Freedom fighters, or terrorists?

OOOOOOOOHHH!!! I SEE NOW!!

You should of told me from the start, then I would of understood. You aren't talking to highly intellegent people.


I usually talk to my friends who for the most part are smarter then me, so I am used to only hearing intellectual responces.

But if people think that Timothy was a Muslim I think we have worse problems then that. Maybe better education.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

?

Are you under the impression that most People are intelligent and enlightened?

If not, then I don't see why you would assume that when I say "MOST PEOPLE" I only meant intelligent people.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

You never said most people. I think the only time you came close is when you said 9 out of 10.

I thought by what you typed you were saying that all of us thought that way. I was just making sure you understood that all of us don't think that way.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

Hey Dug: 9/10:

1. Implies a majority
2. Is representative of "Most"
3. Is synonymous with "People", which is never 100% inclusive.
4. Also means that there is, on an average, 1/10 people that don't fit in, hence that group that doesn't belong to the "majority"

I still don't understand why you would think, based on this obvious reasoning, that I was including EVERYONE in my statements.

For future reference never assume that someone intelligent is including everyone in their statements, even if it may sound like they are. There are anomalies in every single natural statistical approximation, and no one will ever "mean" 100% when they say anything, so it is completely pointless to argue about it.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Then why are you? I was just stating a misunderstand because from past post I read that you wrote you one said something along the lines that people don't read everything you say and use it. Well, I did just that and I took it for what it is meant.

Now do I know you? No, I haven't read your work long enough to actually understand you. So how am I to know that you are a man that exagerates. Now, I know a lot of people that hate exageration because it isn't a real fact. These people are Intellegent so it isn't safe to say that just because I think you are very intellegent doesn't mean I think you are an exagerater.

I understand that people exagerate, I do it myself. But, to tell you the truth, I thought you were smarter then that. I thought you were the type of guy that would make sure he used the right words. Obviously I am wrong.

I am sorry for making that judgment. But I thought you were smarter then that, I thought you were the type of person, like I, that wouldn't argue to win, or to show that they are right, but would argue to come to an agreement on the exactly right answer to the question. For example, The US Declaration of Independence was argued for 2 days on exactly how it was to be worded so that it would make a perfect document.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back on subject, I still find my idea alive. My idea is actually supported by the fact that most people are stupid. People that don't speak freely and are followers listen to the news and believe it. They don't think by themselves. So when the news states something they talk about it. The news states current events, so people will only understand what is going on now. And sense their minds are small, they don't try and get all the information on something, they don't retain the info that long. So after a while they forget key parts of the past. The reason people don't remember the Oklahoma Bombing is because it is so long ago, and their minds are too bad to remember it.

If America gets attacked by some other terrorist group that isn't muslim, we will start to talk about them. Of course, since the muslim incident is still fresh, we will connect the two and then keep them both in mind together.

I am not going to say that the news helps them. The news won't say, hey, there are other terrorist out there that aren't muslims. But if those terrorist do something that will attract the people, then the news will cover them.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

Dug: To know me has nothing to do with comprehending what I wrote. Re-read my last post to understand why it was very clear what I meant.

Your idea that news influences people's impressions and vocabulary is intact, as I agreed earlier.

However, it seems you failed to read my post 3 posts ago, indicating the people still believe the Oklahoma bombing was done by muslims.

In fact, when it happened people believed that. In fact, not many people have any idea that it wasn't done by Muslims, even to this day.

SO

Events "may" influence people, but that is over-ridden by the government's portrayal of terrorists being Muslims. And unfortunately, most people seem to believe this to be true, and the government isn't doing much to change the way they are perceived.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I thought I had cleared things up...huh? I think we were a little off track there for a bit.

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear."

Perhaps you have failed to read my post 1 post ago

"The reason people don't remember the Oklahoma Bombing is because it is so long ago, and their minds are too bad to remember it. "

Ok, I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of arguing/discussing what others are thinking. I don't know why I am even doing it, I could careless what others think, I'll let them defend themselves. Sorry for posting so much about them, it was stupid of me.

"the government isn't doing much to change the way they are perceived."

To tell you the truth I was going to say the same thing about the media, but I thought it was irrelavent(I don't know why).

You have to agree though, when Oklahoma happened many people didn't know what terrorism was. And I agree that people just listen to anyone.

But, after re-reading the posts for my 5th time trying to make sure I wasn't the one that was making a mistake, I noticed Danipog's real original question.

"What is a terrorist?" You could consider George W. a terrorist for trying to scare everyone into a war with Iraq, no?

I would like to also discuss this. Which group do we (and when I say we, I mean people in the forum) consider as terrorists? Which groups?

To me I think that a terrorist is someone that tries to prove a point the wrong way through destruction but doesn't set any goals to obtain.

