No, I made a comparison of the Zionist takeover of Palestinian lands, to the German takeover of French lands, of which you claim the French civilians had rights to use terrorist tactics against the Germans.
Again I will ask you: what if the Germans brought in their civilians to tear down French homes so to build their own permanence on French soil, all while serving in the same military that brutalizes the French to keep them in prison like conditions?
The approximate same as Zionists are doing to the Palestinians?
Why do you have such a double standard in this?
*************************************************

If, if…If a bull had tits would it be a cow? You’ve twisted my words—and you know it. It’s a deliberate mis-stating.

I NEVER justified French terrorism, or any other kind. I DID say that guerrilla attacks on military targets, including those by the puny French resistance against German military were NOT “terrorist”—and I stand by that.

As much as I would like to see that guys that drive exploding trucks into our soldiers dead 3x over, I STILL see them as guerrillas, even criminals, NOT terrorists (committing an act of war while not in uniform generally exempts you from Geneva Convention protections)  But when they send a suicide bomber to prevent people from voting, oh, those ARE terrorists.

You create a hypothetical situation and then demand a moral statement about it, a hypothetical situation that did not happen—there weren’t a flood of German carpet-baggers into Paris. 

You might as well ask “If it were found that dolphins had fully cognitive brains, would they be entitled to the same rights as humans?”  Well, find me a dolphin with such a brain and we can THEN determine the legality and ethics.  Until then, dolphins will be entitled to the ethics with which we treat animals and by those rules.

What you want to do is say that Israel is WORSE than Nazi Germany, WORSE then the Rwanda massacres, WORSE than the civil war in Eastern Congo (Which has left 5 MILLION DEAD, equal to the ENTIRE population of Israel), WORSE than the Darfur ethnic cleansing, WORSE than the Bosnia ethnic cleansing.

It has done none of those things and ANYTHING that Israel can be charged with does not compare to those atrocities, despite the anti-semitic attempts to make it so.  I’ve read accusations here of Israel displacing “millions” of Arabs when it was founded, when even the ARAB figures are far lower.

Nobody here wants to admit it but they don’t like Jews, and worse, they HATE defiant, proud Jews, just like the KKK bigots hated “uppity Niggers” and would lynch them when they “forgot their place”.

Jews are STILL “supposed” to be doctors and lawyers and bankers and musicians and comedians, but NEVER warriors or fighters.  Stereotyping still exists.

Israel is not perfect, but Israel can not be destroyed.  All nations will hate Israel and some will sooner or later decide to try to destroy Israel, but at that time my God by His power will protect Israel.  A Christian’s life is forever sealed in Israel’s New Jerusalem.

>From Inherit the wind:
>You ask leading questions and expect me to waste my time answering them? 

No, I made a comparison of the Zionist takeover of Palestinian lands, to the German takeover of French lands, of which you claim the French civilians had rights to use terrorist tactics against the Germans.
Again I will ask you: what if the Germans brought in their civilians to tear down French homes so to build their own permanence on French soil, all while serving in the same military that brutalizes the French to keep them in prison like conditions?
The approximate same as Zionists are doing to the Palestinians?
Why do you have such a double standard in this?

(That is what you are having difficulty in answering.)

Inherit the wind> I’ve given the answers in a hundred posts of EXACTLY what I want to see in Israel.  But, for guys like you, there is only one issue: Why Israel is the only evil in the world and the cause of all evil in the world. To you, there is NO OTHER evil and EVERY thread must be turned into a discussion of why Israel should be destroyed—because it’s so evil.—-
>This is a thread about an asshole who flew his plane into a building in Texas, therefore, to you, it’s about Israel.—[etc]

Hyperbole and obfuscation.
I never made any of those false connections, but this is a very typical method of Zionists; they always resort to make these hyperbolic claims that they are “being attacked,” and that they are the supposed “victims.”

Same old story.

Oh and I have not read a lot of your things, so if you could answer my other question it may help clear up where you stand.

Are you for a single state with a constitution guaranteeing liberty and justice and equality for all Semites in all of these territories no matter what tribe or religion or lack of such they have?

Or do you support some form of apartheid?

Are these Republican shrinks, or what?

Is the shrink trying to shrink the shrink?

Nemesis2010

Why do you constantly challenge my credentials? You know I have a laymen’s Doctorate in Psychology/Psychiatry, as do you.

Do I challenge you credentials? No I do not. I know that you have many laymen’s Doctorates. I have never challenged your credentials in your near infinite, fields of study.

It’s true that I have some disagreement with your acuity, expertise, and ethics, but I have never challenged your credentials.

Take for example our Pro Bono exchanges of colleagueistic analysis in the field of Psychology/Psychiatry. Your analysis of me was no where near conclusive, and to put it simply, a cop out. During diagnosis you simply ask, “Are you out of your mind?” Clearly this is an abdication of duty, and not a fair exchange of diagnoses. Instead of analyzing me, you ask me to analyze my self. It’s true that diagnosis can be difficult, but that is no reason to shirk your duties. Your diagnosis of me was far from helpful, contrary to my diagnosis of you. My diagnosis was that you need to clean up your character, and seek treatment for your neurosis.
I hope you found this diagnosis helpful. 

When big brained apes such as you and I, have differences in intellectual perceptions, semantics and dialectics are of the utmost importance. Personally I find that the dictionary is lacking in words necessary for the depth of our discussions. Clearly words that only relate to rational thought and common sense lack the necessary convolution.

In order to facilitate understanding, and enhance communication, I’ll offer a new word. That word is Bertyism. As you know from previous schooling, this word is derived from the name of the notorious, often misunderstood, Pseudo Intellectual, Bertrand Russell.

A brief synopsis of his life and work shows him to be a well known, but not well understood, practitioner of Philosophy, morals and ethics,  sexual experimentalism,  delver in psycho-babblery, and an overly enthusiastic enthusiast of psychedelic drugs, to name just a few of his broad spectrum of studies. In spite of an early misguided experience with Draft Dodging, he later went on to espouse the theories of a murderous lunatic (i.e. psychopathic Loony.)

You’ll find the following definitions useful.

Bertyism:

1.  Vague expounding on a false premise.
2.  Rational myopia.
3.  Ego enhancing self delusion.
4.  Relative reality.
5.  Metaphysical metaphysics.
6.  Non-existential existence.
7.  Virtuous Mayhem Theory.
8.  Efficacious Obfuscation.
9.  Mental Gymnastics, featuring: the big brained ape flipout, Bi-polar double reverse, and cortex snapping.
10.  Pseudo intellectual blathering.
11.  Loonieism.

You may want to keep these definitions for reference. When in doubt, pseudo intellectual blathering will generally suffice. On the rare occasion when pseudo intellectual blathering doesn’t seem to apply, loonieism will be the obvious choice.

Alas, time has escaped me. I had intended to address your well reasoned comments, but the necessities of life must be attended to. I must perform a necessary nail clippage.

The Republicans are terrorists by their own admission.

Geez, Nemesis calm down man. Don’t tell me to go kill myself with the loonies. I’m an atheist too and only got one life, I don’t like the term atheist because it has a religious suggestion. I prefer unbeliever. You know that us big brain apes only live once and there is nothing after this. Even though some dodo brain may argue that nothing is something which will get you into a futile circular argument.

I just wanted to hear your opinion. I do think that both you and JD have made some good points and have been talking past each quite a bit. You answer to my question is a good one and I feel is well argued from a good perspective. I can relate to it because I lived those times. And no I’m not one one of those that believes that Reagan brought down the Wall or the USSR. That downfall was years in the making.

Bobadi, March 4 at 11:42 am #

Thank you for clarifying your position in this for me.
********************************************

Well, at least ONE person is sitting self-satisfied—that would be you.

You ask leading questions and expect me to waste my time answering them?  I’ve given the answers in a hundred posts of EXACTLY what I want to see in Israel.  But, for guys like you, there is only one issue: Why Israel is the only evil in the world and the cause of all evil in the world. To you, there is NO OTHER evil and EVERY thread must be turned into a discussion of why Israel should be destroyed—because it’s so evil.

It’s called scapegoating and it’s been around longer than you or me.  I guarantee you the world’s problems won’t vanish if Israel disappears tomorrow—but they may get worse.

This is a thread about an asshole who flew his plane into a building in Texas, therefore, to you, it’s about Israel. 

You have deliberately mis-interpreted everything I’ve said simply so YOU can say ANY terrorist act is no worse than anything Israel has done.  That’s it in a nutshell: An excuse to justify ANY evil act by saying “Israel is worse”.

And that’s the simple truth.  Deal with it.

Here is terrorism by another name, the Republicans GOP; the Republican GOP’s plan is to gain control of the government through fear.  Imagine that.  Not a new concept for Republicans, just not often stated:

“If you had any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the fear-mongering lunatic fringe, those doubts were erased today.”— Democratic National Committee, reported by Washington Post

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”  The strategy is detailed in a confidential party fund raising presentation obtained by POLITICO.

So, the Republicans ARE terrorists.  Fear IS Terror.  The Republicans are behind terrorism and have planned a terrorist platform.

The Republicans plan is fear mongering terror.  Since the Republicans only plan is fear mongering terrorism, in one way or the other,  it would seem they ought to just pack it in and give up, because fear and terrorism is of no benefit to the populace what so ever, and the populace will not be foolish and follow the Republicans terror schemes, because torture and terror know no bounds and the populace will be next.  Republicans love both torture and terrorism that are tools of their trade and the populace must not allow the Republicans to return torture and terrorism back into government.

Holy smokes!

Are we still pounding the rubble on this topic? It looks as if eight, maybe ten people are just yelling into an echo chamber. Can anyone stipulate to some facts and reach a conclusion? It’s a tiresome sideshow.

Cheers!

@ jay1953:

IMO all of the aforementioned was part of the whole; the whole being the collapse of the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. was not overthrown in a non-violent revolution. Remember the key word here is “revolution.” Revolution is the “overthrow” of a government. (Violence takes on many forms; it isn’t just beating someone. One example would be economic violence which wreaks tremendous hardships—even death—on people.) None of those governments were actually a legitimate government once Moscow threw in the towel. There were members of the ruling elite trying to hold on to power but the support institutions weren’t there in any viable capacity. Everyone wanted a piece of the ruling pie. The ruling elite cannot stand without the brutalizing classes that do their dirty work for them. None were overthrown. The Soviet system broke down under its own weight of corruption and excess.

That last sentence should give you a clue. And if you are amongst those that erroneously believe that it was Reagan that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union then it was economic warfare as well as the custom of the two super powers to fight each other through client states that brought it down. The straw that finally broke them was their war in Afghanistan but even then, it had long been on the road to the dustbin of dead empires. It was simply a matter of time. As it is with AmeriCorp! There’s another clue for you. 

Also, a lot of the potential violence after the collapse was curtailed because the West jumped in there and started pumping money into many of those nations. The last thing the West wanted was multiple, multifaceted civil wars all over Eastern Europe and Asia with all those nuclear weapons from the U.S.S.R.’s stockpiles. Look at Yugoslavia; after 50 years of Soviet control all those religious and ethnic tensions—erroneously thought to have been eviscerated—had been simmering under the surface all that time just waiting for the opportunity to explode. Too much diversity! (<- clue)

I’m sure that you’ve heard the adage of how history repeats itself. It appears cyclical. What most fail to understand is that it doesn’t repeat as a carbon copy of the previous. The reason history appears to repeat itself is because we big-brained apes never learn the lessons of history. We are history, we make it. The cause of history appearing to repeat itself is that we keep making the same frickin mistakes over and over. We’re insane! How did Einstein—reportedly—define insanity? “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Welcome to the world of the big-brained apes, where insanity rules the day! And it comes right back to where I started in this discussion. We have 4 major character flaws: 1. avarice, 2. hubris, 3. envy, and 4. fear. James was wrong! The love of money is NOT the root of all evil. The 4 major character flaws are!

I think that had I had an opportunity to sit and have a whiskey (single malt Scotch) with Mr. Stack before he did what he did, he might very well be alive today. I’m like Carlin, I no longer have a dog in this fight. Go kill yourselves; I don’t care anymore.

(2)
@ JdmysticDJ:

I’ve ask before and you refused to answer, so I’m asking again. Do you have a degree in psychology? Are you a practicing psychologist or psychiatrist? If not, enough with your b.s. evaluations of me because they are about as competent as your reading comprehension ability. You ad hominem me to death and when I give you a shot you cry like a baby. Suck it up dude!

Continuing: ” Regarding our debate, I now believe that because of your personal history, you have a personal bias against non-violent action, and this is the reason for your arguments. Are you really committed to defeating “AmeriCorp” or has it just been mental masturbation on your part?”

My personal history? Ha, ha, ha.! WTF do you know about my personal history? That I was in the Marine Corps from 65-69? Go hump the boonies in someone else’s country for 13 months, ducking little commies with AKs, punji pits, boobie traps, malaria, etc. then come back and tell me if what you want is more violence in your life. I’m one of the most peace loving, moral character filled men that you’ll never get to know! The reason I seem strange to you is because unlike you; I’m not frickin delusional!

How can you say that I have a personal bias against non-violent action? I recommended that you get off your non-violent arse and take it to the streets yesterday. More power to you! But now you tell me: ” will not keep me out of the streets, if the time, or opportunity, arises.” IF? Why are you sitting on your arse waiting for someone else to start your revolution JD? Get out there and be all you can be dude! A leader doesn’t wait for others to initiate action. WTF? IF?

