Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (435040)	11/15/2008 1:41:01 PM
From: Road Walker	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

What would you call setting off bombs filled with staples, nails, etc....in proximity to a police station, the Pentagon, a judge's house, etc.? Violent anti-war radicalism? They weren't called terrorists at the time. Why? They weren't trying to cause "terror" in the general population, and intent is a big part of the definition of terrorism. They were striking back at a government and military that they felt was fighting an illegal and immoral war.

To: jlallen who wrote (435040)	11/15/2008 1:57:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573092

Reasons for controversy The modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results. The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim. en.wikipedia.org