2017 Westminster Terror Attack

They've been at it with each other for eons. Pretty much "same shit, different day" with them. Sad but true.

 

How did you know it was the guy was a racist? Oh, you made that up so you could post. I post a thought about the social changes as a result of millions of people from different walks of life that bonded to fight for a common cause and you have to make up a story. Weak tea.

 

Don't get cocky, you posted an irrelevant anecdote about a KKK member and a scumbag terrorist. There was no deeper meaning that was communicated there.

And how dare you accuse me of lying?!
The man in question was periodically saying "I'm racist", and was wearing a t-shirt that said on both the front and back "I'm a racist!", so I have high confidence he was racist.
How DARE you!?

 

I was born at night, but not last night. My dad was a Ranger. My mom was a SPAR. They taught me well.

 

Wasn't your dad the guy you called a terrorist? Some people might be proud to be the spawn of a terrorist, I wouldn't be.

 

You are not me and I am not you, Thank God. You seem to have some problem with reality and the concept of degrees of behavior. You like to twist a thought to make it dirty. But you do have a cute avatar and are fun to play with.

 

If anyone has a problem at least from my view point it's you. You deliberately misuse words to shock people and gain attention. I don't see anywhere that OMA has shown any problem at all with reality or the "concept of degrees of behavior". Although the latter is an awfully mushy statement.

 

What I meant was that the commandos of WWII that used terror while fighting in front of the front are different than the terrorists that this thread is about. OMA seems to equate the two by calling the men of WWII "scumbag terrorist(s).

OMA is free to explain the reason for using the term scumbag in reference the the men of the Rangers and FSSF. I would love to hear it.

 

They may have used techniques designed to reduce the moral of opposing soldiers but that doesn't make them "terrorist" at least as the word is used today. In todays common usage a "terrorist" is one who's actions are designed primarily to induce terror in the civilian population. I don't think the appellation of "scumbag" is out of line for such. You came into this thread and used the term in a way very different from it's common usage indeed in a way that most would consider inappropriate. Furthermore it appears that you did so deliberately to get a "rise" out of people. That is the act of a troll IMO. It certainly wasn't the act of someone who was interested in stimulating a calm and reasoned discussion. Perhaps Nietzsche's monster quote is appropriate perhaps not.

 

It's really quite simple. I think all terrorists are scumbags and should be wiped from the earth. There are shades of how terrorists are defined, but in general it involves a political endgame, acting without a uniform, and the targeting of non-combatants.

For reason I cannot understand, you called your father a terrorist. I'd imagine no one knows your father better that his own son, so if you are going to call a person a terrorist, I'm going to take your word for it.

You've made some odd statements, this one using false equivalence of uniformed WWII soldiers to DAESH and their ilk. All I'm doing is holding you to your own words. If you are going to play a word game and use the word "terrorist" to try and win an argument, I'm not going to let you walk back on it. You decided to call someone a terrorist, and as such you cannot pull the reigns on this. You cannot only call a person a terrorist when it is convenient, if you are going to use that term, you've got to go all the way. If that's uncomfortable for you, then choose your words more wisely in the future.

I cannot wait to get home and fire up PhotoShop. Get ready to get ragdolled.

 

Sorry that you can see in only black and white. It is as it is. No sense in having a discussion with you as your mind is made up. If you define terrorism as "acts to instill fear", my research leads me to believe that it was a tool used in front of the front in WWII. It was as it was.

 

The written word is usually taken at face value my friend. You posted that your father was a terrorist, basing this determination on the interpretation of the tactics the Rangers and 1st Special Service Force practiced. When you first posted this info, I shamed you for stating such, not at their tactics, but at your assumption that they were terrorists. Now you beg to differ, not based on your first statement, but on your interpretation of their actions. Which is it my friend? Time to sort your bullshit out here. Your father and his comrades need vindication of some sort from you. We don't.

 

Freud would probably have a ball with this...

 

Sad but true.

 

Can PTSD skip a generation

OK you win. When the FSSF heroes were doing, as one of them said, "A man never talks about what he did with a knife" and leaving a calling card on the body they were not trying to terrorize the enemy. They were just trying to scare them a lot. I have every bit of respect for our men and women that did what they had to at the front of any war. My whole reason for entering into discussions about terror as a weapon is to understand our enemy and one baseline that I can use is my WWII research. So I'll start a thread in the MTO room. Tomorrow.

 

The problem of course is that that is not how it is defined or used by the vast majority of people in todays world. A more accurate definition is "acts of violence directed primarily against civilians to instill fear/terror in the civilian populations". If you define it otherwise and don't make that clear then you are deliberately trying to mislead people. Don't be surprised if they take issue with your postings.

 

Aaaaand there it is. When someone like you gets constantly waterboarded with logic you will inevitably make a statement that is fully, completely wrong. You are so focused on winning the argument that you squirm, wriggle, and double down. You even made the leap to accuse others of calling soldiers from the FSSF terrorist, when it was you did this.

Let's break it down shall we?

As I said before, you cannot redefine a word to try and win an argument. Your definition of terrorist is so broad as to be meaningless. I've never seen anyone other than you use this definition. I cannot even find this definition of it anywhere on the internet. Let's see a few examples of your definition:

-A police officer threatening a suspect with a ticket if he doesn't comply with a request to move his vehicle? Terrorist.
-A father threatening a child with a spanking for not picking up her toys? Terrorist.
-The producer of the film Psycho? Terrorist.

We have a lot of educated members in this area. I'd say all of them raised an eyebrow when you called a member of the FSSF a terrorist. I don't take that lightly. What was surprising was your incomprehensible response to counter arguments, which was to double down.

I've no idea what your father would say if you stated to his face that he was in the same category as a DAESH terrorist, but I guess he would cuff you upside the ear and put the fear of God in you. And by your twisted, created definition, only confirming that he was in fact a "terrorist".

 

Guy #1: My dad is a terrorist.
Guy #2: Your dad is a scumbag terrorist?
Guy #1 Don't you dare call my dad a scumbag!!!

 

I wouldn't have put him in the same category as you seem to think I did. We are not communicating. As is shown by your last post where you added your own adjectives to my words to better fit with your bias. As opposed to my bias. Adios amigo.

 

Is your own memory that short? I think that answers what category you put your father into. The problem isn't about communication, it's comprehension.