A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
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) -
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.
If you started bombing buildings, shooting people, etc... Then yes, you'd be called a terrorist. As long as your actions are non-violent, the definition does not apply.
Terrorism = Violence && (Political || Ideological || Religious)Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I'm not talking about 9/11. I've already confirmed that 9/11 was terrorism. I'm talking about yesterday. That was not about fear. It was about the IRS, killing about 5 people, not a commercial building that killed 3000 people.
Ah, ok. My mistake.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
This one guy is one guy.
Just like Ted Kaczynski.
That so needs a +5. :thumbsup:
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]
-
If you started bombing buildings, shooting people, etc... Then yes, you'd be called a terrorist. As long as your actions are non-violent, the definition does not apply.
Terrorism = Violence && (Political || Ideological || Religious)Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)lol nice way of putting it. but you know how people namecall for no reason in this country. slander exists, and that's what i'm afraid of in the first place. incidents happen, and then they are called terrorists without ever hearing a word from them. why haven't we heard about the "terrorist" that was on the detroit flight? and the shooting at fort hood? why is everything happening at once, but these guys do not get interviewed? aren't there two sides to the story? do you see my point? they are called names, without hearing their version of why they did it. what if it wasn't terrorism? what if these things were done by actually someone completely different, and they're innocent? why are these questions never asked? it's a loaded word, whether clearly defined somewhere or not. it's thrown around to create fear. the problem is, the action itself may not even actually cause any fear, it's the hype. but technically, sure, you're right on. i just see it in the context of the real world and see that it's all hype and namecalling.
-
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)Ian, it's a violation of rights. IRS stealing money from everyone every year, or a rapist saying that it's just to rape. they are both stealing rights (right to own one's body, right to own personal wealth.) Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right. And just because a law says you can't commit a crime against a state doesn't mean that it's right either (though it is obviously taboo, and obviously ANY state would say that you can't commit a crime against it.) The point is that just because a group of people say one thing is right doesn't make it just. That's the whole point to a republic (as defined today), the rights of the few are protected against the many. Democracy says that the majority wins. Republic says that the law wins, the natural rights win. So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
-
lol nice way of putting it. but you know how people namecall for no reason in this country. slander exists, and that's what i'm afraid of in the first place. incidents happen, and then they are called terrorists without ever hearing a word from them. why haven't we heard about the "terrorist" that was on the detroit flight? and the shooting at fort hood? why is everything happening at once, but these guys do not get interviewed? aren't there two sides to the story? do you see my point? they are called names, without hearing their version of why they did it. what if it wasn't terrorism? what if these things were done by actually someone completely different, and they're innocent? why are these questions never asked? it's a loaded word, whether clearly defined somewhere or not. it's thrown around to create fear. the problem is, the action itself may not even actually cause any fear, it's the hype. but technically, sure, you're right on. i just see it in the context of the real world and see that it's all hype and namecalling.
Yeah, I do agree that it's overused nowadays. The Detroit flight... Was that the so-called underwear bomber? I think he was part of Al Qaeda, so that makes it pretty obvious. The Fort Hood shooter, I don't remember the details, but I think he was in contact with Al Qaeda... Not sure what his motivation was (I remember keeping CNN on my screen that day to get every detail, but it's been a while)... The problem with getting the other side of the story, most of the time, is that generally these guys don't survive their own attack. Stack was considerate enough to explain his exact motivation, so we can analyze it pretty easily.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian, it's a violation of rights. IRS stealing money from everyone every year, or a rapist saying that it's just to rape. they are both stealing rights (right to own one's body, right to own personal wealth.) Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right. And just because a law says you can't commit a crime against a state doesn't mean that it's right either (though it is obviously taboo, and obviously ANY state would say that you can't commit a crime against it.) The point is that just because a group of people say one thing is right doesn't make it just. That's the whole point to a republic (as defined today), the rights of the few are protected against the many. Democracy says that the majority wins. Republic says that the law wins, the natural rights win. So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
josda1000 wrote:
So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
No, CSS is missing the
(Political || Ideological || Religious)part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.josda1000 wrote:
Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
You call it stealing. The government calls it the cost of doing business. The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian, it's a violation of rights. IRS stealing money from everyone every year, or a rapist saying that it's just to rape. they are both stealing rights (right to own one's body, right to own personal wealth.) Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right. And just because a law says you can't commit a crime against a state doesn't mean that it's right either (though it is obviously taboo, and obviously ANY state would say that you can't commit a crime against it.) The point is that just because a group of people say one thing is right doesn't make it just. That's the whole point to a republic (as defined today), the rights of the few are protected against the many. Democracy says that the majority wins. Republic says that the law wins, the natural rights win. So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
-
josda1000 wrote:
So while the rapist argument has nothing to do with terrorism, the idea is related.
