Forums → WEPR → Is Al Gore a terrorist?
| 49 | 7412 |
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
This topic is not about the discussion of if global warming is/is not happening. It is purely a discussion about Al Gore himself and wether or not he meets the definition of a terrorist, through performing acts of terrorism
The other day, when doing about nothing in particular, I began to think about terrorism, and tried to figure out if any seemingly accepted figures in Canadian or American society fit the definition of terrorist. And my thoughts came to Al Gore himself, the former vice president who spreads awareness about global warming. I will point out I will argue strongly he is a terrorist, but this is really because I want to see if I could argue it effectively enought to actually convince people that he is a terrorist. Basically i'm saying I DONT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS! Unless of course I argue it too well, then maybe i will believe it .
One of the definitions of terrorism that the United States Government uses is:
Too intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
By this definition wouldn't Al Gore be considered a terrorist?
Here is a statement made by Edward Peck, former U.S chief of mission in Iraq, when Jimmy Carter was president:
"In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us...to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities."
Now this topic is not about the government, but about Al Gore, and careful inspection of the current definition of terrorism used by the United States implicates one of its upstanding citizens, Al Gore.
I Believe Al Gore used his film, An Incovenient Truth, to scare the masses into a panic about global warming. He showed images of some of the countrie's largest cities being destroyed by flooding as they were lower than sea level. Doomsaying as this could do much more than just worry people about global warming, it could even affect things like housing prices in the area! Although I am not saying he would have caused these other affects intentionally, would he not have intimidated, and in doing that, coerced a civilian population as the definition of terrorism states? I also believe anyone who didn't know about global warming before his movie must not pay attentiont to the media, it had been being talked about for years, all Al Gore did was make a movie. Even Richard S. Lindzen, a writer for Wall Street Journal, wrote in the June 26, 2006 issue that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain.
Would anyone like to comment on this?
- 49 Replies
Oh course Al Gore is not a terrorist. And even if he has, then why would he help the USA figure things about global warming.
The label is not biased in anyways, it is not unfair to anyone, or rigged in favor of me. It is a label, and you yoursef said that we do not know all these facts you want us to consider, as you do not have a public-fear-o-meter, and cannot read Al Gore's mind.
I have to strongly disagree, "terrorist" is in fact biased.
Allow me to explain, step by step (just so I don't miss anything.
What does "biased" mean? Looking up the definition of "bias" here, I find:
To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
So I must prove that the term "terrorist" when applied to Gore using my previous definition is prejudice (or, an opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts)
He is labeled a "terrorist" because he fits this definition of terrorism:
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
Therfore, he is a terrorist because he commits acts of terrorism that include indimidating the public to further his cause. But, you aren't considering the other facts (IE, the necessity of it, the intentions/results).
It is a label, and you yoursef said that we do not know all these facts you want us to consider, as you do not have a public-fear-o-meter, and cannot read Al Gore's mind.
The definition of terrorism that we have been using doesn't take into account the facts I've mentioned, yet you use it anyway. You said it yourself (I said it originally and you stipulate it) that we don't have all the facts. Well for a term to be biased it has to be an opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. You agree you don't have all the facts, therfore you agree that your reasoning is biased!
The reason it took me so long is because I wanted to be thorough.
Wow Eyes, that was very well put. I think that he is right in every way. Very nice job!
Oh course Al Gore is not a terrorist. And even if he has, then why would he help the USA figure things about global warming.
Your taking the word terrorist to define someone who wants to destroy america, or at least it's beliefs (IE: the terrorist in iraq). But this topic is proposing that the word terrorist can define anyone who uses fear as a way to advance their beliefs (IE: Al Gore and his "An Incovenient Truth"
This also brings up another question, those commercials you see on tv where they chop up a smokers brain and lungs, that would be considered terrorism as well according to the definition of terrorism right?
@ Futuro: Thanks
This also brings up another question, those commercials you see on tv where they chop up a smokers brain and lungs, that would be considered terrorism as well according to the definition of terrorism right?
...*sigh* Perhaps, but why would you want to use a definition of something that doesn't consider ALL the facts? To unjustly label something, that is the answer.
@Eyes
So what your saying is that it's not terrorism if it has a righteous underlying cause, and no one gets hurt?
I believe I am going to have to concede defeat. I basically set this up as a challenge for myself to see how far I could take it. I will concede defeat. In the end there are over 109 definitions of terrorism, you couldve brought this up at any time. And i just read this in wikipedia.
"The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons. "
Wellm now that I have conceded defeat in this argument I will make another one in the next couple of days, to attempt another challenge.
By the way the next one will most likely be in support of Polygamy. Good job Eyes, I couldnt stop you.
@ SkullZero1: I'm saying that a sound definition needs to take into account all the facts. In this case some of the facts are being taken into account and the others we just don't know, so it is said that they don't count.
@ th3pr3tz3l: Whew! Really? I'm glad because I think if the tables were turned I could have poked some serious holes in my arguement...er--I mean, look at the rainbow over there!
Polygamy, huh? That will be fun!
But what of Gore was a terrorist, then why would Iraq not no about somethings we have in mind. And if Gore was a terrosist, then why hasn't he been caught.
@ Wittman: Go back and look at the discussion. Terrorists aren't a single group of people, a terrorist is someone who commits acts of terrorism. Two terrorist can be completely unrelated.
@ Whittman
And when most people here that Al Gore has been charged with committing terrorist acts they would say, "Who did he blow up?"
And wait....RAINBOW? WHERE? WHERE IS THE RAINBOW? *Runs off looking for rainbow
Well, I was just saying that why doesn't Iraq or any country the Gore is working for know things. And since Eyes wants me to change some thing up, why hasn't he committed terrorism yet.
Who said that Gore is working for Iraq? Honestly, did you read the thread?
why hasn't he committed terrorism yet.
Thats something we all need to ask ourselves one day. 'Why haven't I committed terrorism yet? Will I ever get around to it?'
umm the answer to that question would be maybe he didn't feel like instilling terror onto a populace. Even though he did already...
Is it ok to say that all terrorist cause terror, but not all people who cause terror are terrorist?
No I did not but what if he was, then we would be able to know because of the GEO and LEO's. But if he has, why hasn't he made a big move yet.
You must be logged in to post a reply!