Over at Kiwiblog (I won't link – find it yourselves) the nutters are positvely gleeful at the murder of the "babykiller".

I shall not go there, because I don't want to have some kind of overwhelming urge to, like, enragedly slap people for being SO FUCKING STUPID. ARGH.

Too late.?

Instead they will be beating up talent show contenders.

On the first segment of the 6pm news bulletin. Two nights in a row.

Seriously, if I wanted to find out about Susan Boyle I'd watch E or buy some trashy magazine. But according to TV3 last night, Susan Boyle's loss?

The murder of Dr George Tiller in Kansas yesterday can only be regarded as American domestic terrorism.

Could you define terrorism for us, Russell? Our legislature once did but then they repealed because it would have given the term a finite meaning. I'd rather see the killing — it isn't?

I'd rather see the killing — it isn't murder yet because no one has been convicted — as a crime.

Pardon? The person who allegedly killed the doctor may not have been convicted yet, but the doctor was still apparently murdered, from what we know.

I don't think Russell was?

according to TV3 last night, Susan Boyle's loss in a reality TV show is worthy of greater prominence than an act of domestic terrorism in the US. WTF?

They didn't have any footage of the shooting. If they had, it would have led. It's all about the pictures.

On the?

I understand that people who are against abortion feel very strongly about the issues involved. I get that they feel that medical procedures that are legal are nonetheless immoral, and that they would like the laws to be changed.

However, trying to accomplish a change in the availability of abortions?

Could you define terrorism for us, Russell? Our legislature once did but then they repealed because it would have given the term a finite meaning. I'd rather see the killing — it isn't murder yet because no one has been convicted — as a crime.

Let's see, Brickley: the murder?

I don't think Russell was using the term "murder" in the narrow legal sense

Is there *any* sense in which the evidently premeditated gunning down of an unarmed man is *not* murder? Seriously?

Could you define terrorism for us, Russell? Our legislature once did but then they repealed because it?

Silenced depicts the grim reality for those who work and volunteer — at abortion clinics. Made by an anonymous filmmaker, Silence was first screened at the Womens Medical Fund Spring Reception on May 21, 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9GMkmi8r0

From Youtube

Is there *any* sense in which the evidently premeditated gunning down of an unarmed man is *not* murder? Seriously?

I think perhaps what Brickley was trying to say (Brickley, please tell me if I'm wrong) is that there's a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, so we cannot?

They didn't have any footage of the shooting. If they had, it would have led. It's all about the pictures.

I'd certainly hope so. But I still struggle to see the newsworthiness of reality TV. If they had to report it, couldn't it be the "human interest" story after the?

The act was designed and intended to create fear based on ideology.

That is terrorism.

Susan Boyle didn't do it for me but it doesn't take away from the fact that many people found her achievements moving. As?

according to TV3 last night, Susan Boyle's loss in a reality TV show is worthy of greater prominence than an act of domestic terrorism in the US. WTF?

Don?t forget the passing of Titanic?s last survivor.

I don't think Russell was using the term "murder" in the narrow legal sense.

He should. Many newspapers follow that rule. Murder is a term of art. A killing or slaying is a fact.

No, actually.

Bummer. Watch the clip again. Total send up. The judges knew it was coming?

" A police chase left an innocent teenage father dead and a city stunned. Naitoko, 17, was killed by a shot fired by a police marksman."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10575515

It is interesting the different cultural constructs we have?

so we cannot call someone a murderer until they're convicted, ergo we cannot yet call it a murder

I am not Graeme but... I believe that's not the case. Can't a coronor pass a verdict of 'murder by person or persons unknown'? If not, a lot of British crime drama?

I am not Graeme but... I believe that's not the case. Can't a coronor pass a verdict of 'murder by person or persons unknown'? If not, a lot of British crime drama has shamelessly lied to me.

You are of course right. Someone can be acquitted of murder, but that?

He should. Many newspapers follow that rule. Murder is a term of art. A killing or slaying is a fact.

Feel free to continue dancing on the head of your pin. A murder was committed, the police have arrested and charged a man and stated very clearly they are not?

so we cannot call someone a murderer until they're convicted, ergo we cannot yet call it a murder

We are entilted to make accusations of murder, for sure the guy who shot Tiller could sue us for slander but his burden of proof is going to be kind of difficult?

And Brickley: Just because the New Zealand government decided not to define something so that they can maintain an arm of violence against the populace without?

It is interesting the different cultural constructs we have create that allow us to kill.

That's drawing a very long bow indeed. I'm not aware that it has been suggested at any time that the policeman deliberately killed Naitoko. It's not a "cultural construct", it's a completely different series of?

We are entilted to make accusations of murder, for sure the guy who shot Tiller could sue us for slander but his burden of proof is going to be kind of difficult to overcome.

Sub-judice doesn't apply in this case. The US doesn't recognise the doctrine, and the matter's not?

There is no definition of it, that's my point.....I still don't like the word 'terrorism' because it really doesn't have an accepted definition.

No definitions?

Here's two.

If you're going to get all pedantic about a strict definition of 'murder', then you should probably be as picky about unequivocally stating?

Surely she?d have done quite well in them?

"deliberately killed" = cultural construct

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me there.

But there isn't any point to my rant, because everyone who watches 'reality television' is stupid, and all the shows are crap. I keep being told this, over and over, so it must be true.

May I reassure you Danielle, that you certainly aren't! "Reality TV" is one of those?

As far as Susan Boyle is concerned, I think it is much less to do with television than the venial and vile red-top British press, (The Sun in particular) who once again are displaying their finely-honed hypocrisy.

I think so. The Sun got wind that she was cracking under the?

Our own Terrorism Suppression Act doesn't define it. In fact, I think it repealed a provision that had previously defined it.

I call bollocks.

5. Terrorist act defined

An act is a terrorist act for the purposes of this Act if?
(a) the act falls within subsection (2); or
(b)?

"Reality" TV is an oxymoron. Any reality is edited out. It is cheap, manipulative TV for stupid people who get given what they deserve. It mostly burns off anyone one with a brain.

I'd just like to say that I'm not offended in the slightest by your comments.

Because obviously,?

But there isn't any point to my rant, because everyone who watches 'reality television' is stupid, and all the shows are crap. I keep being told this, over and over, so it must be true.

On the contrary: I find that I cannot watch more than two minutes of reality?

That said, I agree it's a misnomer and, when directed to the Susan Boyle clip by this very blog, I found the very badly acted fake surprise to be quite revolting, and the whole piece nothing but manipulative

Well said.

There is just something so contrived about the story, and?

I'll accept it's something I don't see (especially after the gouging, obviously.)

Phew. Otherwise I'd have been faced with preventing my darling watching Project Runway, for the sake of her, um, brain.

Truth is, I think quite a few people know very well what "non-scripted drama" (as it's called in?

"Reality" TV is an oxymoron. Any reality is edited out. It is cheap, manipulative TV for stupid people who get given what they deserve. It mostly burns off anyone one with a brain.

I take it you never watch sports on TV, then ?

If sports is the study of?

She should have had staunch supporters – caring professionals – with her throughout this whole process to keep her safe from the media and the international fuss, and support her at all times.

I suspect they know that now, but, again, no one could have predicted that her story would?

I really don't see watching reality TV as being very different from watching a sports telecast.

I was about to make the same comparison, but you've saved me the trouble.

As I noted above, the producers are not so clever that they can actually stage a global YouTube phenomenon (if they'd been expecting that, ITV wouldn't have been caught short without a YouTube channel), or get a British talent show contestant on Oprah.

No, but every once in a long?

We simply pick and choose as?

Personally, I can't for the life of me understand what the interest is in the likes of Survivor or The Apprentice — they seem dull and nasty — but I accept that decent people can actually enjoy them.

Loathe survivor and apprentice. The amazing race just didn't grab me (although?

and concluded with an amusing shouting match over the "Big Little City" ad campaign

After watching last week's Media 7 (which I greatly enjoyed) I have actually stayed in the room for the Big Little City ad and I wonder why anyone would come all this way for a little?

