Terrorism - the definition (108)
Albertaghost: Well Pat, being charged of terrorism does not make him one. Similarly, being charged of a crime does not make one guilty.
I know the way that the court system works might seem strange to you but it is a bit different than a mob with torches and pitchforks storming a Frankenstein Castle Pat. To simply arbitrarily call everything you don't like terrorism is akin to a kneejerk reaction.
And that is, to use a Pat quote;
"Sad."
Sad Pat Sad.
I know the way that the court system works might seem strange to you but it is a bit different than a mob with torches and pitchforks storming a Frankenstein Castle Pat. To simply arbitrarily call everything you don't like terrorism is akin to a kneejerk reaction.
And that is, to use a Pat quote;
"Sad."
Sad Pat Sad.
Albert the Court charge is Terrorism as you clearly stated...Then the court is taking him and charging him with charges that mark him as a TERRORIST...Fact he is in court under Norwegian Law and the charge is terrorism.....Not Jay walking or anything else you care to mention.
And I do love your attempt to quote me....
The Norwegian Court is the only legal authority who have the right to charge this man and as you clearly admitted the charge is TERRORISM
All the waffle, posting and reposting of anything else you care to do is totally MOOT.
As you yourself clearly showed the charge...TERRORISM...
lIVE WITH THE FACT Albert......
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albert
THE CHARGE.............................OFFENDER
MURDER.................................Murderer
Poaching...............................Poacher
Jay Walking............................Jay Walker
Theiving ..............................Thief
So
Terrorism..............................Terrorist....
Makes total sense to me and the rest of the world.
And you Albert did post his charge as Terrorism.....Makes him
A.....................TERRORIST..................
THE CHARGE.............................OFFENDER
MURDER.................................Murderer
Poaching...............................Poacher
Jay Walking............................Jay Walker
Theiving ..............................Thief
So
Terrorism..............................Terrorist....
Makes total sense to me and the rest of the world.
And you Albert did post his charge as Terrorism.....Makes him
A.....................TERRORIST..................
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: Albert the Court charge is Terrorism as you clearly stated...Then the court is taking him and charging him with charges that mark him as a TERRORIST...Fact he is in court under Norwegian Law and the charge is terrorism.....Not Jay walking or anything else you care to mention.
So then he is only considered a terrorist to the prosecution as this is Norwegian law we speak of. I can see by the lack of definitions here that if he were to be tried in any other country he would not be considered guilty of terrorism as most here can't even provide a definition of what it is.
patmac: And I do love your attempt to quote me....
And I kinda liked your attempt to quote me.
patmac:
The Norwegian Court is the only legal authority who have the right to charge this man and as you clearly admitted the charge is TERRORISM
The Norwegian Court is the only legal authority who have the right to charge this man and as you clearly admitted the charge is TERRORISM
Actually it is one of many charges and, one that the courts in Norway have a history of allowing people to get off on just as the three first people charged under this law were.
patmac: All the waffle, posting and reposting of anything else you care to do is totally MOOT.
As you yourself clearly showed the charge...TERRORISM...
lIVE WITH THE FACT Albert......
As you yourself clearly showed the charge...TERRORISM...
lIVE WITH THE FACT Albert......
That's the charge alright. Not the guilty verdict. As I said, the first three charged under this law were let off so your posting and reposting means little.
Now, have you a widely accepted definition of terrorism to share with us or are you just going to repost a fact that we all know and agree on?
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: AlbertTHE CHARGE.............................OFFENDER
MURDER.................................Murderer
Poaching...............................Poacher
Jay Walking............................Jay Walker
Theiving ..............................Thief
So
Terrorism..............................Terrorist....Makes total sense to me and the rest of the world.
And you Albert did post his charge as Terrorism.....Makes him
A.....................TERRORIST..................
MURDER.................................Murderer
Poaching...............................Poacher
Jay Walking............................Jay Walker
Theiving ..............................Thief
So
Terrorism..............................Terrorist....Makes total sense to me and the rest of the world.
And you Albert did post his charge as Terrorism.....Makes him
A.....................TERRORIST..................
Incredible. Charge a man and he's automatically guilty in your mind. You just threw a thousand years of law out the window!
