Jump to content
Islamic Forum
J.A.Abdullah

"terrorist"

Recommended Posts

Abdullahfath -

That's right McVeigh was a terrorist . I agree . I also have previously stated that Columbine ,Virginia Tech and Aurora shooters were not terrorists , so we agree there too .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Yasnov , he was under a psychiatrist's care at the school he was attending . I doubt you could have gained any information of his goals , his own psychiatrist could not , so no , I would not send him to you . He was not a terrorist , but a psychotic as would anyone behaved as he did .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nightingale I would agree that the Nowegian Shooter was both , a terrorist with an ideology against muslims , he therefore attacked the political party he thought responsible for what he percieved as a nationalistic threat or problem .

And yes , there is no doubt the victims at Virginia Tech were terrorized , not by a terrorist ,but by a psychotic killer without an ideology , but a desire to kill as many people as he could and then end his own life .

 

 

But you still haven't answered my question - Do you consider the Bus Bombing in Bulgaria to be a terrorist act , commited by a terrorist ?

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't aim to attack you, while i like to discuss the issue from a fair acadimic view

That was a war

i, just, like to apply any deffenetion in acadimic mannar to that kind of war, without predecting the results in advance. do the deffention you accept specify the scale of the terror action or exclude the government's terrorism or wars?? specially since Al-qadaa calls its attacks as war as well.

 

the US didn't held the war to free the Iraqi people, but to destruct the alleged faked chimical weapon program!!!!! is it ok to chang the goals during the war...something like..i'm killing you because you wear a hat.....but i never had a hat.....that's exactly what i'm killing you for, hehehe

 

don't you believe that war contained some sorts of small scale terrorist actions like the Hadeetha incedent, when 4-5 marine fighters terrified the family of the 14 years old girl, Abeer, raped here repeatadily, and finally killed here along with all of her familly, and then set fire to the house.....ETC

 

Was Saddam practicing terrorism against the Shia in the South and the Kurds in the North

that is not right, the most agrissive action by Sadam was in the mid of the 80s against the kurdish village "halabgah" where about 200 been killed. at the time and after it, the Terrorist Sadam was recieving the maximum aid and specially the military aid from the west!!!! your country and global media didn't mention any thing about that tell the 2000!!!! you don't care about the Kurdish, you care about israel....

 

The reasons for that war were political . The politics of the Bush Administration .And I'm in agreement with you regarding Blackwater , they WERE the responsibility of the occupying forces

that's great then the privite pre-paid killer folks are terrorists, what about the governments that contracted them!!!! i can see them are terrorists as well

 

However in the past 2 weeks over 400 have been killed in Iraq and 1500 wounded , not by the hand of the US or any foreign entity .

Who is doing that ? Blowing up people waiting in line for paychecks , blowing people up in Masjids while at prayer , blowing up people at funerals or pilgrims going to Holy Places .....what would you call that ? Is that "war " or "terrorism " ?

i can see that as the calculated consequances of the US war, .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we agree on several issues , Blackwater was for all practical purpose and definitions , abunch of terrorists on the leash of occupying forces , and since I stated that the Invasion of Iraq was wrong from it's start , yes I would concede it to be a form of terrorism on a State Scale .

 

However I would diagree on the US being the blame for the sectarian violence and terrorism taking place in Iraq . And I would also disagree with your satement that Saddam did not inflict terrorism on the Shia in the south , he even went so far as to drain the swamplands where many thousands live and have lived for centuries . not to mention slaughtering 300,000 of them over the course of his rule .As for the Kurds , they've always been persecuted not only by Saddam but by Turkey , Iran and Syria .....terrorism has been used against them .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Yasnov , I wasn;t making fun of the victims nor ridiculing them , I simply answered in the same tone you asked . Your question was silly . Yes anyone would expext the people were terrorized , you are confusing words now .

