An analysis is forthcoming.
Who are the fake terrorists? Who are the real terrorists? We may list a history of terrorism in the future for a concept that's for sure a /narrow/ concept, i.e., only /rarely/ should it ever have the theoretical possibility for appearing at all, when used correctly.
Then we have the individual terrorists...
UNA bomber - explanation
McVeigh - explanation
Breivik - explanation
Boston bombers - explanation, indeed with the typical radical muslim beard to go, very long beard there, you fans of Jon Stewart show.
With terrorists appearing "magically" with an Al-Qaida-kit for terrorism and police Photshop-ped videos, declaring oneself enemy to all of human kind "because the police's opinion of the "terrorist" isn't one to speak of. They may have had a character, but police must turn it down /this/ time. "Let the future tell, police officer says." Besides, they should have the gone the usual psychiatrists' route "down" society and starting with the torture of kids and youth because then they become "safe", police says more, "but only on the black side"."
So this is it. I can't take more "magically appearing terrorists" declarations in media, only for the illusion of people taking on smugness.
You wouldn't touch the toe of their shoes unless it's HUGE for a country like USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - Originally, terrorism = state terrorism (logical identity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army (in lack of political attempt, see political theory), also ANC, PLO, Black Panther, RAF, individuals, the holes inside laws and regulations for allowing ordinary people's rage against something terribly wrong. Just check yourself, the truly expert political science literature. Now possibly defined as "political activism by violence".
For the IRA, please, pay close attention to the box on the end of the article, citing several aspects to the IRA, Irish_Republican_Army.
Under Breivik and others:
If now it is proven that the police (for example in Norway) has contributed to a kind of "unreasonable culture" by police work, let's say, also by "tough interrogation methods" and "much apprehension", then I'd say this speaks for a type of higher legitimacy of attacking "lower" targets, like a youth camp by the Norwegian Labour Party.
Note (for "interested"):
One is still required to read the political theory to understand the "political attempt", FR: attentat, see also political violence, and how it is intended "to operate" in society, even tacitly under laws and regulations.
The reading requirement is also demanded from the "whelps" connected to Utoya, from the Breivik attack and the close ones to these. This is expert discussion and these "little ones" are simply not up for it! That I do not intend to take part in their (long) process of mourning.
The Notion of "Advocacy of Suicide"
The command of my language. Proper use more?
People can't advocate for crime because there are no laws and regulations for crime to advocate under. Therefore, advocacy of suicide is possible to some extent given that you are wording it correctly and mind the context to the proper limitations.
Therefore, I can justifiably write "advocacy for suicide by the right to die in dignity", such as being struck with terminal cancer and wanting to die from it at a hospice. One has no, by a malice of mind or other, the rightful demand to make people suffer awfully or beyond "reasonably"/mildly. This creates extra force to this notion of "advocacy of suicide" in this rightful sense.
The other, the "criminal advocacy for suicide" is a kind of honing for teasing people to do stuff that can kill them, only because one is able to detect that they may be a bit/more off the balance than people in the right mind, the more steady people. Given that life is hard and that many people go through a depressive phase, whether silently or not, the police strikes down on these cases and given a bit of a misleading naming by "advocacy of suicide" rather than "criminal encouragement/enticing to suicide" or "criminal advocacy of suicide" or "...to suicide".
Good? Proper use message enhanced?
For the IRA, please, pay close attention to the box on the end of the article, citing several aspects to the IRA, Irish_Republican_Army.
ReplyDeleteUnder Breivik and others:
ReplyDeleteIf now it is proven that the police (fx. in Norway) has contributed to a kind of "unreasonable culture" by police work, let's say, also by "tough interrogation methods" and "much apprehension", then I'd say this speaks for a type of higher legitimacy of attacking "lower" targets, like a youth camp by the Norwegian Labour Party.
Note (for "interested"):
One is still required to read the political theory to understand the "political attempt", FR: attentat, see also political violence, and how it is intended "to operate" in society, even tacitly under laws and regulations.
The reading requirement is also demanded from the "whelps" connected to Utoya, from the Breivik attack and the close ones to these. This is expert discussion and these "little ones" are simply not up for it! That I do not intend to take part in their (long) process of mourning.
The Notion of "Advocacy of Suicide"
ReplyDeleteThe command of my language. Proper use more?
People can't advocate for crime because there are no laws and regulations for crime to advocate under. Therefore, advocacy of suicide is possible to some extent given that you are wording it correctly and mind the context to the proper limitations.
Therefore, I can justifiably write "advocacy for suicide by the right to die in dignity", such as being struck with terminal cancer and wanting to die from it at a hospice. One has no, by a malice of mind or other, the rightful demand to make people suffer awfully or beyond "reasonably"/mildly. This creates extra force to this notion of "advocacy of suicide" in this rightful sense.
The other, the "criminal advocacy for suicide" is a kind of honing for teasing people to do stuff that can kill them, only because one is able to detect that they may be a bit/more off the balance than people in the right mind, the more steady people. Given that life is hard and that many people go through a depressive phase, whether silently or not, the police strikes down on these cases and given a bit of a misleading naming by "advocacy of suicide" rather than "criminal encouragement/enticing to suicide" or "criminal advocacy of suicide" or "...to suicide".
Good? Proper use message enhanced?
On Terrorism - Lone Wolves who are "terrorists", allegedly
ReplyDeleteLone Wolves who shoot very, very much and who scare us, thus, very, very much! They are the terrorists! "They must be!"
But to torture children to bits, no, they are just scientists! They are part of the "code" of society! Torture? Heh? What? "Torture does not exist!" Thus, to torture is not terrorism and can not be terrorism because it is not. That... We... No... Peace and love?