Forums → WEPR → Is Al Gore a 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.

Wether that fear was necessary or not is irrelevant.

he definetally intended people to watch it, if he did not intend people to panic he is one stupid person or has no empathy skills

I'm going to go and challenge you on this one, might be a bit hard but I'll try...


Al gore is not a terrorist, I believe that the united states government is wrong again with the definition. What I believe a terrorist is would be someone who tries to intimidate and instill fear throughout a civilian population with threats of killing or harming them. I don't recall Al Gore telling people to stop polluting or he'll shoot them, therefore, Al Gore is not a terrorist.

yet you could also stop at "with threats"
for he could be sublyminally saying in his movie pay those taxes or this will happen

-Eyes

When i stated

Wether that fear is necessary or not is irrelevant.

I made a mistake, a statement I all but retracted in a later post when I said

I guess that motive is important

And realizing now that motive is important, the discussion has become:

Does he fit the definition of a terrorist?
under this motivation does become important, and even though you can't delve deep into the psyche of Al Gore, you can look at the results and make an educated guess, or express your own opinion. And in the end I realize this may not necessarily be a debate, but has seemed to change to personal opinion. Wich I will have to accept.

Skull

So you are saying what the definition of terrorism in the United States should be, and that the United states government definition is incorrect?

Well lets look at other definitions, here we have the european union's definition of terrorism:

"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

Not a metion of violence.

Here we have the definition of the United Kingdom:

the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(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.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a personâs life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

Here violence is a possible method, but is not necessary for a terrorist act to be committed.

I made a mistake, a statement I all but retracted in a later post when I said

I guess that motive is important

(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.

Well, as for this debate I'm going argue this a bit further.

You see people who get arrested for terrorist acts people who had some sort of ties to a violent act, you don't see people accused for terrorism if they went around with a megaphone running up to people yelling 'EVERYONE GET AWAY FROM ME!!' sure he'd get arrested, but not for terrorism, yet he falls under the definition of a terrorist.

yet that would be a terrorist because he is causing panic which leads to fear or terror

it does not matter whether you want it to be good or not, its like saying that Iraq is going to kill us all and you say it just for people to know but you get classified as a terrorist because you are causing fear

YES.

Well, he himself is not a terrorist, he is the reason for 9/11.

You see, he made racial profiling in airports illegal. So when the two terrorists showed up, they were Arab, they payed in cash, they had no luggage, and they showed up RIGHT AT THE LAST MINUTE before the plane took off. But since racial profiling is illegal, they could not check them because there was no real evidence so it would be labeled as a check because they were Arab. So they just moseyed (not literally moseyed) on board and crashed the plane into the two towers.

Plane ---------> | |

So therefore, the worst president in history, Bill Clinton, was the reason for 9/11.

On a side note, his idiocy was also proven when one of the middle eastern countries (can't remember specifically which one) actually had Osama Binladin in there custody and asked Bill Clinton is he wanted him so the United States could deal with him how they wanted to. He denied there generous offer of the most wanted man in the world because they had "more important things on there minds". @sshole.

I think terrorist is a bit too much off a loose term, It's way too broad to use affectively, because terrorism is illegal, yet everyone did some sort of terrorist act in some way.

@ Skull

He in fact could be arrested for terrorism if the U's government found that he had made the movie for personal gain or to influence the gov't/people.

That defenition for the united States, it is the defenition under the federal criminal code. So he in fact could be charged with terrorism.

@Eyes

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 made lots of errors in my first comment to you Skull, I was basically saying that the definition stated is the one used in the federal criminal code, and if the US government had evidence of a motive he could be charged.

Well I don't think that Al Gore is a terrorist but I know that Barack Obama was involved with some terrorist activity.

@ Blaze

Do you KNOW? how do you know? proof please?

@ Ricador

and Im sorry Ricador I didn't see your post, but as I am not trying to be completely biased towards Al Gore being a terrorist. And that whole thing was just....i dont want to get into Al Gore causing 9/11.

But about how Bill Clinton le Osama BinLaden go....what does that have to do with Al Gore? First you say "On a side note, but then you say HIS idiocy. It seems you're talking about Al Gore. But I don't believe you are, right?

You should know that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism even within the US government. That said using the definition that you provided th3pr3tz3l then Al Gore would be a terrorist. However, also using your definition nearly anyone anywhere could be a terrorist as fear is a base human emotion that's often used in arguments and debates ('if you don't take the proper precautions when setting up that nuclear plant then thousands of people will die' for example uses fear to illustrate a point and thus would be considered terrorism).

However a definition similar to the U.S. Department of Defense's, "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." (taken from http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/What_Is_Terrorism_rev.htm) will show that perhaps the most important organizations in terms of defining terrorism in the U.S. would say that Al Gore is not a terrorist as he hasn't taken, or planned to take (to the extent of my knowledge) violent actions in order to further his goals.