Media Matters declares victory

[Pogo]

Funny, a couple of posts ago I wasn't apologizing for Fox, now I am. I wonder what happened.

My OP did not mention Beck, I gave my opinion of what he thought, and you want to get all pissy because I made him look a lot dumber than you could. Get over it.

Try to follow along willya...

Your OP doesn't mention Beck, it mentions ratings. And that's what the above post was about too.

Are you confused? The OP doesn't mention ratings, neither does the article on PuffHo.

sigh....

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Post #1.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."
David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush

 

[mudwhistle]

Is there some part of the term "immediately obvious" that is somehow not immediately obvious?

What the Karazamov brothers did -- the actual act, the event, the news -- carried no message. Ergo it is not terrorism. There's no more to it than that.

Had the second one got away and gone underground, and we never found out anything about their motivations -- what would we have then? The victims would be just as dead.

Regardless what the background motivation was, there was no message in the act, therefore it's not terrorism. So CNN was correct to not call it that.

Bullshit.

You must think that 911 wasn't terrorism ether.

Also, it's your opinion that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because of your bias, not because it is a fact before hand, especially when one had never been bombed before. However the Boston Marathon bombing was just one of several attempts by Muslims to attack innocent civilians in America and the purpose is clear.

Bullshit.

By that logic, every time a bomb goes off it's Muslims.

It's my opinion (and everybody else's) that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because -- duh -- it's an abortion clinic. It is, here it comes again, immediately obvious. It's the whole point of terrorism. You pick a target that is an obvious symbol, and if it's not clear enough you put out a missive claiming responsibility. A symbol like an abortion clinic. A lesbian bar. A tower of capitalism. A military building.

What in the fuck is symbolized by the freaking Boston Marathon? The quality of endurance?

It is well established that when Muslims are involved in bombings it is usually about some geopolitical statement. Any Muslim who bombs Americans is sending a message that they hate Western influence. It doesn't matter the target as long as Americans are the target. We are now considered to be the Great Satan and we are a target, along with Israel. Anything that we do is considered immoral to Muslims. Kufr is the worst affliction known to Muslims. It is man's rebellion from God, which America represents. If they attack us it is because of this. Deep down it could be because the attacker is a dick, but they use this as an excuse. We've discovered that at least one of the attackers were increasingly becoming radicalized. Radicalized is just another word for insanity. An insane hatred for Western culture.

You're going to have to open your mind because it's clear you seem to think only in black and white. Terrorism doesn't have to make sense to be terrorism.

 

[mudwhistle]

"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."
David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush

Yes, Fox is the Devil.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit.

You must think that 911 wasn't terrorism ether.

Also, it's your opinion that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because of your bias, not because it is a fact before hand, especially when one had never been bombed before. However the Boston Marathon bombing was just one of several attempts by Muslims to attack innocent civilians in America and the purpose is clear.

Bullshit.

By that logic, every time a bomb goes off it's Muslims.

It's my opinion (and everybody else's) that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because -- duh -- it's an abortion clinic. It is, here it comes again, immediately obvious. It's the whole point of terrorism. You pick a target that is an obvious symbol, and if it's not clear enough you put out a missive claiming responsibility. A symbol like an abortion clinic. A lesbian bar. A tower of capitalism. A military building.

What in the fuck is symbolized by the freaking Boston Marathon? The quality of endurance?

It is well established that when Muslims are involved in bombings it is usually about some geopolitical statement. Any Muslim who bombs Americans is sending a message that they hate Western influence. It doesn't matter the target as long as Americans are the target. We are now considered to be the Great Satan and we are a target, along with Israel. Anything that we do is considered immoral to Muslims. Kufr is the worst affliction known to Muslims. It is man's rebellion from God, which America represents. If they attack us it is because of this. Deep down it could be because the attacker is a dick, but they use this as an excuse. We've discovered that at least one of the attackers were increasingly becoming radicalized. Radicalized is just another word for insanity. An insane hatred for Western culture.

You're going to have to open your mind because it's clear you seem to think only in black and white. Terrorism doesn't have to make sense to be terrorism.

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit.

By that logic, every time a bomb goes off it's Muslims.

It's my opinion (and everybody else's) that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because -- duh -- it's an abortion clinic. It is, here it comes again, immediately obvious. It's the whole point of terrorism. You pick a target that is an obvious symbol, and if it's not clear enough you put out a missive claiming responsibility. A symbol like an abortion clinic. A lesbian bar. A tower of capitalism. A military building.

What in the fuck is symbolized by the freaking Boston Marathon? The quality of endurance?

It is well established that when Muslims are involved in bombings it is usually about some geopolitical statement. Any Muslim who bombs Americans is sending a message that they hate Western influence. It doesn't matter the target as long as Americans are the target. We are now considered to be the Great Satan and we are a target, along with Israel. Anything that we do is considered immoral to Muslims. Kufr is the worst affliction known to Muslims. It is man's rebellion from God, which America represents. If they attack us it is because of this. Deep down it could be because the attacker is a dick, but they use this as an excuse. We've discovered that at least one of the attackers were increasingly becoming radicalized. Radicalized is just another word for insanity. An insane hatred for Western culture.

You're going to have to open your mind because it's clear you seem to think only in black and white. Terrorism doesn't have to make sense to be terrorism.

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

Strange you provide a definition but read into it something that doesn't exist.

The Boston bombing clearly fits the definition. You just won't admit it.

This is just a way for some in our society to ignore Islamic terrorism, turn it into a legal matter, and not call it what it is. If we use your analogy no terrorist act can be called terrorism unless the target fits your silly requirements. Many acts of terror are random, but this one isn't. This was planned and carried out to get a specific result. Perhaps you'd have to understand symbolic gestures and how they work in the Muslim mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

The key word is intimidation.

 

[Pogo]

It is well established that when Muslims are involved in bombings it is usually about some geopolitical statement. Any Muslim who bombs Americans is sending a message that they hate Western influence. It doesn't matter the target as long as Americans are the target. We are now considered to be the Great Satan and we are a target, along with Israel. Anything that we do is considered immoral to Muslims. Kufr is the worst affliction known to Muslims. It is man's rebellion from God, which America represents. If they attack us it is because of this. Deep down it could be because the attacker is a dick, but they use this as an excuse. We've discovered that at least one of the attackers were increasingly becoming radicalized. Radicalized is just another word for insanity. An insane hatred for Western culture.

You're going to have to open your mind because it's clear you seem to think only in black and white. Terrorism doesn't have to make sense to be terrorism.

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

Strange you provide a definition but read into it something that doesn't exist.

The Boston bombing clearly fits the definition. You just won't admit it.

This is just a way for some in our society to ignore Islamic terrorism, turn it into a legal matter, and not call it what it is. If we use your analogy no terrorist act can be called terrorism unless the target fits your silly requirements. Many acts of terror are random, but this one isn't. This was planned and carried out to get a specific result. Perhaps you'd have to understand symbolic gestures and how they work in the Muslim mind.

Bullshit. Terrorism sends its message by itself -- it doesn't depend on some later police/FBI investigation. If it did it would never work.

Terrorism isn't simply for the sake of terror. That's simple sadism. Terrorism's raison d'être is to convey a message. If a terrorist has no message to convey, then the act never happens -- because there's no point in doing it. And no, they're in no way "random" except as regards who the victims are. The act itself is planned, calculated and engineered specifically to make a statement to the general public. Without the statement ... there is simply no point. And without a point, it's not terrorism.

The Badenov Brothers may have had a motive. But what they didn't have is a message. No message; no terrorism. Perhaps they might have intended to plan an act of terrorism. If they did, they fucked up, because they failed to accomplish it. At most you have some abstract perceived revenge. You don't have terrorism.

Eric Rudolph didn't fail. Tim McVeigh didn't fail. Al Qaeda didn't fail. The messages were obvious and immediate, which is what they're supposed to be. You're not sending a message when you have to depend on a third party who's not even a participant to get the word out two weeks later.

As if a third party could be a reliable source to convey that message anyway.
Terrorism ALWAYS controls the message. When Ted Kaczynski put out his manifesto he didn't just jot down notes and tell the press "tell this in your own words" -- he demanded that it be printed verbatim, in his words. Again, controlling the message is vital. It's the whole point.

Terrorism is at base a political statement. You haven't made a statement by simply holding some belief and then not telling anybody what it is.

So your stretch here is absurd.

 

[mudwhistle]

But it does have to have a point. And if the point has to be ferreted out and explained later on, and possibly never, then that is not making a point. We would all have to be mindreaders to get it. Doesn't work.

