So who do you pick?

[Parkbandit]

So... offensive statements about somebody's mother and father are okay but not about somebody's children or the death of a sibling, PB? I remember you getting all annoyed about Keller criticizing your parenting.

How much did you know about the background of the person you posted that in regards to? Probably nothing.

Like I said.. it's so rare when you actually have an intelligent thought.

Let me help you out of this confusion, Captain Clueless:

The statement wasn't offensively directed at the parents of the poster.. but the poster himself.

I want to believe in Darwinism so bad.. but when people like you post, it makes me question his theories.

[Warriorbird]

So suggesting somebody's father should have done something violent to abort them within their mother is somehow not related to their parents?

Gosh.

Me I'd find that pretty offensive if I were his parents... but I support your right to not be banned. I'm pretty sure Keller's comments about your parenting skills were directed at you... and the sick crap Stan said about Sean2's kids was directed at Sean2.

It just makes that whole crusade bit you did look all the more hypocritical... but by all means carry on.

[Parkbandit]

So suggesting somebody's father should have done something violent to abort them within their mother is somehow not related to their parents?

Gosh.

Me I'd find that pretty offensive if I were his parents... but I support your right to not be banned. I'm pretty sure Keller's comments about your parenting skills were directed at you... and the sick crap Stan said about Sean2's kids was directed at Sean2.

It just makes that whole crusade bit you did look all the more hypocritical... but by all means carry on.

Just think about all the time and effort you could have saved yourself if you left it at this:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=746656&postcount=248

[Warriorbird]

I love highlighting you looking like an idiot. I consider it time well spent.

[Gan]

I love highlighting you looking like an idiot. I consider it time well spent.

Grats.



Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

[Back]

Grats.


Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

http://www.zendada.com/images/ganalon-olympics.jpg

[crb]

Christ, how many times are you going to make BigWorm repeat the same shit over and over that he doesn't support violent protests? Fucking hell.

Boycotts don't accomplish anything because not enough people do it for it make enough of a difference to change anything. It's a ginormic waste of time.

I don't have any problem with non-violent protests though, although I don't believe it to help end wars. Protests for local problems, sure, but a war? Nah, I don't think it does anything either.
I just had to respond to this.



Boycotts don't accomplish anything because not enough people do it for it make enough of a difference to change anything. It's a ginormic waste of time.

If your cause was really that important, or if more people agreed with you, then it would work.

It is typical of a minority group (not talking about race here) to have that attitude. They believe their opinion is the right one, and they disdain those who don't agree with them, however, because they are a minority, they need to amplify their voices to make their cause seem bigger than it is. Hence, the phrase "vocal minority."

Shouting really loud, obstructing the lives of other people, throwing rocks at police, defacing public property, etc etc.

[Mabus]

If your cause was really that important, or if more people agreed with you, then it would work.

Boycotts, and even the threat of them, have worked to change corporate minds. Look at the "Rachel Ray" thread for an instance where a threatened boycott (and the negative publicity surrounding it) over a silly scarf stopped an ad campaign by a corporation. It is a valid and viable method of peaceful protest.

Even if it does not work as intended, a person would still not be giving their own money to a corporation they did not support.

Trying to tell that to a generation addicted to buying plastic-nothings from Wal-Mart is a little rough, I understand.

[Warriorbird]

Considering how much arguing both of us do, PB, I don't think either of us are Ganalon.

;)

[Parkbandit]

Considering how much arguing both of us do, PB, I don't think either of us are Ganalon.

;)

I've never tried to be Ganalon... and if you are trying to say you are a retard... we can finally agree on something.

Apology accepted.

[Warriorbird]

Merely pointing out that the "if you argue on the Internet you're a retard" meme isn't usually good to forward while arguing on the Internet regularly.

:)

On topic?

I'm more comfortable with Obama than I was with Kerry... and Obama has some huge issues to overcome. Sort of says how bad a candidate Kerry was. Kind of amazing he got as much of the vote as he did.

[Gan]

Considering how much arguing both of us do, PB, I don't think either of us are Ganalon.

;)

Considering you've reduced the past few political threads into potshot/arguments with PB - I'd say you've won a few gold medals there buddy.

Its getting old. Really.

[Tsa`ah]

In case you did not know, assembling a bomb is a federal crime if you are not licensed to do so. It was only through luck that civilians did not die. Good luck on the part of the civilians, and "bad luck" for the Weather Underground.

I, and many others, are guilty of a "federal" crime. This is of course is nothing than more of your "context" and "omission" tactic at work ... you again fail to note the full story.


"I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." -Bill Ayers

And again here. Why not also quote the follow up articles to that? Because they destroy your position.


After members traveled to Cuba to meet with NVA and Cuban officials they began bombing police stations, police cars, bombed the capitol and the Pentagon, bombed a SF Dept. of health building (now there is revolution...), and the list goes on.

And again you fail to note that they gave warning prior to the bombings ... as a result no one but their own members were ever injured or killed.


They were terrorists, plain and simple.

You keep trying to hammer this home ... there's just one problem with your attempt ... I'm not ill informed. Everything you have posted has been out of context or lacking specific facts.

The simple truth is that, to me, terrorists target civilians ... the Weathermen did not.


Revolt against the Dept. of Health of San Francisco? Revolt against MIT? Bullshit.

Government agencies and/or contractors. Again you leave out specifics.


And you are intent on using no definition for terrorism. You even claim this was a "revolt". I now believe the bombings, and you, are revolting.

