[Discussion] What is Terrorism?

The world is a dangerous place, and nuclear war isn't the only threat.
User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:55 am

Zanting wrote:Gonna watch a movie. Will finish writing later.
Let me know when you're done.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:29 am

Worldwatcher wrote:Let me know when you're done.
Broke the character limit.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:30 pm

Zanting wrote:This is going to be a complicated reply chain.
Agreed. I won't respond to something that I have no say in, for the sake of legibility, word count, and actual progression of the discussion.
Context is again required, exempt by who exactly, as well do you think those of us involved in activism are even worried about being exempt from something developed out of critical theory which we dismiss?
You cannot claim that extremist ideas can be simply brushed off as a requiring of context.
Is that an actual question or a statement?
  1. It actually is a crime depending on where you live.
  2. It is "bad" according to who? Note, this is quite subjective, which means it is not objective.
  3. Human rights come from critical theory, they do not exist in any tangible way, they come through enforcement.
Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] which describe certain standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.
They're pretty solid. Not only are they laws, but are a set of personal morals. If you don't feel you believe in them, that is your opinion, but wider society will disagree.
reality simply doesn't fit the presented narrative out of academia.
Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement.
"Reality" can be viewed through various filters. If you discount what academia has to say, the spotlight is on the individual, not academia.
Worldwatcher wrote:As I said, terror comes from all across society, and appears in "waves" left wing is not as prominent in this time period, as a few decades ago, but that is not to say they are not there.
Leftism & liberalism are enforced, to say it is not prominent, is absurd. ANTIFA are about as much a naturally occurring wave as George Soros is White, you must remember that we see "left & right" as moot regarding that which is permitted, as they are directed by the same people.
Whatever you are implying in the bold does not warrant a response form me.

What I will say, regarding the "Waves of Modern Terror" is that there are 4, and they do not follow the "wings".

- Anarchic Terror: 1870 - 1914, Mostly within Europe, primarily Russia and the East. The best example are the "Black Hand" who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, most were fairly educated and indoctrinated.

- Anti-colonial: 1920 - 1960, Fought in and against European colonial powers, used effective propaganda to gain support. US - USSR supported some movements hoping for capitalist / communist victory. Example: Algerian Independence war against France.

- New Left: 1960s - 1980s: Anti-capitalism, anti-system, some elements of neo-anarchist views, far-leftist views. Usually well Educated and indoctrinated. Used kidnappings (409 incidents between 1968 - 1982), bombings, hijackings and assassinations of bankers and leaders. Groups include: Palestine Liberation Organisation, Red Army Brigade, Shining Path.

- Religious: 1979- Current, extremist religous violence, globular impact, matyrdom themes are common, large range of tactics (this one explains itself), mostly founded on radical Islam, although there are examples from all major religions. Three events that started it: 1979 Iranian revolution, New Islamic Century 1979, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Ideas & words change people, which then moves the Overton Window, which then causes change on the level of civilization itself. After societal change occurs would this then be considered extremism? No.
I am talking about the current reality, in which extremist ideas are that; extremist. Simply saying that ideas have room to maneuver, so therefore you will be correct at some point in time, and thus society is wrong, is not a rational point, it is twisted logic, and is not correct by any means. I am talking about the here and now.
I see this as objectively being irrelevant since I view [Know] our state of affairs as artificially created against our own self-interest(s), mind you, I knew people many years ago who were involved in physical reaction to that which they & I are against. One should be able to objectively see that force being applied by Europeans in European countries against non-Europeans is simply not the same thing, as these are all our countries, there can be exceptions to this of course. So this can be viewed in a much more complicated way than some graph or statistic which has derivatives along some type of equal line, which itself, outs its own narrative.

People like Anders Breivik for example I have a lot of criticism about, to be perfectly honest, you couldn't place me in the same proximity to him without "something" happening. Of course, my view is much more complicated than that alone too, as it usually is.
I cannot, nor will not, argue with your opinion.
Outdated. The most notable group today is Daily Stormer.
The site has been noted for its use of humor and Internet memes, which have been likened to the imageboard 4chan and cited as attractions for a younger and more ideologically diverse audience.
The Daily Stormer orchestrates what it calls the "Troll Army", which is involved in Internet trolling of figures with whom Anglin disagrees politically.
Sounds formidable :lol: :lol: :lol:
Worldwatcher wrote:- Christian Identity & Neo Nazi groups
It isn't the most primary concern by far.
The Oklahoma City Bomber was heavily influenced by these groups.
Image
*The Nightclub Shooting is still up for debate as to what it was, as it is in a grey area regarding Jihadist terrorism. But it is for another topic.

