Moses was a terrorist

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"In your mind, are all military organizations 'terrorist'?"
no. they can however engage in terrorist activities.

"Was the US was in Iraq an act of terrorism?"
in its entirety? no. it was just an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. that's not in itself terrorism. if they attacked military targets, if they used conventional weapons, if they treat ...[text shortened]... is not at warr are acts of terrorism. assasinations, coup d'etats, those are acts of terrorism.

????


Um, no.

You are diluting the word 'terrorism' to the point of meaninglessness.

Just as an example.

The US's extra-legal use of drones to assassinate targets outside of war zones
is not an act of terror intended to scare people.
It's an act of murder and it's intended to kill people.

They are not trying to scare the terrorists [or whoever] they are trying to kill them.


When terrorists attack, like the recent Paris shootings, they kill/injure some people
in an attempt to induce fear and panic [terror] in the rest of the population.

WHO they actually kill is usually [although not always] irrelevant.

They didn't target any particular people in the 11th September 2001 attacks in
New York and Washington. They targeted buildings with lots of people in, as well
as the random collection of people actually in the 4 planes.

The small number of people actually killed/injured in these attacks is not the point.

The point is the hugely magnified effects of the fear induced in everyone else.


If I assassinate the leader of some country and stage a coup d'etat in an attempt to
take the country over I am not trying to achieve my goal by scarring people.

I am achieving [or not] my goal by direct action. I am taking stuff by force, not
trying to scare people into giving it up.

It's not terrorism.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
'terror' causes an intense fear. if a bunch of clowns randomly wandered around and did in fact cause an intense fear around major cities of the uk (and i doubt very much that they would cause terror)..and if the clowns were doing this on purpose to achieve a goal then it would indeed be an act of terrorism.

it doesnt matter if its a crime or not. many acts legal acts of terrorism have been carried out by governments over the years.

Speaking for all those who are freaked out by clowns I suggest you are underestimating
the terror factor of random clowns jumping out at you as you walk around. 😛


See I think the problem here is that when you say "many acts legal acts of terrorism have
been carried out by governments over the years." I respond by saying "they cannot be act's
of terrorism because they were not crimes"....


Give me some examples, because I cannot think of any legal acts committed by governments
that I would class as terrorism.

As [unless you can show me otherwise] I don't accept these acts as terrorist acts, the fact
that my definition doesn't allow them as terrorist acts is a feature and not a bug.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am of the opinion, and I would suggest a majority would agree, that as despicable and or wrong
as it was, the US invasion of Iraq was NOT an act, or collection of acts, of terrorism.

Well that may simply because the majority are ignorant of the real motives of the US. You are confusing the definition of the word with peoples opinions of what happened and why.
If we can convince the majority of the worlds people that the 9/11 attack was not an act of terrorism, will that change the definition of what terrorism is? No, it will only change what people think happened on that day.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Speaking for all those who are freaked out by clowns I suggest you are underestimating
the terror factor of random clowns jumping out at you as you walk around. 😛


See I think the problem here is that when you say "many acts legal acts of terrorism have
been carried out by governments over the years." I respond by saying "they cannot be act's
...[text shortened]... , the fact
that my definition doesn't allow them as terrorist acts is a feature and not a bug.

we actually had a guy near us who did dress as a scary clown and walked around the town at night scaring the poop out of people.


legal acts of terrorism -

hiroshima

dresden

rape (it was not illegal for british soldiers to rape scottish women in the 18th century)

anti-jewish legislation in nazi germany made it perfectly legal to terrorise.

i seem to remember many kings of old using terror tactics to achieve their goals.

the church, telling us we are all going to burn in hell forever is not illegal.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I in my bedroom declare war on the US, has in any real sense war been declared?

How is that relevant? Are you claiming that the terrorist organisations declared war in their bedrooms?

How about if I get a few of my mates together and we all declare war together?
It depends how serious you are.

Also, I don't class a lot of what gets called terrorism as terrorism because it looks to me mighty like gorilla warfare and or civil war to me.
Even if the primary purpose of the act is to cause terror?

I may well not agree with their cause, or methods, but that's not a good reason to call it terrorism.
If they commit acts for the purpose of causing terror, then I sure don't see why not. Just because they came out of their bedrooms and declared war in the living room, doesn't suddenly change the fact that they are trying to cause terror.

