GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Argh, does it matter that the definition of "terrorism" in the minds of my opponents here in this debate are so miopic, I shouldn't give them the benefit of terrorism's vastly unspecified nature? Because, in order to answer your question in the spirit of the debate, I can only compare his actions to al-Qaeda's terrorism. Hell, I'll simplify it for you. Compare it to Jihad inspired terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 And how exactly is he right? This is all pretty damning evidence against all of his theories about this event, which in my view are little more than excuses at this point - Excuses for what? No one's arguing that he didn't commit a crime. The argument is whether the crime was an overt political act or not. And nothing you quoted makes it an overt political act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 True, that. But the flip side of that is that there IS an actual definition of "terrorism" (which sure as hell isn't "he's a raghead, and he talked this one guy a couple of times...", and none of the peanut gallery claiming this was an act of terrorism has yet made any sort of case that Hasan's actions fit that definition. Nor will they, since all their evidence amounts to "he's a raghead, and he talked to this one guy a couple of times." That's why somewhere in this beauty of a thread, I narrowed the definition to Jihadist terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 True, that. But the flip side of that is that there IS an actual definition of "terrorism" (which sure as hell isn't "he's a raghead, and he talked this one guy a couple of times...", and none of the peanut gallery claiming this was an act of terrorism has yet made any sort of case that Hasan's actions fit that definition. Nor will they, since all their evidence amounts to "he's a raghead, and he talked to this one guy a couple of times." GG, now that you've heard the same thing from someone you can't (or are too afraid) to paint as a dim-witted liberal excuse maker, do I really need to re-prove the definition of terrorism (as it exists in this thread) does not apply to the motivations and intended out come (IF THAT EVEN EXISTED) of this event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 GG, now that you've heard the same thing from someone you can't (or are too afraid) to paint as a dim-witted liberal excuse maker, do I really need to re-prove the definition of terrorism (as it exists in this thread) does not apply to the motivations and intended out come (IF THAT EVEN EXISTED) of this event? Your own words. Don't hide behind the monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 That's why somewhere in this beauty of a thread, I narrowed the definition to Jihadist terrorism. Okay fine, show me what Hasan hoped to accomplish by doing this. It's tough for me to compare to other Jihadist, because THAT INFORMATION DOESN'T EXIST. I also can't compare his motivation for doing so, because you haven't shown me what his was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 GG, now that you've heard the same thing from someone you can't (or are too afraid) to paint as a dim-witted liberal excuse maker, do I really need to re-prove the definition of terrorism (as it exists in this thread) does not apply to the motivations and intended out come (IF THAT EVEN EXISTED) of this event? Yes, actually...because if you're making an affirmative statement either way, you better be able to back it up. My whole point is that the "motivations and intended out come" [sic] aren't known, nor are they likely to become widely known now that we've progressed to the "Kill the heathen!" stage of the public discussion. So if you're making any kind of affirmative statement as to the nature of this crime based on whether or not Hasan's actions were personally or politically motivated, you either better know his personal and political motivations, or you're a !@#$ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Your own words. Don't hide behind the monkey. You asked for it: LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Yes, actually...because if you're making an affirmative statement either way, you better be able to back it up. My whole point is that the "motivations and intended out come" [sic] aren't known, nor are they likely to become widely known now that we've progressed to the "Kill the heathen!" stage of the public discussion. So if you're making any kind of affirmative statement as to the nature of this crime based on whether or not Hasan's actions were personally or politically motivated, you either better know his personal and political motivations, or you're a !@#$ing idiot. I don't think I have made an affirmative statement aside from, "hey fellas, I'm not sure we can chalk this one up to terrorism, just yet." Otherwise, I agree with everything you've said here. EDIT: The most affirmative I've made on this matter was, "personally I think it's a bit more complicated than "death to America." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You asked for it: LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK Not a single response to my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Not a single response to my questions. There is no response to your questions! How can I compare his unknown intentions and motivations to ANYTHING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Buying weed in Chicago? Wait...what are you talking about? Finally, finally I now understand why I don't understand his posts. !@#$ing bogart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I don't think I have made an affirmative statement aside from, "hey fellas, I'm not sure we can chalk this one up to terrorism, just yet." Otherwise, I agree with everything you've said here. EDIT: The most affirmative I've made on this matter was, "personally I think it's a bit more complicated than "death to America." You did when you said "do I really need to re-prove the definition of terrorism (as it exists in this thread) does not apply to the motivations and intended out come (IF THAT EVEN EXISTED) of this event". I'll just chalk that up to poor choice of phrasing, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Well, then you admit your truth lies solely on inference. As does yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Okay fine, show me what Hasan hoped to accomplish by doing this. It's tough for me to compare to other Jihadist, because THAT INFORMATION DOESN'T EXIST. I also can't compare his motivation for doing so, because you haven't shown me what his was. Same thing a suicide bomber hopes to accomplish in a market in Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 As does yours. Not mine. I infer nothing, because I know nothing. And in knowing nothing, I am smarter than all of you. The Tao that can be perceived is not the true Tao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You did when you said "do I really need to re-prove the definition of terrorism (as it exists in this thread) does not apply to the motivations and intended out come (IF THAT EVEN EXISTED) of this event". I'll just chalk that up to poor choice of phrasing, though. It was incredibly poor phrasing, made evident the moment I read this: The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[1] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[2] Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls."[3] As does yours. My what? Have I offered any clear cut definition of this incident yet? You're right though, I too have employed the powers of inference to determine, "it's a lot more complicated than "death to America."" Hardly a hard-line stance. If you want to ridicule me for being wishy-washy, you're entitled to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Same thing a suicide bomber hopes to accomplish in a market in Pakistan. Hasan was trying to discredit the local and national leadership by interfering with the low-level day-to-day operation of a simplified market economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Not mine. I infer nothing, because I know nothing. And in knowing nothing, I am smarter than all of you. The Taco that can be perceived is not the true Taco. Mmmmmm, tacos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hasan was trying to discredit the local and national leadership by interfering with the low-level day-to-day operation of a simplified market economy? I wish I could simplify things as well you do. Unless you're just playing devil's advocate, I'm totally following your line of thinking (and visa versa, I believe), you're just doing a much better job of expressing said thinking. Is it safe for me to leave yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts