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.

(The New York Times)   "So everyone is a terrorist"   (nytimes.com) divider line 155
    More: Asinine, Chief Judge, penal codes, Lutheran Church, federal courts, street crimes, Mexican-Americans, Jonathan Lippman, threats  
•       •       •

22563 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Oct 2012 at 12:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 02:54:17 PM

jabelar: Aeon Rising: jabelar: We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.

Our inability to effectively deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, the enemy in the war on drugs and secure the southern border against increasing violence is stark evidence to the contrary.

This is a common misconception, these are all huge successes. I guess a lot of people think that our foreign policy goals are to create happy stable countries around the world, but it is not. Our goal is to destabilize other countries. This is because geopolitical success and power is relative and it is easier to tear others down rather than build yourself up.

Our issue with Iraq was that it was relatively stable. Stability is the thing we consider dangerous. This is why Iran is in our sights now.

The reason why everyone is always confused about why we go into all these regions in the way we do is that they don't understand the actual goal. Once you look at it as purposeful destabilization, it is pretty easy to understand it all.

it is certainly sad that we take this approach, but it is understandable.


Even if I accepted your position you only address a couple of my examples.

And I don't accept your position. Stability = money. We don't want other countries lawless, we want them to be customers.
 
2012-10-10 03:03:08 PM
Fark it. I am Spartacus a terrorist!

Come at me Caesar bro.
 
2012-10-10 03:08:55 PM
The only time this administration has labeled someone a terrorist is when referring to the Tea Party. Everything else is "Man-Made Disasters".
 
2012-10-10 03:16:35 PM

Walker: 10-year-olds have been arrested for "Terroristic threatening". It's a new thing police like to charge people with if you make any kind of threats, no matter what your age. Well, new since 9/11 anyway.


It's older than 9/11. My brother was charged with this in 1999. It didnt stick, but he was still charged with it.
 
2012-10-10 03:18:00 PM
Use a broad enough brush and soon you too will be "terrorizing" the highways with your excessive speed.

1. Pass laws that strip Constitutional Rights from "terrorists"
2. Make everyone a terrorist
3. ???
4. www.hermes-press.com
 
2012-10-10 03:26:58 PM
So it takes something this stupid for you guys to realize they apply Bernaysian mind control on you on a daily basis?
 
2012-10-10 03:34:46 PM

Mugato: They throw the word "terrorist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people into Gitmo. The farking Batman theater shooter is being called a terrorist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just do something violent and you're a terrorist. The word has about as much meaning now as "hipster".


I believe the definition is more defined than that. Usually terroristic acts are acts designed to create fear or to intimidate. Doesn't have anything to do with political agenda's or religious causes.
 
2012-10-10 03:37:04 PM

Kuroshin: So 10yo's have political agendas now?

Terrorism isn't just making threats or being scary. Nor is it committing violence, regardless of scale. You could kill 1,000,000 people, and still not be a terrorist. Terrorism is about specific intent - political and/or social change.



I believe this is contray to most legal definitions of terroristic acts. Is there an actual legal definition you are citing, or just asserting a definition based on your beliefs?
 
2012-10-10 03:40:08 PM

Ennuipoet: Well, he IS brown, so chances are...


This kid is, but George Zimmerman isn't. So Latinos being brown is dependent on fitting the narrative being pushed?
 
2012-10-10 03:41:03 PM
Robert S. Smith, an associate judge, asked whether that meant the members of the rival gangs were also terrorists.

"In the abstract, yes," Mr. Coddington answered.

"So everyone is a terrorist," Judge Smith said.


What would Socrates say? All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer. A: Socrates is a man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. That means all men are homosexuals.
www.wearysloth.com
 
2012-10-10 03:41:54 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Bhruic: Go ahead and scoff. One should. One really should. Dumbasses like this... Indeed, it's hard not to laugh. Not because it's funny. Too bad it's not. Everyone knew something like this was coming. No one acted to stop it. That's the real crime. If only someone had acted. Only now it's too late. Now we're stuck with it. So we need to make the best of it.

You know what I love about this post? You could copy/paste this response verbatim into virtually ANY Fark thread, ever, and it would make just as much sense.

Especially in the Entertainment tab.


Perhaps, but careful reading would point out why it especially applies here... Maybe it's too subtle?
 
2012-10-10 03:42:44 PM

Rich Cream: Gang members are not trying (to):


`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and"


Or are they?


I would suggest that shooting into a group of unarmed civilians attending a function at a church were indeed trying to intimidate or coerce them, so IMO it qualifies.
 
