Bombing in Times Square

[imkongkong]

not necessarily. not all countries use force to tell the other country what to do

 

[Nuttzy]

i think you guys are ignoring one key thing,

it is fortunate that he didnt hurt anyone, but he COULD have,


he didn't just "accidentally" set the bomb and walk away,
he purposefully left it there with a possibility that someone could walk up on it, ignore WHEN he set the bomb off, the fact is that he DID, and the potential was still there for an innocent bystander to get caught in it.

 

[imkongkong]

a bomb definitely could hurt someone. but the timing of when he did it and the explosion radius are all minimal. thus his intention wasn't to hurt someone, but it still could have. drivers who drive breaking the laws also can hurt someone, but i wouldn't consider them terrorists

 

[MC]

Drivers aren't breaking driving laws to get a message across.

 

[imkongkong]

but they are potentially putting other's people's lives on the line

 

[MC]

but they are potentially putting other's people's lives on the line

But they're still not trying to get a message across by breaking driving laws. Yes, they are potentially putting another person's life on the line. But even if they didn't hurt or kill anyone, they will still be charged with reckless driving, breaking of driving laws, etcetera, if caught.

 

[imkongkong]

if one does break the driving laws because they don't like it, would that mean that person is a terrorist?

 

[MC]

if one does break the driving laws because they don't like it, would that mean that person is a terrorist?

No, they wouldn't be considered a terrorist. A criminal possibly but a terrorist, no.

 

[imkongkong]

people's lives are in danger, although it may not be their intention, they can possibly injure someone by breaking the laws. however they break it to get across the message they hate the laws. so, =/= terrorist?

 

[MC]

people's lives are in danger, although it may not be their intention, they can possibly injure someone by breaking the laws. however they break it to get across the message they hate the laws. so, =/= terrorist?

They break the laws because they feel that they are above the law, that they are capable of being a safe driver despite breaking the law or they simply don't care. It's rarely because "I hate the driving laws, so therefore I'll break them as a means of sending out a political message".

 

[imkongkong]

the driver still is doing it because of his beliefs about the law. the difference w/ this guy is the method of showing his belief, with a bomb. because of the events people seem to link bomb = terrorist? even if that bomb had an explosion radius big enough to wipe out just the entrance of the recruiting office 3:45 in the morning. if people used baseball bats to kill people and are labeled a "terrorist" then any crime with the use of a baseball bat would automatically label that person as a terrorist

 

[MC]

A car wasn't designed to harm or kill people, a bomb on the other hand was.

 

[SailorAlea]

Edit: I've deleted my message. If you want to sit here and argue the definition of terrorism, be my guest. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. I already listed the US State Department's definition. If you disagree with it, that's your business. But I see this reckless use of force for a supposed political message, that endangered innocent people in one of the most popular tourist sites in one of the largest cities on the planet, terrorism.

 

[Chakra-X]

I forget which moderator said it, but analogies just aren't good in arguments like this. I think hairs are being split. As many have said before, there are much better ways of making a statement.

Sending anonymous letters saying "Happy New Year, We Did It." and using destruction to make an anti-war statement is not the most graceful way to make a point. The entire social system of the US was changed during the civil rights movement by non protests, but when things like this pop up, they garner short-time publicity and just give a bad image instead of inspiration.

 

[Avenger]

Bombs were not designed to harm or kill people. That is bull****. Alfred Nobel, the man who invented dynamite, did not invent it so people could go blow each other up (although he saw the possibility of such an event). Bombs are designed to blow up, no more, no less. It's like saying cars are designed to run people over. It's just a byproduct if someone happens to be in its way.

I don't agree with the man's means of sending a message, but I wouldn't call him a terrorist. Not until he spreads some form of real terror. Personally, if I were an American, I wouldn't exactly be fearing for my life or safety. It was a bomb directed at a semi-military target - it's more like a war than anything else.e

 

[Synth]

They used dynamite to clear paths for the American railroads.