Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:42:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3104 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy P. Smith wrote:
|
| |
| |
The 9/11 guys weren’t US citizens (I think one or two were). But hasn’t the
UK had trouble with terrorism by citizens? (not the Ireland troubles, but
the 21st century kind).
|
|
| |
Yeah. Most (if not all) of the Tube bombers and failed tube bombers were UK
citizens. Many of them were even born here. I’d personally count that as
rebellion.
|
Hard to say, honestly. I’ve been giving this some more thought, and it seems
to me that a necessary component of rebellion is a desire to break from the
targeted nation (or break from some or all of its policies) without
necessarily requiring the destruction of that nation (though that might
conceivably occur in the aftermath). The American Revolutionary War was a
rebellion in that it sought a break from the British, but didn’t seek to
wreck Britain altogether.
|
The ostensible goal of Al Quadea is to create an international Islamic State by
force. Since this would involve overturning the policies of nations and the acts
of terror are (ostensibly) designed to create a situation in which this can
happen I would argue that the attackers (where they are citizens) are committing
an act of rebellion.
| |
Further, an attack upon a symbol of/proxy for a country (such as the Statue
of Liberty or a Federal building or, frankly, the WTC) doesn’t, in itself,
qualify as a rebellion unless a stated aim of the attacker is to break from
the country. That is, an attack may be an attempt to injure the national
identity in order to express anger at the policies or practices of that
country.
|
Interesting point here. I will note that the Boston Tea Party is considered a
part of the American Revolution (a rebellion) and yet it was essentially a
symbolic attack.
Of course the attack on the WTC was not merely symbolic and was also designed to
kill many people.
| |
Also, I think it needs to be stated that citizenship alone isn’t sufficient
to qualify an attack as a rebellion; if someone becomes a citizen and soon
thereafter launches an attack, then that person’s motivation in becoming a
citizen must be questioned. But for a native born or long-time citizen, then
the issue becomes rather more murky.
Heck, the whole thing is murky anyway.
|
It is completely murky which is why I think that forcing the rules to be
“Rebellion” or “Invasion” is an overly literal reading. These attacks are
somewhere in between the two which in my opinion puts them into the spirit of
the US Constitution with regards to habeas corpus.
| |
And it really needs to be said that there are too many Daves and Tims in
this discussion.
Dave!
|
LOL.
Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) If that's true, then the appropriate course of action must be to err on the side of preserving liberty. Instead, in the fear-soaked aftermath of 9/11, we saw the Congress tripping over itself in its abdicate its Constitutional responsibility, (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Hard to say, honestly. I've been giving this some more thought, and it seems to me that a necessary component of rebellion is a desire to break from the targeted nation (or break from some or all of its policies) without necessarily requiring (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
