[ale] BP knew of problems 11 months before the rig blew -further OT

[Jim Kinney]

Yep. You get it! :-)

In the books I've read over the years, a real terrorist does not have a
political agenda. They derive their satisfaction from creating fear through
violence. They are like the spouse abuser or the rapist or the child
molester. They have a pathological drive to foster violence on others and
often derive sexual-like pleasure from the process.

Bin Ladin is not a terrorist. He is more like a deposed country leader after
a coup trying to fight his back to power. He doesn't have and never really
had a country of his own. His actions are geared to acquire power from his
region by performing violence on a perceived external common threat. Not as
if our past leadership has a history of fulfilling it's promises made during
war (except to Israel). Once the dirty work is done, so are we.

Ask the Native Americans their opinion of the US governments word of honour.

Timothy McVeigh was much closer to being a terrorist except he had an axe to
grind. The Uni-bomber was a terrorist. He just liked making and sending
bombs.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM, wolf at wolfhalton.info
<wolf at wolfhalton.info>wrote:

>  How does one wield terror, and how does that differ from
> objectifying the adversary in the pursuit of ideological ends?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From*: Geoffrey <lists at serioustechnology.com<Geoffrey%20%3clists at serioustechnology.com%3e>
> >
> *Reply-to*: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <ale at ale.org>
> *To*: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <ale at ale.org<Atlanta%20Linux%20Enthusiasts%20-%20Yes%21%20We%20run%20Linux%21%20%3cale at ale.org%3e>
> >
> *Subject*: Re: [ale] BP knew of problems 11 months before the rig blew
> -further OT
> *Date*: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:59:46 -0400
>
> wolf at wolfhalton.info wrote:
> > @Jeff - Can we let go of the "xx-terrorist" terminology?  Unless, of
> > course you can find a definition that is held by more than three people
> > at a time, it is a religious-war term for persons we don't agree with,
> > and adds nothing to the conversation.  It is the linguistic framing that
> > makes the neo-con forever-war concept seem sane to some people.
>
> Pretty straightforward definition I think:
>
> One who uses terror as a means of coercion.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>


-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
Doing pretty well on all 3 pursuits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100603/b76bf14e/attachment.html