Un-freaking-believable

[MannyIsGod]

To be fair to Darrin, an attack against a military member doesn't necessarily equate "war". And terrorist attacks can occur against military members, but the line is blurry. For instance, the Khobar Towers incident is considered a terrorist attack.

Considered by whom, LNG? The act of calling something a terrorist attack is usually one who's only aim is propaganda. '

No one in the United States ever calls the nuclear bombings in WW2 terrorist acts yet they fit the bill for terrorism more than many things we label terrorism today.

[RandomGuy]

I just find it strange that the same bunch that jumped on the "crosshairs" metaphor can't bring themselves to say jihad or radical Islam when, by all accounts, the shooter yelled "Alahu Akbhar". If that's k edly partisan, so be it.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post, so I will try to keep it simple.

Everybody, including the administration official in question, can probably guess it was an act of terrorism.

What someone in an offical capacity can't really do, is comment with a solid assertion without even preliminary results of any real investigation. That is irresponsible.

What is edly partisan by your dumb ass, is to suggest that an official of the US government should publically and officiall state something as fact, even if it is readily fairly obvious, without any more formal investigation being upheld.

It veers into the realm of unbelievably edly partisan, because you would probably not imply that our government should be that irresponsible if the administration had been a Republican one, especially when that administration, being constrained by the same things offically and diplomatically would have said pretty much the exact same thing.

Are you implying that our government should be irresponsible to suit your emotional needs Darrin?

[RandomGuy]

How many people here feel/believe the ft hood incident was a terrorist attack?

I would say no. Generally terrorism has some general political aim.

I think this guy was simply a crazy. He would have snapped no matter what, but latched on to an ideology seeped in terrorism.

I don't see the distinction as very important though. Murderous s are murderous s, no matter what political label you might want to slap on them.

[LnGrrrR]

Considered by whom, LNG? The act of calling something a terrorist attack is usually one who's only aim is propaganda. '

Really Manny? I mean, I'm not the one who decides what does and doesn't fall under the definition of "terrorism", but to imply that the only people defining things as "terrorism" are those with a goal in hand is poor reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers

I'm assuming that historians as well as various other people without an agenda would define the Khobar Towers as a terrorist attack.

No one in the United States ever calls the nuclear bombings in WW2 terrorist acts yet they fit the bill for terrorism more than many things we label terrorism today.

That's because we were actively at war with Japan. It's a bit of a muddy line, to be sure. But many things that are labeled "terrorism" today wouldn't be "terrorism" if we were actively at war with the enemy.

Whether nuclear weapons are "terrorist" weapons is an interesting argument, but a bit of a sidebar. As well, while we did deploy the nuke as a means to create fear/dominance/etc, we told the Japanese people in advance and asked for surrender, so it wasn't your typical terrorist attack (which usually requires some element of surprise.)

[MannyIsGod]

[QUOTE=LnGrrrR;5035245]Really Manny? I mean, I'm not the one who decides what does and doesn't fall under the definition of "terrorism", but to imply that the only people defining things as "terrorism" are those with a goal in hand is poor reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers

I'm assuming that historians as well as various other people without an agenda would define the Khobar Towers as a terrorist attack.
[quote]

How would middle east historians see it?

That's because we were actively at war with Japan. It's a bit of a muddy line, to be sure. But many things that are labeled "terrorism" today wouldn't be "terrorism" if we were actively at war with the enemy.

Whether nuclear weapons are "terrorist" weapons is an interesting argument, but a bit of a sidebar. As well, while we did deploy the nuke as a means to create fear/dominance/etc, we told the Japanese people in advance and asked for surrender, so it wasn't your typical terrorist attack (which usually requires some element of surprise.)

Was Perl Harbor an act of terrorism? There was no active war at the time of its occurrence.

In any event I think you missed my larger point that the word terrorism only serves to give a moral high ground. There are millions if not billions of people across the world who consider many of our actions as nation to be acts of terrorism. You ask Darrin about those same acts and he calls it something else.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post, so I will try to keep it simple.

Everybody, including the administration official in question, can probably guess it was an act of terrorism.

What someone in an offical capacity can't really do, is comment with a solid assertion without even preliminary results of any real investigation. That is irresponsible.

What is edly partisan by your dumb ass, is to suggest that an official of the US government should publically and officiall state something as fact, even if it is readily fairly obvious, without any more formal investigation being upheld.

It veers into the realm of unbelievably edly partisan, because you would probably not imply that our government should be that irresponsible if the administration had been a Republican one, especially when that administration, being constrained by the same things offically and diplomatically would have said pretty much the exact same thing.

Are you implying that our government should be irresponsible to suit your emotional needs Darrin?

but he said Allah is great right before he killed them..

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, one could also argue that prior to those towers being bombed we were already at war with Al Queda considering Bin Laden declared as much.

[MannyIsGod]

LNG, I guess my overall point is that more often than not what determines if an act is terrorism or not is not a textbook definition and how the attack fits into one but rather what side of the conflict you're on.

[LnGrrrR]

How would middle east historians see it?