To be terrorized , could be brought about by anything , a fire , an earthquake , the fact that they are terrorized is a description of an emotional state , it doesnt make the shooter " a terrorist " no more than a vicious barking dog terrorizes a child ....does that make the dog a terrorist ? Holmes was a homicidal psychotic not a terrorist .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Yasnov , I wasn;t making fun of the victims nor ridiculing them

Then why the need to use quote and unquote in terrorist?

 

To be terrorized , could be brought about by anything , a fire , an earthquake , the fact that they are terrorized is a description of an emotional state , it doesnt make the shooter " a terrorist " no more than a vicious barking dog terrorizes a child ....does that make the dog a terrorist ?

Sure, if the dog bought thousands of rounds of ammunition and, calmly purchased a ticket and returned to its car to prepare himself before reentering the theater to disorient and then shoot at the large crowd. Yes, If the dog rigged his apartment with jars of liquids, explosives and chemicals so that any person who entered his residence after the attack would be killed or maimed. Yes.

 

Holmes was a homicidal psychotic not a terrorist .

What incidence of mental illness he had prior to the terrorist act?

 

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasnov quote does not denote ridicule . As far as his mental illness , only his doctor knows , the fact he was under care of a psychiatrist indicates , he had psychological issues , and subsequent actions on his part kind of confirms it .

 

Again you are confusing the NOUN "terrorist " with the ADVERBS "terrorized " and "terrorizing " .

Holmes ' only purpose was to kill and maim . No social , ideological , political or religious agendas .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nightingale , you are strangely silent regarding the question I asked of you . Do you consider the Bus Bombing in Bulgaria a terrorist act , and the one who did it a terrorist ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasnov quote does not denote ridicule .

Let me give you an example:

 

Americans are smart

Americans are "smart"

 

 

As far as his mental illness , only his doctor knows

Right, not only his doctor, but also yourself. Look at your posts how you know for sure that he suffered this and that. So, I can say, you are a "smart" man.

 

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Bulgarian bombing was terrorism, even with the doubts of who actually committed it. There's a lot of talk it was Iran and Hezbollah, but there hasn't been any proof shown that it was them, but yes it was terrorism. I denounce all terrorism (whether small or large-scale, shootings or bombings).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement with you there , so inturn although it is suspected that Iran is behind it , since Hezbollah is their proxy , those who committed that act are terrorists .

I too am against any terrorist act whether it be by the hand of US occupyig forces in Iraq , or Iran's State sponsored terrorism .

Do you see a difference in motive between that and the Aurora shooter ? Even with a given , that the victims of both were in fact terrorized ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Yasnov , logical deduction is not a rarity amongst anyone who has had an education , or even those who haven't .A man who walks into a McDonalds and opens fire on who ever happens to be in that restuarant, with the intention of killing as many people as possible - it is not unreasonable to conclude the man is psychotic .

 

As for my use of quotation marks ? There can be a number of uses. They are used to denote a previous use - as was the case in which I used it , and yes they can be used to negatively or positively denote anothers previous use ,as in this type of written discussion .Or they simply can be used to emphasize the word in question ,in this case the use of the word or it's meaning .

 

You have assumed a negativity , when none was indicated .That would be considered presumptious on your part ,you presumed there was ridicule , since there was no indication of ridicule or sarcasnm indicated in the context in which I used the quotation marks .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Yasnov , logical deduction is not a rarity amongst anyone who has had an education , or even those who haven't .A man who walks into a McDonalds and opens fire on who ever happens to be in that restuarant, with the intention of killing as many people as possible - it is not unreasonable to conclude the man is psychoti.

Except that you don't mention the extensive planning involved in James Holmes. All the calculation and deliberation. You seem to talk about spur of the moment thing in your McDonald case.

 

 

As for my use of quotation marks ? There can be a number of uses. They are used to denote a previous use - as was the case in which I used it

 

 

quote...unquote

 

informal

 

Definition

 

said to show that you are repeating someone else's words, especially if you do not agree with them

She says they're, quote 'just good friends' unquote.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/quote-unquote

 

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Yasnov , a person who walks into a McDonalds and shoots everyone does indeed plan , he must attain the weapon , or if he already has it , he must load it , conceal it to a degree which would allow entry un-noticed . The only difference is the degree of planning involved .Both are psychotic.

