Philadelphia Police "violate" open carrier?

[wisco]

You made comparisons between US soldiers, former presidents, the founders of this nation, and Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh, equivocating their actions. First you said it was only the outcome that made them any different, and then you changed your position and stated that it was the validity of thier cause (defiend solely by you, aparently) that made them different.

I didn't change my position. I was stating that HAD the outcomes been different these people may or may not have been labeled terrorists.

Define Terrorism. And remember that you've already said that here that we can't define it solely by the act, or the motivation, or the number of casualties, or the outcome.

I can't give you a dictionary definition of terrorism, because it doesn't exist. I'm simply explaining what I believe is terrorism and what isn't.

Terrorism would require a fringe ideology. Speaking as though he were still alive, Bin Laden hates us because of what we represent, as you said. We are the "infidels". He and people like him will take a shot at us any way they can - be it an economical strike, a military strike, etc.

He may think he has a legitimate reason to do what he is doing by blaming the policies of our government. But when 9/11 happened he didn't focus his attacks against our government. He also intentionally murdered 3,000 civilians.

The difference between an action like this and say, Pearl Harbor, was the type of attack. Granted there was collateral damage and civilians died in Pearl Harbor, but that was not the purpose of the attack. The Japanese launched a military strike against a military installation and civilians got caught in the crossfire.

Back to McVeigh - same thing. His intent wasn't to kill "civilians" but rather a select group of people - federal employees. And again civilians were caught in a crossfire. McVeigh in his own twisted world declared "war" against a government. So did the Japanese. Both were wrong and both paid the price.

The difference between you and me, and someone like McVeigh is the method. We express our frustration at a government in a voting booth. He did it with a bomb.

Bin Laden didn't want to decimate a government. He wanted to decimate an entire way of living, and used our "policies" as an excuse to do it. That is terrorism. He and Hitler are probably patting eachother on the back in Hell. Yes, I consider Hitler a terrorist.

And I have to agree with Switch here. If you are posting these things and they are not your personal beliefs, then are you just trying to get a reaction or rise out of us? What's the point in arguing something you don't believe?

My reference to "personal beliefs" was meant to convey that the questions I asked were not representative of what I believe, but the impression I was getting from previous posters about their beliefs.

[Citicop]

So you don't know what terrorism IS, you just want to sit back and take cheap semantic shots at the working definitions that other people use.

And you are saying that in your opinion, the employees of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to inculde cafeteria workers, clerks, janitors, and daycare personell, employees of the Federal Employees Credit Union, Department of Transportation, HUD, SSA, and Department of Agriculture, etc. are somehow less "civilians" than the daycare workers, janitors, bank employees, etc. at the WTC because they have government office jobs?

Really? They weren't "civilians" because they worked for the government and therefore were legitimate targets just like a military base?

Good luck defending THAT position; we're back to "I can steal cable because the cable is in my house and therefore I own it" territory.

And you never answered my other question. If the questions you are asking don't represent your position here, then what is the purpose in asking them? Are you playing 'devil's advocate' in an attempt to make some other point, or is there really some reaction you are trying to get. I'm really lost there.

-Citicop.

[Switchback]

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS. One has to wonder, considering the liberal... err, I mean differing opinions on most things here, why stay?

[wisco]

So you don't know what terrorism IS, you just want to sit back and take cheap semantic shots at the working definitions that other people use.

All 109 of them? You bet. When we start arresting kids for making "terroristic threats" simply because they spouted off at the mouth the meaning of terrorism becomes diluted.

And you are saying that in your opinion, the employees of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to inculde cafeteria workers, clerks, janitors, and daycare personell, employees of the Federal Employees Credit Union, Department of Transportation, HUD, SSA, and Department of Agriculture, etc. are somehow less "civilians" than the daycare workers, janitors, bank employees, etc. at the WTC because they have government office jobs?

You're making assumptions. A life is a life. Nobody's is worth any more or less than someone elses.

I've explained my position quite clearly. An attack against a government is different than an attack against random people.

Really? They weren't "civilians" because they worked for the government and therefore were legitimate targets just like a military base?

In the mind of a McVeigh, yes they would be legitimate targets. I didn't say I thought they were legitimate targets.

I've re-read my post multiple times. I'm failing to see why it's so hard to grasp.

Good luck defending THAT position; we're back to "I can steal cable because the cable is in my house and therefore I own it" territory.

Feel free to research Wisconsin's permanent fixture laws if you feel so inclined. I have no desire to rehash a discussion that I myself found the answer to.

And you never answered my other question. If the questions you are asking don't represent your position here, then what is the purpose in asking them? Are you playing 'devil's advocate' in an attempt to make some other point, or is there really some reaction you are trying to get. I'm really lost there.

-Citicop.

You keep pointing out these "questions" of mine and evidently I'm failing to understand specifically what you're referring to. I initially didn't ask any question about terrorism or it's definitions. I commented on the statement of someone else. I was then questioned. I explained my position.

As far as reactions.... umm no. What possible purpose would it serve me to get someone riled up on the internet? If I wanted to "troll" I would come right out and do it. ie: "**** you pig".

I enjoy discussion. I enjoy debates. I like to read and learn different viewpoints. People interest me, and it's fun to talk to folks that don't think exactly like I do. The world would be a pretty boring place otherwise, wouldn't you say?

[wisco]

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS. One has to wonder, considering the liberal... err, I mean differing opinions on most things here, why stay?

What pot and what drama?

You've had a thing for me ever since I joined this board. Heaven forbid someone disagree with you. But rather than maintain civil discussion you just start mudslinging. Show me an instance where I attacked a person rather than an idea.

There are plenty of conversations on this board I am in complete agreement with. Evidently you skip those and nitpick the situations where I have my own opinion. I am not a drone. I'm not going to nod and smile to appease the masses. If I disagree with something I'll speak up about it, and if someone shows me irrefutable fact that I am wrong than I will concede my argument.

Rarely has that happened because most of the things we have debated on here have been politcally oriented, interpretive, or personal ideals. But again, I don't attack people over what they think.

[Big Sexy]

Yeah, I am not sure how stirring the pot & inciting drama fits into the TOS.

Can it be added?

Not sure BIG could get along with someone who superstitiously advocates BIG's death, being that BIG is a government employee, becausenthey don't agree with whichever ruling party's politics.

Domestic terrorism is real and applies to all who utilize it, regardless if you may identify with their cause or not.

[canuckofapeach]

Wisco is on temporary hiatus and will be back, in fine form, in 10 days time -- should he so wish.

[nicetry]

Really? I work in this world, remember?

Go ahead ban this one too. Just be aware I can return whenever I wish.

[Citicop]

Really? I work in this world, remember?

Go ahead ban this one too. Just be aware I can return whenever I wish.

And with THAT blatant violation of the TOS (returning under a new user name when banned) my vote is for a permanent ban. With as far out of your way as you went to alienate everyone on the forum, Wisco, I bet that the rest of the Mods will agree.

And for the record, you "found the answer" to the cable theft question when you argued the wrong side of the issue well past the point where your position made sense, and eventually were faced with so much incontrovertible evidence that you had no choice but to concede. You made yourself look like a moron who was arguing about things of which you CLEARLY had no understanding, and that pattern (which didn't start there) continued in this thread, which you managed to hijack nicely. Time to put this to bed.

And keep coming back. You don't think we have any defense against that (legal or technical)?

You'll fare no better at that game than you have in any of the discussions you've taken part in here.

-Citicop.