What makes a terrorist?

[kathydwells]

I understand this thought, but it would make more sense to me if these terrorists were terrorizing their gov't which has oppressed them. I don't see the connection as to how their own govt suppressing them would lead to terrorizing another country.

I agree.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

I?ll make my position very easy for you. Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists. I haven?t changed my position on that. People from London speak English, but we can?t assume that if we hear someone speaking English that they are from London. If you want to play ?gotcha? on my use of the term ?root causes?, you can split hairs on the use of the term, but that?s not the crux of the argument that you are losing.

So we are clear, do you believe that political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.

Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.

I was smart enough to anticipate that argument on post #2 when I made sure to include Timothy McVeigh.

Better address that statistical outlier smokescreen with other examples:

Richard Reid ?the shoebomber who grew up in England
Ted Kazinski ?the uni-bomber
Carlos the Jackal
Any anonymous ETA bomber

All these individuals live(d) in western democracies and have not had their civil or political rights suppressed, and yet all are terrorists. So your attempt to over-simplify the question into a yes or no condition is pointless. Political oppression has played no role in their terrorism.


And since it was your choice to hold out civil and political suppression as the ROOT cause of terrorism I?m afraid we are going to have to keep on bringing the term up until you are prepared to concede the point.

You lost the argument because you made it the crux. Deal with it.


Adressing your mindset wasn't a personal attack as much as a diagnosis. Seek help.

 

[6thGen]

Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.

I was smart enough to anticipate that argument on post #2 when I made sure to include Timothy McVeigh.

Better address that statistical outlier smokescreen with other examples:

Richard Reid ?the shoebomber who grew up in England
Ted Kazinski ?the uni-bomber
Carlos the Jackal
Any anonymous ETA bomber

All these individuals live(d) in western democracies and have not had their civil or political rights suppressed, and yet all are terrorists. So your attempt to over-simplify the question into a yes or no condition is pointless. Political oppression has played no role in their terrorism.


And since it was your choice to hold out civil and political suppression as the ROOT cause of terrorism I?m afraid we are going to have to keep on bringing the term up until you are prepared to concede the point.

You lost the argument because you made it the crux. Deal with it.


Adressing your mindset wasn't a personal attack as much as a diagnosis. Seek help.

Again, you are wrong. Let's just look at 2007. To date, there have been 71 terrorist attacks or thwarted plots worldwide. Given the absolute benefit of the doubt, four were perpetrated by citizens (used broadly) of free states. That includes Cho, a South Korean, Miles Cooper, the Brit busted for UK letter bombs, Paul, a resident of Ohio that was busted teaming up with AQ to bomb European tourist resorts and US military bases, and really giving you your argument, a Rikers Island inmate who tried to pay a guard to kill NYC Police Commissioner Kelly. I'm not taking the time to go through every year since a 95% correlation from the current year fits my argument. You can disprove it if you like, but you can't. I'm also not counting Dix, JFK, or Glasgow since the terrorists were of foreign origin from countries with oppressive regimes (save Turkey, but they aren't exactly a beacon of light for democracy).

95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing.

 

[scooterbug44]

Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.

Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.

What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?

Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.

An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!

 

[6thGen]

Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.

Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.

What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?

Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.

An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!

Exactly on Cho and the unnamed inmate - I'm taking giving the benefit of the doubt to the extreme.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Again, you are wrong. Let's just look at 2007. To date, there have been 71 terrorist attacks or thwarted plots worldwide. Given the absolute benefit of the doubt, four were perpetrated by citizens (used broadly) of free states. That includes Cho, a South Korean, Miles Cooper, the Brit busted for UK letter bombs, Paul, a resident of Ohio that was busted teaming up with AQ to bomb European tourist resorts and US military bases, and really giving you your argument, a Rikers Island inmate who tried to pay a guard to kill NYC Police Commissioner Kelly. I'm not taking the time to go through every year since a 95% correlation from the current year fits my argument. You can disprove it if you like, but you can't. I'm also not counting Dix, JFK, or Glasgow since the terrorists were of foreign origin from countries with oppressive regimes (save Turkey, but they aren't exactly a beacon of light for democracy).

95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing.

The highlighted part of your quote is probably the most insight we will get into your flawed thinking-

"I just found something that supports my opinion and so now I will close my ears to any other facts so as not to have to change opinions."

One year?

Well for someone who was attempting to give me a lesson in statistics earlier, you are embarrassingly ignorant of statistical methodology.
Your stated goal is to understand the ?root cause? of terrorism, and so you will ignore 30+ years of facts (which contradict your premise) and only examine data from last year.

Shifting the goalpost to suit your needs, ignoring evidence, refusing to admit you are wrong -yep sounds like a 6thGen post (reflections of Bush Admin tactics?).

This thread has gone from entertaining to downright hilarious.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.

Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.

What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?

Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.

An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!

One day 6thGen will learn that facts don?t exist in isolation,

-Just because you can find some scrap of information to support your opinions does not make that opinion valid unless it can withstand the assault of contradictory evidence.

Until he learns this lesson, he will continue to embarrass himself as he has done here. And entertain the rest of us in the process.

 

[TripleB]

One would think that sexually experienced women, waiting on the other side of death, would be more attractive if the dying terrorists' goals were to have good sex.

I agree. Being the "first" is alot of pressure. Multiplied by 70? Geez!

 

[Smiling JOe]

I'm still waiting on the evidence to show that the terrorists have a propensity to use the mentally retarded to carry out their acts of terrorism.

 

[6thGen]

The highlighted part of your quote is probably the most insight we will get into your flawed thinking-

"I just found something that supports my opinion and so now I will close my ears to any other facts so as not to have to change opinions."

One year?

Well for someone who was attempting to give me a lesson in statistics earlier, you are embarrassingly ignorant of statistical methodology.
Your stated goal is to understand the ?root cause? of terrorism, and so you will ignore 30+ years of facts (which contradict your premise) and only examine data from last year.

Shifting the goalpost to suit your needs, ignoring evidence, refusing to admit you are wrong -yep sounds like a 6thGen post (reflections of Bush Admin tactics?).

This thread has gone from entertaining to downright hilarious.

Your ability to dance in the face of failure never ceases to amaze me and your need to call me out for your own failures is nothing short of comical. I didn't shift the goalposts. The goalposts were that terrorism and political and civil oppression correlate with terrorism. You said they don't. You don't bother reading anything I prove, so I don't know why I bother. The other years I looked at were consistent with this year. I am not a journalist so I don't really have the time to go through each year and dissect it. Much to JohnR's chagrin, here's a list of terrorist incidents. Look for yourself to see that it correlates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents