New York bombing

[Shiranu]

Oh fuck me, I wanted to leave but that was great :D.

By that definition, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram... etc. etc. ... are not actually terrorist groups (according to AF)! That's interesting to know.

Once again, it is not a word with international agreement on what it actually means. And that's okay if you want to use that definition, but you can't act like it is THE definition when entities far more powerful than any of us here cannot agree on one set term either.

I mean, you can and you wouldn't be "wrong", but you wouldn't really be right either. It's not so much a correct vs "douche-not douche".

[PickelledEggs]

Uhhh. Actually, by that definition, that is exactly what they are.

God Shiranu. You really are a toxic, sarcastic troll.

Later. I'm out.

[Baruch]

Like your hairdresser, only the terrorists know for sure.  What the US did to N Korea and N Vietnam was combat ... never terrorism ... cough, cough

So ... I have noticed this authoritarian streak in you before, Shiranu.  So you accept the official report on everything, and the usage of English words is all wrong, unless one is quoting Webster?  Really.

Of course I am not saying it is unserious for someone to set off a bomb in a populated area.  My friend was doing it miles from civilization.

[Shiranu]

Uhhh. Actually, by that definition, that is exactly what they are.

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Oh, right. So they are terrorists because of Islam, not because of politics, but they are terrorists because of politics, and not Islam, when we would be caught being inconsistent.

Makes perfect sense.

God Shiranu. You really are a toxic, sarcastic troll.

Later. I'm out.

And thus Jesus said;

"1 Μὴ  κρίνεÏ,,ε,  ἵνα  μὴ  κριθῆÏ,,ε·  2 ἐν  ᾧ  γὰρ  κρίμαÏ,,ι  κρίνεÏ,,ε  κριθήσεσθε,  καὶ  ἐν  ᾧ  μέÏ,,ρῳ  μεÏ,,ρεῖÏ,,ε  μεÏ,,ρηθήσεÏ,,αι  á½'μῖν.  3 Ï,,ί  δὲ  βλέπειÏ,  Ï,,ὸ  κάρφοÏ,  Ï,,ὸ  ἐν  Ï,,á¿·  ὀφθαλμῷ  Ï,,οῦ  ἀδελφοῦ  σοÏ...,  Ï,,ὴν  δὲ  ἐν  Ï,,á¿·  σῷ  ὀφθαλμῷ  δοκὸν  οὐ  καÏ,,ανοεῖÏ,;  4 á¼¢  πῶÏ,  ἐρεῖÏ,  Ï,,á¿·  ἀδελφῷ  σοÏ...·  ἌφεÏ,  ἐκβάλω  Ï,,ὸ  κάρφοÏ,  ἐκ  Ï,,οῦ  ὀφθαλμοῦ  σοÏ...,  καὶ  ἰδοὺ  ἡ  δοκὸÏ,  ἐν  Ï,,á¿·  ὀφθαλμῷ  σοῦ;  5 á½'ποκριÏ,,ά,  á¼"κβαλε  πρῶÏ,,ον  ἐκ  Ï,,οῦ  ὀφθαλμοῦ  σοῦ  Ï,,ὴν  δοκόν,  καὶ  Ï,,ÏŒÏ,,ε  διαβλέψειÏ,  ἐκβαλεῖν  Ï,,ὸ  κάρφοÏ,  ἐκ  Ï,,οῦ  ὀφθαλμοῦ  Ï,,οῦ  ἀδελφοῦ  σοÏ....

6 Μὴ  δῶÏ,,ε  Ï,,ὸ  á¼...γιον  Ï,,οῖÏ,  κÏ...σίν,  μηδὲ  βάληÏ,,ε  Ï,,οὺÏ,  μαργαρίÏ,,αÏ,  á½'μῶν  á¼"μπροσθεν  Ï,,ῶν  χοίρων,  μή‿  ποÏ,,ε  καÏ,,απαÏ,,ήσοÏ...σιν  αὐÏ,,οὺÏ,  ἐν  Ï,,οῖÏ,  ποσὶν  αὐÏ,,ῶν  καὶ  σÏ,,ραφένÏ,,εÏ,  ῥήξωσιν  á½'μᾶÏ,."

Of course, he probably didn't say it in Greek but some form of Aramaic, but ci la vie.


