Perhaps Some On The Right Will Tone It Down Now

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:48 pm

But I kind of doubt it, in fact, knowing them, they might just try to become more intimidating. But I'm glad this terrorist got some jail time.

Hal Turner, Right-Wing Blogger Who Threatened Illinois Judges, Sentenced To 33 Months

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:49 pm

I'm starting to suspect the GOP is going to increase it's inflammatory rhetoric.

They just got handed the extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is all they ever cared about. They aren't going to actually cut spending because IMO they lack the skill and honesty to actually grapple with the problem. Most all the proposed cuts are nickel and dime measures geared more for symbolism, than having any real-world impact. By and large, the GOP actually just increased the "debt crisis" that they ran on fixing.

I suppose the democrats still have a few bargaining chips like military spending and continuing corporate welfare.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:15 am

How about these guys then? American fatwa? whatever next.

YouTube - O'Reilly & Palin WikiLeaks Outrage

Didn't get much exposure in the UK, don't know about world wide. Do you think they have any comprehension how much damage to america such an act as assassinating assange would do?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:47 am

Ahso!;1347755 wrote: But I kind of doubt it, in fact, knowing them, they might just try to become more intimidating. But I'm glad this terrorist got some jail time.Terrorist?!? You post this statement under that thread title? When will you tone it down? The term 'terrorist' has been watered down so much it's lost all meaning.

yaaarrrgg;1347775 wrote: I'm starting to suspect the GOP is going to increase it's inflammatory rhetoric.

They just got handed the extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is all they ever cared about. They aren't going to actually cut spending because IMO they lack the skill and honesty to actually grapple with the problem. Most all the proposed cuts are nickel and dime measures geared more for symbolism, than having any real-world impact. By and large, the GOP actually just increased the "debt crisis" that they ran on fixing.

I suppose the democrats still have a few bargaining chips like military spending and continuing corporate welfare.Odd that you'd read 'terrorist' and think 'GOP tax cuts' but okay. I agree with your post, though.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:52 am

Accountable;1347850 wrote: Odd that you'd read 'terrorist' and think 'GOP tax cuts' but okay. I agree with your post, though.

To be fair, I hear "right wing" and think "tax cut" ... they should be called the "tax cut party" and have a VISA card as their mascot instead of the elephant.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:58 am

:wah: Certainly not "spending cut party." I swear, we should remove E Pluribus Unum and replace it with Right After I Get Mine. That's a slogan both parties can support.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:19 am

If advocating for the death of members of our judicial system is not a form of terrorism, how would you categorize it? A jury of his peers saw his actions as death threats.

The watering down of the word has been done mostly by the right-wing by associating any person who resembles in any form, the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. At least I employ a more narrow definition by citing a person's actions through word or deed.

dictionary wrote: errorist Ter"ror*ist, n. [F. terroriste.]

1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation;

specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary

tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

[1913 Webster]

2. One who commits terrorism[2].

[PJC]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially

as a political weapon); "terrorist activity";

"terrorist state"

n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually

organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often

uses religion as a cover for terrorist activitiesThis guy's actions fit this definition. He is a terrorist, period. He's lucky he's a white right-winged blogger or he may have been tried under laws surrounding acts of terrorism. He should have been, IMO. He should have been made more of an example of, that's what he would probably have hoped for had a Muslim person said what he said.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:26 am

From Wikipedia: Harold Charles "Hal" Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. In August, he was convicted for making threats against three federal judges with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to Turner's arrest, his program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week.

Turner promotes antisemitism (including the rounding up and killing of Jews),[1] opposes the existence of the state of Israel[1] and denies the Holocaust.[2]

Hal Turner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:34 am

I was just reading the wikipedia article ... interesting stuff.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:35 am

Ahso!;1347861 wrote: If advocating for the death of members of our judicial system is not a form of terrorism, how would you categorize it? A jury of his peers saw his actions as death threats.

The watering down of the word has been done mostly by the right-wing by associating any person who resembles in any form, the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. At least I employ a more narrow definition by citing a person's actions through word or deed.

This guy's actions fit this definition. He is a terrorist, period. He's lucky he's a white right-winged blogger or he may have been tried under laws surrounding acts of terrorism. He should have been, IMO. He should have been made more of an example of, that's what he would probably have hoped for had a Muslim person said what he said.
You're willfully blind and purposely disingenuous. Anything you see as "the Right" you label with the most extreme terms you can think of and seem to think it's okay. It's not.

You yourself water down the term with threads like this one. You show a definition of terrorist as a person who uses terrorism, then are either too lazy or willfully deceptive to define terrorism.

Here:

Definitions of terrorism on the Web:

* the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

* From 2000 to the present, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focussed on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_(United_Nations_Measures)_Order_2006

* The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism

The guy did none of these things. I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve what he's gotten, only that when you go over the top accusing others of going over the top, it weakens your argument.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:42 am

Just as a thought experiment, what should happen to a Muslim cleric residing in the U.S. that called for the death of U.S. judges?

They don't say "I hope this person dies," they say "this person must die" to a large group of followers.

What should be the appropriate response, balancing out of course freedom of speech?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:53 am

Definitions of terrorism on the Web:

* the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

* From 2000 to the present, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focussed on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_(United_Nations_Measures)_Order_2006

* The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorismWhere does the threat on the lives of judges for disagreeing with a political view not fit that quote? Turner's position is to advocate for gun ownership rights and since three judges disagree, he calls for their death. How are you missing that? That is terrorism, or terroristic threats.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:57 am

About 15 years ago one of my daughters was beaten up by 3 girls and another daughter was threatened by the same girls if she was to testify against them, so charges of "Terroristic Threats" were added.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:36 pm

I guess Hal Turner's liberal side came out.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:58 pm

BaghdadBob;1347929 wrote: I guess Hal Turner's liberal side came out.

ataboy!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:30 pm

Ahso!;1347933 wrote: ataboy!
*snort* :yh_giggle

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:33 pm

Ahso!;1347871 wrote: Where does the threat on the lives of judges for disagreeing with a political view not fit that quote? Turner's position is to advocate for gun ownership rights and since three judges disagree, he calls for their death. How are you missing that? That is terrorism, or terroristic threats.Oh it may very well be a crime, and probably is, just not terrorism.

Ahso!;1347872 wrote: About 15 years ago one of my daughters was beaten up by 3 girls and another daughter was threatened by the same girls if she was to testify against them, so charges of "Terroristic Threats" were added.Turner didn't beat up anyone then threaten them. He didn't threaten anyone at all. He called for someone else to do something he was too cowardly to do himself. No parallel at all.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:34 pm

yaaarrrgg;1347868 wrote: Just as a thought experiment, what should happen to a Muslim cleric residing in the U.S. that called for the death of U.S. judges?

They don't say "I hope this person dies," they say "this person must die" to a large group of followers.

What should be the appropriate response, balancing out of course freedom of speech?That did happen, didn't it? What was the result?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:28 pm

Accountable;1348018 wrote: That did happen, didn't it? What was the result?

Oh, I'm not sure...I tried finding an incident on Google but didn't see any U.S. cases.

I was mostly just thinking of it hypothetically. I think on U.S. law the cleric could get charged and locked up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:27 am

yaaarrrgg;1348023 wrote: Oh, I'm not sure...I tried finding an incident on Google but didn't see any U.S. cases.

I was mostly just thinking of it hypothetically. I think on U.S. law the cleric could get charged and locked up.
I don't think so. I hope not, anyway. I found this:

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about speech inciting violence. Freedom of speech is far too important to start attenuating.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:12 am

Accountable;1348016 wrote: *snort* :yh_giggleGod-damned clones.