Philosophical Discussion : What If Next Time You Clicked "Post New Topic" Made You A Terrorist?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Philosophical Discussion : What If The Next Time You Clicked "Post NewTopic" Made You A Terrorist?

I thought this might make an interesting philosophical discusion for the likes of ATS'ers who post frequently here. For those of you who post a lot here, like I do, what I am referencing is the fact that the Terrorism Laws are changing and being modified in order to fit an agenda by people within power.

What if just based on you posting here, made the definition of who you are, fit the profile of what the Government states a "terrorist" was?

This may possibly be what the World Government has in mind eventually.

This may never happen.

I sure hope not anyway.

Can one man make the difference? Which difference will it make? Will that difference affect one person, or perhaps millions?


[edit on 1-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Your post is very confusing. You are posting the semantics of terrorism past any reasonable limit.

Terrorism is associated with the act of manipulating someone through an act of violence, and inducing fear in that person.

How is this related anyway to posting a topic at ATS? It doesn't make any sense to me. I am not sure what your meaning is here.

What if you were labeled a "convicted felon" through the act of drinking a glass of water, and in this context "convicted felon" was synonymous with "thirsty?" Could you then go to jail for being thirsty?

I don't get it. Maybe you can explain.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Philosophy forum, eh?

Well, why not, as the 4th of July approaches, consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence? After all, when they clicked that 'Post New Topic' button, they most certainly branded themselves 'terrorists', in the eyes of the Crown.

Thomas Jefferson:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. Source



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

What if just based on you posting here, made the definition of who you are, fit the profile of what the Government states a "terrorist" was?


I say that it was a crime to classify people as such. Also, that it would be a clear sign of a totalitarian attack on freedom of thought.


Can one man make the difference? Which difference will it make? Will that difference affect one person, or perhaps millions?


Yes, one man or woman can make a difference. Taking a stand is the beginning. The difference is love. Love affect all.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


Well, of course it's a philosophical thing to consider. By your very definition, of the words you stated, then Government is in fact a terrorist organization, depending on your perspective, of course.

What I stated originally, was based on the fact that the "Terrorism Laws" are almost changing and being modified faster than the people can keep up with.

What if, based on that, before you knew it, what you did in "clicking" that one button, made you a "terrorist."



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Buck Division
 

Well, of course it's a philosophical thing to consider. By your very definition, of the words you stated, then Government is in fact a terrorist organization, depending on your perspective, of course.

Good answer. I think I understand what you are saying: that "terrorism" could be expanded to mean something like "treason" -- just a sort of catch all phrase that encompasses any free speech that the government elite doesn't like.

I guess, in that way, raising questions about ET might be "terrorism" (because think about all those poor people that are being terrified by the idea of a space attack?)
I guess people have been locked in prison for lesser offenses.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


Now you got it. Sorry if it wasn't as easy to understand there for a moment.

Yes, "terrorism" in fact can be expanded to cover almost any ground, if we as the people do not understand that this might be the purpose of certain elements within Government, not necessarily the entire Government, but certain elements, or one wing over the other, or even both sides colluding behind closed doors, who knows in fact which it might be, were to twist the very thing you love the most into fitting their defined agenda of a "terrorist act".

I am not stating this is in fact what is happening, but there is a distinct possibility of it, depending on which side of the fence you are on in regards to Government to begin with.

But then again, what if just the act of you posting here, either as Pro-Government or Anti-Government were to in fact get you defined as a "terrorist"?

Interesting postulation there, isn't it.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
This other thread I made is the on that inspired that I write this one you are currently reading on :

Philsophical Discussion : Freedom of Speech vs Treasonous Actions On ATS...

It's odd how so few can see what is right in front of their very faces, and yet at the same time, not one person is willing to stand up to a madman bent on Hell on Earth.

It is madness I say, madness.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Definition of Terrorist
Ter´ror`ist
n. 1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
2. One who commits terrorism{2}.

www.webster-dictionary.net...

The vary word Terrorist was used by our forefathers about governments who try to rule thrue the use of Terror. They actually claimed that if the people did not question the every move by there own government, they would eventually become a slave of the government.

How true, and this was over 200 years ago, and they saw this happening and tried to worn us, but do we listen to them or do we just right them off as insane?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Personally, i couldn't give a damn if i was labelled a terrorist, i was always ready for the event of my being mis-labelled in this way, so it's not as if i'm worried about it.

p.s; i've noticed you've started calling yourself a "Blackwater expert" SpartanKingLeonidas.

Can't think of anyone better placed to do so.






posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Thanks Anti-Tyrant. Actually, the Blackwater Expert was given to Me by ATS because of the indepth work I put into the Blackwater thread.