You act as if I condone such things ... which is far from the truth. I just refuse to buy into the big "fear" machine and the labels it produces. That you find me revolting is insubstantial since I really don't care of your opinion of me, just as you probably don't care that I think you're a brainless twit that has bought into a party and is incapable of discovering your own brand of truth ... so you rely on others to do so for you. In short, you give retards a bad name.


So all of the accepted definitions of terrorism are not acceptable to you, I ask again:

Provide your definition of terrorism.

That you're not able to discern this on your own, using my posts to do so, only confirms by belief about your lacking mental capacity.

Terrorism, in my opinion, is the specific targeting of a civilian population.



This is the second time you stated this. The first time I thought you were just being an asshole, that you had no defense for dismissing the definitions so you have to name call. Now I think your twisted mind believes it.

Explain how we could be thieves and liars, in your view.

Has anything other than the truth, outside of opinion, ever escaped your lips or went from mind to paper? Answer ... yes. You are therefore a liar.

We are going by strict definitions here ... your own tactic.

Have you ever taken anything, without permission, be it physical or intellectual? A bit stickier but ... the answer is likely yes. You are therefore a thief.

Again, your tactic of strict definitions. I'm sure everyone (you being the exception) understood this.


There, I placed the questions in bold for you, so they would be easy to find as your mind dreamed of failed leftist "revolts" that could have made the world more in your image.

The answers were there ... but as always, you refuse to perform any action that will ultimately destroy your position ... it's nothing new.


Vote someone new into office.

Thats your only solution in a Democracy.

This is mostly true. Though smaller groups are likely to take a more militant approach when the larger population shares a similar view ... the Weatherman and similar groups through out history have often put the cart before the horse.

[Parkbandit]

Terrorism, in my opinion, is the specific targeting of a civilian population.


So, you contend that if I go blow up buildings, statues, government offices, etc... is fine and dandy, as long as I don't kill anyone. I won't target people, I'll simply target the buildings.

So people like Timothy McVeigh, as long as they called in a bomb threat to the Murrah Federal Building and evacuated all the people, wouldn't be considered a terrorist by you and would probably be alive today, since the charge of Destruction of property probably doesn't carry a death sentence.

I want to redefine words.. it looks like fun, especially if I can morph a word to suit my purpose.

[g++]

If you guys did not so viscerally hate each other you would have just agreed the weathermen didnt do a whole shit ton of good and prolly should not have set bombs in the first place like 30 posts ago. You all agree it was bad your arguing over semantics.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lol nothing like a good Tsa'ah and PB bout to distract from what I really should be doing. Playing online games.

[Tsa`ah]

So, you contend that if I go blow up buildings, statues, government offices, etc... is fine and dandy, as long as I don't kill anyone. I won't target people, I'll simply target the buildings.

So people like Timothy McVeigh, as long as they called in a bomb threat to the Murrah Federal Building and evacuated all the people, wouldn't be considered a terrorist by you and would probably be alive today, since the charge of Destruction of property probably doesn't carry a death sentence.

I want to redefine words.. it looks like fun, especially if I can morph a word to suit my purpose.

More reading comprehension FTL again with you? Typical.

Please read the fucking post and stop being such an inbred yokel.

[Parkbandit]

Besides you and Backlash, I'm trying to think of anyone else who just defines words to meet their needs.

In my opinion, speeding is only when you PURPOSELY exceed the speed limit. I wonder how many officers will let me slide if I ACCIDENTLY exceed the speed limit.

[Stanley Burrell]

Because people use quote tags:

<<So, you contend that if I go blow up buildings, statues, government offices, etc... is fine and dandy, as long as I don't kill anyone. I won't target people, I'll simply target the buildings.>>

Nice to see SUNY Albany had a hankering for dispensing liberal arts knowledge and appreciation of Buddha statues for well-adapted pottery majors to QQ over.

[Mabus]

The simple truth is that, to me, terrorists target civilians ...
Does your definition also force you to believe that the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist attack?

It is simple to see why you need to result to name calling. I won't go into it. You know you are wrong, and it will stay like that.

Now to go to your "new definition" of terrorism, and how it applies to the Weather Underground.

Let us break the word down, just for you:
(Both from Merriam Webster)
terror:
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be
1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> afraid, flee, tremein to tremble

-ism:
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief <we all have got to come to grips with our isms— Jocelyn Elders>

You have placed a limitation on the word "terrorism" that does not come from any accepted definition of the word, and is not supported by the word or root word(s) of the word.

No where are the roots "civilis" or "civis" (or related) in the word "terrorism".

Your definition does not stand.

Even if we took your definition, which I do not accept, the Weather Underground would "fit", as they used the media to target the fear of their attacks at the civilian population. They also targeted police, and police are civilian forces, not military forces. If they had only sent private communications to only military forces and only attacked military targets they would fit within your (incorrect) definition.

[CrystalTears]

Does your definition also force you to believe that the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist attack?
The Pentagon contained civilians.

Just saying.

[Parkbandit]

According to Tsa'ah, the 1983 Beirut bombing and the attack on the USS Cole were not terrorist attacks either.

[CrystalTears]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with g++ here. This is just semantics. What they did didn't accomplish anything but destroy buildings and waste time/money on our own soil, which bothers me greatly.

Again, not seeing the point of domestic violence to combat war.

[Mabus]

Again, not seeing the point of domestic violence to combat war.
Big difference between "domestic violence" and "domestic terrorism".

The Weather Underground sent out information to the media about their bombings, in order to instill fear.

I am sure you can see the difference between a person beating on someone they know (and/or live with) and a group placing bombs, where anyone could be killed, in order to push a political agenda.

The Weather Underground committed domestic terrorism.

[CrystalTears]

Again, you're still arguing semantics since I'm agreeing with you and PB on the matter.