I love this one JD: ” the recruits don’t need rigorous training or attributes that make them suitable for killing.” You’re finally right about something JD, although I don’t think it’s quite what you had in mind. Jackboots don’t require that those they are killing have any training or special attributes!” Jeebus on my Ritz cracker!

You make this claim: ” You have also stated that “AmeriCorp” must be overthrown, in order to restore American Democracy and defeat tyranny.”

I cannot find that statement. A bit distorted, don’t you think? Do I advocate the overthrowing of the government? No! Do I think that you can effect, or will effect, any major, worthwhile change in government through non-violent action? No! Has this all been mental masturbation? I’m not sure what mental masturbation is JD; so I’ll have to say, no! Do I think the political, economic, and social situations in AmeriCorp will improve? No! Do I think jeebus is coming? No!

The understanding of what constitutes liberty and freedom is very diverse among the population. And that is one reason it’s so hard to motivate people to get off their butts and do something. People prefer the evil they know to the one they don’t know. That’s why these ruling elite just take over a nation a piece at a time. It has to get really bad before most people will be motivated to action that may cost them their lives. They look around and believe that they really don’t have it so bad and won’t rock the boat. With age you’re supposed to become wiser.

History teaches us many things and because of that I know change is coming. It just won’t be due to your non-violent action. The best part is that everyone can participate in helping to speed up that which will—more than likely—be the cause of that coming change. Non-violent and legal, just like you like it. I won’t tell you what it is but I’ll leave you with a couple of hints.

”The lesson of history is that we don’t learn the lessons of history.”
-Thomas G. Donlan

”Things that can’t go on forever, don’t.”
-Herbert Stien, (Chairman of Economic Advisors to Nixon)

(1)
@ JdmysticDJ:
You have a reading comprehension problem JD. Let’s look at what you say in that ostentatious copy and paste: “You have not said specifically, “We need a violent revolution,” but your continuous arguments have indicated that restoring democracy or defeating tyranny can only be done by using violence.”

Once again you’ve stepped on your willy! You’ve accused me of advocating violent revolution and then admit that I didn’t. My continuous argument has been that history teaches us that that is how tyranny is defeated. Remember, YOU are speaking of “REVOLUTION.” Revolution is NOT demonstrating for social change; it’s the “overthrow” of the government and in your case what specific government would that be? AmeriCorp? Are you out of your frickin mind? Are you really so delusional that you believe it possible to overthrow the U.S. government in a non-violent revolution? What drugs are you on?

Let’s continue with your reading comprehension problem. Remember what you said after I used a Jefferson quote? You WRONGLY accused me of holding Jefferson up as an “infallible deity!”  Not only do I know that no man is infallible but I’m an atheist and do not believe in the existence of any deity! It was an ad hominem attack.

Yesterday you made this asinine leap: ” You have stated several times that violence would be perpetrated on non-violent protestors, and I have always replied that I’m in agreement with that contention. Apparently you find that reality as evidence that the non-violent would be responsible for, and the perpetrators of violence. I find that logic to be as demented as your contention that the holocaust had positive consequences.”

You’re a real piece of work JD! There is absolutely nothing that I have stated that could be even remotely understood as blaming the non-violent protestors for starting the violence. My contention from the start has been that the State has paramilitary and military forces ready to crack your foolish heads open at the slightest provocation. And here’s another little tidbit for you bubba; agents provocateurs! A veteran of getting his head busted should know this.

Have you any idea how the modern state of Israel came to be? After WWII there was a very small window of opportunity—because of a change in world opinion—to establish a Jewish homeland. A major cause of that change in world opinion was the horror of what went on in the concentration camps. I’d be willing to bet that there are many millions—like all the right-wing evangelists in the U.S.—who view the establishment of the state of Israel as a positive. Does this mean that I condone concentration camps and the gassing and cremating of millions of innocent men, women, and children? Hell no. Does recent history teach us that if you don’t fight back and just allow men with guns to drag your arse off to a concentration camp chances are you are going to be worked to death and murdered? Yes, it does! Does that mean that I condone it because history teaches us that it happens? No, it doesn’t!

What are the odds that millions of Jews—given what history teaches them—would willingly allow themselves to be deported by a fascist regime without putting up a fight? Would that be a positive lessen learned from the horrible experience of WWII?

Have you bothered to actually read your copy and paste work? Go back and count how many times I say: “history teaches us that.” Is it my fault that you allow your emotions to get the best of you? You desperately need to learn to read what is written and stop reading into it. Perhaps your panties are too tight? Try a larger size; it just might loosen you up.

When our leadership can afford to ignore protests in the streets is a bad sign. Remember the 300,000 people in 1990 in two major cities concerning going to war against Iraq? No because none of the major corporate outlets carried it. Just as Joe Scarborough‘s secretary was found dead in his office on his desk didn’t go reported except on the internet either. It isn’t only that they can make it seem non-existent, they can also make them violent with the help of the police. Which is why the Tea Party Protests went so swimmingly. No storm trooper cop harassment. What does that tell you?

Since the 1920’s the marketers and psyops were one in the same and have been perfecting their craft of manipulation to buy commodities and gov’t/corporate actions. That is where we have all been living in. It is very different outside of it in the rest of the world. You just don’t see it here when you are immersed in it since birth.

By nemesis2010, March 4 at 5:13 pm #

I want to clear up something that you either refuse to accept or are incapable of understanding. I think it’s a little of both. AT NO TIME HAVE I ADVOCATED VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT REVOLUTION. It simply isn’t in my best interest at my age. Think social security

NO TIME #1
nemesis2010, February 23 at 4:18 pm

“No change will be accomplished by voting. Neither will there be any meaningful change by supplication to supposed representatives in government; because they are owned by the oligarchs and form a part of their brutalizing class. The oligarch is not going to willingly surrender their positions of kingly grandeur -history teaches us that. It will have to be taken by force! Their wealth, which they have gained by coercion and pillage, will have to be forcibly confiscated and redistributed. ‘History teaches us that until the streets are filled with the fetid corpses of the ruling elite and their henchmen, the recrudescence of liberty and freedom cannot flourish.’”

NO TIME #2
By nemesis2010, February 24 at 3:07 pm

“All I did yesterday was state the obvious of what history teaches us ... Did the British Empire capitulate to colonial demands or was a war fought for independence? ‘Did the French overlords heed the demands of the populace or did throwing off the yoke of oppression require a blood-letting’ so severe that even today we stand in awe of what took place there? What happened in Russia? How was the Nazi yoke of oppression thrown off? Vietnam? Cambodia?”

NO TIME #3
By nemesis2010, March 2 at 7:31 pm

“A society … will never hold on to their nation unless they do it with the barrels of many guns! Lethargy and ‘the lack of gun barrels is precisely the reason why the republic was lost’ and is now a corporate fascist empire.’”

The focus of our debate has been that I believe in the power of protest by those who practice non-violence. While you have asserted that violence is necessary. You have referenced Jefferson’s quotation about the blood of Tyrants and Patriots. You have also stated that “AmeriCorp” must be overthrown, in order to restore American Democracy and defeat tyranny. We both believe in restoring American Democracy and defeating tyranny, but you have adamantly asserted that this can not be done non-violently.

You have not said specifically, “We need a violent revolution,” but your continuous arguments have indicated that restoring democracy or defeating tyranny can only be done by using violence.

You have stated several times that violence would be perpetrated on non-violent protestors, and I have always replied that I’m in agreement with that contention. Apparently you find that reality as evidence that the non-violent would be responsible for, and the perpetrators of violence. I find that logic to be as demented as your contention that the holocaust had positive consequences.

Regarding our debate, I now believe that because of your personal history, you have a personal bias against non-violent action, and this is the reason for your arguments. Are you really committed to defeating “AmeriCorp” or has it just been mental masturbation on your part?

My current Social Security will not keep me out of the streets, if the time, or opportunity, arises. That’s another advantage of non-violent protest; the recruits don’t need rigorous training or attributes that make them suitable for killing. Another characteristic of the non-violent is that they are not, only motivated by their own personal “best interests” as you are.

Why you choose to make comments about religious figures is puzzling, but they do serve to point out that you suffer from neurosis.  Your attempts at emasculating humor are more evidences that you lack moral character, but I suspect that you will find this weak criticism, because you don’t believe moral character is something worthy of pursuing, and is only laughable.

By nemesis2010, March 4 at 5:13 pm #

I want to clear up something that you either refuse to accept or are incapable of understanding. I think it’s a little of both. AT NO TIME HAVE I ADVOCATED VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT REVOLUTION. It simply isn’t in my best interest at my age. Think social security

NO TIME #1
nemesis2010, February 23 at 4:18 pm

“No change will be accomplished by voting. Neither will there be any meaningful change by supplication to supposed representatives in government; because they are owned by the oligarchs and form a part of their brutalizing class. The oligarch is not going to willingly surrender their positions of kingly grandeur -history teaches us that. It will have to be taken by force! Their wealth, which they have gained by coercion and pillage, will have to be forcibly confiscated and redistributed. ‘History teaches us that until the streets are filled with the fetid corpses of the ruling elite and their henchmen, the recrudescence of liberty and freedom cannot flourish.’”

NO TIME #2
By nemesis2010, February 24 at 3:07 pm

“All I did yesterday was state the obvious of what history teaches us ... Did the British Empire capitulate to colonial demands or was a war fought for independence? ‘Did the French overlords heed the demands of the populace or did throwing off the yoke of oppression require a blood-letting’ so severe that even today we stand in awe of what took place there? What happened in Russia? How was the Nazi yoke of oppression thrown off? Vietnam? Cambodia?”

NO TIME #3
By nemesis2010, March 2 at 7:31 pm

“A society … will never hold on to their nation unless they do it with the barrels of many guns! Lethargy and ‘the lack of gun barrels is precisely the reason why the republic was lost’ and is now a corporate fascist empire.’”

The focus of our debate has been that I believe in the power of protest by those who practice non-violence. While you have asserted that violence is necessary. You have referenced Jefferson’s quotation about the blood of Tyrants and Patriots. You have also stated that “AmeriCorp” must be overthrown, in order to restore American Democracy and defeat tyranny. We both believe in restoring American Democracy and defeating tyranny, but you have adamantly asserted that this can not be done non-violently.

You have not said specifically, “We need a violent revolution,” but your continuous arguments have indicated that restoring democracy or defeating tyranny can only be done by using violence.

You have stated several times that violence would be perpetrated on non-violent protestors, and I have always replied that I’m in agreement with that contention. Apparently you find that reality as evidence that the non-violent would be responsible for, and the perpetrators of violence. I find that logic to be as demented as your contention that the holocaust had positive consequences.

Regarding our debate, I now believe that because of your personal history, you have a personal bias against non-violent action, and this is the reason for your arguments. Are you really committed to defeating “AmeriCorp” or has it just been mental masturbation on your part?

My current Social Security will not keep me out of the streets, if the time, or opportunity, arises. That’s another advantage of non-violent protest; the recruits don’t need rigorous training or attributes that make them suitable for killing. Another characteristic of the non-violent is that they are not, only motivated by their own personal “best interests” as you are.

Nemesis2010

I understand your point that once one side starts cracking heads its no longer non-violent. But is non-violent revolutionary change really possible? Let me ask you, what about the Velvet Revolution? Or the “fall” of the the Eastern block? With the exception of Romania which executed the Ceau?escu’s, but that happened after the change in government, so it was -non-violent, wasn’t it? Or the fall of The Wall? The fall of the USSR? What about the reunification of Germany? Wouldn’t they all qualify as non-violent revolutionary change? Or once someone gets their nose bloodied in an argument it doesn’t qualify as non-violent revolutionary change?

I’m just wondering.

@ JDmysticDJ:

There’s nothing humorous about twisting a man’s words into something they’re not and which in today’s AmeriCorp can bring on severe consequences. I think you know damn well what I’m talking about.

What is truly amazing here is that you’ve once again provided more evidence that backs what I’ve been trying to tell you all along. It’s impossible to have a non-violent revolution. If—as you say—you’re a veteran of getting your head busted then either you were in peaceful demonstrations when someone or something sparked violence or you were part of a violent demonstration to begin with; despite your stated commitment to non-violence.

I use the term demonstration because I haven’t heard news of any revolution flaring up recently. So if it’s impossible to have a demonstration or a civil action without violence; how the hell does one have a revolution—which overthrows the ruling elite—without violence? The ruling elite don’t just hand over the reins of power and all that opulence because a group of citizens are upset. It has to be wrested from them.

Keep trying to effect change through non violent means Jd, but I suggest you wear a helmet your next time out because the blows to your head are beginning to have a noticeable effect -and they’re not positive.

Guys, Im in awe. You got a real following. Don’t stop now.

nemesis2010

Apparently you didn’t find my post humorous. Oh well! It’s impossible to please everyone.

On a serious note, In spite of your bravado, when it comes down to it, you’ll be at home watching Television in your shorts, while I’ll be out in the streets.

Incideatally, I’m a veteran of having my head busted, so I know what the potentialities are.

Every time I try to get away; they pull me back in.

For such a vociferous proponent of non-violence you sure do appear to have your panties all tied up in a knot. PMS much?

I want to clear up something that you either refuse to accept or are incapable of understanding. I think it’s a little of both. At no time have I advocated violent or non-violent revolution. It simply isn’t in my best interest at my age. Think social security check!

I am not “defending” the indefensible. You and InherentTheWind suffer the same infirmity. It’s known as hedupyurassitis. It prevents one from seeing pass one’s own nose and accepting the fact that humans can and will have differing opinions of the same event.

