California Fire Expands Definition of Terrorism

I am confused as to where this thread is going... aren't we supposed to be discussing the Expansion of the definition of Terrorism due to the Fires in California???

Can we please talk about that???


P.s. I have avoided CNN for most of the day have they found any other suspects? Do they still have the one guy in custody?

reply to post by coven

All I'm saying is I don't think that the PEOPLE of the United States have/had/or will have the right to possess HAND GRENADES, and I agree with the current stance our government takes on that situation...

In the instance of possessing a hand grenade (not the inert paper weight) is and should be outlawed, I agree completely.

However this is not all that the definition states:

(1) any explosive, Incendiary, or poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces.

Please note the "a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces". This could even be referenced to anyone carrying a powder flask at a turkey shoot that contains over 4 ounces of "Black powder". You might point out the "its just a powder flask" yes but it is in a metal, glass or leather container that could have a fuse put to it and then you have a grenade(aka WMD).

I personally have no problem with the no grenade rule, it is just how the rule could be twisted to further the gov agenda thats the problem.

Originally posted by pstrron
However this is not all that the definition states:

(1) any explosive, Incendiary, or poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces.

Please note the "a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces". This could even be referenced to anyone carrying a powder flask at a turkey shoot that contains over 4 ounces of "Black powder". You might point out the "its just a powder flask" yes but it is in a metal, glass or leather container that could have a fuse put to it and then you have a grenade(aka WMD).

I personally have no problem with the no grenade rule, it is just how the rule could be twisted to further the gov agenda thats the problem.

I will agree there has to be a strict guideline on the wording of this. I don't want a hunter enroute to a turkey shoot being locked up on terrorism charges, and I really agree with the argument that this is NOT a good bill in whole, but I wanted to point out that the active grenade is something that should be banned from public use...

I agree our government currently has a repressive agenda against the public, and I can see the plausibility of your argument; Especially against further relinquishing our constitutional rights. One would hope we as a nation move closer to disclosure of our government. There is an Awesome (imho) law in the state of TN called the sunshine laws. they basically require ALL State government documents to be public record. (for the record this came from over 50+ years of screwy government on the state level here [and sadly still goes on to this day... but to a much smaller degree.]) anywho... If we could get these kind of laws enacted on the federal level Imagine the possiblities...

on a side note:

Christ the propellant thing could basically outlaw model rockets. As a computer nerd I want to play with them with my son when he's old enough...
Guess i may have to become another mans freedom fighter... just to shoot off a little plastic rocket.

the law is screwy but I like the grenade part still.

God Save The Queen

Originally posted by Dienekes
Please, PLEASE, learn how to speak. I would hate to talk to you in person if you speak the way you type. "We may ran more into and occurs.." What in the world does that mean? That's even illiterate compared to my 3-year old niece.

AboveTopSecret.com is an international community.

Although English is the standard language we use for communication in our forums, it is not necessarily the first language that many of our members use.

While we discourage the use of "chatspeak" or "TXT" shorthands (e.g., "wut?!?! r u w33k?"), we recognize that expecting perfect English from all our members may be asking a bit much.

Personally, I am in awe at how well our non-English-speaking or English-as-a-second/third/fourth/etc-language members are able to express themselves in our forums, and am horrified at the thought that anyone might feel inhibited from sharing their opinions simply because their English might not be up to the Queen's standards.

To Deny Ignorance, we need as many different points of view as we can get!

So please try to bear with those members whose English isn't perfect.

They're trying their best to share their thoughts, and for that they deserve to be heard and to be respected as members in good standing in our community.

reply to post by tyranny22


Didn't the Government break every law that they have created anyways?

No matter what, we still have our will to live.

reply to post by KingKruiser

Originally posted by KingKruiser
Well where do you draw the line? I like to think that the original terrorist definition after 9/11 I accepted was because we were dealing with foreign foes coming here and causing terrorism. Therefore, they didn't have the same rights as we as United States Citizens enjoy.

So are you saying that a terrorist must be a foreigner? This argument falls apart for several reasons:

If the arsonist illegally crosed the border into the US (very possible in California)

Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were US citizens

Originally posted by KingKruiser
I think it's a very slippery slope and an arsonist although despicable, definitely does not fall into a logical category as terrorist. We're offering rewards for information for the arsonists, not a reward for their execution right?

