02-07-2004 01:13									#151
	Got spare money?

It's the institution (now with another name I can't recall) in the state of Georgia where the American military trains Latin American officers torture techniques, and maybe even terrorist tactics.

	02-07-2004 01:17									#152
	Tired of ads?

Kucinich,

The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

	02-07-2004 01:20									#153
	Suffering from ads?

quote: are u saying that in absence of govt, you dont have the freedom of speech?

Yes I am. Without government, what is to prevent the 'big dude' from killing you if you say something bad about him? Where is your freedom of speech then?

quote: 1) Genocide of Native Americans. 2) Sinking of the Maine. 3) Violence against labor movement. 4) Violence against blacks. (KKK and such) 5) Violence against communists and anarcists. 6) Bombing of Cambodia, and other actions of Vietnam. 7) Atomic bomb use. 8) Violence against civil rights protesters.

Can you tell me which one of those are terrorism because none of them are, with the exemption of the A-Bomb use to end WW2. In no others did we deliberately target civilians so they would enact political change.

Besides we said the US isn't a terrorist state anymore, and I really don't recall us doing genocide against the Native Americans anytime in the last 100+ years (not that it was terrorism anyway).

	02-07-2004 01:22									#154
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun It's the institution (now with another name I can't recall) in the state of Georgia where the American military trains Latin American officers torture techniques, and maybe even terrorist tactics.

Thats always been an interesting quandry. Are those graduates of SOA actually representatives of the US government?

While yes the tactics trained are questionable at best are they under direct control of the US?

I don't know.

	02-07-2004 01:26									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

Most government (not just US) action is excluded from terrorism, because a majority of the time the government doesn't care about alterting the political determinations of another group by using force.

	02-07-2004 01:43									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yup, because anyone can use force to prevent your speech.

ok, and so can the govt.
if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

	02-07-2004 01:47									#157
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Kucinich, The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

	02-07-2004 01:48									#158
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia ok, and so can the govt.

Yes, because we don't have an inalienable right to free speech.

quote: if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

Then you are the government. Or at least, government and freedom has no meaning in that situation.

	02-07-2004 01:49									#159
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using. Most government (not just US) action is excluded from terrorism, because a majority of the time the government doesn't care about alterting the political determinations of another group by using force.

You have got to be kidding.

	02-07-2004 01:50									#160
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: ok, and so can the govt.

Yep, but it can also grant you a freedom of speech.

quote: if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

'Rights' are social constructs so if you were the only person on the planet you wouldn't have any rights. Rights are things you can claim against others (ie, you violated my right to X). You could go and do what you wanted if you were alone in the world, but you wouldn't have rights. You wouldn't need them. Who would you claim them against?

	02-07-2004 01:51									#161
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You have got to be kidding.

Nope, not at all. How many times do you see a country these days kill off people of another group so that that group decides to change its policies? Not very often. Usually it will be done by small groups themselves, most of the time trying to get independance.

	02-07-2004 01:58									#162
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Can you tell me which one of those are terrorism because none of them are, with the exemption of the A-Bomb use to end WW2. In no others did we deliberately target civilians so they would enact political change.

More central to the meaning of the word 'terrorism' is 'intimidate,' rather than just 'target.' The US govt has intimidated it's own citizens and other peoples to force them to behave in a manner beneficial to itself and the most powerfull men behand the govt.

	02-07-2004 02:01									#163
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: You have got to be kidding. Nope, not at all. How many times do you see a country these days kill off people of another group so that that group decides to change its policies? Not very often. Usually it will be done by small groups themselves, most of the time trying to get independance.

Again. The definitions that you are using exempts govts, because they don't have the need to use the type of terrorism that freedom fighters use.

	02-07-2004 02:02									#164
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Yep, but it can also grant you a freedom of speech.

how can it grant you anything if it already exists without govt?

quote: 'Rights' are social constructs so if you were the only person on the planet you wouldn't have any rights. Rights are things you can claim against others (ie, you violated my right to X). You could go and do what you wanted if you were alone in the world, but you wouldn't have rights. You wouldn't need them. Who would you claim them against?

that doesnt answer the question. if i am the only person left on the planet, what prevents me from having freedom of speech?

	02-07-2004 02:02									#165
	Got spare money?

quote: The US govt has intimidated it's own citizens and other peoples to force them to behave in a manner beneficial to itself and the most powerfull men behand the govt.

No, they would have to target civilians in order to intimidate them to enact political change. Target is essential in the word. You can add intimidate if you want but that is the same thing as saying 'so they would enact political change'.

All the violence you have stated was not meant to intimidate people to enact some form of political change, but to accompish other goals.

You still haven't provided me with anything. The easiest thing to do was to talk about the US funding of groups which would kill civilians to get them to vote or agitate for a different position, but that ain't recent.

	02-07-2004 02:03									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yes, because we don't have an inalienable right to free speech.

yeah we do. they exist, even when being infringed upon.

quote: Then you are the government. Or at least, government and freedom has no meaning in that situation.

why would i be the govt? theres no one to govern except for myself, and thats not govt. and freedom still has meaning, because i can still say what i want.

