What's the difference between using a violent act to achieve what you want, and using threat of economic ruin to achieve what you want? Both induce fear as a motivator for a desired action. The principle difference is one directly and immediately causes physical harm and destruction, and the other more indirectly causes large-scale socio-economic failure and all the ramifications it brings.
Imagine if a government forcibly closed all hospitals and sent home all medical staff until their political opponents grant the fulfillment of their agenda. People will literally die because of that direct, purposeful action. No explosions or gunfire or grainy tapes to CNN with a list of demands, but still terrorism. It doesn't stop being terrorism just because it's legally sanctioned.
Originally posted by DARTH POWEROh, f*ck that does not look promising.
Rebels Teaser:http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/10/08/first-star-wars-rebels-teaser
What's the difference between using a violent act to achieve what you want, and using threat of economic ruin to achieve what you want? Both induce fear as a motivator for a desired action. The principle difference is one directly and immediately causes physical harm and destruction, and the other more indirectly causes large-scale socio-economic failure and all the ramifications it brings.Imagine if a government forcibly closed all hospitals and sent home all medical staff until their political opponents grant the fulfillment of their agenda. People will literally die because of that direct, purposeful action. No explosions or gunfire or grainy tapes to CNN with a list of demands, but still terrorism. It doesn't stop being terrorism just because it's legally sanctioned.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
How do you define a terror tactic?
As with many political and legal terms, it's pretty hard to come to a consensus as to what does and what does not qualify for terrorism. Kinda like Justice Stewart with his infamous remark regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it."
If you want to apply a ridiculously stringent definition, all I'm saying is that we should be big boys and apply it universally.
Anytime a parent disciplines or threatens to discipline his child, the parent is a terrorist. When the UN threatens Iran with sanctions for its crimes, the UN is a terrorist. When President Obama warns Syria against attacking US interests, the president is a terrorist. When the ACLU threatens a public school with a lawsuit if they don't take down a picture of Jesus, the ACLU is using terrorist tactics.
I think you recognize how silly that is. Which is why no one, not you, not the Canadian, not the Nebraskan, not the ponce Englishman, is willing to stand up and own that definition when it's not applied to the GOP.
Originally posted by mstanford2912Hey if it was the GOP just making threats, then I'd say they're stupid and full of hot air. But when they're actively engaging in behavior that leads to ruin and economic destruction, on purpose all for the purpose of undoing something that was legally ratified by all three levels of the federal government... you got yourself some good 'ol fashioned, American-style terror feels.
You hate making distinctions don't you? We rebuffed your loosely based definition with our own examples.
Originally posted by The_TempestIt's become an annoying word over the last decade or so, but I have no qualms applying the 'terrorism' (or in this case, Al Gore specifies as "political terrorism"😉 descriptor to any group or organization that engages in it, regardless of affiliation or disposition. It just so happens that right now, in 'Murica, it's the GOP that's indulging in that sweet, sweet terror pie. They're not threatening to act in a manner which will harm the country and the world, they are acting in such a manner. Overtly. Obviously. Purposefully. Parents disciplining their children is not synonymous with a political party holding their own country and world economy for ransom. An NPO privately suing a school through the courts is not synonymous with a political party holding their own and world economy for ransom. Obama threatening to attack military targets on the (admittedly ostensible) basis of protecting civilians from a proven military attack from a foreign government, is not synonymous with a political party holding their own country and world economy for ransom.
Which is why no one, not you, not the Canadian, not the Nebraskan, not the ponce Englishman, is willing to stand up and own that definition when it's not applied to the GOP.
The overused word's loose definition can provide with some absurd and colorful examples, but degrees of magnitude aside, what the Republicans are doing right now fits the definition of "terrorism". Just as what suicide bombers do is also "terrorism". Different methods and magnitude (this is a much greater magnitude than any car bomb), but same thing. Non-violent terrorism--Gore's "political" version-- is still terrorism.