 

As for the quotation marks You are wrong , OR you did not refer to the gollossary in the back of the dictionary - Section under"Punctuation,Mechanics and Manuscript Form " page 1682-subsection under- Quotation marks -there are examples 1 thru 7-a,b,and c. of different uses / Websters-New World Dictionary of the American Languqage /Second College Edition . Did you read them all , or simply choose the one that best suites your argument ?

 

Are you splitting hairs Yasnov , since from the beginning of this sub-discussion , I informed you of my intent ,when you questioned it, and from the beginning you chose a negative connotation despite the fact that there was nothing in the context in which I used the marks, that would indicate negativity [or ridicule ] . Perhaps you are reading more into it than is actually there .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Yasnov , a person who walks into a McDonalds and shoots everyone does indeed plan , he must attain the weapon , or if he already has it , he must load it , conceal it to a degree which would allow entry un-noticed . The only difference is the degree of planning involved .Both are psychotic.

 

I see, then they both are psychotic terrorists.

 

As for the quotation marks You are wrong , OR you did not refer to the gollossary in the back of the dictionary - Section under"Punctuation,Mechanics and Manuscript Form " page 1682-subsection under- Quotation marks -there are examples 1 thru 7-a,b,and c. of different uses / Websters-New World Dictionary of the American Languqage /Second College Edition . Did you read them all , or simply choose the one that best suites your argument ?

 

Actually, I don't even need a dictionary, I just want to help you. It's a common knowledge, Aligarr. In certain cases like the one in your usage, the quotation marks are used to indicate that a word or phrase does not signify its literal/conventional meaning.

 

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , Yasnov , it is your choice to call them terrorists ....no one in the US has ever refered to them as such , and that is because it is clear they were not .You are confusing verbs with nouns ,for to " terrorize" by shooting people in the manner the shooters in question had done ,and their lack of political , social or religious goals and no intention thusfar indicated for desiring such , it makes them simply madmen who killed and " terrorized " their victims in the process . A rapist "terrorizes "as well as rapes his victim , yet he is not called a" terrorist " , but is called a rapist .

-Quotation marks used for emphasis of the word we are arguing , lest you reach another assumption in error .

 

.Regardless of your opinion of the quotations marks ,and YOUR interpretation of what you allege that I meant, which if you think about it irrelevant, and rendered moot , since your assumption that I indicated ridicule has evaporated with my explanation , and the varied uses of them has proved ,that there is more than your singular definition of their use , in addition my communication to you which was clear , leaving no doubts that my intention was not ridicule makes any further discussion useless .

You are free to hold on to your opinions and your definitions ,I still totally disagree and so does the Dictionary definitions which I mentioned . Look it up in that edition . I consider it valid .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , Yasnov , it is your choice to call them terrorists ....no one in the US has ever refered to them as such , and that is because it is clear they were not .You are confusing verbs with nouns ,for to " terrorize" by shooting people in the manner the shooters in question had done ,and their lack of political , social or religious goals and no intention thusfar indicated for desiring such , it makes them simply madmen who killed and " terrorized " their victims in the process .

 

Because the people in the US are still confused and shocked, Aligarr. They cannot think clearly right now other than repeating and believing what they are told. I can understand that. But when the full contents of his manifesto are released by the FBI, of course he would just be called as such, terrorist, nothing else. Or to acommodate your suggestion: psychotic terrorist.

 

-Quotation marks used for emphasis of the word we are arguing , lest you reach another assumption in error

First, there more better ways to put emphasis rather than quotation marks. But if you love ambiguity so much, and this non-standard usage, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia..../Quotation_mark

http://alt-usage-eng...r_emphasis.html

 

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasnov , how about we do it like this , I will use quotation marks whenever and where I wish , and if you have any question as to their precise meaning in the context I use them ....you just ask me ,and I will explain ....just like before .

Does that sit well with "you" ? :))

 

It'll save a lot of bandwidth :)

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×