Letters to the Editor
-
Mis-directed fear
"Our fear of terrorism has allowed a very powerful govenrnment to amass even more power which it uses to further entrench its sole validation; the orderly conduct of business."
-- dogu44
-------------
No, the sole validation of a very powerful government is to orderly conduct the theft of our money. The enforcement of all the entitlement programs, from Social Security to the War on Poverty to proposed Universal Health Care (or rather Over-Priced Government-Run Insurance), is a giant money grab by a very powerful government. Don't ever forget, MONEY IS POWER, and allowing that in the hands of a very powerful government is what we should fear first and foremost. Eliminate ALL entitlements. They're not even mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.
To all the Christian bashers: Christianity does not promote violence, but Christians do care for the rights of innocent and helpless unborn human beings. Man has dominion over the animals, so their security is second to human security. God will take care of the environment. He always has. Get used to it.
-
No, I wouldn't. You're projecting.
so you'd have us believe you'd be OK if someone burned down your house because your political beliefs were different from theirs. bull. I'm not projecting, I'm stating that no human is OK with their house being burned down for political and control reasons.
-
Cosmic Mojo on whatever you call it
Terrorism, arson, dangerous indifference, attempted murder, facism, whatev.
It's wrong, illegal, lethal, arrogant, dangerous and controlling. I don't really care what you call it.
No, apparently you don't. Apparently, for you, anything which is illegal is also conflated with a whole host of other personal failings which warrant a total lack of distinction regarding the crime itself.
The good news is that you're not alone. Reflexive authoritarianism is all the rage these days — zero tolerance, three strikes and you're out, everything that's "arrogant, dangerous and controlling" may as well just be considered terrorism.
But I'm afraid there's also bad news. The tradition of law on which our civilization was founded is going to be a problem here — because it insists, arrogantly you might say, on making distinctions between crimes based on their nature, and varying penalties accordingly.
Yes! It's true. We are sending the message that some crimes are not as bad as others. Can you believe it?
-
Tangential
Now did she or did she not do it? Who knows, and that's the problem. Now could there have been a real reason that the whole '65 miles away, 45 minutes before' thing could have been explained? Maybe. But it raises doubts, in my mind enough that I wouldn't say she was guilty.
Yes, but this is tangential. Prosecution says conspirators met at restaurant at 8:00 p.m. She could not have been there until 8:15 p.m. Maybe she was late and the others were there. Maybe the prosecution was a bit off on the time of the meeting.
But the bomb went off in the small hours of the morning.
This discrepancy on the time does not work in favor of the prosecution, but it hardly destroys the whole case.
If this small point raises enough doubts in your mind not to convict, then clearly you are looking for any out you can find.
-
Arson to further a political agenda is terrorism.
ikuiku, I misspoke. I meant to say it was debatable whether it was TERRORISM. Obviously it was arson. Sorry for the confusion.
Seems you are still a bit confused.
-
Cosmic Mojo on projecting
so you'd have us believe you'd be OK if someone burned down your house because your political beliefs were different from theirs.
You tried to tell me that I would want my arsonist neighbor convicted as a terrorist because I was so violated, and I told you were projecting.
Now you're just trolling. Plonk.
-
Ikuiku on what is terrorism
Arson to further a political agenda is terrorism.
So all one needs to be doing is pursuing a political agenda, and any crime becomes terrorism?
-
Actually, that is the definition of terrorism.
But if she WAS standing lookout that night, then she participated in the destruction of property with the intention of intimidation to achieve an ideological objective.
How do you arrive at that interpretation? The stated, and indicated, goal of most criminal activism of this sort is to stop the activities that the activists wish to see an end to. That's not textbook terrorism. That's textbook vandalism. -- Amity
Any act of violence, whether directed at persons or property, done to further a political agenda is terrorism. Vandalism is wanton "destruction" simply for the "hell of it." Burning down a building because you do not like the activities associated with it is done to intimidate the people undertaking the activities connected to the building. Vandalism would be spray painting "Stop genetic research" on the building.
-
re: The next time an abortion clinic arsonist gets extra sentencing for inconveniencing the people whose appointments had to be canceled, you let me know.
"It took firefighters two hours to put out the flames. By that time the office where the fire had started had burned down to the studs, and the central hall and several botany labs were damaged. Damages were estimated at $2.5 million."
I like your definition of inconvenience - to me burning down a research lab is FAR from inconvenient...
except maybe to the criminal who's gonna rot behind bars...
-
@ no-dimocrat
To all the Christian bashers: Christianity does not promote violence, but Christians do care for the rights of innocent and helpless unborn human beings. Man has dominion over the animals, so their security is second to human security. God will take care of the environment. He always has. Get used to it.
Gee, are you sure of that? Going way back to my grade school-age bible study classes, it seems as if there is a whole lot of violence in both the Old and New Testaments that is advocated by, if not perpetrated by God. Not to mention as a few pithy examples: the Crusades, the Inquisition, and terrorism (by the government's definition) against abortion clinics in the name of God (or is that 'caring for the rights of...unborn human beings' so it's OK?).
-
how can it be terrorism if you aren't terrified?
These people are attacking buildings, not people. That makes it arson and/or industrial sabotage, but not terrorism. Those who insist otherwise are like those who persist in calling copyright infringement "theft".
Using a lesser term (but one that actually *fits*) in no way reduces the offense committed. A pirate ring that sells counterfeit DVD's or software isn't stealing anything, but can still be held liable for millions of dollars and may serve some time.
The people who set fire to these buildings are *arsonists*, not terrorists. If caught and convicted they will be held liable for damages and serve time in prison. But they are. not. terrorists.
Otherwise, we should ditch all descriptors for crimes such as murder, arson, vandalism and fraud, and use a nice term like baby-raping-cannibalism for everything. Cheat on your taxes? Baby-raping-cannibalism. Busted for drunk driving? Baby-raping-cannibalism.