Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Pabmusic]

Many thanks for nipping our dictionary-obsessed friend's 'arguments' in the bud, Pabs. :ela::ok:

Does that merit another pint of that very good Doombar? :whistle:

[MrGongGong]

I don't think the term 'hard left' would be used at all by anyone of 'average intelligence and knowledge'. But if you do use it in a discussion, you should be able to supply a definition of what you mean by it. Preferably with examples...

:ok::smiley:

[amateur51]

Does that merit another pint of that very good Doombar? :whistle:

Of course Pabs but I was trying to recall the name of that rather good Cheshire ale that I had yesterday by way of variation, but I've left it on the Beer thread I think :laugh:

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"Simon, you are wrong here, because... "

That's all I'm awaiting...

Simon, you are wrong here. Because.

[Richard Barrett]

Here's a brief article by Noam Chomsky on the Boston bombings. One particularly salient passage (my emphasis):

On April 23, Yemeni activist and journalist Farea Al-Muslimi, who had studied at an American high school, testified before a US Senate committee that right after the marathon bombings, a drone strike in his home village in Yemen killed its target.

The strike terrorized the villagers, turning them into enemies of the United States - something that years of jihadi propaganda had failed to accomplish.

His neighbors had admired the US, Al-Muslimi told the committee, but "Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the fear they feel at the drones over their heads. What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant."

Rack up another triumph for President Obama's global assassination program, which creates hatred of the United States and threats to its citizens more rapidly than it kills people who are suspected of posing a possible danger to us someday.

The target of the Yemeni village assassination, which was carried out to induce maximum terror in the population, was well-known and could easily have been apprehended, Al-Muslimi said. This is another familiar feature of the global terror operations.

There was no direct way to prevent the Boston murders. There are some easy ways to prevent likely future ones: by not inciting them. That's also true of another case of a suspect murdered, his body disposed of without autopsy, when he could easily have been apprehended and brought to trial: Osama bin Laden.

I realise that the intellectual credentials of someone like Simon make Chomsky look like a dunderhead (and he's a self-confessed anarchist too!) but I thought this discussion might benefit from a dose of topicality.

[amateur51]

Sound sense from Richard Barrett and from Naom Chomsky :ok:

[Beef Oven]

Here's a brief article by Noam Chomsky on the Boston bombings. One particularly salient passage (my emphasis):



I realise that the intellectual credentials of someone like Simon make Chomsky look like a dunderhead (and he's a self-confessed anarchist too!) but I thought this discussion might benefit from a dose of topicality.

:ok: Good job you're around Richard.

[french frank]

For a slightly different, but not wholly dissimilar view, should you be selective over your sources.

[scottycelt]

Oh dear! That's not what I mean at all, and I suspect you know it. A good example of what I'm saying would be the creationists' cry of "evolution is just a theory". There is a considerable difference between a scientific theory (the highest level of explanation, actually) and the colloquial 'theory' - a mere idea. The creationist makes his point based on one definition, the scientist answers based on another. If that is done deliberately (that is, usually) rational argument is meaningless.

What you are doing is objecting because it seems as the definition of one particular word is changing. Words are our servants, not our masters, and their meanings change constantly (look at the 180-degree change in the meaning of 'nice' over the last 400 years). 'Marriage' is no less prone to change than anything else.

In any case, there's already a thread for this elsewhere.

I know, and have absolutely no intention of returning to it.

My point was simply that any argument could be described as 'flimsy' if people decide to expand their own definition of a word as they go along.

I'm actually agreeing with your own point, but maybe not quite in the way you would like!

[amateur51]

I know, and have absolutely no intention of returning to it.

My point was simply that any argument could be described as 'flimsy' if people decide to expand their own definition of a word as they go along.

I'm actually agreeing with your own point, but maybe not quite in the way you would like!

But in your case scotty, the movement is almost always a contraction to some definition to be found in the 1950s edition of Funk & Wagnall that informs so much of your personal Weltanschauung :smiley:

[scottycelt]

But in your case scotty, the movement is almost always a contraction to some definition to be found in the 1950s edition of Funk & Wagnall that informs so much of your personal Weltanschauung :smiley:

Ah, at last a post from amsey devoid of the usual 'many thanks, :ok::ale: ' to his like-minded chums!

I use the Oxford English, but that is quite irrelevant. What is wholly relevant is that everyone should agree on a definition of words if these words are central to any debate.

Only one who is not in the slightest interested in proper debate, but instead merely prefers to disparage the opposing view, might object to such a novel concept ... ? :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Ah, at last a post from amsey devoid of the usual 'many thanks, :ok::ale: ' to his like-minded chums!

I use the Oxford English, but that is quite irrelevant. What is wholly relevant is that everyone should agree on a definition of words if these words are central to any debate.

Only one who is not in the slightest interested in proper debate, but instead merely prefers to disparage the opposing view, might object to such a novel concept ... ? :winkeye:

But you must concede that you are generally a stranger to many a contemporary definition, scotty - as Pabs has said so sagely in #417, 'Words are our servants, not our masters, and their meanings change constantly..' :ale::ok:

[Beef Oven]

personal Weltanschauung :smiley:

Can it be otherwise?

[amateur51]

Can it be otherwise?

Were not the Third Reich, the British Empah, etc informed by a corporate Weltanshauung?

[Beef Oven]

Were not the Third Reich, the British Empah, etc informed by a corporate Weltanshauung?

No.