Media Matters declares victory

[mudwhistle]

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.

And in what way is this a "hole"? Merely saying so doesn't make it so.

For somebody so smart you sure are dumb.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sorry, that's entirely wishful thinking and historical revision. All we knew was that bombs had gone off. "Terrorism" wasn't applied until much later, and then only by partisans trying to make fear points (which of course sells papers). So your original point that CNN was "not honest" by failing to call it terrorism shoots itself in the foot. What CNN was guilty of was not milking the opportunity to spike its ratings by selling fear. But as the ratings tell us, they're not the most astute at figuring out there's gold in them thar ills.

Unfortunately terrorism isn't the only explanation for an event like that; there are assholes psychopaths who will commit random violence on random people, with no political message at all. Does the name Adam Lanza not ring a bell? Was that terrorism? No. Why not? No message. Same thing.

Had the target been a military base, or an abortion clinic, the message would have been self-explanatory. I ask again, to the same anticipated crickets: what's the message in bombing a foot race? "Walk don't run"? Without a message and as well absent any public missive assigning a motive, we don't have an act of terrorism. We have random violence by psychopathic assholes.



Boston was not a suicide bombing. A suicide bombing is obviously a political act on that aspect alone. Israel and London are places used to terrorism anyway. I don't know what you refer to in France.



Once again for the eighth time: what does a foot race represent?

We know what the Pentagon represents.
We know what the World Trade Center represented.
We know what an abortion clinic represents.
We know what a lesbian bar represents.
We know what a federal building represents.

Then there's the Boston Marathon ......

What did the 1996 Olympics represent? What did Pan Am flight 103 represent? Your logic doesn't work here.

Good points. Without a claim of responsibility, and they're obviously not symbolic targets, these two cannot be called terrorism either. The Olympics event is kind of synonymous with a foot race; represents nothing but athleticism. Actually since it represents international athleticism, Rudolph's point is completely elusive. But neither of these bombings conveyed the message "don't compete in athletics" or "don't fly".

So what you're saying is terrorists make sense.

I've found that most of the time they make no sense. Their only goal is to cause fear and confusion....and death.....and mayhem.

 

[Pogo]

this is one of the holes in his argument.

And in what way is this a "hole"? Merely saying so doesn't make it so.

For somebody so smart you sure are dumb.

Once again you've made no point; now we're off to ad hom land. Just say it: you don't have an answer.

 

[Pogo]

What did the 1996 Olympics represent? What did Pan Am flight 103 represent? Your logic doesn't work here.

Good points. Without a claim of responsibility, and they're obviously not symbolic targets, these two cannot be called terrorism either. The Olympics event is kind of synonymous with a foot race; represents nothing but athleticism. Actually since it represents international athleticism, Rudolph's point is completely elusive. But neither of these bombings conveyed the message "don't compete in athletics" or "don't fly".

So what you're saying is terrorists make sense.

I've found that most of the time they make no sense. Their only goal is to cause fear and confusion.

I haven't said that; I said they have a point. A message.
See the difference?

Maybe not.

 

[daveman]

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

Not really seeing the point in bothering, actually.

Me neither. As noted already, it's not possible to fit within the definition. I don't know why it goes on. Mud can't give up even when he doesn't have an answer.

For those who ventured in fewer than a hundred pages ago, all this Boston blather is a reference to Mudwhistle's claim that CNN was "not honest" because it didn't call the Boston bombing "terrorism". To which my rejoinder is basically, "no shit".

*shrug* Seems like everybody but you and CNN believes it's terrorism.

 

[Pogo]

Not really seeing the point in bothering, actually.

Me neither. As noted already, it's not possible to fit within the definition. I don't know why it goes on. Mud can't give up even when he doesn't have an answer.

For those who ventured in fewer than a hundred pages ago, all this Boston blather is a reference to Mudwhistle's claim that CNN was "not honest" because it didn't call the Boston bombing "terrorism". To which my rejoinder is basically, "no shit".

*shrug* Seems like everybody but you and CNN believes it's terrorism.

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

I get it now, the terrorism charges the federal government filed are part of a conspiracy to make everyone believe that a simple crime is actually an act of terror.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't move the goalposts here. You claimed it can't be terrorism if the terrorists don't leave an immediate message.

bin Laden didn't take credit for 9/11 for THREE YEARS. That's not immediate. You never said anything about who it's blamed on; your criteria were an immediate message from the terrorists.

Was 9/11 terrorism?

Of course it was, and we already did this. Let's rewind: when the first plane hit the WTC, we figured it was some kind of accident and were groping for answers. When the second plane hit seventeen minutes later, probabilities of coincidence went out the window and we all knew we were under attack. I remember every moment of that day vividly, as I was myself getting ready for a flight, and had a best friend working for American Airlines in Boston, who sat and had breakfast with the crew of Flight 11 and saw the hijackers in the terminal. But I digress.