Your logic is fatally simplistic, considering only the background and beliefs of the perpetrator. By that logic every murder, rape, robbery, purse snatching, mugging, forgery or jaywalking incident becomes another Muslim terrorism and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's bullshit. Terrorism is done to send a message, an immediate and visceral one. If that message is not present, then neither is terrorism, by definition. Sorry but we can't just toss the word "terrorism" out willy-nilly to describe everything.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You can't intimidate when you don't have a message.

So CNN was right to not say that, and your link is simply wrong. It's demagoguery put out to sell ads.

Strange you provide a definition but read into it something that doesn't exist.

The Boston bombing clearly fits the definition. You just won't admit it.

This is just a way for some in our society to ignore Islamic terrorism, turn it into a legal matter, and not call it what it is. If we use your analogy no terrorist act can be called terrorism unless the target fits your silly requirements. Many acts of terror are random, but this one isn't. This was planned and carried out to get a specific result. Perhaps you'd have to understand symbolic gestures and how they work in the Muslim mind.

Bullshit. Terrorism sends its message by itself -- it doesn't depend on some later police/FBI investigation. If it did it would never work.

Terrorism isn't simply for the sake of terror. That's simple sadism. Terrorism's raison d'être is to convey a message. If a terrorist has no message to convey, then the act never happens -- because there's no point in doing it. And no, they're in no way "random" except as regards who the victims are. The act itself is planned, calculated and engineered specifically to make a statement to the general public. Without the statement ... there is simply no point. And without a point, it's not terrorism.

The Badenov Brothers may have had a motive. But what they didn't have is a message. No message; no terrorism. Perhaps they might have intended to plan an act of terrorism. If they did, they fucked up, because they failed to accomplish it. At most you have some abstract perceived revenge. You don't have terrorism.

Eric Rudolph didn't fail. Tim McVeigh didn't fail. Al Qaeda didn't fail. The messages were obvious and immediate, which is what they're supposed to be. You're not sending a message when you have to depend on a third party who's not even a participant to get the word out two weeks later.

As if a third party could be a reliable source to convey that message anyway.
Terrorism ALWAYS controls the message. When Ted Kaczynski put out his manifesto he didn't just jot down notes and tell the press "tell this in your own words" -- he demanded that it be printed verbatim, in his words. Again, controlling the message is vital. It's the whole point.

Terrorism is at base a political statement. You haven't made a statement by simply holding some belief and then not telling anybody what it is.

So your stretch here is absurd.

Nope.

You're wrong. The point has been already made. This was simply a reminder.

 

[mudwhistle]

You act as if this was the first time.

 

[Pogo]

Strange you provide a definition but read into it something that doesn't exist.

The Boston bombing clearly fits the definition. You just won't admit it.

This is just a way for some in our society to ignore Islamic terrorism, turn it into a legal matter, and not call it what it is. If we use your analogy no terrorist act can be called terrorism unless the target fits your silly requirements. Many acts of terror are random, but this one isn't. This was planned and carried out to get a specific result. Perhaps you'd have to understand symbolic gestures and how they work in the Muslim mind.

Bullshit. Terrorism sends its message by itself -- it doesn't depend on some later police/FBI investigation. If it did it would never work.

Terrorism isn't simply for the sake of terror. That's simple sadism. Terrorism's raison d'être is to convey a message. If a terrorist has no message to convey, then the act never happens -- because there's no point in doing it. And no, they're in no way "random" except as regards who the victims are. The act itself is planned, calculated and engineered specifically to make a statement to the general public. Without the statement ... there is simply no point. And without a point, it's not terrorism.

The Badenov Brothers may have had a motive. But what they didn't have is a message. No message; no terrorism. Perhaps they might have intended to plan an act of terrorism. If they did, they fucked up, because they failed to accomplish it. At most you have some abstract perceived revenge. You don't have terrorism.

Eric Rudolph didn't fail. Tim McVeigh didn't fail. Al Qaeda didn't fail. The messages were obvious and immediate, which is what they're supposed to be. You're not sending a message when you have to depend on a third party who's not even a participant to get the word out two weeks later.

As if a third party could be a reliable source to convey that message anyway.
Terrorism ALWAYS controls the message. When Ted Kaczynski put out his manifesto he didn't just jot down notes and tell the press "tell this in your own words" -- he demanded that it be printed verbatim, in his words. Again, controlling the message is vital. It's the whole point.

Terrorism is at base a political statement. You haven't made a statement by simply holding some belief and then not telling anybody what it is.

