|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: Ah yes, the infallible federal government theory.
you will note that i never used the word "infallible" nor any of its synonyms.
|
|
|
|
|
You implied it by citing the "Patriot" Act with no modifiers that could be used to understand your viewpoint regarding its veracity.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
um, no.
i pointed out that current law provides a way to designate Americans as "terrorists", and that this is in disagreement with the OP's comment.
that's it.
everything else is from your imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: No citizen of the U.S. is capable of being a terrorist against the U.S. based on the founding doctrines of our country. Allowing anything else, pollutes the original ideal of our country (applies to U.S.). <layer>Those ideals are the right to revolt, to overthrow a tyrannical regime, the right to fight for what is right even if it is the government that is wrong.
Nonsense.
Not true now and not true when the country was founded.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: But, I still don't call him a terrorist.
Fine but your definition would seem to be only supported by you.
There are other definitions that might exclude acts by US citizens because of the nature and context of the attack. Not simply because they were US citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
To revolt means to renounce of allegiance, thought it is also used specifically in the case of an armed uprising. I'm not sure how killing a bunch of innocent, unarmed office workers with a bomb counts as an armed uprising. I'm also not sure the US government counts as a tyrannical regime - though don't get me started on the whole issue of software patents, else I'll be asking for a torch and a pitchfork. Not that I'm in the US.
I also can't believe I'm actually replying, either, but your response is, well, incredibly open minded and well thought and it's that sort of debate I do enjoy and admire.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they think an act of defiance against the king (by divine right) was an against their god?
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: specifically, the Boston Tea Party as if it were a terrorist act.
...and the teaching of creationism, banning the teaching of Darwinian evolution (or at least down-grading it to an unproven hypotheses).
Fundamentalism (be it religous or otherwise) is a dangerous path, but it doesn't half look like the first few bricks on that (very long) road from outside. For the 10 years I've known more about America than that I learnt in school (very little) via visiting for work and seeing relatives, I cannot but help feel that there is an almost endless number of pockets of fundamentalist style behaviour all over the place, kinda frightening tbh.
(If anyone is at all offended, please accept my apologies, it was not my intent, it's just an observation)
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curoisity, these fundamentalists have done what to you?
Just trying to understand why you'd be 'kinda frightened'.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably the same old "throw in emotionjerking words for instant 'relatable'" bullshit that everyone seems to be so fond of nowadays.
If you're morally opposed to something, never say it makes you angry. Say it scares you. Also children and their future and puppies. INSTAWIN! Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
Your post scared me a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Probably the same old "throw in emotionjerking words for instant 'relatable'" bullsh*t that everyone seems to be so fond of nowadays.
If you're morally opposed to something, never say it makes you angry. Say it scares you. Also children and their future and puppies. INSTAWIN! Case closed.
Appreciate your view, but alas no, think I covered it in the previous e-mail with enough rational to note that it isn't knee-jerk, nor attention seeking.
And I am not angry, the world has worked this way for as long as animals have lived on it, no point fighting that. However, such behaviour can be frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not what anyone has done directly, it's a number of indirect things.
Take a terror attack and assume for a moment the motivation for said attack was fundamentalist, you then have a fear of said type of thing happeneing again, your chance of being involved is slim but real.
Now take teaching, kids grow up with poor discrimination between opinion, belief and fact which can lead to misinformed viewpoints and hence substantial differences of opionion between peoples of the world. Drop that difference into a string religious or political context and you have an increased risk of 'incidents', war, terror, trade disputes, all harmful (from my opionion). For clarity 'poor discrimination between opinion, belief and fact' is not a value judgement it simply notes that whatever you choose to believe afterwards is no longer driven primarily by whatever your own sound rartional judgement basis is.
Then jump to politics, which in many places in the world is more divided within countries than for a long time since. Such internal differences tend to lead parties to 'stronger' policies that are heavily influenced by some dogma or belief system etc., this drives greater political differences between countries which at a minimum is bad for international relationships and the world is unquestionably a global place today, few countries are internally sustainable, relaying on trade for some major element of infrastructure (food, eneergy generation etc.) and beyond the minimum, well we have plenty of examples on-going now and in the past 30 years.
How about the instability that always accompanies global and regional power balance changes, both of which are underway? They usually don't make the world a better place to live.
Etc.
All of which, from my opinion, makes the world a less fun place to live, often with more fear.
|
|
|
|
|
Your post seems to address the human condition more than fundamentalism.
I come from a particular view point first.
I think people are angry first (and desire violence) and secondly find a cause to justify poor behavior. Again, the need to hate exists first and the reason attached to it is an after thought. That's why any cause usually has a healthy band of haters - even, ironically enough, peace causes.
|
|
|
|
|
In the context of the discussion I would believe that fear causes both anger and hate (which we use to 'overcome' the fear), which then, as you note, needs to have something attached to it as justification of the emotion, further burying the fear. Bit of a 'yoda' moment there, not intentional, it's coincidence, honest guv!
Which is the same process that goes from a human choosing a fundamentalism and then attaching a cause to it, often religious but not always. But what drives the choice of one or other fundamentalism ? I would argue that it's fear.
So paraphrasing my previous comment, "I'm not angry, I stopped at being fearful since being angry doesn't help, it just buries the fear behind something that probably makes the situation worse."
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-MadBadger wrote: Then jump to politics, which in many places in the world is more divided within countries than for a long time since
So in comparison it was much better in the 70's when there at least appeared to be a real chance that the USSR and USA would start lobbing nukes at each other?
Or say during the 60's when China made a very specific effort to kill basically everyone that had anything like an education?
Or the USSR Stalin era which either directly or indirectly lead to millions of deaths by some estimates 60 million and most certainly above 10?
Or WWII where quite literally most of the world was involved in the war?
Mike-MadBadger wrote: few countries are internally sustainable, relaying on trade for some major element of infrastructure
Which is quite likely the best thing possible to insure stability. If I don't need anything at all from you then I need to respect you, care about you nor even talk to you. If I consider you essential to my well being then I am much more likely to take an active interest in your well being. And isolation is probably more likely to increase distrust.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-MadBadger wrote: that there is an almost endless number of pockets of fundamentalist style behaviour all over the place, kinda frightening tbh.
Might help to keep in mind that the extremism you see now is there because that is the only place it exists now. In the past much of that extremism was considered mainstream.
|
|
|
|
|
we've gone ten years labeling every damned thing someone has done to the US as "terrorism". should be no surprise that the word's meaning has expanded to accommodate.
|
|
|
|
|
My lack of voting is a terrorist act.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a terrorist act.
It terrified the British Exchequer when you lot refused to pay your taxes
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
It worked.
And you shoulda seen what happened when the British came for their guns and ammo.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the stupid pillocks were wearing red.
Is that why guys in the woods wearing flouro jackets are still getting shot these days?
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark H2 wrote: Well, the stupid pillocks were wearing red.
You cant see the blood if you wear red!
|
|
|
|
|
the french wore brown trousers for a similar reason
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
And the Americans wore blue because it matched their faces which...
...(1) were real cold & (2) starved of oxygen...
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
|
|
|
|
|
nar, its was just because they were so late it was the only colour left
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|