Gabriel

Ooops. My mistake. You've gotta admit, though... your statement could've been understood either say (either inheriting hate from my community or inheriting the enmity of another group). Still, it's bigoted to imply that Muslims hate Jews. Although in the interests of full disclosure, there is definitely an element of animosity between these two groups of people. I've had candid talks with Muslim friends and acquaintances about this subject and they've conceded that they've experienced quite a bit of anti-Jewish sentiment among some of their their fellow Muslims. I, too, have experienced a particular type of resentment towards Muslims among some in the Jewish community. Anyways, my apologies. Still, I find your statement somewhat paternalistic. Maybe I'm just being too sensitive, though. Sorry! I retract my earlier statements.

Here is the quote from your earlier post - "But when you are born into a religion you kind of inherent the hate from a certain group of people. In your case Muslims." Aside from the grammatical error (using 'inherent' instead of 'inherit'), your point is quite clear. You're clearly stating that I have inherited a hatred of Muslims because I was "born into" Judaism. In other words, Jewish people necessarily hate Muslims. Why don't you just admit it and move on? There's nothing more pathetic than watching a fool fall all over himself and try to massage his statements into something more palatable. Again, yes you did. Are you so oblivious to the very words you type in here? In all seriousness, I really don't care what you think or say. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your comments are.

Gosthacked, I never said that because I'm Jewish that I necessarily understand terrorism more than others. Those are your words, not mine. What I said was that my Jewish upbringing lead me to be more interested in the affairs of Israel and of Jewish people worldwide, and that this lead to me being more aware of terrorism than the average citizen - given the obvious reality that Jewish interests have been a prime target for terrorism associated with Islam for decades. In no way does me being Jewish somehow propel me onto some podium of expertise regarding the subject of terrorism. I don't understand terrorism "more than others" simply because I am Jewish - what I said, very clearly, was that I've been ahead of the learning curve of the Western media with respect to broader commonalities among worldwide terrorist incidents. Where CNN reports the Beslan hostage crisis as an incident exclusively connected to the Chechen/Russian conflict, I saw connection to broader global terrorism with a strong Islamic element. There is a lot of overlap between global terrorist incidents and the organizations that perpetrate these violent acts than the mass media seems to realize. Watching CNN, you'd think the only terrorist organization out there is Al-Qaeda. I don't even want to get into a religious discussion. You're agnostic? Cool. I'm largely secular myself. Don't assume that all individuals who identify themselves as Jewish are necessarily believers. It is also beyond offensive to suggest that I hate Muslims simply because I am Jewish. I am surprised you posted that comment with such ease. Have you any idea how ridiculous and ignorant you are making yourself look by stating so matter-of-factly that Jewish people are naturally raised to hate Muslims? Even more bizarre, your inquiry into my personal experiences almost seems to be a paternalistic way of suggesting that perhaps your flawed perception that I hate Muslims is somehow justified. In other words, it's alright for someone to hate Muslims if they've undergone certain experiences. "There, there.... maybe you've been assaulted by a group of Muslim bandits.... now I understand why you hate Muslims". What is this, some underhanded way of accusing me of being a bigot simply because I am aware of a strong Islamic component among many contemporary terrorist organizations? You're really showing your true colours, it seems. What a pathetic display of your ignorance: you must be shocked that a Jewish person like myself doesn't hate Muslims! I must be one of the "good" ones!

If I'm ever guilty of gross oversimplifications, please call me on it. I know I sometimes use terms like "leftists" to describe a group of people with a particular position on a particular issue, but I hope it is understood that I am describing fringe folks (who I am sometimes concerned are quite a large group of people!). For example, when I rant about leftists who are anti-business and anti-market, I hope it's understood the type of people that I'm talking about. One thing I don't do enough is rant about the "far right" and their silliness. This may send the message that I identify with the "far-right", as the term is understood by sensible people. Perhaps sometimes the meanings behind my posts are lost in translation, and folks who identify with "the left" feel that I am denigrating them. If I am doing this, then I apologize as it's not my intention. I feel like I'm already rambling somewhat nonsensically, but at least I hope that my opinions on the definition of terrorism, and what acts do and don't belong under its categorization has been well-explained. In short, this Stack person who flew his plane into the IRS building cannot be accurately described as a terrorist. As an aside, I saw on Fox News today (yes, I subscribe to the news package from Rogers!) that Janet Napolitano has stated, on-the-record, that the Fort Hood shooting was indeed connected to terrorism. I guess the government is a little slower to recognize the realities that most of us knew within the first day of the story breaking. It's also quite a departure from the current administration's aversion to the use of the term "terrorism". I don't think I've ever heard Obama or his crew use that term. This story looks like a first. This occurred to me as I was reading your post on state-definitions of terrorism.

I agree. I think the same can be said for some of the anti-Canadian sentiment we've seen from the USA - whether it's some dummy online ranting about us all being left-leaning commies, or some media pundit or politician being less than artful or accurate when criticizing Canada for some perceived transgression against the USA, it's all lame. As you've said, we're more alike than any other two worthwhile countries. There is no other country that I feel as comfortable in outside of Canada.

Hook me up with the thread(s)! I need to learn a thing or two! Where is this debate? EDIT - In case you didn't know, this is the thread where the debate took place (I think).

I feel like we're going off onto a tangent. Let's try to narrow the focus specifically to the term "terrorism" and its meaning in a contemporary context. Perhaps you reject the very premise of my previous statement that the term "terrorism" depends on context? I'm also not a big fan of the "war on terror", as terror is a somewhat ambiguous concept. The same problems rise with the "war on drugs" and other "wars" against social ills. You're too smart to suggest that conservatives in contemporary Canada or the USA have any meaningful commonalities with conservatives in Afghanistan or Iran. Let's not pretend that somehow a Canadian or American conservative in 2010 is in favour or restricting women's freedoms and rights in any way comparable to the restrictions we see in many parts of the Middle East. Let's not pretend that there is some serious overlap between the perspectives of political and economic freedoms held by Western conservatives and conservatives in Saudi Arabia. Let's be serious, not ridiculous.

I guess I wasn't completely clear in my post, but yes I am Jewish. My being Jewish is a big reason why I've been more aware of terrorism for a longer period of time than the average citizen, given the fact that Jewish people have been the the prime targets of Islamic terrorists for decades around the world. You still haven't addressed anything I've said substantively.

Would someone please link me to the specific thread(s) in question? I haven't really been participating in this forum much lately, and I recall seeing a long thread awhile back that seemed interesting regarding climate change. I'm highly ignorant of the global warming issue and assumed that I'd learn more from that thread than a 60-second exchange between "experts" on CBC. At the risk of appearing lazy, please connect me to the thread(s) in question so that I may spend some of my free-time tonight in a meaningful way :-)

Apparently, Nidal Hassan was likely the victim of brainwashing!

Gosthacked - If anything, the mass media walked on eggshells with the Fort Hood massacre with respect to connecting it terrorism. The media I watched (and I consume a lot of media) was filled with "experts" proposing all sorts of explanations for his behaviour that had nothing to do with terrorism. The most ridiculous explanation I saw in the mass media was that he had somehow suffered from PTSD, and when it was revealed that Nidal Hassan hadn't ever been in combat, there was a suggestion that somehow he had suffered from PTSD by proxy - through hearing the stories of hardship from his patients during his professional work as a psychiatrist. I'll tell you honestly, when I heard that the suspect's name was "Nidal Hassan", my instincts strongly told me that this was an Islamic terrorist. I know I wasn't alone. I won't apologize for that assumption, either. After all, it turned out to be correct as more and more information was made available about this murderer - his actions and his convictions. As a side note, a funny side note, I saw an Arabic video on Youtube (by some "self-reporter") who explained that Nidal Hassan had likely been the victim of mind-control, a la Manchurian Candidate style, and had been manipulated by the American government (with Mossad) in order to foster anti-Islamic sentiment within the country. There may be a sensitivity among the public towards Islamic terrorism that manifests itself when an Arab/Muslim engages in criminal activity, but you wouldn't know that by watching most mainstream media, who walked on eggshells regarding the Islamic terrorist connection.

Why don't you just spell out what I think you're trying to say - that countries like the USA and its allies should also be described as terrorist organizations? If that's what you're implying, then I wholly reject that assertion - and it's not a discussion I feel like participating in. If that's not what you're implying, then my bad.

I can't continue this conversation with you... it is too inane. How arrogant do you have to be to tell ME how I came to my opinion this matter? Let me tell you something that you're unaware of, many of us, particularly Jewish persons, have had terrorism on our radars much longer than modern Western media. I was aware and concerned about terrorism, particularly terrorism associated with Islamic elements, much earlier than 9/11/01. Sure, I was much younger then, but I was raised in a household with a much more sensitive radar for this kind of stuff - I was aware of the broader unity between events like the USS Cole boat bombing, the Budyonnovsk hospital terrorism, 9/11, and the many suicide bombings in Israel (to name a hanful of the hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist events that have been executed in the past few decades associated with terrorist organizations with a strong Islamic element) much earlier than CNN or Fox News picked up on it (they still seem largely clueless about it!).