Back to the stone age for Pat!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: So then he is only considered a terrorist to the prosecution as this is Norwegian law we speak of. I can see by the lack of definitions here that if he were to be tried in any other country he would not be considered guilty of terrorism as most here can't even provide a definition of what it is.
And I kinda liked your attempt to quote me.
Actually it is one of many charges and, one that the courts in Norway have a history of allowing people to get off on just as the three first people charged under this law were.
That's the charge alright. Not the guilty verdict. As I said, the first three charged under this law were let off so your posting and reposting means little.
Now, have you a widely accepted definition of terrorism to share with us or are you just going to repost a fact that we all know and agree on?
And I kinda liked your attempt to quote me.
Actually it is one of many charges and, one that the courts in Norway have a history of allowing people to get off on just as the three first people charged under this law were.
That's the charge alright. Not the guilty verdict. As I said, the first three charged under this law were let off so your posting and reposting means little.
Now, have you a widely accepted definition of terrorism to share with us or are you just going to repost a fact that we all know and agree on?
Look up Albert....The post above.....My last on this rubbish as your attempts at this time are so bad Albert...The Norwegian folk have charged him with Terrorism Like it or not Albert that is a sovereign state using it's legal power to charge him with the crime they want to.
Guilty or Not, the actual charge is as a Terrorist....Fact, no need to define or debate the charge is as it stands.....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Incredible. Charge a man and he's automatically guilty in your mind. You just threw a thousand years of law out the window!
Back to the stone age for Pat!
Back to the stone age for Pat!
Read again Albert I made no mention of Guilt or otherwise I just showed the offence and the offender.....To quote Conrad Obfuscation Albert...
This nonesense is really doing your credability no good in any way...
Post what you like Albert But you are digging a big hole..My last on this. Yes I know I said that last post ut I had to reply to your total OBFUSCATION
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: Your laughter and twisting of the facts is childish in the extreme. Please re-check the posts as I stated Breivek was charged with terrorism by the Norwegian Government
Well duh. Everybody knows that though. Doesn't mean he's guilty of terrorism though.
Oh, and I especially liked the laughter you put into posts 47 and 51. Lots of toons for you I see.
vinny1967: No. I don't mean the people were only meant to be scared. Can you understand English. The fact that they were terrorised seems to have escaped you
Not at all. His intent was to kill people, not scare them. Or did the deaths of seventy seven people escape your attention. If he were simply attempting to scare or terrorize people there would be a lot more alive.
vinny1967: Now on the subject of english I assume we are communicating in English as defined in a dictionary. You have mentioned numerous times in these forums that you go by the FBI definition (not even the version that is US Law as pointed out by Niko earlier). Why would you do that I ask myself. Is it possible that it suits your agenda and view of the world.
I myself use a dictionary and as such I have quoted it here. The fact that you wish to deem it incorrect speaks volumes of your fear and prejudice. [/quote[
I used your definition to blow your silly contention that he is guilty of terrorism apart. It stated one of the criteria was 'international terrorism.' He is not an international terrorist by any means so certainly doesn't appear to be a terrorist under that definition.
That simple enough English for you?
As TT stated earlier if it was a muslim suicide bomber he/she would be quick to be labelled a terrorist.
I myself use a dictionary and as such I have quoted it here. The fact that you wish to deem it incorrect speaks volumes of your fear and prejudice. [/quote[
I used your definition to blow your silly contention that he is guilty of terrorism apart. It stated one of the criteria was 'international terrorism.' He is not an international terrorist by any means so certainly doesn't appear to be a terrorist under that definition.
That simple enough English for you?
As TT stated earlier if it was a muslim suicide bomber he/she would be quick to be labelled a terrorist.
Not by me. As I said earlier even insurgents or Al Quasam members who blow up US, British and Israeli forces are not terrorists. The action has to fall within the definition(s) or they are not guilty of terrorism.
