re: Official Thread: Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

quote:

---

If the possibility of a NON-CONVENTIONAL sandwich is being debated...yes

---

Now I know you're trolling.

Beat to the punch.

I think you owe the man $1,000.

quote:

---

Conventional doesn't change the definition of "terrorism." Terrorism - "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." AGAIN, Yes, they could have taken this plane down, they could take 30 more planes down, but at SOME POINT, they HAVE to claim responsibility and claim their POLITICAL AIMS for it to be "terrorism." Using the word "conventional" doesn't change the fact that at some point, WE, the general population, have to know the POLITICAL AIMS of the terrorists for it to be terrorism. If you don't know the political aims, you can't change your behavior to match them. I don't get what is so hard to understand. Without the above, all you have is mass murder, not "terrorism." Putting "conventional" in front of terrorism doesn't change the definition of terrorism, you're just arguing about a different method (not claiming responsibility for the first attack) but at some point, a claim must be made or it isn't "terrorism" at all.

---

You are insanely, wildly fricking stupid.

Honestly, one of the dumbest motherfrickers on the planet.

The goal here would be fear. There's no need to state their political agenda because their end goal - disrupting air traffic - would best be accomplished through fear of a nameless entity taking down jetliners. They can keep their political agenda to themselves and accomplish the goal of getting people to be too afraid to fly. Once they've done that they'd have struck a serious blow against Western economies.

quote:

---

Now I know you're trolling.

---

Because I am using logic?

Someone asserts the possibility of Not-A being true.

You respond by saying Not-A can't be true because A is false.

P1: A is false
P2: ???
C: Therefore Not-A is false

What does P2 in your argument have to be? That A is exactly the same as Not-A in every sense.

But that is exactly the opposite of what is being argued.

Easy to follow imo.

We are as off-track on this thread as that plane was ...

quote:

---

You are insanely, wildly fricking stupid.

Honestly, one of the dumbest motherfrickers on the planet.

The goal here would be fear. There's no need to state their political agenda because their end goal - disrupting air traffic - would best be accomplished through fear of a nameless entity taking down jetliners. They can keep their political agenda to themselves and accomplish the goal of getting people to be too afraid to fly. Once they've done that they'd have struck a serious blow against Western economies.

---

Apparently the terrorists' goal was to cripple the American economy by having internet trolls debate the fate of this plane instead of working.

Great.... This morning it was a 10 pages of bickering about the definition of "evidence"... and now we are arguing about the definition of "Terrorism"