The Confederate Flag

[Kramodlog]

Yep.



This is not correct. Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life. It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response. But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.

But, more about our consciousness: There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me. It was called "". It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts. In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Oh, hey. You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube: [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo

So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time. If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.

By thing I mean the hysteria around terrorism. Trillions of dollars were not spend to crush right wing groups after Oklahoma or Islamists after the Twin Towers bombing in the 90s.

9/11 is different because it was televised. The plane crashing in the building and the towers crumbling were candy for the media. Who talks about a plane crashing in the Pentagone? And then there was an administration that wanted people scared so it could manipulate public opinion into backing the invasion of Iraq. So it fan the flames of fear.

 

[Janx]

Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.

Jacques Rose, one of the kidnappers, had to go through four trials before he was found guilty of something. And it wasn't murder.

I guess you're not seeing it, judging by your post.

When you say, what you just said, a reader such as myself is thinking that you are trying to excuse and reduce the severity of the fact that a guy was killed through the chain of hostile actions.

We ain't talking law. A guy is dead. It wasn't a simple accident. They did illegal stuff to him, through which he died.


What happened afterwards to his kidnappers, in court, that's a separate matter. Sounds like it wasn't all above board, per what you say.

But can you at least clearly state that a politician was killed by terrorists. Is it that hard to say without weasel words?

 

[prosfilaes]

The US faced terrorism before 9/11. Homegrown, like Oklahoma, and Islamist, like when the Twin Towers were bombed in the 90s. Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11. Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?

So you argue that the Twin Towers bombing in the 1990s, the lack of response to ultimately leading to 9/11, is a justification for not responding to terrorism?

It is what happened. Sorry for carring about facts.

If a mugger shoots you and takes your wallet, is it an accident if you die? Laporte was trying to exercise his legal right to leave, and they assaulted him to stop him, killing him. Even as assaults by kidnappers go, strangulation is not an impulse act; it takes time to strangle someone.

In no jurisdiction I'm aware of would it be considered an accidental death. You want to say that in your jurisdiction, it wouldn't be considered murder, well, it certainly would in ours.

That 450 innocent people were arrested for no other reasons than their political ideas bothers me. That people here trivialize this behavior of the government, while accusing me of trivializing terrorism, is worrisome and that bothers me.

450 people associated with kidnapping and murder. As I said, that's something terrorists want, to associate their cause with heinous acts so as to drive people in their cause towards them. I don't know the exact circumstances, but yeah, when a political group is going around killing people, locking up a few people for a few days may not be an unreasonable thing.

The Canadian government probably did wrong. The terrorists murdered a guy. I know I'm more likely to cut hairs on the side of the group that is responding to the killers, not the one killing.

 

[Janx]

In no jurisdiction I'm aware of would it be considered an accidental death. You want to say that in your jurisdiction, it wouldn't be considered murder, well, it certainly would in ours.

I would argue that if Quebec was founded on the basis of NOT recognizing this as murder, then Quebec lacks the ethical maturity to exist as a country.

 

[Umbran]

Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.

Clearly, I do not speak for everyone in the conversation. However, I will venture this response: In this context, we don't care.

The legal technicalities are not the issue. We are, for the most part, considering the moral and ethical issues around the events. We recognize laws as, at best, a muddied reflection of the moral code of people. The laws are not the definition of the moral code. Thus, what law applies does not answer moral questions. Repeatedly trying to answer moral questions with legal distinctions looks to us like dodging the implications.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Minor quibble: All kinds of criminals get convicted of* offenses technically lesser than they ought to be for a variety of reasons. So, in the interest of accuracy, I would have started that second paragraph, "The legal technicalities and jury verdicts are not the issue."








* or even exonerated

 

[Kramodlog]

Clearly, I do not speak for everyone in the conversation. However, I will venture this response: In this context, we don't care.

If people do not care about the the rule of laws, I have doubts about their ethics and morality when they are on the high horse of ethics and morality.

 

[Kramodlog]

I guess you're not seeing it, judging by your post.

When you say, what you just said, a reader such as myself is thinking that you are trying to excuse and reduce the severity of the fact that a guy was killed through the chain of hostile actions.

We ain't talking law. A guy is dead. It wasn't a simple accident. They did illegal stuff to him, through which he died.


What happened afterwards to his kidnappers, in court, that's a separate matter. Sounds like it wasn't all above board, per what you say.

But can you at least clearly state that a politician was killed by terrorists. Is it that hard to say without weasel words?

When did I deny it? It is what actually transpired when Laporte died that is at the heart the problem. Saying that it was accidental seems to be problematic for some, even if it is what happened.

 

[prosfilaes]

9/11 is different because it was televised. The plane crashing in the building and the towers crumbling were candy for the media. Who talks about a plane crashing in the Pentagone?

A lot of people talking about the plane crashing into the Pentagon. It's certainly true that what we see is real to us, and the WTC buildings were quite visual. But:

Six died in the bombings of the Twin Towers.

168 died in the Oklahoma City Bombings, and all remotely connected were promptly apprehended. They were not part of a larger criminal organization.

The final death toll of 9/11 was 2,996 (2,606 of whom were in the Twin Towers--a reason they might be remembered more then the Pentagon), three times the next largest terrorist attack ever, largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, which we also responded to rather extremely. Also it was done by the same organization that did the Twin Towers bombings and killed 237 in US embassy bombings in 1998; maybe it was about time we responded.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Law, Morality & Ethics are all closely related, but they're at best close cousins, not identical triplets. Law can be utterly correct within itself, but still be amoral/immoral, or non-ethical/unethical.