Wherever you got that definition from...I wouldn't use anymore. The fact that they use the word they are defining in the definition is...not so good.ruisleipa wrote:
But I'm sure you noticed that even in the 'dictionary definition' there are...er...different definitions.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
I can't fathom how this thread has gone on this far/long. The Confederacy was trying to break away from the Union. They set up a goverment and even had a President. The CSA had uniforms (sometimes home sewn)... FFS come on.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
DBBrinson1 wrote:
I can't fathom how this thread has gone on this far/long. The Confederacy was trying to break away from the Union. They set up a goverment and even had a President. The CSA had uniforms (sometimes home sewn)... FFS come on.
sourcenot sure what your point is but some claim or certain southern people claim that Union soldiers were terrorists since according to them they were the ones who attacked the south.... and they were the ones involved in raping and pillaging...
Confederate victories in the early days in Va (in contrast to defeats in the west) did in fact nearly bring recognition from England and France. In an attempt to stave this off, Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves behind Confederate lines but not in states that remained loyal or were under Union control. source --->
Last edited by blademaster (2010-04-20 12:12:35)
Not sure I agree in this case. if you say 'We are in a state of terrorism' it means you are in the state of fear as a result of someone's terrorism as per definition 1. I guess.SenorToenails wrote:
Wherever you got that definition from...I wouldn't use anymore. The fact that they use the word they are defining in the definition is...not so good.ruisleipa wrote:
But I'm sure you noticed that even in the 'dictionary definition' there are...er...different definitions.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
"We are in a state of terrorism due to terrorism"? That's ridiculous. Get a definition that doesn't define the word with the word itself. That's like defining a toaster as "a device that performs the function of a toaster". Ridiculous!ruisleipa wrote:
Not sure I agree in this case. if you say 'We are in a state of terrorism' it means you are in the state of fear as a result of someone's terrorism as per definition 1. I guess.SenorToenails wrote:
Wherever you got that definition from...I wouldn't use anymore. The fact that they use the word they are defining in the definition is...not so good.ruisleipa wrote:
But I'm sure you noticed that even in the 'dictionary definition' there are...er...different definitions.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
That guy is a f'n moron. Yea, Robert E. Lee was a terrorist. *facepalm.blademaster wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
I can't fathom how this thread has gone on this far/long. The Confederacy was trying to break away from the Union. They set up a goverment and even had a President. The CSA had uniforms (sometimes home sewn)... FFS come on.sourcenot sure what your point is but some claim or certain southern people claim that Union soldiers were terrorists since according to them they were the ones who attacked the south.... and they were the ones involved in raping and pillaging...
Confederate victories in the early days in Va (in contrast to defeats in the west) did in fact nearly bring recognition from England and France. In an attempt to stave this off, Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves behind Confederate lines but not in states that remained loyal or were under Union control. source --->
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
alright keep yer hair on. I didn't write it.SenorToenails wrote:
"We are in a state of terrorism due to terrorism"? That's ridiculous. Get a definition that doesn't define the word with the word itself. That's like defining a toaster as "a device that performs the function of a toaster". Ridiculous!
Didn't read through 7 pages... but one of the CNN comments said the US Dept of Defense defines terrorism as:
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
So our own government couldn't call them all terrorists. The Confederacy targeted the Union's troops (mainly?). They were trying to influence, but their main goal was to defeat the North. The North did the same shit.
"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
So our own government couldn't call them all terrorists. The Confederacy targeted the Union's troops (mainly?). They were trying to influence, but their main goal was to defeat the North. The North did the same shit.
You may not have written it but you did cite it. Using the broadest definition possible is not the best way to win this argument...unless you earnestly believe that a majority of world is comprised of terrorists. To make the term meaningful, the connotation must go with it.ruisleipa wrote:
alright keep yer hair on. I didn't write it.
FFS read the thread + why I mentioned it. I didn't cite it because I agree with it.SenorToenails wrote:
You may not have written it but you did cite it. Using the broadest definition possible is not the best way to win this argument...unless you earnestly believe that a majority of world is comprised of terrorists. To make the term meaningful, the connotation must go with it.
You know, I did read the thread. It's you basically arguing that there is no accepted definition of terrorism, and then using whichever one supports what you are saying.ruisleipa wrote:
FFS read the thread + why I mentioned it. I didn't cite it because I agree with it.SenorToenails wrote:
You may not have written it but you did cite it. Using the broadest definition possible is not the best way to win this argument...unless you earnestly believe that a majority of world is comprised of terrorists. To make the term meaningful, the connotation must go with it.
The fact there are so many definitions supports the fact there are...lots of definitions. I mean, there's nothing to argue over tbh. I don't see what the fuckin problem is.SenorToenails wrote:
You know, I did read the thread. It's you basically arguing that there is no accepted definition of terrorism, and then using whichever one supports what you are saying.