Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Jimmy... Dead., Jun 19, 2014.
... you were done a long time ago.
All CF's weaselly excuses for AntiFa could be made for many terrorist organizations, how ironic.
They're not terrorists when they act violent in defense of themselves or others? Most terrorist organizations claim a kind of victimhood and claim to be doing what they do for the benefit of others. It's part of the manipulation.
Didn't the Obama administration's homeland security refer to AntiFa as a domestic terrorism group?
Yeah, because you can't learn anything online. Better just to follow the ol' beer gut, amirite? Yer so smrt.
... love how they handled this
no its called actually looking into something before randomly spurting something out after a google search, you simpleton.
Next thing you know this clown is going to say Siri is one of his sources
yeah, most of the middle east looks at us as terrorists and war criminals. But i'm pretty sure that's something crimmie's dense mind had already grasped.
Well, I mean considering our alliance with Israel and the war crimes commitedc by the US they have a solid argument in thinking of this country that way
...well whattayaknow, something me and the bearded lady somewhat agree on.
Our allegiance with israel does not make us war criminals or terrorists. But we're not much better since we support and fund that terrorist fake state ... who are pretty much committing genocide as the world watches.
I would agree that there's left-wing nationalism, and that there's right-wing black nationalism. I can't accept that racism and anti-semitism is a "right-wing" phenomena by default though. If we wanted to triangulate something approaching right-wing politics, a dislike for sexual "deviance" would likely make the cut. Homophobia is really a stupid term though, and needs to die.
Racism is endemic to the human species, and no ethnicities have been as hospitable to Jews as non-Nazi Euro/Americans; particularly US Republicans.
If you show up to counter-protest, the claim of self-defense grows ever more tenuous by leftist thought. Counter protesters are basically George Zimmerman, no?
The US isn't innocent by any means, but Arabs and Persians, by and large, violate "human rights" in their sleep. Gotta love how you cover for literal patriarchies though.
No way man, I use Alexa.
you cant because it's retarded to even imply such things. The amount of ignorance someone has to display to even say something like that is beyond belief.
This is why defining terrorism by the dictionary definition is either preposterous or so broad as to be essentially worthless as a label. Cats terrorize birds (RE Ein; yes it's different to say "an act of terror" because applying "act" to an animal is an anthropomorphism) and all governments become terrorists.
The legal definition is what matters in any meaningful sense and the US Code of Laws itself rejects any idea that terrorism has to be political by definition.
I'd say it's the legal definition and the etymological context that largely shapes the meaning of "terrorism" in the modern world. It's true that one individual can terrorize another without there being any political motivation; but that's not what people tend to think of when they hear that someone committed an act of terror. I don't think the latter can be discounted.
But this feels like an unnecessarily long argument. Does anyone object to there being such a thing as right-wing terrorism, or that citizens carrying out violent acts in the name of right-wing ideology can be called terrorists? I don't think so...
When one references laws to justify their arguments, the laws should actually do that. Falling back on the dictionary or common parlance is an admission of defeat.
I agree with that. I just happen to think that when we're talking about words, there are multiple dimensions that need to be considered. When speaking of terrorism, I don't think it makes sense to say that most people don't imagine acts that are politically motivated. That is, in the popular imagination (which is indispensible when discussing the meaning of language), terrorism often connotes political motivation. The transmission of the word into English reinforces that connotation.
Sure, most people assume a political motivation when they hear about terrorism. I think most people can agree with that, but at the same time most actions can be reduced to politics even if the actor wouldn't consider what they've done to be political. Inter-religious conflict can be viewed as apolitical and political with equal amounts of accuracy, it just depends on who is judging the act.
This is also why I think the legal definition is infinitely more relevant, otherwise everything is terrorism all the time.
Btw I accept this as truth, if the word "terrorism" entered the English language via The Reign of Terror then what you say is basically inarguable.
I don't think anyone on this board thinks there's no such thing as "right wing terrorism". The question is the definition and the prevalence. Even under the most generous definition the prevalence is nearly non-existent.
Canadian City Leaders Declare Anarchy Symbol to Be Hate Speech.
There were two main arguments happening here. One was that a few people(mainly crimson) thought that the word terrorism can only be used when politics is involved. He was wrong. He also tried to imply that terrorism is something that only plagues the right, when the biggest terrorist group/organization in this country are far left and they are out there terrorizing this country on a daily basis. He was slapped in the face with facts, couldn't handle it, proceeded to hop back on his imaginary high horse and took off. i love it
Is a Islamist who wants far-left economic structures and ultra-conservative social structures a right-wing terrorist or a left-wing terrorist?