Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush

[Liability]

* * * *

The problem with your definition of terrorism - which requires demands made on a government - is that it is too restrictive.

Nah. There is no "problem" with the accurate definition.


YOUR problem with it is that it is too accurate and thus denies you of one of your petty tools of would-be rhetorical persuasion.

Most commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism don't include that.

Bullshit. ALL rational definitions of terrorism DO contain EXACTLY that element.

I believe it would exclude 9/11 as a terrorist action, would it not - as no specific demands were made to the government were they?

Wrong AGAIN. At least you remain consistent. If you had ever bothered to make yourself conversant with the STATED position of the scumbags who DID declare WAR on us (i.e., Osama bin Pigfucker and al qaeda) you could have noticed that they absolutely DID make their "demands" quite plain -- YEARS earlier.

You should rely less on your pointless rhetoric and that mis-informed propaganda you grab from any of those abysmally ignorant liberal sources you love so well. Try reading actual history, instead.

I am not going to treat the rest of your sophistry to such a detailed lesson in order to correct your serious confusion. I'm afraid you ARE going to have to learn some ACTUAL history on your own.

 

[Coyote]

* * * *

The problem with your definition of terrorism - which requires demands made on a government - is that it is too restrictive.

Nah. There is no "problem" with the accurate definition.

Accurate according to who?

YOUR problem with it is that it is too accurate and thus denies you of one of your petty tools of would-be rhetorical persuasion.

Nope. Not my problem. Nice try though

Most commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism don't include that.

Bullshit. ALL rational definitions of terrorism DO contain EXACTLY that element.

Prove it. I cited one comonly accepted definition. You, thus far, have cited none but your own personal opinion.

A google search produces the following:

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[2] Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls."[3]

Note: that particular Wikipedia link contains quite a variety of definitions of "terrorism" which don't neccessarily jive with your own.

In addition:

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331[25] defines terrorism as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… 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…."

None of which require a specific missive to the government.

I believe it would exclude 9/11 as a terrorist action, would it not - as no specific demands were made to the government were they?

Wrong AGAIN. At least you remain consistent. If you had ever bothered to make yourself conversant with the STATED position of the scumbags who DID declare WAR on us (i.e., Osama bin Pigfucker and al qaeda) you could have noticed that they absolutely DID make their "demands" quite plain -- YEARS earlier.

Link? How specific were they? Or, were these just general theats that weren't "actionable"?

You should rely less on your pointless rhetoric and that mis-informed propaganda you grab from any of those abysmally ignorant liberal sources you love so well. Try reading actual history, instead.

Sorry sweetcheeks, I don't rely on propaganda. Unlike you, I see beyond the political expediency of defining "terrorism" to the truth which is that there is no clear definition.

I am not going to treat the rest of your sophistry to such a detailed lesson in order to correct your serious confusion. I'm afraid you ARE going to have to learn some ACTUAL history on your own.

Until you can adequately define terrorism...YOU are on your own, rhetoric-impaired as you may be.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

The problem with your definition of terrorism - which requires demands made on a government - is that it is too restrictive.

Nah. There is no "problem" with the accurate definition.

Accurate according to who?



Nope. Not my problem. Nice try though



Prove it. I cited one comonly accepted definition. You, thus far, have cited none but your own personal opinion.

A google search produces the following:

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[2] Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls."[3]

Note: that particular Wikipedia link contains quite a variety of definitions of "terrorism" which don't neccessarily jive with your own.

In addition:

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331[25] defines terrorism as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… 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…."

None of which require a specific missive to the government.



Link? How specific were they? Or, were these just general theats that weren't "actionable"?

You should rely less on your pointless rhetoric and that mis-informed propaganda you grab from any of those abysmally ignorant liberal sources you love so well. Try reading actual history, instead.

Sorry sweetcheeks, I don't rely on propaganda. Unlike you, I see beyond the political expediency of defining "terrorism" to the truth which is that there is no clear definition.

I am not going to treat the rest of your sophistry to such a detailed lesson in order to correct your serious confusion. I'm afraid you ARE going to have to learn some ACTUAL history on your own.

Until you can adequately define terrorism...YOU are on your own, rhetoric-impaired as you may be.

Yeah. It is your problem. For as I correctly noted, if one fails to include the element of "coercion of government," then the lame-ass definition of "terrorism" which you favor is pretty meaningless. It is largely indistinguishable from other crimes in that case, in fact.

For instance, although one CAN find NUMEROUS definitions of the term, a cursory review shows ones that INCLUDE the element of "coercion" that makes it distinguishable from mere criminal behavior:

ter⋅ror⋅ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
* * * *

Terrorism Definition | Definition of Terrorism at Dictionary.com (citing, Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

AND, from the NEXT proffered definition in the SAME LINK:

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
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.

Id. (citing,The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)


Furthermore, it is quite instructive to consider a LEGAL definition:

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; * * * *

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

 

[Coyote]

Yeah. It is your problem. For as I correctly noted, if one fails to include the element of "coercion of government," then the lame-ass definition of "terrorism" which you favor is pretty meaningless. It is largely indistinguishable from other crimes in that case, in fact.

"In fact"....not fact.

"Coercion of government" -- government is not the emphasis, coercion is. The coercion can be of a government, a political group, or non-political groups. For example, the emphasis in the last decade on "eco-terrorism" where the "coercion" was less on governments then on private entities. What distinquishes it from Mr. Joe-going-postal is motivation and that motivation doesn't necessarily include a warning to a government of "do this or else". Sometimes the act itself is the warning.

For instance, although one CAN find NUMEROUS definitions of the term, a cursory review shows ones that INCLUDE the element of "coercion" that makes it distinguishable from mere criminal behavior: Terrorism Definition | Definition of Terrorism at Dictionary.com (citing, Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

I don't disagree with you about "coercion" but the act itself can be the coercion - and the message isn't always clearly articulated (that can depend on the sanity of the person involved).

AND, from the NEXT proffered definition in the SAME LINK:

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
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.

Id. (citing,The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

Exactly....the unlawful use OR threatened use.

Furthermore, it is quite instructive to consider a LEGAL definition:

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; * * * *

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

I have no argument with that definition but the same site also lists the FBI definition which is a bit broader but still not overly so:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.​

In addition....would the U.S. law definition include the Oklahoma City bombing as "terrorism" - would your definition requiring some sort of pre-notification as a conditon? The same site you quote from questions it. Would abortion clinic bombers be terrorists? Would Hasan? Is religiously motivated violence the same as politically motivated violence? (not necessarily).

Would 9/11 be terrorism?

Your link has some interesting things to say: http://terrorism.about.com/gi/dynam...endlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564

 

[Liability]

Yeah. It is your problem. For as I correctly noted, if one fails to include the element of "coercion of government," then the lame-ass definition of "terrorism" which you favor is pretty meaningless. It is largely indistinguishable from other crimes in that case, in fact.

"In fact"....not fact.

"Coercion of government" -- government is not the emphasis, coercion is.

* * * *

Nope. You are wrong. The "coercion" is not some "coercion" in the air. It is coercion of a particular kind. The reference is to political coercion. And the objective is to alter the activities and policies of a government. It cannot be otherwise. There is not even a hint of any rationality in engaging in a campaign of trying to induce terror on a civilian population without the desire to achieve some goal. The goal is not to coerce the civilian population. As a rule, civilian populations are not the ones who can do anything or STOP doing anything. It is their GOVERNMENTS that can do something which the ******* terrorists want done or STOP DOING something the terrorists object to.

If the scumbags target the civilian population of America, they aren't hoping to get the civilian population to get out of Arabia. What they ARE hoping to achieve is to get the civilian popultion to cry-out to their government to "do as those ******* terrorists demand, so that the ******* terrorists might leave us alone!" The objective is to coerce the GOVERNMENT to get out of Arabia.

And if you really still doubt this, then you haven't read anything written by or spoken by Osama bin Laden and al qaeda. When they declared war against the United States, as they did, they made their "desires" fairly plain. You really should try to educate yourself prior to babbling -- as you so frequently do, now, without the benefit of educating yourself first.

