Bad day for Sony

[lerath666]

Doesn't that sound like what the "conventional" terrorist would do to achieve their agenda?

As in "We don't care who gets hurt as long we get what we want."

Much like our American political parties, aye?

 

[d_jedi1]

So true

A lot of people (me included) were really p****d off with Sony updates taking away the option to install an Operating System of our choice (Linux). They advertised the PS3 as having that option years ago !

Maybe Sony had their reasons ??

as a matter of fact, yes. People were running homebrew programs through linux and then going online. there are videos of people doing it on Uncharted from before the Linux was taken away. You'd see a guy under cover with a sniper rifle taking VERY quick blindfire shots and headshotting everyone on the other team no matter if they were in his line of sight or not.
It was being done on other games too. They took the Linux away to TRY to curb the cheaters .. it only made them change their tactics.

 

[Cloud]

It would certainly not allow them to act with impunity. Harassment, trespassing, theft and host of other non-violent crimes, do not cease to be crimes just because they do not classify them as "terrorism".

Even more troubling is that your broad definition of "terrorism" could be read to include non-criminal offences that at present have only civil remedies, e.g. libel.

If every crime that impinges on "life, liberty or property" were classified as "terrorism", then I am hard pressed to think of any crime that would not not so defined.




So suffragettes, African-American civil rights marchers in thee 1950's, people demonstrating against the Viet Nam War and LGBT protesters are all "terrorists"?

Your view on "passive" force would make all non-violent protests illegal, unless of course the government gives you permission to protest. Do you really want a government to be able to regulate whether people can protest against it actions?

Classifying non-violent resistance as "terrorism" is unconscionable given the history of government abuse of power and civil liberties. Witness the 'new and improved' Egyptian government making banning public protests one of its first acts.




Some of the worst "terrorists" in that case would be businesses with staff lawyers, who salaries are sunk costs, and thus the price of a suit are only minor court fees.

The government also has bottomless coffers in that regard, using our tax revenue no less, when it comes to defend its violations of its own laws or civil liberties.

America is a country founded on violent, let alone passive, resistance to government. Beyond the military fight, the revolutionaries did horrible things to civilian loyalists and certainly deprived them of life, liberty and property.

Should Sam Adams' beer labels read "Brewer – Terrorist"?

Is George Washington on the $1 bill no better in moral terms than if Afghanistan or (a post-monarchy) Saudi Arabia puts Osama bin Laden on its money some day?

You're a smart cookie.

 

[devilof76]

It would certainly not allow them to act with impunity. Harassment, trespassing, theft and host of other non-violent crimes, do not cease to be crimes just because they do not classify them as "terrorism".

Force is a distinguishing characteristic, but it's not the genus of terrorism. Terrorism is a military tactic employed by a weaker combatant that would not benefit from a direct confrontation with a stronger opponent. The genus of terrorism is act of war, which is not necessarily restricted to conflict between opposing states. It has the latitude to include proponents of opposing ideologies/philosophies as well, insofar as the representatives of one ideology seek to disenfranchise their opponents from their property, personal sovereignty, and ultimately their lives.

Classifying actions that would be normally recognized as criminal if perpetrated by one individual against another, when those actions are employed specifically for the purpose of implementing a broader political or ideological agenda, ignores the greater motive. To the extent that a movement attempts to use crime as a means of challenging the underlying premise of a legal system, they wage war on the system itself.

In a country such as this one, where there are abundant legal channels through which to amend the law in any given case, resorting to intimidation through the threat or use of force is more than a mere criminal act. It is an assault on every individual whose pursuit of life is enabled by the protections which that system provides.

Even more troubling is that your broad definition of "terrorism" could be read to include non-criminal offences that at present have only civil remedies, e.g. libel.

If every crime that impinges on "life, liberty or property" were classified as "terrorism", then I am hard pressed to think of any crime that would not be so defined.

I didn't say that terrorism was any crime that threatened individual rights. I said that the threat to those rights was what constituted a threat to personal security. Political activism that uses such threats on a mass scale to effect political change is terrorism. Libel is not, unless it transcends the civil definition and becomes an overt act of political activism. Smearing a man's name to ruin his life is libel. Smearing a man's name and using him as an example for those who would maintain the same political position is terrorism.

So suffragettes, African-American civil rights marchers in thee 1950's, people demonstrating against the Viet Nam War and LGBT protesters are all "terrorists"?