Understand?
vinny1967: Your argument smacks of an agenda that is despicable and says so much about you and not the topic
I ask for a definition and your agenda comes right back to a lost argument. You provide us with a definition that doesn't fit his case, one that the Norwegians lost three times in a row because their definition is faulty (you know, the one you never even bothered to look up) and, then you can't even read simple English which is the definitions and criteria posted in the OP, instead asking me about FBI definitions which entail the exact same criteria.
Methinks you and Pat need to go do some serious research.
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: Read again Albert I made no mention of Guilt or otherwise I just showed the offence and the offender.....To quote Conrad Obfuscation Albert...
To quote another "Sad."
You said;
""And you Albert did post his charge as Terrorism.....Makes him
A.....................TERRORIST..................""
So because we all know that he is charged with terrorism he is guilty of terrorism and is a terrorist?
As I said Pat, you just threw a thousand years of law out the window. Most humans in this day and age are at least provided a trial to assertain their guilt prior to sentencing but not in your cave I see.
Sad.
patmac:
This nonesense is really doing your credability no good in any way...
This nonesense is really doing your credability no good in any way...
Actually it certainly didn't do much for yours or your sock puppet's either. Hell, you guys don't define crimes nowadays and then ascertain guilt or innocence? Incredibly backwards I'd say Pat to say the least.
patmac:
Post what you like Albert But you are digging a big hole..My last on this. Yes I know I said that last post ut I had to reply to your total OBFUSCATION
Post what you like Albert But you are digging a big hole..My last on this. Yes I know I said that last post ut I had to reply to your total OBFUSCATION
Sorry to ask you to post what your widely accepted definition of terrorism was Pat. I had no idea you didn't have one and were relying on knee jerk emotions.
------ This thread is Archived ------
patmac: Read again Albert I made no mention of Guilt or otherwise I just showed the offence and the offender.....To quote Conrad Obfuscation Albert...
This nonesense is really doing your credability no good in any way...
Post what you like Albert But you are digging a big hole..My last on this. Yes I know I said that last post but I had to reply to your total OBFUSCATION
.This nonesense is really doing your credability no good in any way...
Post what you like Albert But you are digging a big hole..My last on this. Yes I know I said that last post but I had to reply to your total OBFUSCATION
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Well duh. Everybody knows that though. Doesn't mean he's guilty of terrorism though.
Oh, and I especially liked the laughter you put into posts 47 and 51. Lots of toons for you I see.
Not at all. His intent was to kill people, not scare them. Or did the deaths of seventy seven people escape your attention. If he were simply attempting to scare or terrorize people there would be a lot more alive.
Not by me. As I said earlier even insurgents or Al Quasam members who blow up US, British and Israeli forces are not terrorists. The action has to fall within the definition(s) or they are not guilty of terrorism.
Understand?
I ask for a definition and your agenda comes right back to a lost argument. You provide us with a definition that doesn't fit his case, one that the Norwegians lost three times in a row because their definition is faulty (you know, the one you never even bothered to look up) and, then you can't even read simple English which is the definitions and criteria posted in the OP, instead asking me about FBI definitions which entail the exact same criteria.
Methinks you and Pat need to go do some serious research.
Oh, and I especially liked the laughter you put into posts 47 and 51. Lots of toons for you I see.
Not at all. His intent was to kill people, not scare them. Or did the deaths of seventy seven people escape your attention. If he were simply attempting to scare or terrorize people there would be a lot more alive.
Not by me. As I said earlier even insurgents or Al Quasam members who blow up US, British and Israeli forces are not terrorists. The action has to fall within the definition(s) or they are not guilty of terrorism.
Understand?
I ask for a definition and your agenda comes right back to a lost argument. You provide us with a definition that doesn't fit his case, one that the Norwegians lost three times in a row because their definition is faulty (you know, the one you never even bothered to look up) and, then you can't even read simple English which is the definitions and criteria posted in the OP, instead asking me about FBI definitions which entail the exact same criteria.
Methinks you and Pat need to go do some serious research.
Were the people terrorised ????? It's that simple alberta.
I suggest you try reading a dictionary instead of quoting people you admire or organisations that you aspire to. When reading comprehension helps when reading with an open mind although I don't think that's not possible in your case. I may be wrong.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Breivik claims there are 2 more terrorist cells in Norway
(AGI) Oslo- There are two more terrorist cells waiting to strike in Norway, claims Anders Behring Breivik. Speaking at the third hearing in the trial in which he is facing charges of terrorism and premeditated murder for the attacks on Oslo and on Utoya island, in which 77 people were killed on July 22.
