A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TERRORIST ATTACK ON AIRPORT IN HAWAII



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 27th, 2004, 07:53 PM
Dr. Jai Maharaj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

In article _Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89,
"Azul Funk" posted:

Terror.

I'm canadian, so you'll have to excuse my... ignorance? What exactly
constitutes an act of terror? Does CNN have to report it as having been the
work of known terrorists before it's considered terrorism?
Does it have to be political? The nature of the word leads me to believe
that any action that is intended to produce 'terror' is an act of terorrism.

Recent examples of acts meant to insight terror include:

The USA's "Shock and Awe" campaign and ensueing and continuing armed
conflict.

Todd Bertuzzi's Sucker Punch on Steve Moore.

My Ex-Girlfriend threatening to go on an unchecked spending orgy until my
credit is maxed out and worthless.

I'd appreciate some American insight on this issue... according to popular
media, we're living in an era where terrorism runs rampid. So much so that
everyone's ready to sign their freedom away to make sure they don't get
terrorized. Canada has been mentioned repeatedly as the terrorist entry
point to the US and a possible terrorist target. It would be nice to know
what to watch for.
A.funk


If an act instills or aims to
instill intense fear, then it
is an act of terror.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
  #32  
Old March 27th, 2004, 08:51 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

I guess "terror" is in the eyes of the victim.

I would think that the present definition of "Terror" is;

Acts of clandestine violence

Carried on by irregulars ( guerillas )

Without a formal declaration of war.
( hence their Country is blameless )

Against a civilian/non-combatant population
or infrastructure.

????





On 27 Mar 2004 18:53:51 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:

In article _Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89,
"Azul Funk" posted:

Terror.

I'm canadian, so you'll have to excuse my... ignorance? What exactly
constitutes an act of terror? Does CNN have to report it as having been the
work of known terrorists before it's considered terrorism?
Does it have to be political? The nature of the word leads me to believe
that any action that is intended to produce 'terror' is an act of terorrism.

Recent examples of acts meant to insight terror include:

The USA's "Shock and Awe" campaign and ensueing and continuing armed
conflict.

Todd Bertuzzi's Sucker Punch on Steve Moore.

My Ex-Girlfriend threatening to go on an unchecked spending orgy until my
credit is maxed out and worthless.

I'd appreciate some American insight on this issue... according to popular
media, we're living in an era where terrorism runs rampid. So much so that
everyone's ready to sign their freedom away to make sure they don't get
terrorized. Canada has been mentioned repeatedly as the terrorist entry
point to the US and a possible terrorist target. It would be nice to know
what to watch for.
A.funk


If an act instills or aims to
instill intense fear, then it
is an act of terror.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti


rj
  #33  
Old March 28th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Asbestos Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

"Azul Funk" wrote in message news:_Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89...

What exactly constitutes an act of terror?


An act of politically or religiously motivated aggression
intentionally directed at a target that is not itself an instrument of
aggression.
  #34  
Old March 28th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Frank F. Matthews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

Asbestos Jeff wrote:

"Azul Funk" wrote in message news:_Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89...


What exactly constitutes an act of terror?



An act of politically or religiously motivated aggression
intentionally directed at a target that is not itself an instrument of
aggression.


So any bomb attack on a reservist is not an act of terror even if others
are hurt. FFM

  #35  
Old March 28th, 2004, 06:25 PM
Frank F. Matthews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

wrote:

I guess "terror" is in the eyes of the victim.

I would think that the present definition of "Terror" is;

Acts of clandestine violence

Carried on by irregulars ( guerillas )

Without a formal declaration of war.
( hence their Country is blameless )

Against a civilian/non-combatant population
or infrastructure.


So if you have a uniform nothing that you do is terror? FFM

  #36  
Old March 28th, 2004, 09:29 PM
Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

Asbestos Jeff wrote:

"Azul Funk" wrote in message news:_Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89...

What exactly constitutes an act of terror?


An act of politically or religiously motivated aggression
intentionally directed at a target that is not itself an instrument of
aggression.


Your definition of an act of terror could also apply to Missionaries
and the work they have done under the guise of Religion. A great
example of a union that incorporates the use of religion and politics
to suppress a race of people is "Rabbit Proof Fence"
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/

Terrorism is a two-sided coin that can rear it's ugly head in a
multitude of different ways.

  #37  
Old March 28th, 2004, 09:44 PM
Dr. Jai Maharaj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

In article ,
Kyle posted:

Asbestos Jeff wrote:

"Azul Funk" wrote in message

news:_Sk8c.6846$Ct5.6687@edtnps89...

What exactly constitutes an act of terror?


An act of politically or religiously motivated aggression
intentionally directed at a target that is not itself an instrument of
aggression.


Your definition of an act of terror could also apply to Missionaries
and the work they have done under the guise of Religion. A great
example of a union that incorporates the use of religion and politics
to suppress a race of people is "Rabbit Proof Fence"
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/

Terrorism is a two-sided coin that can rear it's ugly head in a
multitude of different ways.


"Australia
"British settlement began in 1788, with the landing
party of transported convicts. Australia remained a
penal colony. during the first half of the 19th
century,during which time the continent was explored
and separate colonies were established in the various
states. Aboriginal populations were displaced and
decimated' in some areas (e.g., Tasmania), they
were totally exterminated...."
- The Universal Almanac; Andrews and McMeel; ISBN: 0-8362-7977-8.

The terrorist mission of Jesus is stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
  #38  
Old March 29th, 2004, 12:41 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On Terror

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:25:20 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

wrote:

I guess "terror" is in the eyes of the victim.

I would think that the present definition of "Terror" is;

Acts of clandestine violence

Carried on by irregulars ( guerillas )

Without a formal declaration of war.
( hence their Country is blameless )

Against a civilian/non-combatant population
or infrastructure.


So if you have a uniform nothing that you do is terror? FFM


I think they formalized all these definitions
in Geneva some tiime ago.

"In uniform" implies that you're acting on behalf of your government.

If there's a declaration of war,
a. in uniform, you're liable for "war crimes" ( as defined by Geneva )
b. out of uniform, you'd be a spy. ( I think they hang them )


rj
  #39  
Old July 30th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Anonymous
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Former Homosexual says it's a Fraud!


He can marry all he wants. He can't have spousal rights extended to
more than one of them. The way spousal rights are written, such
an attempt would be in conflict with themselves. I've pointed out
more than once, the simplest solution to the whole thing is to
abandon the legal recognition of marriage. We don't recognize
baptism, we don't really need any reason to recognize marriages.

In the 1950's, 15% of black children were born out of wedlock, now
it's around 70-75%. This is just an example. Any attempt to further
destroy the tradiational family unit upon which this counrty is built
will lead to this nation's downfall. We simply don't have the money to
support more and more people's irresponsibility, and consequent
societal costs ( mental illness from abandonment, life-long trauma and
inadequacy, ******* children with no means of getting support from
so-called parents, and etc )


You want to enter into a legal partnership with someone, write
the contract. You want to extend power of attorney or other
similar powers, write the necessary paperwork. The problem
is right now that under most state laws, these arrangements won't
be recognized UNLESS there is a marriage license.

Legal contracts? Go ahead and go nuts, be my guest. It's another
question whether you or anyone else signing your contracts should get
my tax dollar supporting you. Marriage is created not for love, but
for the best and only best environment for the raising of a family.
Almost every single psychological, social, economic, and other study
done for the last 100 years has pointed to the utter importance of
maintaining this to avoid sentencing the innocent children to a
lifetime of maltreatment, inadequate support, and ultimately, tragic
lives.

Is it too much to ask to have parents be ready to take good care of
children they have?
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
  #40  
Old July 30th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Anonymous
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Former Homosexual says it's a Fraud!


He can marry all he wants. He can't have spousal rights extended to
more than one of them. The way spousal rights are written, such
an attempt would be in conflict with themselves. I've pointed out
more than once, the simplest solution to the whole thing is to
abandon the legal recognition of marriage. We don't recognize
baptism, we don't really need any reason to recognize marriages.

In the 1950's, 15% of black children were born out of wedlock, now
it's around 70-75%. This is just an example. Any attempt to further
destroy the tradiational family unit upon which this counrty is built
will lead to this nation's downfall. We simply don't have the money to
support more and more people's irresponsibility, and consequent
societal costs ( mental illness from abandonment, life-long trauma and
inadequacy, ******* children with no means of getting support from
so-called parents, and etc )


You want to enter into a legal partnership with someone, write
the contract. You want to extend power of attorney or other
similar powers, write the necessary paperwork. The problem
is right now that under most state laws, these arrangements won't
be recognized UNLESS there is a marriage license.

Legal contracts? Go ahead and go nuts, be my guest. It's another
question whether you or anyone else signing your contracts should get
my tax dollar supporting you. Marriage is created not for love, but
for the best and only best environment for the raising of a family.
Almost every single psychological, social, economic, and other study
done for the last 100 years has pointed to the utter importance of
maintaining this to avoid sentencing the innocent children to a
lifetime of maltreatment, inadequate support, and ultimately, tragic
lives.

Is it too much to ask to have parents be ready to take good care of
children they have?
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FYI: Fresno, Calif., Airport Launches Wi-Fi Internet Access [email protected] Air travel 4 May 15th, 2004 09:53 AM
WiFi free airport list [email protected] Air travel 0 March 4th, 2004 09:25 PM
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA Stan-Fan Air travel 11 February 20th, 2004 06:53 PM
Tobago and Barbados [email protected] Caribbean 8 December 29th, 2003 03:26 PM
They changed the name of Atlanta International Airport. James Anatidae Air travel 17 November 14th, 2003 04:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.