What makes a terrorist?

[6thGen]

Let me make this clear, Timmy. Oppression of political and civil freedoms are a root cause of terrorism. I never said that poverty was, and that was the point of the article. You conveniently ignore every point I make and you find things to nitpick rather than addressing the actual premise. I also never stated that there would be a 95% correlation over several years, I said that there was the overwhelming correlation in 2007. American blacks had their civil rights acts oppressed in the 50s, 60s, etc. and the violence carried over into the 70s with the Black Panthers. The seed had been planted. The Klan in the South was often an arm of the local law enforcement in the South, with several police chiefs, sheriffs and deputies wearing white hoods. There was no fair system of justice, and from this vacuum, there wasn?t a system in place to contain and keep in check the savage acts that occurred during that time period. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Smith, Paine, Burke, Tocqueville, Hayek, Friedman and countless others understood that an established justice system, an established rule of law was paramount to liberty, and a cornerstone of liberty along with property rights and freedom of speech. When those trusted with that responsibility are corrupt, when they are the ones illegally inciting terror, and when there is no one was there to keep their immoral, illegal and barbaric impulses in check, the foundation for liberty crumbled.

You?ve managed to convince an overwhelmingly liberal internet message board that the absence of political freedom and civil liberty has nothing to do with terrorism by using clever fallacies. Congratulations. If the gloves don?t fit, you must acquit.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Let me make this clear, Timmy. I also never stated that there would be a 95% correlation over several years, I said that there was the overwhelming correlation in 2007.
.

Sigh?????

Ok I?ll just keep wacking this over your head until you fess up to your contradiction.

"95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing"??. "The other years I looked at were consistent with this year."- 6thGen

And now?..

?I also never stated that there would be a 95% correlation over several years, I said that there was the overwhelming correlation in 2007.?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

You conveniently ignore every point I make and you find things to nitpick rather than addressing the actual premise.
.

Well wouldn?t that because your ?points? were submitted, by you, to bolster your premise?

And by ignoring, do you mean for example like when I tore apart your list of terrorist incidents to disprove your point regarding a 95% correlation?

Of course I?m nitpicking your points because when I disprove them, then I disprove your primary assertion, that civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

You?ve managed to convince an overwhelmingly liberal internet message board that the absence of political freedom and civil liberty has nothing to do with terrorism by using clever fallacies.

Now, now 6thGen; anyone can go back and read my position on this one.

?Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.?-Uncle Timmy

?Not necessarily? is a long way from ?nothing to do with? ?but let?s all note how you?ve tried to put words in my mouth.

Everyone can also see what you are attempting to do here; if you can shift the argument from proving civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism and onto ?Uncle Timmy says that the absence of political and civil liberty has nothing to do with terrorism? you will be able to demonstrate that there is indeed a frequent connection and therefore you can claim victory and scurry the hell outta this thread before you endure anymore embarrassment.

The problem is, of course, that you have invented a boogieman to fight. If you want to end the embarrassment ?concede the point that ?civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism.?

 

[6thGen]

Well wouldn?t that because your ?points? were submitted, by you, to bolster your premise?

And by ignoring, do you mean for example like when I tore apart your list of terrorist incidents to disprove your point regarding a 95% correlation?

Of course I?m nitpicking your points because when I disprove them, then I disprove your primary assertion, that civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism.

No, you've disproved that the rest of the years didn't show as strong of a correlation as 2007. You also faulted there since you didn't look at the terrorists' country of origin. And again, there was a 95% correlation in 2007, so I'm not conceding a damn thing, but I never said that it was a 95% correlation in other years, I said that other years were consistent, meaning they consistently show a correlation, not necessarily as strong.

The fact that you make an incredible jump by "proving" that the correlation wasn't as strong in other years to your premise that it doesn't at all correlate, and has nothing to do with it shows how intellectually bankrupt you are and how incredibly weak your argument is.

 

[6thGen]

Now, now 6thGen; anyone can go back and read my position on this one.

?Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.?-Uncle Timmy

?Not necessarily? is a long way from ?nothing to do with? ?but let?s all note how you?ve tried to put words in my mouth.

Everyone can also see what you are attempting to do here; if you can shift the argument from proving civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism and onto ?Uncle Timmy says that the absence of political and civil liberty has nothing to do with terrorism? you will be able to demonstrate that there is indeed a frequent connection and therefore you can claim victory and scurry the hell outta this thread before you endure anymore embarrassment.

The problem is, of course, that you have invented a boogieman to fight. If you want to end the embarrassment ?concede the point that ?civil and political oppression is the root cause of terrorism.?

How many times can you respond to one post? I'm not conceding anything that I've demonstrated. I've taken apart your assertion that the 60s and 70s were not oppressive in the US. You ignored that. I've consistently demonstrated that civil and political oppression is a root cause of terrorism, even using your own examples of the Black Panthers and the Klan, you've just chosen to ignore it. I'll be out the rest of the day, and have company this weekend, so feel free to reply to these posts as often as you like and be sure to use plenty of fallacies to demonstrate your lack of a point. It's not hard to convince a sidewalk alumnus of The University of Alabama who is already predisposed to your line of thinking that you are right when you resort to such tactics, and that is clearly the barometer you are shooting for.

 

[Mango]

Let me make this clear, Timmy. Oppression of political and civil freedoms are a root cause of terrorism. I never said that poverty was, and that was the point of the article.

You’ve managed to convince an overwhelmingly liberal internet message board that the absence of political freedom and civil liberty has nothing to do with terrorism by using clever fallacies. Congratulations. If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.

No, you've managed to prove not only in this forum, but in others as well that you speak with a closed and uninformed mind. You told a poster facing foreclosure that they should talk to the Bank directly, that having an attorney call will incite hostility, making an assumption that the defaulter will know what to say and how to protect themselves.

You are again making an assumption that all acts of terrorism are rooted only from political and civil oppression.

I have news for you. Even all the so called "experts" do not know the answers as to what the "root" causes are terrorism are.
There is no neat little package that so called experts can wrap a terrorist in, nor is any one definition of a terrorist the same.

I suggest you take a look at this compilation of sources and small narratives of these sources before you make a head strong decision about your assumptions based on one article or articles you are fed.

This book was given to me after 9/11
Understanding Terrorism
Psychosocial Roots, Consequences, and Interventions
by Fathali M. Moghaddam and Anthony J. Marsella
American Psychological Association, 2004
Review by Roderick Nicholls, Ph.D. on May 6th 2004
Volume: 8, Number: 19

The Psychology of the Terrorist Mind
An Essay filled with valuable endnotes with sources.

There is a reason why a$$ is in the word assumption.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I still have trouble understanding the correlation of oppression and terrorism as it is today. When I look at the Klan, historically, they were the ones committing the acts of terror. There were many peaceful (fearing) black people during that time. Yes, groups like the Black Panthers resorted to violence, but I think they were still the ones being oppressed, and got the worst end of the stick when it came to terrorism by the KKK.

Today, if we look at Al Qaeda being the oppressors, they are oppressing the people of Iraq, yet the Iraqi people have not taken to terrorism against their oppressors, like you say the Black Panthers did.

I see the comparison as being a little off target. IMO, it seems that the oppressors are more likely to be committing the acts of terror, keeping the people oppressed and scared to stand up and fight back. To say that oppression causes terrorism is not right, as I see it. I think it might be more accurate to say that oppressors keep the population oppressed by committing acts of terrorism. I think there is a great difference between the two ideas.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Could I float a theory that maybe 'group A' commits an act of terrorism on 'group B' simply because 'group B' simply pisses off 'group A' for some reason or another;further, 'group B' may never be able to understand fully what they did to irritate the 'A's' to such a degree.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Could I float a theory that maybe 'group A' commits an act of terrorism on 'group B' simply because 'group B' simply pisses off 'group A' for some reason or another;further, 'group B' may never be able to understand fully what they did to irritate the 'A's' to such a degree.

Is Punzy you again?