Until such a time, and, who knows, you might even find such a group, you are being very irresponsible to suggest this is anything like what should rightly be called terrorism.

So, it's not terrorism until someone issues a media release ?

When you do find evidence of leaders, organisations?

Approving of Tiller's killer while deploring Osama Bin Laden is purely and simply hypocritical. Such a person is?

Project Runway and Top Chef are both truly fascinating. For one thing, the contestants are often very weird, interesting, passionate, talented people who desperately love what they're doing. They create amazing things with limited materials at high speed. I am often quite awestruck at their skill.

The latest series of?

I take it you never watch sports on TV, then ?

If sports is the study of humans under pressure, surely this would cover most reality TV shows. Reality TV shows, like drama and sports shows, are about conflict.

Really? Pressure? I recall the words of Australian cricketer and ex-WWII?

Russell. If you can point to the pro-life organisations that are celebrating Tiller's murder then you might be justified in linking the pro-life label to terrorism.

Does it really matter whether the man who killed (sorry, allegedly killed) Tiller was part of an organisation that advocated the killing of abortionists??

Approving of Tiller's killer while deploring Osama Bin Laden is purely and simply hypocritical.

Can you point to one source that is saying any such thing?

Does it really matter whether the man who killed (sorry, allegedly killed) Tiller was part of an organisation that advocated the killing of abortionists?

No, it doesn't matter what group he was part of.

Even if he acted alone, how does that make it any less a terrorist act?

Then?

Boy the Unabomber is going to be pissed. All that effort, doesn't even get the label.

Then every single murder every day is the act of a terrorist and you've just removed all meaning from the word.

Nonsense. Whether an act is a terrorist act by any definition will usually depend on the intention of the person committing the act, as well as the consequences of?

'Drunk Asshole Hotel'

That show was hideous/glorious! I remember it well. Who was the 'token nerd' guy they brought in? Dave? All the hot, shallow, stupid out of work actors looked at him as though he was an alien from another, less evolved planet. Hilarity.

Flavor of Love and Rock?

All the same, one should consider the moral culpability of the people who ranted against the guy for years on end. Even a lone terrorist (if that's what the killer was) isn't bred in a vacuum.

Nonsense. Whether an act is a terrorist act by any definition will usually depend on the intention of the person committing the act, as well as the consequences of the act. It has nothing to do with the number of people involved.

OK. But I'm not interested in trying to?

I see our pet troll is back and implying murder is a good thing, if the sky fairy says so.

Could you get any more stupid? Or are you only interested in libel?

Grow up, little child, and try to discourse with some honesty for once in your miserable existence.

the contestants are often very weird, interesting, passionate, talented people who desperately love what they're doing.

Exactly Danielle. While the weirdness is certainly carefully selected (are there really no male designers who are not flamboyantly gay?) and it is amusing at times – it is the talent that these people?

However it is grossly unfair and dangerous to paint all pro-life people as groups potential terrorists on the actions of one man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone here doing so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone here doing so.

From the blog:

The murder of Dr George Tiller in Kansas yesterday can only be regarded as American domestic terrorism.... The suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups

The murderer might well be correctly regarded as?

Russell. If you can point to the pro-life organisations that are celebrating Tiller's murder then you might be justified in linking the pro-life label to terrorism.

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

That's Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, in the last few hours.?

Is that enough for you?

I'm going to look into my crystal ball and guess... no.

We are on different sides of the abortion debate, but you cannot?

Saying the suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups is not the same thing as saying all pro-lifers are terrorists. You're attempting to deny a link that hasn't been made here. Thus you're arguing with yourself. I hope that goes well for you.

If you believe there is no?

"pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not".

Teach me to use a phrase I originally heard on Laidlaw's Sunday Morning ...

I was not attempting to define terrorism, Mikaere. It is just profoundly disingenuous and dangerous to start painting entire groups of people as potential terrorists?

From that very same link, "The man who shot him was responsible".

So (I paraphrase) "nothing to do with us, but the guy got what was coming to him" isn't condoning?

But hey, let's go with this: I believe al Qaeda has never formally claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks,?