Does admitting your a petty hypocrite frighten you that much? And why do you have to lose your shit any time I post? Do you not have anything better to do with your time? At least unlike some posters I'm not running around spreading lies... funny, you would think a moderator would be more concerned with integrity of the forum rather than harassing someone for disagreeing (or not even disagreeing, just using a different definition of a word that is not even remotely universally accepted) with him.

Ah well.

[PickelledEggs]

How you don't see those as political movements is beyond me.

Ok. Now I'm out.

[Shiranu]

How you don't see those as political movements is beyond me.

Ok. Now I'm out.

...10/10, would get trolled again. I would say 8/10 because I was on to your trollery, but since I wasted time responded... yeah, no, fair game well played plz nerf.

[Shiranu]

Like your hairdresser, only the terrorists know for sure.  What the US did to N Korea and N Vietnam was combat ... never terrorism ... cough, cough

So ... I have noticed this authoritarian streak in you before, Shiranu.  So you accept the official report on everything, and the usage of English words is all wrong, unless one is quoting Webster?  Really.

Of course I am not saying it is unserious for someone to set off a bomb in a populated area.  My friend was doing it miles from civilization.

The official report is that there is no known motive as of yet, which I agree with. So either that is an argument against Pickled or it has no standing on what either of us said. And I would be quite curious to know what this "authoritarian streak" I have is.

[Hydra009]

I can't help but notice that the definition of terrorism is proving to be a tricky subject to grasp (and usually by the same people).  So, rather than endure this confusion in silence, I'll go ahead and post a rough outline of the term in the hopes that as many of us as possible get on the same page and the definition is no longer a point of contention on virtually every thread tangentially related to terrorism.

The search for a universal, precise definition of terrorism has been challenging for researchers and practitioners alike. Different definitions exist across the federal, international and research communities.

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.

Source

Terrorism is essentially a mixture of two things:
1) deliberate targeting of civilians with indiscriminate violence
2) with the intent of terrorizing a civilian population and coercing/intimidating a government, usually in order to affect that government's policies in some way.

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is

    * ineluctably political in aims and motives;

    * violent -- or, equally important, threatens violence;

    * designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;

    * conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); and

    * perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Source

So no, setting off a bomb is not necessarily terrorism any more than stabbing someone is necessarily a hate crime.  Determining the motive is crucial in identifying both types of crimes.

[SGOS]

I've wondered about what terrorism is many times.  I certainly have a concept I prefer, along the lines of random violence against civilians for some political reason.  But sometimes I think of terrorism as vandalism on steroids.  I've never used it that way, but terrorism, the actual act, fuck the reasons, seems like the ultimate vandalism.

But it's used in so many ways by different people that I usually try to understand their motivation for identifying various acts of violence as terrorism.  I may not think some acts qualify, but as long as I understand the motivations behind the usage, I can at least understand what the person is trying to convey.  I'm not about to argue against idiosyncratic definitions, because it doesn't matter that much to me.

I've also noticed that I'm adapting to global terror.  It used to horrify me, but now I think it's about as upsetting as traffic fatalities.  It's just part of our world and has come into fashion.  Go walking at night in some parts of Chicago, and you might get shot in a drive by.  Go to New York or Minneapolis, and you might get bombed or stabbed.  What are you gonna do?  It's all part of our lives.

The most visible parts of the war on terror by our government, I would classify as utter failures, although I think the more covert war by the FBI or the CIA has been somewhat successful in stopping attacks.  Not all, but some, and I think that's about as good as we can ever expect.  So as GW advised, "Just keep shopping,"  or "doing the things you normally do."

I also don't need to exactly identify terrorists.  To me they are simply criminals, and they don't require any elevated status or special legal treatment because of some arbitrary definition.  I think those who are arrested could be processed in criminal court, but I seem to be out of sync with most people on that score.

[pr126]

There is a religious war in progress since 622 CE.
It is called jihad. Incumbent on every Muslim.
Jihad is made in different forms, of which qital (jihad of the sword) is just one manifestation.

Muslims are not strong enough militarily  to wage total war on the non-Muslims, so terrorism is substituted instead. Among other forms of jihad.

Naturally, not all Muslims are taking part of qital it is not necessary.

Why Aren't All Muslims Jihadists?

Most people today are not aware of Islamic history because it has been simply erased from the history textbooks. It is not part of the educational curriculum, with good reason.

This is not a war on the west by any means.
The whole non-Muslim world is included, planet wide.

For now, we are in denial about jihad. Islam is peace and that's it.

