Forums → WEPR → Is Al Gore a terrorist?
| 49 | 7409 |
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
Well not really, nothing bad about it, he is just explaining his question...
1) Why would this get locked or deleted? This is the section to post about world events, politics, etc. Is this not politics? And are there not multiple debates going on in this forum?
2) There is little in the way of hard facts. There is the definition of terrorism for you to read. The question is did he instill fear in the public, and in doing so coerce them for political means? I've stated some of my first points, now I would like someone, or many others, to prove him innocent. I would like to see someone defend his actions, and then I will rebuttle, etc.
Yes, yes he is. Written all over his face. He should get together with Obama and they can both have some fun haha.
The above statement was a simple joke. All Obama supporters should not take any offense. Thank you.
he matches the definition of terrorist
next thing you know when the drive-by-media gets whiffs of this he will be planting bombs on cars
Now im just wondering through my keyboard, i wonder what Would other important figures in society actually fit this definition?
As my quote by Edward Peck says, when they were first making a definition for terrorism, they couldn't get it right because it kept implicating the american gov't themselves.
well if it means creating panic etc etc. all the people in global warming commercials and supporters of it would be terrorists because they would be spreading panic not needed
Now watch out and don't slip into global warming. The question is did he purposefully instill fear into people to influence the civilian population, or the government. Wether that fear was necessary or not is irrelevant.
I feel like im balancing on a wire 300 feet above the ground, while juggling and riding a unicycle. I'm the discussion, and global warming is what I land on if I lose my balance....
First, please do not put in any quotes with the '...' symbol in between words, as that means any number of things could be between them.
Now, is Al Gore a terrorist? Hard to say. True, by definition Al Gore would be a terrorist, but think about the positives. Although it might be a crude way of raising Global Warming awareness, 'An Inconvenient Truth' would help in the long run. It would help people preserve our environment. Another problem exists with 'Al Gore Terrorist' theory. Wouldn't a terrorist be someone who intentionally causes terror to the population. Oh, wait... I just proved myself wrong.>.<
So I guess I've established that Al Gore is a terrorist. But in this case he was helping or trying to help the general population. So I would not label him a bad terrorist. I think that's it. Yea. >.<
id label him as a bad terrorist because i believe he did it just so the UN would ask for tax money spent on worthless ideas and technology and that he would get a nobel peace prize when it has nothing to do with peace
But then theres the fact, every terrorist thinks he is a good terrorist. They believe what they are doing is right. Darnit, if i go down that road i will hit global warming. AAAAAAHHHH! My brain hurts!
now i got that quote in my head - "if you think you are insane, then you aren't, as every man who is insane believes what he thinks is reality."
Insane = a terrorist
reality = good
Took awhile to make my post so I didnt see your point Graham. I guess that motive is important, was his terrorism for the good of the people, or for personal gain?
And i still hope some people think he isn't a terrorist. Want this to stay fun.
ohh it must be hard not talking about what the terrorist is doing but if he is the terrorist
Now watch out and don't slip into global warming. The question is did he purposefully instill fear into people to influence the civilian population, or the government.
Well, hey now, why do you need us, then? How are we supposed to measure public fear and if it motivates public policy? I could surely make a guess, but I don't think I could cite a "ublic-fear-o-meter". And who but Gore knows his intentions? I'm sure Strop will have something to say about that, but I sure don't know anything.
Wether that fear was necessary or not is irrelevant.
Well now you're just supposing he did in fact instill fear to influence policy. If it is irrelavent then our discussion stops at "What Gore's intentions were and the result of his actions", then we don't get to talk about the label "terrorist" at all. Because if you want to label someone with such a dramatic label without taking into account whether his actions were necessary and if the intentions/results were negative or positive, that seems a little unfair.
You must be logged in to post a reply!