Teach me to use a phrase I originally heard on Laidlaw's Sunday Morning...

The quote originally comes from the legendary sports journalist T.P. McLean: "Sport is the study of the human being under pressure."

I've been dining out on it ever since.

But honestly Grant, I've already lost track of whatever it is you're trying to argue.

Do you think right wing or pro life groups should be regarded as the source of terrorists?

However it is grossly unfair and dangerous to paint all pro-life people as groups potential terrorists on the actions of one man.

Nobody has painted all pro-life people as potential terrorists, I think you might be projecting your way of thinking onto others there.

That's Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, in the last few hours.

The Operation rescue website claims Terry left in 1991 and there seems to be trademark issues. This is Terry official website.

The quote originally comes from the legendary sports journalist T.P. McLean: "Sport is the study of the human being under pressure."

I hope the human beings from a Pittsburgh team are going to behave under pressure better than other human beings from a Detroit team tomorrow. Or at least score?

I'll be posting every day now! :)

Do you think right wing or pro life groups should be regarded as the source of terrorists?

Well it's unarguably demonstrable that they are a source of terrorists.

And because I can't really be bothered engaging you in the theological debate your trying to pick, I'll point you in the?

Is there *any* sense in which the evidently premeditated gunning down of an unarmed man is *not* murder? Seriously?

No. And that includes capital punishment. State santioned murder/terrorism.

Well it's unarguably demonstrable that they are a source of terrorists.

On what evidence?

"Sport is the study of the human being under pressure."

Though that would also apply to exams, debates, job interviews, poker and the performing arts. Oh, and most jobs.

Personally, I'm happy with a definition that includes non-physical activity, and always used to defend my school mates from the thugs?

The Operation rescue website?

That we allow Police to use force & even kill is a cultural construct. That no crime has been committed due to the lack of intent is a cultural construct. It is pretty clear that American shooting is a murder, by our shared cultural construct.

We simply pick and choose as?

On what evidence?

Look up "Piazza Fontana" or "Bologna massacre" on Wikipedia, Grant. Which is not to say that *all* pro-lifers or *all* right wingers harbour terrorists or promote terrorist. That's a bit you've added all by yourself.

In reality, Kansas is one of only 10 US states that requires two independent doctors to verify a prognosis of "irreparable harm" to the mother of the pregnancy proceeds.

As opposed to our standard of "serious danger".

On what evidence?

The kind that gets presented in court, Grant.

On what evidence?

So, you see no relationship at all between this kind of rhetoric:

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a?

As opposed to our standard of "serious danger".

Quite. Although we do seem to do a better job of managing it than many other countries. Our rate of late-term (ie: at or after 21 weeks) abortions is 0.56% of all procedures — less than half the US rate.

and ... those cases resemble the one I linked to in the original post.

And thanks for giving that link, Russell. I've been wondering what a "late-term abortion" actually meant in terms of lateness in pregnancy and reasons for needing one. That was really helpful. And sad.

Well it's unarguably demonstrable that they are a source of terrorists.

On what evidence?

A simple web search will present you with plenty of avenues through which to educate yourself. Terrorism is not just the domain of the A-rabs and the left wing revolutionaries.

Grant might also wish to refer to...

You seem desperate to talk about anything but the association you have made linking pro life groups to terrorists through the actions of George Tiller's murderer.

Do you have any evidence that pro life groups should be regarded as terrorist threats?

Is your?

Look up "Piazza Fontana" or "Bologna massacre" on Wikipedia, Grant. Which is not to say that *all* pro-lifers or *all* right wingers harbour terrorists or promote terrorist. That's a bit you've added all by yourself.

People and groups of people have committed crimes in the name of a pro-life agenda.?

...killing someone who is unambiguously human muct be wrong in any context – including capital punishment.......or we simply return to the debate about excuses.

You don't really mean in any context, surely?

After I've done it, please feel free to debate amongst yourselves where or not y'all drove me to do it or not.

You don't really mean in any context, surely?

She couldn't. Otherwise she would be anti abortion.

These are some of the ones listed as "recent":

May 20, 2005: Two New Jersey men, Craig Orler and Gabriel Garafa, who allegedly belong to neo-Nazi and skinhead groups,?