WHO DID IT was irrelevant to the fact that we were under attack, so Bin Laden releasing a statement three years later is a little like Pete Rose finally admitting he gambled on ball games. Everybody already knew, and that was established within I believe the same day (GWB already had the PDB of a month earlier warning of Bin Laden's plans, for one thing).

The moment the second plane hit, we knew terrorism was going on because we knew it was deliberate. That along with the targets selected made the definition obvious.

No goalposts were harmed or moved in the production of this post.

I disagree. Goalposts were moved to a different time zone.

I saw pieces of them fly off from the whiplash.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good points. Without a claim of responsibility, and they're obviously not symbolic targets, these two cannot be called terrorism either. The Olympics event is kind of synonymous with a foot race; represents nothing but athleticism. Actually since it represents international athleticism, Rudolph's point is completely elusive. But neither of these bombings conveyed the message "don't compete in athletics" or "don't fly".

So what you're saying is terrorists make sense.

I've found that most of the time they make no sense. Their only goal is to cause fear and confusion.

I haven't said that; I said they have a point. A message.
See the difference?

Maybe not.

When ecoterrorists destroyed the development of GMO beets they had a message.

When ecoterrorists destroy power lines, they have a message.

When terrorists bomb a sporting event they have a message.

So far the only problem I have seen is your lack of imagination. The fact that you are unable to perceive, or even understand, the message does not automatically negate the existence of the message.

 

[Pogo]

So what you're saying is terrorists make sense.

I've found that most of the time they make no sense. Their only goal is to cause fear and confusion.

I haven't said that; I said they have a point. A message.
See the difference?

Maybe not.

When ecoterrorists destroyed the development of GMO beets they had a message.

When ecoterrorists destroy power lines, they have a message.

When terrorists bomb a sporting event they have a message.

So far the only problem I have seen is your lack of imagination. The fact that you are unable to perceive, or even understand, the message does not automatically negate the existence of the message.

If GMO beets are targeted, clearly the message is GMO.

When a couple of dickheads bomb a sporting event, the message is nonexistent. Unless you think the idea of sports in controversial.

And when that message has to be pieced together a week or a month later only after investigation and combing through their e-mails, clearly they had no message in mind. A message isn't a message if you have to make it up as a best guess. A terrorist doesn't make us jump those hoops or leave any doubt. And if there is any immediate doubt, that's the whole purpose of the public claim of responsibility.

None of that existed in Boston.

 

[Pogo]

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

Not undeniable at all. I've been doing it as a tangent here without breaking a sweat.
Feel free to assume the burden of proof. You'll need something stronger than the word "undeniably".

I get it now, the terrorism charges the federal government filed are part of a conspiracy to make everyone believe that a simple crime is actually an act of terror.

Could be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fox News is nutty far right philosophy.

X2, only complete morons watch fox.

Starkey if I had your political views and claim to be a republican and this guy agreed with me, I would have to reevaluate my political position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I haven't said that; I said they have a point. A message.
See the difference?

Maybe not.

When ecoterrorists destroyed the development of GMO beets they had a message.

When ecoterrorists destroy power lines, they have a message.

When terrorists bomb a sporting event they have a message.

So far the only problem I have seen is your lack of imagination. The fact that you are unable to perceive, or even understand, the message does not automatically negate the existence of the message.

If GMO beets are targeted, clearly the message is GMO.

When a couple of dickheads bomb a sporting event, the message is nonexistent. Unless you think the idea of sports in controversial.

And when that message has to be pieced together a week or a month later only after investigation and combing through their e-mails, clearly they had no message in mind. A message isn't a message if you have to make it up as a best guess. A terrorist doesn't make us jump those hoops or leave any doubt. And if there is any immediate doubt, that's the whole purpose of the public claim of responsibility.

None of that existed in Boston.

The fact that you don't get the message does not mean they didn't have one, why is that so hard for you to understand? Does the fact that you don't get it mean I am not actually telling you?

 

[Pogo]

When ecoterrorists destroyed the development of GMO beets they had a message.

When ecoterrorists destroy power lines, they have a message.

When terrorists bomb a sporting event they have a message.

So far the only problem I have seen is your lack of imagination. The fact that you are unable to perceive, or even understand, the message does not automatically negate the existence of the message.

If GMO beets are targeted, clearly the message is GMO.

When a couple of dickheads bomb a sporting event, the message is nonexistent. Unless you think the idea of sports in controversial.

And when that message has to be pieced together a week or a month later only after investigation and combing through their e-mails, clearly they had no message in mind. A message isn't a message if you have to make it up as a best guess. A terrorist doesn't make us jump those hoops or leave any doubt. And if there is any immediate doubt, that's the whole purpose of the public claim of responsibility.