I don't think that most of the terrorist are terrorist.

(And I admit that before I wasn't taking in the idealism before and was instead trying to find logic.)

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

I figure terrorists are people who try to disrupt the natural flow of enemy society.

I think the main difference between a terrorist and any other form of soldier is a terrorist targets civilians.

I don't think I would have any problem with rebels, suicide bombers or anyone else as long as they were just targetting political or military objects.

But civilians? Cmon...

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Definatly shouldn't go for civilians. Actually I would try and recruit them, not kill them.

But, I am not to fond of suicide bombers. I mean, if you want to kill yourself fine, go ahead. But, I like the old WWII tactics.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

I disapprove of suicide bombing no matter the target. If someone is not only willing to die for their cause, but actually WANT to die for their cause, so that dying almost is there cause, then there is something wrong them, in my opinion.

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear."

I think the only obvious thing to say is that some people view life as worse than death, and this can be attained by perhaps losing your loved ones etc.

Once you have nothing to lose, you can dedicate your "life" to something, and that something may be knocking off an enemy bunker/tank/soldiers.

I respect those that do this and have no quaffs with it at all. I wish it didn't need to be done, but some countries have a technicalogical advantage over others, so times get desperate.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Many suicide bombers do what they do because their families are promised money after they die. They figure it's better for their families if they blow themselves up and take other with them.

Don't you think there's a better solution to that problem?

Then again, some are just fanatics.

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear."

although I disliked the original statement I had to accept the commonly held definition of terrorism . . . n.
1) the use of violence and threats to imtimidate or coerce, esp. for political purpose
2) the state of fear so produced
3) government or resistance to government by means of terror.
looking at these defined I can see that terrorist (3. US) having used terrorism (1 & 2) should accept that terrorist (3. them) for what is the truth
DisBelief: I remember my father laughing at the foolishness of people building 'fall-out shelters'. After all living in the flat lands of Florida an atomic bomb would send flood water over the state and their shelters would become 'drowning pools'.
Of course that was before we began to realize the catastraphic long-term effects of rediation, etc. on the environment! How long has the USA been terrorizing it's own citizens and the rest of the World?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

First, I find it interesting that you folks are arguing about the fact that you agree that a stereotype is being placed on muslims as terrorists. I don't agree, butIi do see your point about how that can be dangerous. And Decius, aren't you the Canadian who won't defend his country, or himself, when it comes to where you are from, and the validity that information has on your being able to tell Americans how wrong they are for being right and moral? If I get an answer I'll be surprised.

As for the argument about terrorism from mr cturtle, or miss cturtle, it sounds to me that you were born just in time to become a flower child of the sixties and seventies. And that you want to spread your love and peace through out the world through the use of non violence. The unfortunate reality of that blissfull scenario is that everything is violence these days and until the end of time man will war with one another. It is naive to believe that everyone involved in every conflict will choose to work things out peacefully. It would be wonderful, I agree, but very unlikely to ever happen in our lifetimes or our children's, children's lifetimes.

Since we can't stop violence completely, we can only hope to harness it so peace can be worked toward after the removal of those who would impede the process of peaceful negotiation. It is unfortunate that anyone must die, but that is a nasty truth of the world we live in. We cannot change it. And that is sad. ( I say "we" meaning mankind not the U.S.) What we can do is educate ourselves about violence...all types and all natures of violence. Whether it is called terrorism, rebellion, freedom fighting, or murder. Its all violence.

The internet has produced some info I'd like to share. Just go to Yahoo or another search engine and type in the word terrorist.
You will find countless sites. 100s of thouusands. Type in Muslim terrorists and you will find 314,000 links, Irish terrorists produces 83,300 links, Russian terrorists has 338,000 links, S. American terrorists has 370,000 links, British terrorists has 379,000 links, African terrorists has 189,000 links, and American terrorists has 974,000 links. Yeah... I was surprised too about the last one there. But these are articles, chat rooms, organizations, and miscillaneous info concerning these words. Not all of those are events or news. So just that little research job turned up over a million bits of info about a subject we don't like to talk about. So maybe instead of squabbling about the definition of a word, or the stereotyping of a people, or the pursuit of who is responsible for the most death, we should be responsibly looking for ways to use our, once abused, power to get rid of those who would murder human beings. No matter what definition is used or term is applied. We should be eliminating threats to civilians of all countries and societies.

And Decius...do you really respect those who foolishly and cowardly strap explosives to their bodies and blow up bus fulls of innocent civilians? Because losing some one close to you should not cause you to lose rational thought. If your mother dies in a terrorist attack are you going to fly to the country of the attacker's origin and board a bus strapped with dynamite and blow yourself and others to kingdom come? Your statement has made that a valid question...so don't hide behind a double standard.

"Wars are not won by dying for your country, they a"