Borussia Dortmund football team bus hit by explosion

[StayTuned]

"it's not terrorism because the perp was white".

Just say that, we know what you mean.

That's absolutely not what I meant

[Deleted]

"it's not terrorism because the perp was white".

Just say that, we know what you mean.

It's not terrorism, because the motive wasn't political.

[Elim Garak]

They are separate aspects. They can be the same but in a lot cases they don't. That's a simple fact. I even gave you an example.

Sometimes (often) those two coincide, but not always.

They always coincide, because they are one and the same, if it seems like they don't then you got one of them wrong.

[Ravenblade]

They always coincide, because they are one and the same, if it seems like they don't then you got one of them wrong.

Saying we got it wrong is not enough. Explain why motivation and aim are the same.

In my opinion you are mixing things up, you are equalling motivation with desire however you these are not alike. Desire and aim are however often alike.

[Elim Garak]

Saying we got it wrong is not enough.

I didn't say you got it wrong. You didn't get anything, as you didn't even have an argument, you are just arguing semantics. I said if you think aim and motivation are not the same then you got one of them wrong. It doesn't even involve you personally. It's not "YOU" you.

Explain why motivation and aim are the same.

Aim is the motivation, and motivation is aim, duh. If you have no aim, there's no motivation. Someone can motivate you, say by offering you money, and in that case motivation will give you aim. As I said before this is not about semantics. Aim and motivation are the same thing expressed in different semantics. Logically they cannot exist separately. It's just mind blowing how one can think that aim can have nothing to do with motivation in the same context. If you aim to gain profit - that is your motivation. You can do whatever you want with that motivation - it won't change. People may perceive it wrong though.

In my opinion you are mixing things up, you are equalling motivation with desire however you these are not alike. Desire and aim are however often alike.

Now it's desire too. Same thing. Aim, desire, motivation, need, want, goal. Same things different semantics. Sometimes different scale too. Goals can be on strategic level (I want to rule the world), motivations can be on tactical level (this guy is an obstacle on my way to world domination and needs to die).

Mixing, it's the same thing. You mix water with water you get water. It can be of different temperature and purity <- that's semantics of your argument.

[Noradin]

Aim is the motivation, and motivation is aim, duh. If you have no aim, there's no motivation. Someone can motivate you, say by offering you money, and in that case motivation will give you aim. As I said before this is not about semantics. Aim and motivation are the same thing expressed in different semantics. Logically they cannot exist separately. It's just mind blowing how one can think that aim can have nothing to do with motivation in the same context. If you aim to gain profit - that is your motivation. You can do whatever you want with that motivation - it won't change. People may perceive it wrong though.

So all you have to offer is some statement that you yourself violate?
If aim and motivation is the same how can one give you the other?

Aim is about how to get to your desired outcome, motivation is about what makes you desire said outcome.
They are similar to "how" and "why"* respectively in that regard.

Yes, sometimes you can make use of one of those two (aim and motivation)and sufficient context to paraphrase the other, but they aren't the same.
Just because you cannot grasp the difference does not mean it doesn't exist. (Yes, this, too, isn't the YOU you.)
*Unfortunately English is a bit light on interrogatives, other languages offer more precise ones for this differentiation.

[Deleted]

I didn't say you got it wrong. You didn't get anything, as you didn't even have an argument, you are just arguing semantics. I said if you think aim and motivation are not the same then you got one of them wrong. It doesn't even involve you personally. It's not "YOU" you.

Aim is the motivation, and motivation is aim, duh. If you have no aim, there's no motivation. Someone can motivate you, say by offering you money, and in that case motivation will give you aim. As I said before this is not about semantics. Aim and motivation are the same thing expressed in different semantics. Logically they cannot exist separately. It's just mind blowing how one can think that aim can have nothing to do with motivation in the same context. If you aim to gain profit - that is your motivation. You can do whatever you want with that motivation - it won't change. People may perceive it wrong though.

Now it's desire too. Same thing. Aim, desire, motivation, need, want, goal. Same things different semantics. Sometimes different scale too. Goals can be on strategic level (I want to rule the world), motivations can be on tactical level (this guy is an obstacle on my way to world domination and needs to die).

Mixing, it's the same thing. You mix water with water you get water. It can be of different temperature and purity <- that's semantics of your argument.

Motivation is what drives you to do something, aim is your goal.
In this case: motivation is greed, aim is making sure the BVB share drops so he can get money.
Another example: Somebody gets killed by a jealous husband wive: Motivation would be jealousy, the aim is to get rid of a perceived competitor.

