If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(InterFax)   Russia says it solved 1,500 terror-related crimes in only 11 months, calls Matlock a pansy   (interfax.ru) divider line 75
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

3135 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2004 at 7:22 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-28 02:19:02 AM  
America should be proud of their born-again-capitalist allies of terrorism... I mean allies against terrorism. Remember the days when Russia was all about secret police and being sent off to the gulag? They've come so far with America's guiding example.

Holding hundreds without basic rights in Guantanamo Bay to assuage America's misguided need for vengeance for 9/11 is one thing, but where are all the arrested domestic terrorists? Just because Timothy McVeigh is toast doesn't make America clean as the driven snow-and none of those namby-pamby interment camps like with the Japanese. Ethnic judgement is a cop-out. Or is this the moment when non-white, non-christians should be thinking of emigrating?

More terrorists have come out of America than have ever gone into it. So are you going to hold up your end?


/"terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."-The American Heritage Dictionary. How many terrorists does the US government have in Iraq at the moment?
 
2004-12-28 05:36:39 AM  
"Hey you! Yes, you! Are you a terrorist?"
"Me? No!"
"That sounded like a confession to me! Take him away!"

repeat x1500.

agreywolf42

eloquently argued, but clearly nonsense. Actions by governments are not terrorism. To say they are not only cheapens the experience of those who have actually suffered terrorism but also takes legitimacy away from the genuine and proper concerns people have with (arguably illegal) government actions.
 
2004-12-28 06:52:01 AM  
Eloquent nonsense? It's more diatribe than usual. Even so, the offering from the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't disqualify an opposing government as an 'organized group' so I thought the definition's inclusion apropos. The ideology in this case would be capitalism, and as militaries exist (bar peackeeping/humanitarian missions) to control the distribution of wealth, this becomes even more on point. Iraq's occuption will most assuredly redistribute wealth-particularly to those Iraqis willing to ensure a stable supply of oil for export.

As to "those who have actually suffered terrorism" I would ask you to provide as specific successful incident of Iraqi terrorism on US soil. Don't include US interests overseas-it's not the US's place to safegard US ventures overseas under threat of invasion. Keep in mind the WTC demolition was accomplished by Saudi Arabians (as I understand it). That they were later deemed Al-Qa'ida, and seemingly based out of Saddam Bin Laden's basement, was an assessment of convenience.

That said, I feel for the casualities of WTC and Oklahoma City bombing both. I don't see how slighting a government-sanctioned invasion slights those casualities or their families. "cheapens the experience" rings to me of sensationalism and those who feel watching it on television makes them as involved as the principals. I don't empathize with them in the least. Vicariously experiencing terrorism doesn't qualify as "actually suffered terrorism"
 
2004-12-28 07:27:01 AM  
Sigh... Elmer J., you will be missed. No fair taking pokes at you now.

 
2004-12-28 07:27:19 AM  
Fastest flamewar ever.
 
2004-12-28 07:28:42 AM  
russian officer: are you chechnian

suspect: no

russian officer: you are

suspect: i'm not

russian officer: you are, and therefore you are guilty. now i will rape you and then kill you

/1501
 
2004-12-28 07:28:50 AM  
All Hail the globalization of McCarthyism
 
2004-12-28 07:29:08 AM  
Once again i love to see America put to shame by people who have less and do more.

/mission accomplished
 
2004-12-28 07:32:26 AM  
This thread derailed early...
The UN tried to ban terrorism of all forms in 1985. The US and Israel voted against the resolution (and I believe Honduras was a no-show) because of a paragraph including resistance to oppresive regimes as allowable. Oppresive regimes includes the US... but more to the point, included South Africa's Apartheid regime... which was backed by the US.

Back to the article...
What is Russia trying to do? Start an anti-terrorism cold war?
 
2004-12-28 07:37:42 AM  
21-7-b....


sounds alot like airport security in the states


officer: Nationality

person: Canadian

officer: you look Iranian

person: I'm Canadian

officer: youlook iranian....you're of too Iran

Iranians to Person deported to Iran: Wow...you left our country for fear of torture and imprisonment for rejecting our totalitarian regime. We will now torture and imprison you
 
2004-12-28 07:38:44 AM  
Whoops spelling errors in above


21-7-b....


sounds alot like airport security in the states


officer: Nationality

person: Canadian

officer: you look Iranian

person: I'm Canadian

officer: youlook iranian....you're off to Iran

Iranians to Person deported to Iran: Wow...you left our country for fear of torture and imprisonment for rejecting our totalitarian regime. We will now torture and imprison you
 
2004-12-28 07:39:11 AM  
Well, I have to agree, Matlock is a pussy.
 
