Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
BTW, I didn't claim you edited it, you just added your own views, or that of your circle of friends' views, of what terrorism is.
According to you it has to be specific why the target is being attacked for it to be terrorism. That's hogwash. In this case all we need to know is who the attacker was. We knew within a short period of time who it was. I'm sure if they had gotten away with it they would have done it again and maybe even mailed a letter claiming responsibility.
Nobody ever got MSNBC's shitty ratings by being honest or competent.In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.
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.
Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'
This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.
Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.
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.
BTW, I didn't claim you edited it, you just added your own views, or that of your circle of friends' views, of what terrorism is.
According to you it has to be specific why the target is being attacked for it to be terrorism. That's hogwash. In this case all we need to know is who the attacker was. We knew within a short period of time who it was. I'm sure if they had gotten away with it they would have done it again and maybe even mailed a letter claiming responsibility.
And without that letter --- you got nothin'. Woulda shoulda coulda and a side of maybe. Not terrorism. As noted before, our language has a working definition; we cannot legitimately cry terrorism every time we don't get the flavor of ice cream we wanted.
And just so we're clear, I don't farm out my thinking. What you see is what my synapses put out, period. There is no "circle of friends" here or anywhere else, set up to determine what I think by vote or consensus like some Council of Nicea. The idea of following a pack in fact makes me nauseous. I (individually) start with the definition of terrorism, and Boston does not fit it.
But since you're the one making the claim that it does, feel free to validate that, using the working definition. Burden of proof is all yours.
Dan Rather got fired. His contract was terminated early. And not by him.
Did The Beck sell you a gold bridge too?
You're both wrong; MediaMatters didn't get Beck fired; Glenn Beck got Beck fired.
Beck wasn't fired.
Soros media propaganda outlets like Media Matters called it a firing. Beck just didn't renew his contract. As Beck explains it he didn't want to stay as long as did but they talking him into staying.
And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.
See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.
Yeah, that's it.
You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.
Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?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.
Nobody ever got MSNBC's shitty ratings by being honest or competent.In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.
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.
Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'
This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.
Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.
BTW, I didn't claim you edited it, you just added your own views, or that of your circle of friends' views, of what terrorism is.
According to you it has to be specific why the target is being attacked for it to be terrorism. That's hogwash. In this case all we need to know is who the attacker was. We knew within a short period of time who it was. I'm sure if they had gotten away with it they would have done it again and maybe even mailed a letter claiming responsibility.
And without that letter --- you got nothin'. Woulda shoulda coulda and a side of maybe. Not terrorism. As noted before, our language has a working definition; we cannot legitimately cry terrorism every time we don't get the flavor of ice cream we wanted.
And just so we're clear, I don't farm out my thinking. What you see is what my synapses put out, period. There is no "circle of friends" here or anywhere else, set up to determine what I think by vote or consensus like some Council of Nicea. The idea of following a pack in fact makes me nauseous. I (individually) start with the definition of terrorism, and Boston does not fit it.
But since you're the one making the claim that it does, feel free to validate that, using the working definition. Burden of proof is all yours.
I guess you don't understand what "or" means.
Your hypothetical doesn't fit, because in this case it never came to that. The perps were nailed quickly. Case closed.
Dan Rather got fired. His contract was terminated early. And not by him.Beck wasn't fired.
Soros media propaganda outlets like Media Matters called it a firing. Beck just didn't renew his contract. As Beck explains it he didn't want to stay as long as did but they talking him into staying.
And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.
See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.
Yeah, that's it.
You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.
You seem to be incorrect.
Boston Bomb Defendant Cited Muslims? Deaths, U.S. Says - Bloomberg
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, was charged by a grand jury with setting off homemade bombs that killed three spectators and then shooting a university police officer to death.
The indictment filed yesterday in federal court in Boston offers new details about the April 15 attack, including a list of files related to al-Qaeda and jihad found on Tsarnaev’s computer. He also allegedly wrote notes saying he was motivated by the U.S. military’s killing of Muslim civilians and that he didn’t want “such evil” to go unpunished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/u...d=2&adxnnlx=1387242188-9K2lNLwqwwwMimWRRpDMGw
Elmirza Khozhugov, 26, the ex-husband of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s younger sister, Ailina, said that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been enamored of conspiracy theories, and that he was also concerned by the wars in the Middle East.Blowing up people probably isn't the best way to counteract that picture.
“He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe,” Mr. Khozhugov said in an e-mail. “It was very hard to argue with him on themes somehow connected to religion. On the other hand, he did not hate Christians. He respected their faith. Never said anything bad about other religions. But he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.”
Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html
Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape
By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: October 29, 2004
Osama bin Laden said for the first time that he ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a videotape made public today, and he accused President Bush of "misleading the American people" about the attacks.
Umm, umm does anybody question the concept that Media Matters is tax exempt while Fox pays millions in taxes?
What is Media Matters? It's masthead claims that it monitors (only) conservative speech. How can an admitted politically biased source of information be tax exempt? How does Media Matters maintain it's tax exempt status when it hires experts to investigate (only) conservative republicans such as Sara Palin? How can an admitted left wing propaganda source like MM exist without paying taxes? The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration and it ain't likely that the criminal who runs the justice dept and is held in contempt of congress will investigate a political ally.
The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration
What is Media Matters? It's masthead claims that it monitors (only) conservative speech. How can an admitted politically biased source of information be tax exempt? How does Media Matters maintain it's tax exempt status when it hires experts to investigate (only) conservative republicans such as Sara Palin? How can an admitted left wing propaganda source like MM exist without paying taxes? The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration and it ain't likely that the criminal who runs the justice dept and is held in contempt of congress will investigate a political ally.
That's a link to Fox's taxes??
::click:: ::click:: ... not working.
The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration
The dirty secret is that Media Matters was around long before the administration. Duh.
What is Media Matters? It's masthead claims that it monitors (only) conservative speech. How can an admitted politically biased source of information be tax exempt? How does Media Matters maintain it's tax exempt status when it hires experts to investigate (only) conservative republicans such as Sara Palin? How can an admitted left wing propaganda source like MM exist without paying taxes? The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration and it ain't likely that the criminal who runs the justice dept and is held in contempt of congress will investigate a political ally.
That's a link to Fox's taxes??
::click:: ::click:: ... not working.
The dirty little secret is that MM is a political arm of the administration
The dirty secret is that Media Matters was around long before the administration. Duh.
Yeah, MM has been around for a while. It's alleged that Hillary Clinton took credit for concept (and the tax exempt status) but the question still stands, "what is Media Matters"? It isn't a part of the legitimate capitalist media. Media Matters is a political arm of the socialist revolution.
I need an oxygen tank 
