Media Matters declares victory

[whitehall]

That's a link to Fox's taxes??

::click:: ::click:: ... not working.



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.

"Legitimate capitalist media"????

OMFG that is the most hilarious oxymoron I've read all day. No shit.

"Capitalist media" would be media that exists for the purpose of making a profit. If the media is entertainment, say a movie producer or record company, you just use entertainment. If it's news, in order to make a profit, you have to stretch, distort and cherrypick the news. You need to make it entertainment. So you just made the opposite point from the one you intended; gave a damn good reason why a media company that does not exist for profit would be credible.

"Legitimate capitalist media"! I need an oxygen tank

Wait wait -- there's more!
"Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept"

Got another one backward there, Jimmy Olsen. Here's what you're rewriting:
Media Matters was founded by David Brock, a writer who was formerly on the right who worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Moonie Times and American Spectator. In those days he wrote a book critical of Anita Hill, another one about Clinton that became "Troopergate", and a bio of Hillary Clinton. But later he wrote an article called "Confessions of a Right Wing Hit Man" and a book called "Blinded By the Right" where he turned his position to expose the chicanery of where he used to be.

So that somehow morphs into "Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept".

Alrighty then...

Hillary Clinton addressed a "daily koos" conference in 2007 and she took credit for creating the entity that Koos depends on for propaganda, Media Matters. How in the world can Media Matters claim to beat Fox when Media Matters is not part of the media?

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Legitimate capitalist media"????

OMFG that is the most hilarious oxymoron I've read all day. No shit.

"Capitalist media" would be media that exists for the purpose of making a profit. If the media is entertainment, say a movie producer or record company, you just use entertainment. If it's news, in order to make a profit, you have to stretch, distort and cherrypick the news. You need to make it entertainment. So you just made the opposite point from the one you intended; gave a damn good reason why a media company that does not exist for profit would be credible.

"Legitimate capitalist media"! I need an oxygen tank

Wait wait -- there's more!
"Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept"

Got another one backward there, Jimmy Olsen. Here's what you're rewriting:
Media Matters was founded by David Brock, a writer who was formerly on the right who worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Moonie Times and American Spectator. In those days he wrote a book critical of Anita Hill, another one about Clinton that became "Troopergate", and a bio of Hillary Clinton. But later he wrote an article called "Confessions of a Right Wing Hit Man" and a book called "Blinded By the Right" where he turned his position to expose the chicanery of where he used to be.

So that somehow morphs into "Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept".

Alrighty then...

Hillary Clinton addressed a "daily koos" conference in 2007 and she took credit for creating the entity that Koos depends on for propaganda, Media Matters. How in the world can Media Matters claim to beat Fox when Media Matters is not part of the media?

No, I believe you're full of shit. And not only didn't you link this, we're still waiting for the link to Fox Noise's "millions" in taxes. After that we're waiting for what the fuck the point of that is.

And your rhetorical question on the end makes no sense at all.

 

[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.

Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?

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.​

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Only if you've been asleep for the last 10 years..........

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Media Matters helped Obama get elected and re-elected.

Media Matters supported Hillary as well, and will support her if she runs. They defiantly are biased.

Oh, and friends of Obama like Facebook in 2012 and General Electric in 2010 somehow avoided paying taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/facebook-taxes_n_2694368.html

 

[Pogo]

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.

Media Matters helped Obama get elected and re-elected.

Media Matters supported Hillary as well, and will support her if she runs. They defiantly are biased.

Oh, and friends of Obama like Facebook in 2012 and General Electric in 2010 somehow avoided paying taxes. Facebook Paid No Income Taxes In 2012: Report

That's why I doubt his "Fox paid millions" stab in the dark.

There's no doubt MM was on the side of O'bama and was kindly toward HC. What the poster claimed was that HC invented it. Which is also bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

Was this message immediate -- three years after the fact?

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.​

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Only if you've been asleep for the last 10 years..........

I'll have to take that puerile post as a concession that you can't defend the point.
Which is understandable, since it can't be substantiated.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's not adding up. How are we to have been "misled" if it was pinned on Al Qaeda immediately after the event? I don't get it.

Off the point anyway; the criterion isn't "who done it" but what the message is. When you have hijacked airliners flying into the soaring symbol of capitalism and the center of military operations, you don't need to ask what the reasoning for the target was. Those are highly symbolic targets. The relevance is obvious. And yes, immediate. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower we had an incident that looked accidental. When the second one hit the other tower -- we knew.