2004-12-28 07:53:03 AM  
buttwick

yeah i know. what is it? you given a common or garden human some old uniform, and heh presto you've now got a psycho. but perhaps the psycho seeks out specific employment because they then get the uniform, then they think they can abuse their power more easily.
 
2004-12-28 07:59:40 AM  
And just how many terrorism convictions has Ashcroft gotten for us? Oh, that's right, he's been too busy arguing that we should become like them.

.
 
2004-12-28 08:08:25 AM  
In the history books of the future George Bush Jr will be the terrorist.
 
2004-12-28 08:14:29 AM  
2004-12-28 08:08:25 AM AgentPothead


In the history books of the future George Bush Jr will be the terrorist.


Unfortunately probably not- but you can be pretty sure the whole Iraqi debacle will be listed in the top ten illegal acts ever committed by a government.
 
2004-12-28 08:15:45 AM  
Methinks according to agreywolf42's American Heritage Dictionary's definition of terrorism, a terror-related crime could be practically anything:

- illegal parking (could be a bomb)

- drug possession (supplied through terror-linked mafias)

- drunk and disorderly (a drunk Russian is just terrifying)

- spitting in public (showing disrespect for democracy)

- dubious fashion statements etc etc etc....
 
2004-12-28 08:17:51 AM  
Wow, that makes Ashcroft's zero for 2000 terrorism conviction record look even worse...
 
2004-12-28 08:28:49 AM  
God damn filter ate my sentence.
It had something to do with Soviet....and....Russia

/free the cliches!
 
2004-12-28 08:42:44 AM  
How many Iraqi's have we killed so far? Does each one of those count? If so, bah ruskies, you've got some catching up to do, we suggest you get in early on a new invasion timeshare we're starting to the NE of our current Middle Eastern property.

Who's willing to bet agreywolf42 is the submitter and was just looking for a soapbox.
 
2004-12-28 08:46:51 AM  
To me, terrorism would be better defined as say,
"the use or threatened use of violence against civilians for a political means."

Ramification: Someone who's doing it for money isn't a terrorist, s/he's an asshat. A military attacking a civilian target is a terrorist activity. A civilian attacking a military target is NOT terrorism, despite any war or peace. Purposeful collateral damage to civilians would constitute terrorism. Religion is a political entity. A fighter for a religious activity is thus non-civilian.

The reason I like this is that it offers many side benefits.
+ Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.
+ Anyone in the US who attacks for a religious reason is an illegal paramilitary.
+ Kidnappers for money, bank robbers, counterfeiting, etc, are not terrorists unless the money is going to a political cause.
+ A military ordered to do attack civilians is terrorism.
+ A military that accidentally kills civilians is not.
+ In a military where individuals kill civilians on purpose, those particular people are terrorists. (We [the US]have a lot of these :( )
 
2004-12-28 08:49:42 AM  
nice flamewar, seems story itself was unnecessary
 
2004-12-28 08:50:43 AM  
all hail the homeland and be spared.(when will Fark be considered a terrorist haven?)


/your neighbor could be enemy of the state of jesusland.
//free america from religious manipulation.
 
2004-12-28 08:57:51 AM  
wow do these people biatch a lot, are any of you actually doing anything to make a difference? if so please specify, i'm starting to think some of these guys are either spys or have inside info many of us don't have, good job 008!
 
2004-12-28 09:01:45 AM  
Ah, Matlock...all the variety of Scooby Doo, and all the preservation of situational accuracy of an Oliver Stone film.

You [whomever is on the witness stand at the moment] killed the decedent, and I have the original document which proves it right here in my pocket, conveniently avoiding the discovery process, and no, your honor, there is no need to enter it into evidence, as the witness will soon admit guilt.
 
2004-12-28 09:04:28 AM  
Stalinism at its finest, comrade!
 
2004-12-28 09:06:40 AM  
Hemi'Cuda

I think Stalin would have just killed them, rather than incarcerating them indefinitely with no charges and sodomizing them with glo-sticks.

.
 
2004-12-28 09:15:10 AM  
They solved 1500 terror related crimes by arresting 9 people?

Those are some busy terrorists...
 
2004-12-28 09:19:36 AM  
Clade, you can try harder than that. First, didn't you notice the wild skew to the thread as I thundered through? Second, Submitted links approved: none is as obvious in my user profile as yours.

svejker_14, while I'm here I'll point out the lack of "terror-related" or "crime" in either of my posts, much less The American Heritage Dictionary's definition. Better luck next time.
 
2004-12-28 09:24:14 AM  
Cosmic_Music: Actions by governments are not terrorism.

Afghanistan? Iraq? Iran? I am confused now.
 
2004-12-28 09:27:51 AM  
Keep in mind the WTC demolition was accomplished by Saudi Arabians

at first I was sure you were insane, and then I realized that you were talking about the nationality of the terrorists, not about government funding or training. now I understand.
 