In some cases motivation and aim can be one and the same (f.e. if you hurt people, because you just like hurting people).

[Slant]

When you have trouble differentiating between terrorism and crime, you may be beginning to realise a simple viewpoint... terrorism is nothing but glorified crime. Al-Quaida flying into the twin towers? Crime. We say "mass murder" or "serial murder" for shit like that. Qualifying it as an act of terrorism is kind of like knighting a dude that managed to kill enough bad people to warrant being called a knight.

And further... if you narrow your definition to say "it needs religions motivationg to be terrorism" (among other things), you're kind of legitimising the whole thing. It's got nothing to do with religion. IS is not a religious group. They want you to think they are, because they would love nothing more than a repeat of the last Crusades, but they really are not. They're a highly organised crime organisation making literally billions of dollars in profit. And they kill a lot of people. Religion is a tool for them. They could do the same shit if they didn't talk about religion at all, but it's much easier to impress the feeble minded with religious bullshit, because you don't have to prove anything. Ever. You just say "Here's the book, says 'kill unbelievers', and here's the bomb for you" and off you go, you have just created a bomber from the Middle East. Just point him in the general right direction "Europeans? Unbelievers!" and you're done. Not one of their leaders has an ounce of actual faith in them. Not one.

[Deleted]

When you have trouble differentiating between terrorism and crime, you may be beginning to realise a simple viewpoint... terrorism is nothing but glorified crime. Al-Quaida flying into the twin towers? Crime. We say "mass murder" or "serial murder" for shit like that. Qualifying it as an act of terrorism is kind of like knighting a dude that managed to kill enough bad people to warrant being called a knight.

And further... if you narrow your definition to say "it needs religions motivationg to be terrorism" (among other things), you're kind of legitimising the whole thing. It's got nothing to do with religion. IS is not a religious group. They want you to think they are, because they would love nothing more than a repeat of the last Crusades, but they really are not. They're a highly organised crime organisation making literally billions of dollars in profit. And they kill a lot of people. Religion is a tool for them. They could do the same shit if they didn't talk about religion at all, but it's much easier to impress the feeble minded with religious bullshit, because you don't have to prove anything. Ever. You just say "Here's the book, says 'kill unbelievers', and here's the bomb for you" and off you go, you have just created a bomber from the Middle East. Just point him in the general right direction "Europeans? Unbelievers!" and you're done. Not one of their leaders has an ounce of actual faith in them. Not one.

This is pretty well said, these terror groups will exist, religion is just a tool at their disposal to achieve their goal. However, they do still brainwash young people with their propaganda to achieve said goal.

[StayTuned]

When you have trouble differentiating between terrorism and crime, you may be beginning to realise a simple viewpoint... terrorism is nothing but glorified crime. Al-Quaida flying into the twin towers? Crime. We say "mass murder" or "serial murder" for shit like that. Qualifying it as an act of terrorism is kind of like knighting a dude that managed to kill enough bad people to warrant being called a knight.

And further... if you narrow your definition to say "it needs religions motivationg to be terrorism" (among other things), you're kind of legitimising the whole thing. It's got nothing to do with religion. IS is not a religious group. They want you to think they are, because they would love nothing more than a repeat of the last Crusades, but they really are not. They're a highly organised crime organisation making literally billions of dollars in profit. And they kill a lot of people. Religion is a tool for them. They could do the same shit if they didn't talk about religion at all, but it's much easier to impress the feeble minded with religious bullshit, because you don't have to prove anything. Ever. You just say "Here's the book, says 'kill unbelievers', and here's the bomb for you" and off you go, you have just created a bomber from the Middle East. Just point him in the general right direction "Europeans? Unbelievers!" and you're done. Not one of their leaders has an ounce of actual faith in them. Not one.

I used to believe this

[Slant]

I used to believe this

And then you went the easy route and said "Ok, so it's religion, let's do a Crusade"?

[StayTuned]

And then you went the easy route and said "Ok, so it's religion, let's do a Crusade"?

No, there's more thought to it. I can't post my reasoning here unless I want a forum time out.

Let's just say we'd have to make many more concessions if what you said is true and religion is just a method, not the cause.

[Slant]

No, there's more thought to it. I can't post my reasoning here unless I want a forum time out.

Let's just say we'd have to make many more concessions if what you'd said is true and religion is just a method, not the cause.

Concessions? In what way? The problem is that you're giving them too much credit. They are criminals nothing more. Military is not the answer to their doings and over a decade of successful terror campaigns is proving it, too. This is a job for the police. It always has been. Illegal possession of weaponry, explosives, muder charges, assault charges, money laundering, extortion, kidnapping... those are the classifications that best describe what a terrorist does. Why all of a sudden do we have to glorify their bullshit and send in the actual military that isn't equipped to deal with this? Military deals with large scale country vs. country bullshit, not interpersonal crime charges.

What you don't want to acknowledge is that if religion is not the cause, we'd have to look for the actual cause. Or rather, how they are able to influence young people in the Middle East to blow themselves up. And that leads you to the exploitation of the Middle East by the West, huge unemployment rates and a rather dystopian viewpoint on the Middle East, where chaos and anarchy rules the land. You'd have to ask yourself the hard question "Why aren't we able to actually help them?" And the answer to that is, because we don't want to. We don't give a shit about their hopelessness. We just want to whack them, because by now we have reduced them to sub-humane levels and what do you do with inconvenient pests? You try to eradicate them. You do not help animals like the fox to raid your chicken house, you kill it, right?

[Elim Garak]

So all you have to offer is some statement that you yourself violate?
If aim and motivation is the same how can one give you the other?

When you gain aim you gain motivation and vice versa, because they are the same thing? What is so hard about it for you to even ask the question....

Motivation is what drives you to do something, aim is your goal.
In this case: motivation is greed, aim is making sure the BVB share drops so he can get money.
Another example: Somebody gets killed by a jealous husband wive: Motivation would be jealousy, the aim is to get rid of a perceived competitor.

In some cases motivation and aim can be one and the same (f.e. if you hurt people, because you just like hurting people).

1. Aim is dictated by greed, the only reason to make the shares drop to gain money is greed. Aim and motivation are the same.
2. Aim is dictated by jealousy, the only reason to kill competitor is jealousy. Aim and motivation are the same.

[StayTuned]

Concessions? In what way? The problem is that you're giving them too much credit. They are criminals nothing more. Military is not the answer to their doings and over a decade of successful terror campaigns is proving it, too. This is a job for the police. It always has been. Illegal possession of weaponry, explosives, muder charges, assault charges, money laundering, extortion, kidnapping... those are the classifications that best describe what a terrorist does. Why all of a sudden do we have to glorify their bullshit and send in the actual military that isn't equipped to deal with this? Military deals with large scale country vs. country bullshit, not interpersonal crime charges.

Because they're not in it for money. If they were, they'd buy golden rings and diamonds from their oil and drug sales. They'd be a cartel instead of a terrorist organization.

Instead they buy weapons and food so that they can keep on fighting. Daesh is trying to build a pseudo country where their version of religion will be adhered to. They want to instill fear in western people in order to get revenge for what they believe is basically a crusade against them. Their preachers and leaders truly believe in what they say.

If we believe that the leaders of Daesh truly do not believe in superstition and are just a crime gang basically, we're cherry picking what kind of believes a person can have. Is the Pope also just pretending to be a believer so he can drive around in his cool Papamobile? Is he not? Why? Because he's peaceful?

If instilling fear is the ultimate goal of your actions, and you don't even want to gain anything else from the attack, it's terrorism.

If the act of blowing something up has some sort of material gain (i.e. "don't take it personal BVB, but boom"), it's a crime, mass murder, depending on the situation, but not classical terrorism.

I can smell my ban already

Also, it's not police who can stop terrorist organizations. Terror will forever exist as long as there are "two camps" who are ideologically different to each other.

[Deleted]

When you gain aim you gain motivation and vice versa, because they are the same thing? What is so hard about it for you to even ask the question....


1. Aim is dictated by greed, the only reason to make the shares drop to gain money is greed. Aim and motivation are the same.
2. Aim is dictated by jealousy, the only reason to kill competitor is jealousy. Aim and motivation are the same.

So the aim of someone who kills somebody out of jealousy is jealousy?

Motivation is the driving force behind the perpetrators actions to reach his goals. The aim is your objective. The Motivations is the "Why?", while the aim is the "How?"
They are certainly linked, they CAN be the same in some extreme cases, but they aren't the same thing per se.

[Slant]

Because they're not in it for money. If they were, they'd buy golden rings and diamonds from their oil and drug sales. They'd be a cartel instead of a terrorist organization.

