the hypocracy of our drug laws

[Balerion]

What makes you so sure? I actually felt they were more of a terrorist/force for political change gone terribly awry type of deal and they simply realized the numerous financial benefits of being involved in the drug trade. I'd think that their right wing counterparts are more in line to make cash, but I admit that I'm relying on intuition here; I don't really pay all that much attention to what's going on over in Columbia as it's a ways from where I live (Canada).

Maybe they do both. But I was always under the impression that terrorist organizations primarily deal with political/religious issues, and get a good amount of their funding from governments and/or legitimate business.

I definitely agree. I also believe that 9/11 itself should be much more thoroughly itself and have discussed this a fair amount over in pseudoscience (they won't let us discuss it anywhere else here as of yet).

I think the primary reason it's in pseudoscience is the basis for the conspiracy claims, which is the manner in which the buildings fell, and/or that they fell at all. Unless someone can come up with a more legitimate reason that there may have been a conspiracy, or at least moves away from the argument about the buildings or the cellphones, it's going to remain there.

 

[scott3x]

what is this supposed to mean -

It means I know a fair amount about the actual topic of this thread I've created, vs. tangents .

 

[scott3x]

What makes you so sure? I actually felt they were more of a terrorist/force for political change gone terribly awry type of deal and they simply realized the numerous financial benefits of being involved in the drug trade. I'd think that their right wing counterparts are more in line to make cash, but I admit that I'm relying on intuition here; I don't really pay all that much attention to what's going on over in Columbia as it's a ways from where I live (Canada).

Maybe they do both. But I was always under the impression that terrorist organizations primarily deal with political/religious issues, and get a good amount of their funding from governments and/or legitimate business.

I'm fairly sure they do both. As to your second point.. well, terrorist organizations certainly have been funded by governments, or elements of governments at any rate. Take 9/11, for example; only I don't think foreign governments were the only ones doing the funding there (I believe it was an inside job; check formal debates or pseudoscience to see my main focus, the WTC collapses). So perhaps you're right on that.

I definitely agree. I also believe that 9/11 itself should be much more thoroughly itself and have discussed this a fair amount over in pseudoscience (they won't let us discuss it anywhere else here as of yet).

I think the primary reason it's in pseudoscience is the basis for the conspiracy claims, which is the manner in which the buildings fell, and/or that they fell at all. Unless someone can come up with a more legitimate reason that there may have been a conspiracy, or at least moves away from the argument about the buildings or the cellphones, it's going to remain there.

I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons for moving the WTC collapse thread over to Architecture and Engineering. However, the administration doesn't believe so and ultimately, that's what counts here. As an aside, what do you mean 'the argument about the buildings or the cellphones'?

 

[Balerion]

I'm fairly sure they do both. As to your second point.. well, terrorist organizations certainly have been funded by governments, or elements of governments at any rate. Take 9/11, for example; only I don't think foreign governments were the only ones doing the funding there (I believe it was an inside job; check formal debates or pseudoscience to see my main focus, the WTC collapses). So perhaps you're right on that.

I guess it might just be my own personal belief, but...I think the only groups that should be viewed as terrorist organizations are the ones that only use violence to force governments to adopt positions supported by small minorities--sometimes held only by the radicals that comprise the organizations themselves.

Everyone else should be designated based on their primary objective, and perhaps where they get their money. I mean, would you call the American rebels of the Revolutionary War terrorists?

I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons for moving the WTC collapse thread over to Architecture and Engineering. However, the administration doesn't believe so and ultimately, that's what counts here. As an aside, what do you mean 'the argument about the buildings or the cellphones'?

Well, I've asked the same questions everyone else has. Without getting too much into it, there has been a lot of junk science used to qualify the conspiracy theorists' position. For instance, the idea that the buildings fell the way they did. People--not physicists or engineers, mind you--claim that the buildings fell in a manner that could not have been accomplished any other way than through controlled demolition. First problem with that is the people making these claims are not engineers or physicists, nor do they work in engineering, nor have they ever been a part of a controlled demolition. The group that studied the wreckage of the buildings was an independent group, as was the Popular Mechanics study.

I have no reason to doubt the group that first investigated the wreckage, nor the Popular Mechanics study. I see no reason why two independent groups (one of whom volunteered to do the study with no prompting from the government) would lie to protect the government.

Most of these theories were forwarded by Truthers, and I've seen the peopl who made the video saying with confidence that no one could have used cellphones on those planes to contact their loved ones. That claim is patently false, as anyone who has been on a flight with their cellphones can testify.

So, as I said before, there's just no real concrete evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[scott3x]

I'm fairly sure they do both. As to your second point.. well, terrorist organizations certainly have been funded by governments, or elements of governments at any rate. Take 9/11, for example; only I don't think foreign governments were the only ones doing the funding there (I believe it was an inside job; check formal debates or pseudoscience to see my main focus, the WTC collapses). So perhaps you're right on that.

I guess it might just be my own personal belief, but...I think the only groups that should be viewed as terrorist organizations are the ones that only use violence to force governments to adopt positions supported by small minorities--sometimes held only by the radicals that comprise the organizations themselves.

Everyone else should be designated based on their primary objective, and perhaps where they get their money. I mean, would you call the American rebels of the Revolutionary War terrorists?

