Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shazbot]

Yeah, the No Fly List is pretty much a joke, as is this latest round of hysterics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unlikely-terrorists-on-no-fly-list/

I would like to see the FBI able to halt a gun sale to someone under an active terror investigation, assuming the investigations are covered by due process, but the NFL isn't that.

[Powder Miner]

I have some personal knowledge on the matter! My father served in Desert Storm, and he told me stories of being close enough to these chemical weapons stores explosions that he could feel the shaking through the ground.

Sure enough, in 1997, they received a letter warning them of the (however slim) possibility of birth defects from exposure to these chemicals.
Notably, I was born in 1997.

[Lord Shonus]

They already tested the N in NBC.

(hides with)

Huh?

NBC is shorthand for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical - the three types of weapons of mass destruction.

[smjjames]

I have some personal knowledge on the matter! My father served in Desert Storm, and he told me stories of being close enough to these chemical weapons stores explosions that he could feel the shaking through the ground.

Sure enough, in 1997, they received a letter warning them of the (however slim) possibility of birth defects from exposure to these chemicals.
Notably, I was born in 1997.

And you're healthy I assume? Though if you don't want to get into private details, that's ok.

Yeah, the No Fly List is pretty much a joke, as is this latest round of hysterics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unlikely-terrorists-on-no-fly-list/

I would like to see the FBI able to halt a gun sale to someone under an active terror investigation, assuming the investigations are covered by due process, but the NFL isn't that.

CNN has their own list, though it's much shorter and still brings the point across. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/index.html I've also said that it's very hit or miss.

I don't know why the Democrats are pushing for that when the Republicans (who were using common sense for once) blocked it. Theres gotta be better ways that are more politically viable, hell, theres some solutions that have a very high support among people.

[RedKing]

I doubt that the GOP blocked it for common sense reasons so much as "guvmint trying to take guns" reasons. Protecting 2nd Amendment rights for terrorists and crazy people is a core NRA value. Which means its a GOP value.

That said, yeah the list has considerable flaws. The question is whether we would rather infringe on the rights of some innocents or allow some dangerous people to arm themselves. In almost any other framing of that question, the political positions would be reversed. I think that's a telling sign what this is really about.

[wierd]

Ironically, one of the (unwritten, but implied by the federalist papers) rationales for having the second amendment, *IS* to arm terrorists....

(What else do you call a group using weaponized violence to overturn established government?)

[Loud Whispers]

(What else do you call a group using weaponized violence to overturn established government?)

Revolutionaries

[wierd]

And what, exactly, did the French call their revolution?

Oh right... ..The Reign of Terror...

[Loud Whispers]

No they called it the French Revolution
American Revolution
Russian Revolution
e.t.c.

[wierd]

Let us compare and contrast the defintions of "Revolutionary" and "terrorist"--

revolution
[rev-uh-loo-shuh n]

    Synonyms
    Examples
    Word Origin

noun

1.
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2.
Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Compare social evolution.

3.
a sudden, complete or marked change in something:
the present revolution in church architecture.
4.
a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
5.
a single turn of this kind.
6.
Mechanics.

    a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
    a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
    a single cycle in such a course.

7.
Astronomy.

    (not in technical use) rotation (def 2).
    the orbiting of one heavenly body around another.
    a single course of such movement.

terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]

    Examples
    Word Origin

noun

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Under the primary definitions of these words, the two are nearly completely synonymous.  (Nearly, as there is the potential for non-violent revolutions, but there is no such thing as non-violent terrorism.)

[Culise]

Not really, if we're now going by dictionary definitions.  A revolution, even a violent one, does not mandate the use of terror as per the very definitions you stated.  That said, there were a significant range of incidents in the American Revolutionary War that could and would be considered terrorist actions were they to happen today.  The fact that they overlap so often is largely a consequence of indirect warfare as a consequence of the power disparity between an occupying power and either revolutionaries or terrorists - a common cause for the two, rather than a direct causation between the two. 

[Zangi]

And what, exactly, did the French call their revolution?

Oh right... ..The Reign of Terror...

Isn't The Reign of Terror basically house cleaning AFTER the revolution was won?  Like how the US kicked out the Iraqi Bathists(sp?) but with a lot more revenge killing.

Revolution/Rebellion/Revolt = Period of actual fighting ain't it?


One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.  Though, I reckon there are distinctions between Civilian, Military, and Strategic targets.

[wierd]

Can you explain that?

A violent revolution relies on the threat of further violence for the revolutionary faction to assert it's ability to resist (and overthrow) the established power. That threat is de-facto terrorism in action. This could be threats against infrastructure, such as destruction and threats of destruction of buildings, bridges, roads, et al-- or it could be threats against personel.  Both are terrorism.

The implication (by the federalist papers) that the second amendment is intended to supply arms for violent revolutionaries, is de-facto support for terroristic modes of revolution.

[Shazbot]

Its an election year. If the Democrats push a terrible law that seems "tough on terror" and Republicans vote against it, they get to spout off that "Republicans voted to allow terrorists to buy guns". In fact, that is likely the point of the entire exercise; getting an election year catch phrase. Its the same as the "voted against body armor for the troops" charge leveled against people who vote against omnibus spending bills that cover gold brick projects.

This whole PB thing riled me up because it reeks of the Sherman tank "scandal". The Sherman was terrible and got people killed and only stupid generals wanted it! Well, no, not the case at all. PB was terrible and gave people GWI and only stupid generals wanted it! Well, no... they remembered all the media outcry about the Sherman tank being insufficient protection or the M113 being too thinly armored or the Bradley armor plating being flammable and weren't about to with-hold pharmacological "armor" from the troops. And with a 1mg droplet on your skin being a lethal dose... I mean, that's less than you or I get from a close proximity sneeze, or even handling a doorknob. These chemicals were formulated to kill a tank crewman who drove through a contaminated area and then touched the tracks. Pretty radical measures become reasonable against chemicals engineered to kill humans. The CDC's spill guidelines for 50 gallons of the stuff called for evacuating 2,500 meters in all directions to 10,000 meters downwind. Imagine 500 gallons of aerosol from a Scud bursting over a division's axis of advance and you start realizing the nightmare scenario those pills were prescribed for.

Anyway, I'll lay off for a bit or I'll be here all week.

[Culise]

Can you explain that?

A violent revolution relies on the threat of further violence for the revolutionary faction to assert it's ability to resist (and overthrow) the established power. That threat is de-facto terrorism in action. This could be threats against infrastructure, such as destruction and threats of destruction of buildings, bridges, roads, et al-- or it could be threats against personel.  Both are terrorism.

The implication (by the federalist papers) that the second amendment is intended to supply arms for violent revolutionaries, is de-facto support for terroristic modes of revolution.

If you define any threat of further violence, that is, any use or threatened use of military force as terrorism, then all warfare becomes terrorism, along with a good-sized portion of any diplomacy between non-friendly powers as well.  One could conceivably use such a definition, but in such a definition, terrorism becomes so wide a term as to become effectively meaningless.