Wednesday, June 18, 2008

"Terrorism" by any other name ...


Not surprisingly, the wetting of pants started almost immediately:

Perpetrators of Calgary LRT bombs should be charged with terrorism

The comment I left on the CBC story about the IDE [sic] bombs that were found on Calgary’s LRT route rapidly became the second most recommended comment, so I figured I might as well bring it over to the blog to see if it generates any discussion here.

What I stated was simple - that everyone involved in the making and planting of these bombs should be charged with terrorism. Everyone else involved in other way should be charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Depressingly predictable, of course, but here's where it gets entertaining:

And why not? Let’s look at the definition of terrorism:

terrorism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Sorry ... what was that first one again?

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

You mean like, maybe, threatening to out an anonymous political blogger if he doesn't shut up? That kind of "threat?" That kind of "coercion?" For "political purposes?" You mean, for example, like this?

Beatings are fickle. Bruises and broken bones heal. Let's face it, Cynic, it isn't a beating you're afraid of. It's having to face your loved ones, with them knowing everything you've spouted from that trash heap you facetiously refer to as your blog, that you should really be afraid of. It's the toll this could all take upon your personal life that you need fear.

Those kinds of threats and unmistakable references to physical violence? Sure, that works for me. Couldn't agree with you more.

Patrick Ross: terrorist. I like the sound of that.

P.S. Yo, Google! Over here! Patrick Ross. Terrorist. Feel free to start a new file.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: Not surprisingly (again), Blogging Tory A Step to the Right's logic falls apart entirely upon cursory examination, since it's not at all clear what politically-motivated coercion was involved in the pipe bomb incidents.

What message was the bomber trying to send? What political effect was he/she hoping to accomplish? What change in public behaviour was he/she hoping for? Since there was no note, it's impossible to say. Even the Calgary police admitted they were unaware of any motivation:

"If you're thinking of a targeted event, I think it's just a place where it's concealed ... so I don't think it's targetting any infrastructure like the LRT line, if that's what you're wondering."

And without any further evidence, yes, I'd say that's a fair conclusion. Dangerous, irresponsible and potentially life threatening? Sure. Terrorism? Nothing to indicate that, given the definition supplied above. Nice try, though. And I'd change that underwear.

P.P.S. Patrick Ross: Terrorist. Yeah, that's catchy, isn't it? Expect to see it here on a regular basis.

8 comments:

Red Tory said...

Terrorist? Hardly. Laughing stock, more like it.

CC said...

Come on, RT, Twatrick is a self-described bad, bad man. I would think taking that extra step to full-blown terrorist would be right up his alley.

Red Tory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Red Tory said...

I just find it impossible to take such a feeb seriously. If he's a "terrorist" then the word has truly become meaningless.

M@ said...

What's really amazing -- I know, I know, they're BTs, but still -- is that the right still hasn't figured out terrorism except on the most basic, unthinking (surprise, surprise) level.

The only response they can think of to a terrorist act is to strike back -- anywhere -- as hard as possible. Which is exactly what terrorists want them to do. The point of terrorism is to provoke a reaction, the bigger the better. These idiots let terrorists call the tune again and again.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't combat terrorism, but is it really necessary to give them what they want, every single fucking time?

So "tough on crime" really is synonymous with "childishly stupid". Again: surprise, surprise.

M@ said...

Btw, check out comment #4 on the original post. Comedy gold.

Wait, what?

Frank Frink said...

Oh, Spitz from armyofgod (aka 'Rev.' Don Spitz). Yeah, he's a deluxe nuter.

*yawn*

You are soooo in for a prayer assault, m@. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Patrick Ross: terrorist
Only more stupid than the Toronto 18....