What makes a terrorist?

[6thGen]

OK, I'll admit that I envy your free time, since I got tied up in real work and entertaining real people, but are you still of the opinion that political and civil oppression is not a cataylist (sic)? Trying to catch up with your arguments on this thread reminds me of Clinton dissecting the meaning of "is".

 

[Mango]

OK, I'll admit that I envy your free time, since I got tied up in real work and entertaining real people, but are you still of the opinion that political and civil oppression is not a cataylist (sic)? Trying to catch up with your arguments on this thread reminds me of Clinton dissecting the meaning of "is".

Is that what they are calling conjugal visits now? tied up and entertaining people?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

OK, I'll admit that I envy your free time, since I got tied up in real work and entertaining real people, but are you still of the opinion that political and civil oppression is not a cataylist (sic)? Trying to catch up with your arguments on this thread reminds me of Clinton dissecting the meaning of "is".

6thgen -?Catalyst? does not equal ?root cause?.

Actually, this isn?t taking much time at this point because you have simply resorted to re-hashing your old argument.

And so here we go again???..(from earlier)

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]

6thgen -?Catalyst? does not equal ?root cause?.

Actually, this isn?t taking much time at this point because you have simply resorted to re-hashing your old argument.

And so here we go again???..(from earlier)

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.?

I never said it was the root cause. I said it was a root cause. Do you still not believe that it is a catalyst?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

I never said it was the root cause. I said it was a root cause. Do you still not believe that it is a catalyst?

Well it took several pages of posting and repeatedly beating you over the head to get you to abandon (a defacto concession) your 95% correlation so I?m not surprised I?m going to have to wack you over the head with this point until it sinks in???..

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

?Not necessarily? is a long way from ?not believe?. Nice attempt to shift the argument again there, 6th.

Regardless, whether you are trying to assert that it is a or one of the root causes does not alter the definition of root cause. Civil and political oppression is simply absent from too many examples of terrorism to be the or one of the root causes for terrorism.

 

[Gypsea]

Is that what they are calling conjugal visits now? tied up and entertaining people?

Mango, thanks for lightening up this here thread!!!

 

[Gypsea]

I'm with you anyday UT.

 

[6thGen]

Tell you what, you show me where I said that it was the only cause of terrorism, and I'll concede. I believe it is a primary cause, a root cause, but not the only cause. Like I never said that it would show 95% correlation, I never said it was the only cause, but you are doing well at disproving things I've never claimed.

Now, is it a catalyst?

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Tell you what, you show me where I said that it was the only cause of terrorism, and I'll concede. I believe it is a primary cause, a root cause, but not the only cause. Like I never said that it would show 95% correlation, I never said it was the only cause, but you are doing well at disproving things I've never claimed.

Now, is it a catalyst?

I really don?t care if you represented it was the root cause or one of many root causes. That is irrelevant to this debate because both are within the accepted definition of a ?root cause(s)?.

The issue here is that you keep offering your beliefs (see example above) that a catalyst or factor that is present in some examples of terrorism is somehow also a ?root cause?. It is not.

Poverty and hatred of Israel are also catalysts in some examples of terrorism, and yet you aren?t considering these to be ?root causes?.

Therefore your belief is incorrect.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

6thgen -?Catalyst? does not equal ?root cause?.

Actually, this is not correct.

A catalyst, or factor, that is only present sometimes; does not equal a 'root cause'.

See 6thGen, it is easy to go back and admit errors and move forward.