Wow, you completely ignored everything I said. "Terrorism is terrorism" seems to be the substance of your argument. Am I supposed to agree with that? That's not an argument, that's just a nonsensical statement. If you're not going to give me enough respect to even read my post and address the points I've made, why should I bother even responding to you? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your suggestion is that we drop the term "terrorism" altogether simply because there is some dispute as to its appropriate use? Welcome to the world of political language and dialogue. This has been going on for centuries. Various people will have differing opinions as to the definitions of various terms, this is sometimes completely legitimate. Other times, there is an intentional misrepresentation of particular terms for a dishonest political agenda. I view this discussion as an example of that - certain people, for disingenuous politically correct purposes, want to broaden the definition of terrorism in order to lessen its contemporary association with particular ideologies (i.e. Al Qaeda and its Islamic component). It satisfies your sensibilities to have the term "terrorism" be so all-encompassing to the extent that this Stack loser can be categorized as a terrorist. Of course this is possible in some people's minds, as long as they ignore the points I made above. If you want to ignore context and reality, go for it, describe this guy as a terrorist. For those more sensible individuals, we'll reject your description of this criminal and his crime as a "terrorist act". There are many examples of people/groups intentionally misrepresenting terms or trying to redefine them to advance their own political agenda. Whether it be an Ann Coulter book railing against liberals/Democrats or a Michael Moore book trying to redefine conservatives/Republicans, it happens all the time... and it's happening in this very thread.

Well, that's different than describing local drug dealers as terrorists. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and be more accurate with your language. Considering that Mexico (and some other South American countries like Columbia) is having serious issues with domestic terrorism associated with drugs, there's some truth to the statement that purchasing drugs may be supporting drug dealer terrorists in some South American countries. Drug traffickers that murder police officers, civilians, and engage in a whole bunch of other violent acts can certainly be described as terrorists. I don't see how "...knowingly funding terrorists - being apart of their network in other words - is equal to terrorism itself." Are you talking about Bush's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric? Bush wasn't talking to your local drop-out pot dealer when he said those words. What are you talking about? I used the term "light" to describe the violence and property damage that some Greenpeace members engage in.

Hey bloodyminded, I reject your opinion. You seem to be suggesting that somehow words don't evolve over time, or don't have different meanings in different contexts. You intentionally obfuscate the definition of "conservative", for example, by describing hardline Islamists are "conservative". Of course they are conservative, but only in the context of their society. Clearly the term "conservative" means different things in different places and at different times. You seem to intentionally ignore that. As I've said, language evolves over time. Not all words and terms are static. Terrorism is one of the words that has evolved over time, but I still believe the core of it has probably remained consistent for quite awhile. Are you disputing my assertion that terrorism, contemporarily, describes acts of violence carried out by individuals or groups who are connected to a broader organization or group of organizations (that subscribe to particular ideologies, whether they be political and/or religious and/or social and/or economic, etc) with an established track record of participating in violence? As far as I'm concerned, this reality is indisputable. Therefore it simply makes no sense to describe this Stack loser as some sort of terrorist. When anti-government leftists who rant against perceived oppression from the "elites" and "corporate America" coalesce into some sort of more cohesive unit or group of units who participate in regular violent acts (such as flying small planes into IRS offices), then we can accurately categorize this Stack loser as a terrorist. Until that time, he's no more than a dangerous criminal. As far as the USA's position on the definition of "terrorism" (specifically, the list of organizations defined as "terrorists"), who cares? I'm giving an honest, and accurate, assessment of the term. I'm not basing my opinion on governmental perspectives.

This behaviour is so anti-Islamic, it's not even subtle. It's hilarious that this mayor is claiming that a restaurant that caters to Islamic dietary rules is somehow discriminatory against non-Muslims. If anything, this mayor is clearly trying to discriminate against Muslims. It's a private business, and they should be permitted to operate with enough freedom to adhere to religious dietary guidelines, if they're so inclined. I eat at Halal restaurants all the time (often Lebanese restaurants), the food is fantastic! What's next, filing complaints against restaurants for catering to clients who speak specific languages? For example, a restaurant that only hires servers that speak English will now be described as discriminatory?

It hasn't lost its meaning to me.... perhaps it has to you. Have you got any proof that there are public officials describing local drug dealers as terrorists? I think some Greenpeace protestors can accurately be described as terrorists, or, at the very least, as bandits. It fits the criteria I laid out above, as they belong to a broader organization that has a history of engaging in violence (of course the violence they engage in is hardly comparable to contemporary terrorists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban). Perhaps some Greenpeace people should be labelled as "light" terrorists, as they engage in smear campaigns, property damage, and mild assault.