A consensus is: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole or by majority will.” Do you think it possible that groups from different demographic zones might have differing opinions of the same event? I thought I had made that clear but obviously you didn’t get it, along with much more.

I understand that having to point out to you—before all that read these comments—that violent ? non-violent, must have been a painful forehead to palm and “oh shite!” moment for you, but Jesus on my grill cheese sandwich JD, a child can understand that.

I’ve tried to convince you that there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution. I tried to give you solid reasons why that isn’t possible and even gave a few examples of non-violent actions by citizens that all turned sour from U.S. history and you get your panties all in a wad. Actions, not revolutions, and even those couldn’t remain non-violent!

There is absolutely no ambiguity here JD. Violence ? non-violence! From the moment of the first violent act it becomes a question of intensity and severity only. Got that?

The beautiful thing about life JD is that you don’t have to believe me. You can disagree; as you obviously do! So with that in mind, I ask only one favor from you. Should the day come when you’ve the testicles and testosterone levels required to actually stop talking, get up off your arse, and take it to the front lines; would you please attach to yourself a placard with JDmysticDJ written in large letters? That way when I’m watching the evening news or YouTube I can tell my wife: “Honey look! There’s JD getting his chops busted by those four Iraqi war veteran cops in his non-violent revolution!” “Ohhhhhhh! Damn! You know that had to hurt!”

Please stop mauling the idiom. It’s “that’s A fact, Jack!” Virgin Mary on my cookie, can’t you get even that right? 

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” –Thomas Paine

I love sarcasm. It’s so to the point. JDmysticDJ I envy your talent, in a positive way, for sarcasm. It’s reality based. I can’t help than to sit here and laugh my ass off and agree. Who knows you may develop a following. Everything is a product of the mind of the big brain apes. Planet of the Apes? I think I’ve landed and my feet touched the ground. Temporarily at least until the big brain in the cranium of this this primate takes off flying again. Up, up and away! HaHaHa….

Inherit the wind,

Once again you refuse any of my questions, and try to magnify on semantics in an attempt to obfuscate away from the meat of the issue.

I now am satisfied that you refuse to answer because you cannot answer these questions without undermining your apparently “sacred” foundational support of the brutal apartheid government of Israel, which is draining U.S. resources and blood, and is prominently responsible for understandable acts of “terrorism” being committed as blow back to your racist and colonial repression.

Thank you for clarifying your position in this for me.

Yo!, Yuh Big Brained Ape

No offense intended…?...Oops!... There I go with the timidity of language again. Your brain must be big, because you do an excellent job of defending the indefensible.

I understand that we need to warn our leaders from time to time. Where we disagree, is on what the nature of that warning should be.  I wish you wouldn’t get all academic on me. I’m not familiar with this Jeebus everyone else seems to be aware of. Phrases like “Mythological allegory” puzzles me. Is it like, “I invented the internet” or what? The only sword I ever had, only had one edge to it, so I have deficient experience in that area as well. You see! I’m lost in my ignorance, and not saying anything of substance here.

Let me skip ahead. Consequences, now there’s a word I can get my mind around. I always thought that actions had consequences, but I didn’t think actions had good and bad consequences. I thought that good actions had good consequences, and bad actions had bad consequences. We seem to be playing chess here. You’re, “Personal filters and ideology” ploy, seems to be a premeditated effort to thwart my predicted, consequences move. I’m glad we’re not using a clock, because I need time to analyze its meaning…O.K. I get the ideology part; it’s like what you believe, right? “Personal filters” would be like, filters that are personal, right? So, if I’ve got this right, personal filters would filter stuff in and out, right? So people would filter stuff in and out according to what they believe, right? What happens if stuff they don’t believe is so small that it gets through the filters, or vice a versa? For example, what if my consequences move was so big; it wouldn’t make it through your personal filters to your big ape brain? Or what if it was so small, it got through to your big ape brain. Wouldn’t that cause you some consternation, seeing as how it would conflict with your ideology? Never mind, I know the answer. Your big ape brain would automatically filter it out. I guess our big ape brains have minds of their own. Whew! That was hard. If you don’t knock off this intellectual stuff, it’s going to take hours to get through your posts

World War ll was horrible, that’s the fact Jack! (I just emphasized the validity of what you said.) Let me speed things up by saying that the big ape brains must have had clogged filters or something. Never underestimate the value of frequent maintenance.

You say, “Consensus on what is a positive and what is negative is impossible.” Well no, sorry (More timidity) Consensus is general agreement, or majority opinion, trust me, I looked it up. I can think of several examples where consensus on what is positive, and what is negative is evident. For example, I think there’s a consensus that the holocaust was not positive. I’ll stake my public opinion research credentials on that one, but I’m starting to understand the point you were trying to make earlier. I once broke both legs in several places, and I was in traction for several months, which was a negative, but I was able to keep up on the Soaps, so that was a positive. The consensus of my friends was that it was a negative experience for me (They hate Soaps.)

Let me show my expertise on this next one. I’ve researched it. Without assigning blame, I’ll state categorically (No timidity) Forming the State of Israel has resulted in Global conflict, and there is a consensus that this conflict is a negative. If this example is the best you can do to help me, then I’ll agree that there is nothing you can do to help me. I appreciate the charitable effort though.

Once again we agree that action is necessary, but we disagree on what that action should be. Your suggestion that we need to bring out the leeches in order to keep healthy, (This statement is Al Gore-ic like, but it’s not based on mythology its based on very real primitive ignorance, need I say more?) is not one I agree with. At least we can agree on the description of the “sons-a-bitoches.” Didn’t I tell you before that I don’t like violence, but that some would be the victims of limited violence, as opposed to massive violence? Let’s not get to far from reality here, I don’t have any revolutionaries, and you don’t have any insurrectionists. I’m thinking, but I still can’t recall any knowledge of this Jeebus superstar. I guess I’ll have to Google.

I’m not gravely mistaken; you’re more gravely than I am. The ruling elite are not qualmless. They live in rarefied air, and they need to be brought down to earth, to get, “up close and personal” with their qualms. They’ll use all their tools to stay airborne, but they’ll get shot down, (That’s a metaphor, really shooting them down would require those surface to air missiles.)

Did they have forced depots when Jefferson was alive? That sounds like tyranny to me. Did they force them to take the next stage out of town?

I didn’t support Jefferson, his slaves supported him. I wasn’t even alive then. That’s ridiculous, what am I, dumb? I thought through my arguments and I broke on through, but Jefferson was no where around. Damn! Get a clue!

Your next statement gave me an eerie sense of déjà vu, so I’ll skip it.

O.K., O.K., I thought I made this clear, but I’ll say it again. (Man! You need to change your filters.) Non violent protest would result in some limited violence against the non-violent.

I previewed your next statement, and I used examples of this lesson in my post, and I understand that it emphasizes the validity of what has been said. “That’s the fact, Jack!” I like it, it’s got zip, but it reminds me of a military drill team for some reason.

The late Historian, Howard Zinn’s, “A Peoples History of the United States - 1492 - Present” is what you want to read if you really want to know about United States history.

You can’t cover 230 years of U.S. History in 4000 characters? I could, I’d title it “An Abbreviated History of the U.S.” The other option would be to steal characters. I do that, usually late at night.

I don’t associate gun barrels with Al Gore, so I don’t get it, but I get the rest of this comment. You’re saying that weapons are relative according to time. For example, fire arrows are relative to cruise missiles in relationship to time, right? Uh?...So…If I went back in time and got a fire arrow, and brought it back to the present time, it would be as destructive as a cruise missile? I guess I don’t get this one. I’ll move on.

Sun Tzu is, the man! Isn’t he? After all these years his sage advice is still recognized. I understand that our soldiers in Iraq never bluff with an empty hand. They always have a few bundles of Ben Franklins in their hand, when they want to get their way.

Aha! I think this one is the first installment of the pipe dream I asked you for. I’d ask for more, but I’m sure the rest would be classified.

Incidentally, aren’t you a little concerned about advocating violent revolution in a public forum? Aren’t you afraid you’ll wake up some night with blinding beams of light in your eyes, and that you‘ll get a free ride to Egypt or somewhere? Don’t worry I’ll come to your aid, I’ll tell them, no, no, no; there’s NO WAY he could have been serious about this stuff.

Whew! (Once again) I’m almost through, all I have to do now is set you straight on Berty, and then I’ll be through.

First let me apologize, for the lethargy you accused me of. Clearly I haven’t given my best effort to responding to your reasoned post. I found it fascinating, in an odd sort of way, I wouldn’t call it complex, as much as convolutex. Again, I didn’t give it the serious attention it was pleading for. I wouldn’t blame you at all for berating me (Much timidity.)

Regarding Berty. Every generation has its loonies, who somehow gain prominence and become influential for some reason, but some of these loonies really stand out, and had lasting influence. Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler would be the most notorious. Let me digress for a second, I’ll tell you something that most people don’t know. The reason Stalin was chosen to lead the communist party was because he was a pretty boy. He wasn’t gay, he was just pretty. Trotsky on the other hand, was ugly as hell. Getting back on message, there were other less notorious loonies, who also had lasting influence. Ayn Rand was one, and Berty was another. Berty came from the British ruling class, so he had a leg up, his mindless claptrap was readily accepted by people who didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, he couched his mindless drivel in pseudo intellectualism, so other pseudo intellectuals, who also didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, accepted him, and designated him to be a great mind. In the final analysis, Berty is best described as a well connected loony.

Before I say goodbye, let me adopt a paternal stance, and tell you that you really need to be careful when you’re choosing friends. Your friends can get you into a lot of trouble, and sometimes your friends turn out to be complete loons.

Well it’s been interesting. Any further communication would just be a rehash, and tempers could flare, so let’s end peaceably.

The fighting must end, the USA must be neutral here, both sides need to be on equal status or no peace will happen.

Bobadi:
Have fun deliberately mis-understanding and mis-interpreting clear English.  There’s nothing confused or confusing in what I wrote.  You might as well argue that Baseball and Football are the same thing and there is no difference.

We should pray for the peace of Jerusalem as exhorted by Jesus, and the United States should forsake all the neocons that instigate war.

@ Inherit The Wind:

Just to ensure that the record is clear; I didn’t label you a Zionist. And I’m not saying that you included me amongst those that did; I’m simply making it clear.

On what authority is your averred definition of what constitutes “terrorism” and “terrorist” based on? I gave you the definitions from world wide accepted sources. Are you jeebus superstar?

Joe Stack, whether you view him as hero or villain was one of “us.” He was from the same herd. In civil wars “us” simply means one faction—out of two or more—from the same herd. There exist attacks from within and attacks from without. There is a difference.

Hasn’t anyone noticed how quickly all the news of Mr. Stack’s deed has died down? Could it be that AmeriCorp doesn’t want anyone thinking too much about what constitutes terrorism and a terrorist?

“In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” -Justice Louis Brandeis

“O, judgment! Thou hast fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.” –Shakespeare

“True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.” –Kurt Vonnegut

(2)
@ JdmysticDJ:

You are gravely mistaken in believing the ruling elite have qualms about busting your heads or the taking of life. They do it every single day! They justify those actions and feel all warm and cozy by wrapping them in a flag and bound it with nationalistic and patriotic platitudes, jingoisms, and mantras.

“Force [is] the vital principle and immediate parent of
despotism.” –T. Jefferson, Inaugural address, 1801

Your failure to think through your own argument has caused you to inadvertently support Jefferson. 

“There would be much sacrifice required, many heads busted, and a modicum of bloodletting, but if done correctly, there is no way that non-violent action would not be successful in achieving the desired goals.” -JdmysticDJ

That’s precisely what Jefferson meant when he asked: “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?” I reiterate: Busted heads and a modicum of blood-letting is NOT non-violent!

“That’s a fact, Jack!” is known as an idiom, as is “you can take that to the bank.” They emphasize the validity of what has been said.

With a 4,000 character limit I can hardly cover 230 years of U.S. history.

“Many gun barrels” is allegorical JD. Every grunt in the field requires many more in support. The only difference between Jefferson’s time and ours is technology. The technology in use 200 years ago was much more efficient than that used 200 years prior to 1776; and likewise are population levels different. Everything is relative.

The smartest general according to Sun Tzu is the one that can bluff his opponent into yielding without having to actually fight. But the bluffing general is not bluffing with an empty hand. That’s significant!

In today’s revolutionary army a good hacker would be worth much more than a rifleman in many situations. Understand JD, the State is well organized and it is expert at fighting organized resistance. That’s a clue to one of its greatest weaknesses.

It’s been fun…

“I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: ‘The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.’ In these words he epitomized the history of the human race.” –Bertrand Russell

(1)
@ JdmysticDJ:

You’re welcome JD. No reason to be ashamed; not even slightly.

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” —What part of that do you not understand?

Now more than ever we need a spry 50-60 year old George Carlin. You need to get over your timidity of language.

Everything in life is—to use a 1st century Jeebus mythology allegory—a double-edged sword. Every action that a Homo sapien performs has both good and bad consequences to it. It’s all a question of degrees and points of view based on personal filters and ideology.

WWII was horrific. But to deny that some positives were achieved in that conflict is simply to deny reality. How one interprets what is positive and negative depends much on one’s filters, ethnicity, ideology, etc. Consensus on what is a positive and what is negative is impossible. A positive is that we have lived more than 50 years with a relatively stable Europe. One negative is that many were forced to live in the resulting U.S.S.R. and another would be the lost of the U.S. republic to the fascists during the Cold War. I don’t doubt that many Jews view the state of Israel as a positive from WWII while Palestinians curse the establishment of that State. If you can’t see any of this then there’s absolutely nothing that I can do for you.