But it is wrong to classify terrorism (which a tool of war) as a criminal undertaking like bank robbery or common murder.

Something to think about:

If Muslim terrorism and killings are motivated by oppression and colonialism and disenfranchisement and poverty etc. â€" then how do you explain the persecution and killings of hundreds of thousands of peaceful Xtians, Yazidis, and other faiths living in Muslim countries?. How did these ever hurt Mohammedans?





   

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Golly, who would guess someone with a British accent would sound conspiracyish..

[drunkenshoe]

The reason that setting up a bomb in a public place -anywhere outside people go-  that can be detonated -which is a planned act- could be defined as terrorism follows a reasoning as thus:

1. The act of building a bomb and in order to detonate it in a public place shows that the purpose is to kill/harm randomly. Not specific targets. The weapon of choice makes the intention clear, because bombs do not provide an aimed controllable damage compared to other weapons. A bomb also means targeting 'as many as possible', besides random.

2. The motive is to learn to build a bomb just by itself is a hard process; requires solid patience, high nerves, hardwork, long time and energy, high disciplined secretive life style. It's a meticulous, precise work. Requires long time planning. If you somebody wants a specific target they can get their hands on various other weapons and traget the specific.

3.Who dies when a bomb goes off? Innocent civilians happen to be in range by chance. When a bomb goes out somewhere and kill innocent people going about their business, who are there by chance, everybody is scared to go around there about their business. Everybody is scared, because there is no specific target. Everybody feels that they are all under threat because as this happened then, can happen later.

4. Order is disrupted. Life changes. People will avoid that place, stop shopping and going to the stores in that area for months, won't even go to the concerts and parks -interestingly enough even though it is a lower chance for a bomb to go ff in the same place, if it is not too central- and even avoid going out altogether if that happens often where they live.

5. In this era, even leaving a bomb in a bag which wouldn't be detonated in somewhere like New York City to be found in a public place -so it is in every news medium- pretty much enough to scare people to death, at some situations could cause a panic just itself can potentially kill many people. What does that arrive to? 

6. Whoever made this bomb has already been successful in accomplishing a terrorist act under these circumstances against people living that area, because there is someone free there who can build a bomb and morally is able to place it in a public place to harm at any time and this time even kill people with a bigger one.

A terrorist act doesn't stop operating; or being a terrorist act in reality, because according to the FBI's or some other organisation's definition it is not; or just because we don't know the intention; ideology or idea of behind the act. Reality doesn't correct or conform itself to political definitions. Reality is that the outcome is the same for all of us; the people; doesn't matter what is the agenda behind making a bomb and putting it in a public place, if we are in its range when it goes off, WE WILL DIE.


DEATH and FEAR of DEATH do not require the knowledge of the motivation of a group or an individual who made and put the bomb there. It's a terrorist act when the weapon is chosen as a bomb; targeting public and kill random people as many as possible for ANY reason.


Therefore building a working bomb and place it in a public place -it is anywhere close to people- is an act of terrorism, doesn't matter if it kills or not, doesn't matter what is the ideology behind it. Because the goal of terrorism is accomplished.



[Mass shootings in the US is another discussion, also related to how terrorism and domestic terrorism is percieved by American society overall. Definition of terrorism and domestic terrorism beyond mass murder and instillation of fear is inherently political everywhere on the planet.

Obviously as a forum we haven't arrived the phase to discuss this yet, esp. in this political climate and for the majority the election season: the current tension and collective fear. In the near future, it would be easier for people to see certain things in a more rational way; stripped from mainstream politics, exactly what happened with other topics according to my personal observation. This is a matter of time, a matter of development of perspective in world view(s) rather than matter of beliefs and opinions.]

[SGOS]

Through the unexploded cell phones used in the bombs and surveillance videos at the bomb sites, police  have identified a 28-year-old man, described as a naturalized citizen of Afghan descent, Ahmad Khan Rahami, in connection with the bombing in Manhattan and New Jersey as a suspect, but police are not able to find him at this time.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-explosion-fbi-cops-investigate-vehicle-interest-n-y-new-n650306

[drunkenshoe]

Let's hope, they'll find that piece of shit before a successful attempt. Now he is on the run and might try to hurry repeating his plans.

[PickelledEggs]

More "suspicious packages" have been found. One in Elizabeth, NJ and possibly more. This is getting really bad

I'll keep you guys updated, because this is where I live