When public prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh asked the 33-year-old whether Norwegians ought to fear attacks on the part of the other cells, the terrorist replied, "yes".
(AGI) Oslo- There are two more terrorist cells waiting to strike in Norway, claims Anders Behring Breivik. Speaking at the third hearing in the trial in which he is facing charges of terrorism and premeditated murder for the attacks on Oslo and on Utoya island, in which 77 people were killed on July 22.
When public prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh asked the 33-year-old whether Norwegians ought to fear attacks on the part of the other cells, the terrorist replied, "yes".
------ This thread is Archived ------
A ghastly litany of relentless slaughter: man of stone Breivik eventually reduced to tears.
In court, Breivik sat impassively, apparently unmoved by his handiwork.
He seemed equally untouched by other dramatic evidence in this first day of his trial for the terrorist attacks in which his bomb and his shootings killed 77 people, mostly teenagers, last July.
In court, Breivik sat impassively, apparently unmoved by his handiwork.
He seemed equally untouched by other dramatic evidence in this first day of his trial for the terrorist attacks in which his bomb and his shootings killed 77 people, mostly teenagers, last July.
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: Were the people terrorised ????? It's that simple alberta.
I suggest you try reading a dictionary instead of quoting people you admire or organisations that you aspire to. When reading comprehension helps when reading with an open mind although I don't think that's not possible in your case. I may be wrong.
I suggest you try reading a dictionary instead of quoting people you admire or organisations that you aspire to. When reading comprehension helps when reading with an open mind although I don't think that's not possible in your case. I may be wrong.
Breivik has been charged with terrorism and pre-meditated murder.
Frankly I cannot understand why we need to define the word for the benefit of the thread author. I'm sure the Norwegians know what they are doing ,and this discussion is a bit disrespectful. Norway is not a densely populated country, and I guess most people would have some connection with a person who was unlawfully killed.
The country is in deep mourning .Let's show some respect.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bestbefore: Breivik has been charged with terrorism and pre-meditated murder.
Frankly I cannot understand why we need to define the word for the benefit of the thread author. I'm sure the Norwegians know what they are doing ,and this discussion is a bit disrespectful. Norway is not a densely populated country, and I guess most people would have some connection with a person who was unlawfully killed.
The country is in deep mourning .Let's show some respect.
Frankly I cannot understand why we need to define the word for the benefit of the thread author. I'm sure the Norwegians know what they are doing ,and this discussion is a bit disrespectful. Norway is not a densely populated country, and I guess most people would have some connection with a person who was unlawfully killed.
The country is in deep mourning .Let's show some respect.
The pre meditated murder charges are not in question and the terrorism that was unleashed on those people only seem in question with the op.
But your right BB.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Boban1: Precrime in America
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is working on a project called FAST, the Future Attribute Screening Technology. FAST will remotely monitor physiological and behavioural signals like elevated heart rate, eye movement, body temperature, facial patterns, and body language, and analyse these signals algorithmically for statistical aberrance in an attempt to identify people with criminal or terroristic intentions...
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is working on a project called FAST, the Future Attribute Screening Technology. FAST will remotely monitor physiological and behavioural signals like elevated heart rate, eye movement, body temperature, facial patterns, and body language, and analyse these signals algorithmically for statistical aberrance in an attempt to identify people with criminal or terroristic intentions...
These Isreali's already do human screening by these behavior signals.
They have one of the best ...and low cost screening methods to detect
terrorist, smugglers and others that are trying to board a plane or enter a building for criminal acts.
We have been pushing TSA to adopt such methods for the last 4 years. So we can reduce the scannings, body searches and removing on shoes on airport check ins.
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: Were the people terrorised ????? It's that simple alberta.
Not as part and parcel of the action's intent Vinny. He intended to kill people, not scare or terrorize them.
vinny1967:
I suggest you try reading a dictionary instead of quoting people you admire or organisations that you aspire to. When reading comprehension helps when reading with an open mind although I don't think that's not possible in your case. I may be wrong.