Violence is a part of nature there’s no getting around it. Stop trying to make life something that it isn’t. The reason a very small group of mostly amoral, avaricious, hubristic, envious, poltroonish sons-a-bitoches can take control of a nation and impoverish its people is because most of us prefer to live our lives in peace and are very reluctant to start a bloody uprising in the hopes that those mostly amoral, avaricious, hubristic, envious, poltroonish sons-a-bitoches will come to their senses and relent. It’s all part of who and what we are. And what we are; are big-brained apes just recently out of the savanna.

The failure to act more readily—smaller more frequent blood-lettings—results in our having to fight a much more tremendous blood-letting later on. The mostly amoral, avaricious, hubristic, envious, poltroonish sons-a-bitoches look at—some of it rightfully—the reluctance of the masses to take action as lethargy and feel secure in their pillaging of society. Their hubris and avarice blind them to what is really going on in the undercurrents of society.

I wonder if you bother to read your own words. The busting of heads of which you speak of is VIOLENCE! It’s violence being perpetrated by the ruling elite’s henchman class on your non-violent revolutionaries! Jeebus superstar JD! Think!

>Inherit The Wind says:
“To try to discredit me, I am labeled a “Zionist”.  Of course, to the labelers, anyone who does not the support the TOTAL destruction of the State of Israel is a “Zionist”,”<

Your using a straw man here, hyperventilating about being attacked, “TOTAL destruction of Israel”, being “labeled” instead of answering my question. Apparently throwing that out to divert attention away from my question.

> to be viewed as the equal of Nazis, or, since the Nazis are gone, far worse.<

I don’t see Zionists the equal or worse then Nazis, but my question did show a lot of similarities to the Germans who also used racism to moralize the theft of territories from others, again are you obfuscating away from my question?

>This is duplicitous.  I AM a supporter of the continued existence of Israel, but I am a harsh critic of its current government, its idiotic war in Lebanon, and its duplicity in its dealings with the occupied territories of the West Bank.<

Could you be more specific in what kind of state you are supporting?
Do you believe your state should produce and ratify a constitution guaranteeing all people in the state, including its ethnically cleansed and deposed, who are now held in squalid refugee camps, to be equal and legal democratic participant citizens of the state, regardless of any supposed race or religion or lack of one?
Or do you propose continuing to have no constitutional guarantees, and support the continuation of racist apartheid?

>But all that is merely a red herring to try to dissuade people from reviewing my definition of Terror vs Terrorism.  One poster even claims not to >know what guerrilla warfare is!  Talk about duplicity!<

Your “red herring” is the constant attempt to turn our attention away from the issues and facts, so to chase your misdirection, which is only these semantics you attempt to inflate as “the problem.”

>The inanity of saying “we know who Bin Laden is so Al Qaeda isn’t terrorist” is laughable. When an army shells a civilian neighborhood just to punish a nation (such as the US fire-bombing Dresden) that is TERROR.  When an anonymous guy in a raincoat steps onto a bus and triggers a vest bomb that is TERRORISM.  The fact that Bin Laden might have sent him changes nothing.  One is not worse than the other.  They are simply different.  To claim they are the same is to diminish the evil of both. The inability to understand that targeting civilians is fundamentally different than targeting military targets defies credulity.<

How does the “claim they are the same” diminish anything? Spell it out, as you are not making your point here, especially as the last sentence about “targeting” is at odds with the rest of its paragraph above.

>I do not deny that the “Global War on Terror” is absurd, but to simply ignore those who want to hurt us, whether they be Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, or Osama Bin Laden.  Or Stack…would be the mark of the imbecile.  Yet that is what some here propose…assuming, of course, that somebody ELSE and their family will be the victim, not their own.In this they are as cowardly as a Dick Cheney or George Bush, talking tough and letting somebody ELSE’s children go off to die. <

Yeah, those are real-easy targets now; Dick Cheny and George Bush. Easy to bury them in infamy, but not so easy to cover up their support and bolstering of your apartheid nation, which is the root cause of “our children dying,” so to maintain your tribe’s grip on the land and resources of a different tribe, and of course also due to our massive militarism in other people’s lands.

I have yet heard you answer: why the French, if they were held in the same position by their German oppressors should act any differently then the brutally oppressed of today?

Nemesis2010

Thanks for the reasoned response to my post to you. I was expecting something else.

I am slightly, very slightly, ashamed of taking the leap you mentioned, but the idea that Jefferson would have admired Stack, is something of a leap also.

You’ll have to point out to me the context where “constant provocation” and bloodletting are the same thing. Are you advocating for “constant provocation” or bloodletting, or do you consider them to be the same thing. “Constant provocation” would be a bit Orwellian, but it’s easier on the sensibilities than “Fetid corpses.”

Sorry, I can’t agree with your contention that the holocaust resulted in a great triumph. Nor do I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in a great triumph. The fact that Germany and Japan are now our Allies, and have perhaps, even better democracies than ours, is something of a triumph, but they also share some of the difficulties that our democracy does, and the idea that equivalent systems of government would not have occurred without the deaths of millions, can only be a matter of conjecture. What’s not conjecture is that the millions died and suffered. I’ll point out that Germany had a democracy before the advocates of bloodletting took power. Regarding Japan, I’ll suggest that much of Japan’s success came from learning the lessons of history, specifically recent history. It was an expensive lesson, and it was taught with extreme prejudice. The one lesson of that history that becomes obvious to me, is that Japan advocated bloodletting, and initiated much bloodletting, but Japan ended up losing the most blood. The concept of just bloodletting not only includes the initiating of bloodletting, but also includes the conduct of bloodletting, but I digress. There is too much bloodletting in this post, I probably should use more accepted words, such as war and whatnot, but bloodletting is more illustrative, don’t you think? At least I’m not going to the extreme, by using more illustrative words, like “Fetid Corpse” letting, or dead childrenletting.

This is a difficult subject, but remember that I’ve already conceded the Ecclesiastical “Time and Season (Turn, turn, turn”) scenario. While we’re in a musical vain, I’ll bring up the 4 dead in “Ohio” anthem. I can still remember the first time I heard that song, and how it gave me an adrenaline rush. I’ve been conflicted about this issue of violence for many years. I’ve come to the conclusion that as a matter of principle, and because of practical and illustrative reasons, initiating violence, though seemingly justified, is counter productive (Do I need to be more illustrative?)

Regarding the AmeriCorp tyrants, I’m well aware of the magnitude of their crimes. To me, their foreign policy crimes supersede their domestic crimes, and their foreign policy crimes provide the best justification for offing their heads. I won’t be grieving over their graves, I would be more inclined towards dancing, but I won’t be advocating putting them in their graves. My reasons for not advocating putting them in their graves go beyond purely moral ones, there are also practical issues involved, not to mention the “Fetid Corpses” of all kinds, and all ages.

Nemesis2010 (Cont.)

Regarding the value of non-violent action, I will state up front, that you’re wrong when you say non-violent action would not be victorious over violent suppression by AmeriCorp tyrants, and their goons, but I can understand why you say there is no such thing as non-violent action. There would be much sacrifice required, many heads busted, and a modicum of bloodletting, but if done correctly, there is no way that non-violent action would not be successful in achieving the desired goals. That’s an absolute assertion, I know, but it matches my absolute belief, and your assertion that it would be “impossible.”

Regarding the AmeriCorp qualms, they’ve got them, and they would be aware of them in very short order. I won’t attribute much moral qualmery{sic} to the AmeriCorp tyrants,  their qualms would come from more practical concerns.

I’m a God damned red lovin’ union supporter from way back. I know union history well, and I also know how much the union movement accomplished, not just for themselves, but for all of us. It took a long time, but I believe they were hampered by, some would say justifiable, violence of their own. Regarding the “Bonus Army” they were just another part of the greater movement, and seen from that perspective, they were successful in their action. I notice you didn’t mention any of the more notable lessons of history pertaining to non-violent action.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Jefferson lived over 200 years ago, in the days of ball and chain, muskets, Kentucky rifles, swords and whatnot. Collateral damage in those days was not as big an issue as it is today because technology, and tactics, had not advanced (Devolved, whatever) to today’s levels. The many gun barrels you mention would be woefully inadequate in today’s world. What we would need would be mucho many surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, and other sundries.

There are all kinds of scenarios that could be envisaged during our pipe dreams, can you give me one that overcomes these obstacles. If so I’ll take it to the bank, oh, incidentally my name isn’t Jack, good guess though.

If you’re serious about combating corporate fascism, why not give some consideration to my strategy. I think that Sun Tzu would give more credence to my strategy, than he would to any pipe dream.

“It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of War that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on” Sun Tzu, The Art of War

As for me, I’m ready to sacrifice, get my head busted, or be a part of the modicum. Hopefully, I won’t get my head busted, or be a part of the modicum, but I’m willing to put my body in the line of fire. All I need is a uniform and an Army (non-violent) to join. (Hopefully, Boot Camp won’t be too rigorous.)

(Regarding the pipe dream you’ll be offering, please don’t offer one that involves a lot of “Fetid Corpses.”)

Inherit the Wind

You state: we know who Bin Laden is so Al Qaeda isn’t terrorist” is laughable.

But in your post of March 2 at 12:34am you affirm that point by stating: “Terrorism” is specifically a violent act, deliberately aimed at civilians by a guerrilla organization to show them that ANYONE can be random victims.  It’s key is the randomness and anonymity of the killers beforehand. THAT defines the difference between “Terrorism” and “Terror”. That is not a well thought out affirmation, but an affirmation on your part regardless. And now you’re trying to justify it and you keep digging yourself in deeper. You are all over the road like a carcass of road kill.

Like I told you before, you are being apologetic for terrorism. You want to leave yourself an out so you can argue in favor of it without guilt, so you can support it when convenient even though you are totally contradicting yourself. You seem to be not defined on the issue and it seems like you’re struggling with it. I suspect because of loyalties that push you to lose your objectivity. You know what those loyalties are and so do most here.

So the the questions I asked by extension of the rationale you are using here, using bin-Laden as an example, and using the rationale of your argument I asked the the following: Is that why Inherit the Wind’s comments seems to be a mish-mash of conflicting views? We know who bin-Laden is, does that mean he’s not a terrorist? So doesn’t that make the anonymity argument flawed? You didn’t answer to back up your previous affirmation. Instead you avoid the issue and try turn it around with semantics, which is as dishonest and hypocritical as that of any politician. Its Palinesque.

Jeez Inherit the Wind, don’t you know what you write? and that you’re contradicting yourself? You’re right it is is laughable but I’m the one laughing case you’re not making any sense. You’re trying to dissect the term with a scalpel and all your doing is making a bloody mess. All you’ve done is just exposed yourself as an individual with shallow ill defined principles that you lose when they come in conflict with your ideological loyalties. Principles should always supersede ideology. Or is that you confuse the two?

You were doing fine until the debate started to hit close to home and started challenging your loyalties and preconceptions. Maybe they are so ingrained in you that you can’t make a distinction. In other words you would had to condemn Israel for terrorism by extension if you agree with the premise of the solid arguments you have been presented here with, not so much by me, but by others here. Obviously you are not prepare to do that. This is where you started to backtrack and expose yourself and show a lack of objectivity. Of course your last line of defense is to throw the Z word out there and pass yourself off as a victim. 

I think that nemesis2010 on his post of March 2 at 7:33 pm drove this point concisely. For the purposes of this debate I think he cleaned the floor with you argument.

As for MarthaA debating her is about as productive as debating Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin. A total waste of time and an exercise in futility. All we can do is expose her to others. She started out so well in another thread but once the firmness of her convictions were challenged she also turned out to be quite shallow. Now she comes out trying to argue with childish questions because her argument has been totally discredited. So he asks, “why would anyone want to make Stack into a terrorist?” Are you kidding? He did it himself MarthaA, nobody made him. He made himself a terrorist.

To try to discredit me, I am labeled a “Zionist”.  Of course, to the labelers, anyone who does not the support the TOTAL destruction of the State of Israel is a “Zionist”, to be viewed as the equal of Nazis, or, since the Nazis are gone, far worse.

This is duplicitous.  I AM a supporter of the continued existence of Israel, but I am a harsh critic of its current government, its idiotic war in Lebanon, and its duplicity in its dealings with the occupied territories of the West Bank.

But all that is merely a red herring to try to dissuade people from reviewing my definition of Terror vs Terrorism.  One poster even claims not to know what guerrilla warfare is!  Talk about duplicity!

The inanity of saying “we know who Bin Laden is so Al Qaeda isn’t terrorist” is laughable. When an army shells a civilian neighborhood just to punish a nation (such as the US fire-bombing Dresden) that is TERROR.  When an anonymous guy in a raincoat steps onto a bus and triggers a vest bomb that is TERRORISM.  The fact that Bin Laden might have sent him changes nothing.  One is not worse than the other.  They are simply different.  To claim they are the same is to diminish the evil of both.

The inability to understand that targeting civilians is fundamentally different than targeting military targets defies credulity.

I do not deny that the “Global War on Terror” is absurd, but to simply ignore those who want to hurt us, whether they be Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, or Osama Bin Laden.  Or Stack…would be the mark of the imbecile.  Yet that is what some here propose…assuming, of course, that somebody ELSE and their family will be the victim, not their own.

In this they are as cowardly as a Dick Cheney or George Bush, talking tough and letting somebody ELSE’s children go off to die.