2004-12-28 09:36:03 AM  
It is odd to compare a military operation where civilians are not the target to the WTC attacks (where civilians were the target) but go right ahead.
 
2004-12-28 09:36:30 AM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum --
"I think Stalin would have just killed them, rather than incarcerating them indefinitely with no charges and sodomizing them with glo-sticks."


Research project for you...

Google: Stalin Russian Gulag
 
2004-12-28 09:44:16 AM  

MAAATTLLAAAAWWWWWKKKKKK!!!!!!!
 
2004-12-28 09:45:10 AM  
How many of your schools have been taken over blown up and burned down with 600 fatalities? See it's one thing to pooh pooh everything and cackle that a supersecret yet incredibly stupid obvious conspiracy is in effect. It's quite another to pick hundreds of sheet metal screws out of young people's broken bodies as a result of a bus, subway or street corner bombing.
 
2004-12-28 09:46:28 AM  
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise, we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land.
Winston Churchill
 
2004-12-28 09:52:45 AM  
RUSSIA HAS KILLED OVER 100,000 CHECHEN CIVILIANS. ISN'T THAT TERRORISM AS WELL?!
 
2004-12-28 09:53:05 AM  
 
2004-12-28 09:56:14 AM  
Pro Zack might I suggest going to http://wikipedia.org (sorry direct links there don't work from FARK) and searching Al-Qa'ida or Al-Qaeda. You'll find it's "a militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1988" and has no Iraqi connections until Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rename 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad' to 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' last October. Even this is probably media oversimplification taken to heart, as was 'al-Qaeda-al-Jihad' ("the base of the jihad").
 
2004-12-28 10:01:20 AM  
Looks like the Russians just made an example of 9 more unlucky people, rather than "stopping" terrorism. Their tactics are as bad, if not worse than, ours.

How much we're betting something happens within the next 6 months in St. Petersburg?
 
2004-12-28 10:03:47 AM  
Dorothy Day --
"How much we're betting something happens within the next 6 months in St. Petersburg?"


We can't bet, a bunch of PC pussies shut down the Pentagon's plan for a terrorism pool a couple years ago.
 
2004-12-28 10:10:04 AM  
 
2004-12-28 10:10:35 AM  
Q. Why do terrorists attack with suicide car bombs and hijacked planes?

A. Because they don't have Carrier Battle Groups.
 
2004-12-28 10:20:58 AM  
Q. Why does the US have elections?

A. So we don't have to kill your family to voice our opinion.
 
2004-12-28 10:38:36 AM  
Q. why does the U.S.A have Carrier Battle Groups?

A. cause they give a shiat about our freedom and protection
 
2004-12-28 10:41:52 AM  
agreywolf:
I understand your point about no official iraqi connection-- I was responding to someone who appeared to say that al-queda was saudi arabian. while it is true that some members are saudi, that does not mean that the saudi government bankrolls their efforts.

as far as iraq not being connected to al-queda: I am sure they publish all of the data on where money comes from so that auditors can track everything down. ;)
 
2004-12-28 10:43:46 AM  
q: why do terrorists attack with suicide car bombs and hijacked planes?

a: because diplomacy failed.... NOT
 
2004-12-28 10:53:04 AM  
Q: Are we not men?
A: We are Devo!
 
2004-12-28 10:59:20 AM  
2004-12-28 07:59:40 AM DistendedPendulusFrenulum
And just how many terrorism convictions has Ashcroft gotten for us?


Are you forgetting Tommy Chong?
 
2004-12-28 11:03:32 AM  
agreywolf

I'm not too good at arguing on the internet, but today, for fun, I'll try.

Other that a one source simplistic dictionary definition, what do you mean by terrorist?

/"terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence... "The American Heritage Dictionary. How many terrorists does the US government have in Iraq at the moment?

By this I mean, how do you define unlawful? I won't go through the list, but similar questions could be asked; this one seems most pertinent for now.

Even under your definition, the interment of Japanese persons during WWII was not, as I think you are trying to argue (assert, actually, an arguement is a series a premises leading properly to a conclusion), an act of terrorism. You see, the SCOTUS held Executive Order 9066 as lawful.

I'd also like to point out two flaws with your assertion that Al-Quida has no connection to Iraq. Quite simply, you make a logical fallacy in appealing to the authority of Wikipedia. And also, Wikipedia is a user compiled encyclopedia with no mandatory peer-review process. While the information may be accurate, one cannot put much faith in Wikipedia as a true authority.

You are, however, erudite in you writing, and I enjoy that. I would appreciate you expanding your assertions into arguements and a in clearer, less verbose manner.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report