A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism
I expect that the people who were working in the building at that time would be in complete disagreement with you. As am I. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism. Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
The law can state that I have no free speech, doesn't mean I'm going to follow it. I would shit all over that law.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism. Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism
Citation needed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Underlying assumption not proven, hence derivative clause is invalid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Or you actually go through the long and painful process of either reshaping the nation, or burning the old and starting something new. Which generally fails, horribly in most cases. What you don't do is sit there and bitch, then strike out at people when they finally get tired of you.
-
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)So you would submit to that law? With lack of freedom? What was this country built on? New Hampshire's slogan is: "Live free or die." The steps of the Archives of the United States of America has a plaque: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When laws are corrupt and unjust, people will sacrifice their lives for freedom. That's what you saw in this statement. Call it terrorism, call it a massacre. I call it a statement for freedom.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way.
He committed an act with no purpose other than to cause fear. Do we have a better definition of terrorism? If he thought it would accomplish anything more it's nothing but another sign of how far gone he was.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism[^] Random House Dictionary: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. #1 applies. American Heritage Dictionary: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Applies. Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism #1 applies. Since he attacked the IRS, and supplied a politically-charged suicide note demonizing the IRS, it seems that his attack was politically-motivated. He used violence against a non-military target in order to elicit change in the tax code. I do agree that if this starts to be commonly referred to as "terrorism," the media, public, and government will likely overreact and try to shove another Patriot Act down our throats... But it is what it is.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
-
Distind wrote:
He committed an act with no purpose other than to cause fear.
Apparently you did not read the letter. Please do so. The reason he did it was because of personal issues with the IRS, whether he was in the right or not.
Oh, so it's not terrorism if you only terrorize people, just if you don't have some justifiable grudge against the target. Oh, wait a second, I have another report just in, 9/11 was not an act of terrorism either as there are very good reasons those involved would like to bomb the living hell out of the US.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
josda1000 wrote:
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
The key to dealing with this is admitting that if the American revolution where to occur now we would have been labeled terrorists, and we very much did commit such acts during it. This flimsy rationalizing isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
josda1000, what exactly disqualifies this from being terrorism, that he had a small plane rather than a large one, that his goals were political rather than political-religious, or that his target was an IRS building rather that the Pentagon? Barring you giving me some good reason not to consider this act what it so obviously is, then I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist.
-
Oh, so it's not terrorism if you only terrorize people, just if you don't have some justifiable grudge against the target. Oh, wait a second, I have another report just in, 9/11 was not an act of terrorism either as there are very good reasons those involved would like to bomb the living hell out of the US.
Yes because so many fucking people are in fear right now, aren't they? Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on. 9/11 can be considered terrorism (if you believe the official story), because those who'd committed the act were a part of a group, and that group still exists.
-
josda1000 wrote:
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
The key to dealing with this is admitting that if the American revolution where to occur now we would have been labeled terrorists, and we very much did commit such acts during it. This flimsy rationalizing isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
So you would submit to that law? With lack of freedom? What was this country built on? New Hampshire's slogan is: "Live free or die." The steps of the Archives of the United States of America has a plaque: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When laws are corrupt and unjust, people will sacrifice their lives for freedom. That's what you saw in this statement. Call it terrorism, call it a massacre. I call it a statement for freedom.
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals. A revolution or other regime change isn't going to be feasible until the number/strength of the people opposed to the government are greater than the number/strength of the people in favor, disregarding those who are lazy/apathetic. One guy flying a plane into a building isn't a revolution.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Oh I totally agree. But this one guy is not a terrorist. He did something out of personal rage, and was not organized in any particular group. The Continental army was a group. This one guy is one guy.
josda1000 wrote:
This one guy is one guy.
Just like Ted Kaczynski.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
Doesn't matter whether it's just or unjust. It's still terrorism. Doesn't matter if it's one disenfranchised pilot, four guys in a car full of dynamite, or all of Al Qaeda. It's still terrorism. The founding fathers, and the rest of the continental army, were terrorists. Of course, since they won, they were the good guys. If they had lost, they would have just been termed a terrorist group that had been eradicated. I'm talking about semantics, not morals.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Yes because so many fucking people are in fear right now, aren't they? Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on. 9/11 can be considered terrorism (if you believe the official story), because those who'd committed the act were a part of a group, and that group still exists.
josda1000 wrote:
Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on.
I wish... Take it from someone who lives in NYC. There are plenty of people who still factor "Danger of being killed by terrorists" into their decisions, and worry that every fire, building collapse, or shooting is a terrorist attack. I'm not one of them, but they do still exist. I don't have a published source, just my own personal observations of my fellow New Yorkers.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Doesn't matter whether it's just or unjust. It's still terrorism. Doesn't matter if it's one disenfranchised pilot, four guys in a car full of dynamite, or all of Al Qaeda. It's still terrorism. The founding fathers, and the rest of the continental army, were terrorists. Of course, since they won, they were the good guys. If they had lost, they would have just been termed a terrorist group that had been eradicated. I'm talking about semantics, not morals.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)And the whole point IS about morals. Yes, you're talking semantics. But I still think it's wrong. Eventually you'd be calling people such as myself terrorists, getting away from definition or whatnot. Of course, that may just be my mind playing tricks on me... but think about it.
-
Doesn't matter whether it's just or unjust. It's still terrorism. Doesn't matter if it's one disenfranchised pilot, four guys in a car full of dynamite, or all of Al Qaeda. It's still terrorism. The founding fathers, and the rest of the continental army, were terrorists. Of course, since they won, they were the good guys. If they had lost, they would have just been termed a terrorist group that had been eradicated. I'm talking about semantics, not morals.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)They were the good guys regardless if they won or not. Their cause was just, reasonable, common sense. With your logic, any women who fights back against a rapist and looses, deserved to be raped and punished.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on.
I wish... Take it from someone who lives in NYC. There are plenty of people who still factor "Danger of being killed by terrorists" into their decisions, and worry that every fire, building collapse, or shooting is a terrorist attack. I'm not one of them, but they do still exist. I don't have a published source, just my own personal observations of my fellow New Yorkers.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
They were the good guys regardless if they won or not. Their cause was just, reasonable, common sense. With your logic, any women who fights back against a rapist and looses, deserved to be raped and punished.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Are you really this stupid? Is a woman fighting back against a rapist using "violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"? No. So that has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Get back in your cage.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)