I believe personally, when a Government is out of control, and begins terrorizing it's own citizens through through scare-tactics, it is no longer benevolent but in fact worse than that which it states it is protecting us from.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Thanks Anti-Tyrant. Actually, the Blackwater Expert was given to Me by ATS because of the indepth work I put into the Blackwater thread.



Well, kudos to you SKL!

I'd like to think i helped in a way, but i know that it was you who put in the hard work for it.

I agree with you, but don't forget the fact that they often use the language of those we see as public heroes in order to get what they want.

As it says in my signature; "When the words of those who fight for freedom are used by those who try to take those freedoms, you'll know that you're in a freedom-loving democracy."

That's probably quoted from somewhere, btw.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Well, seeing as I have a copy of the Constitution in my glove box, several agencies already seem to think that I fit the profile already, so I can't entirely dismiss what you have postulated as something that would never happen.

The way I see it, gold is mined from the obscurity of the earths crust. Therefore, I'd never assume that we here at ATS were far enough "off the radar" to never be considered as a source of information by the very conglomerates that we discuss.

We watch every day, as dissent is suppressed further and further by a government which was founded on that very principal. "Don't like the war? Fine, we'll take your house...". Post in the 9/11 forum at ATS? Fine, now you can't fly.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I'd still click the button. If it gets to that point, there'll surely be a few dozen other reason to label me as a terrorist, so what's one more?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Of course you assisted in the Blackwater topic, and I see you as well as a lot of others are responsible for where I got with it.

I have to say thanks to you Anti-Tyrant, as well all the other who posted on the Blackwater thread, even the the dissenters.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
In any logical time, terrorism is no doubt an act of violence. Physical or emotional assault towards another human being.

However, logic has been removed from Today's America. In George W. Bush's America, terrorism is not agreeing with the US governments policies...on terrorism of course. If you even defend Bin Laden and claim he's a freedom fighter who did what he felt was right in HIS eyes...you'd be called a terrorist when you are clearly stating a fact. But hey, this is the land of freedom fries isn't it?

Like I said, from 2000 to 2008---8 years---logic has been removed from this country's ideology.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The point I was getting to with this thread, in posting it is eventually, it's not going to be an act of violence, but an act of disobediance, or of speaking out that gets a person that label of "terrorist."

That will be a sad day indeed, because then America really will become worse than Nazi Germany ever was, because by then, the people who should have been doing something, will have lost the will to do it.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
...What if just based on you posting here, made the definition of who you are, fit the profile of what the Government states a "terrorist" was?

What makes you think it already doesn't? After all, a "terrorist" can by ANYTHING THEY SAY IT IS, BY DEFINITION.

Nice catch-22, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
In our current troubled times, there appears to be no legal definition of a terrorist per se. As an example of how it has been applied in the UK, an 82-year old politically interested pensioner was at a Labour Party conference and heckled Jack Straw, a Labour politician, by shouting "Nonsense" during a speech.

He was ejected from the meeting and when he tried to re-enter the conference was arrested and detained under the Terrorism Act (a treat for our nation implemented by the Labour Government).

How can we define terrorism without recourse to legitimate and legal definitions of criminal acts? When does a "plan" constitute an illegal act? When does intent become an arrestable offence.

There are blurred boundaries around the whole "intent" subject. Clearly, if I am in legal possession of a shotgun, but am running through the town centre shouting "I'm gonna kill everybody" then there is good cause for alarm and an arrest by police officers. However, if I disagree with a policy of the government and plan a demonstration does that constitute a threat that can be categorised as terrorism?

I believe in the fundamental right of innocence until proven guilty. To be honest, the loss of that right is greater than the loss of life in an act of terrorism. I would just point out that WW2 saw the loss of millions of service men and women specifically to preserve the rights of freedom as they were then.

Now, English citizens can be arrested and held for 42 days without charge - whilst evidence is obtained. There were plans to increase it to over 90 days. That is effectively 3 months in prison for something that has not been proven or for which there is no demonstrable evidence at the time of arrest.

Yes, terrorism can mean anything the controlling government wants it to mean. Shame on us for what we have done with the legacy of freedom bequeathed us by fallen country men and women after WW2.

Adolf Hitler entered his government legally. What delight he would have at finding our current laws at his disposal. For all the lives that have been lost to acts of terrorism, the greatest damage is attributable to our governments.

Shame on all of us because it is happening right now.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I find it's interesting that something so small as hitting the enter button, or the click of a mouse could land you in prison, or even on a black flight to a secret C.I.A. prison overseas.

I got the idea for this post in thinking about all the people who spend countless hours online, sayins different things to different people around the world along with the previously outlined ideas I've mentioned I had that brought Me to posting this philosophical question.



new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join