I seldom agree with ardee, but as to Joe Stack not being a terrorist, I fully agree that Joe Stack was not a terrorist.  Joe Stack did a terrible thing and he paid for it with his life.  His life was a misery to him on earth, hopefully he will find rest and peace in the next one.  I can not see the point of trying to make Joe Stack a terrorist.

Do you know how many people get killed in car wrecks?  Check it out.  Should these people be terrorists?  Whose to know what their intentions were?

An interesting debate, and one that highlights just how confused so many of us actually are these days, myself included.

There is terrorism and there are acts of freedom fighters and guerrillas politically motivated to free their respective nations from the clutches of the Empire Building and Imperialism that robs them and murders them.

I think the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘war on terror’ has come to be useful to the American military industrial complex as a way to maintain control of our thoughts, eliminate protests of our continual and seemingly endless war and a way to keep us docile and afraid. This is why I hesitate to call Mr. Stack as such.

Using that term for a man driven mad by his personal and seemingly endless difficulties as well as the unresponsiveness of our bureaucrats to individuals such as he plays into the hands of the fear mongers.

Further I completely agree with those who believe, as do I, that the US is the biggest terrorist organization on this planet.

@ Inherit The Wind:

When did I rant? What “creed” did I rant?

Let’s try doing something Republicans seldom do; let’s open a book! A dictionary!

terrorism (tèr´e-rîz´em) noun
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition.)

Isn’t a government an organized group? Let’s continue…

terrorism (tèr´e-rîz´em), term usually applied to organized acts or threats of violence designed to intimidate opponents or to publicize grievances. The term dates from the REIGN OF TERROR (1793-94) in the French Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. Political terrorism may be part of a government campaign to eliminate the opposition, as under HITLER, MUSSOLINI, STALIN, and others, or it may be part of a revolutionary effort to overthrow a regime, a common tactic in guerrilla warfare. Terrorism by radicals (of both the left and right) and by nationalists became widespread after World War II. Contemporary revolutionary groups that engage in terrorist activity include the “provisional” wing of the IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY; the PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION; and the SHINING PATH, in Peru. (The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia)

Pay special attention to: “The term dates from the REIGN OF TERROR (1793-94) in the French Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. Political terrorism may be part of a government campaign to eliminate the opposition…” and keep that in mind while we address your comment that no national army is a terrorist organization.

According to the definitions above the term terrorism has taken on the meaning to include part of a government campaign. Today we would say: state sponsored terrorism. Before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it again, you might want to check out AmeriCorp’s definition of a “state sponsor of terrorism.” AmeriCorp has a definition for “state sponsored terrorism” so there is no argument from AmeriCorp that a state can sponsor terrorism. The next question one must ask is: If there is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism; aren’t the agents of the state who perpetrate the acts of terrorism on behalf of the state, terrorists? Let’s see, shall we? What defines a terrorist?

terrorist (tèr´er-îst) noun
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition)

According to the definitions there is such a thing as state sponsored (government) terrorism and those who engage in acts of terrorism are terrorists! Therefore, if the military of a state that sponsors terrorism conducts acts of terrorism on behalf of said state then it is—by definition—a terrorist organization. Oops!

All these different tags mean nothing to me. They only serve political purposes. It really doesn’t matter much to those who are getting the shite kicked out of them whether or not the perpetrators of the violence are called terrorists, soldiers, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, god’s holy warriors, the Holy Catholic Church, Defenders of the Faith, or any other of the many colorful and deceptive adjectives used to describe those Homo sapiens who perpetrate violence on other groups of Homo sapiens; the end result is always the same.

As for your comments on Jefferson there isn’t hardly a founding father that could not be rightfully called a hypocrite; including Washington and Madison. The very idea of slave owners demanding human rights and freedom from an overlord is laughable to us today. But those hypocrites began the best damn experiment in human self-government in world history.

@ JDmysticDJ
Just how did I advocate for more of the same and what did I advocate? I simply told the truth about how semantics work in human society and how our interpretations of events are filtered by our life experiences and ideologies.
I quote Jefferson and from that you take the leap to holding him up as an infallible deity? I simply said that Joe Stack would have been admired by Jefferson and I based that on Jefferson’s own writings. I don’t doubt that many would not have believed him infallible, neither do I.
I don’t think that Jefferson was advocating a continual anarchy. I believe when taken in context it’s obvious that Jefferson was advocating constant provocation of governmental leaders in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. The holocaust comparison isn’t as warped as you think. What was the result of all the blood-letting of both victim and tyrant in WWII? It resulted in a democratic and much more peaceful Europe and Japan. If you think that isn’t a great accomplishment try studying European history.
What has the failure of adding AmeriCorp tyrant blood to that tree of liberty wrought upon the nation? Nothing less than AmeriCorp; where government pandering in humiliating servility to the ruling corporate overlords has resulted in 1% of the population owning over 80% of the wealth and evisceration of the national economy.
I’ll bet you that if Joe Stack could speak he’d be telling you that that was exactly what he was doing: an action to circumvent reactionary actions! Thanks for confirming my commentary. It’s all about semantics and how one sees an action based on one’s own filters and ideology!
A non-violent revolution? There is no such thing! How old are you? On 4-May-1970 UNARMED Kent State students were protesting the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The result of that UNARMED peaceful citizen demonstration was; 4 dead and 9 injured with one of the nine left paralyzed. It’s known as the May 4th Massacre. Have you ever heard of the Bonus Army and what happened to them on June 17, 1932? By order of the Republican president Hoover, 15,000 - 17,000 hungry, unemployed, and many homeless American veterans—along with their wives and children—were driven out of THEIR capital by tanks, cavalry, bayonets, and gas! How about all the union busting on behalf of Big Corp in the late1800s through the 1930s? The women’s suffrage movement?
Nonviolent action is impossible because of those in power. Tyrants have no qualms using violent suppression of peaceful citizen protests. Do you think the militarization of the U.S. police forces is happenstance? Violent behavior by government enforcement agencies are up and their ever being made to suffer the consequence of their violence against unarmed citizens is almost totally non-existent. Hell, it’s encouraged!
That’s precisely what Jefferson had in mind when he wrote that. It isn’t hyperbole! The more ensconced a tyrant is; the harder to deracinate! Human avarice, hubris, envy and fear prevent peaceful resolution of most sensitive issues that affect us. Tell me, how did the colonial states gain their independence if not from the barrel of a gun? The State is a parasite that destroys its host. 
“A society with the ideals of democracy, personal freedom, freedom of speech, and political action such as ours, as counter intuitive as it may seem to you…,” will never hold on to their nation unless they do it with the barrels of many guns! That’s a fact Jack and you can take that to the bank! Lethargy and the lack of gun barrels is precisely the reason why the republic was lost and is now a corporate fascist empire.

Jay 1953,

Right, I do believe he is a Zionist, which is why I am asking him to refine his definition to explain if he can, his own philosophical denial of the sad normality of “terrorism” and the obfuscation of events leading to its horrific acts, by focusing everyone’s attention just on the words “Terrorism!” and “Terrorist!”

Let’s get to the heart of these matters, and make necessary corrections, not make up a focus that takes our attention away from our wallet and our blood, both lost to opportunists that work us so easily.

Bobadi

Nice post,” funny stuff.”

Actually I wasn’t expecting my dictionary to be so specific about the “spiritual entity separate from the body,” I could have deleted it, but that wouldn’t have been honest. Not being honest is not good for the soul. My intention was to point out that the concept of soul is widely accepted, and that there are certain characteristics associated with the soul. Apparently you’re claiming not to have a soul, but I believe you do have one. If I were to name your soul, I’d call it “soul noir.”

I’ll relate an experience I had to you. As my soul approached the light, I heard a voice say, “Go back, your work is not finished, you must save Bobadi’s soul before you come to the light.” On the one hand, I should be thankful to you, because I’ve been given a sacred duty, but on the other hand, I resent the fact that I’ve been given an impossible task.

When your body’s “Chemical reactions” cease to react, there will be good news and bad news. The good news is, you’ll be free from those 4 character flaws, the bad news is, your soul will be enveloped by darkness, but then, that won’t be too bad, your soul is used to darkness, and you will always have that “funny stuff” thing going for you, so that’s a plus.

Well, good luck I’ve enjoyed this post, it’s been fun, and quite absurd, but I find this kind of fun preferable to your “funny stuff.”

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Stack was a terrorist (I got it from a good source.)

I’ve read Inherit the Wind in another thread and if I’m not mistaken he is an Israeli supporter.

That may explain his/her apologetic attitude, lack of objectivity and difficulty distinguishing what is terrorism. It doesn’t have to be anonymous as he/she suggest. It can be committed by well defined combatants terrorizing each others civilians. You know like Hamas and the IDF. He/she seems to be struggling with the term because it’s perpetrated by someone he/she may identify with ideologically or otherwise.

Is that why Inherit the Wind’s comments seems to be a mish-mash of conflicting views? We know who bin-Laden is, does that mean he’s not a terrorist? So doesn’t that make the anonymity argument is flawed?

Terrorism may be perpetrated by a state. Terrorism can seem to be impersonal to the perpetrator but I assure you it is very personal to the victim. Get a limb blown off or a relative killed or hurt and have someone try tell you Well i guess then everything is honky dory because Inherit the Wind says it wasn’t personal. The reason for being a victim is because where you are and you are there because of who you are. It is personal. Many terrorists become terrorists because they have personalized victimization. So it becomes a never ending cycle and very personal.

State terrorism may seem to choose its victims impersonally but it doesn’t take away the fact that it is still terrorism using different protocols for choosing the victims. If both sides accuse each other of terrorism it is probably true.

For example if a state orders an F-16 missile attack on a civilian apartment complex at 3AM on the belief that there is a suspected terrorist sleeping there, knowingly aware that there is going to be other people in the building that are not targets and that in all probability some will be killed or harmed that is terrorism on the state level. The state could have chosen to deal with the terrorist with a different method. The apartment block and its occupants is not a legitimate target and any collateral damage is terrorism.

We can argue whether it’s anonymous and impersonal but that is only being an apologist for terrorism. I’m sure the pilot was briefed on the mission. I’m sure the pilot knows there are totally innocent men, women and children in the building. He presses the button anyway. It’s terrorism.

DJMysticDJ,

Not sure what you are saying..?
Are you saying the dictionary has told you that you have a “spiritual entity separate from the body”?
Sorry that I find this funny, but I really do. Not trying to be insulting here, but this is entertaining to me.

Inherit the wind,

Nah, not interested in “creeds,” just putting out some speculations.

I like your definition of terrorism:

““Terrorism” is a particular kind of guerrilla tactic.  Not all guerrilla tactics are terrorist. The French Resistance (which was NOTHING compared to the Yugoslavian Resistance) primarily attacked Germany military and occupying targets.  That’s not “terrorism”.”

So attacking occupiers is not terrorism?

What if the German occupiers hoarded the French into filthy barely livable camps, by shipping in German civilians that tore down french homes, so to build their own German homes on french soil, steal french resources, work to build a thriving economy from the stolen land, and bolster the German troops with German civilians taking turns at soldering so that all civilians had bloody hands in this.

Would it be “terrorism” for the oppressed French to attack without warning and by whatever means at hand, those German “civilians?”

Inherit The Wind

You say,

“Terrorism” is specifically a violent act, deliberately aimed at civilians by a guerrilla organization…”

You’ve added a little to my dictionary’s definition. Do you also have an agenda? The phrase, “guerrilla organization” is not in my dictionary. To narrowly define terrorism, and not use the traditional definition, strikes me as being Orwellian.

My personal definition would be broader.  Anyone who creates terror is a terrorist, and a practioner of terrorism.

I have an agenda too. I’m not as tolerant of collateral damage, or collective punishment, as some are.

From: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Subject: Our check and white collar crime in Glenwood Hills

Hello Mr Cook,

Lisa Gurule and Brooks LaGree delivered the materials seen at http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/ghna/ghna.htm on Sunday.

We will give Lisa or Brooks our check for $50.

You wrote

One of the top priorities for us, your Glenwood Hills Neighborhood Association Board, is to stay focused on keep crime in our neighborhood to as low a level as possible.

$11,018.00 was stolen from our Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union retirement-protected savings account using a bogus [no required FILED stamp by clerk of court] court order.

Written evidence attests to the fact that there is an organized white collar crime syndicate in New Mexico. Details are enumerated in the above link.

I ask support of the Glenwood Hills Neighborhood Association to help put pressure on APD and city officials to help bring the perpetrators of our stolen money to justice.

bill payne
13015 Calle de Sandias
_____

Larry Everest suggested ‘spreading the word’
http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/karenfield/karenfield.htm

Bobadi

Soul n. -  1. the principle of life, feeling, and thought, in humans, regarded as a distinct spiritual entity separate from the body. 2. the emotional part of human nature. 3. a human being. 4. the essential element of something. 5. noble warmth of spirit. 6. the inspirer of some action. 7. the general ethnic awareness, pride, and feeling among black Americans. 8. of or characteristic of black Americans or their culture: soul food, soul music.

Soulful adj. of or expressing deep feeling.

Additional comments from me would only be unkind.  I doubt that you would find them “funny,” so I’ll use restraint, but I must say, I hope you are able to avoid sociopathic tendencies.

Bobadi and Nemesis didn’t understand a word, just ranting their creeds.

“Terrorism” is a particular kind of guerrilla tactic.  Not all guerrilla tactics are terrorist. The French Resistance (which was NOTHING compared to the Yugoslavian Resistance) primarily attacked Germany military and occupying targets.  That’s not “terrorism”.