So your stretch here is absurd.

Nope.

You're wrong. The point has been already made. This was simply a reminder.

Oh I agree we're saying the same things over with nothing new. But you still don't get floating definitions.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit. Terrorism sends its message by itself -- it doesn't depend on some later police/FBI investigation. If it did it would never work.

Terrorism isn't simply for the sake of terror. That's simple sadism. Terrorism's raison d'être is to convey a message. If a terrorist has no message to convey, then the act never happens -- because there's no point in doing it. And no, they're in no way "random" except as regards who the victims are. The act itself is planned, calculated and engineered specifically to make a statement to the general public. Without the statement ... there is simply no point. And without a point, it's not terrorism.

The Badenov Brothers may have had a motive. But what they didn't have is a message. No message; no terrorism. Perhaps they might have intended to plan an act of terrorism. If they did, they fucked up, because they failed to accomplish it. At most you have some abstract perceived revenge. You don't have terrorism.

Eric Rudolph didn't fail. Tim McVeigh didn't fail. Al Qaeda didn't fail. The messages were obvious and immediate, which is what they're supposed to be. You're not sending a message when you have to depend on a third party who's not even a participant to get the word out two weeks later.

As if a third party could be a reliable source to convey that message anyway.
Terrorism ALWAYS controls the message. When Ted Kaczynski put out his manifesto he didn't just jot down notes and tell the press "tell this in your own words" -- he demanded that it be printed verbatim, in his words. Again, controlling the message is vital. It's the whole point.

Terrorism is at base a political statement. You haven't made a statement by simply holding some belief and then not telling anybody what it is.

So your stretch here is absurd.

Nope.

You're wrong. The point has been already made. This was simply a reminder.

Oh I agree we're saying the same things over with nothing new. But you still don't get floating definitions.

Look, I'm just going from the definition you provided.

You tried adding to it.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think the message is pretty clear.

They hate us, and they want us to spend extra time and money preventing it from happening again. At first it was over our involvement in the ME, but now it's just because we're Americans. It doesn't end with us leaving the ME. It ends when we're ether all dead or converted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try to follow along willya...

Your OP doesn't mention Beck, it mentions ratings. And that's what the above post was about too.

Are you confused? The OP doesn't mention ratings, neither does the article on PuffHo.

sigh....

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Post #1.

Which does not mention ratings, does it?

 

[Pogo]

Nope.

You're wrong. The point has been already made. This was simply a reminder.

Oh I agree we're saying the same things over with nothing new. But you still don't get floating definitions.

Look, I'm just going from the definition you provided.

You tried adding to it.

No, I pasted it verbatim. And it simply does not allow Boston to be described as "terrorism".

But feel free to illustrate how (anybody) bombing a frickin' city marathon makes a political statement.

The key word is (anybody); plug in a random unknown to the same crime. Because if it depends on what's unexpressed in somebody's private mind, then it's not a statement.

 

[Pogo]

Are you confused? The OP doesn't mention ratings, neither does the article on PuffHo.

sigh....

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Post #1.

Which does not mention ratings, does it?

Yes, it does. Don't go Asperger's. I see right through it.

 

[kwc57]

The article in question is horseshit.

It claims that Fox personalities are leaving....using Glenn Beck as an example.

Beck only wanted to do one season and move on. Fox talked him into staying longer. Now Glenn Beck has his own internet network and he's become practically invisible. He's been kicked off of radio stations all over the country.

BS, getting Beck kicked off the air was one of MM's biggest accomplishments. His insanity and flat out lies had advertisers running away in droves.

I am NO fan of Beck, but you are clearly delusional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sigh....



Post #1.

Which does not mention ratings, does it?

Yes, it does. Don't go Asperger's. I see right through it.

You should, you do it all the time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh I agree we're saying the same things over with nothing new. But you still don't get floating definitions.

Look, I'm just going from the definition you provided.

You tried adding to it.

No, I pasted it verbatim. And it simply does not allow Boston to be described as "terrorism".

But feel free to illustrate how (anybody) bombing a frickin' city marathon makes a political statement.

The key word is (anybody); plug in a random unknown to the same crime. Because if it depends on what's unexpressed in somebody's private mind, then it's not a statement.

People in NYC and Boston figure every time a bomb goes off or a jet flys too low it's another attack. I don't think anyone needs to spell anything out to them if it turns out to be Muslims.