ivan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 grow up you feeble minded internet tough guy. Ku Klux does a little self reflection... Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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"? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 grow up you feeble minded internet tough guy. Ku Klux does a little self reflection... Ku Klux.. clever NOT Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Oooo! A "NOT" joke! As in: "the FBI is NOT ruling out terrorism". Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Well he was a devote Muslim, according to his dad. So that makes him a terrorist, right? Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Wait. This is about religion?? Oh bother! Here we go again! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 Oh bother! LOL Whatevs, Winnie the Pooh. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 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? Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Of course I don't think anyone but deranged people think that any murdering of innocents is acceptable. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 wasn't it truman? there are more recent examples. Quote
Choada_Boy Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Roosevelt went for Total War before Truman came along. I read it on Wikipedia!! Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
JasonG Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 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. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 4, 2015 Author Posted December 4, 2015 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. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 4, 2015 Author Posted December 4, 2015 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. Quote
CWC01 Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 I thought Obama said global warming caused terrorism? Democrats are embarrassing, it's hard to even watch. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.