None of that existed in Boston.

The fact that you don't get the message does not mean they didn't have one, why is that so hard for you to understand? Does the fact that you don't get it mean I am not actually telling you?

It's not that *I* don't get it. Terrorism doesn't exist for "me". It's that WE don't get it.

Nobody here has been able to articulate what that message was. I'm the one saying that that's because no such message exists.

 

[daveman]

Me neither. As noted already, it's not possible to fit within the definition. I don't know why it goes on. Mud can't give up even when he doesn't have an answer.

For those who ventured in fewer than a hundred pages ago, all this Boston blather is a reference to Mudwhistle's claim that CNN was "not honest" because it didn't call the Boston bombing "terrorism". To which my rejoinder is basically, "no shit".

*shrug* Seems like everybody but you and CNN believes it's terrorism.

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

Indeed it can. But sometimes, the crowd is right.

 

[mudwhistle]

Me neither. As noted already, it's not possible to fit within the definition. I don't know why it goes on. Mud can't give up even when he doesn't have an answer.

For those who ventured in fewer than a hundred pages ago, all this Boston blather is a reference to Mudwhistle's claim that CNN was "not honest" because it didn't call the Boston bombing "terrorism". To which my rejoinder is basically, "no shit".

*shrug* Seems like everybody but you and CNN believes it's terrorism.

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

 

[Pogo]

*shrug* Seems like everybody but you and CNN believes it's terrorism.

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Media Matters had absolutely NOTHING to do with the perception by people that Fox News is a partisan network. It's embarrassing that they think that.

"Fox News" is the only entity to blame for the view that it is a wholly partisan network.

Prime time hosts: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Neil Cavuto

Morning: Fox & Friends

Daytime: Hot 30-45 year old Blondes

Yep, Fox declared bankruptcy...

Oh wait, looks like they not only didn't but are the #1 news channel - by a MASSIVE margin.

Leftists are

Fucktardation, it's the basis of leftism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially.

Except like Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann...

Oh, what were you lying about????

 

[mudwhistle]

They might. I dunno. But I do my own thinkin'. As they used to tell us in grade school, "if everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Mob mentality can take us weird places.

You're confusing mob mentality with common-sense.

Now you're probably gonna make fun of the phrase because it's used in so many instances when arguing with a liberal. For some reason using common-sense is something to ridicule these days. I guess it's because it doesn't evolve enough mental gymnastics to be a valid concept.

You keep asking for us to prove something that is simply common-sense. Well, that's the point. Common-sense is something that doesn't need proving.......unless you're a person that won't accept common-sense. Your examples of what is terrorism doesn't work because it requires a biased viewpoint. However those of us who oppose your views on what is terrorism don't have the bias you obviously exhibit. Personally, I think you're just trying to argue a point that has little or nothing to do with the topic in order to distract folks. Start a discussion on an unrelated issue and you figure you're winning. I've seen this used too many times for it not to be on purpose. You are a classic time-waster. Sorry if I haven't invented a better word for what you are.

Now, you're gonna say something like "you just can't argue the point effectively".

Am I right?

Actually I have and others have. You just won't acknowledge it. If you did then you would lose the argument, and you can't have that.

Now I expect you'll have something to say about how stupid I am, how angry I am, or how I can't face the fact that I can't prove my point. Well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Same goes for know-it-alls that can't face the truth.

*patiently waiting for your smarmy response*

No, you're not right. For one thing I came here, as I always do, out of an interest in media, which is my particular area of interest-- not to rehash this old topic. Nothing would make me happier than to get back on the topic -- which is, again, where I started here until the CNN nonsense came up. So I have no interest in distracting away from an area of my own interest.

I haven't used the term common sense but it is my very basis here. I don't really care if the masses believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned since I know what he played was a lyre. Once I know better I don't see a point in retreating to fables. So no I'm not confusing mob mentality with common sense; on the contrary I'm drawing a contrast between them.

The bottom line on this grand tangent, where we started, is the question of whether CNN was being less than honest in declining to describe the Boston bombing as "terrorism". I have demonstrated that they were not, in that there was no reason to term it thus. And AFAIK nobody else was describing it that way either in the moment. Because once again, the object of terrorism is to strike fear into the public mind. You can't really do that retroactively and say, "oh by the way that bombing a few weeks ago? that was terrorism, so be afraid, be retroactively afraid". Doesn't work. I think the burden of proof remains where it always did, with you, since you made the assertion that their declining to jump on the terrorism bandwagon was somehow irresponsible. I don't see where you've done that.

(/offtopic)

The fear is that it will happen again. That is the message.

If you ask anyone who was there when the first bomb went off they were in shock. When the second bomb went off all they wanted to do was un-ass the AO, get the **** out of there. That sounds like terror to me.