When on the other hand you have bombs going off at a foot race ..............

There is no way to equate the two.

Only if you've been asleep for the last 10 years..........

I'll have to take that puerile post as a concession that you can't defend the point.
Which is understandable, since it can't be substantiated.

No, the message of Islamic Fundimentalism through terror has already been well established. It doesn't have to be re-established after every attack. You'd be spending all of your time deciding what it is and not putting effort into the causes and what to do to prevent it. Thinking of it like it is a purely legal matter leads to complications. Marandizing each attacker wastes valuable intelligence opportunities.

Your rhetoric on this subject sounds rational but is too inflexible to provide solutions. The only reason 9/11 or any other attack you mentioned fits is because you have the privilage of hindsight. My belief is you don't want to lump Boston in with other terrorist acts because of some unwritten rule you subscribe to. The Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Christian fundimentalists can be terrorists, but Muslims living in the US cannot. All references to terror should be avoided at all costs. These people have rights and deserve the advice of legal council.

 

[Pogo]

Only if you've been asleep for the last 10 years..........

I'll have to take that puerile post as a concession that you can't defend the point.
Which is understandable, since it can't be substantiated.

No, the message of Islamic Fundimentalism through terror has already been well established. It doesn't have to be re-established after every attack. You'd be spending all of your time deciding what it is and not putting effort into the causes and what to do to prevent it. Thinking of it like it is a purely legal matter leads to complications. Marandizing each attacker wastes valuable intelligence opportunities.

Your rhetoric on this subject sounds rational but is too inflexible to provide solutions. The only reason 9/11 or any other attack you mentioned fits is because you have the privilage of hindsight. My belief is you don't want to lump Boston in with other terrorist acts because of some unwritten rule you subscribe to. The Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Christian fundimentalists can be terrorists, but Muslims living in the US cannot. All references to terror should be avoided at all costs. These people have rights and deserve the advice of legal council.

Emotional meltdown noted.

I made and implied no blanket statement about Muslims or about anyone. I spoke specifically of Boston. It does not fit the definition, end of story.

It sounds rational because it IS rational. We don't define a word to "provide solutions". It just is what it is, or in this case, isn't what it isn't. I invited you to prove how it is; you declined. And I can't blame you; it's impossible.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'll have to take that puerile post as a concession that you can't defend the point.
Which is understandable, since it can't be substantiated.

No, the message of Islamic Fundimentalism through terror has already been well established. It doesn't have to be re-established after every attack. You'd be spending all of your time deciding what it is and not putting effort into the causes and what to do to prevent it. Thinking of it like it is a purely legal matter leads to complications. Marandizing each attacker wastes valuable intelligence opportunities.

Your rhetoric on this subject sounds rational but is too inflexible to provide solutions. The only reason 9/11 or any other attack you mentioned fits is because you have the privilage of hindsight. My belief is you don't want to lump Boston in with other terrorist acts because of some unwritten rule you subscribe to. The Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Christian fundimentalists can be terrorists, but Muslims living in the US cannot. All references to terror should be avoided at all costs. These people have rights and deserve the advice of legal council.

Emotional meltdown noted.

I made and implied no blanket statement about Muslims or about anyone. I spoke specifically of Boston. It does not fit the definition, end of story.

It sounds rational because it IS rational. We don't define a word to "provide solutions". It just is what it is, or in this case, isn't what it isn't. I invited you to prove how it is; you declined. And I can't blame you; it's impossible.

There was no emotion in the statement.

And I provided what most rational people would call proof. I declined nothing.

I think you're hoping I'll get angry or frustrated by your narrow minded approach. I figure you're simply biased on the subject because it's too full of holes to work in reality.

 

[asterism]

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.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

 

[asterism]

That's a link to Fox's taxes??

::click:: ::click:: ... not working.



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.

"Legitimate capitalist media"????

OMFG that is the most hilarious oxymoron I've read all day. No shit.

"Capitalist media" would be media that exists for the purpose of making a profit. If the media is entertainment, say a movie producer or record company, you just use entertainment. If it's news, in order to make a profit, you have to stretch, distort and cherrypick the news. You need to make it entertainment. So you just made the opposite point from the one you intended; gave a damn good reason why a media company that does not exist for profit would be credible.