When civilians are killed by an attack on a military target, even by rampant disregard for them, it’s not “terrorism”. It may not even be “Terror” (although it can be).

“Terrorism” is specifically a violent act, deliberately aimed at civilians by a guerrilla organization to show them that ANYONE can be random victims.  It’s key is the randomness and anonymity of the killers beforehand. THAT defines the difference between “Terrorism” and “Terror”

“Terror” is a MILITARY tactic, designed to do much the same thing as “Terrorism” but with a difference: EVERYONE knows who to be afraid of, who the killers are—they wear uniforms and carry badges and guns.  They are not some innocuous truck that suddenly blows up next to a school yard.

The US military is not a terrorist organization. No national army is.  It may be an organization that strikes TERROR into people, but it lacks the anonymity of the terrorist.

To blindly throw all non-military deaths into the cauldron of “terrorism” is to MUDDY THE MEANING OF THE WORD!

Jefferson for all his fine words of “freedom” and “liberty” was a total hypocrite, who, unlike his fellow Virginians, Washington and Madison, did NOT free his slaves, not even the woman who bore his children, Sally Hemmings. It’s easy to talk of the “blood of patriots” when it’s not YOUR blood.

Nemesis2010

I see that you’re continuing to advocate more of the same. By the same, I mean the same old errors that have plagued mankind for eons, and are evident today.

Jefferson is my favorite founding father, but I don’t offer him up as an infallible deity, as you apparently want us to believe, and I would suggest that Native Americans, African Americans, and others of his day would be more inclined to believe he was not an infallible deity.

What was Jefferson advocating for, a continuous anarchy, and a near constant flow of Tyrant and Patriot blood, or is it possible that he was also guilty of hyperbole? I don’t want to also be guilty of hyperbole, but let me offer that the blood shed by victims of the holocaust could be seen as the blood of tyrants or the blood of patriots depending on one’s warped interpretation of Jefferson’s often quoted statement. Of course this comparison is ridiculous, but it serves to point out the dangers of ascribing to Jefferson’s ridiculous statement.

I’ll agree that somewhat frequent revolution, better defined as evolution, has been necessary to advance our democracy, but I’ll call this progressive action, or action to circumvent reactionary actions, not a call for intermittent bloodletting.

I believe that idealism supersedes pragmatism, but practicalities do have some relevance. What is it that you see as a practical example of violent revolution? I really want to know. Would it be a spontaneous uprising, a prolonged insurrection, or some other form of violent revolution I’m unaware of? Would this violence put an end to factionalism? Who will assume control of our institutions, once our oppressors have been vanquished? Would the ensuing anarchy caused by violent revolution be conducive to an uncomplicated resumption of our democratic principles, or would the best organized most powerful faction of this violent revolution assume power in order to bring order? Would this powerful faction be opposed by other factions who consider themselves patriots opposed to tyranny? Am I being too pessimistic? Maybe you’re foreseeing a charismatic leader who would be able to unify all factions and maintain our constitution and institutions.

I believe we need a revolution, but the revolution I advocate would be a non-violent one, that would not destroy our necessary institutions, but reform them. Violent movements give tyrants the rationale, and justification they need for violent suppression, but non-violent movements make that violent suppression much harder to prosecute. It’ been said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, but I’ll suggest quite the contrary, our resorting to the barrel of a gun would eliminate any hope of attaining political power, justice, freedom, or peace. 

In a society with the ideals of democracy, personal freedom, freedom of speech, and political action such as ours, as counter intuitive as it may seem to you, preserving democracy will not come from the barrel of a gun, and any suggestion that it will, is just the illusion of a pipe dream, and a distraction from the necessity of pursuing a difficult, more realistic solution.

DjmysticDJ,

Sure I’m a nihilist, the question is: why aren’t you? 
Everything points in this direction, except those who vainly attempt to inject a “soul” into our human understanding.

The belief in “soul” exists only in the minds of those desperate to believe themselves “immortal,” the height of such arrogance belongs to those who see themselves supposedly made in “God’s” image.

Funny stuff: us humans.

How interesting, jay1953——cars stolen in the United States are turning up in bombings in Iraq.

You know, as much as it costs to ship a car overseas, it would seem that this operation would have to be being done through some branch of the U.S. military or through private corporate money, like Blackwater, etc., because no individual could afford to ship stolen cars overseas to be used in bombings.

Now we know where all the stolen cars are going.

Bobadi

Your reliance on pseudo science to state your particular nihilistic dark version of human existence, which denies the obvious reality that human beings have the ability to make choices which affect their quality of life, and future existence,  leads me to the diagnosis that your particular “Chemical reactions” are toxic.

The social sciences are mere speculation, and the most avid followers of clinical behavioral psychology are anti-social theorists, who are incapable of, and fearful of, being human. If you’re into the non-empiricism of social sciences, investigate the existential school of philosophy, which suggests that we are something other than biological automatons controlled by omnipotent “Chemical reactions.”

Of course, this is just my opinion, but I have more faith in the validity of my opinion, than I do in the opinions of mad scientists that see the world through coke bottle thick spectacles (Just a metaphor, no insult to the visually impaired is intended, unless one is referring to the visually impaired quacks of clinical behavioral psychology.)

Stack was just your typical guy next door type, who resorted to terrorist tactics, because he was driven mad by the irrationality of his anti-social individualistic theories, but that’s just a rational opinion. Defining him as a terrorist comes from dictionary definitions, but it’s all semantics; only the mad would suggest Stack’s actions were something other than madness, and terrorists of all kinds, and from all perspectives, are in my humble opinion, suffering from madness.

If you continue to insist that madness is the result of chemical reactions, which can only be offset by pill pushers, I’ll point to another school of psychology, which supports its theories with empirical observations from nature, that stimuli from our environment elicit behaviors which cause physiological changes, and that these phenomena from nature contradict the theory that physiology causes behavior, and indicates that behavior causes physiology.

This leads us to an endless loop of theorist psycho-babble. The scientific study of the workings of the human mind and human thought are futile delving into the metaphysical, and a deranged effort to deny the existence of the human soul.

Common sense indicates that human behavior is learned, that human beings vary in their learned experiences, and that we do have the ability to learn better survival behaviors, which contradicts your nihilist “Chemical reaction” theory. I’ll suggest that the character flaws you cite are learned, and not innate, or inherent, and correcting these flaws is only a matter of learning.

Your nihilistic theories of “Chemical reactions” and inescapable character flaws are in my opinion, counter productive, counter revolutionary, counter evolutionary, and counter intellectual.

@ Inherit The Wind:

All military actions are acts of terrorism –think Stalingrad, Belgium, Poland, London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, etc. The difference is simply how one views it. If it is state sponsored, that state’s propaganda will use semantically positive language like “making the world safe for democracy” to describe their actions, while using semantically negative language to describe those of the enemy.

When it was convenient the AmeriCorp trained and funded groups of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, circa 1980s, were portrayed as the “heroic Mujahidin fighters.” After the defeat of the Soviet Union those same “heroic Mujahidin fighters” turned their sights toward their patron and became, according to AmeriCorp’s Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue), a terrorist organization so threatening to world peace that AmeriCorp—the self-appointed savior of the world—would have to take swift action less the whole of Western civilization collapse into the dust bin of human history. 

After the 9/11 attacks—seen by one side as retribution and the other as unwarranted provocation—by 15 Saudi Arabian, 2 Emirati, 1 Egyptian, and 1 Lebanese al Qaeda members, AmeriCorp launched an invasion and occupation against two nations who neither posed any threat to its national security nor had they, or any of their citizens, ever attacked AmeriCorp. Thus if one views those two invasions and occupations as illegal and criminal then any subsequent act—whether intentional or not—is a part of the whole. (If Nuremburg laws were applied where do you think Bush, Cheney, and that whole neocon cabal would find themselves today?)

In whatever light one holds Joe Stack, be it a patriotic hero, a terrorist, an insane person, etc. makes no difference whatsoever to me. I have no emotional attachment to Joe Stack. People will view him according to their own filtering system and ideology. Tax collection in AmeriCorp—as it is in all States—is a coercive action; and AmeriCorp’s agency to apply that coercive government action is the IRS. Coercion in the sense of State tax collection is nothing less than State sponsored terrorism against its own citizenry! Say what you want about Joe Stack but he couldn’t have chosen a more despised government agency (by AmeriCorp citizens) against whom to perpetrate his act of defiance!

No less a founding father than Thomas Jefferson would have approved of Joe Stack’s actions and considered him a true patriot of freedom and liberty!

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…

“…And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson
Notice that Tom makes it unequivocally clear that the tree of liberty needs an infusion of both bloods -not just that of patriots!

There is no “want” in it. Why do you deny he is when he fits the general parameters as I listed? Why are you so against seeing that? He purposely murdered one person, he wanted to kill far more, and that still isn’t enough for you? That is tolerance taken to a pathological level.

If I removed his name and made it generic would you have supported him? By ignoring the obvious you and the Obama administration are doing just that. If there are move like you then we will see more such terrorist actions soon.

Note Obama administration renews the anti-PATRIOT Act provisions. See Truth Dig.

Why do you want Stack to be a terrorist?

You didn’t address what I said so it means I am right and you need to rethink what you have said.

Why is Stack not a terrorist? He fits its definition, Beck said something against what he did. No matter anything else those are the facts. Why are you morally blind to this? You agree that Stack did the “right” thing in this matter? By not out right condemning him you seem to be doing just that. Something even Beck refused to do openly.

Rupert Murdoch’s Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Glenn Beck IS a terrorist.  One has to be either stupid or kidding that thinks Glenn Beck represents the populace.

So you cut slack for a murderer and terrorist who acted out on things while Beck just talks and is readily condemned by you? You are in need of psychological help with your cognitive disconnect! Beck even condemned Stack on all counts and labeled him “nuts” and such. Just like you. (For whatever it is worth.) He has been circumspect on calling for violent overthrow but he still promotes the general psychology that could make it happen among our more sensitive viewers who figure out the code.

Terrorism is very personal when you’re on the receiving end.

Here is a list of articles that puts US actions right up there with the likes of Libia, Syria, Iran and Israel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cars-stolen-in-us-used-in-suicide-attacks/2005/10/03/1128191658703.html

http://hammernews.com/odomspeech.htm

Glen Beck is in mogul Rupert Murdoch’s army of media propagandists against the populace, the liberals, the socialists, the progressives and is causing psychological harm to millions, getting them to believe that conservatism represents the populace, when there cannot be anything farther from the truth; while Joe Stack’s rampage when he lost control of his senses only killed one person, who, more than likely, was the last person that meant him any harm.

MarthaA why is Glenn Beck a terrorist but Stack isn’t? A most confusing turn of mind you have.

Glenn Beck’s conservative Right-Wing propagandizing for Rupert Murdoch is terrorizing the populace into thinking that conservatives represent the liberal reliant populace; when NO Conservative Right-Wing Republican has ever represented the liberal reliant populace.

Scenario: Village, town, apartment block or neighborhood where people work, live, go to school, raise their families. It is not a battlefield.

Non-combatant civilians eking out an existence living in village, town, apartment block or neighborhood. Suspected insurgent(s) from local population may be living there.

Occupation military forces target said local suspected insurgent(s) living in village, town, apartment block or neighborhood.

Military force calculates that there is a high probability of civilian casualties including civilian deaths. Sanitized as collateral damage.

Military forces strike in spite of “probable” civilian casualties resulting in said civilian casualties including deaths of children and other innocents.

Hostile military forces in spite of the risk of terrorizing civilians attacks and knowingly inflicts civilian casualties. Afterward the locals get an apology and then the entire process is later repeated.

Of course we the benevolent civilians in whose name these military terrorist attacks take place get a sanitize version using all the sanitized words. The people on the ground that were the targets have already been sufficiently demonized for us not to care too much or pay a whole lot of attention to it. Besides we got more important things to worry about like which movie we’re going to see this weekend or if we’ll get home on time from the gym or supermarket to catch Dancing With the Stars.

In the meantime either through government and corporate media censorship we don’t see the images of the dead little kids, or those who survived and whose bodies have been maimed and disfigured.

No, we don’t see the dead and wounded mothers and their children. Kids buried in rubble, or the ones that are alive with perhaps their limbs missing. The desperate wail of parents carrying the dead bodies of their children. The under staffed hospitals and under resourced doctors in a desperate struggle to to save innocent lives. Afterward we don’t see the little coffins as they are lowered in the ground and the inconsolable people at the funerals.

We don’t get to see what has been done in our name. We are too busy watching Dancing With the Stars. It’s all been sanitized for us, so everything is okay. Of course unless it happens to us. Then it becomes terrorism. 

Conclusion:

Civilian population terrorized = terrorism.

Message to civilians: if your relatives, friends and neighbors are suspected insurgents we will kill, maim and hurt you. Even if the evidence is flimsy and based on hearsay. We will terrorize you. We are also capable of terrorism and there is nowhere to hide. We will find you and kill you with your husbands, wives and children and anybody near you who may be so unfortunate to suffer the wrath of our vengeance and domination. Is it clear enough for them to get the message? 

The threat of terrorism is terrorism.

Conclusion: collateral damage = terrorism.

