Simple Question ChumpDumper or anybody else....

[clambake]

lol now tell us how the US won in vietnam.

[ChumpDumper]

LE 18 Part 1 CH 113B Subsection 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

For all the libs that think calling the war on terrorism a overseas contingency battle is necessary.

Right. Doesn't currently look like Hasan's actions meet that definition.

Thanks for confirming.

[Ignignokt]

Sure, why not? He didn't benefit from hindsight just as Clinton did not, but the overall perception is the overall perception. Reagan's cut-and-run just doesn't get as much play in the states for whatever reason.

And yeah, Beirut, Iran-Contra, the deal for timing the release of the hostages and the purely politically convenient involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan conflict totally on any suggestion that Reagan considered the Islamic fundamentalist threat as anything serious at all.

We did cut and run from Lebanon, but I don't think it matters much whether that made Reagan appear soft on terror or not. A calculation was made that the US interest in Lebanon wasn't worth the risk to US troops, or that having troops there wasn't essential in order to secure whatever the US interest was at that time.

How that made us "look" wrt terrorism -- or to the terrorists -- was beside the point then. That we are even discussing it now only reflects how much 9/11 has turned us into idiotic, bedwetting security trolls.

Anyway, Reagan sort of made up for cutting and running in Lebanon by bombing Qaddafi's barracks.

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

[LnGrrrR]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

I'm not very familiar with the story, but civilians work in the Pentagon too. If he only shot active duty marines, that's one difference.

Of course, then you get into situations like Blackwater, who are civilian but are pretty much mercs... Not sure where those guys fall under.

[spursncowboys]

I'm not very familiar with the story, but civilians work in the Pentagon too. If he only shot active duty marines, that's one difference.

Of course, then you get into situations like Blackwater, who are civilian but are pretty much mercs... Not sure where those guys fall under.

Are you saying Blackwater could be considered terrorists?

[clambake]

Are you saying Blackwater could be considered terrorists?

why not?

[spursncowboys]

why not?

Can you show facts ?

[clambake]

Can you show facts ?

anyone thats covert, that can act with autonomy, well armed and sponsored by a state, easily could be classified as terrorist.

you wouldn't like another countries "blackwater" on your block.

[spursncowboys]

anyone thats covert, that can act with autonomy, well armed and sponsored by a state, easily could be classified as terrorist.

you wouldn't like another countries "blackwater" on your block.

So you don't have any facts?

[clambake]

So you don't have any facts?

you need to stop throwing the word "terrorism" around.

it may land on you.

[PixelPusher]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bull .

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!

[spursncowboys]

So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bull .

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!

That sounds like the playbook of authoritarian govt. Are you saying you want terrorism to go back to when it was just a nuisance?

[ChumpDumper]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

That sounds like the playbook of authoritarian govt. Are you saying you want terrorism to go back to when it was just a nuisance?

Isn't it still a nuisance dummy?

[Ignignokt]

The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

Which foreign country bombed the Marines in Beirut?

[Ignignokt]

The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

And if you want to play under that game... What code out of what ass, would define the bombings in Beirut as a terrorist act?

[Ignignokt]

So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bull .

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!

Drivel.. drivel drivel..

You'd definately be scoffed out of a security breifing if you said Alqueda was a manufactured threat.

[ChumpDumper]

Which foreign country bombed the Marines in Beirut?

Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

[Ignignokt]

Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

How did you make this all about hassan?

This is the original question.

Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

you awnsered.

Sure, why not?

I don't know where you got the US code into this, That's spursncowboy's argument. I simply asked you your oppinion, not the US code.


Lol.. premature ejac eh?

[Ignignokt]

Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

Beirut the city, didn't blow up the Marines.

[ChumpDumper]

And if you want to play under that game... What code out of what ass, would define the bombings in Beirut as a terrorist act?

I'm sure there could be several international agreements and local Lebanese laws that could apply, but the US code by definition certainly wouldn't legally apply, just as it currently doesn't seem to apply to Hasan -- I'm under the assumption that he would be tried under the US Military Code of Justice, and I couldn't tell you if they have a code for terrorism. It woldn't be necessary to have one to convict Hasan and put him to death.

The only point I made to SnC was that Hasan's actions did not meet every definition of terrorism as he claimed it did. It was really the only code I looked up because to disprove SnC's contention I needed only one. It's amusing that you took it as your personal jihad to try to make this the only definition of terrorism available to me in any argument, and your failure here is obvious and hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

Beirut the city, didn't blow up the Marines.

Beirut is in Lebanon.

Not the US.

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure there could be several international agreements and local Lebanese laws that could apply, but the US code by definition certainly wouldn't legally apply, just as it currently doesn't seem to apply to Hasan -- I'm under the assumption that he would be tried under the US Military Code of Justice, and I couldn't tell you if they have a code for terrorism. It woldn't be necessary to have one to convict Hasan and put him to death.

The only point I made to SnC was that Hasan's actions did not meet every definition of terrorism as he claimed it did. It was really the only code I looked up because to disprove SnC's contention I needed only one. It's amusing that you took it as your personal jihad to try to make this the only definition of terrorism available to me in any argument, and your failure here is obvious and hilarious.

So according to the US code.. Beirut didn't blow up the marines. Thanks for the input. Be relevant. It was just a simple question.

[ChumpDumper]

So according to the US code.. Beirut didn't blow up the marines. Thanks for the input. Be relevant. It was just a simple question.

According to the US Code, the US Code does not apply to Lebanon.

[Ignignokt]

So according to Chumpdumper.. Reagan was soft on terrorism based on some Lebanese code which CHumpdumper admits he has no whereabouts or knowledge. Again how did you pwn anyone? Do imaginary yet to be determined Lebanese codes do the trick?