I pretty much agree with another blogger, that the sad truth is that blowing people up remains, if not the most effective means of effecting change, then the most effective means of getting your message out.
Two decades ago I think this could have been suppressed by preventing the media from reporting on it and thus giving other people the idea "Hey, if I blow myself up I get free press on national news." Now that the media consists of "anyone with a cell phone, ever" and "the internet," I don't even think that approach would be effective.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I pretty much agree with another blogger, that the sad truth is that blowing people up remains, if not the most effective means of effecting change, then the most effective means of getting your message out.
Two decades ago I think this could have been suppressed by preventing the media from reporting on it and thus giving other people the idea "Hey, if I blow myself up I get free press on national news." Now that the media consists of "anyone with a cell phone, ever" and "the internet," I don't even think that approach would be effective.
Two decades ago??? How young are you? The Oklahoma City bombing was 15 years ago, before cell phones or the internet were wide spread and it still made the headlines for weeks. The SLA and WUO were making headlines with domestic terror attacks back in the 30 - 40 years ago. Long before cell phones or the internet. The Hay market bombing was over a century ago, long before radio and television or even movies when the average man didn't have a camera or a home phone.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My point is that it is hypothetically possible for the government to control major media outlets. It is significantly less possible to control the internet. (You'd have to go all out like China). It was not that there were no terrorist attacks before 1990.
(I'm 23 by the way, though that has little bearing on anything).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does this really count as terrorism?
Frankly, my definition of terrorism has always included an element of intent. In other words, the person committing the act has to WANT to affect the people. This is why I've had the problem with labeling some eco-terrorists as terrorists. He flew his plane into a building because he hates government or hates the IRS or something, he didn't do it because he wanted to scare people or get people to act on a list of demands.
It just seems to me that if a nutcase gets it into his head to attack something he doesn't like, it shouldn't always be labeled terrorism. The word will start to (and already has, I think) lose its meaning if its over applied to EVERY attack someone makes that's more than a regular shooting.
Were any of the school shootings last week terrorist attacks?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, you'll be happy to know that the media actually DOESN'T seem to be using the word terrorism. The word was a subject of contention in blogspace where I heard about this - some people saying it really wasn't terrorism and others saying that if the guy had been of middle eastern descent the media would have found a reason to use it, which I think is probably true. (Even if the focus of their use of the word was on how he wasn't "technically" a terrorist).
The manifesto he left behind seems to indicate that he hoped SOMETHING would change.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It is terrorism though, almost textbook since it is a violent crime, attacking a national symbol, designed to spread fear (according to his manifesto, albeit wacky), for a political goal, targeting civilians/non-combatants, and he's not by any stretch of the imagination associated with an armed forces or even a guerrilla warfare organization.
Just because the previous administration abused the word to mean almost anything doesn't mean we can't call actual cases of terrorism terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually it was much more a case of talking about terrorism so much rather than using the word to describe almost everything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well, you'll be happy to know that the media actually DOESN'T seem to be using the word terrorism.
Well, normally I would be happy about that! Then I realized that if the guy's skin was brown, we would be talking constantly about terrorism.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
More to the point, this is indisputably a case of suicide bombing, but you'll never hear anyone in the news media call it that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Err, not exactly. It was a suicide attack, but there was no bomb involved. Just the use of a vehicle as a weapon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well, you'll be happy to know that the media actually DOESN'T seem to be using the word terrorism.
Well, normally I would be happy about that! Then I realized that if the guy's skin was brown, we would be talking constantly about terrorism.
And maybe that's a conversation we need to have as a country as well.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There are plenty of acts of terrorism that are ignored in this country, especially those with a left leaning agenda.
Bulldozing AM radio towers in Washington State. Burning car dealerships that sell SUV's. Putting railroad spikes in trees to injure/kill loggers. Burning suburban McMantions to the ground.
Unfortunately, the nutjob who flew that plane into the IRS left a manifesto. His manifesto isn't clearly right wing or left wing. He ranted for health care yet against the IRS.
Terrorism is a matter of perspective. If I were fighting a war against a technologically superior enemy, I would plant road-side bombs too. I see the propoganda of our government calling every enemy we fight in Iraq an Afghanistan, terrorists. Most of them are soldiers. A terrorist crashes planes into buildings full of civilians or blows themselves up on a subway. A road side bomb detonated on a military convoy is not terrorism. I see our propaganda as well.
Now our government is talking about taking over 401k's and IRA's...of course for our good. The federal government "seized" 20 banks this week. People listen to the news. The crazy who crashed his plane into the IRS building was a guy who acted upon what irritates the rest of us.
Why do you think he burned his house to the ground? It wasn't his house to begin with. No one owns their property, they rent it from the government. They will seize your $300k house for a failure to pay $2k in property taxes. You rent your home from the government. Only an owner has the right to evict the tenant.