I've watched years of reports claiming attacks on our ARMED FORCES in A WAR ZONE were terrorist attacks.

I'm sorry, but no they weren't.
And yet a moment ago, you were making a speech about how the majority opinion matters. Now suddenly its all about you. And for no apparent logical reason either, you have just arbitrarily decided that your definition is right.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
we actually had a guy near us who did dress as a scary clown and walked around the town at night scaring the poop out of people.


legal acts of terrorism -

hiroshima

dresden

rape (it was not illegal for british soldiers to rape scottish women in the 18th century)

anti-jewish legislation in nazi germany made it perfectly legal to terrori ...[text shortened]... their goals.

the church, telling us we are all going to burn in hell forever is not illegal.

Yeah. I accept none of those as acts of terrorism.

Many are bad/immoral/ect .... But they are not terrorism.


And here in lies the problem.

You are calling stuff terrorism that isn't.

That is why your definition is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How is that relevant? Are you claiming that the terrorist organisations declared war in their bedrooms?

[b]How about if I get a few of my mates together and we all declare war together?
It depends how serious you are.

Also, I don't class a lot of what gets called terrorism as terrorism because it looks to me mighty like gorilla warfare and ...[text shortened]... apparent logical reason either, you have just arbitrarily decided that your definition is right.

How about if I get a few of my mates together and we all declare war together?
It depends how serious you are.

Um wow.

No, it doesn't. If me and my mates get together and "Declare war on the USA" then in no serious real legal sense does a war exist.

To say otherwise is nuts.


If we disagree by this much then I don't see any hope that our world views are reconcilable on this topic.

Also, I don't class a lot of what gets called terrorism as terrorism because it looks to me mighty like gorilla warfare and or civil war to me.
Even if the primary purpose of the act is to cause terror?

Well, see now that's kinda my point. I'm saying that in these cases the primary purpose doesn't
look like trying to cause terror. But to try to use gorilla tactics to deplete an occupying army.

This seems to be the major problem, you are lumping all similar looking attacks [blowing stuff up
with bombs] and saying that they all have the same motivation and goal.

But the person trying to blow up a civilian airliner flying London to New York is not doing the same
thing as someone planning to blow up a tank belonging to an invading army in their own country.

The goals, and motivations are not the same.


You are essentially saying, "but what if these things that you say are not terrorist attacks terrorist
attacks"... Well if I thought they were terrorist attacks I would have said so.

I've watched years of reports claiming attacks on our ARMED FORCES in A WAR ZONE were terrorist attacks.

I'm sorry, but no they weren't.
And yet a moment ago, you were making a speech about how the majority opinion matters. Now suddenly its all about you. And for no apparent logical reason either, you have just arbitrarily decided that your definition is right.[/b]

You missed an important word... I said RELEVANT majority... I don't accept mob rule, and seldom give a ****
what the majority of people at large think.

If I did then the majority [ignorant] definition of atheism would hold that atheists are people who believe that
the Christian god doesn't exist. Which is clearly wrong even if the majority are ignorant of that fact.

Relevant here might be short hand for "people who know what the **** they are talking about" but that
wouldn't be entirely accurate. 😉

Possibly more accurately I would say it's a group of sufficiently informed and expertise people who are
having the discussion... For planets it was a formal astronomical body that made the decision.


I very very seldom think such issues are up for popular vote with the general public, since my general opinion
of the general public is unprintable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, it doesn't. If me and my mates get together and "Declare war on the USA" then in no serious real legal sense does a war exist.

To say otherwise is nuts.

If we disagree by this much then I don't see any hope that our world views are reconcilable on this topic.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'world views'. It merely has to do with what you mean by 'war'. You seem to believe in the gentleman like agreement between countries - although that somewhat contradicts your earlier statement that war is outside the bounds of law. Now suddenly you have reversed that stance and claim that war must be war in a legal sense.

This seems to be the major problem, you are lumping all similar looking attacks [blowing stuff up with bombs] and saying that they all have the same motivation and goal.
No, the major problem is you are confusing me with someone else. When did I ever 'lump all similar acts'? I was quite specific about my definition.

You missed an important word... I said RELEVANT majority... I don't accept mob rule, and seldom give a ****
what the majority of people at large think.
Ha ha. So who is this 'RELEVANT majority'? Those that agree with you?