Instead they buy weapons and food so that they can keep on fighting. Daesh is trying to build a pseudo country where their version of religion will be adhered to. They want to instill fear in western people in order to get revenge for what they believe is basically a crusade against them. Their preachers and leaders truly believe in what they say.

If we believe that the leaders of Daesh truly do not believe in superstition and are just a crime gang basically, we're cherry picking what kind of believes a person can have. Is the Pope also just pretending to be a believer so he can drive around in his cool Papamobile? Is he not? Why? Because he's peaceful?

If instilling fear is the ultimate goal of your actions, and you don't even want to gain anything else from the attack, it's terrorism.

If the act of blowing something up has some sort of material gain (i.e. "don't take it personal BVB, but boom"), it's a crime, mass murder, depending on the situation, but not classical terrorism.

I can smell my ban already

Also, it's not police who can stop terrorist organizations. Terror will forever exist as long as there are "two camps" who are ideologically different to each other.

Why do you think Germany had the 30 year war and why we created protestantism? It's actually called protestantism not by accident, but because people protested against the direction catholicism was taking. Promising salvation for money so they could build the basilica in Rome.

So, yes. The pope is a legitimised fraud. Except, the tiny difference is, he doesn't behead people anymore. But he used to. The pope also used to run Italy, or parts of Italy for quite a while. Politically. It's the European enlightenment set in motion by people like Kant and simple Monks asking "Why exactly do we need the Pope to speak to god for us? Why can't we speak to God ourselves? Why shouldn't he be merciful?" and so on that set secularisation in motion across Europe.

The Muslims did not have that experience, yet. And that's what the simple man is lacking over here. IS however? You're not thinking big enough. They do live in Villas, have personal house and sex slaves and live like kings. Their leader is sitting somewhere in the UAE in a hotel, didn't you know? They're not just in for the money. What's better than having a shitload of money for a criminal? Owning your own country with your rules running the show. No police to tell you you're wrong. They are not trying to create a religious country of Islam, they're creating their personal slave nation. That is the pragmatic view on it.

You can continue to blame it all on Islam, though. That's your choice. But really, you are just doing what they want you to do.

[Noradin]

When you gain aim you gain motivation and vice versa, because they are the same thing? What is so hard about it for you to even ask the question....

Do you have problems following your own thought process often?
Because it certainly looks like that from the outside.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they're not in it for money.

Yes, they aren't in it for the money they are in it for the feeling of power.
Money itself is just a tool, but it also serves as a symbol and the real draw behind money the symbol is the feeling of power it's possession grants those who have it.

They are feeling impotent thus they search to divest themselves of that feeling.
If there is some healthy way open for them to do it all is well, but if not...
Some people do it by using words (e.g. insults), some invent beliefs for themselves, some use violence.

[StayTuned]

You can continue to blame it all on Islam, though. That's your choice. But really, you are just doing what they want you to do.

Again, I had that viewpoint as well. But you are in fact taking the easy route out of it, by thinking materialistic things are what they truly want.

While I could for sure accept that for some of the highest members, money and slaves are the shit they want, for a good chunk, I'd say more than 90%, it's definitely all just about their beliefs. If you'd offer them just money, they wouldn't do what they're doing. Then the rest of them is either politically motivated or just mad.

You cannot say superstition is not the cause of this when those who don't believe only make up a couple of guys in their higher ranks.

Again, it would be along the lines of saying the Pope is just a schemer. Of course, it's easy to say from the viewpoint of an atheist. Believers on the other hand deeply believe in what the Pope and the Bible says and couldn't even fathom life without it.

Do tell me, if their beliefs are just a tool, what other tool could they even think of using to accomplish anything? It's hard to think of one for me that wouldn't be classified as a new religion altogether.

[Elim Garak]

So the aim of someone who kills somebody out of jealousy is jealousy?

Motivation is the driving force behind the perpetrators actions to reach his goals. The aim is your objective. The Motivations is the "Why?", while the aim is the "How?"
They are certainly linked, they CAN be the same in some extreme cases, but they aren't the same thing per se.

Again, this is logic not semantics. Logically motivation is the same as aim because they cannot exist separately. Remove jealousy - no competition - no objective. Remove competition - no jealousy.

Do you have problems following your own thought process often?
Because it certainly looks like that from the outside.

I see you have serious issues with following the simple thought process of mine so I will use simpler terms:

When you eat food - you also eat calories.
When you have aim - you have motivation.

Refer to bold and italics to find pairs.