The balance of your post was just quibbling gibberish.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah. It is your problem. For as I correctly noted, if one fails to include the element of "coercion of government," then the lame-ass definition of "terrorism" which you favor is pretty meaningless. It is largely indistinguishable from other crimes in that case, in fact.

"In fact"....not fact.

"Coercion of government" -- government is not the emphasis, coercion is.

* * * *

Nope. You are wrong. The "coercion" is not some "coercion" in the air. It is coercion of a particular kind. The reference is to political coercion. And the objective is to alter the activities and policies of a government. It cannot be otherwise. There is not even a hint of any rationality in engaging in a campaign of trying to induce terror on a civilian population without the desire to achieve some goal. The goal is not to coerce the civilian population. As a rule, civilian populations are not the ones who can do anything or STOP doing anything. It is their GOVERNMENTS that can do something which the ******* terrorists want done or STOP DOING something the terrorists object to.

Nope. Coercing the civilian population can produce results - either by civilian pressure on the government (as you state) or civilians taking action themselves. An example would be the Talibon tactics on Afghanistan villages where they can exert sufficient pressure on the civilian populations through terror to force them to either support them directly or indirectly (by not reporting their presence or by pressuring them to grow opium and sell it to them to fund the terrorist networks) or at least to be too afraid of the consequences to cooperate with the government.

If the scumbags target the civilian population of America, they aren't hoping to get the civilian population to get out of Arabia. What they ARE hoping to achieve is to get the civilian popultion to cry-out to their government to "do as those ******* terrorists demand, so that the ******* terrorists might leave us alone!" The objective is to coerce the GOVERNMENT to get out of Arabia.

And if you really still doubt this, then you haven't read anything written by or spoken by Osama bin Laden and al qaeda. When they declared war against the United States, as they did, they made their "desires" fairly plain. You really should try to educate yourself prior to babbling -- as you so frequently do, now, without the benefit of educating yourself first.

The balance of your post was just quibbling gibberish.

In other words, you are unable to answer the questions or incapable of addressing any other definition but your own?

Was McVeigh a terrorist?

Where the abortion clinic bombers terrorists?

Are the folks that spike trees in lumber lots terrorists?

 

[Zona]

and hannity lets it go.. wow

Yes he did. Journalistic genius.

 

[Liability]

"In fact"....not fact.

"Coercion of government" -- government is not the emphasis, coercion is.

* * * *

Nope. You are wrong. The "coercion" is not some "coercion" in the air. It is coercion of a particular kind. The reference is to political coercion. And the objective is to alter the activities and policies of a government. It cannot be otherwise. There is not even a hint of any rationality in engaging in a campaign of trying to induce terror on a civilian population without the desire to achieve some goal. The goal is not to coerce the civilian population. As a rule, civilian populations are not the ones who can do anything or STOP doing anything. It is their GOVERNMENTS that can do something which the ******* terrorists want done or STOP DOING something the terrorists object to.

Nope. Coercing the civilian population can produce results - either by civilian pressure on the government (as you state) or civilians taking action themselves.

Sure.

The 9/11/2001 attacks by the Islamoshitfuckers was designed to coerce the American citizens into doing --- uhm --- errr --- ahhh ---

Get real.

You are simply full of shit.

* * *

In other words, you are unable to answer the questions or incapable of addressing any other definition but your own?

No "in other words" required. I said you were engaged in quibbling, and I was right. You were. You still are.

Was McVeigh a terrorist?

Nope.

Where the abortion clinic bombers terrorists?

Nope. Close to it, but not by any actual menaingful definition.

Are the folks that spike trees in lumber lots terrorists?

Nope.

 

[Zona]

You righty's will defend anything righty...

Arent you the same idiots who said the Ft hood thing was a terrorist attack, but 9/11 wasnt?

Jesus Christ. Sometimes you have to say, yes, that republican screwed up. Period.

 

[shane]

9/11 was a terrorist attack on America during the Bush administration. But had Clinton acted on any of the attacks in previous years 9/11 could have been prevented. Clinton did nothing when the USS Coal was attacked, or the embassies in Africa. None the less it did indeed happen, just like Fort Hood happened under the Obama Administration.
Just sayin,
=]

 

[Liability]

You righty's will defend anything righty...

