Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
KaskadskyjKozak

Plus ça change...

Recommended Posts

 

by your logic there is no need for a definition of a "hate crime" - we should abolish those right?

 

agreed. i don't believe government can or should tell people what to think or not think, only what to do or not to do. killing a man b/c you wanted the money in his pocket or the girl in his bedroom or b/c you despised his race or his religious views is all the same and should result in the worst punishment man can hand down. if you could kill a man twice or keep him alive an extra 100 years so as to keep him in a cage even longer than a natural life-span i might be more interested in the hate crime concept.

 

of course i don't think accidentally running somebody over and killing them or panicking and killing somebody w/o thought is that same as cold-bloodedly killing someone in a calculating fashion. 1st degree murder is an important concept, and it should include both those who kill in the process of committing another crime (like robbery or rape) as well as those who kill to push forward some sort of political ideology.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

by your logic there is no need for a definition of a "hate crime" - we should abolish those right?

 

agreed. i don't believe government can or should tell people what to think or not think, only what to do or not to do. killing a man b/c you wanted the money in his pocket or the girl in his bedroom or b/c you despised his race or his religious views is all the same and should result in the worst punishment man can hand down. if you could kill a man twice or keep him alive an extra 100 years so as to keep him in a cage even longer than a natural life-span i might be more interested in the hate crime concept.

 

of course i don't think accidentally running somebody over and killing them or panicking and killing somebody w/o thought is that same as cold-bloodedly killing someone in a calculating fashion. 1st degree murder is an important concept, and it should include both those who kill in the process of committing another crime (like robbery or rape) as well as those who kill to push forward some sort of political ideology.

 

 

cool.

 

btw, I don't think "terrorist acts" need to warrant different punishments - murder is murder. I just think the term should have a particular definition. blurring the distinction between different terms for dubious motivations (ignorance, political agenda, whatever) is bullshit. and I certainly get that one man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter. But the shit going on in SoCal smacks neither of terrorist nor freedom fighter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the police chief:

 

"Burguan said earlier, "Obviously, at a minimum, we have a domestic-type, terrorist-type situation that occurred here."

 

...but what the fuck does he know? Has he read the Wikipedia entry for "terrorist" or "occurred"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well he was a devote Muslim, according to his dad. So that makes him a terrorist, right?

 

And? Could just be a deranged person. There's not enough info/details yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to for me to consider anyone who does mass murder of innocent people anything but deranged, regardless of any nitpicking on what you want to call a terrorist, where the crimes take place, whether it was considered an "act of war", the religion or motives of the person performing the crimes, etc.

 

so yeah, could be both...but IMO niggling over the definition of a "terrorist" is a meaningless semantic exercise. These are deranged people, all of them. What is different about them what causes them to be deranged, and whether that is acceptable to you or not. (not directing this at anyone in particular, but towards anyone considering the problem). Of course I don't think anyone but deranged people think that any murdering of innocents is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its hard to for me to consider anyone who does mass murder of innocent people anything but deranged, regardless of any nitpicking on what you want to call a terrorist, where the crimes take place, whether it was considered an "act of war", the religion or motives of the person performing the crimes, etc.

 

so yeah, could be both...but IMO niggling over the definition of a "terrorist" is a meaningless semantic exercise. These are deranged people, all of them. What is different about them what causes them to be deranged, and whether that is acceptable to you or not. (not directing this at anyone in particular, but towards anyone considering the problem). Of course I don't think anyone but deranged people think that any murdering of innocents is acceptable.

 

I agree that most (if not all) terrorists are deranged, but I think the term terrorist should simply be used for a certain class of organized actions by organizations with a political agenda. I don't think it's nitpicking - we really should be careful in the terms we throw around.

 

Does it matter or should it matter? Yes. Terrorists are parts of organizations and those can be monitored, infiltered, and shut down or at least thwarted. Lone wolf deranged fuckers... well that's a bit tougher. But if we could somehow identify, track and stop those who are about to become unhinged, that would be a good thing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying in terms of how you respond to an org vs an individual. Of course, what we may be dealing with in this case is an intersection of the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you are saying in terms of how you respond to an org vs an individual. Of course, what we may be dealing with in this case is an intersection of the two.

 

Yes, it is looking that way. And I'm interested in knowing how they came about all the weapons they apparently have stockpiled - legally or illegally? Background check of any kind or no?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'll be the first to say i'm not a history guy. and i wasn't there, so who knows if it happened. i can't even prove that the moon landing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I don't think anyone but deranged people think that any murdering of innocents is acceptable.

 

The problem, as Ivan pointed out, is that dead is dead and our tax dollars have killed a lot of women, children, and old people over the last decade. You know when you go into a country and overthrow it that lots of innocents will get caught in the crossfire, but hopefully that the collateral damage is worth the cost. For many of the radicalized, this isn't a good excuse and we're now caught in the cycle that the Middle east knows so well.

 

I'm not condoning the actions in CA yesterday (or implying motives), but I think our hands aren't nearly as clean as we would like them to be when talk turns to terrorism. It's a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. I know. i'm guilty of pontificating from an ivory tower.

like having the argument whether truman should have dropped the bomb or not. it did arguably save a lot of American servicemen's lives, while taking the lives of so many innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem, as Ivan pointed out, is that dead is dead and our tax dollars have killed a lot of women, children, and old people over the last decade. You know when you go into a country and overthrow it that lots of innocents will get caught in the crossfire, but hopefully that the collateral damage is worth the cost. For many of the radicalized, this isn't a good excuse and we're now caught in the cycle that the Middle east knows so well.

 

Yep, and this is why I'm concerned about Syrian refuges. They've suffered and it's not like we had nothing to do with that suffering or losses they've experienced. Just because you then help someone doesn't mean there is not a lingering resentment (which could fester over time or skip a generation). Just look at the Tsarnaev family history. Immigrants always end up in a limbo between becoming American and keeping their sense of culture and home, and when home was a place with such destruction and suffering, that tie can be painful. At the very least these folks have will have psychological problems from their experience - like soldiers with PTSD - and that can erupt in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know. I know. i'm guilty of pontificating from an ivory tower.

like having the argument whether truman should have dropped the bomb or not. it did arguably save a lot of American servicemen's lives, while taking the lives of so many innocent.

 

Regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or the fire bombings of cities using conventional munitions) - how is it that Japanese don't hate us today, don't bomb us or have strong anti-American sentiment. It seems they never really did - not to say Japanese forgot the bombings or forgive them, but I think there is a profound difference between most countries and peoples and what we deal with in the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Obama said global warming caused terrorism? Democrats are embarrassing, it's hard to even watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×