"Legitimate capitalist media"! I need an oxygen tank

Wait wait -- there's more!
"Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept"

Got another one backward there, Jimmy Olsen. Here's what you're rewriting:
Media Matters was founded by David Brock, a writer who was formerly on the right who worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Moonie Times and American Spectator. In those days he wrote a book critical of Anita Hill, another one about Clinton that became "Troopergate", and a bio of Hillary Clinton. But later he wrote an article called "Confessions of a Right Wing Hit Man" and a book called "Blinded By the Right" where he turned his position to expose the chicanery of where he used to be.

So that somehow morphs into "Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept".

Alrighty then...

Video of Hillary claiming credit for helping to start and support Media Matters and Center for American Progress (2:45)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHTydb5js-E#t=115]Hillary at the Kos Convention 08.04.07 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asterism]

"Legitimate capitalist media"????

OMFG that is the most hilarious oxymoron I've read all day. No shit.

"Capitalist media" would be media that exists for the purpose of making a profit. If the media is entertainment, say a movie producer or record company, you just use entertainment. If it's news, in order to make a profit, you have to stretch, distort and cherrypick the news. You need to make it entertainment. So you just made the opposite point from the one you intended; gave a damn good reason why a media company that does not exist for profit would be credible.

"Legitimate capitalist media"! I need an oxygen tank

Wait wait -- there's more!
"Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept"

Got another one backward there, Jimmy Olsen. Here's what you're rewriting:
Media Matters was founded by David Brock, a writer who was formerly on the right who worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Moonie Times and American Spectator. In those days he wrote a book critical of Anita Hill, another one about Clinton that became "Troopergate", and a bio of Hillary Clinton. But later he wrote an article called "Confessions of a Right Wing Hit Man" and a book called "Blinded By the Right" where he turned his position to expose the chicanery of where he used to be.

So that somehow morphs into "Hillary Clinton took credit for the concept".

Alrighty then...

Hillary Clinton addressed a "daily koos" conference in 2007 and she took credit for creating the entity that Koos depends on for propaganda, Media Matters. How in the world can Media Matters claim to beat Fox when Media Matters is not part of the media?

No, I believe you're full of shit. And not only didn't you link this, we're still waiting for the link to Fox Noise's "millions" in taxes. After that we're waiting for what the fuck the point of that is.

And your rhetorical question on the end makes no sense at all.

Fox News financials:

New Newscorp - Annual Report

Another moonbat was forced to admit he "misread" financial statements. COLUMN-How I misread News Corp's taxes: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

 

[kwc57]

I'll have to take that puerile post as a concession that you can't defend the point.
Which is understandable, since it can't be substantiated.

No, the message of Islamic Fundimentalism through terror has already been well established. It doesn't have to be re-established after every attack. You'd be spending all of your time deciding what it is and not putting effort into the causes and what to do to prevent it. Thinking of it like it is a purely legal matter leads to complications. Marandizing each attacker wastes valuable intelligence opportunities.

Your rhetoric on this subject sounds rational but is too inflexible to provide solutions. The only reason 9/11 or any other attack you mentioned fits is because you have the privilage of hindsight. My belief is you don't want to lump Boston in with other terrorist acts because of some unwritten rule you subscribe to. The Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Christian fundimentalists can be terrorists, but Muslims living in the US cannot. All references to terror should be avoided at all costs. These people have rights and deserve the advice of legal council.

Emotional meltdown noted.

I made and implied no blanket statement about Muslims or about anyone. I spoke specifically of Boston. It does not fit the definition, end of story.

It sounds rational because it IS rational. We don't define a word to "provide solutions". It just is what it is, or in this case, isn't what it isn't. I invited you to prove how it is; you declined. And I can't blame you; it's impossible.

Emotional meltdown?

Your delusion is noted.

 

[Pogo]

No, the message of Islamic Fundimentalism through terror has already been well established. It doesn't have to be re-established after every attack. You'd be spending all of your time deciding what it is and not putting effort into the causes and what to do to prevent it. Thinking of it like it is a purely legal matter leads to complications. Marandizing each attacker wastes valuable intelligence opportunities.