Why not? They commit an act of terror (please don't make me cite a dictionary definition).
And I don't understand what a reward has to do with it at all. Bin Laden has a price on his head, as do many al Qaeda members.

Originally posted by KingKruiser
I like to think that terrorist is a very sacred word we reserve for those who want to see our country dissolve as a whole. If these fires were the work of a puny pyro and not some foreign group then I think it's definitely improper to put them in a category which will allow the government under the Patriot Act to simply make them disappear, usurp Due Process, etc.

Once again with the "foreign" label. Ever hear of ELF? There is no requirement for a terrorist to be a foreigner.

reply to post by Dienekes


Just FYI...

Here is a Marg-ism that I have been able to decode.

occurs = "of course"

Right marg?

Dienekes, this may help you to understand her posts.

Originally posted by KingKruiser
(1) any explosive, Incendiary, or poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces

As a UK resident and not too clued-up on US constitutional matters, I'm bemused as to why that particular description would be listed?

What is a terrorist?

Some of you have been trying to define a terrorist in terms of the weapons he/she uses, i.e., 4 oz of explosive.

This is far too limiting a definition. What if I have 3 oz of smallpox virus, or some deadly bacteria?

So you see, your definition of terrorism in terms of weaponry is too limiting. Terrorism should be defined in terms of intent.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Dienekes

 

Just FYI...

Here is a Marg-ism that I have been able to decode.

occurs = "of course"

Right marg?

Dienekes, this may help you to understand her posts.

Wrong!!! When marg says occurs, she means it occurs to me. (Se me ocurre) is a term used in Spanish all the time and Marg is just translating it to English.
Right Margie?
Like, " I think"

Mis dos centavos para los que no saben Espanol.

reply to post by dgtempe


It could mean "it occurs to me", but not in her case. Read it in the context that she uses it.

PS:
My two cents for which they do not know Spanish? Huh?

Usted es tan hermoso cuando usted está enojado.

Querido Jsobecky,

Lets see what Marg has to say. (sabelo todo)

LLamame

Pon eso en tu pipa y fuma.

Great find. As for the police shooting the arsonist to death for ramming there cruisers...what do you expect, it happens all the time. The arsonist is using his car as a weapon to move the cruisers, which is endangering the lives of the officers...they should have used a gernade, WMD'd the arsonist lol, sorry for that lol.

Toss a grenade amongst a group of little girls with dolls doing teacup party and look at the aftermath, that should give your brain the definition of weapon of mass destruction.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Toss a grenade amongst a group of little girls with dolls doing teacup party and look at the aftermath, that should give your brain the definition of weapon of mass destruction.

Have a country that has a law that allows them to purchase guns to protect themselves, as well as having civilian milita's and watch the country fall into a hole of self war. The grandest of weapons of mass destruction, the human mind.

The British aren't coming.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

The grandest of weapons of mass destruction, the human mind.

The British aren't coming.

And the grandest of human salvation, the human heart.

Just wondering if anyone has heard about Blackwater in California. I mean they were wanting to build a training camp on the site of the original fires. They citizens did not want them there and were voting in the first weeks of November. Now there is tons of acres cleared just waiting to be built on. Just wanted to see what you guys thought.

www.camajorityreport.com...

[edit on 27-10-2007 by hippy2012]

Originally posted by stompk

And the grandest of human salvation, the human heart.

I salute you on that.

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Have a country that has a law that allows them to purchase guns to protect themselves, as well as having civilian milita's and watch the country fall into a hole of self war. The grandest of weapons of mass destruction, the human mind.

The British aren't coming.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

What in the world is this supposed to mean? Our right to bear arms is part of our Constitution of laws, and I don't see the US falling into a "hole of self war".

Take away that right, and all the other rights fall like so many dominoes.

Thanks everybody for your kind words, this is why I love this place, overall everybody is very tolerant to other members disabilities as me language. I occurs love the use of that particular word.

But my problem is not limited to this forum the problem started in another forum with the same member, so is more than just spelling and grammar here.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by marg6043]