As a final thought: I remember being in countries that was undergoing a political insurrection many years ago. On one occasion driving on a road through a field in the countryside we spotted fighter planes in the horizon. We pulled over and everyone went into the ditch/culvert on the roadside and laid on the ground. I remember the terror and fear I felt as the planes flew overhead. It was a fear of helplessness knowing that if attacked there would really be nowhere to hide. Planes like this had attacked civilians before. Or the time we turned a curve into a roadblock of armed men in khaki not knowing what to expect. Where they government soldiers or guerrillas. The kidnapping and massacres of civilians was not uncommon at the hands of either group. Or the bombs in the distance, is the next one going to drop on us? I remember hiding under a bed as a kid. I guess it doesn’t really become terrorism until you experience that fear. Until it happens to you. Terrorism cannot be sanitize, or justified, with rationalization and terminology.

>But “Terror” is a military tactic to terrify the population into complete and total acquiesence. What the so-called “Marxists” did in Ethiopia, committing unspeakable horrors to terrify ALL opposition into total silence was “Terror”.

>“Terrorism” is a guerrilla tactic designed to shatter people’s belief that their government can protect them.  That was Stack’s goal and he was a terrorist.

As is the goal of Israel’s military tactic of slaughter in Gaza, and bombing assassinations, another equal example of terrorism for the same purpose, but also apparently to stir up a return of some violence back to the terrorist state in response, which is used by Israel as an excuse to maintain its apartheid theft of land and resources.

Oh terrorism what a tactic, how convolved it can become! And the word itself used as anathema to protect monstrous systems of repression.

Saboteurs working in the French resistance come to mind, all terrorists working for the overthrow of Nazi usurpation.

I suppose it all depends on what side you take, if you call yourself a “freedom fighter” someone on the other side is going to call you a “terrorist.”

I think what needs to be defined is which side is using violence in answer to repression.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GUm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:terrorist&ei=dJiKS8XTAYeuswOF9fyEAw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE

nemesis2010, February 25 at 3:26 pm #

So tell me Jay, what is the term that we should use to describe attacks on wedding parties by the U.S. military? Are those acts of terrorism?
********************************************

Actually, no.  If it was not deliberate then it was either purely accidental or criminal negligence.

If it WAS deliberate then it was Terror, but not Terrorism.  Both are equally evil but they are NOT the same thing, although similar. Of course, to their victims, there is no difference.

But “Terror” is a military tactic to terrify the population into complete and total acquiesence. What the so-called “Marxists” did in Ethiopia, committing unspeakable horrors to terrify ALL opposition into total silence was “Terror”.

“Terrorism” is a guerrilla tactic designed to shatter people’s belief that their government can protect them.  That was Stack’s goal and he was a terrorist.

Hating the IRS is one thing. Using violence against them is something else again. I have NO sympathy for Stack.  Lots of people face far worse without blowing themselves up trying to kill others.

I agree that Glenn Beck is a terrorist.

Here are David Sirota’s words:

“Really, the threat isn’t even veiled. To understand it, just ponder comparisons. For instance, ask yourself: What is the difference between Beck’s decree and that of Rwanda’s genocidal leaders in the 1990s? The former broadcasted a call to “eradicate” the “cancer”-like progressives; the latter a call to “exterminate the cockroaches.” Likewise, what separates Beck’s screed from a bin Laden fatwa? They may employ different ideologies and languages, but both endorse the wholesale elimination of large groups of Americans.

And so we finally see tyranny’s hideous image within our midst: It’s not a tightly cropped mustache in a beige uniform; it’s a clean-shaven baby face in a suit — a rodeo clown with a chalkboard who unfortunately speaks for modern-day conservatism.

We should thank him, at least, for admitting what his movement truly wants.” —David Sirota

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/26-6

He knows Stack was a terrorist as I do and you disagree with that so how can you agree with him now?

MarthaA, February 24 at 5:06 pm #

“No, Joseph Stack is not a terrorist.”

“Awad’s description is in line with federal policy. According to Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52)...(like flying a plane into a building housing a federal office) then it’s safe to call it terrorism. So, why the hesitation?”-Marcia Alesan Dawkins

Who is missing reality here MarthaA? Certainly not me, not Marcia Alesan Dawkins but you and Obama‘s gov’t do agree. Now why is that? You both ignore statue to do so.

I agree with your David Sirota post, it is happening here.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/26-6

By MarthaA, February 27 at 5:12 pm #

NOT.

Jay: Wow! What a great argument. What logic!  Why didn’t I think of that? You’re a genius! I’m flabbergasted! I’m absolutely convinced! NOT? Can any one argue against that? That’s ingenious! Why didn’t you say that before? We could of all saved all this typing.

Everyone, it’s been settled Martha convinced everyone.

HAHAHA!

NOT.

For years we have been calling people of other cultures, religions and non-white races terrorists. Now all of the sudden the terrorist is one of our own and there is a problem with the label.

All we get is spin, justifications and excuses. You guys that are in denial don’t you see that if you justify this guy that by that logic you are justifying all terrorism.

nemesis2010

nemesis2010: Jay the term cannot be applied indiscriminately because we are Homo sapiens!

Jay: I’m not applying the term indiscriminately. I apply it as per the definition of the term. (See below)

nemesis2010: Many of your countrymen probably consider you a traitor for admitting that the U.S. is a terrorist nation!

Jay: Sure there may be those in denial and may feel disturbed to have someone state this so bluntly. It’s not an admission since I haven’t been hiding or denying anything, I’m making a statement based on observable facts and events. I’m applying the term strictly by its definition without prejudice. Seems like you may be trying to minimize the term through spin, trying to redefine the term, trying to make excuses for perpetrators, correct me if I’m wrong. Criticizing your country’s policies is not treason, it is a tool of democracy called free speech. Attacking your country with the intention of damaging its institutions and the taking of life “indiscriminately” other than your own is treasonous. You will find those that argue that acts of terrorism on behalf of causes one may support or agree with should be equated to free speech and free expression. That is not acceptable unless one is a terrorist or supporter terrorism. 

nemesis2010: If we apply the definition indiscriminately the world has the right to invade and occupy the U.S. for the same bullchit reasons it gave for invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jay: True. The problem there is we got big guns. We don’t invade or occupy other countries with big guns since WWII. It’s not safe. (sarcasm intended)

nemesis2010: The term is a tool for State propaganda.

Jay: Yes, the term has been hijacked by the right wing, Bush/Cheney, the Republic Party, the media, etc. etc. Still, the term has not lost its definition and there are those of us that try to apply it in a purely objective way. Without spin. 

nemesis2010: It’s a term that the State uses to define their actions as opposed to our actions! You will NEVER find consensus on whether or not Stack was a terrorist or an unsung hero.

Jay: True, there will be those that will spin the term on ideological bent. The fact is though that Stack was a terrorist as per the definition of the term.

nemesis2010: Hell, there still exists a very minority opinion in the U.S. that believes George W. Bush was the best president in history! Talk about believe myth!

Jay: True. Mass dementia will probably be analyzed and studied by future intelligent beings.

nemesis2010: It may be rhetorical but it is none the less truthful. Those four character flaws prevent any system we devise from working well for very long. If Stack’s action would have sparked a revolution and the Empire’s ruling was smashed and the republic restored; within a generation or two we’d be looking at pretty much the same problems.

Jay: Hey no one’s perfect, after all we’re only Homo Sapiens. I believe the phenomena you’re alluding to runs in approximately 80 year cycles in Western (Christendom) civilization.

nemesis2010: It’s always been that way and will continue that way until enough Homo sapiens figure out a way to control those four major character flaws.

Jay: Naaa! We’ll never figure it out. After all we are only mammals subject to the laws of nature. Evolution is too slow of a process and we won’t evolve into those benevolent creatures you’re dreaming of, I don’t think we can figure it out in time. Most likely we’ll self destruct our species to extinction while simultaneously taking down with us a lot of other species. Life will go on though, the planet will rebound without us.

Somebody is losing reality, give you 1 guess, Night-Gaunt.

And you are under control be ignoring the obvious and going along with our own gov’t on that. Don’t you see you are with our gov’t on deciding what what is a terrorist and what isn’t. If you just used what he did without reference to his name & nationality he would fit the qualifications. I don’t care if it is over used. I will correct them on that as you should. Otherwise they win again. Can’t you see that? They are defining reality for us even if it goes against it.

And you are under control be ignoring the obvious and going along with our own gov’t on that. Don’t you see you are with our gov’t on deciding what what is a terrorist and what isn’t. If you just used what he did without reference to his name & nationality he would fit the qualifications. I don’t care if it is over used. I will correct them on that as you should. Otherwise they win again. Can’t you see that? <b>They are defining reality for us even if it goes against it.<?b>

How can you and Ardee think that way? If he did it to you it would be a different story I would say.

Oh, Night-Gaunt, I do not profess to speak for Martha, only rarely do I even speak to her. I do , however, stand firm on my refusal to call this poor son of a bitch a terrorist precisely because that word has taken on a much greater significance and a distorted meaning as well. I would add that ,whether or not I was personally involved in the incident, my views would remain as they are, only I would be dead and not posting them of course!

Terrorist is become a word of control, and, as you have noted I believe, the danger in using it for the actions of a man driven mad by circumstance and engaging in an elaborate and vengeful suicide, is that it further imperils what few rights remain to us.

Be happy our present gov’t isn’t calling Stack a “terrorist” now isn’t that nice? Are you happy? I’m not but that is part of the game with semantics they play with us. The coding of the language they use against us.

So unless the next one has an Arabic name they will do the same. Or either lie our right and claim it will be “Islamic terrorists” if it benefits their agenda.

As for stings, theirs are better, more of them and varied than ours. Most people will sell their guns to buy food or pay the electricity bill or rent.

Think 1934 when they last tried this and failed. The “Business Coup” as it has been named. Well their back and far worse than then. They almost got it then. No one knew of the conspiracy among the richest in the USA! Too bad they recruited a real patriot Smedly Butler who blew the lid off of it and was fired for it. While FDR hushed it up and protected the conspirators, including the Bushes, and so they learned from their mistakes. Now they are back and everywhere to win it all.

“We aren’t as mechanical in our thought and behavioral processes because we can think. They can’t do it to the level we can.”

LOL I don’t know about that!
Reactionaries abound here! We are electro-mechanical-chemical beings,run by chemical emotions and fear is the greatest of these. I am sure he was living in constant fear, on many levels, all directed to the US office of its own stinger: IRS.
I wish the term “terrorist” would just disappear. Like “drugs” and the war on those. We need to step back and see actions and responses to actions for what they are, and not make up a whole new paradigm fear word to obfuscate real political issues with those that only serve to distract and shake us all down.
 
“His reaction was premeditated, thoughtful. He hurt people with malice of forethought.”

And if he were caught alive he should be brought up on those charges, not condemned for a word that is used to produce an unreasoning response and useless and self damaging focus.

“Now we may contend with others who will now see they can do the same thing. That is the greater danger and that the PTB will use such attacks to reduce our liberties even further than after 9/11/01.”

There is a point where the “draconian” response by more authoritarian limitations to freedom could self perpetuate as an endless tit for tat chain I suppose. That is apparently what he was hoping to achieve if you read his last words.

Yeah well something will give somewhere, won’t it?

Is there a way to repair this system? I don’t see it. Show me something. I would like to see it, honestly.

I think in nature you have constant rise, and fall.
You have this in all societies and Empires. 

Do you think we are keeping level, headed up, or on our way down?

One thing though, even in a failed democracy there is the need for those in power not to be too forceful in their control, as seen in more passive crowd control measures you mentioned earlier, that attempt to herd those “angered bees” of us without too much physical harm.

One thing to be thankful for is the beekeepers have a healthy respect: for bees.

@ jay1953;

Jay the term cannot be applied indiscriminately because we are Homo sapiens! Many of your countrymen probably consider you a traitor for admitting that the U.S. is a terrorist nation! If we apply the definition indiscriminately the world has the right to invade and occupy the U.S. for the same bullchit reasons it gave for invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

The term is a tool for State propaganda. It’s a term that the State uses to define their actions as opposed to our actions! You will NEVER find consensus on whether or not Stack was a terrorist or an unsung hero. Hell, there still exists a very minority opinion in the U.S. that believes George W. Bush was the best president in history! Talk about believe myth!

It may be rhetorical but it is none the less truthful. Those four character flaws prevent any system we devise from working well for very long. If Stack’s action would have sparked a revolution and the Empire’s ruling was smashed and the republic restored; within a generation or two we’d be looking at pretty much the same problems. It’s always been that way and will continue that way until enough Homo sapiens figure out a way to control those four major character flaws.

Bobadi

“I’m a king bee baby… buzzin’  round your hive” I’m guessing that John Belushi , a sad casualty of excesses, who occasionally wore a bee’s costume, knew that there was a difference between human beings and bees.

However, I believe that examples of interaction between human beings and bees can be instructive. I was once stung by a bee; I distinctly remember that my sense was that the bee was pissed. My response was, damn! What did I do to deserve this attack? My feeling was that an injustice had occurred.

Fortunately, the bee and I both chose a measured response to this incident, and neither of us escalated the violence. The bee didn’t call on his bee buddies for further attack, and I didn’t make a trip to the hardware store to purchase weapons of mass destruction.

If they are the Brazilian-African hybrids the whole hive would come out and kill you. They are hyper aggressive even worse than wasps. But your analogy doesn’t fit. We aren’t as mechanical in our thought and behavioral processes because we can think. They can’t do it to the level we can.

His reaction was premeditated, thoughtful. He hurt people with malice of forethought. Now we may contend with others who will now see they can do the same thing. That is the greater danger and that the PTB will use such attacks to reduce our liberties even further than after 9/11/01.