Your rhetoric on this subject sounds rational but is too inflexible to provide solutions. The only reason 9/11 or any other attack you mentioned fits is because you have the privilage of hindsight. My belief is you don't want to lump Boston in with other terrorist acts because of some unwritten rule you subscribe to. The Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Christian fundimentalists can be terrorists, but Muslims living in the US cannot. All references to terror should be avoided at all costs. These people have rights and deserve the advice of legal council.

Emotional meltdown noted.

I made and implied no blanket statement about Muslims or about anyone. I spoke specifically of Boston. It does not fit the definition, end of story.

It sounds rational because it IS rational. We don't define a word to "provide solutions". It just is what it is, or in this case, isn't what it isn't. I invited you to prove how it is; you declined. And I can't blame you; it's impossible.

There was no emotion in the statement.

And I provided what most rational people would call proof. I declined nothing.

I think you're hoping I'll get angry or frustrated by your narrow minded approach. I figure you're simply biased on the subject because it's too full of holes to work in reality.

And uh --- where exactly is that 'proof'? Can you bold it or something?
Or am I supposed to believe that a bombing at a foot race has some kind of arcane political significance?

 

[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.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

this is one of the holes in his argument.

 

[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.

What was the obvious message behind the Oklahoma City bombing and did anyone know before McVeigh was caught?

Think about it: what was bombed? A federal building. Immediately obvious, before McVeigh was tracked down, was that it was a strike against the government. Indeed there were rumours and assumptions bandied about that it was Islamic terrorism, until the perp was apprehended. Which, according to Mudwhistle's logic of assuming that motive behind every crime, would make sense.

So we immediately knew it was terrorism; it took time to find out who did it.

We immediately knew the bombing in Boston was terrorism. It didn't matter at the time who did it, because it was clear the purpose was to kill or maim innocent civilians. Then later we discovered that a couple of Chechnyan brothers carried it out......the message was obvious. You just don't agree it was a message of any kind.

Are we to consider suicide bombings in Israeli buses and restaurants to be simply a crime? Or bombs set off in train stations in London or France?

You say to yourself that a building in NYC represents Capitalism and is a valid target, but an annual event in Boston isn't. That makes no sense at all. You're ignoring the facts that are right in front of your eyes because of some slanted mindset.

 

[daveman]

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.

Nobody ever got MSNBC's shitty ratings by being honest or competent.

Unfortunately (for the viewing public), neither honest nor competent nor fair nor balanced gets ratings. And you'll note those are all positive traits.

Positive doesn't sell. Negative does. Panic sells. Controversy and scandal and fear and loathing are what sell. That's why we complain the news is all bad --- by our buying habits, that's what we want.

If this were not the case, WWE and Maury Povich and Doctor Fucking Phil would never be considered for TV, and your local Fraction News wouldn't skip the tax resolution your city council passed in favor of a fire at some apartment building you never heard of. Because fire sells, and tax resolutions do not.

Which is why Fox Noise came on with the model it did -- rather than the expense of flying a lot of reporters hither and yon reporting the news, plunk some talking heads in a garishly colored studio, make sure half of them wear short skirts, and have them talk about the news rather than report it. Then have suggestive chyrons running across the screen while graphics change scenes with a whooooshh. This is all emotional candy to sell you a product -- not an attempt to report news.

Make no mistake, that's what Fox and its followers are selling. Because emotion sells; news does not. Report a story with detached objective disinterest-- feh. Have an angry man pound his fist on the table about it -- huzzah, now you have an audience.

Wow, so that's what it feels like to be on topic...

I think a large part of the problem is some people can't tell the difference between news shows and analysis shows.

One's fact, the other's opinion.

Glad I could help.

 

[daveman]

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.

“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.”​

Blowing up people probably isn't the best way to counteract that picture.

Yeah yeah. These are all internal thoughts. You don't have terrorism until they go external. What you have there at the most is an act of vengeance. Acts of vengeance are not terrorism, and vice versa.

Analogy used before:
Joe Green shoots Joe Blue because he hates Blue people. That's not terrorism. Internal.
Joe Green blows up Blue People Church to drive them out of town: that's terrorism. External.

(/offtopic)

And yet, oddly, the Boston Marathon bombing is still undeniably terrorism.

 

[daveman]

Umm, umm does anybody question the concept that Media Matters is tax exempt while Fox pays millions in taxes?

I do.

Irrational Fox News haters do not.