Conquer Club

I would say they were because they vandalized private businesses and threatened elected officials through fear.

Suspected leaders photographed by undercover federal agents:

Terrorism requires some definite goal that the fear should be used for. Durden didn't want to coerce people into doing anything, he was really just making a point about society.

DangerBoy wrote:I would say they were because they vandalized private businesses and threatened elected officials through fear.

Suspected leaders photographed by undercover federal agents:

You do realize that this was a fictional movie... right?

You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Hamas.

Good job.

jimboston wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:I would say they were because they vandalized private businesses and threatened elected officials through fear.

Suspected leaders photographed by undercover federal agents:

You do realize that this was a fictional movie... right?

You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Israel, the US and its coalition partners.

Fixed for balance.

jimboston wrote:You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Hamas.

Good job.

Not at all. No one thinks that Hamas hasn't committed atrocities. But it's unfair to call them terrorists if they don't meet the definition of the word. The Nazis killed innocent people too, we don't call the members of Hamas Nazis.

jimboston wrote:You do realize that this was a fictional movie... right?

You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Hamas.

Good job.

Jim, I was making fun of George's thread about the 700 club.

Metsfanmax wrote:

jimboston wrote:You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Hamas.

Good job.

Not at all. No one thinks that Hamas hasn't committed atrocities. But it's unfair to call them terrorists if they don't meet the definition of the word. The Nazis killed innocent people too, we don't call the members of Hamas Nazis.

When they deliberately target innocent civilians to incite terror in the name of their objectives then they are "by definition" TERRORISTS!

When Hamas members love their children more than they hate Israel, there will be peace.

And when indesciminately launching rockets into Israel, whether they kill any Israelis or not, they are still "trying" to kill someone aren't they? Anyone as far as they are concerned, as long as they are Israelis.

ksslemp wrote:When they deliberately target innocent civilians to incite terror in the name of their objectives then they are "by definition" TERRORISTS!

That's true, except that Durden did not have a political objective. His only goal was to create chaos. That's not terrorism as it's commonly understood today.

Metsfanmax wrote:

ksslemp wrote:When they deliberately target innocent civilians to incite terror in the name of their objectives then they are "by definition" TERRORISTS!

That's true, except that Durden did not have a political objective. His only goal was to create chaos. That's not terrorism as it's commonly understood today.

That is a political objective though. It was a total rebellion against consumerism and societal norms.

The Fight Club...it was an admirable effort at first, but it ended up going way too far, as it always does...

DangerBoy wrote:

jimboston wrote:You do realize that this was a fictional movie... right?

You also realize that by making this post, you are in fact making light of all the atrocities commited by / or in-the-name-of Hamas.

Good job.

Jim, I was making fun of George's thread about the 700 club.

See jim, some people here have a sense of humor. You might want to remember that your posting in an off topic message board on a site that is visited by less than .01% of the american population and even less for many other countries. You're posts don't really stop terrorism.

P.s. There is no definition for terrorism, so trying to classify who is and isn't is pretty pointless. It will always come back to something like "well you know who is and who isn't", which is a bs answer. Who is a terrorist in your eyes ultimately just depends on country you happened to be born in.

Metsfanmax wrote:

ksslemp wrote:When they deliberately target innocent civilians to incite terror in the name of their objectives then they are "by definition" TERRORISTS!

That's true, except that Durden did not have a political objective. His only goal was to create chaos. That's not terrorism as it's commonly understood today.

Chaos is an objective. Terrorism is not just for purely political objectives. Never has been. Sometimes it's done for fun so some shit stain can feel power over others.

DangerBoy wrote:I would say they were because they vandalized private businesses and threatened elected officials through fear.

Suspected leaders photographed by undercover federal agents:

Reseting the national debt = terrorism?
Maybe for the debt collectors...
They did make sure that they didn't kill anyone.
Bitch tits Bob was the only casualty, if I remember correctly.

Maugena wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:I would say they were because they vandalized private businesses and threatened elected officials through fear.

Suspected leaders photographed by undercover federal agents:

Reseting the national debt = terrorism?
Maybe for the debt collectors...
They did make sure that they didn't kill anyone.
Bitch tits Bob was the only casualty, if I remember correctly.

Terrorism can also be directed against material objects. The whole point is violence by a non-state actor to further a political objective.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Maugena wrote:
Reseting the national debt = terrorism?
Maybe for the debt collectors...
They did make sure that they didn't kill anyone.
Bitch tits Bob was the only casualty, if I remember correctly.

Terrorism can also be directed against material objects. The whole point is violence by a non-state actor to further a political objective.

You're going to instill terror into inanimate objects as the means to an end?
How is it violence is you're damaging property but not people?

The first rule of Project Mayhem is you do not ask questions sir.

Maugena wrote:You're going to instill terror into inanimate objects as the means to an end?
How is it violence is you're damaging property but not people?

By destroying objects you project the threat of violence onto people .I agree it is not to the same degree as actually hurting or killing people but there is a implied threat. Because your are destroying things smashing a shop window is a violent act, it doesn't become non violent simply because no one dies as a result.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Maugena wrote:You're going to instill terror into inanimate objects as the means to an end?
How is it violence is you're damaging property but not people?

By destroying objects you project the threat of violence onto people .I agree it is not to the same degree as actually hurting or killing people but there is a implied threat. Because your are destroying things smashing a shop window is a violent act, it doesn't become non violent simply because no one dies as a result.

destroying a building is a conquerors right