Now, if you meant that there is no strict legal definition, or that it is a term that is, in a legal sense, difficult to define, then you might have a point, and the Wikipedia article acknowledges that.

Except, um, the US does have a definition of terrorism, which it?

I am happy that you wish to distance yourself from the idea that such acts define all pro-lifers or all right wingers.

As a series of people have pointed out to you Grant, you are the only one who has raised such an argument. It you don't desist from this?

I am happy that you wish to distance yourself from the idea that such acts define all pro-lifers or all right wingers.

Where was that idea put forward?

Terrorists.

One thing surprises me though; the link between Pro-life and right wing.

I?d have thought the abortion divide would be more along religious than political lines.

As a series of people have pointed out to you Grant, you are the only one who has raised such an argument.

I object to the association you draw between terrorism and pro life groups who have condemned Tiller's murderer. If you're willing to concede that the actions of one?

You cannot seriously be putting skinheads and nazis in the same boat as pro life groups, can you?

Yes, in numerous cases, I would.

Why don't you bugger off and annoy some other blog, Grant.

Where was that idea put forward?

In the blog:

The murder of Dr George Tiller in Kansas yesterday can only be regarded as American domestic terrorism.... The suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups.

You don't really mean in any context, surely?

She couldn't. Otherwise she would be anti abortion.

That was Steve Withers I was responding to, but anyway...
Steve was careful to refer to "unambiguously human". Whether a fetus is unambiguously human is part of the abortion debate. So no, he?

Sorry Grant, your argument is absurd and inconsistent and while it might make sense to you, it doesn't to anyone else.

Perhaps you just need to be a little more tolerant and appreciate a bit of diversity :)

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:37:33 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-swine-flu-terror-and-susan-boyle/?p=113538#post113538 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-swine-flu-terror-and-susan-boyle/?p=113538#post113538 Both statements are true no?

It is domestic terrorism; and he does have ties to right-wing extremist groups.

]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:37:38 +1200 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-swine-flu-terror-and-susan-boyle/?p=113539#post113539 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-swine-flu-terror-and-susan-boyle/?p=113539#post113539

I had in mind things like self-defense, maybe combat situations...

Oh, right. That too... :)

Sorry .. he.

Priceless? (unlike, I imagine,?

Both statements are true no? It is domestic terrorism; and he does have ties to right-wing extremist groups.

Perhaps they are. Though it would be far more accurate to just say he was a murderer and was motivated by a pro-life agenda.

If it is to be termed terrorism then?

You cannot seriously be putting skinheads and nazis in the same boat as pro life groups, can you?

I'd like to. Preferably a small, leaky one in the middle of a Cook Strait southerly.

Where was that idea put forward?

In the blog:

"The murder of Dr George Tiller in Kansas yesterday can only be regarded as American domestic terrorism.... The suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups."

You haven't answered the question: where was the idea put forward "that such acts define?

It's all very well to blame the tabloids for the Susan Boyle backlash, but could it also have been due to the fact that, well, her voice was nice but it wasn't outstanding?

I don't think that explains what The Sun did though. It's not about the competition — I?

Though it would be far more accurate to just say he was a murderer and was motivated by a pro-life agenda.

Which of course ignores the sustained campaign of violence against US abortion providers. 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 179 assaults, 4 kidnappings, 659 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 175 arsons,?

Why [doesn't Grant] bugger off and annoy some other blog?

Because he is a typical troll.

You don't think it actually matters to him that everyone thinks he's a dick, and stupid and logically inconsistent to boot, do you?

He gets off on people responding to what he posts. It?

?shouting match?, starring Ana Samways as Woman Talking Sense and featuring some rooster called Swney who chews up the scenery in the role of Every Unfair Negative Stereotype I Ever Had About Aucklanders.

Saw it the other night. Wondered if Swney was a ringer. then wondered just how many drinks?

PAS is driving me to want to kill someone today.
After I've done it, please feel free to debate amongst yourselves where or not y'all drove me to do it or not.

and

Kyle, I may join you. Wait, doesn't that make us terrorists if there's more than one of?

