I find neither label to be inherently positive nor negative and I think it is silly to insist that one has to be. Labels are all too often devoid of any real meaning, anyhow. I think it is silly to complain about being labeled while cheerfully labeling other people. I hope that the issue is completely laid to rest now.

Mabus - My take on David's comment seems to suggest he thought it was ironic that someone spoke out against using neo-con as a negative term and repeatedly used Socialist/Socialism as a negative term. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his opinion of either. He was simply pointing out a hypocrisy. Can this continue to be a fun and enjoyable debate for awhile longer please?

FWIW, Chris's understanding of my comment is exactly correct.

Thank you for your wonderful addition to the conversation. [/sarcasm]

No less wonderful than your pointless attack on David trying to get him to admit to something he didn't say…

As I posted when asking for clarification, before he went off on a tangent:
"It came from your use of quotation marks around the second usage of "nasty word". You did not place quotes around the first one, but did around the second."

A simple "I missed quoting that, just a typo" would have sufficed.

I found nothing in this discussion not "fun and enjoyable". I was asking very civil and complete questions. I did not belittle David, nor break any policies.

If David is able to defend where he found "irony" in the statement, and where he found someone to be a "hypocrite", then David can post his views. If he wishes to call a poster on the forums a "hypocrite", he should be called to defend the accusation.

Asking for clarifications in a civil manner is not an attack, nor was the discussion pointless.

I wash my hands of this debate.

being members of a government doesnt prevent them from being terrorists

wikipeedea describes terroism as

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.


i dont see where being a government member prevents you from being a part of that definition
many terroists have become government leaders and many former goverment leaders in history were indeed terroists
wouldnt hitler and stalin easly qualify as terroists ?
most major terroists are usualy infulential , wealthy and in positions of power in some form or another

If you're going to include ANYONE who uses fear as a method of control, I'd suggest you look closer to home. Our current President used fear and doubt to rush quite a few things through congress while he had a virtual blank check after 9/11. Some of them were a justified (if knee-jerk) reaction to the attack. Others had little to do with it, but would have caused considerable contraversy had they been presented only a week earlier.

And no, Hitler and Stalin were not terrorists. That's exactly the kind of blanket statements that I'm trying to prevent. Hitler rose to power via public election, playing on nationalism and Christian values to win the election. Once there, he pushed an agenda to restore Germany to her glory days, prior to her defeat in World War I. After invading Poland, he began to also put forth his private agenda to eliminate anyone who didn't fit his "ideal" image of humanity. His actions did indeed deliberately target non-combatants, and were part of his ideological goal, but they weren't done solely to create terror. He had full control of his nation's military might, and the support of that military AND a good percentage of the population.

I'm not as familiar with Stalin's rise to power, but I'd suggest you look that up as it should be very well documented. I think it's probably safe to say that he also did not require the use of terror to achieve his goals.

As the definition you linked says, a terrorist uses acts intended to create terror. That is how they attempt to accomplish their goals, because they lack the resources to simply do what they wish to do. If you can't conquer, you try to destabilize the existing power structure so it will collapse, giving you the chance to take control. Saddam was placed into his position of power by the US government, Hitler was elected to his position by popular vote, Stalin was in a power struggle with Trotsky and won, but I don't know the details. They were all guilty of horrible crimes, but not terrorism.

I actually had not noticed "neo-con" being used
in a pejorative way…though I suppose it's
going to wind up pejorating, the way "liberal"
apparently has.

I think the discussion actually *does* lose a bit
of fun when it devolves into what someone meant
with their second clarification of sense 3 of
the dictionary definition of a word.

I think perhaps to an aspergic law student it
gets *more* fun the more pedantic things get. But
I think it's fair to say that when you have to
explain why calling Hitler a terrorist is
inappropriate, things have spun into arguing-just-
to-argue, and for normal people, that's a
waste of time.

If you've no longer got a point to make, it is
perhaps time to let it go.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

again quixadhal nothign states that a duely elected offical cant be a terroist

and theres a huge differnce between fear and terror

what hitler , stalin and sadam did THAT was terror
random killings , rapings , murders , mass graves etc thats terror

pointing out threats to our nation to rush polocies to protect against them is not terror theres a huge differnce


anther prime example would be hamas universaly accepted as terrorists they are however a duely elected government
jstu one that supports suicide bombings and otehr acts of terroism

:stare:

look at it this way
fear is going to a scary movie

TERROR is being the guy IN the scary movie fighting for his life / in fear for his life

If you say so. So how exactly is your definition of "fear" relevant to anything we've talked about?

"The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice we give to others." -Anonymous

Yes indeed, Mabus. :wink:

Glad you agree, Comrade David.:wink:

I win.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/crat_200.jpg