Are they using the threat of force as a means to eliminate opposition to their political goals? If so, then yes.

I would also include environmental activists such as Earth First, the ALF/ELF, and racist groups such as the KKK and the Black Panther Party. By the same reasoning, any group that undertakes to subvert the beneficiaries of a legal system by inspiring random aggression such as the mob-assault method being used currently against Sony would qualify as well.

Your view on "passive" force would make all non-violent protests illegal, unless of course the government gives you permission to protest. Do you really want a government to be able to regulate whether people can protest against it actions?

The First Amendment secures the right to peacably assemble; it does not mandate that the location be provided to those wishing to assemble. If a group believes that it has just cause to oppose a government which has acted in violation of the rights of individuals, and if they choose to defend their rights, it is incumbent upon them to challenge the authority of that government by challenging its legitimacy an an agent invested with the power to uphold the law. In other words, they need to act against it. In such a case, they should be prepared for that government to resist their challenge. (The Sons of Liberty come to mind. I don't recall that they asked legal permission to revolt.)

In a free society, the government has the power to use retaliatory force against those who initiate force against the citizens it's charged to protect. If such a government exceeds its authority and acts to initiate force, then the citizenry has every right to retaliate in kind. A government that has not and will not initiate force is not justly subject to initiations of force by any and every citizen with a grievance, and has every right to retaliate so as to secure those rights which the opposition has threatened.

Classifying non-violent resistance as "terrorism" is unconscionable given the history of government abuse of power and civil liberties. Witness the 'new and improved' Egyptian government making banning public protests one of its first acts.

And such a government would rightly be removed by force. Anyone unwilling to take that action is sanctioning their power; opting for non-violent resistance is idiocy of the highest order if they have any respect whatsoever for their lives and freedom.

Some of the worst "terrorists" in that case would be businesses with staff lawyers, who salaries are sunk costs, and thus the price of a suit are only minor court fees.

The Sierra Club and countless well-heeled activist (and tax exempt, as it were) organizations come to mind. Who were you thinking of?

The government also has bottomless coffers in that regard, using our tax revenue no less, when it comes to defend its violations of its own laws or civil liberties.

It's not beyond a government to terrorize its citizens, particularly when it's clearly in the wrong and lacks the upper hand morally. Creating fear so as to silence an entire nation that would be otherwise willing to hold it accountable would seem like the natural course of action.

America is a country founded on violent, let alone passive, resistance to government. Beyond the military fight, the revolutionaries did horrible things to civilian loyalists and certainly deprived them of life, liberty and property.

You're damn right it is. And proudly so, as it was their right to demoralize and render incapable any supporters of the system which refused to recognize their rights as sovereign individuals.

Should Sam Adams' beer labels read "Brewer – Terrorist"?

That would be ____ing brilliant.

Is George Washington on the $1 bill no better in moral terms than if Afghanistan or (a post-monarchy) Saudi Arabia puts Osama bin Laden on its money some day?

Washington was infinitely superior and not even remotely comparable. Terrorism is a military tactic, with no inherent moral distinction. A man who acts to subvert a system that thrives upon the violation of its subjects' natural rights is a hero; a man who acts to subvert a system so that he may institutionalize the violation of its subjects' natural rights is a villain. One is a moral giant; the other a maggot. There is no moral equivalence between those opposed philosophies.

 

[THX-182]

It is so funny that this kind of ____ discussion goes on on a collectible site's video game forum.

You'd think this would be better suited on some Bill O'Reilly site.

 

[BuffyGirl]

I had a bunch of multi's to respond to, but this thread started having long posts again...*sigh*

 

[Gates70]

We are now 'collateral damage'.

A statement from a member of the Anon group today:



https://www.warpzoned.com/?p=5412

Wow, I almost feel bad for starting this whole "terrorism" debate a few days ago. Whether they are or they aren't terrorists, the above statement sure sounds like the words of one

 

[Porko Rossi]

as a matter of fact, yes. People were running homebrew programs through linux and then going online. there are videos of people doing it on Uncharted from before the Linux was taken away. You'd see a guy under cover with a sniper rifle taking VERY quick blindfire shots and headshotting everyone on the other team no matter if they were in his line of sight or not.
It was being done on other games too. They took the Linux away to TRY to curb the cheaters .. it only made them change their tactics.

I suppose so, people still mod games and chip their consoles...
This is all making me want to actually use my PS3 for some gaming and see how PSN's doing.