It's all very well to blame the tabloids for the Susan Boyle backlash, but could it also have been due to the fact that, well, her voice was nice but it wasn't outstanding?

Well, that could have a lot to do with her not winning, I suppose, but that's not?

You haven't answered the question: where was the idea put forward "that such acts define all pro-lifers or all right wingers." (My emphasis.)

If people are not going to put pro-life groups into the same boat as skin heads and nazis then I have no quarrel.

($20 more if I mention abortion, B Jones. Oop! Too late.. :)

Seriously, what happened to my gravatar?

Maybe it died of boredom.

meanwhile the real terrorists still thrive, Bill O'Reilly and his ilk on Rupert Murdoch's (Murdoch – a compound of murder and Moloch?) Fox "news" channel happily incite hate crimes and divisive dogma all aimed it would seem __to intimidate or?

and, ohmigod... if that is the "trailer" for the movie Auckland

folks we have a winner for the next Razzies! in the highly contested __Modern Urban Visitation Strategy__?

Because he is a typical troll

Not just here, either.

http://www.humanitarianchronicle.com/2009/05/life-and-death-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-3180
.

Feel free to continue dancing on the head of your pin. A murder was committed, the police have arrested and charged a man and stated very clearly they are not looking for anyone else.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Journalists used to learn the difference between conversion and theft, killing and?

2. Interpretation

(1)

Terrorism

[Repealed]

__Terrorism: this definition was inserted, as from 16 November 1977, by section 2(1) New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act 1977 (1977 No 50).

Terrorism: this definition was repealed, as from 31 October 2003, by section 3(2) New?

So "terrorism" at least conceptually and positively, has no definition in New Zealand. Neither then, it seems, does "terrorist".

What is "terrorism"? What is a "terrorist"? I don't know. My first stab at it would be something with which the criminal law is incapable of dealing.

That's asinine. I have?

Is there a PA style guide?

Yes. It says, in its entirety*: "Don't be a dick".

*Open to moderator interpretation. Judges' decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into.

Yes. It says, in its entirety*: "Don't be a dick".

Crap.

Yes. It says, in its entirety*: "Don't be a dick".

*Open to moderator interpretation. Judges' decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into.

Ok, ok. That was fair. Shouldn't that be "Don't be a person", though?

G'nite.

Just to explain, I had Grant banned (or, rather, his account frozen) a bit after 4pm, but I didn't want to say so because he's in until he logs out or his login cookie expires. I was going out and I didn't want him seeing that and acting?

A loon? Excuse? Minimise?

I hate anti-choice freakazoids just as much as the next red blooded liberal. I'm not sure how my arguments can be taken as excusing or minimising.

My simple point is that terrorism/terrorist is loaded and its definition has been erased in New Zealand?

terrorism/terrorist is loaded

Yeah, it is. Loaded with extra pejorative weight. Isn't it nice to apply it to a deserving target?

I/S pointed you to the definition of "terrorist act". That definition is very much in force (I checked).

Your attempt to argue that "terrorism" is not the same as "terrorist act" is an exercise in semantics.

Especially considering?

Yeah, it is. Loaded with extra pejorative weight. Isn't it nice to apply it to a deserving target?

Said Helen Clark of Mr Zaoui?

A loon? Excuse? Minimise?

I hate anti-choice freakazoids just as much as the next red blooded liberal. I'm not sure how my arguments can be taken as excusing or minimising.

You seemed to be putting a lot of energy into some tenuous arguments. Roeder shot Tiller in front of witnesses?

do we need the pejorative weight, or does it in fact shift the debate where we don't need it to go, in an area of politically polarised semantics

The pejorative weight may not be helpful.

But really, and this is a question for you and Brickley I guess, is there?

That definition is very much in force (I checked).

Mazzeltov.

Your attempt to argue that "terrorism" is not the same as "terrorist act" is an exercise in semantics.

No, it isn't otherwise they would have stuck with the old word and old definition. My point is that they didn't want?

I'm just wondering if yet another shorthand is what we need

If it's going to tie us up in a bunch of tiresome debates about what particular words mean, I'm happy to abandon it.