It's only just begun. There will be more crazies and following them will be the unstable and following them, the extremists, following them, the masses. The crazies are the initial warning that that something has gone too far.
[ February 20, 2010, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:More to the point, this is indisputably a case of suicide bombing, but you'll never hear anyone in the news media call it that.
I think my paper called it a suicide attack.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do you think he burned his house to the ground? It wasn't his house to begin with. No one owns their property, they rent it from the government.
This isn't quite accurate, you realize. He used his house -- which was not completely paid for -- as collateral for a business loan, and his net equity in his home dropped below the outstanding value of the loan. Understandably, then, they moved to repossess. He was not being "heroic" by protesting his mortgage; he was upset about not getting something for nothing. The only "populist" part of his action lay in his complaint that we let rich bankers get away with defaulting on their loans, but didn't let him do it. Which is a valid complaint, sure, but hardly gives him any high ground.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Putting railroad spikes in trees to injure/kill loggers.
Well that's a new one to me, I admit.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's also not accurate. Spiking trees is dangerous to loggers, yes, but it's not the primary motivation. Spiking the tree protects against the tree being cut down.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Now our government is talking about taking over 401k's and IRA's...of course for our good.
I haven't heard anything about this. Could you provide a source?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Glenn Arnold, what are you saying? How could putting a spike in a tree "protect the tree against being cut down," without in fact deliberately endangering the life of any logger who might use his chain saw on the tree? (The spike would be very likely to make the chain saw buck back violently, possibly right into the logger's face or neck.) Is the life of the tree worth the murder of a human being? If that is the moral equation of the people putting spikes into trees, then that shows they are morally bankrupt and will face the condemnation of God in the Judgment. They are HIS trees, and HIS people whom the spikers murder. The Sixth Commandment does not indicate that preserving trees is an exception to the prohibition against committing murder.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The point is that you see the spike BEFORE you try to cut the tree down. Then you don't try to cut the tree down. Did you actually read the wiki article? Only one injury (not even a death) was ever recorded from tree spiking).
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Did anyone else think the "call to arms" in his manifesto was somewhat funny?. To me it read basically like this, "Hey guys, if we all kill ourselves, the government can't take any more money from us."
The whole situation was terrible of course, but I couldn't help buy laugh at that part.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ron, read the Wikipedia article.
And BTW, "God's Judgment" is not an argument that has any meaning for me. You should know that by now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Glenn, the spike will not be visible forever. The tree will grow up around it, throw new growth layers over it, but it will still be in the tree, waiting to make a chain saw go awry without any warning.
Most loggers know the proper technique is always to hold the chain saw so that if it does buck back, it will go off to your side, not into your face. But when you are doing it all day long, and fatigue is setting in, you may forget proper technique.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ron, did you read the article? For that matter, did you read my post where I said "Spiking trees is dangerous to loggers, yes, but it's not the primary motivation"?
There's no point responding to you if you don't bother to pay attention to what is being said.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Glenn, intentions do not obviate actual consequences resulting from inherent reality. I do not care how it is qualified in terms of subjective intent. What matters is the reality and objective consequences of what is done. No one who puts a spike in a tree can be innocent of attempted murder, no matter what they or anyone else may say was their intent. Maybe in court it would be ruled as "manslaughter" rather than first degree (premeditated) murder. But there is also such a thing as criminal stupidity. Regrettably, this is often seen in the extremist Ecofreak movement, where regard for human life is never the first priority. This is why the extremist Ecofreak movement is morally bankrupt.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Glenn, intentions do not obviate actual consequences resulting from inherent reality. I do not care how it is qualified in terms of subjective intent.
This is a whole can of ron-worms, right here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not even going to go anywhere with it. i am just going to IMAGINE the resulting argument in my head. I can see the whole thing. it unfolds in front of me. i can see the exchange many moves into the future. yes. i have already seen the conclusion.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Glenn, intentions do not obviate actual consequences resulting from inherent reality. I do not care how it is qualified in terms of subjective intent.
You asked how someone could spike a tree without deliberately endangering loggers. Glenn explained how. If you don't care about "subjective intent" then don't use the word "deliberately".
quote: Maybe in court it would be ruled as "manslaughter" rather than first degree (premeditated) murder. But there is also such a thing as criminal stupidity.
No, there isn't. There is such a thing as depraved indifference to human life, which generally constitutes second degree murder.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dobbie, did you mean to make a substantive post under that handle?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Glenn, the spike will not be visible forever. The tree will grow up around it, throw new growth layers over it, but it will still be in the tree, waiting to make a chain saw go awry without any warning.
That's a really strange tree you've got there. This wouldn't happen with any tree I know anything about. Regular trees wouldn't know not to grow at the spot where the spike was and would therefore push it out along with the other growth. I don't know that it is fair to blame tree-spiking protesters if they come up against your magic trees.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
As I said: There's no point.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But if we concede that then we'll have disproved Samprimary's psychic powers, which makes the world a far less fascinating place.