Thread: Sequel to "I never know what to say about such things"

Originally Posted by JMS

One point to ponder: if one of the recruiters was a pregnant female and she died and the baby died he would be up for 2 counts of murder. If someone shot him before he could pull off a round to kill the recruiter they would be a hero.

I find inconsistencies fascinating.

I'm not sure I would call this an inconsistency... Whether or not the recruiter was a pregnant female doesn't really have anything to do with "hero" intervention. I'd say the person is still a hero either way if he/she stops a wacko from shooting somebody.

Unless I missed the point of your statement completely, in which case, I apologize. I'm a few drinks in and it's muddied the water, so to speak.

Cheers,

Ogie

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I'm not sure I would call this an inconsistency... Whether or not the recruiter was a pregnant female doesn't really have anything to do with "hero" intervention. I'd say the person is still a hero either way if he/she stops a wacko from shooting somebody.

Unless I missed the point of your statement completely, in which case, I apologize. I'm a few drinks in and it's muddied the water, so to speak.

Cheers,

Ogie

Someone, who shall remain nameless Ogie, compared the murderer of the good doctor in my previous thread to a terrorist and I was pointing out an inconsistency, not only to the comparison but to legalized abortion.

Originally Posted by JMS

Someone, who shall remain nameless Ogie, compared the murderer of the good doctor in my previous thread to a terrorist and I was pointing out an inconsistency, not only to the comparison but to legalized abortion.

Haha! Right you are my friend. I believe I was (one of) the nameless someones.

And, if you asked me again (and I suppose you are), I would say that this crime has the same terrorist properties -- cowardice, shame, and I forget what the last thing I said was, but that, too. As far as I'm concerned, any time someone attacks someone else who is innocent and/or defenseless for some "cause", I'd say that's pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Told you I was a few drinks deep. I already forgot what I wrote this afternoon!

Bottoms up!

Ogie

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Haha! Right you are my friend. I believe I was (one of) the nameless someones.

And, if you asked me again (and I suppose you are), I would say that this crime has the same terrorist properties -- cowardice, shame, and I forget what the last thing I said was, but that, too. As far as I'm concerned, any time someone attacks someone else who is innocent and/or defenseless for some "cause", I'd say that's pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Told you I was a few drinks deep. I already forgot what I wrote this afternoon!

Bottoms up!

Ogie

So, by your definition abortion is an act of terrorism. Is that right?

Originally Posted by JMS

So, by your definition abortion is an act of terrorism. Is that right?

Absolutely not. But I see where you are going (innocent/defenseless, etc). In these two articles I am directing my terrorist comments towards the shooters.

I stated before that I'm not offering my stance on abortion, but you can infer it based on my responses here.

I see the two cases as related in the attacks, but unrelated abortion. Abortion is a whole different animal (especially as it relates to terrorist activities.

Originally Posted by JMS

Someone, who shall remain nameless Ogie, compared the murderer of the good doctor in my previous thread to a terrorist and I was pointing out an inconsistency, not only to the comparison but to legalized abortion.

I swore after that last thread that I wasn't going to post if it wasn't straight razor related ..... never say never.... I haven't looked it up in the dictionary but I am under the impression that someone who uses violence to affect political change is by definition a terrorist.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I swore after that last thread that I wasn't going to post if it wasn't straight razor related ..... never say never.... .

I have that effect on people!

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I haven't looked it up in the dictionary but I am under the impression that someone who uses violence to affect political change is by definition a terrorist.

So were the founding fathers terrorists, just trying to refine the definition and not putting words into anybody's mouth.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

So were the founding fathers terrorists, just trying to refine the definition and not putting words into anybody's mouth.

If you were british.....yes

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

If you were british.....yes

IIRC the founding fathers like all of the colonists were British. So would they have considered themselves terrorists. Still looking for that definition.