2012-10-10 03:43:28 PM
Hypothetically... If some group blows up buses full of civilians, blows up airliners with luggage bombs, throws grenades into crowded marketplaces, sprays automatic weapons fire into the audience at sporting events, etc. and they are doing it to try to strike fear and terror into the populace in pursuit of some political or idealogical goal, this makes them terrorists.... but if another group blows up buses full of civilians, blows up airliners with luggage bombs, throws grenades into crowded marketplaces, sprays automatic weapons fire into the audience at sporting events, etc. and they are doing it to try to strike fear and terror into the populace in pursuit of shiats and giggles, or to show how bad-ass they are to some other group or gang, then this means they are not terrorists and don't deserve the same level of prosecution?
 
2012-10-10 03:43:33 PM

Aeon Rising: Dr Dreidel: Also, do you really think that a government "[intending] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" is even a logical possibility

Nope, but that doesn't stop the attempts to change the way other governments behave through violence, unless you really believe the recent and ongoing wars are attempts to compromise with the target states.


"War is politics waged by other means." (or words to that effect)

Countries are not beholden to the same rules as people or businesses. This is a necessary way for all 3 entities to operate.

Basically:
People + government = communism
Government + business = fascism
People + business = socialism

People + business + government = clusterfark capitalism, because each branch has to fight two others, and those two others are often fighting amongst themselves as well. It forces triangulation and compromise (at least, in theory).

// sorry if I'm all over the place
// had to stop for two meetings
 
2012-10-10 03:49:38 PM

dittybopper: cman: The word has about as much meaning now as "epic".

You want it all, but you can't have it.


It's in your face, but you can't grab it!
 
2012-10-10 03:55:06 PM

cman: NCg8r: cman: Mugato: They throw the word "racist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people under the bus. Mitt Romney is being called a racist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just say something stupid and you're a racist. The word has about as much meaning now as "epic".

FTFY

Couldn't wait to jam this thread up with dickery, huh??? I hope your real life is as miserable as your Fark persona, you dripping cock...

Well, my life is pretty damn miserable. My cock does not drip, however


Well, in order to catch a social disease, one has to be social in the first place.
 
2012-10-10 03:55:41 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: dittybopper: cman: The word has about as much meaning now as "epic".

You want it all, but you can't have it.

It's in your face, but you can't grab it!


What is it?
 
2012-10-10 03:56:06 PM
Now even talking about terrorism makes you a terrorist.
 
2012-10-10 03:56:48 PM

Bhruic: Mr_Fabulous: Bhruic: Go ahead and scoff. One should. One really should. Dumbasses like this... Indeed, it's hard not to laugh. Not because it's funny. Too bad it's not. Everyone knew something like this was coming. No one acted to stop it. That's the real crime. If only someone had acted. Only now it's too late. Now we're stuck with it. So we need to make the best of it.

You know what I love about this post? You could copy/paste this response verbatim into virtually ANY Fark thread, ever, and it would make just as much sense.

Especially in the Entertainment tab.

Perhaps, but careful reading would point out why it especially applies here... Maybe it's too subtle?



Took me a minute... but yeah, I see what you did there.
 
2012-10-10 04:01:11 PM

Aeon Rising: jabelar: Aeon Rising: jabelar: We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.

Our inability to effectively deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, the enemy in the war on drugs and secure the southern border against increasing violence is stark evidence to the contrary.

This is a common misconception, these are all huge successes. I guess a lot of people think that our foreign policy goals are to create happy stable countries around the world, but it is not. Our goal is to destabilize other countries. This is because geopolitical success and power is relative and it is easier to tear others down rather than build yourself up.

Our issue with Iraq was that it was relatively stable. Stability is the thing we consider dangerous. This is why Iran is in our sights now.

The reason why everyone is always confused about why we go into all these regions in the way we do is that they don't understand the actual goal. Once you look at it as purposeful destabilization, it is pretty easy to understand it all.

it is certainly sad that we take this approach, but it is understandable.

Even if I accepted your position you only address a couple of my examples.

And I don't accept your position. Stability = money. We don't want other countries lawless, we want them to be customers.


No, instability = money. We want their oil, we want to sell them weapons.

To put it another way, do you honestly believe that we went into Iraq for any reason except to destabilize it?

And regarding your other examples, war on drugs is hugely destabilizing to Mexico. Secondly it is only called a "war" but has little to do with actual combat operations (which is what I said -- we know how to wage war on "combatants").

Lastly, I was talking about instability as a goal for foreign policy. Within US, the objective is different: the main thing is to create an "enemy" which NEVER is defeated. Or if it does get defeated invent a new one.

In both cases, the government does NOT want to "win" in the way the general populace assumes. We don't want to establish strong democracies around the world, and we don't want to win the war on drugs, or terrorism, etc.

If you don't accept this, then what is your explanation? Why would government regularly get involved in things that appear to be futile and also unpopular? I can see doing something that was popular, or doing something that was achievable, but if you see them doing something futile and unpopular you have to assume that their goal is different than stated, and worth the unpopularity.