Jihadism AND right-wing terror is of the highest concern, but as the statistics show, Right wing is for more widespread.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Patriot & militia movement
Non-issue.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy Standoff? These people are willing to kill and be killed for their cause. They're pretty big issues.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Sovereign Citizens movement
-snip-
Yes, they are mostly harmless fruitloops, but some can be quite dangerous. Police have been killed, and threats against government and law workers have been made. They are a threat, but not a major one.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Islamic Extremism (it is still up for debate whether this is right / left / other)
This is an interesting one since Islam can adapt to both left & right to push ideology forward, we can observe this as it varies by country & location, I think it is a lot more complicated than saying it is simply one or the other.
I agree, I think religion itself can be an ideology. But that is a whole other topic. I put in there for the simplicity of the list.
Worldwatcher wrote:I study terrorism in my Uni degree, and no, I don't want to be involved with extremism, I am perfectly happy researching the subject on campus. One of my lecturers has met and researched convicted terrorists in Indonesia, and has worked in the field about 30 years, her info is good enough for me.
Here's the thing though, as much as you're going through education this literally doesn't mean anything regarding the movement currently happening now, your perspective is still entirely linear regarding this though as you are unable to put yourself from another perspective.
I disagree, and whilst I see the advantage of first hand information, but I will not entertain extremist ideas from anything other than an academic perspective.
Indonesian teacher I presume?
No, I think she's from the former Yugoslavia, but is naturalized here.
I don't mean build one from scratch, I'm fixing, modifying & tuning up one I've had for many years.
You understand that on the internet, and to an authority, red flags would be going off, right?
The ANP is actually quite moderate, over at DS there's been discussion about them a little while ago, if GLR had not been assassinated society may be quite different today.
Moderate extremists.....
Never thought I'd hear that :|
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:26 pm

Worldwatcher wrote:Agreed. I won't respond to something that I have no say in, for the sake of legibility, word count, and actual progression of the discussion.
10-4.
Worldwatcher wrote:You cannot claim that extremist ideas can be simply brushed off as a requiring of context.
It has less to do with claiming but in fact has more to do with doing as it has already been done, but again, current societal values brought about by foreign agents & not brought about through self-interest must be criticized in a vastly different way. This is where the context comes from, because the argument is that it is only extremism due to artificial means, thus it is moot.
Worldwatcher wrote:
Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] which describe certain standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.
They're pretty solid. Not only are they laws, but are a set of personal morals. If you don't feel you believe in them, that is your opinion, but wider society will disagree.
Law does not enforce itself though, thus my point is reiterated herein, it is less an opinion & more an observation. Again; "the majority of society will disagree", I agree obviously to that though this has changed a lot so that may be flipped around quite soon. You must ask how they've come to disagree as well.
Worldwatcher wrote:
Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement.
"Reality" can be viewed through various filters. If you discount what academia has to say, the spotlight is on the individual, not academia.
Complex characters are brought about by complex circumstances & environments, I can attest to this fact, in actuality.

Confrontation is the masculine form of conflict engagement & compromise is the feminine form of conflict engagement, compromise is not actually the same as symbiosis, where both sides stand to gain something. Like pest control critters on a shark for example.

Reality is indeed viewed through different lens, most of this we agree on, though I must add that reality itself does not change based on our perspective alone.
Worldwatcher wrote:Whatever you are implying in the bold does not warrant a response form me.
Perhaps not, however on the day of the attack by ANTIFA on TWP we did discover their main coordinators as well as leaders and further who those individuals were connected to.
Worldwatcher wrote:What I will say, regarding the "Waves of Modern Terror" is that there are 4, and they do not follow the "wings".
Wings?
Worldwatcher wrote:- Anarchic Terror: 1870 - 1914, Mostly within Europe, primarily Russia and the East. The best example are the "Black Hand" who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, most were fairly educated and indoctrinated.
This is worth discussing another time in depth.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Anti-colonial: 1920 - 1960, Fought in and against European colonial powers, used effective propaganda to gain support. US - USSR supported some movements hoping for capitalist / communist victory. Example: Algerian Independence war against France.
It's unusual that the leaders & progenitors of both of these "-ism" systems would be meeting together.
Worldwatcher wrote:- New Left: 1960s - 1980s: Anti-capitalism, anti-system, some elements of neo-anarchist views, far-leftist views. Usually well Educated and indoctrinated. Used kidnappings (409 incidents between 1968 - 1982), bombings, hijackings and assassinations of bankers and leaders. Groups include: Palestine Liberation Organisation, Red Army Brigade, Shining Path.
-
Worldwatcher wrote:- Religious: 1979- Current, extremist religous violence, globular impact, matyrdom themes are common, large range of tactics (this one explains itself), mostly founded on radical Islam, although there are examples from all major religions. Three events that started it: 1979 Iranian revolution, New Islamic Century 1979, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
So you are aware of populism(s) existing on this Earth; evidently, but do you ever follow the ideologies & money behind them to those of influence who initiated such momentum?
Worldwatcher wrote:I am talking about the current reality, in which extremist ideas are that; extremist. Simply saying that ideas have room to maneuver, so therefore you will be correct at some point in time, and thus society is wrong, is not a rational point, it is twisted logic, and is not correct by any means. I am talking about the here and now.
Did you actually look at what the Overton Window is? Read this.

