jacee Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Harper has another kind of 'terrorist' in mind too: /anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/ The RCMP has labelled the anti-petroleum movement as a growing and violent threat to Canadas security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper governments new terrorism legislation. In highly charged language that reflects the governments hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence. Welcome to fascism. And the RCMP brownshirts are just goose stepping to OBEY ORDERS from the master ... the scary 'FOREIGN-funded' enviroterrorists are threatening corporate PROFITS! :/ Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Harper has another kind of 'terrorist' in mind too: Another First World problem...arguing about the definition of "terrorism". Differences without any real distinction save for political partisanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Heres what we spent 5 trillion dollars on... Africa... ... Your graphs would be more helpful if you mentioned what they were graphing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Is divestment from the oil sands 'terrorism'? I'll bet Harper thinks so. (See my post above ) It's certainly much more effective than protesting. what-the-divestment-movement-could-mean-for-alberta-and-canada/ Second, the article claimed: But investment decisions for university endowments must be based on one thing: which investments will bring the best financial returns. In other words, maximize portfolio returns. Although we doubt all university endowments share a single investment strategy, is there evidence that divestment harms returns? Again, the answer is no. A comparison of the MSCI ACWI IMI index, which covers some 99 per cent of the global equity universe, with an index that excluded 247 fossil fuel reserve-owning companies found a return differential of 1.2 per cent in favor of the ex Carbon list, as well as a potential reduction in overall portfolio risk. By simply excluding fossil fuels from their portfolios, universities can meet or beat the market while reducing overall risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Your graphs would be more helpful if you mentioned what they were graphing. They graph incidents of terrorism happening based on START research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 As far as I am concerned, something needs to satisfy 3 properties to count as terrorism: - must involve violent acts (such as murder, blowing up buildings, kidnapping, etc.) - must have an ideological motive (religious or political) - the civilian population has to be targeted Meanwhile, a lone gunman who kills a single person in Ottawa is immediately defined as a terrorist. A guy who runs down two military personnel in Quebec is immediately defined as a terrorist. These two criminal acts were not terrorist acts because the two criminals went out of their way to NOT target civilians. The recent attempt to perform a mass shooting in Halifax does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The recent murder of 3 muslims in North Carolina does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The mass shootings of 72 people by Anders Brevik counts as terrorism. The 911 hijackings count as terrorism. The kidnappings by the FARC rebels count as terrorism. The bombings that the IRA did several decades ago count as terrorism. Does that make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 As far as I am concerned, something needs to satisfy 3 properties to count as terrorism: - must involve violent acts (such as murder, blowing up buildings, kidnapping, etc.) - must have an ideological motive (religious or political) - the civilian population has to be targeted These two criminal acts were not terrorist acts because the two criminals went out of their way to NOT target civilians. The recent attempt to perform a mass shooting in Halifax does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The recent murder of 3 muslims in North Carolina does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The mass shootings of 72 people by Anders Brevik counts as terrorism. The 911 hijackings count as terrorism. The kidnappings by the FARC rebels count as terrorism. The bombings that the IRA did several decades ago count as terrorism. Does that make sense? So when they flew an airliner into the pentagon, or blew up the US Cole that was not terrorism? Those are definately military targets. I personally think that targetting civilians is not a requirement... and the use of violence isnt necessarily either. The word to me simply means using fear as a means to achieve a political objective. In any case its not a useful word anymore... Like "facism" it has because one of the most misused words in history. It has no real objective meaning, and whether or not a group that uses these tactics gets described as "terrorists", or "guerillas", or "separatists", or "rebels", depends entirely on who is doing the describing. The modern definition seems to go something like this... "Darked skinned violent people that dont like or cooperate with the west". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Gee, all this description of a terrorist, sound like the book I'm reading about the CIA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 "Darked skinned violent people that dont like or cooperate with the west". Soon to be expanded to include anyone who understands why sympathizes with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) As far as I am concerned, something needs to satisfy 3 properties to count as terrorism: - must involve violent acts (such as murder, blowing up buildings, kidnapping, etc.) - must have an ideological motive (religious or political) - the civilian population has to be targeted These two criminal acts were not terrorist acts because the two criminals went out of their way to NOT target civilians. The recent attempt to perform a mass shooting in Halifax does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The recent murder of 3 muslims in North Carolina does not count as terrorism because it lacks an ideological motive. The mass shootings of 72 people by Anders Brevik counts as terrorism. The 911 hijackings count as terrorism. The kidnappings by the FARC rebels count as terrorism. The bombings that the IRA did several decades ago count as terrorism. Does that make sense? You definition makes sense, sure. And I tend to agree with that. The problem is that's not how these things are presented. That's not how those incidents are framed by politicians nor the media nor the public in most cases either. Edited February 18, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 So when they flew an airliner into the pentagon, or blew up the US Cole that was not terrorism? Those are definately military targets. I personally think that targetting civilians is not a requirement... and the use of violence isnt necessarily either. The word to me simply means using fear as a means to achieve a political objective. In any case its not a useful word anymore... Like "facism" it has because one of the most misused words in history. It has no real objective meaning, and whether or not a group that uses these tactics gets described as "terrorists", or "guerillas", or "separatists", or "rebels", depends entirely on who is doing the describing. The modern definition seems to go something like this... "Darked skinned violent people that dont like or cooperate with the west". To be fair though, at least -1 gave a working definition for his/her conception of terrorism. It's also a fair one. And so too is your criticism of it fair. However, I would also criticize your definition in the sense that it's way too vague. Using fear for political ends could define political attack ads as terrorism. Playing on people's fears about the economy to get elected would be terrorism. And so on. I don't think a reasonable person would consider those things terrorism. I think you have to include some form of physical and/or psychological violence on a civilian population, imo, to approach what could popularly be conceived of as terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 So when they flew an airliner into the pentagon, or blew up the US Cole that was not terrorism? Those are definately military targets. And the pentagon contains civilians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 So when they flew an airliner into the pentagon, or blew up the US Cole that was not terrorism? Those are definately military targets. The intended casualties in the pentagon attack included the civilians aboard the airliner. Therefore, it was targeting civilians and fits the definition. As for the attack on the USS Cole... that's clearly an act of war (rather than terrorism). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Ready to give up yet? Can terrorism be defined? If you can't define it, how can you police it? Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The intended casualties in the pentagon attack included the civilians aboard the airliner. Therefore, it was targeting civilians and fits the definition. As for the attack on the USS Cole... that's clearly an act of war (rather than terrorism). Nope, the passengers were just collateral damage. Heard that one before? ROFLMAO. The target was the pentagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Nope, the passengers were just collateral damage. Heard that one before? ROFLMAO. The target was the pentagon. Nah, killing the people on the airliner was just as much a part of the target as the Pentagon was. Or, at least, it can be plausibly interpreted that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 And the pentagon contains civilians... EVERY military target contains some civilians. If the pentagon isnt a military target theres no such thing as one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Nah, killing the people on the airliner was just as much a part of the target as the Pentagon was. Or, at least, it can be plausibly interpreted that way. Not by anyone with more than about 20 IQ. The targets on 911 were very specific... The planes themselves were just used as weapons... The terrorists would have been just fine if they were empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Ready to give up yet? Can terrorism be defined? If you can't define it, how can you police it? It can be defined but its completely subjective. Its an utterly useless word with no real meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Not by anyone with more than about 20 IQ. The targets on 911 were very specific... The planes themselves were just used as weapons... The terrorists would have been just fine if they were empty. My IQ is a decent amount over 20 and I yet consider it so. The dead on the planes were a considerable fraction of the overall casualties, and many of the terrorist's goals would have been achieved just as well if they'd only crashed the planes into empty ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 EVERY military target contains some civilians. If the pentagon isnt a military target theres no such thing as one. Let's suppose that for the sake of argument I agree with you that the pentagon does not count as a civilian target. If a civilian plane is hijacked and used, then i counts as terrorism. Even more so if that plane contains civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I dont always agree with Andrew Coyne, but when i sometimes do he is insulting idiots that don't think terrorism exists. Literally. http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/18/andrew-coyne-terrorisms-threat-doesnt-justify-all-special-measures-but-it-does-justify-some/ "Terrorism is not a one-off, a blip of murderous frenzy that appears out of nowhere and as suddenly disappears. It is ongoing, organized, often meticulously planned, a systematic challenge to democratic society. That doesn’t justify any and all measures aimed at preventing it. It does justify some." Worth reading in full for those of us who still manage something approaching reason on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 "Terrorism is not a one-off, a blip of murderous frenzy that appears out of nowhere and as suddenly disappears. It is ongoing, organized, often meticulously planned, a systematic challenge to democratic society. That doesnt justify any and all measures aimed at preventing it. It does justify some." What is it again when it's a systematic challenge to a bloodthirsty dictatorship? How about when it's a challenge to a dictatorship that's supported by a democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 As far as I am concerned, something needs to satisfy 3 properties to count as terrorism: - must involve violent acts (such as murder, blowing up buildings, kidnapping, etc.) - must have an ideological motive (religious or political) - the civilian population has to be targeted So the running down of soldiers in Quebec and the attack on Parliament Hill can't be considered terrorism. Those incidents don't meet the last criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Whether you love or hate Russell Brand (there seems to be no in between) this short video on the terrorism narrative is bang on and worth watching. Edited February 19, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.