Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2022, 03:20:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: living With Terrorism  (Read 4768 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 12, 2013, 01:46:57 AM
 #81

As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.

So 2 ragheads in a camel-dung colored tent can continue forcing a government to utterly abuse the relationship between itself and 300+ million citizens. A relationship steeped in 200-year old principles of individual freedom, privacy and the rule of the law - but now turned into a caricature of itself.

Next time these jihadists write on their websites that they have acheived victory, they can be reasonably considered to be no longer lying.

1653448846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1653448846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1653448846
Reply with quote  #2

1653448846
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1386



View Profile
August 12, 2013, 01:56:26 AM
 #82

If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools.  

As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution, rather I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.
Now that is the sickest, twisted bunch of bull I have seen in a while.  You've managed to mangle every sentence, dude.

1.  If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools. 

Your opinion, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable.

2. As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution

CAPABILITIES are not in conflict with the constitution.  ACTIONS are.

3.  I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it. 

Wrong, the NSA is not above reproach.  Reproach is not determined by security clearance.

4.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.

What they said "As along as OBL is at large" but you can move the sliding timescale forward to make anything true you want? 

Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3584
Merit: 2382


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2013, 02:12:05 AM
 #83

About 3 weeks ago those same people that are scaring Americans into voting for more government dropped a bomb about 100 yards from where I am sitting right now.

About the only reaction it got from me was to go outside 5 minutes later after I was finished with what I was doing to see if I could see any indication of where it hit.

That is on a military base in the Middle East on a 5 mile by 5 mile area.

How big is the US? Why are people so worried about this?

I do not worry one bit knowing the statistics of getting hit by a bomb are tiny.

Do you worry every time you get on the road that you will die? Because it is very likely that you will, compared to getting killed by terrorists.

Wake up people. You are being played.

First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
TiagoTiago
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


Firstbits.com/1fg4i :)


View Profile
August 12, 2013, 02:23:16 AM
 #84

Terrorist from the Middle East didn't like the freedoms people in the West had, but neither did the governments of the West; and it turns out the governments were way more efficient at fighting against those freedoms...

(I dont always get new reply notifications, pls send a pm when you think it has happened)

Wanna gimme some BTC/BCH for any or no reason? 1FmvtS66LFh6ycrXDwKRQTexGJw4UWiqDX Smiley

The more you believe in Bitcoin, and the more you show you do to other people, the faster the real value will soar!

Do you like mmmBananas?!
tom.hashemi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 169
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 17, 2013, 04:10:49 PM
 #85

a lot of people in the UK are worried that extremist islam is taking over, how much of the world is seeing this ?
how much of the world is having the same problem..

Generally the slightly inane members of our society. There is no threat from extremist Islam "taking over" the world.
semaforo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:30:45 AM
 #86

  It would be enough if the people of the middle east got to elect their own governments- they would vote against Israel and would unify to choke oil supply to the US which would be political disaster for whoever is in power in the US. Plus, providing military aid to dictators helps create jobs in the arms industry. Islam has to be fought because it places strong emphasis on peace, justice, and equality, all of which are bad for weapon manufacturing.

 Terrorism is a convenient story to make sure that people don't ask questions about why their sons and daughters aren't coming home or why they have to pay a third of their income in taxes and schools are still getting downsized.

  It's true that far more people have died from toasters than from terrorist attacks.
alephi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0



View Profile
August 18, 2013, 04:16:15 PM
Last edit: August 18, 2013, 10:12:21 PM by alephi
 #87

I'm not sure what the true stats are but I'd wager that more people die on the roads in western countries in one year than died in all the "terror" related incidents of the last five decades against those same western countries.    It's also certainly true that of the 160 million or so people that died in conflicts in the last 100 years or so, a very small proportion were military personnel and the aggressors directly or indirectly behind that slaughter were for the most part the western nations, with a particular emphasis on Britain and the USA, although Japan, China, Russia and Australia also have the blood of millions on their hands.

And let's not forget occasions where the US attacks itself. Anyone remember the attack on the USS Liberty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc7sOb7IsPY

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 10:19:59 PM
Last edit: August 18, 2013, 10:36:12 PM by solex
 #88

I'm not sure what the true stats are but I'd wager that more people die on the roads in western countries in one year than died in all the "terror" related incidents of the last five decades against those same western countries.

Absolutely. The whole "War on Terror" and anti-terrorism policy agendas in the West are a massive over-reaction. It is a symptom of the cradle-to-grave nanny-state ethos where government knows best and must "protect" the lives of citizens at all costs. The fundamental flaw here is that the cost of doing the impossible means a turn-key Stalinist state is built which rolls back many years of hard won civil rights and principles of the rule of law. Freedom is being destroyed in the West in a misguided bid to save it.

kneim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 10:39:53 PM
 #89

The most dangerous terrorism I know is financial terrorism. It destroys the existence of millions of people and families all over the world.

Danydee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1144

140401


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:46:50 PM
 #90

The most dangerous terrorism I know is financial terrorism. It destroys the existence of millions of people and families all over the world.

 You are right

.
J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
 #91

I'm not sure what the true stats are but I'd wager that more people die on the roads in western countries in one year than died in all the "terror" related incidents of the last five decades against those same western countries.    It's also certainly true that of the 160 million or so people that died in conflicts in the last 100 years or so, a very small proportion were military personnel and the aggressors directly or indirectly behind that slaughter were for the most part the western nations, with a particular emphasis on Britain and the USA, although Japan, China, Russia and Australia also have the blood of millions on their hands.

And let's not forget occasions where the US attacks itself. Anyone remember the attack on the USS Liberty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc7sOb7IsPY



Mostly the western nations? Actually, Japan and the PR China take the award for most people butchered. Japan killed between 30-40 million people (mostly Chinese) in the Sino-Japanese War and WWII. The Chinese government killed millions due to starvation since the civil war after/during WWII. The Soviet Union lost a good 20 million people against their former ally in a war they helped start.

The west is not innocent, but we can't even compare to some of the countries in Asia.
alephi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 05:02:31 PM
 #92

Let's compare then...

Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century - Milton Leitenberg

http://www.clingendael.nl/publication/deaths-wars-and-conflicts-20th-century
tom.hashemi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 169
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 23, 2013, 02:51:31 PM
 #93

Let's compare then...

Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century - Milton Leitenberg

http://www.clingendael.nl/publication/deaths-wars-and-conflicts-20th-century

Well, this is getting rather depressing isn't it.
alephi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0



View Profile
August 23, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
 #94

Quote
Well, this is getting rather depressing isn't it.

Well yeah, living with terrorism is. Even if it is mostly Uncle Sam and friends.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
August 24, 2013, 12:28:51 AM
 #95

By the majority of definitions, the USA cannot commit terrorism. Terrorism = non-state actors.
Definitions don't contain arbitrary exceptions. The correct word for such a construct is "hypocrisy".
RapidCoinz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81
Merit: 10



View Profile
August 24, 2013, 10:16:18 AM
 #96

The most dangerous terrorism I know is financial terrorism. It destroys the existence of millions of people and families all over the world.

Correct.  What we often downplay, or downright ignore in this whole farce of 'THE WAR ON TERROR' is who are the evil ones behind the terror orchestrating it. 

The media love to focus on the latest suicide bomber individual who has wrecked havoc and murdered innocent lives, (they are indeed evoking terror and are the scum of the earth) but we very very rarely get a glimpse at the most dangerous and evil terrorism of all - STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM. 

State sponsored terrorism is far far worse than individual acts of terror.  Sadly they dont quite get the same coverage and critical analysis.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
August 24, 2013, 11:40:58 AM
 #97

If you cannot define something, how do you know what it means?

We can define any word in any way we wish, so long as we understood the meaning.  I'm going with the consensus on terrorism:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

We can also go with dictionaries...

Quote from: dictionary.com
ter·ror·ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially 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.

Here's another one:

Quote from: thefreedictionary.com
ter·ror·ism  (tr-rzm)
n.
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.

Organized group = government;
Unlawful use of force = ignoring constitution;
Coercing societies = politics;

It seems the more "official" definitions of terrorism include government, or at least don't imply terrorism cannot be committed by states.  So if we're referring to the "majority", we must be referring to the individual interpretations of terrorism, which, if implying terrorism couldn't be performed by non-state actors, would be adopted by our favorite officials on word definitions.  Whoever these people are that believe governments are incapable of terrorism don't appear to make up the majority of definitions.

Quote from: wiktionary.org
Noun[edit]
terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms) Wikipedia-logo.png Terrorism on Wikipedia.
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Definition of TERRORISM

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Now this one above flat out points the finger at government.

Quote from: oxford
noun
[mass noun]
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
the fight against terrorism
international terrorism

This is the only one which might exclude government; since all that government does is legal (and if it isn't, it will be), they can potentially authorize any form of violence.  If a government official was legally allowed to spy on and torture citizens at random, just to teach the rest "a lesson", it could not be a form of terrorism by this definition, for it would be authorized, and therefore be legit.  But again, we might say, ignoring the constitution is always unlawful, so...I'll give this one 1/2.

It would seem we all agree, then, based on the majority of popular definition; terrorism can be committed by government, including American government.

So, then, knowing this, do we know whether America has committed acts of terrorism?  Based on these definitions, does threatening and subsequently going to war with another nation over what currency their oil can be sold in count as furthering a political agenda through violence?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!