Hey if it was the GOP just making threats, then I'd say they're stupid and full of hot air. But when they're actively engaging in behavior that leads to ruin and economic destruction, on purpose all for the purpose of undoing something that was legally ratified by all three levels of the federal government... you got yourself some good 'ol fashioned, American-style terror feels.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's become an annoying word over the last decade or so, but I have no qualms applying the 'terrorism' (or in this case, Al Gore specifies as "political terrorism"😉 descriptor to any group or organization that engages in it, regardless of affiliation or disposition. It just so happens that right now, in 'Murica, it's the GOP that's indulging in that sweet, sweet terror pie. They're not threatening to act in a manner which will harm the country and the world, they are acting in such a manner. Overtly. Obviously. Purposefully. Parents disciplining their children is not synonymous with a political party holding their own country and world economy for ransom. An NPO privately suing a school through the courts is not synonymous with a political party holding their own and world economy for ransom. Obama threatening to attack military targets on the (admittedly ostensible) basis of protecting civilians from a proven military attack from a foreign government, is not synonymous with a political party holding their own country and world economy for ransom.The overused word's loose definition can provide with some absurd and colorful examples, but degrees of magnitude aside, what the Republicans are doing right now fits the definition of "terrorism". Just as what suicide bombers do is also "terrorism". Different methods and magnitude (this is a much greater magnitude than any car bomb), but same thing. Non-violent terrorism--Gore's "political" version-- is still terrorism.
You're moving the goalpost, Canadian. Two pages ago, this is the definition you provided:
The Canadian
Another way that a war on a concept makes no f*cking sense.It's by definition terrorism. The perpetrators may not be wearing robes or screaming Allahu Akbar! or blowing something up, but they are using fear to obtain what they want. Like, overtly, actively using fear. They're demanding that things be done their way or else is a non-violent act of terrorism.
The examples I provided you are of parties using fear to obtain desired outcomes. Do you stand by this definition or do you concede the ridiculousness of such a harsh definition?
No, I don't. Fear is a product of terrorism (hence the name). Through threats, acts, or threats of act, fear is the outcome. And it's used to convince (coerce) people in to doing what you want. The GOP is threatening to let the global economy get hit over the head with a mallet if they don't get what they want. They are the ones who put themselves and the rest of you (us) in this position. They are the instigators and the perpetrators of all this, and whether it comes to an end in time or not is up to their willingness to back down from a confrontation they started over a fight that they had lost in three separate ways over four separate years. And if they don't, they (metaphorically) will let the plunger drop.
These are non-violent direct acts that will purposefully cause deeper recession, job less, poverty, hunger, panic, desperation, and more fear. Violence and death will be an outcome of all that. The "intimidation and coercion of a civilian populace", and "influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" are the first two paragraphs of the second part of the definition of "Domestic Terrorism" in the U.S. as set forth by the freaking PATRIOT Act, of all things. This is domestic, political terrorism.
And they're willing to risk all that just so they can stop Obamacare from making that happen? It's like trying to stop someone's suicide by threatening to shoot them.
Originally posted by The_TempestNo, I don't concede that my harsh definition is ridiculous. Or inaccurate, as per your own 2001 Democrat-submitted, Democrat-extended, code altering PATRIOT Act, as I mentioned above.
You don't what? Stand by the definition?
Originally posted by mstanford2912Fair enough.
Nope. But then again, my definition of terrorism isn't as loose as yours.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I don't concede that my harsh definition is ridiculous. Or inaccurate, as per your own 2001 Democrat-submitted, Democrat-extended, code altering PATRIOT Act, as I mentioned above.
Your harsh definition requires that anyone who uses fear to achieve a desired end is a terrorist.
You're moving the goalpost in your subsequent posts, but I'm not challenging your Patriot Act-inspired definition (yet, anyway). I'm challenging the one I quoted and emphasized in sensual red.
Do you stand by it or not?