Terrorist
 

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities


OK....before this entire board is pissing in the wind over this .....heres the freakin definition for you. Use this thread to complain over the arbitrary nature of the term.....and call each other names if you feel the need.

From this point on....I am deleting anything in the board that goes in this direction.....unless it is in here.

Insurgent

n. 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; esp: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent. 2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of his political party.

adj. rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership

With you permission Tec, I have added the definition of an insurgent. The two definitions are dramatically different, but perhaps not that easily distinguished from a political framework.

For example: Was Timothy McV and insurgent or a terrorist?

in regards to the war in iraq, it's quite simple to differentiate between the terrorists and freedom fighters. coalition = terrorists (distributing fear and death to innocent civilians for unjust causes), iraqi resistance = freedom fighters (fighting the terrorists whom illegally invaded their soil obliterating their children to regain what’s rightfully theirs).

Sure glad I made this place for these comments.......its gonna get nasty

please consider the above as opinion....and react accordingly

I really dont want to Ban anyone

But thats about as inflamatory as you can get Rdr4evr

just to clarify, are you saying you don't want people arguing that Bush is loosely defining terrorists so that he can have terrorists to fight whereever it's convenient for him? Because if that's the case you would seem to be attempting to slant discussion to the right. . .

To answer my own question, I believe Timothy McV to be a terrorist. I will grant that he attacked a Federal building because of some beef with the government that I don't fully understand. That building was also occupied by civilians and children.

We have a nun in Washington state, that has been jailed and imprisoned for civil disobedience due to her protests against nuclear weapons. She more closely fits the term of "insurgent" in my opinion.

If it is difficult to distinguish among our "home grown", I doubt that we can claim certain knowledge of terrorists vs. insurgents in another country.

While I can agree with you to a point, I don't think that it is correct to call the coalition forces terrorists... they are invaders or an occupying force but they can hardly be seen as terrorists as long as they continue to be in uniform and act as openly as they have been.

That said, as an occupying force they are terrifying.


As for the Iraqis opposition... I am not convinced they are all acting as one. I believe there are some who are clearly insurgents, upset that their nation has been invaded by an opposing force. *Some* of those insurgents have resorted to terrorist activities to achieve their goals.

My question for those who oppose seeing the opposing Iraqis as insurgents... if they spared the lives of civilians would that make them less terrorists in your eyes OR would it make a difference?

Does it make a difference to you that the coalition forces have killed civilians in their efforts or are they *just* collateral damage in your eyes.

To me these are questions not easily answered. But then I don't see things in black and white, good vs. evil, etc.

You're saying what other leftists want to say. At least you're honest about it.

However, tecoyah is right in saying it's an immflamatory remark, for we're trying to maintain a level of discourse in here thats above the moveon.orgs and the freerepublics.orgs.

On a personal note, it's absolutley insulting as a veteran who has actually served in a TofO that you demean the same people who protect the freedoms that you refuse to fight for. [/rant]. Carry on

i dont recall the dictionary definition of the term "terrorist" ever being in question. but ok...if you want to play this game, at least use a decent dictionary.

this from the oed:

a better defintion generates some surprises...

first the term has a long long history of being applied to people who work from the left. not necessarily from a left position that i would endorse (bader-meinhoff? i dont think so)--but it originated in bourgeois hysteria directed in particular at the left.
you could argue that the term is about bourgeois hysteria from the outset. and it remains so now.

maybe this is why the reagan administration made such extensive use of it--the term carries with it the illusion of continuity with previous formations that were feared and fought (often with extraordinary and self-righteous violence) by the bourgeois order. "terrorism" makes the post soviet world safe for the right, helping it to stabilize itself by enabling it to pretend it still operates in a bipolar world.

second: fearmongering is also defined as terrorism (definition 2)---this quite apart from tactics involving violence. if you take that one seriously, then the bush administration would in fact be terrorist in its usage of the term.

see the definitions slide around...assigning it to a (in this case more or less fictional to the extent that the idea of a unified movement is a fiction) movement is a political act. what was being discussed was the politics of that assignment, and the politics of its effects.

in the hands of the bush administration, the notion of terror functions to imply an adversary that is symmetrical with the united states. on equal footing logistically, a real and present danger--except that you are far more likely to be hit by a car than fall victim to an attack---except for the overwhelming organizational assymetry that seperates the united states from any series of small militant organizations--except for the reality the administration purports to describe by using the term, in short.

the term is used to structure fear.

it names nothing, it locates nothing, it helps nothing.

having dispensed a priori with any question of political motivation, it groups together actions by their surface features. it is analytically worthless.
"terrorism" is not descriptive: it is a mobilizing tool being played for every last drop of juice by the right: it is a politial weapon the primary target of which is the american people, the aim of which is to force support for otherwise unjustifiable policies, like the war in iraq.
it is the signifer around which the adminstration's politics of impunity has been legitimated.
it describes the world as this administration prefers to see it: what more could a reactionary administration like this one hope for than a reason for a state of emergency? what better culprit to pin the causes of a state of emergency on than one which is everywhere and nowhere, omnipotent (capable of striking anywhere, any time) and impotent (small groups scattered around the world...)
it is a militarized fantasy without a referent that is coherent--it refers to the phantom of alqaeda--it refers to all of islam--it refers to arbitrary "radical" sectors of islam---it refers to all and none--which makes it little more than license for racism (witness the many many posts from people on the right who make no coherent distinction amongst muslims when they get up in a righteous lather about their fear of death).

Good job, Roachboy....and excellent analysi of the true etymology of the word. And I agree, the word has been twisted for political purposes through many decades of history to the point where it has very little meaning, anymore.

Roachboy,

Unfortunately one must agree with your assumptions at the start to agree with your conclusion, and I don't really see that you have supported your assumptions with anything substantive other than your personal opinion.

This isn't an attack on you, just my own observation on your post.

Like all words, the word "terrorist" has evolved in meaning and whether you or I like it (or not), it has a commonly accepted meaning today and that is what we must deal with.

In my mind, a reading of the History of the Jacobians and what they did during the French revolution would actually support the current common understanding of the word as first set forth by Tecoyah. Thousands of people were murdered by them for the slightest offense and most dubious reasonings during the post revolutionary years. Indeed, they seem almost Stalinistic in their purges.

I do understand your viewpoint on the current use of the word, but again I disagree with your conclusions (surprise! ;) ) I still say that the bombings that plagued US bases and buildings and the killings of Western tourists during the 80's and 90's falls very well under the word "terrorism" even as I can understand the different motivations for the "terrorists". Some of those motivations I can somewhat sympathize with (fear of western cultural contamination, anger over Western policy in the middle east) without actually supporting the methods they use (flying planes into civilian buildings, shooting up buses, blowing up discoteques).

Note that Bush was not even in the picture during many of these episodes. So I think that the charge that Bush is somehow manipulating the word is misguided at best. Could he be making political hay from it? Almost certainly. But I don't think anyone can honestly say that Kerry or Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan or any other politician doesn't do the same.

No, the question becomes, is the threat still real? And perhaps that is where our opinions make our conclusions different on the relevancy of the word "terrorist". To me, recent history clearly tells me that the word is relevant. And given that it is irrefutable that those events did take place, I honestly cannot understand your conclusion that it isn't a relevant term.

ok so maybe i should be clearer about why i posted the oed defintion in the first place: i understand this entire thread to be rooted in a misunderstanding of what was being debated in other threads on more or less the same topic. the question of basic definition was not in question, and i think it a willful misreading to see that as having been at issue. the question was the politics of its usage. i made the argument here and elsewhere that the cateogry terrorism as the bush administration uses is it worthless analytically. i did not say there were no threats--but that this term says nothing about them and allows you to say nothing about them. the conversation about this has continued in one of the other threads. so your basic objection was already being discussed there. sorry if that was confusing--i imagine it was after a hiatus.

2. the post above was written as if it was continuous with others in the threads that were cut into by this one, so i didnt present everything i had to say on the matter here (another way of saying the same thing).

3. on the terror. i actually took a bit longer than usual on the above post because i was considering whether to say something about that or not. first thing is that many contemporary accounts of the period were written by royalist/conservative opponents of the revolution who understood it as following logically from the execution of louis 16 as a kind of cosmic demonstration of just how bad a thing that was. i could provide you with a long long list of citations for this if you;d like. the revolution freaked out lots of conservative folk. it was also seen quite otherwise by thos who supported the ideals or the policies of the revolution. the question of naming particular phases gets to the politics of writing history.
at the same time, you can see the terror as it actually unfolded as an extreme example of what happens to a state when it decides that it is beset by enemies real and imagined--you could argue that the terror followed from an early variant of the structured paranoia that is central to the administrations politics of "terrorism"---and the revolution was in fact threatened by real enemies--which it supplemented with a healthy dose of imagined correlates. every single revolutionary organization since the jacobins have tried to learn from this period what not to do. the right, which understood the whole of this as Evil from the outset, learned almost nothing from it.

the equation of the jacobin terror to stalin is not good. i dont know if this is a good place to continue this particular line of argument--i could do it at ridiculous length--maybe pm me if you want.

we are close to agreement here, actually. i would still maintain that the category "terrorism" allows you to understand almost nothing about any of the attacks you talk about here. it lumps them together without any grounds to do so and gets in the way of trying to understand what might prompt someone to undertake such an action.

when i talk about the bush administration's use of the term, i refer specifically to their reponse to 9/11/2001, which has continued to shape its discourse. i would have hoped that i made it clear that i did not think that bush and his entourage had invented this--they didnt. they just ran with it, when presented with a chance to do so. i dont think this was something they planned--i think they simply found themselves in a position that enabled a particular set of aspects of their inclinations to unfold. the contemporary usages of the notion "terror" developed mostly under reagan--there is abundant material out there you can read on this history, should you be so inclined. have a look at "the real terror industry" sometime for a carefully documented study of this---and of the rise of the system of rightwing think tanks--and so the early phases of the formation of the contemporary right medai apparatus. edward herman and gerry o'sullivan wrote it.

He isn't saying what other leftists want to say, he's saying what he wants to say, and what almost everyone who thinks that has no problem saying directly to everyone but the target of their slanderous accusations.

Please become active in democrat politics.

We need another Republican in 2008.

Geez... that is a very big brush you have there... are you sure you have enough paint on it?

Nothing like meeting inflammatory speech with more inflammatory speech.


This too misses the point. Regardless of how one feels about troops on the ground it doesn't change the fact that your troops are killing civillians... of course the politically correct way to argue this is to place the blame where it belongs... on the administration.

Raider's post was careful not to implicate the soldiers directly and your knee jerk defense of "people who protect the freedoms that you refuse to fight for" is just an emotional distraction from the central argument.

Horseshit, Charlatan and you know it. Our military goes thorough great lengths to not kill innocents. However, it is war and sometimes innocents get killed. It sucks, but to infer that our (Amercian that is...Canadians have long lost their will to fight) troops are intentionally killing is outragous :mad:

Please explain who you presume is "protect[ing] the freedoms", where (geographically speaking) "they" are "protect[ing] the freedoms", and who you are presuming, is the "you" who you presume in your "you refuse to fight", statement.

What are the "freedoms", as you refer to them, and how can they be inventoried today, compared to their status on January 19, 2001? Is there enough left of them to determine if they are "worth fighting for"? Have we brought "the freedoms" to Iraq? Where ? How?

Are you simply engaging in sloganeering with vitriol?

I think again you are missing the point... I don't see anywhere in Raider's post where he says the troops are "intentionally killing".

What he said was: Yes the military takes great care to not kill innocents. BUT, they do kill innocents. AND you have to remember that this war gets spun in a different way on the ground in Iraq. To many there (and here) the coalition forces are engaged in an unjust invasion of their nation.

To many Iraqis who have lost loved ones or seen their nation torn apart by war (yet again) can you blame them for seeing the coalition troops in a negative light? Can you blame them if they were to take up arms against an invader?

Right or wrong, I am sure that many of the insurgents *believe* they are doing the right thing just as fervently as you believe your troops are doing the right thing. Ideology is a bitch.

I know you like pushing the limits, but this really wasn't necessary.

What our little raiders fan said is basically hate speech. I think you know what I want to say to the [explicative deleted] and know that I used great restraint.

you cannot be serious, ustwo.

Who again is presently securing the freedoms I refuse to fight for? Not a single grunt killing in iraq is or ever was responsible for protecting this mythical “freedom” that seems to be exclusive to the states, and nor will they ever be as my life doesn’t lay in their hands. It’s the same “freedom” rhetoric that’s brought up anytime negativity towards military personnel arises, and as usual it holds little water. We are all human beings given the right of choice, be it whatever consequences, and we were all put on the same planet, same dirt as one another, and the day I accept my life as privilege given to me by someone who can pick up a gun and murder his fellow man, is the day I no longer want to live. The planet is a huge place with plenty of areas to reside, and if a situation arises in which my life is in jeopardy due to unavoidable circumstances in terms of war, then I will simply leave and let the failures kill each other for some false ideals. If a time comes when the whole planet is a war zone, then I will only fight to protect myself and loved ones, not a country or piece of cloth.


Goes out of their way to not kill innocents? Good one. I bet you think all of them are not capable of war crimes either. There are more than enough troops intentionally killing civilians. Don’t think because the media doesn’t report something, or the crime is not leaked into mainstream media, that it doesn’t happen often. Not all soldiers are as inept as the soldiers in Abu ghraib to pick up a camera and tape their atrocities. You don’t know a thing unless you’ve discussed the situation with Iraqis living it. Nothing. Once you’ve been fed so much patriotic propaganda, you no longer have ability for independent thought, and it is at that point where you are willing to go to any lengths to protect your imaginary ideals, whether you have to kill civilians or not.

There is no such thing as “accidentally” killing civilians. Was it a accident when the signed up with the armed forces knowing that a circumstance could arise in which they would be sent into battle and possibly kill civilians? No, therefore it’s not a accident. And even if it were, it wouldn’t make them any less inhumane. They are and were always prepared for such events to occur, and gladly continued their mission regardless to fight whatever propagandist cause they were fed.

This is the key charlatan. In a situation of war, both perspectives are never viewed and in turn, this leads to delusional racism and unwarranted labels to the supposed “enemy”. Although the brave Iraqi resistance is doing the right thing, and doing what any nation wrongfully invaded would do given the situation. They were a simple people residing under great oppression to begin with, and to be invaded and have loved ones killed is all the fuel they need to fight back, be it in Iraq or otherwise, and I don’t blame them in the least. Although you do see some of their actions as terrorism, I do not, nor will I ever. If one puts aside the politics and views the very basic situation, you will understand the resistance. I commend each and every one of them for their bravery and courage to face the “greatest” military force on the planet, with what little they have to work with. If all they have are IED’s and small arms, then more power to them, it has worked greatly thus far. To take on the American force with so little is truly heroic and deserves a great deal of respect. The Americans on the other hand are cowardly fighters, useless without their countless arms and protection. Perhaps soldiers of past, distant past, had some honor and courage, and abided by the rules of war, but today’s soldiers are an embarrassment to humanity, a disgrace to all things good.

Below I have provided links to various incidents and situations in Iraq including videos, pictures and stories.


http://www.infovlad.net/?page_id=161 (numerous footage shot from the resistance destroying the enemy)
http://www.jihadunspun.net/home.php
http://www.dawah.tv/broadcast/iraqfree/iraqfree2.ram (video I posted in one of my threads several weeks back depicting American war crimes and general harassment, murder and abuse to innocent men, women and children.)

death toll up to 35,000-100,000, and these are older links, the present number could be significantly greater.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/oct03_DC
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html (imagery, may contain gore)
www.iraqibodycount.com

See Also:
A daily toll of US atrocities in Iraq
[14 September 2004]
US military launches bloody attacks on rebel strongholds in Iraq
[11 September 2004]
The US sinks deeper into the Iraqi quagmire
[7 September 2004]
New York Times and Washington Post remain silent on murder allegations against Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi
[19 August 2004]

Just out of curiosity, are you a US Citizen? And if you are, have you read Article 3 § 3 of the US Constitution?

I don't want to get banned, and so am asking for clarification. According to the first post starting this thread, it sounds like we can actually tell people what we think of their positions in this thread without fear of being banned. Is this correct?

Careful, Rdr4evr....this is the intro to a moosenose attempt to intimidate you. It is quite ominous, and apparently viewed, in some quarters, as quite effective...it keeps happening here, and in this country. Remember Ari Fleischer? After the attempt to intimidate Bill Maher....to take away his TV show, to turn his audience against him? moosenose and Fleischer....intent on reminding us that the "freedoms" NCB is so committed to fighting and dying for....have become such fragile and elusive things. The sad irony is that time reveals moosenose to be wrong. Wrong about accusations that Rove leaked secret information, wrong about who the war criminals are, wrong about the U.S. waging unprovoked, illegal, pre-emptive war.

Dissent is the paramount crime, Rdr4evr, moosenose will tell you that. It is always inappropriate. It is okay to answer the questions, ("are you a US Citizen? And if you are, have you read Article 3"), Rdr4evr, just think about them the next time you speak to contribute to the body of opinion that is against the atrocities committed in the name of Bush's pre-emptive war.
We live in an upside down world, when we are "cautioned', "warned", "intimidated", into not sharing our objection to murder, destruction, deceit.

How dare you, moosenose? How dare you Ari Fleisher?
Please, moosenose, stop trying to intimidate people who post ideas and opinions that you disagree with.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=19

Do you mean this?

I fail to see your point. Do I have the wrong part?? The only connection I see to the Consitution in raider's post is it's connection to the First Ammendment.

I sure don't agree with everything he says, but it gets real old to keep reading "you're a traiter" as a respone to a post. That's the gist I got from your post, Moose. If you are angling for something else, I didn't see it.

How about some actual debate?

Personally, I think this entire thread is flamebait. And as such, I won't add my opinion to it.

Why did tec start this thread if he knew damn well that there would be heated discussion and that someone would end up having to be banned?

An insurgent SURELY has to in-surge? T McV was already form the US, and therefore whether e was a terrorist or not, he wasn't in my book an insurgent.

I'd say he was not a terrorist, because he wasn't trying to create terror in general, e was trying to protest about what he claimed was a corrupt govt.

Seems to me he was an ANARCHIST. :thumbsup:

the collapse into paroxym above--that is hate speech harumph harumph...treason harumph harumph....just absurd.
attempts to shut down debate, nothing more.

here is a definition of hate speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

you can see in it indications of the running tension between accusations of hate speech and problems of censorship.
in this case, the accusation thrown about by ustwo is so wholly without foundation that one can really only interpret it as an attempt to effectively censor the debate by trying to have it shut down. unless ustwo views himself as being victimized by red4ever's post--in which case i woudl have to step past the boundaries i draw for myself in playing the tfp game and speculate about psychological state--which i cannot do (no information)

the treason tack is more typical--in the hands of the right, this term effectively applies to anyone who disagrees with conservative positions on questions that pertain to the military in the broadest possible sense it has all the semantic range and potentially the dangers of the notion of the hitlero-trotskyite wrecker in stalin's "short course"---which was the principal signifier deployed to designate the principle of everything that can go wrong in an otherwise uniform and perfect order (like the fiction of hayek-style market capitalism in america would be for the right, or within the fantasy of a monolithically conservative american "nation")--and to legitimate the purging of these elements.

this kind of irrational namecalling is an index of the really authoritarian side of conservative politics--absolute intolerance of those who disagree, absolute refusal to consider information that falls outside what the right is told is the legitimate way of thinking---the ease with which the right collapses back onto hysteria, given certain triggers, and the more or less inevitable intertwining of this hysteria with a discourse of violence....within this you can see--clearly--the affect structure that right ideology mobilizes and structures--fear and hatred of that which is other, that which is not conservative---which in turn opens onto the centrality of the group hate (in orwell's terms) in structuring a conservative sense of community--which in turn opens onto the discursive function of the category "terrorist"--the undefined and undefinable phantom Enemy and its correlate in the fifth column.

it is not rocket science to see this fear and hatred of that which is outside the boundary that distinguishes conservativeland from its enemies a displacement of anxiety about social and economic instability. if capitalism is an unqualified good, but the effects of this type of capitalism is the rapid undermining of the types of social position that folk think themselves and their place in the world through, then displacement or sublimation are the only alternatives. and that is the way right ideology has chosen to go over the past 15 years. and in this one can see the gap that seperates this populist right ideology from older types of conservatism, which were largely based on a defense of a social order understood as stable in itself mounted largely by or in the interest of those who materially benefitted from that order.
this is a different space, contemporary populist right ideology.
for older school conservatism--which was capable of great brutality--fear was generated by violation of hierarchy--the "unwashed" were forgetting "their place" and had to be stopped.
in populist right ideology these days, the fear is much less directed.

it is not always the case that discourses structured in this manner result in the kind of violence that one associates with radical right discourse historically. but it is the case that discourses structured in this manner create the possiblity of such violence by making it very very easy to see those who fall outside the community as evil, as less than, as traitors, as persecutors. particularly if you couple these patterns of discourse with ideologically generated problems with self-reflexivity.

Are you for real? Please try to get some perspective on this discussion. Idle threats are a waste of everyone's time and it does nothing to bolster your position in this discussion other than to suggest that you are either:

a) relying on rhetoric that is rather like an old saw.
or
b) trying to be a bully to those who see things differently than you.

I may not completely agree with Raider's point of view on the soldiers on the ground but his position is FAR from Treasonous...

Try looking up the definition of "adhere". Then apply that definition to raider's post. The First Amendment has NEVER covered criminal acts of speech like fraud, perjury, or treason. That's why you can't "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater", to quote OWH.

:lol: Ahh, America, the land of the free! :lol:


I'm sorry, moosenose, but I can't take you seriously anymore after that! :lol: :crazy: :icare:

Raider, It must be nice for you to spew your crap behind the saftey of a computer screen.
If you were to spout that shit to me in person I would stick my retired Marine Corps boot so far up your ass you would need surgery to get it removed, and i would gladly deal with the assualt charges afterward.

Believe it or not you are living in a free country, protected by better men than yourself, try ranting that way whilst living in say; China, Iran, Cuba, and I am sure I could make this list 4 or 5 lines long if need be.
What would happen to you? imprisionment? Probably worse.

But how dare you call anyone a failure for defending something they believe in?
But then again this world is really a xanadu that has yet to be discovered

And if this post gets me banned, so be it but I am not standing by and watching inflammitory words spoken about troops who are doing what they believe is right.

(Ok, now I'm posting my opinion...)

From what I've seen and read, there are troops out there that can't stand being in the desert and want nothing more than Bush to admit his mistake and bring them home. Some of them feel that this is a senseless war and they have no business being there. But I'm not going to try and change the opinion of someone who advocates violence to solve any type of problem (you wanna stick your retired boot up my ass too for voicing my opinion that happens to disagree with yours?) because you will obviously go along with anything that Bush says or does no matter what contradictory evidence is place in front of them.

And yes, Bush is a failure. he's failed the troops, he's failed the citizens of America, and most of all he's failed himself in the way he's conducted himself as president.

moosenose, I notice now that you edited your last post between the time I was composing my reply to it, and the time that you posted your edit. Does this mean that you changed your mind, and you have decided to "report us"?

I quote and link your other post....from last week.....to remind you and to alert "others" that this is the second time that you've "let me slide". On the one hand, I'm grateful to you, relieved in fact....but also, I'm troubled. I'm troubled because I mourn about what is happening to my country. My government has apparently opened, created, facilitated a channel for you to threaten me, at your whim. You've told me twice now that you haven't "reported" my subversion, my dissent....you haven't "turned me in".....(not yet, anway). What is it you want, moosenose? Is it money? Can I pay you to continue "not" reporting me? Has even asking this, "set you off"?

Does everyone see where we are heading? "Closing the thread" in response to moosenose's "assurances" that he has "not reported" anyone yet, is one response to this, exposing it for what it is, is another.)

I read and I copied and pasted what you originally posted moosenose. Sure....you edited it, but I read it before you did. Shame on you. It is called "abuse of power"; what you are doing here. You are the subversive influence here, the dissident against decency.

He wasn't talking about you or to you. And reconmike wasn't saying that because rdr disagrees with him. he said it because he was insulted, like many people are when vile filth is thrown in your face. And to top it off thee isn't anything anyone can do about it because he hides behind a computer screen using the freedom of speech soldiers have sacrificed their lives for. So chill out hardknock, nothing he said was directed toward you or even against someone with a differing opinion. Only a response to a personal insult.

Those poor soldiers have not sacrificed their lives for freedom of speech, who told you that?

I wasn't directly referring to our current brothers and sisters in iraq, but I was referring to those who have gone before them and died as a direct result of defending our freedoms such as WW2 for example.

Reconmike... I think it is clear where your anger with Raider originates. And while I can't say that I speak for him I think you need to differentiate between an opinion on the military in general and what they are being used for in Iraq.

In general, defence is a good thing. Protect the borders, etc.

The disagreement falls on the issue of what exactly is happening in Iraq. Some, like yourself for example, think that invading Iraq was important to US national sercurity.

Others, like myself, see this as an uneccesary invasion of a sovreign country. As see from this point of view (right or wrong) it has little to do with "living in a free country".

Your arguement, as others have in this post, is really just another swipe suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq doesn't support the troops or is treasonous.

Raider's belief that blame should be placed directly on the individual soldiers shoulders, is another issue entirely and should probably be addressed as such... but I suppose kicking ass just gets the point that much faster :D

My thoughts exactly. Now we even have threats.

I wouldn't blame tec for that, nor would I call it a threat.

Well you know what? I felt insulted by his post claiming that someone can't express their opinion just becasue it dissents from the majority. That's what makes me so sick about this administration and everyone involved with it. You disagree with the government, and you're labeled as a traitor supporting the terrorists. This shit so needed to stop so long ago. They will keep using 9/11 as an excuse to do whatever they want while labeling real patroits who have the courage to question their government as traitors.

That works both ways, stevo. The TFP member who you are defending, clearly demonstrates how "he [she] hides behind a computer screen using the freedom of speech soldiers have sacrificed their lives for."

I have personally now, twice been put "on notice", that "i have not been reported to authorities". I have been personally informed, right on this thread,
"and you'd have been visited already. Your posts on this board certainly would satisfy the low standards of proof required to satisfy probable cause."

Reconsider who and what you are defending, stevo. What it is, wrenched away now by corrupt politicians and misguided and misinformed average citizens, that "soldiers have sacrificed their lives for."

I won't "chill out", stevo, and neither would you if you truly understood what is at stake here. If I "displease" moosenose, I run the risk that I'll be "visited",
maybe arrested, under a "gag" order, prohibiting me from even posting what has happened to me, to the rest of you. Hal will initially be compelled to turn over to moosenose's "professional" "three letter agency" contacts, my I.P.# and any other info that will facilitate my identification and further harrassment. Hal will also be "gagged"...prohibited from confirming or communicating that a "request" for info about me, has been made.

In moosenose's "Amerika", even librarians are intimidated enough to admit,

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. Rdr is entitled to his as well. As well is reconmike. But as I stated before, it wasn't a differing opinion, it was a personal insult.
But oh well, lets try not to get any bans handed out today.

you know, this thread had the potential to be interesting---despite what i took to be a mistaken motive for starting it----it nonetheless could have been an interesting discussion.

but the posts from the lumpenconservatives have been so consistently and thoroughly appalling that i see no reason to continue.

good job, gentlemen: it is obvious that you do not appreciate "terrorism"--bogeyman of the moment--relativized and questioned.
it is obvious that you are not interested in thinking about the signifiers that order your politics.

were you to think about it, at the formal level red4ever's post was just a version of the same kind of move that the right has done since reagan--here a terrorist, there a freedom fighter---curious reactions from the lumpenconservatives, given that the post was situated in the context of a conversation about the arbitrariness of the term "terrorism"--but it appears that even the most rudimentary forms of attention to context are too much to expect from these folk.

better to react with bluster and threats.

quite a demonstration of a variety of reasons why people who operate outside the fantasyworld of right ideology consider that ideology to be dangerous--why the equation of populist conservatism and the fine legacy of the brownshirts keeps returning---you do your politics proud--making sure that no-one forgets the kind of thug mentality that underpins the otherwise arbitrary positions that comprise that political space is a kind of accidental public service.


seriously, this is about the most noxious display from the right that i have seen on this board since i have been participating in it.
unbelievable.
just unbelievable.

really? maybe you're just having a bad day. :icare:

My concern arises from my increasing chance of being "banned" by a much more imposing "enemy of freedom". Mein government!

I don't think we should paint the whole of the right with the opinions of someone like moosenose. There are other reasonable voices out there that still may have something interesting to say, and one bad apple does not have to spoil the whole bunch.

Seconded...

yes yes, of course. mea culpa.
i thought that i was clear about what i was referring to.
because i referred to them as lumpenconservative---a derivative of lumpenproletariat from marx--it denotes what marx called the "sack of potatoes", those who follow whichever way the ideological wind blows, the followers, the footsoldiers...those who adhere to views without any particular evidence of reflexivity.........obviously not every conservative is like these gentlemen.

but then again, not every conservative would have reacted as they have.

Which part do you have a problem with? I seem to recall a recent muslim convert who was in the National Guard and got in trouble for talking in a chat room about how he supported the insurgents. I also recall a guy who suggested (not on the Internet, of course) that people should go to Pakistan and train for Jihad. He got life.

It's illegal to say certain things. It always has been. After all, what is fraud or perjury but codified unacceptable speech? Does that mean we're not free, because we can't defraud somebody with our speech? I don't think so.

Would that be the same ACLU that is being investigated by the FBI?

Remember that lawyer in New York? I don't recall her name, but she was talking to her client, and then talking to his friends, and she too ended up in federal prison.

Which explains why he's still President...

Oh, wait, you mean a majority of voters think you're wrong???

We'll use dictionary.com, since it's so handy:


Item one clearly is the physical act of sticking. Not appropriate. Item 3 is, I believe, not appropriate - there is no sign there is any planning going on.

Can I assume your issue is with #2? Still looks pretty shaky to me. Perhaps you are right. It would be interesting discussion. Imagine if you'd quoted the Constitution, and your specific point (if #2 is it). And then stated that it looks like treason to you.

Call me crazy, but that might have furthered the discussion. I'm sure it's more fun to be threatening and vague though. Threats and intimidation builds such a nicer TFP, don't you think?

moosnose, the part I have a problem with is the part that means someone can go to jail for expressing their beliefs.

Fraud(and perjury) is a deliberate attempt to profit by misleading someone. Speaking (and thus speech) is more than opening and closing one's mouth.

It may already be too late, and laws may be in place in your country that allow people to be sent to prison based on thier beliefs, but I would not expect you to be happy or proud of that. Secondly, if those laws are in place, isn't it rather ironic that the president who is so keen to impose freedom all around the world, is also presiding over a nation in which it is a crime to express one's views?

Perjury is not a deliberate attempt to profit by misleading someone, but that's neither here nor there.

I have no problem with certain kinds of speech being criminal. For example, speech that is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace is criminal, and I have no problem with that.

You can believe whatever you want in the US. You can say whatever you want in the US (there's no real prior restraint here.) But if you say something that breaks the law, you should expect to be punished for it.

BTW, where do you live where people can NOT be punished for their beliefs? Are you in Canada? If so, what's your position on Canada's hate speech legislation? Try telling the Holocaust-deniers in Canada that they are free to express their beliefs...

Boatin, I don't even know if Raider is a US citizen or resident. There are others here who I am sure are not located in the US or US citizens. If Raider is not in the US, it wouldn't be a crime, would it?

And so in what way did Rdr4evr's post break the law? Here's what you quoted:

Quote:
This is quite obviously an opinion. In what way is it against US law to express your opinion?

Assuming that it IS a crime, you are certainly right. But that really is still the question. You seem sure, but that and $4.50 buys you a cup of coffee.

If he isn't a citizen, then you know there is no issue. If he IS a citizen, then you are still vague and threatening.



Here's an idea (related to my last post, in which you ignored the central idea/question): rather than write about Raider, why don't you write about the IDEAS/QUESTIONS at hand? I know, I know, it's nutty.

And no chance for threats and innuendos. Sorry, it's all I can offer.

No I'm not in Canada, and I know nothing about Canadian hate-speech legislation. I doubt anyone in Canada is locked away based on their beliefs. Frankly I don't see the point of the question. You either have freedom of speech, or you lock people up based on their opinions. What'll it be?

In Canada you *can* be charged with a hate crime. Convictions are rare and usually in extreme cases, such as Holocaust deniers and those who would incite violence upon others due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions
(7) In this section,

"communicating" «communiquer»
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" «groupe identifiable»
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" «endroit public»
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" «déclarations»
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

I recall a case where an immigrant to Canada from Germany put up a Holocaust-denying website. IIRC, he was deported back to Germany and ended up in prison because he expressed his beliefs.

Actually Ernst Zundel was wanted in Germany as well, where Hollocaust denial is a crime.

Zundel was living in the USA when he was arrested and extradited to Canada, where he was tried and sent back to Germany.

The point is that there's no real place that I know of where absolute freedom of speech exists. Freedom of speech is indeed restricted EVERYWHERE in some manner. It's just a matter of by how much.

There's a difference between a hate crime and stating a belief. In the same way that fraud requires a criminal intent, so does incitement.

In stating one's view, one is not necessarily inciting violence. If someone asked the holocaust deniers what they believed in court, would the deniers be committing an offense by stating their opinions?

No, the offence is the incitement of violence, not the holding of the opinion.

He couldn't have been extradited to Canada unless he had committed a crime there, yes?

So in what way did Rdr4evr's post break the law?

He was guilty of crimes under the Hate Crime Legislation which as zen_tom rightly points out, is very different from simply expressing one's beliefs.

This legislation is not used lightly or frequently. You have to be a considerable hate monger to be convicted under this law.

You're wrong. If somebody went into court in Canada and said "Your Honor, I believe everybody in "X" group should be killed", that WOULD be a crime, even though it's strictly a statement of personal belief.

That sure as hell sounds like adhering to (or supporting) the enemy to me...He says they're brave, doing the right thing, and he commends them for attacking US forces in a time of war.

moosenose:

your line of argument in this thread is wholly insane--no judge, anywhere, who took into account the context of this debate would accept your idiotic attempt to equate what red4ever said with shouting fire in a theater or anything like that.

you have nothing to say and i suspect you know as much.

all i see in it is some attempt to stifle debate.

and i am frankly amazed that this sort of nonsense is tolerated here.
a funny idea of mutual respect you have.

I think that the majority of voters were duped. They were lied to. And fear tatics were used in order to get them to vote for Bush. Need I remind you that during the entire campaign, the only three terms that came out of Bush's mouth were, 9/11, terriorism and the partoit act and how it needed to be renewed. No economic issues, no environmental issues, no health care issues, no education issues. Only things that would instill fear in the common citizen.

The right only knows how to use fear to get what they want. It's an old tatic and unfortunately, it always works since people seem to fall for it becasue they can't do their own research and believe the talking heads on the tube.

I can see where rdr is coming from. The iraqis are doing the exact same thing we would do if we were invaded by some foreign source. Your average joe would take up arms and fight against the invaders. You wanna report me to the FBI too moosenose?

Others have been banned for less I might add....

Really? And you base that statement about "no judge, anywhere" upon?

What raider said is NOT the equivalent of "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater". (And I do so wish people would include the "falsely" when they quote Holmes....because sometimes people have a duty to shout fire in a crowded theater, like when the theater is actually on fire...) His or her comments would not tend to pose an immediate danger of harm to anybody, which is where the whole "fire-theater" thing comes from. But that is NOT the standard that would be used in trying somebody for violating Article 3 § 3 of the US Constitution. The standard would be "do the statements qualify as "adhering to the enemy"", that is, providing them with moral support. It's a "strict liability" offense...

try it--you'll be made a fool of so fast your head will spin.
you got nothing, there is no basis for even saying the nonsense you are posting much less pretending that anything is actionable.
just stop--your arguments are a joke, they are transparently nothing more or less than an attempt to intimidate.

funny though--scratch a lumpenconservative, find a thug.

Sorry, but this is America, not Canada.

Really? So Bush never mentioned Social Security during the campaign? He didnt talk about public education during the campaign? He didn't talk about tax cuts? He didn't talk about a constitutional amendment defining "marriage"? He didn't talk about tort reform? He didn't talk about increased VA funding? He didn't talk about illegal immigration? The list goes on and on.

You can delude yourself into thinking anything you like. The fact is that Bush kicked Kerry's ass, and it was KERRY who was constantly portraying himself as a "hawk"...to quote JibJab: "And I've got THREE Purple Hearts!"

I suggest you tell that to Lynne Stewart. Oh, wait, she's in prison.
I suggest you tell that to Kifah Jayyousi. Oh, wait, he's being held without bond awaiting trial.

i am not debating with you, moosenose.
i am not interested in your pseudo-legal arguments. they are worthless.
i am not interested in your hamfisted attempt to censor a debate.
it is annoying, like a bug that prevents you from sleeping at night buzzing around your ear.

Every day I see more examples of the things RB talks about in terms of how some conservatives talk. A little shift here, a little nudge there. Or a wholesale ignoring of a point or distraction.

It's interesting how the snippet from the Constitution becomes "moral support" in the post of yours I quote here.

Also interesting if you look at the Constitution again:

We could certainly debate what "adhere" means in this context. And look at what Raider said. Respecting the Iraqis, which Raider does, is a distant relative to "moral support", which is a distanct relative to "adhere".

Oh yeah, then there is that last line from the Constitution. The one about "overt act". Is posting an opinion of respect an overt act to you?

I'd love to see Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and any other judges you would care to choose tear that apart.

But I, too, suspect you really know that.