Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yes, because we don't have an inalienable right to free speech.

yeah we do. they exist, even when being infringed upon.

Then you are the government. Or at least, government and freedom has no meaning in that situation.

why would i be the govt? theres no one to govern except for myself, and thats not govt. and freedom still has meaning, because i can still say what i want.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All the violence you have stated was not meant to intimidate people to enact some form of political change, but to accompish other goals.

Isn't political change their goal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The definitions that you are using exempts govts, because they don't have the need to use the type of terrorism that freedom fighters use.

And the definitions that you use results in any violence being terrorism. Terrorism was created to respond to the actions that guerillas and 'freedom fighters' use.

how can it grant you anything if it already exists without govt?

It doesn't exist without government.

if i am the only person left on the planet, what prevents me from having freedom of speech?

Having someone grant it to you. You can't just get rights out of thin air. Like I said, it is a social construct, so you need a society for rights. You have no 'right' to freedom of speech if there is no one else around, and you don't need one. Why would you need a freedom to speak if there is no one who could take it from you? That's all rights are - to prevent others from doing things to you. Without others, no rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't political change their goal?

Political change is vastly different than having the people of the other state enact political change based on the policies. For example having the people of state A vote to stop the occupation of area B because a group from area B has been killing civilians of state A.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And the definitions that you use results in any violence being terrorism.

Violence is terrorism if it is meant to benefit the attacker by causing others to reconsider future actions. That includes most violence, unless others aren't aware ot the violence for some odd reason.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Terrorism was created to respond to the actions that guerillas and 'freedom fighters' use.

I don't believe that it was. The word has been around for a long time.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It doesn't exist without government.

it sure does. govt merely protects or infringes on it.

Having someone grant it to you. You can't just get rights out of thin air. Like I said, it is a social construct, so you need a society for rights. You have no 'right' to freedom of speech if there is no one else around, and you don't need one. Why would you need a freedom to speak if there is no one who could take it from you? That's all rights are - to prevent others from doing things to you. Without others, no rights.

no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.
and we arn't talking abour utility, and whether you need one or not. thats subjective, in the same way that taxing rich people more is right because they are 'greedy.'
rights are there to protect you, like you said, but just because there is no one there to infringe on them, doesnt mean they go away. ultility doesnt end someone's right, because that utility is always subjective.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Isn't political change their goal?

Political change is vastly different than having the people of the other state enact political change based on the policies. For example having the people of state A vote to stop the occupation of area B because a group from area B has been killing civilians of state A.

You are using the word political much too narrowly. All the action has to do is change peoples behavior by causing them fear.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
it sure does. govt merely protects or infringes on it.

How? Where?

Certainly the capacity to does, but that is not a right.

no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.

Where is it located, then? How are you "born" with it

[Kidlicious]

Here's an unbiased way to define the word 'terrorism.'

Take the root - terror - and add the suffix 'ism.' You get systematic terror.

Now how does that exempt govt.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How? Where?

Certainly the capacity to does, but that is not a right.

it protects it by enforcing rights, and punishing those who infringe on it.

Where is it located, then? How are you "born" with it

in the same way that you are born with a conscience

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
it protects it by enforcing rights, and punishing those who infringe on it.

I meant your rights, not the govt.

in the same way that you are born with a conscience

Uh, no. My conscience is part of my thought processes. Unless you want to say that rights are solely an invention of the mind, and don't actually exist at all?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Uh, no. My conscience is part of my thought processes. Unless you want to say that rights are solely an invention of the mind, and don't actually exist at all?

and rights are a part of the life process. to be alive is to have rights.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Thats always been an interesting quandry. Are those graduates of SOA actually representatives of the US government?

While yes the tactics trained are questionable at best are they under direct control of the US?

I don't know.

So it would be perfectly fine for me to hire a hitman to kill someone because it was the hitman that killed the person and not me.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Here's an unbiased way to define the word 'terrorism.'

Take the root - terror - and add the suffix 'ism.' You get systematic terror.

Now how does that exempt govt.

Except that these days, 'terror' means 'terrorism'. For example, the 'War on Terror', 'anti-terror legislation' and so on.

I could just as easily say that 'sabotage' means the systematic use of clogs or hooves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Violence is terrorism if it is meant to benefit the attacker by causing others to reconsider future actions.

So all war is terrorism? All military action is terrorism? Your definition is too broad.

All the action has to do is change peoples behavior by causing them fear.

So when Saddam killed people in his country in mass graves for speaking, that's terrorism? You have too broad a definition of terrorism.

no one needs to grant it to you - you are born with it.

No you aren't. Rights are granted only by the government. You don't have any special natural rights. If it like a conscience then you admit rights are solely made up by the mind and thus people are not born with them.