 

[BadMoon]

I suppose so, people still mod games and chip their consoles...
This is all making me want to actually use my PS3 for some gaming and see how PSN's doing.

I only use my bluray player to watch movies. What are these games you speak of?

 

[karamazov80]

Terrorism is a military tactic employed by a weaker combatant that would not benefit from a direct confrontation with a stronger opponent.

Usually, but not necessarily by my definition. If you only engage in insurgent warfare with uniformed troops, then you aren't engaging in terrorism because you aren't targeting civvies. You could also be an actor with equal or greater capabilities to your adversary and commit acts of terrorism (though that usually is not the case).

However, I agree with you that it is a clearly defined action engaged for a specific reason. Thus, it is possible to assign this label without making judgments regarding the rightness or wrongness of the act.

 

[NosferatuBill36]

I guess an adult conversation on a meaningful topic is deeply threatening to some people. I look forward to our future when public debate is reduced to insulting emoticons, Internet memes and a few words that marginally qualify as a complete sentence.

To have an "adult conversation," there usually needs to be two adults engaging in one.

Based on your previous viewpoints on American history, it's clear you're neither an adult, nor are you very educated in our history. That, or you really need to take an ethics class concerning the differences in tactics used by Washington and Bin Laden.

Public debates over internet forums are fine, but acting pretentiously simply because others have feelings that differ than yours make you look like a hypocrite.

Where are you from, exactly?

 

[devilof76]

Usually, but not necessarily by my definition. If you only engage in insurgent warfare with uniformed troops, then you aren't engaging in terrorism because you aren't targeting civvies. You could also be an actor with equal or greater capabilities to your adversary and commit acts of terrorism (though that usually is not the case).

I didn't mean to imply that it's the only tactic a weaker combatant has at its disposal. When a greater force uses it, the motive is necessarily different for them than it would be for someone whose position necessitates its use. Historically, it is predominantly a guerilla tactic.

I agree with the targeting of civilians being essential. The strength in the method is its ability to inspire fear in those who support the terrorist's enemy. My point is that violence is not necessary to establish a credible threat; people have more to lose than blood.

However, I agree with you that it is a clearly defined action engaged for a specific reason. Thus, it is possible to assign this label without making judgments regarding the rightness or wrongness of the act.

I think that's a really important thing to understand. I also think it's worth noting that you can get a clue as to the moral character of a terrorist by how far they are willing to go. Washington did not blow up daycares or bus stops. But, it's still not a perfect litmus; if the terrorist's opponent were guilty of truly egregious crimes, more brutal demonstrations by an insurgent become more legitimate options. The benficiaries of a tyrant's policies are rarely 'innocent' in the greater scheme of things. A citizenry does not have to participate in state sanctioned atrocities to share in the guilt.

 

[Star Puffs]

Based on your previous viewpoints on American history, it's clear you're neither an adult, nor are you very educated in our history. That, or you really need to take an ethics class concerning the differences in tactics used by Washington and Bin Laden.

What I wrote:

"So suffragettes, African-American civil rights marchers in thee 1950's, people demonstrating against the Viet Nam War and LGBT protesters are all 'terrorists'?"

"Is George Washington on the $1 bill no better in moral terms than if Afghanistan or (a post-monarchy) Saudi Arabia puts Osama bin Laden on its money some day?"

Those are questions, posed to Devilof76 using a common reference point of American history. I questioned him precisely because I do not think George Washington or Civil Rights marchers are terrorist, but I feel his definition of terrorism would include them.

Devil himself I note followed my intention perfectly well without having some paranoid reaction. As for my statement:

"America is a country founded on violent, let alone passive, resistance to government. Beyond the military fight, the revolutionaries did horrible things to civilian loyalists and certainly deprived them of life, liberty and property. "

If you can cite any historical inaccuracy there, please do so. If you are genuinely not aware of the crimes committed against loyalists, then educate yourself rather than attacking me.

 

[Cloud]

To have an "adult conversation," there usually needs to be two adults engaging in one.

Based on your previous viewpoints on American history, it's clear you're neither an adult, nor are you very educated in our history. That, or you really need to take an ethics class concerning the differences in tactics used by Washington and Bin Laden.

Public debates over internet forums are fine, but acting pretentiously simply because others have feelings that differ than yours make you look like a hypocrite.

Where are you from, exactly?

You're the only one who looks childish.

 

[kain4521]

Since this thread has gotten way off topic I guess its a good time to close it.