Possibly more accurately I would say it's a group of sufficiently informed and expertise people who are having the discussion... For planets it was a formal astronomical body that made the decision.
And for terrorists? The international terrorism union? Next you will be saying we should let the politicians make up the words.

What is wrong with a definition that actually makes sense based on the root words the word comes from? Why the whole 'its got to be illegal' clause? What is your political agenda here?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah. I accept none of those as acts of terrorism.

Many are bad/immoral/ect .... But they are not terrorism.


And here in lies the problem.

You are calling stuff terrorism that isn't.

That is why your definition is wrong.

can you find me any definition of the word 'terrorism' that mentions the legality of the action?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'world views'. It merely has to do with what you mean by 'war'. You seem to believe in the gentleman like agreement between countries - although that somewhat contradicts your earlier statement that war is outside the bounds of law. Now suddenly you have reversed that stance and claim that war must be war in a legal ...[text shortened]... rd comes from? Why the whole 'its got to be illegal' clause? What is your political agenda here?

You seem to believe in the gentleman like agreement between countries - although that somewhat contradicts your earlier statement that war is outside the bounds of law.

What??? Where on Earth did I say that?


I think the biggest problem here is that for whatever reason neither of us is understanding the other.

Because I never said anything like that... I certainly never meant anything like that.

Ha ha. So who is this 'RELEVANT majority'? Those that agree with you?

Heh, tempting but no.

Next you will be saying we should let the politicians make up the words.

I said "sufficiently informed and expertise people" ... politicians don't qualify [at least not as a class]

What is your political agenda here?

Not sure I have one [that's applicable]....

I have a broader desire that we stop pointlessly and dangerously freaking out and over reacting
to the minor irritation that terrorism poses to our civilisation... And part of that includes stopping
calling everything under the sun terrorism because it is the word of the moment. [and for the
aforementioned money, toys, and powers that get invoked in it's name]

Originally posted by googlefudge
????


Um, no.

You are diluting the word 'terrorism' to the point of meaninglessness.

Just as an example.

The US's extra-legal use of drones to assassinate targets outside of war zones
is not an act of terror intended to scare people.
It's an act of murder and it's intended to kill people.

They are not trying to scare the terrorists [o ...[text shortened]... am taking stuff by force, not
trying to scare people into giving it up.

It's not terrorism.

"The US's extra-legal use of drones to assassinate targets outside of war zones is not an act of terror intended to scare people."
it is when they "miss" and kill civilians. or when they target anyone looking "terroristy"


when you bomb villages, you are not doing it to cripple a military's will to fight. the taliban have no military. you are doing it to cripple a civilian population's will to support the fighters.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Christian Bale was interviewed about his portrayal of Moses.

His view is that Moses was a terrorist.

-He claims he is doing God's work, that he speaks for God.
-He engaged in 10 plagues. These plagues targeted Egypt's water supply, crops, etc. All of them target civilians and the military indiscriminately.
-The last plague killed children, a chil ...[text shortened]... rom the supernatural factors, what difference is there between moses and palestinian terrorists?

I don't see him as a terrorist but as a Schindler's list and William Wallace! The real bad people were the Egyptians because they were using them as slaves!

Originally posted by RBHILL
I don't see him as a terrorist but as a Schindler's list and William Wallace! The real bad people were the Egyptians because they were using them as slaves!

schindler didn't kill german children to get the jews out

Originally posted by RBHILL
I don't see him as a terrorist but as a Schindler's list and William Wallace! The real bad people were the Egyptians because they were using them as slaves!

You do know that the story is fictional, Moses never existed and the exodus never happened, mainly because the Egyptians never did keep them as slaves...

Originally posted by twhitehead
At least he makes sense.

[b]Terrorism is a violent means to a political end.
The direction from Moses to the pharoah was to let the children of Israel go, not to abdicate rule of Egypt to him or them.
So, essentially a violent means to a political end. (although that is not a particularly good definition for 'terrorism'.)[/b]

Are you daft, or do you honestly not know that to weild political influence, one must live in the community which one is wishing to influence?

The Jews were (in essence) suing for divorce from Egypt.

As already and clearly stated, they were not attempting to change or influence the local governance of Egypt; they were attempting to get away from Egypt.
Huge difference.