There is an enormous difference between intent and actually doing. That you consider them the same is really sad.
Again, Ayers did not kill anyone or maim hundreds. His actions were despicable but they did not reach the equivalent of killing or maiming. That you can not see the difference tells much about you.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
towermonkey wrote: Terrorist is a stupid label anyway much like the " War on Terror". Wouldn't any rapist or murderer be creating terror?
Good question. "Google "define terrorist" and you get "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." Creating terror and terrorist have different meaning, although the outcome could be the same (creating terror). But terrorist has become synonymous with a member of a political movement (or government sponsored activity) who has the purpose is to create a new awareness within a culture.
towermonkey wrote: Terrorist is a stupid label anyway much like the " War on Terror". Wouldn't any rapist or murderer be creating terror?
Agree. It is outdated. I see most of these latest bombings and bombing attempts as revenge plots more than terrorism. They want to make Americans pay more than they want to terrorize them. And it isn't really used for political purposes. The ringleaders don't even claim credit.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It seems like an easy way to label anyone, citizen or not, and have an accepted way to deatain them indefinitely. Call someone a terrorist and a large parr of the populace is immediately on board. Bradbury was very prophetic...
towermonkey wrote: Terrorist is a stupid label anyway much like the " War on Terror". Wouldn't any rapist or murderer be creating terror?
Agree. It is outdated. I see most of these latest bombings and bombing attempts as revenge plots more than terrorism. They want to make Americans pay more than they want to terrorize them. And it isn't really used for political purposes. The ringleaders don't even claim credit.
Radical Islamist fundamentalism is not political?
Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground (2.1 Haymarket Police Memorial bombing October 7, 1969, 2.2 "Days of Rage" October 9, 1969, 2.3 Flint War Council, December 27–31, 1969, 2.4 Park Precinct Police Station bombing, February 1970, 2.5 New York City, Judge Murtagh arson attacks, February 1970, 2.6 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, March 1970, 2.6.1 Underground strategy change, 2.7 Declaration of a state of war, May 1970, 2.8 June 1970 NYC Police bombing?) weren't political?
towermonkey wrote: It seems like an easy way to label anyone, citizen or not, and have an accepted way to deatain them indefinitely.
What is the alternative to detaining indefinitely when a person is actively trying to kill Americans? And if you were one of these people, would you rather be at Gitmo or Supermax? Which is more humane?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Everything is political, but I think the motive is more to kill Americans, extract revenge, hurt the economy, than alert the world to injustices or terrorize.
After 9/11, the IRA changed their tactics. They didn't want to be lumped in with the Islamics jihadists.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The Dog is naturally inclined to defend her own. It is the pack instinct.
