations Present. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

I think the 184,000 number is for Isil members only...
Click to expand...

I was mainly referring to the threat terrorism poses on US soil. I wasn't talking about Iraq where it's one of the biggest threats to stability
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom