Student gets 8 years for SUV arsons

[transplant99]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Apr 20 2005, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Apr 20 2005, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Apr 20 2005, 11:57 AM

Well is it really a reach to believe that a RADICAL would step up his targets if he was to of gotten away with bombing 3.5 Million dollars worth of "just cars"?

No it's really a philosophical reach. He hadn't made it yet though had he?

What are we going to call the the murdering crazies that we used to call terrorists now? Mega-terrorists? Super-terrorists? I mean if a guy that wrecks a bunch of cars is a terrorist, then we will have to make a distinction for the bomb-strapping and hijacking crowd, won't we?

Do you really think this guy deserves to be lumped in with Timothy McVeigh? Do you think it's wise to do that? [/b][/quote]
Thats a fair question and one im not sure has a correct answer.


To my point however, the grand daddy of em all...Al-Queda.

They went from suicide bombing various small spots/targets, to opening training camps for their members, to trying to blow up the WTC, to bombing embassies in Africa to finally flying airplanes into the WTC.

See the escalation?

Why wouldnt this guy and the group he is affiliated with...escalate their targets? Hopefully harsh sentences are a deterrent to these numbskulls, though i have my doubts.


Is this guy on par with McVeigh? Nope...he didnt kill innocent people, though he easily could have and that's the bigger point IMO. Not what he actually did, but what he could of done as a result of his actions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by fotze@Apr 20 2005, 06:17 PM


What if this guy was a muslim bombing jewish SUV's or a pro-lifer bombing morgentaler's family's cars? Who cares who this boob is compared too, he may resemble my right nut.

First of all - lol.

I'm not disagreeing that the guy is a scum bag and that what he did was dangerous and reckless. He is very lucky that no one was killed. But there are already laws that cover those criminal acts.

Just a general question to anyone. What if he just spray painted the cars or smashed them up? The politcal motive would still be the same - so is it only the fact that what he did was more dangerous that makes it terrorism?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by transplant99@Apr 20 2005, 06:25 PM

They went from suicide bombing various small spots/targets, to opening training camps for their members, to trying to blow up the WTC, to bombing embassies in Africa to finally flying airplanes into the WTC.

See the escalation?

But the desire to kill humans is a completely different animal than the desire to destroy property. The escalation from property to people is pretty extreme and hard to imagine as one that happens a lot.

Not to mention that more often than not, people do the more extreme things in their youth and do not escalate their tactics. Most people become more political and use the system rather than trying to destroy it.

If you're going to use the 'what if' argument, then 'what if' instead of escalating violence, how about; "what if this kid, who is obviously very intelligent, ended up going in the other direction, and instilling positive change"?

Charging people on what "might happen" is a very slippery slope, especially if it is a first offense and no one was killed.

[Crazy Flamer]

[quote]Originally posted by Incinerator@Apr 20 2005, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos,Apr 20 2005, 04:06 AM

No I don't, in both of these cases something blew up in public posing a risk to public safety. If a bank robber set off a bomb in front of the bank I'd call him a domestic terrorist too.

What if it was 3am and there was no one around? Would he still be a terrorist?

I agree that what this guy did was incredibly foolish and he'sa criminal that deserves jail time, no doubt. But I don't think we can lump him into the terrorist category. One thing you have to look at is intent. With terrorist attacks, there is usually the INTENT to kill, injure, disifigure as many people as possible. I think it's safe to say it wasn't this guys intention to physically harm anyone.

[Resolute 14]

Terrorists try to force change by scaring people into it.

Killing people or destroying property is only a bonus.

The difference is only degrees.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 20 2005, 07:17 PM
Terrorists try to force change by scaring people into it.

Killing people or destroying property is only a bonus.

The difference is only degrees.

I suppose, but I happen to find the difference in those degrees quite significant. There is a major difference between the destruction of property and the destruction of human life, even if they do intend to send the same message. I think one determing fatcor of a terrorist is to what degree will he go to get his message across?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Crazy Flamer+Apr 20 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Crazy Flamer @ Apr 20 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Apr 20 2005, 07:17 PM
Terrorists try to force change by scaring people into it.

Killing people or destroying property is only a bonus.

The difference is only degrees.

I suppose, but I happen to find the difference in those degrees quite significant. There is a major difference between the destruction of property and the destruction of human life, even if they do intend to send the same message. I think one determing fatcor of a terrorist is to what degree will he go to get his message across? [/b][/quote]
Yeah, it's a huge difference.

Being "scared" that someone may destroy your car is a totally different tyoe of "scared" if you're actually afraid for your life.

If scaring people to instill change is it takes to label someone a terrorist, and the only difference is the degree, then the door is wide open to label anyone a terrorist.

No smoking commercials are terrorism.
Anti-drug propaganda is terrorism.
Picket lines are a form of terrorism.
The government is a terrorist organization.
Safety films are terrorism.

All of those use fear on some level to make us change our ways.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by fotze@Apr 20 2005, 07:53 PM

Those are pretty weak analogs.

That is my point. I was responding to the assertation that the only difference is the degree, or that the next logical step for this ELF member would be to kill car owners.

IMO, it's just as ridiclous to have ELF in the same category as Al Qaeda. The degree of difference in tactics and the level of fear produced is comparable to the difference in the level of fear produced between the examples I gave and ELF.

So where do you draw the line?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by fotze@Apr 20 2005, 01:53 PM
Those are pretty weak analogs. If my wife was to come out of the house and see the car exploding in front of the house, it would sure as shinguard scare the fata out of her more than any commercial on TV. We wouldn't know if it was someone you p*ssed off in traffic, a stalker, a co-worker, a psycho or a harmless granola pounding idiot.

Being the victim of a lot of crimes is likely quite frightening. It doesn't make it all terrorism though.

Anyhow, maybe we should clarify what we think it was this moron was doing. I just got the impression that they were wrecking SUVs to wreck SUVs and send a message that they are bad and maybe they'd keep a few of them off the road. Vandalism basically, with a message attached.

Maybe though he was trying to send the message that "don't drive an SUV cuz if you do we might come and get it so be afraid". Pretty dumb tack to take but I suppose it's possible and I guess that could be considered "terrorism", although it is laughably pathetic.

EDIT: Maybe Dr. Hook can tell us why he's getting rid of his Explorer XLT? Terrorized?

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by transplant99@Apr 20 2005, 11:25 AM
To my point however, the grand daddy of em all...Al-Queda.

They went from suicide bombing various small spots/targets, to opening training camps for their members, to trying to blow up the WTC, to bombing embassies in Africa to finally flying airplanes into the WTC.

See the escalation?

Why wouldnt this guy and the group he is affiliated with...escalate their targets? Hopefully harsh sentences are a deterrent to these numbskulls, though i have my doubts.


Is this guy on par with McVeigh? Nope...he didnt kill innocent people, though he easily could have and that's the bigger point IMO. Not what he actually did, but what he could of done as a result of his actions.

Al Qaeda is very poor evidence to support your claims. I'd argue that inflicting the most damage possible to the American Imperial Regime has always been their MO and that their smaller targets were only as a result of insufficient means or training, or other logisitical whatevers. If you offered them some way to detonate the entire arsenal of American nuclear weapons, they'd take it, they wouldn't say, "oh, no, that's a little too extreme for us at this time. Talk to us after we've experimented a bit more and fallen down the philosophical slippery slope." They do what is possible for them because their goal has always been extreme.

As such, there's no "escalation".

Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is one of the worst there are and is a logical fallacy. Your argument "he easily could have and that's the bigger point" is frightening. We're convicting people on what might have happened? Excuse me? I thought people are convicted for like, you know, what they actually did?

"Son, we're sentencing you to eternal damnation, because it's actually possible that your firebombs could have knocked the earth off its rotational axis and sent it into a death spiral towards the sun, killing everything imaginable. Sorry."

(Since you've been parrotting out the slippery slope, I get the argument ad absurdum.)

What he did is a crime. You might call it terrorism depending on your definition, that's your perogative. But condemning him for what might have happened or what he might do is a distortion of justice. What's important is that he didn't kill people, not that he might have. I can claim with just as much justification that the reason he didn't kill people is due to careful planning as you can that the reason he didn't is simply an accident.

I think there's fascism in the air down there. Don't inhale tranny and get back to Canada asap.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Apr 20 2005, 06:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Apr 20 2005, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Apr 20 2005, 06:25 PM

They went from suicide bombing various small spots/targets, to opening training camps for their members, to trying to blow up the WTC, to bombing embassies in Africa to finally flying airplanes into the WTC.

See the escalation?

But the desire to kill humans is a completely different animal than the desire to destroy property. The escalation from property to people is pretty extreme and hard to imagine as one that happens a lot.

Not to mention that more often than not, people do the more extreme things in their youth and do not escalate their tactics. Most people become more political and use the system rather than trying to destroy it.

If you're going to use the 'what if' argument, then 'what if' instead of escalating violence, how about; "what if this kid, who is obviously very intelligent, ended up going in the other direction, and instilling positive change"?

Charging people on what "might happen" is a very slippery slope, especially if it is a first offense and no one was killed. [/b][/quote]
What about arsonists? They go from playing with matches and lighter to burning down houses and apartments.

Yes, a lot of what ifs. No I don't believe this is the same as spray painting or bashing a car. I wouldn't feel my life was in danger if he did that to my vehicle. I certainly would be upset though...

What if he used a gun? Shot up a bunch of SUV's? Would you then finally think this is bonkers and quite dangerous? A bomb is a weapon.

And I don't agree with you on you point that people do more extreme things in their youth. You are mistaking this act with the natural progression from youthful exuberance to adult soberness.

Kids who are violent turn into adults who are even more violent.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by HOZ@Apr 20 2005, 11:13 PM

What about arsonists? They go from playing with matches and lighter to burning down houses and apartments.

Some do. I'm not saying that some criminals don't show escalation in violence.

I'm just saying that it is not a rule.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally posted by fotze@Apr 20 2005, 11:03 PM
I would agree that 'terrorist' is being thrown around WAY to willy nilly, so much so that it lessens the gravity of the term. But at the same time when peole compare Chretien or pretty much any western leader to Hitler, Nazi's or fascists it has the same hyperbolic affect, in essence lessening the gravity and tyranny of Hitler, Mussolini et al.

Hhmm, I don't know if I would compare Chretien to Hitler, and I seriously doubt the two evoke the same emotions in people, especially those who lived through Hitler's attrocities. No doubt about it, that crooked mouthed piece of crap we called a Prime Minister was a crook, but he wasn't looking to annialate a whole race by killing 6 million people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by HOZ@Apr 20 2005, 05:13 PM
What if he used a gun? Shot up a bunch of SUV's? Would you then finally think this is bonkers and quite dangerous? A bomb is a weapon.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but right from the beginning I felt what he did do was bonkers and quite dangerous.

Nobody, as far as I know, has supported the guy or his actions.

That doesn't mean he should be locked up indefinitely because hypothetically he could become a murderer. Nor does it mean he's a terrorist.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Five-hole+Apr 20 2005, 06:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ Apr 20 2005, 06:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Apr 20 2005, 11:25 AM
To my point however, the grand daddy of em all...Al-Queda.

They went from suicide bombing various small spots/targets, to opening training camps for their members, to trying to blow up the WTC, to bombing embassies in Africa to finally flying airplanes into the WTC.

See the escalation?

Why wouldnt this guy and the group he is affiliated with...escalate their targets? Hopefully harsh sentences are a deterrent to these numbskulls, though i have my doubts.


Is this guy on par with McVeigh? Nope...he didnt kill innocent people, though he easily could have and that's the bigger point IMO. Not what he actually did, but what he could of done as a result of his actions.

Al Qaeda is very poor evidence to support your claims. I'd argue that inflicting the most damage possible to the American Imperial Regime has always been their MO and that their smaller targets were only as a result of insufficient means or training, or other logisitical whatevers. If you offered them some way to detonate the entire arsenal of American nuclear weapons, they'd take it, they wouldn't say, "oh, no, that's a little too extreme for us at this time. Talk to us after we've experimented a bit more and fallen down the philosophical slippery slope." They do what is possible for them because their goal has always been extreme.

As such, there's no "escalation".

Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is one of the worst there are and is a logical fallacy. Your argument "he easily could have and that's the bigger point" is frightening. We're convicting people on what might have happened? Excuse me? I thought people are convicted for like, you know, what they actually did?

"Son, we're sentencing you to eternal damnation, because it's actually possible that your firebombs could have knocked the earth off its rotational axis and sent it into a death spiral towards the sun, killing everything imaginable. Sorry."

(Since you've been parrotting out the slippery slope, I get the argument ad absurdum.)

What he did is a crime. You might call it terrorism depending on your definition, that's your perogative. But condemning him for what might have happened or what he might do is a distortion of justice. What's important is that he didn't kill people, not that he might have. I can claim with just as much justification that the reason he didn't kill people is due to careful planning as you can that the reason he didn't is simply an accident.

I think there's fascism in the air down there. Don't inhale tranny and get back to Canada asap. [/b][/quote]
OK...so Al-Queda didnt escalate their actions?

Got it.

And just a heads up...they attack FAR MORE than just "American Imperial Regime" targets.

Here is a scenario...

Instead of flying those planes into the WTC at 9 AM when the offices were full, and instead of using commercial jetliners full of innocents, they decided to fly them into the buildings at 3 AM when no one was there after stealing the jets from airports when no passengers were aboard. The buidings collapsed almost immediately so therefore no firefighters and policemen were in the building yet. Only the whackos die in the attack.

Are they now NOT terrorists because it was merely property that was destroyed?
Or is it possible that because their actions were extermely dangerous, and could of lead to the deaths of innocent people, that they could be described as terrorizing the population?


I guess i am a fascist then.....fine by me.