Said Helen Clark of Mr Zaoui?

She never said he was a terrorist. Without wishing to defend Labour's handling of that saga, what Clark actually did say, early on, was that Zaoui's party, FIS, had links to al Qaeda.

She did so on police advice, and fairly shortly afterwards said?

I really can't see the problem with calling it a murder.

It isn't murder until a jury convicts him of murder. Calling it murder now adds petrol to the Leighton Smith fire. It was a killing, a slaying, a homicide, a butchery, an ending of human?

I remember being very depressed for a couple of years after I got back – baffingling so.

He obviously really meant it, cos he's careful and took the?

She never said he was a terrorist. Without wishing to defend Labour's handling of that saga, what Clark actually did say, early on, was that Zaoui's party, FIS, had links to al Qaeda.

She did so on police advice, and fairly shortly afterwards said she could not "corroborate" what she'd?

You have to accept that "act of terrorism" and "terrorism" are not the same. That's like saying "act of coitus" and "sexuality" are the same. It doesn't add up.

But what is terrorism if not carrying out terrorist acts?

I think I'm with Stephen ...

My point is that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

So that's your point?

Now we can all get some sleep!

But what is terrorism if not carrying out terrorist acts?

1. I'll look up the old definition tomorrow and get back to you. I seem to recall there was an important difference. If there isn't, I'll fall on my sword, face-first.

2. Do you recognise my rejoinder to Stephen though??

It's sad that religious lunatics kill people

They're not lunatics. If they were, they wouldn't be murderers.
.............
What they are is fanatics, inflamed by the people who preach to them. Sound familiar.

Seems basic proof that in the eyes of some people terrorism is only a muslim thing.

BP,?

I am forced to accept that if one were guilty of committing "acts of terrorism" one would be, in a loose non-legally defined sense, be guilty of terrorism.

Sort of like being guilty of racketeering, if you get sprung running rackets.

Sort of like being guilty of racketeering, if you get sprung running rackets.

Yes, if racketeering had once been defined in law and then repealed, I totally agree with you.

Was Julius Caesar not murdered then? OJ Simpson's wife? JFK?

Nicole Brown Simpson's life was ended in an action of wrongful death. She wasn't murdered, because the glove didn't fit. They had to acquit. No murder. Not guilty. I remember watching the verdict come through quite clearly.

Caesar? I can't?

Nicole Brown Simpson's life was ended in an action of wrongful death.

No, she was murdered. Not even OJ's defence suggested otherwise.

Caesar? I can't remember off the top of my head. Was anyone ever tried?

No

JFK? Clay Shaw aka Clay Bertrand, I think, was tried for his murder?

surely if

baffing means To hit or strike, especially with something flat or soft.

then

baffingling

would mean to hit with LING – either as a fish
or Heather – ergo Wreckless Ericaceae
(a botanical entry in the Heath ledger no less...)

yrs
Anne Old Slapper
__who?

Brinkley, do you know what 'derailing' means? You've been serving up a textbook example.

Why debate actual issues when you can debate utterly pointless semantic arguments (about which you're incorrect, incidentally. ScottY's 2nd to last post is correct).

It has taken this thread to make me want to read?

I'm not against using the word terrorism, I'm just wondering if yet another shorthand is what we need, and if it addresses the specificity of the act and the moral complicity of its enablers.

In the US legal context, it should be used, because it lets you play with the?

I also disagree with threatening or harassing?

For me, the most obvious question when confronted with resolute trolling is just why the?

Was it an act of terrorism? Yes! Had it occurred in NZ, would it be terrorism? We no longer know since that word is off the statute books. That's the entirety of the point. It has legal significance that I imagine I/S will accept.

I fail to see how this?

While he won't be convicted of murder for a while yet, I really can't see the problem with calling it a murder.

Ditto. OTOH, calling the alleged shooter a murderer (as opposed to an alleged murderer) would be prejudging the outcome of the trial.

Caesar? I can't remember off the top of my head. Was anyone ever tried?

Not sure...but Mark Antony gave them an earful, I do remember that.