I am perplexed at how you cannot grasp this simple logic, this is the same process by which your ideological beliefs you have now have come about, as "progressive" ideals have been pushed to the middle by certain influential individuals & organizations over the last few decades. These ideas were deemed radical & unacceptable [Wrong] by society at one time. See what I am getting at?
Wikipedia wrote:Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.
That's you of course.
Worldwatcher wrote:I cannot, nor will not, argue with your opinion.
Not simply an opinion.
Worldwatcher wrote:
The site has been noted for its use of humor and Internet memes, which have been likened to the imageboard 4chan and cited as attractions for a younger and more ideologically diverse audience.
The Daily Stormer orchestrates what it calls the "Troll Army", which is involved in Internet trolling of figures with whom Anglin disagrees politically.
Sounds formidable :lol: :lol: :lol:
I know, it's pretty damn funny, especially since a copy of this was likely on the desks of quite a few influential & powerful people in NYC:

Image

Guess who is behind this one?
Worldwatcher wrote:The Oklahoma City Bomber was heavily influenced by these groups.
Image
*The Nightclub Shooting is still up for debate as to what it was, as it is in a grey area regarding Jihadist terrorism. But it is for another topic.

Jihadism AND right-wing terror is of the highest concern, but as the statistics show, Right wing is for more widespread.
Although getting into this more would be long & tedious, let us then simply hold the idea for a moment that the official story regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing is true, a lot of random people died including White people. I have heavy criticism of this & others taking actions such as these, I can objectively argue that these reactions may happen due to certain circumstances & environmental factors, but I do not have to agree with them.
Worldwatcher wrote:Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy Standoff? These people are willing to kill and be killed for their cause. They're pretty big issues.
All of these events to this day still have issues surrounding them regarding the Feds.
Worldwatcher wrote:Yes, they are mostly harmless fruitloops, but some can be quite dangerous. Police have been killed, and threats against government and law workers have been made. They are a threat, but not a major one.
They are mostly irrelevant.
Worldwatcher wrote:I agree, I think religion itself can be an ideology. But that is a whole other topic. I put in there for the simplicity of the list.
Religion IS an ideology, but religion can also be a political ideology, "overlapping processes" to put it simply.
Worldwatcher wrote:I disagree, and whilst I see the advantage of first hand information, but I will not entertain extremist ideas from anything other than an academic perspective.
And if certain parts of academia were established to cut off the pass & obscure further merit(s) in these ideas then you would be restricted to a one dimensional level of thought wouldn't you?
Worldwatcher wrote:No, I think she's from the former Yugoslavia, but is naturalized here.
Last name?
Worldwatcher wrote:You understand that on the internet, and to an authority, red flags would be going off, right?
You ever notice how chilled out I am about everything.
Worldwatcher wrote:Moderate extremists.....
Never thought I'd hear that :|
Not much is known about their current leader, they have merit though, as far as I am aware.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:32 pm

Oswald wrote:I can see he idea of having Asuka Langley Soryu a Trump fan. She has the most caustic personality on the whole damn show. Its ridiculous, but so is American politics.
I didn't know you were into Anime Oswald.

Image

It's amazing how much a someone can read into a single image though.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:47 pm

This is off-topic, but, Rei is your Waifu isn't she.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:50 am

Oswald wrote:No. I prefer someone a bit more... proactive.

[ Snip ]
Oh I see how it is.

Image

I know someone who is the same way.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:17 pm

...when did suddenly become a discussion regarding anime?
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:13 pm

jayfeather31 wrote:...when did suddenly become a discussion regarding anime?
¯\_(͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

strgazerlilly
.
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:21 am

Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:55 pm

Tanith wrote:I always assumed when you target innocent civilians rather than the soldiers of whatever regime you're resisting...you're a terrorist.

And a murderer.

And a coward.
That's what I believe as well. Intentionally targeting of civilians is terrorism.
If it's them or me it's gonna be them~ RRC WW2 & Korean War Green Beret
Those whom forget history are doomed to repeat it ~

Post Reply