You said it much more succinctly than I did!

I've heard this opinion thrown around, and I completely disagree. The term "terrorism", as far as I'm concerned, has evolved over time to refer to acts of violence carried out with political/ideological/religious motivations. Of this I'm sure you, I, and all of us agree. The term "terrorism" has also evolved, however, to describe violent acts carried out by groups and/or individuals who can be connected to a broader organization/association/ideology with a history of carrying out violence. Considering that this Stack loser was definitely the "lone wolf" with respect to his act (his suicide note clearly indicates that his almost exclusively a personal vendetta, and that he wasn't part of some broader group of people), although he may have considered himself a sort of martyr for other disaffected Americans with similar gripes against the government. Put more simply, without this Stack loser being connected or associated with a broader organization/ideology/religion that is known to participate in terrorism, his act cannot be described as a terrorist act. Although Stack did carry out his violent act with semi-political motivations, he is not associated with a broader organization/ideology that has a history of violent behaviour. We're not seeing anti-government leftists who hate the elite flying planes into IRS buildings on any sort of regular basis. Stack wasn't in contact with other individuals or groups who advocate for violent resistance against perceived injustices or inequalities. He "lone wolf" status is a large part of the reason that this act cannot be accurately described as terrorism. The Columbine mass murderers were not terrorists, the Dawson College shooter was not a terrorist, the Virginia Tech murderer was not a terrorist. The Fort Hood murderer, however, WAS a terrorist - he subscribed to an ideology and held religious/political/social opinions that mirrored many terrorist organizations' views/position (i.e. Al Qaeda). Nidal Hassan was, therefore, connected to a greater collective, which allows us to categorize him as a terrorist. This is to say nothing of Hassan's links to terrorist-supporters and advocates, showing a tangible connection to terrorism beyond simply his ideological sympathy with contemporary terrorists and their motivations. What I am trying to illustrate here is what criteria must be met by an individual or group of people engaging in violence in order to categorize them as terrorists. Simply engaging in acts of violence doesn't make someone a terrorist, we must examine their motivations and associations. It seems to me that people who want to label these incident as examples of terrorists are intentionally trying to water down the definition of "terrorism" to be more all-encompassing - perhaps rooted in some perverted politically correct motivation to take the heat off of the strong Islamic element associated with most contemporary terrorism. Clearly there is a not-so-subtle relationship between contemporary terrorism and specific groups of Muslims with their own perspectives of their own religion. This is simply a fact of life, as politically incorrect as it may be. You're certainly right that if this man's first or last name had been Muhammad, we would certainly be suspicious of links to terrorism - which we don't have to apologize for.

I would clarify one thing you said.... "perceived sense of desperation".

I never implied that his political leanings were important, nor was I trying to imply leftists are more prone to acts of violence (although upon contemplation, I think leftists, generally, are more violent and contentious). I simply made an observation that there is quite a bit of overlap between this crazy man's sentiments (via his suicide note) and rantings and anger on the left. Of course some of his anti-tax rantings feel libertarian-ish, but there is a greater degree of shared ideology between this Stack fellow and leftists than any other ideology. Is this an important observation? Perhaps not, but it's just something that occurred to me that I felt like sharing. Remember also that I didn't imply that his behaviour is typical of any side, rather that his political rantings are hardly uncommon. You've been in these forums longer than I have, you've certainly seen some folks in rant about "elites" oppressing the everyman (and everywoman).

You obviously haven't read the manifesto. How is it right-wing? He goes on and on about blaming the rich and elite for all the problems of the country. Where did he say he was opposed to welfare? Either you don't understand what the general term "right-wing" means, or you haven't read the letter (which should only take you about five precious minutes) and, for some reason, are now now lying about it. His entire letter is clearly leftist.

If you read his suicide letter (which you hadn't at the time that you posted this), you'd see a lot of typical leftist sentiment. There's also some libertarian/anarchist vibe, but the typical blame-game against imagined conspiracies among the elite is very leftist. Whining about banks and health insurance companies, railing against Bush, etc... The most obvious evidence of this loser's leftist leanings are these final statements in his suicide letter: "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed." Still convinced he isn't a leftist?

Ya, they're talking about it on CNN, right now. This guy sounds like a total loser, echoing much of the same silly sentiments from some of the lefties in this very forum. The world is out to get him, communism is the answer, the elites are pulling the strings while the little guy gets taken advantage of, etc, etc, etc... I've been hearing this type of diatribe for many years. Hopefully nobody other than the pilot has been seriously injured. Apparently nobody was killed.