I suggest you try reading a dictionary instead of quoting people you admire or organisations that you aspire to. When reading comprehension helps when reading with an open mind although I don't think that's not possible in your case. I may be wrong.
Did. I read yours and it says absolutely nothing about scaring or terrifying people but rather says;
""terrorism
Pronunciation: /'t?r?r?z?m/
noun
[mass noun]
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
the fight against terrorism
international terrorism""
I suggest you read the OP and go to the links of the experts who have studied this stuff their entire lives rather than make your own stuff up.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bestbefore: Breivik has been charged with terrorism and pre-meditated murder.
Frankly I cannot understand why we need to define the word for the benefit of the thread author. I'm sure the Norwegians know what they are doing ,and this discussion is a bit disrespectful. Norway is not a densely populated country, and I guess most people would have some connection with a person who was unlawfully killed.
The country is in deep mourning .Let's show some respect.
Frankly I cannot understand why we need to define the word for the benefit of the thread author. I'm sure the Norwegians know what they are doing ,and this discussion is a bit disrespectful. Norway is not a densely populated country, and I guess most people would have some connection with a person who was unlawfully killed.
The country is in deep mourning .Let's show some respect.
That's the title of the thread and was it's purpose until you hijacked it in post #9. Your fellow hijackers joined in and subsequently the thread has been off track for four pages since.
Now please show some dammed respect and don't hijack threads!
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: The pre meditated murder charges are not in question and the terrorism that was unleashed on those people only seem in question with the op.
But your right BB.
But your right BB.
The by product of terrorism of the victims themselves are not part and parcel of any definition of terrorism you have shown. Certainly not part of the definition you gave us earlier.
Where do you pull this stuff from anyhow?
------ This thread is Archived ------
vinny1967: A ghastly litany of relentless slaughter: man of stone Breivik eventually reduced to tears.
In court, Breivik sat impassively, apparently unmoved by his handiwork.
He seemed equally untouched by other dramatic evidence in this first day of his trial for the terrorist attacks in which his bomb and his shootings killed 77 people, mostly teenagers, last July.
In court, Breivik sat impassively, apparently unmoved by his handiwork.
He seemed equally untouched by other dramatic evidence in this first day of his trial for the terrorist attacks in which his bomb and his shootings killed 77 people, mostly teenagers, last July.
He certainly killed 77 people, blew up a building and a camp for kids and certainly terrified the people that were there at the camp but to my knowledge he didn't seriously intimidate an entire population as he was apprehended by the time the nation had heard the news and, didn't disrupt a function of vital importance as the trains kept moving following his bombing of the government buildings.
He is a cold blooded murderer but no terrorist according to Norwegian definition of it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Democrats destroyed America
Ladies
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
The weird and the random facts around the world
Unions support Democrats!
s*xual skills
makeover
Why is this shameful?
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- Democrats destroyed America
- Ladies
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Unions support Democrats!
- s*xual skills
- makeover
- Why is this shameful?
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
" Albertaghost: "“Gets worse Conrad. Once he beats the terrorism charge he gets a second trial as a murderer and, gets to take the crazy test all over again.”"
Look at what I used Albert...Your post and in that sentence you actually really state TERRORISM....See it Albert and by using the very fact he is charged with, as YOU CLEARLY STATE terrorism then Albert old Lad you are in fact admitting he is a terrorist....So all your previous rants and raves have in fact been shot down by yourself.Nice one Albert,no need for any further discussion Albert your post clearly shows what he is charged with and being charged with that it makes him A TERRORIST."Sorry Albert your own post closes the debate. Another quote Albert Somtimes a cigar is just a cigar...
Well Pat, being charged of terrorism does not make him one. Similarly, being charged of a crime does not make one guilty.
I know the way that the court system works might seem strange to you but it is a bit different than a mob with torches and pitchforks storming a Frankenstein Castle Pat. To simply arbitrarily call everything you don't like terrorism is akin to a kneejerk reaction.
And that is, to use a Pat quote;
"Sad."
Sad Pat Sad.