No, CSS is missing the
(Political || Ideological || Religious)part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.josda1000 wrote:
Just because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
You call it stealing. The government calls it the cost of doing business. The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
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:
No, CSS is missing the (Political || Ideological || Religious) part of the equation. It's not terrorism if you're just defending yourself. It's not terrorism if you're protecting a friend or family member. Terrorism is defined by violence and motivation.
He's not trying to define it as terrorism. He's trying to say that you're saying that raping is justified, just as the IRS is justified. That's the relation he's making, he's not saying that raping IS terrorism.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government calls it the cost of doing business.
Income taxes are not justified. It is not at all. Taxes, in general, are definitely necessary for revenue to the government (it's the only revenue, other than inflation, but let's leave that alone.) Income taxes are the only thing not necessary. I'd suggest instating a sales tax, as opposed to an income tax. The idea is that income taxes are stealing directly from the fruit of our labor every week. They take a days worth of my income per five days (or thereabouts). That's a decent chunk of change, wouldn't you say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government needs money to operate, and that money is (in principle) being collected spent for our benefit. If you want to make the case that it's being used inefficiently and perhaps unethically, then I don't think you'd get many arguments here. But it's not "wrong" to collect taxes.
Looks like we're in agreement here. But it's more than being SPENT unethically, it's the way it's directly extracted from us every week, without any course of action on our part. We don't even see that tax money; it's just grabbed right out from under us. Don't you think that's a little low? It's shady. It's wrong. But it's tolerated by the majority. What a great bunch of slaves we are.
-
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Ah. read that last line you just stated. "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Here's another reason why a direct income tax is wrong, nevermind the moral reason. It's unconstitutional. But, that's why the sixteenth amendment was created. The problem with this is that it was never ratified properly.
-
josda1000 wrote:
ust because a law makes it legal to steal (IRS) doesn't mean it's right.
I thought the constitution allowed for taxation and thus laws to tax by. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
wolfbinary wrote:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That is where the current tax code is illegal, it is not uniform unless you believe it means the uniform of the IRS enforcers.
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)[^]
-
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)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so I missed option three, "Revolt." But that option applies to groups, not individuals.
I'm glad you see what I've been trying to say. Terrorism has more to do with groups, not individuals. You must have a lot of small attacks about one specific point to really have a revolution or any terrorism at all. One guy doing one attack is not terrorism, it's an incident.
-
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)To make my point further, 9/11 had about four incidents. Two planes into the twin towers, building 7 collapsing, and a plane into the pentagon. This incident yesterday was just that. An incident. Yes, it was politically charged, and yes, there was a lot of chaos. But it did not incite fear into many people and didn't even kill many people either.
-
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.
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
-
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:
Yes because so many f***ing people are in fear right now, aren't they?
You don't need to succeed to be a terrorist. What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have? You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it. It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That is where the current tax code is illegal, it is not uniform unless you believe it means the uniform of the IRS enforcers.
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:
Yes because so many f***ing people are in fear right now, aren't they?
You don't need to succeed to be a terrorist. What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have? You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it. It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Distind wrote:
What other point, beyond inflicting fear, and perhaps pain and suffering, on effectively innocent people did he have?
Why don't you read the rest of this thread and find out why he did it? It wasn't to incite fear. It was a political statement against the IRS.
Distind wrote:
You are backing a terrorist, someone who has committed an act of terrorism, he just happened to be lousy at it.
Yes, he was so lousy at it that he destroyed an IRS building and it was all over the news. (I think he made his point loud and clear.)
Distind wrote:
It does not stop being terrorism when you agree with it. That's a point I'd love to smack home to a lot of people out there.
Fair enough. Call it what you will. As I'd said before, I think he just had personal problems and couldn't live with it anymore. Again, I don't condone what he did, though I understand why he did what he did. My thing is, I want to smack some sense into some people and wake up to the fact that we are not free, as long as we have corrupt "services" such as the IRS. We just are plainly not.
-
See my other posts in this thread for further explanation. Don't want to just repeat or anything... But listen to the way you're speaking. This was just a guy that was pissed off with life and the government. It's not like he's Alqaeda or anything. "I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist". That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid, because this was just an American man that was fed up with life, not your average terrorist from the other side of the planet. He's our own flesh and blood, our brother. This namecalling must end.
You're average terrorist in the US is not from the other side of the planet. Your average terrorist is very much our own flesh and blood. Kaczynski, who I mentioned previously, was a terrorist, McVeigh was a terrorist, people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, people who attack animal research labs are terrorists, and Joe Stack was a terrorist. That word means someone who threatens or commits violence against non-military targets in an attempt to further a cause. It does not mean someone from an organized group, it does not mean someone who wasn't "fed up with life", and it most certainly does not mean someone "from the other side of the planet".