Anyway, I really am open to hearing a consistent explanation. And I'm not a conspiracy guy, just very practical. I'd focus on destabilizing other countries too if I were in charge, it's a pretty obvious thing to do.
 
2012-10-10 04:06:44 PM
/lived in gangland for years.... gangs largely fit the definition when they are plugged in politically.


But this looks more like idiocy - can't tell an Arab from a Mexican style idiocy.
 
2012-10-10 04:11:29 PM

MycroftHolmes: Mugato: They throw the word "terrorist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people into Gitmo. The farking Batman theater shooter is being called a terrorist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just do something violent and you're a terrorist. The word has about as much meaning now as "hipster".

I believe the definition is more defined than that. Usually terroristic acts are acts designed to create fear or to intimidate. Doesn't have anything to do with political agenda's or religious causes.


So then how is not every act of violence not terrorism by your broad definition?

I hate to be one of those assholes who has to reference a definition but

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
 
2012-10-10 04:15:04 PM

Tat'dGreaser: I have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists.


I have no problem at all with people who have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists being labelled terrorists.
 
2012-10-10 04:18:49 PM
But but the Republican talking heads told us that only terrorists can be Muslim. GASP! you mean they can be w www wwrrrrr wrrrrrrro wrong? I'm shocked and outraged
 
2012-10-10 04:18:55 PM

jabelar: Aeon Rising: jabelar: Aeon Rising: jabelar: We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.

Our inability to effectively deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, the enemy in the war on drugs and secure the southern border against increasing violence is stark evidence to the contrary.

This is a common misconception, these are all huge successes. I guess a lot of people think that our foreign policy goals are to create happy stable countries around the world, but it is not. Our goal is to destabilize other countries. This is because geopolitical success and power is relative and it is easier to tear others down rather than build yourself up.

Our issue with Iraq was that it was relatively stable. Stability is the thing we consider dangerous. This is why Iran is in our sights now.

The reason why everyone is always confused about why we go into all these regions in the way we do is that they don't understand the actual goal. Once you look at it as purposeful destabilization, it is pretty easy to understand it all.

it is certainly sad that we take this approach, but it is understandable.

Even if I accepted your position you only address a couple of my examples.

And I don't accept your position. Stability = money. We don't want other countries lawless, we want them to be customers.

No, instability = money. We want their oil, we want to sell them weapons.


So, the Great Depression and our current recession were paragons of high stability, while the '50s and '60s were an era of legendary instability. Got it.
 
2012-10-10 04:27:11 PM
 
2012-10-10 04:32:40 PM

Meatybrain: Tat'dGreaser: I have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists.

I have no problem at all with people who have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists being labelled terrorists.


webpages.charter.net
 
2012-10-10 04:33:58 PM

dstrick44: The test case was the DC sniper case. They convicted him on a terrorism charge.
Now they just need to apply it to anyone they want.


Amateurs. Who needs the trial?

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
 
2012-10-10 04:43:15 PM

Voiceofreason01: Everyone who said that it would come back to bite us letting government and law enforcement have special powers to go after "terrorists" and that soon such laws would be abused to go after petty criminals, come up and claim your prize.


FTA:

"In addition to the terrorism charge, Mr. Morales was convicted of manslaughter and attempted murder."

So this is your definition of a petty criminal? You must live in a tough neighborhood.
 
2012-10-10 04:58:11 PM

MBooda: Meatybrain: Tat'dGreaser: I have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists.

I have no problem at all with people who have no problem at all with gang members being labelled terrorists being labelled terrorists.

[webpages.charter.net image 400x266]


AGHHH MY BRAIN
 
2012-10-10 05:23:18 PM

rico567: Voiceofreason01: Everyone who said that it would come back to bite us letting government and law enforcement have special powers to go after "terrorists" and that soon such laws would be abused to go after petty criminals, come up and claim your prize.

Andy Rooney (who otherwise went a few bricks shy of a full load a number of years back) said on 60 minutes the Sunday after 9/11 that we would do more damage to ourselves than those terrorists did by crashing planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Prize goes to him, I think.


I haven't talked to a family member since that day because I said something similar.
 
2012-10-10 05:34:31 PM

Mugato: They throw the word "terrorist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people into Gitmo. The farking Batman theater shooter is being called a terrorist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just do something violent and you're a terrorist. The word has about as much meaning now as "hipster".


Pretty much.

So no matter how much you might want to call them that, Congress members are not "economic terrorists" for their budget obstructionism, nor are legislators "terrorists" for passing laws you don't like. Terrorism is a very narrowly-defined action practiced by a very narrowly-defined group of people, and anything else being done, no matter how unpalatable, is just not terrorism.
 
