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

[Liability]

If that serves as the new rationale, why did we go to war over a criminal attack? Why can't we try those responsible in criminal court?

September 11 was nothing if not a terrorist attack. Dana doesn't know about the Cuban Missile crisis or terrorism. And yet she served as the idiot Bush's press secretary! Wow!

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Correct. He should instead be treated according to what he did IN the capacity in which he did it. What he did was a violation of the rules of war, a crime against humanity and the actions of an illegal enemy combatant. We are now not talking about some mere criminal who gets a criminal trial. He should not be getting prosecuted therefore, at least not for some set of alleged mere "crimes" and in a civiilian court of criminal justice.

 

[Liability]

For my lib amigos and amigas.

What Dana said (as she said it) is wrong.

Of course there was a terrorist attack on America by Islamic terrorists during President Bush's tenure as President.

Are you guys REALLY of the opinion that she was denying that, though?

Oh brother.

Not ONE of you is willing to acknowledge that she merely misspoke and instead INTENDED to be making the claim for what hapened here AFTER 9/11/2001?

That's pathetic . . .

of you libs.

what's pathetic is i've never seen anyone on the right acknowledge that we were attacked on Bush's watch.

i can just imagine the 2,000 spam threads if we were attacked now.

It IS pathetic that you claim not to have seen anybody on the right admit that we were attacked on President Bush's watch. It has never been denied (not even by Dana, truth be told).

AFTER 9/11/2001, however, President Bush -- and his Administration under his clear guidance -- saw to it that we were not attacked again. And what he was treated to by the hyper-partisan, unobjective, shrill leftists in the Democrat Parody was NOTHING but ridicule, bile, harsh, unfair and mean-spirited criticism FOR his efforts.

If we do get attacked again, you bet your ass we will be critical. Stop ******* with the policies that succeed to prevent it, and maybe you too can insure that the efforts to attack us continue to get foiled.

Somebody on the left, please advise the "dear leader" that we kinda sorta DO want him to be highly proactive in preventing any terrorists from succeeding in any new attack efforts.

 

[HUGGY]

Or maybe just willfully ignorant?

Or maybe an admission that it was not terrorists.

An "admission?"

Holy shit. I KNEW you were a ******* imbecile, but I didn't realize you were one of THOSE idiots!

Yes. It wasn't terrorists who flew jet aircraft into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or down into the ground in that field in PA.

Good point.

******* scumbag imbecility WILL always reveal itself. In YOUR case, it is impossible to conceal.

The ******* Imbecile Scumbag was being sarcastic. But...thanks for your kneejerk reaction anyway.

 

[Liability]

Or maybe an admission that it was not terrorists.

An "admission?"

Holy shit. I KNEW you were a ******* imbecile, but I didn't realize you were one of THOSE idiots!

Yes. It wasn't terrorists who flew jet aircraft into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or down into the ground in that field in PA.

Good point.

******* scumbag imbecility WILL always reveal itself. In YOUR case, it is impossible to conceal.

The ******* Imbecile Scumbag was being sarcastic. But...thanks for your kneejerk reaction anyway.

Your sarcasm failed to show -- which accounts for my surprise that you werre THAT kind of ******* scumbag imbecile. That is not a knee jerk reaction, stupid. It is actually indicative that I had you pegged accurately in the first place. Thanks for confirming it.

 

[HUGGY]

An "admission?"

Holy shit. I KNEW you were a ******* imbecile, but I didn't realize you were one of THOSE idiots!

Yes. It wasn't terrorists who flew jet aircraft into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or down into the ground in that field in PA.

Good point.

******* scumbag imbecility WILL always reveal itself. In YOUR case, it is impossible to conceal.

The ******* Imbecile Scumbag was being sarcastic. But...thanks for your kneejerk reaction anyway.

Your sarcasm failed to show -- which accounts for my surprise that you werre THAT kind of ******* scumbag imbecile. That is not a knee jerk reaction, stupid. It is actually indicative that I had you pegged accurately in the first place. Thanks for confirming it.

Ya no dudeabude it...I am sure most of the worlds leaders and scientific brains have you on speed dial for your analytic prowess.

 

[Liability]

The ******* Imbecile Scumbag was being sarcastic. But...thanks for your kneejerk reaction anyway.

Your sarcasm failed to show -- which accounts for my surprise that you werre THAT kind of ******* scumbag imbecile. That is not a knee jerk reaction, stupid. It is actually indicative that I had you pegged accurately in the first place. Thanks for confirming it.

Ya no dudeabude it...I am sure most of the worlds leaders and scientific brains have you on speed dial for your analytic prowess.

They should. But, that's independent of anything a moron like YOU is "sure" of.

Do turkeys like you feel fear on Thanksgiving?

 

[Coyote]

For my lib amigos and amigas.

What Dana said (as she said it) is wrong.

Of course there was a terrorist attack on America by Islamic terrorists during President Bush's tenure as President.

Are you guys REALLY of the opinion that she was denying that, though?

Oh brother.

Not ONE of you is willing to acknowledge that she merely misspoke and instead INTENDED to be making the claim for what hapened here AFTER 9/11/2001?

That's pathetic . . .

of you libs.

what's pathetic is i've never seen anyone on the right acknowledge that we were attacked on Bush's watch.

i can just imagine the 2,000 spam threads if we were attacked now.

It IS pathetic that you claim not to have seen anybody on the right admit that we were attacked on President Bush's watch. It has never been denied (not even by Dana, truth be told).

AFTER 9/11/2001, however, President Bush -- and his Administration under his clear guidance -- saw to it that we were not attacked again. And what he was treated to by the hyper-partisan, unobjective, shrill leftists in the Democrat Parody was NOTHING but ridicule, bile, harsh, unfair and mean-spirited criticism FOR his efforts.

If we do get attacked again, you bet your ass we will be critical. Stop ******* with the policies that succeed to prevent it, and maybe you too can insure that the efforts to attack us continue to get foiled.

Somebody on the left, please advise the "dear leader" that we kinda sorta DO want him to be highly proactive in preventing any terrorists from succeeding in any new attack efforts.

What's pathetic is that we actually were attacked again: the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper attacks, both of which are ignored by the right.

An accurate statement would be that President Bush's policies prevented another 9/11 style attack on continental US territory but then, that isn't really so handy to use when attacking Obama.

 

[Liability]

what's pathetic is i've never seen anyone on the right acknowledge that we were attacked on Bush's watch.

i can just imagine the 2,000 spam threads if we were attacked now.

It IS pathetic that you claim not to have seen anybody on the right admit that we were attacked on President Bush's watch. It has never been denied (not even by Dana, truth be told).

AFTER 9/11/2001, however, President Bush -- and his Administration under his clear guidance -- saw to it that we were not attacked again. And what he was treated to by the hyper-partisan, unobjective, shrill leftists in the Democrat Parody was NOTHING but ridicule, bile, harsh, unfair and mean-spirited criticism FOR his efforts.

If we do get attacked again, you bet your ass we will be critical. Stop ******* with the policies that succeed to prevent it, and maybe you too can insure that the efforts to attack us continue to get foiled.

Somebody on the left, please advise the "dear leader" that we kinda sorta DO want him to be highly proactive in preventing any terrorists from succeeding in any new attack efforts.

What's pathetic is that we actually were attacked again: the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper attacks, both of which are ignored by the right.

An accurate statement would be that President Bush's policies prevented another 9/11 style attack on continental US territory but then, that isn't really so handy to use when attacking Obama.

The Antrax attacks as you call them may or may not have been terrorist attacks. Your proof?

The beltway sniper attacks were treated as criminal attacks from homegrown deviants. I actually do believe that these fuckers had Islamofascist motivations, but how that makes it a terrorist attack is not exactly clear.

So, on balance, you once again appear to be simply full of shit -- to overflowing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so how could Bush have prevented 9/11?

Hmmmm?? Reading the PDB memo about Bin Laden?? Not spending 30% of his administraton on vacation up until that point?? Those things would have helped..

Bush was certianly slacking on the job as president.. Where is Bin Laden by the way?? Clinton caught and prosecuted the previous attacker of the WTC and is currently serving life in prison.. Where is Bin Laden??

Gee....why don't you ask Bill Clinton? He had the ************ in his grasp, and made the conscious decision to let the bastard go.

Which left him free to plot 9/11 and kill 3,000 American, men, women and children.

Stupidfuck!

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the 'principle architect' of 9/11. The idea that having Bin Laden dead or in custody before 9/11 would have prevented it is preposterous.

 

[Coyote]

It IS pathetic that you claim not to have seen anybody on the right admit that we were attacked on President Bush's watch. It has never been denied (not even by Dana, truth be told).

AFTER 9/11/2001, however, President Bush -- and his Administration under his clear guidance -- saw to it that we were not attacked again. And what he was treated to by the hyper-partisan, unobjective, shrill leftists in the Democrat Parody was NOTHING but ridicule, bile, harsh, unfair and mean-spirited criticism FOR his efforts.

If we do get attacked again, you bet your ass we will be critical. Stop ******* with the policies that succeed to prevent it, and maybe you too can insure that the efforts to attack us continue to get foiled.

Somebody on the left, please advise the "dear leader" that we kinda sorta DO want him to be highly proactive in preventing any terrorists from succeeding in any new attack efforts.

What's pathetic is that we actually were attacked again: the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper attacks, both of which are ignored by the right.

An accurate statement would be that President Bush's policies prevented another 9/11 style attack on continental US territory but then, that isn't really so handy to use when attacking Obama.

The Antrax attacks as you call them may or may not have been terrorist attacks. Your proof?

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

The beltway sniper attacks were treated as criminal attacks from homegrown deviants. I actually do believe that these fuckers had Islamofascist motivations, but how that makes it a terrorist attack is not exactly clear.

Are you suggesting that Islamofascist motivations are what makes it a terrorist attack?

So, on balance, you once again appear to be simply full of shit -- to overflowing.

Speaking of full of shit, I suggest you suck out your own overflowing septic system before complaining about other people's outhouses.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

 

[JenyEliza]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

Hasan made a PowerPoint presentation to his superiors at Walter Reed, asking that the Military make an exception for Moslem military members and exempt them from combat duties. Else there might be "adverse events" (ie, like his shooting up Ft. Hood).

I posted the PP presentation in another thread here after the WaPo posted it online.

Instead of taking Hasan's suggestion that there would be further "adverse events" seriously, the Brass in charge banished him to Ft. Hood from Walter Reed.

I would posit that his demands of his superiors that Moslems be exempt for fear of further "adverse events" constitutes a demand which would make his actions meet the definition of terrorism.

Would you not? (please see the PP I posted, the last 20 slides are scary.....in light of what we now know).

Jen

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

Hasan made a PowerPoint presentation to his superiors at Walter Reed, asking that the Military make an exception for Moslem military members and exempt them from combat duties. Else there might be "adverse events" (ie, like his shooting up Ft. Hood).

I posted the PP presentation in another thread here after the WaPo posted it online.

Instead of taking Hasan's suggestion that there would be further "adverse events" seriously, the Brass in charge banished him to Ft. Hood from Walter Reed.

I would posit that his demands of his superiors that Moslems be exempt for fear of further "adverse events" constitutes a demand which would make his actions meet the definition of terrorism.

Would you not? (please see the PP I posted, the last 20 slides are scary.....in light of what we now know).

Jen

I think the warning of "adverse events" is just too ambiguous. What does it mean? "If you don't do this for me, I'll QUIT. I'll SHOW YOU!"

If his threat had ANYTHING substantive behind it (I have no idea if it did or not) then his threat MIGHT take it into the realm of a terroristic threat, though.

The Hassan case is real close to being a true terror event.

 

[JenyEliza]

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

Hasan made a PowerPoint presentation to his superiors at Walter Reed, asking that the Military make an exception for Moslem military members and exempt them from combat duties. Else there might be "adverse events" (ie, like his shooting up Ft. Hood).

I posted the PP presentation in another thread here after the WaPo posted it online.

Instead of taking Hasan's suggestion that there would be further "adverse events" seriously, the Brass in charge banished him to Ft. Hood from Walter Reed.

I would posit that his demands of his superiors that Moslems be exempt for fear of further "adverse events" constitutes a demand which would make his actions meet the definition of terrorism.

Would you not? (please see the PP I posted, the last 20 slides are scary.....in light of what we now know).

Jen

I think the warning of "adverse events" is just too ambiguous. What does it mean? "If you don't do this for me, I'll QUIT. I'll SHOW YOU!"

If his threat had ANYTHING substantive behind it (I have no idea if it does nor not) then his threat MIGHT take it into the realm of a terroristic threat, though.

The Hassan case is real close to being a true terror event.

Hasan actually outlines OTHER "adverse events" (ie, fragging incidents, etc) in the powerpoint and blames them on Moslems being forced to kill other Moslems. Hence the need for the exemption.

I'll dig up the PP presentation. It's long and you need to read the WHOLE thing, but after you have, you will have a much greater understanding of his state of mind. Terrorist (IMHO).

 

[JenyEliza]

Here's the thread I opened to discuss his PP presentation:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...it-relates-to-moslems-in-the-us-military.html

Here is the actual PP presentation itself:

Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

 

[Coyote]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action.

While the wording is cute, the logic is flawed Mr. Bility. For example, in Mr. Ivins case: "he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views" indeed sounds like he is wanting the "gubmint" to do something about women's "choice" when it comes to abortion.

Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

Hmmm....looks like that excludes Hasan then doesn't it? That is, if you are being honest.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

Again....if we use your logic, that excludes Hasan.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

My argument is aimed at those who want to insist that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under Bush's administration post-9/11 but there has been one on Obama's watch.

Since you appear, from this post - not fall in that category....touche!

 

[uscitizen]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action.

While the wording is cute, the logic is flawed Mr. Bility. For example, in Mr. Ivins case: "he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views" indeed sounds like he is wanting the "gubmint" to do something about women's "choice" when it comes to abortion.



Hmmm....looks like that excludes Hasan then doesn't it? That is, if you are being honest.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

Again....if we use your logic, that excludes Hasan.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

My argument is aimed at those who want to insist that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under Bush's administration post-9/11 but there has been one on Obama's watch.

Since you appear, from this post - not fall in that category....touche!

The fort hood shooting was not by definition a terrorist attack.
Were civilians or military people targeted?

For a terrorist attack civilians have to be targeted. this is part of the definition of terrorism.

 

[Coyote]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

Hasan made a PowerPoint presentation to his superiors at Walter Reed, asking that the Military make an exception for Moslem military members and exempt them from combat duties. Else there might be "adverse events" (ie, like his shooting up Ft. Hood).

I posted the PP presentation in another thread here after the WaPo posted it online.

Instead of taking Hasan's suggestion that there would be further "adverse events" seriously, the Brass in charge banished him to Ft. Hood from Walter Reed.

I would posit that his demands of his superiors that Moslems be exempt for fear of further "adverse events" constitutes a demand which would make his actions meet the definition of terrorism.

Would you not? (please see the PP I posted, the last 20 slides are scary.....in light of what we now know).

Jen

How is that different then the Anthrax killer, who sent the following letter to lawmakers:

09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.


It's a clear threat to the government. In fact, a good many terrorist actions involve threats but not demands. What was the demand made to the U.S. government on 9/11?

Also, take a second look at Malvo (Beltway sniper) whom one Virginia court found guilty of killing "pursuant to the direction or order" of terrorism based on his writings and rantings.

I do not think the definition of terrorism is clear and concise - it's a politicaly based definition.

 

[Coyote]

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action.

While the wording is cute, the logic is flawed Mr. Bility. For example, in Mr. Ivins case: "he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views" indeed sounds like he is wanting the "gubmint" to do something about women's "choice" when it comes to abortion.



Hmmm....looks like that excludes Hasan then doesn't it? That is, if you are being honest.



Again....if we use your logic, that excludes Hasan.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

My argument is aimed at those who want to insist that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under Bush's administration post-9/11 but there has been one on Obama's watch.

Since you appear, from this post - not fall in that category....touche!

The fort hood shooting was not by definition a terrorist attack.
Were civilians or military people targeted?

For a terrorist attack civilians have to be targeted. this is part of the definition of terrorism.

The definition of terrorism is loose and vague and more often then not politically motivated. That is obvious when listening to the arguments of those trying to insist that there was a terrorist attack on Obama's watch (oh how gleeful that makes them!) but likewise deny any took place on Bush's watch. It's political in that the country or government in power gets to define who is and is not a terrorist or freedom fighter or warrior or murderer.

 

[HUGGY]

* * * *

I said this already but I'll say it again. One commonly accepted definition of terrorism is "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." That would (loosely) catergorize the Beltway Snipers (Malvo wrote a number of erratic diatribes about what he termed "jihad" against the United States), the Anthrax attacks (according to Wikipedia, "The FBI concludes that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views") and probably Hasan as terrorist attacks. If you want to insist on arguing that Hasan was a terrorist attack while the Anthrax attacks and the Beltway Sniper were not - you will have a tough case to make.

Wrong. The loose daffynition you attempt to foist off on us ignores that the ideological goal is to somehow compel a government to do or refrain from some governmental action. Where some wackadoo does it (regardless of his internal motivation for "reasons" that do not include asking the gubmint to do something or to refrain from doing something) it cannot be a true "terrorist" attack. Nice try. But next time, try harder and try to employ honesty instead.

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

I don't know that Hassan's attacks qualify as terrorist attacks since I am unaware of HIS ever having demanded shit of the gubmint, either. His MOTIVATION is another matter, of course (as arguably was the DC Sniper's).

You lack the ability to make a persuasive argument, Coyote. But I'd love to see you try again. Really.

I don't know how you expect the other contributors to USMB to take you seriously when you willfully miss spell. And you use capitals randomly and to my way of thinking..incorrectly. And you make unreasonable demands on a varmint. Other than tthose forementioned foupauxs you managed to write a coherant piece.