The British government almost certainly would have thought so . I certainly agree that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters frequently blurs and for this reason, we do indeed need to measure things such as just how violent, who are they targetting, who is their base and what are the goals.

 

[scott3x]

JDawg, for the second part of your post 64, I responded to it in the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience, as those issues really belong there and I think it was getting too deep to continue it here in this drug laws thread, laugh .

 

[Balerion]

The British government almost certainly would have thought so . I certainly agree that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters frequently blurs and for this reason, we do indeed need to measure things such as just how violent, who are they targetting, who is their base and what are the goals.

Unfortunately, we only base it on the fact that they are violent (Ghandi and MLK ruined it for everybody! ) or if they're attacking civilians, or if they're attacking an ally of ours. Attacking civilians immediately makes them terrorists to our media--and perhaps rightly so, but I think we have lost the ability to look at the larger picture. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, and we ended that branch of the war. Was it the only the way to defeat Japan? Probably not. Was it the only way to end the war virtually immediately, effectively eliminating any chance of Japan attacking the American mainland? Probably, yes. So did it make us terrorists to intentionally kill, what, half a million innocent people? I would so no.

So I guess my point is that given today's standard definition of a terrorist, both our nuclear attack on Japan, and our revolution against Brittan would be considered terrorism. And to me, that completely degrades the definition, and confuses the issue terribly.

JDawg, for the second part of your post 64, I responded to it in the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience, as those issues really belong there and I think it was getting too deep to continue it here in this drug laws thread, laugh .

I've been there a few times, and I have yet to see anything of substance. It's standard conspiracy stuff, none of which is backed up by anything other than circumstantial evidence.

EDIT: Sorry for that, I didn't realize you had taken up a new thread. I'll check it out right now.

EDIT 2: Upon further inspection, I realize it's not a new thread, but a direct post response to me within the original "Towers" thread. I'll check it out and respond, but if we get into it, I would prefer a new thread.

 

[scott3x]

The British government almost certainly would have thought so . I certainly agree that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters frequently blurs and for this reason, we do indeed need to measure things such as just how violent, who are they targetting, who is their base and what are the goals.

Unfortunately, we only base it on the fact that they are violent (Ghandi and MLK ruined it for everybody! )

Who's the they in your 'that's what they say' ? I'm just thinking of a Gary Larson joke. One of those nosy old women is coming down into a basement and sees a guy and a bunch of telephones all labelled "They". So she says "So you're the they in 'that's what they say!'" God that guy can do some good graphical jokes .

or if they're attacking civilians, or if they're attacking an ally of ours. Attacking civilians immediately makes them terrorists to our media--and perhaps rightly so, but I think we have lost the ability to look at the larger picture. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, and we ended that branch of the war. Was it the only the way to defeat Japan? Probably not. Was it the only way to end the war virtually immediately, effectively eliminating any chance of Japan attacking the American mainland? Probably, yes. So did it make us terrorists to intentionally kill, what, half a million innocent people? I would say no.

Wikipedia starts its definition for terrorism thusly:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.[clarification needed][1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to 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.

By that definition, I think one could safely include not just some islamists, but first world countries such as the U.S. and Israel as well. Would it -really- have hurt the U.S. to negotiate with Japan, especially after the first bomb? I mean, they'd stopped their expansionism in their tracks. Perhaps the best definition of a terrorist is the guy who shoots first. In which case, the U.S.'s penchant to invade countries in the name of 'preventing' those countries from harming them begins to seriously look like a pretext for expansionism.. and if elements within the U.S. and perhaps some foreign nationals are responsible for what is perhaps the biggest terrorist act in history (9/11) well, then...

As Frank Herbert once said:
The one-eyed view of our universe says you must not look far afield for problems. Such problems may never arrive. Instead, tend to the world within your fences. The packs ranging outside may not even exist.

So I guess my point is that given today's standard definition of a terrorist, both our nuclear attack on Japan, and our revolution against Brittan would be considered terrorism. And to me, that completely degrades the definition, and confuses the issue terribly.

Maybe the issue is incredibly confusing to begin with. Think of it this way- do you honestly think any -terrorist- really thinks of themselves as the bad guy? They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There's a movie out called "Traitor". I haven't even seen it, but I believe that the theme of the movie explores how close the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' can be. I think this same theme is in my favourite movie, which is a bit of a cult classic, which also stars Guy Pearce, called "Memento". Perhaps my favourite line in it is:
"Yeah, well I guess they can only make you believe what you want to believe".

 

[scott3x]

JDawg, for the second part of your post 64, I responded to it in the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience, as those issues really belong there and I think it was getting too deep to continue it here in this drug laws thread, laugh .

I've been there a few times, and I have yet to see anything of substance. It's standard conspiracy stuff, none of which is backed up by anything other than circumstantial evidence.

EDIT: Sorry for that, I didn't realize you had taken up a new thread. I'll check it out right now.

EDIT 2: Upon further inspection, I realize it's not a new thread, but a direct post response to me within the original "Towers" thread. I'll check it out and respond, but if we get into it, I would prefer a new thread.

We could move it over to the discussion thread over in the formal debates forum, so long as you agree to the discussion rules- essentially you can't use certain insults, like stupid, moron, f word things; it's all put in in the first post...