if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
Industrial military complex perhaps using the ideology of religion as a justification
The Greens.
Cymek said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.Industrial military complex perhaps using the ideology of religion as a justification
Peak Warming Man said:
The Greens.
Tamb said:
Peak Warming Man said:
The Greens.
golf clap.
wtf?
Terrorism is simply the use of violence to achieve a political aim so I guess the closest thing to this, while still obeying the laws and conventions of Australian society, would be political protest.
Not to be overextending the comparison, but I’d say it’s media
A certain thing they appeal to, a delivery method, a device.
But the potential for that to be influential exists in people.
transition said:
Not to be overextending the comparison, but I’d say it’s mediaA certain thing they appeal to, a delivery method, a device.
But the potential for that to be influential exists in people.
“Media” is just a collective term for “mediums of communication”.
It’s certainly true that certain examples of propaganda have been used in the services of terrorism (and still are, by the likes of ISIS etc).
Bubblecar said:
It’s certainly true that certain examples of propaganda have been used in the services of terrorism (and still are, by the likes of ISIS etc).
It’s on news.com.au so it must be true
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/how-australians-are-funding-islamic-state-through-our-petrol-pump/news-story/add6f31b8a60d1c3ac43bb591188db85
Tamb said:
Bubblecar said:
It’s certainly true that certain examples of propaganda have been used in the services of terrorism (and still are, by the likes of ISIS etc).
chuckles evily
Joseph Goebbels comes to mind
And Julius Streicher.
Bubblecar said:
Tamb said:
Bubblecar said:
It’s certainly true that certain examples of propaganda have been used in the services of terrorism (and still are, by the likes of ISIS etc).
chuckles evily
Joseph Goebbels comes to mind
And Julius Streicher.
!https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/03/9e/b8/039eb838b20166cbcd379c17400d68b7.jpg
Well researched!
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
Activist.
I have wondered when you see a news story someone(s) outraged by some act someone(s) else has done if its even true or has the media just made it all up to generate a fight between the parties
Divine Angel said:
It’s on news.com.au so it must be truehttp://www.news.com.au/finance/business/how-australians-are-funding-islamic-state-through-our-petrol-pump/news-story/add6f31b8a60d1c3ac43bb591188db85
The article actually makes a lot of sense.
Tamb said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
The word of (insert name of any god)
what are the Gods in a secular culture.
Bubblecar said:
Divine Angel said:
It’s on news.com.au so it must be truehttp://www.news.com.au/finance/business/how-australians-are-funding-islamic-state-through-our-petrol-pump/news-story/add6f31b8a60d1c3ac43bb591188db85
The article actually makes a lot of sense.
I tried it on a customer once, back before we had to smile and nod politely at their rants. She was clearly looking for something so I asked what I could help her with. She said she was looking for the Halal certificate and did I know we were supporting terrorism? I asked her if she’d filled up with petrol and she said yes, so I asked her wasn’t it more likely her buying petrol was supporting terrorism in Middle Eastern countries than buying doughnuts were? She looked shocked, said she’d never thought of that before and ran off to inform her husband. I was quite pleased with myself :)
Divine Angel said:
I tried it on a customer once, back before we had to smile and nod politely at their rants. She was clearly looking for something so I asked what I could help her with. She said she was looking for the Halal certificate and did I know we were supporting terrorism? I asked her if she’d filled up with petrol and she said yes, so I asked her wasn’t it more likely her buying petrol was supporting terrorism in Middle Eastern countries than buying doughnuts were? She looked shocked, said she’d never thought of that before and ran off to inform her husband. I was quite pleased with myself :)
:)
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.
Presumably, a terrorist from our own culture.
Organised crime is a terrorist group, they don’t have political aims for the most part but use terror or the threat of terror to achieve economic aims
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.Activist.
Am serious.
“Terrorist” is exactly synonymous with “Freedom fighter”. There’s no such thing as in our own culture. “Vigilante” would be a close parallel, but not close as close a parallel as “Activist” for several reasons.
“Activist” and “Terrorist” have all the following in common.
1. They work in paramilitary outfits, but usually in small groups.
2. Sometimes get clandestine government assistance.
3. Do their best to gain media coverage by physical destruction.
4. Are convinced of the correctness of their morality.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.Activist.
Am serious.
“Terrorist” is exactly synonymous with “Freedom fighter”. There’s no such thing as in our own culture. “Vigilante” would be a close parallel, but not close as close a parallel as “Activist” for several reasons.
“Activist” and “Terrorist” have all the following in common.
1. They work in paramilitary outfits, but usually in small groups.
2. Sometimes get clandestine government assistance.
3. Do their best to gain media coverage by physical destruction.
4. Are convinced of the correctness of their morality.
Freedom fighters seem to be exactly the opposite for the most, not fighting for freedom but instigation of their own laws which are often even more repressive
Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against non-combatants for political or ideological aims.
A freedom fighter is someone who is part of an armed rebellion against an illiberal regime.
Arguably there has historically been some overlap but it is obvious that these are not closely connected categories.
The equivalent to terrorists from my culture (white English speaking Australian culture) is white English speaking Australian terrorists: the white nationalist followers of van Tongeren.
> Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against non-combatants for political or ideological aims.
Exactly. Substitute “equipment” for “non-combatants” and you have the definition of “activist”.
mollwollfumble said:
> Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against non-combatants for political or ideological aims.Exactly. Substitute “equipment” for “non-combatants” and you have the definition of “activist”.
I suppose it could be the threat of, to excite fear, and violence could be anxiety (psychological), for political or ideological aims.
mollwollfumble said:
> Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against non-combatants for political or ideological aims.Exactly. Substitute “equipment” for “non-combatants” and you have the definition of “activist”.
So you agree, the concepts are completely different, since no sane person would equate damage to equipment to damage to a non-combatant.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
> Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against non-combatants for political or ideological aims.Exactly. Substitute “equipment” for “non-combatants” and you have the definition of “activist”.
So you agree, the concepts are completely different, since no sane person would equate damage to equipment to damage to a non-combatant.
Yes, I agree. Activists aren’t terrorists. That wasn’t the question in the original post.
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.Activist.
Particularly those activist groups that fall under the general internet label of Social Justice Warrior; who support and promote a regressive, extremist ideology with aims, methods, motives and justifications predicated entirely on the supposed righteousness of their cause.
“Feminists Love Islamists”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
if you took the average idea of what a terrorist is (or terror organization/ group, whatever), what motivates them, then asked of our own culture what is the nearest thing that approximates it, what would that be.Activist.
Particularly those activist groups that fall under the general internet label of Social Justice Warrior; who support and promote a regressive, extremist ideology with aims, methods, motives and justifications predicated entirely on the supposed righteousness of their cause.
“Feminists Love Islamists”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
I think that’s the crappiest little piece of crap I have ever seen on you tube.
Quite an achievement.
I’ve said it before, but may as well say it again.
Terrorists ain’t terrorists.
It is pretty crappy – but do you know what’s more crappy?
Richard Dawkins had an invitation to speak at the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism revoked because he dared to re-tweet this crappy little video.
Richard Dawkins : Science and Skepticism – incompatible according (in this case) feminist SJW ideologues. They banned Richard Dawkins from talking a a conference on science and skepticism because he is not the “right kind” of scientist or skeptic. Richard Dawkins, Richard Freakin’ Dawkins, enemy of science, enemy of skepticism LOL!
Unrelated to the crappy video, they did the same thing to a speaker scheduled to talk at a feminist conference. That speaker was Germaine Greer. They banned Germaine Greer from speaking at a feminist conference, because she is not the “right kind” of feminist.
Closed minded extremist ideologues promoting regressive policies by shutting down open debate wherever and whenever they can. I think that is a little more crappy than some poorly made satirical youtube video.
esselte said:
It is pretty crappy – but do you know what’s more crappy?Richard Dawkins had an invitation to speak at the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism revoked because he dared to re-tweet this crappy little video.
Richard Dawkins : Science and Skepticism – incompatible according (in this case) feminist SJW ideologues. They banned Richard Dawkins from talking a a conference on science and skepticism because he is not the “right kind” of scientist or skeptic. Richard Dawkins, Richard Freakin’ Dawkins, enemy of science, enemy of skepticism LOL!
Unrelated to the crappy video, they did the same thing to a speaker scheduled to talk at a feminist conference. That speaker was Germaine Greer. They banned Germaine Greer from speaking at a feminist conference, because she is not the “right kind” of feminist.
Closed minded extremist ideologues promoting regressive policies by shutting down open debate wherever and whenever they can. I think that is a little more crappy than some poorly made satirical youtube video.
Personally I’d assess the level of crappiness in the opposite order, if only because it won’t do Dawkins or Greer any harm at all.
It’s not Dawkins or Greer I am concerned about either. It’s the fact that there are people who are not willing to entertain ideas that do not conform strictly to their own, that these people will act to silence any dissenting opinions, and (most importantly) that they are quickly gaining the power to control this conversation.
These people are a greater threat to modern western civilization than any Islamic terrorist group because they are pursuing their goals with the backing of the institutions of that civilization (politics, academia, media) and with general approval from populace. They have this support because SJW’s prey upon ordinary people’s sense of right and fairness to promote their goals. It is the most pernicious attack that Western societies have ever come under, and it needs to be challenged.
esselte said:
It’s not Dawkins or Greer I am concerned about either. It’s the fact that there are people who are not willing to entertain ideas that do not conform strictly to their own, that these people will act to silence any dissenting opinions, and (most importantly) that they are quickly gaining the power to control this conversation.
These people are a greater threat to modern western civilization than any Islamic terrorist group because they are pursuing their goals with the backing of the institutions of that civilization (politics, academia, media) and with general approval from populace. They have this support because SJW’s prey upon ordinary people’s sense of right and fairness to promote their goals. It is the most pernicious attack that Western societies have ever come under, and it needs to be challenged.
I’d like to think that was ironic, but it doesn’t look like it.
I see no evidence of dissenting opinion successfully being suppressed to any significant extent, or of extreme Islamists or extreme Feminists controlling the conversation. Quite the reverse in fact.
The current election in the USA is a good example.