>By Night-Gaunt, February 24 at 11:29 pm #
Bobadi I’m only responding to the way you write. I only couch it in more visible terms. Let me quote;
I got to wonder if we should be calling the bee that stings the hand of the beekeeper: “a terrorist?”
You are saying here that Stack isn’t a terrorist. You are wrong.

I am speaking of nature, and natural things. The reason of things. Why things happen, and how they came to be.
Honestly, would you call the bee a terrorist?
I mean: bees do terrorize us, don’t they?
It is a defensive act, right?

Honestly horrible in human terms, the bee sacrifices (human term) its life as a Kamikaze (human term) to terrorize (human term) us away from its societies resources.
(Is this not what Al Qaeda was attempting?)

The bee itself has no premeditation, and is only reactionary in line with its chemical programming.

Premeditation is key here, as we are the “thinking animal,” but how is the bee any different then the human animal operating in the same vane?
I made several comparisons of humans to bees, and they seem to all fit, so where have I failed in this reasoning?

Sure: humans are more evolved socially, I think. Well they are not as orderly are they, as bees are?

Still when there comes to a point of absolute desperation, of complete hopelessness, a feeling of utter desolation, the chemical stresses of this produces a call to action of some kind, just as in bees, or any other animal. This is nature, as is our evolved chemical stimuli of “fight or flight.

(Personally, I more identify with the drones in the sense that I would simply fly away to suckle a sweet flower somewhere far away from the beekeepers hive, but perhaps that is because I do not identify so strongly with any particular society.)

It is obvious that this particular bee was attempting to martyr himself in an effort to stimulate the hive to action.

Yeah, I think this fits the definition of “terrorist”  but I don’t think it so completely unreasonable that he became one.

I am surprised we haven’t yet heard any Jeffersonian quotes yet, as there was a founder who knew human nature, and the Phoenix to him held more to reality then myth, I imagine.

How many psychology experts said he was fully sane?

MarthaA/Volma

Woah, now! Mellow down eeeeeeeasy. You both seem to be a little “Edgy.” Personally, I’m wondering about your agendas. What’s behind all this misdirected venom? Personally I think Stack was a deranged terrorist, by dictionary definition, but I’m not going to lose any sleep worrying about how to define him, nor do I see any reason to identify with him, or to offer mitigations for his act.

Perhaps the most enlightened position would be not to condemn him, because he was just a poor misguided loony (oops!) whose misdirected anger drove him over the edge, but certainly, his act is worthy of condemnation.

Perhaps his act was not as cold and calculated as organized terrorist groups such as: Al- Qaeda, Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Israeli Defense forces,  the U.S. Department of Defense, and others, but the fact that he devoted his life to non-productive anger, which finally popped his cork, doesn’t excuse him from being a terrorist.

If the insanity defense were to be applied to terrorists, they’d all be excused.

“It’s estimated that in Iraq alone there are over 100,000 civilians dead and millions more displaced. Neither Iraq nor the Iraqis—pre-invasion—had ever perpetrated any act of violence against the U.S. or its citizens. The same can be said of Afghanistan and Pakistan?”

Look what happened to Iran.

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/karenfield/karenfield.htm

By MarthaA, February 25 at 5:39 pm #

The IRS victim was collateral damage.  There was no terrorist.

Are you willfully ignorant or blind on this? He wanted to crash into a building holding gov’t offices including the IRS. Which makes him a terrorist because he deliberately targeted it. You will find that it is right wingers who champion such action, and Liberterians, not Liberals & Progressives.

You conservative right-wingers can hold out that this man was a terrorist if you want, that is up to you, but the man had lost control of his senses.  No one kills himself without being a military person in a terrorist organization, unless he has lost his sense of right and wrong.

Actually he wasn’t insane, he just changed his parameters of what he considers important. Right or wrong not withstanding. Which is the same as the aforementioned military and “terrorists” who are also military too. [If they were fighting for us instead of against us they wouldn’t be designated as “terrorist” now would they?] How can you and Ardee think that way? If he did it to you it would be a different story I would say. Just like those wedding and funeral parties the USA is so good at destroying with their RPV drones in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Volmer I understand it and the mighty avalanche can be started by one falling pebble. If more follow it will help those like Cheney and those we don’t see behind him. Yes those who picket, threaten and murder abortion/family planning clinic workers are some of our own home grown terrorists but are not treated like that are they? They aren’t “crazy” their values have changed to a more extreme means that do not take into consideration the right or wrong of what they do to others to gain what they want which to them supercedes a civilized society in their minds.

I don’t see what difference Stack’s mental state makes.  Judging by his manifesto, he seems to have known what he was doing, and what he was doing was committing a violent act in order to make a political point and possibly influence other people politically.  That is the usual definition of terrorism.  If we’re going to exclude the deeds of “crazy” people from the category of terrorism, we might as well give up using the word, because almost all terrorists are “crazy” in the sense that they do not act the way most of us do.

Funny funny funny how the comments have become a game of semantics or relativism…Just the SOS of no win circular type brain games to defend ego’s, promote agenda’s, the same old right wrong black white duality with no acknowledgment that reality is not at all this way..I question the agenda of the people who want to judge, hang and hate a person who they have limited knowledge of except for what they read in the propaganda fed to American’s daily called “NEWS”  I do not know this man, don’t defend or condemn him, but ....If he is a terrorist then the radical pro lifers who picket abortion clinics are terrorists, our potential terrorists…The people who listen to Fox news hate propaganda against liberals, Obama (I’m no fan but he is no different than Bush, the dems and repugs are all the same party) are calling upon their listeners to be upset, to get their guns ready for acts of terrorism, encourage and support men like this to make a individual statement, or group violence, these shock jocks are terrorists inciters…Men that beat their wives are terrorists because they believe that it is their God given rights (their religious beliefs) that they are the boss ruler head of the household, over their wives and children…So these people who murder or kill their wives and children because of their religious based belief system of male domination are terrorists…The US gov when they surrounded the religious group in Texas, years ago for days upon days with tanks, the army etc…when these people did nothing absolutely nothing illegal, was a group act of terrorism upon a group of people who were living in a religious collective…The US went into Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the country killed and maimed thousands of people for NO REASON are terrorists…Insane individuals who kill dozens of prostitutes because they believe they are evil and God wants them gone are terrorists…How about the pedophiles who believe as a group/individually that “Sex after 8, is too Late” and truely believe that what they do to children is good, love and Godly, this is their religious belief, they must be terrorists too…So with this definition, all crimes committed after being broken down have religious and/or political social motivations that are the core of the dirty deed..There are actual people and religions out there that worship death and chaos and call it good, godly saintly…Our own president who just won the Nobel Peace Price, claims “War is Peace!” How CRAZY IS THAT…It’s as crazy as calling or defining for political purposes the acts of a angry negative hopeless stuck individual who blew, simular to the high school murders and college murders and wife murders, family murders a terrorist…I do believe that the powers that are in charge of the US government are terrorists against it’s own citizens…
We are terrorized every time we listen to the news propaganda, we are terrorized when we went to war with an innocent people over and over against, originally because of a true crime against humanity perpetuated on the citizens of the US by the terrorists named Bush, Cheney and gang, assorted characters from all over our pretend democrazy like the Clintons etc..  Sorry to step on your version of reality but 911 was an inside jobs, and the real terrorists are all citizens of the US who allowed world terrorism, conquering to occur because they don’t really want to know the truth. Germans gathered around Hitler’s Third Reich, killing torturing invading, world conquering, and they truely believed themselves to be in the right…
They had to do this or the rest of the world would try to take them over…WAKE UP…There is truth out there and a larger reality than your little ego, agenda’s political or religious…We have got to stop this useless never ending bickering and fighting over the irrelevant and focus on the big picture, what is going on before your very eyes…

MarthaA, February 25 at 6:21 pm

I agree that Stack was no terrorist, simply a man driven insane by his own inadequacies among other reasons. As to the reasons why the Towers fell, I would lead you to the archives of Architectural Digest for some interesting articles, by architects and engineers explaining why the unique and code violating engineering of those buildings led to exactly what happened.

“By MarthaA, February 25 at 6:21 pm #

You conservative right-wingers can hold out that this man was a terrorist if you want, that is up to you, but the man had lost control of his senses.  No one kills himself without being a military person in a terrorist organization, unless he has lost his sense of right and wrong.”

Martha, you are the one that is identifying yourself with the right wingers. It is the O’Reillys, the Hannity’s, the Glenn Beck’s and the Limbaughs that are taking the position you are defending.

nemesis2010: “Not disappointed Jay because you responded. But I must admit to surprise. It isn’t often one hears an American say his country is a terrorist nation.”

Jay: The definition is very clear. Just apply it indiscriminately.

nemesis2010: “Your problem, as with all of us, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We are Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens have four major character flaws: 1) avarice 2) hubris 3) envy 4) fear. These four major flaws are the reason none of the “isms” work and why one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero. To the victor go the spoils!”

Jay: This is for the most part a rhetorical response.

nemesis2010: “We have only recently left the savannas of what today is known as the African continent. We are only a couple of hundred years into enlightenment compared to many millennia of rapacious survival. Fear of the other—along with avarice, hubris and envy—make it almost impossible to achieve anything without violence. We are what we are and what we are; are big brained apes! We’ve quite a way to go but I fear our technology combined with our four major flaws may bring about the destruction of our species before we can evolve any significant distance toward further enlightenment.”

Jay: I would agree with all that you just stated.

nemesis2010: If I’m not mistaken some of your other comments lead one to infer that you are a Christian. If that is so and if the U.S. is—as you claimed here—guilty of terrorism then by the dictates of your faith; the U.S. is and will continue to reap the violence that it has sowed. Interestingly, one of the most vociferous backers of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupation were the Christian evangelical apocalyptic fringe!”

Jay: Well now you got me going. Evolution is real, beyond doubt. I don’t believe in divine retribution. As a matter of fact I don’t believe in the divine at all. Religion is fundamentally based on myth, legends and superstition. Religion, like all radical ideologies, is pathological. A form of insanity. When you put a backdrop of people who claim to hear divine voices and/or seeing visions of angels and saints and so on I would categorize religious faith as a form schizophrenia. That is how we would diagnose biblical figures in a modern sense. Religious belief or belief in God is based on the delusion of pure faith even though the evidence contradicts this blind faith to scripture. Political radicalism is a similar pathology and as we have seen many times interwhined with religion. So there are a lot of loose crazies out there. I don’t consider myself a Christian. And because I’m not a Christian and not religious I consider myself of higher moral and ethical integrity than those who call themselves Christians and/or identify themselves with a religious faith. Maybe it’s “hubris” on my part to say that. I don’t believe in God, but still I’m a skeptic. So I’ll give a 99.99% possibility that there is no God. There is no afterlife. There is no virgin birth. There was no resurrection. When you die you die and that’s the end of it. There is no judgement day. You don’t get to go to heaven or hell when you die. You just cease to exist. Eternity is now. I’m a humanist and value life because I believe you only get one shot at it. So does everyone else and I love their life as I love my own. Just like I wouldn’t think of taking my life I wouldn’t think of taking another. It is only fair and just.

You conservative right-wingers can hold out that this man was a terrorist if you want, that is up to you, but the man had lost control of his senses.  No one kills himself without being a military person in a terrorist organization, unless he has lost his sense of right and wrong.

This was not a military person.  This was one man who blew his mind and there was some collateral damage, but the most explosive part of the situation is not whether or not he is a terrorist because he could still write, but that the building didn’t come down free fall, and the steel didn’t disintegrate.

On 9/11/01, there is still a lingering technical question about how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and dropped in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24856.htm

Everything works together for good, so the Austin airplane crash may be a way of showing the populace that a large building doesn’t come down free fall explosively from an airplane crash.

@ jay1953

Not disappointed Jay because you responded. But I must admit to surprise. It isn’t often one hears an American say his country is a terrorist nation.

Your problem, as with all of us, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We are Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens have four major character flaws: 1) avarice 2) hubris 3) envy 4) fear. These four major flaws are the reason none of the “isms” work and why one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero. To the victor go the spoils!

We have only recently left the savannas of what today is known as the African continent. We are only a couple of hundred years into enlightenment compared to many millennia of rapacious survival. Fear of the other—along with avarice, hubris and envy—make it almost impossible to achieve anything without violence. We are what we are and what we are; are big brained apes! We’ve quite a way to go but I fear our technology combined with our four major flaws may bring about the destruction of our species before we can evolve any significant distance toward further enlightenment.

If I’m not mistaken some of your other comments lead one to infer that you are a Christian. If that is so and if the U.S. is—as you claimed here—guilty of terrorism then by the dictates of your faith; the U.S. is and will continue to reap the violence that it has sowed. Interestingly, one of the most vociferous backers of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupation were the Christian evangelical apocalyptic fringe!

The IRS victim was collateral damage.  There was no terrorist.

By nemesis2010

nemesis2010 asks Jay: “So tell me Jay, what is the term that we should use to describe attacks on wedding parties by the U.S. military? Are those acts of terrorism?”

Jay: Yes.

nemesis2010 also asks Jay: “It’s estimated that in Iraq alone there are over 100,000 civilians dead and millions more displaced. Neither Iraq nor the Iraqis—pre-invasion—had ever perpetrated any act of violence against the U.S. or its citizens. The same can be said of Afghanistan and Pakistan?”

Jay: Yes, that is also terrorism.

nemesis2010: You state: Let’s hear from ya Jay. Don’t disappoint!

Jay: Disappointed? What is it that you don’t get? Take of the ideological and emotional blinders. Terrorism is terrorism.