So far at least, there is no credible evvidence to support your bogus little accusation.
This is not unexpected considering what a ******* moron you always are.

Arent you the same idiots who said the Ft hood thing was a terrorist attack, but 9/11 wasnt?

I don't know ANYONE who says that 9/11/2001 wasn't a terrorist event. Not even Dana, truth be told. SHE merely (and clearly) just misspoke. And, as for the Ft. Hood matter, what Hasan did DOES appear to come closer to having been a terrorist attack than anything else actually completed here in the USA since 9/11/2001.

Jesus Christ. Sometimes you have to say, yes, that republican screwed up. Period.

And sometimes you should be able to say, "Hell yes! President Obama's 'policies' are ******* retarded."

 

[Coyote]

9/11 was a terrorist attack on America during the Bush administration. But had Clinton acted on any of the attacks in previous years 9/11 could have been prevented. Clinton did nothing when the USS Coal was attacked, or the embassies in Africa. None the less it did indeed happen, just like Fort Hood happened under the Obama Administration.
Just sayin,
=]

You are just as much a moron as those blaming Bush for 9/11 - Clinton could not have done anything - neither Congress nor the American public would have supported it, nor was the risk to the U.S. clear or actionable.

 

[Jay Canuck]

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. -- Dana Purina, on Fox Whore News, forgetting about 9/11, Link

"Even if you don’t mention 9/11, there are the anthrax attacks. Even if you forget the anthrax attacks, there were the Beltway Sniper attacks. Even if you excuse the Beltway Sniper attacks, there was the Seattle Jewish Center shooting. Even if you ignored the Seattle Jewish Center shooting, there was the Knoxville Church shooting. And, if you ignore all of those...You must be in the GOP."
-- EnnuiDave, Link

 

[shane]

Clinton could have invaded them instead of Samilia.. Just sayin
=P

 

[Coyote]

Sure.

The 9/11/2001 attacks by the Islamoshitfuckers was designed to coerce the American citizens into doing --- uhm --- errr --- ahhh ---

Get real.

You are simply full of shit.

* * *

Remove your head from your rectum, wipe the shit from your eyes and learn to read.

I wasn't referencing 9/11 - I was speaking generally and gave as a specific example Talibon actions in Afghanistan - not 9/11.

Nice try though. Now use your toilet paper to some useful purpose.

No "in other words" required. I said you were engaged in quibbling, and I was right. You were. You still are.


Nope.

Where the abortion clinic bombers terrorists?

Nope. Close to it, but not by any actual menaingful definition.

Are the folks that spike trees in lumber lots terrorists?

Nope.

...and Oklahoma City bombing?


Not that it matters - you and I don't share a common definition upon which to base any debate.

 

[manu1959]

Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Now I've heard of revisionist history but REALLY?

I guess Dana has never heard of that whole September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

yep there was one....i belive that is about six less than under clinton....

 

[Coyote]

Clinton could have invaded them instead of Samilia.. Just sayin
=P

Under what rationale?

 

[shane]

Under the reason to protect and defend the U.S, since they were to blame for the majority of the attacks we coulda nipped them in the butt then. I mean anything would have been more acceptable then what we did in Samalia, how embarrasing.!

Just sayin tho.

 

[Coyote]

Under the reason to protect and defend the U.S, since they were to blame for the majority of the attacks we coulda nipped them in the butt then. I mean anything would have been more acceptable then what we did in Samalia, how embarrasing.!

Just sayin tho.

Of course hindsight is 20/20 but given what we knew THEN - what rationale would have convinced Congress and the American public to go along with attacking another nation?

Note: there was very limited support for actions in Bosnia and Somalia (where at least we had genocide and regional instability as a rationale) and that support was quickly pulled giving rise to the impression that Americans don't have the stomach for protracted warfare.

 

[Jay Canuck]

[SIZE=+1]Bin Laden was 'in our grasp'[/SIZE]
But Cheney needed him 'at large' to scare us
Link Excerpt:
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops at Tora Bora when those Bush bastards made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue him with massive force, a Senate report says. The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says. John Kerry has ineffectively long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get Bush's former partner when they were holed up in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan in December 2001."