2012-10-10 05:39:54 PM
Yes subby, I'm a military veteran I should know
 
2012-10-10 05:44:25 PM
Inner city gangs are every bit as much domestic terrorists as any nominated group overseas.

Bring the men home from overseas and clean house, whatever it takes. Use all force possible. Erase them.
 
2012-10-10 05:44:50 PM

Mugato: MycroftHolmes: Mugato:
ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims


Wait. That's the State Department!
 
2012-10-10 06:00:49 PM

StoPPeRmobile: rico567: Voiceofreason01: Everyone who said that it would come back to bite us letting government and law enforcement have special powers to go after "terrorists" and that soon such laws would be abused to go after petty criminals, come up and claim your prize.

Andy Rooney (who otherwise went a few bricks shy of a full load a number of years back) said on 60 minutes the Sunday after 9/11 that we would do more damage to ourselves than those terrorists did by crashing planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Prize goes to him, I think.

I haven't talked to a family member since that day because I said something similar.


I had a friend say something similar to me... i kind of just went quiet... didn't put enough thought into it, just realized he didn't want to talk about what I was talking about, so I shut up... it didn't alter our friendship, because I have a lot of opinionated friends, we regularly disagree to the death.

Then the Patriot act and the wars came along, and I thought... hmm, if just there were more people like that guy in the world, because I was definitely not one of them then.
 
2012-10-10 06:13:11 PM
Robert S. Smith, an associate judge, asked whether that meant the members of the rival gangs were also terrorists.

"In the abstract, yes," Mr. Coddington answered.

"So everyone is a terrorist," Judge Smith said.


Because gang members and everyone is the same thing. Nice comprehension.
 
2012-10-10 06:33:14 PM

dittybopper: Well, in order to catch a social disease, one has to be social in the first place.


Oh man doc it burns when I type please help me oh God please help it hurts!
 
2012-10-10 06:43:08 PM
Keep telling yourself 9/11 wasn't the usa version of Hitler/Poland. Don't stop believing.
 
2012-10-10 06:43:27 PM

trappedspirit: Robert S. Smith, an associate judge, asked whether that meant the members of the rival gangs were also terrorists.

"In the abstract, yes," Mr. Coddington answered.

"So everyone is a terrorist," Judge Smith said.

Because gang members and everyone is the same thing. Nice comprehension.


Where do you draw the line as to what is a gang?
 
2012-10-10 06:43:35 PM
The definition of a "militant" in foreign lands, is "anyone the US military kills".
 
2012-10-10 07:21:45 PM
Osama: 1, USA: 0
PUNK'D
i651.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-10 08:00:20 PM

Freschel: But but the Republican talking heads told us that only terrorists can be Muslim. GASP! you mean they can be w www wwrrrrr wrrrrrrro wrong? I'm shocked and outraged


Please point to a Republican talking head who has ever said that terrorists can only be Muslim.
 
2012-10-10 08:10:51 PM
relevant:

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-characterizes-people-frustrated-with - mainstream-ideologies-as-terrorists/
 
2012-10-10 08:11:43 PM
Anyone who smokes pot is a terrorist as well.

(bubbly noises)....*cough*..*cough*...

effin terrorists.

Sh*t.
 
2012-10-10 08:14:34 PM

Tat'dGreaser: A lower appellate court upheld the other counts but threw out the terrorism conviction, ruling that the facts showed that Mr. Morales acted to assert his gang's dominance over rival gangs.

"Such conduct falls within the category of ordinary street crime, not terrorism," ruled a panel of judges for the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in 2010.

They threw it out once before, probably will again. This just sounds like a case of prosecution trying to add more charges to a conviction in order to increase the jail sentence.


Glad to see I was not the only person to rtfa.
 
2012-10-10 08:29:27 PM

DaCaptain19: Anyone who smokes pot is a terrorist as well.

(bubbly noises)....*cough*..*cough*...

effin terrorists.

Sh*t.


Emboldening should be considered a terrorist act, Mr. Smoky.
 
2012-10-10 09:09:36 PM

Vectron: The definition of a "militant" in foreign lands, is "anyone the US military kills".


I thought that was `collateral damage`?

/or is that when the soldiers shoot each other?
//or themselves? (more suicides in Iraq than casualties)
 
2012-10-10 09:40:38 PM

dready zim: Vectron: The definition of a "militant" in foreign lands, is "anyone the US military kills".

I thought that was `collateral damage`?


Nope. This is our official US policy.

The Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks.

Guilty until proven innocent.
 
2012-10-10 11:34:16 PM

groppet: Now even talking about terrorism makes you a terrorist.


well yeah, provided the fbi hunts you down and starts selling you "bombs"
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report