RE: The terrorism meme

From: Jeremy Bradley (jeremyb@nor.com.au)
Date: Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 02:57:27 GMT

  • Next message: Adam Conover: "Volunteer article reviewers?"

    At 07:47 PM 16/11/02 -0600, you wrote:
    >> At 09:46 AM 16/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
    >> SNIP...............(Lawry)
    >> > Would a wife-beater be a terrorist? Would a
    >> >policy-maker who threatens harm to foreign populations, or domestic
    >> >ones? SNIP....... Cheers to all, Lawry
    >> >
    >> Good Questions Lawry
    >> I think that, whilst the wife (or husband) beater rules and coerces by
    >> the use of terror, the personal abuse involved is for personal 'gain',
    >> and is therefore not terrorism. A policy maker on the other hand, eg.
    >> those who refuse to address climate change, who makes policy decisions
    >> which impinge on the lives and quality of life of civilian
    >> populations, including unborn generations, for political and/of
    >> commercial 'gain', is a terrorist. Remember that 'working' definitions
    >> seem to include the concept that terrorism is a criminal act committed
    >> against civilians or a civilian population outside of a declared war.
    >> The other criteria is that the terror act intentionally targets the
    >> wellbeing of the target community. Therefore, the bombing of the
    >> Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour by the French SS was, whilst
    >> carried out by a sovereign State, probably was a criminal act of
    >> terror. That's what I reckon any'ow mates. Jeremy
    >>
    >This doesn't make sense. The French were hoping to dissuade
    >Greenpeace from harrassing their nuke tests; that's 'gain', just like
    >Palestinians gaining all of Israel or Israel retaining its territory. The
    >Russians are hoping to retain sovereignty over Chechnya, just as the
    >Chechens are fighting to gain it, and the Muslim terrorists killing Hindus
    >in Kashmir want Islamic control of the province. And Osama Bin Laden
    >is hoping for the same thing that Saddam Hussein is, that is, to become
    >the Caliph of a reconstituted Pan-Muslim nation. Earlier, Moammar
    >Qaddafi hoped for the same. Even the Unabomber was hoping to wean
    >people off computers, and Tim McVeigh was hoping to further the cause
    >of white separatism and domination put forth in his Bible, THE TURNER
    >DIARIES, as was Bob Mathews, when he formed The Order. And
    >George Metesky, the Mad Bomber, was hoping to force concessions
    >from Con Edison Power Company.
    >>
    >>
    It makes sense to my memetic conctruct Joe. These people (those who have actually participated in, or organised acts of terror) all had ideological aspirations. That makes them all terrorists, as opposed to the partner basher who may be either unbarably harrased, misguided or just a violent, sick-minded thug. BTW in my veiw terror acts are also carried out by people who are either unbarably harrased, misguided or just a violent, sick-minded thugs. Jeremy

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 03:10:41 GMT