I don't know; feel free to do the research and ask them. But just saying that the people who call it a terrorist attack are all saying so because they have something to gain from it is a piss-poor argument, along the lines of something mouse would say.

Was Perl Harbor an act of terrorism? There was no active war at the time of its occurrence.

Seeing as how it led to war, most people consider it a "surprise attack" moreso than terrorism. As well, the goal was to do actual damage, not to inspire fear/terror/etc. Finally, the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't based off any political/ideological goal (any more than any other war, that is.)

In any event I think you missed my larger point that the word terrorism only serves to give a moral high ground. There are millions if not billions of people across the world who consider many of our actions as nation to be acts of terrorism. You ask Darrin about those same acts and he calls it something else.

Sure, I agree with that larger statement. I was just clarifying that acts of terrorism can be committed against military personnel.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know; feel free to do the research and ask them. But just saying that the people who call it a terrorist attack are all saying so because they have something to gain from it is a piss-poor argument, along the lines of something mouse would say.

Its not a piss poor argument at all. Who were the first ones to label the towers bombing a terrorist act?

[MannyIsGod]

Better yet, explain to me how it qualifies as a terrorist attack outside of some one else labeling it as such.

[LnGrrrR]

LNG, I guess my overall point is that more often than not what determines if an act is terrorism or not is not a textbook definition and how the attack fits into one but rather what side of the conflict you're on.

Eh, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Otherwise, the word becomes meaningless. I think that the given definition of terrorism is a useful one, and we shouldn't throw it out because some incidents fall into a gray area.

[LnGrrrR]

Its not a piss poor argument at all. Who were the first ones to label the towers bombing a terrorist act?

I don't know.

Now tell me why I have to disprove that it's a terrorist act? You're the one claiming it isn't, so prove it.

I claim it is because it was a politically motivated attack designed to cause fear/terror.

[MannyIsGod]

Eh, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Otherwise, the word becomes meaningless. I think that the given definition of terrorism is a useful one, and we shouldn't throw it out because some incidents fall into a gray area.

The word IS meaningless. Thats the point! Its not that some incidents fall into a grey area, its that ALL the incidents are a grey area. You have a group who believes it is at war with the united states and is carrying out such a war. You can label the attacks whatever you'd like, but in the end the people are still just as dead.

When the United States first termed the attack a terrorist attack you think they did so without an agenda?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know.

Now tell me why I have to disprove that it's a terrorist act? You're the one claiming it isn't, so prove it.

I claim it is because it was a politically motivated attack designed to cause fear/terror.

You do realize with the rational you gave I could easily apply that to any strategic act of war ever committed?

For example, Shock and Awe? Was the United States guilty of terrorism on their opening salvos in the Iraq War by your definition and if not then why not?

[LnGrrrR]

BTW, one could also argue that prior to those towers being bombed we were already at war with Al Queda considering Bin Laden declared as much.

Eh, I'd say that's a possibility, but a weak one. Just because one declares war with us doesn't mean the United States enters at war with them. As well, I don't the specifics on a country officially going to "war" with an organization.

[LnGrrrR]

You do realize with the rational you gave I could easily apply that to any strategic act of war ever committed?

For example, Shock and Awe? Was the United States guilty of terrorism on their opening salvos in the Iraq War by your definition and if not then why not?

Again, we were considered officially at "war" at that time, so that throws your statement off.

If we WEREN'T at war, I am relatively sure it would be considered a terrorist attack, yes. But officially going to war changes that distinction.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL so war is only official if the United States accepts it as such.

[DarrinS]

I would say no. Generally terrorism has some general political aim.

I think this guy was simply a crazy. He would have snapped no matter what, but latched on to an ideology seeped in terrorism.

I don't see the distinction as very important though. Murderous s are murderous s, no matter what political label you might want to slap on them.

This is the exact kind of politically correct, walking on eggs s blather that the Obama state department is looking for. You should apply.

[clambake]

you do realize that the term "terrorism" is a marketing tool, right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is the exact kind of politically correct, walking on eggs s blather that the Obama state department is looking for. You should apply.

how do you know the shooter wasn't crazy? what if you come out and prolaimed this is a terrorist attack.!!!.to then find out the dude hadn't taken his meds... and was delusional..

what do you say to the rest of the muslims worlwide?

my bad?

[ChumpDumper]

I mean, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation and then you make a judgment.

I can see why Darrin would prefer not to look at evidence or use judgment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I can see why Darrin would prefer not to look at evidence or use judgment.

muslim= kills someone= terrorist attack

[DarrinS]

I can see why Darrin would prefer not to look at evidence or use judgment.

Is there more evidence that the shooter in Frankfurt was motivated by radical Islam than the shooter in Tuscon was motivated by Palin's crosshair metaphor?

Take your time.

[DarrinS]

how do you know the shooter wasn't crazy? what if you come out and prolaimed this is a terrorist attack.!!!.to then find out the dude hadn't taken his meds... and was delusional..

what do you say to the rest of the muslims worlwide?

my bad?

That's fine. If that's the case, then there is a disproportionate amount of crazy in the Muslim population.