	02-07-2004 02:05									#167
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui All the violence you have stated was not meant to intimidate people to enact some form of political change, but to accompish other goals.

Isn't political change their goal?

	02-07-2004 02:05									#168
	Remove this text

quote: The definitions that you are using exempts govts, because they don't have the need to use the type of terrorism that freedom fighters use.

And the definitions that you use results in any violence being terrorism. Terrorism was created to respond to the actions that guerillas and 'freedom fighters' use.

quote: how can it grant you anything if it already exists without govt?

It doesn't exist without government.

quote: if i am the only person left on the planet, what prevents me from having freedom of speech?

Having someone grant it to you. You can't just get rights out of thin air. Like I said, it is a social construct, so you need a society for rights. You have no 'right' to freedom of speech if there is no one else around, and you don't need one. Why would you need a freedom to speak if there is no one who could take it from you? That's all rights are - to prevent others from doing things to you. Without others, no rights.

	02-07-2004 02:07									#169
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Isn't political change their goal?

Political change is vastly different than having the people of the other state enact political change based on the policies. For example having the people of state A vote to stop the occupation of area B because a group from area B has been killing civilians of state A.

	02-07-2004 02:11									#170
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And the definitions that you use results in any violence being terrorism.

Violence is terrorism if it is meant to benefit the attacker by causing others to reconsider future actions. That includes most violence, unless others aren't aware ot the violence for some odd reason.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Terrorism was created to respond to the actions that guerillas and 'freedom fighters' use.

I don't believe that it was. The word has been around for a long time.

	02-07-2004 02:15									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: It doesn't exist without government.

it sure does. govt merely protects or infringes on it.

quote: Having someone grant it to you. You can't just get rights out of thin air. Like I said, it is a social construct, so you need a society for rights. You have no 'right' to freedom of speech if there is no one else around, and you don't need one. Why would you need a freedom to speak if there is no one who could take it from you? That's all rights are - to prevent others from doing things to you. Without others, no rights.

no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.
and we arn't talking abour utility, and whether you need one or not. thats subjective, in the same way that taxing rich people more is right because they are 'greedy.'
rights are there to protect you, like you said, but just because there is no one there to infringe on them, doesnt mean they go away. ultility doesnt end someone's right, because that utility is always subjective.

	02-07-2004 02:15									#172
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Isn't political change their goal? Political change is vastly different than having the people of the other state enact political change based on the policies. For example having the people of state A vote to stop the occupation of area B because a group from area B has been killing civilians of state A.

You are using the word political much too narrowly. All the action has to do is change peoples behavior by causing them fear.

	02-07-2004 02:19									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia it sure does. govt merely protects or infringes on it.

How? Where?

Certainly the capacity to does, but that is not a right.

quote: no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.

Where is it located, then? How are you "born" with it

	02-07-2004 02:22									#174
	Suffering from ads?

Here's an unbiased way to define the word 'terrorism.'

Take the root - terror - and add the suffix 'ism.' You get systematic terror.

Now how does that exempt govt.

	02-07-2004 02:42									#175
	Put an end to popups!

quote: How? Where? Certainly the capacity to does, but that is not a right.

it protects it by enforcing rights, and punishing those who infringe on it.

quote: Where is it located, then? How are you "born" with it

in the same way that you are born with a conscience

	02-07-2004 02:44									#176
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia it protects it by enforcing rights, and punishing those who infringe on it.

I meant your rights, not the govt.

quote: in the same way that you are born with a conscience

Uh, no. My conscience is part of my thought processes. Unless you want to say that rights are solely an invention of the mind, and don't actually exist at all?

	02-07-2004 02:46									#177
	Support Apolyton

quote: Uh, no. My conscience is part of my thought processes. Unless you want to say that rights are solely an invention of the mind, and don't actually exist at all?

and rights are a part of the life process. to be alive is to have rights.

	02-07-2004 02:47									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Thats always been an interesting quandry. Are those graduates of SOA actually representatives of the US government? While yes the tactics trained are questionable at best are they under direct control of the US? I don't know.

So it would be perfectly fine for me to hire a hitman to kill someone because it was the hitman that killed the person and not me.

	02-07-2004 02:58									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Here's an unbiased way to define the word 'terrorism.' Take the root - terror - and add the suffix 'ism.' You get systematic terror. Now how does that exempt govt.

Except that these days, 'terror' means 'terrorism'. For example, the 'War on Terror', 'anti-terror legislation' and so on.

I could just as easily say that 'sabotage' means the systematic use of clogs or hooves.

	02-07-2004 03:39									#180
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Violence is terrorism if it is meant to benefit the attacker by causing others to reconsider future actions.

So all war is terrorism? All military action is terrorism? Your definition is too broad.

quote: All the action has to do is change peoples behavior by causing them fear.

So when Saddam killed people in his country in mass graves for speaking, that's terrorism? You have too broad a definition of terrorism.

quote: no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.

No you aren't. Rights are granted only by the government. You don't have any special natural rights. If it like a conscience then you admit rights are solely made up by the mind and thus people are not born with them.