Chef Jim 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 assumed it was simpler than that in that they are trying to take out as many people they disagree with at one time while instilling fear in those they didn't take out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 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? Maybe because he's staying away from the Chicago weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 There is no response to your questions! How can I compare his unknown intentions and motivations to ANYTHING? I asked you to provide a baseline for "other terrorist" actions such that you can compare Hasan to those. Since you're so adamant that this doesn't doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as you see it, and conveniently provided a list of qualifications, it should be very easy for you to explain the qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It was incredibly poor phrasing, made evident the moment I read this: Simple working definition: "terrorism" is the application of criminal violence within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. An "act of terrorism" is a single criminal act that can be conclusively linked to other criminal acts by placing it within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG 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? Or was he trying to discredit the national leadership by interfering with the low-level troop deployment of a military operation that he opposed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I asked you to provide a baseline for "other terrorist" actions such that you can compare Hasan to those. Since you're so adamant that this doesn't doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as you see it, and conveniently provided a list of qualifications, it should be very easy for you to explain the qualifications. I freely admit I am incapable of providing a baseline for "other terrorist actions." No no no, this doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as held by the PPP's Sand-!@#$-Haters. The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[1] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[2] Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls."[3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I freely admit I am incapable of providing a baseline for "other terrorist actions." No no no, this doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as held by the PPP's Sand-!@#$-Haters. So because we believe that his actions were based on his religious beliefs we're sand-!@#$-haters. I don't say this often but you're a !@#$ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I freely admit I am incapable of providing a baseline for "other terrorist actions." No no no, this doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as held by the PPP's Sand-!@#$-Haters. You're the one who provided the baseline. Now defend it in your own words. Even the deepest knuckle dragging PPPers can google Wiki to get "your" definition of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I assumed it was simpler than that in that they are trying to take out as many people they disagree with at one time while instilling fear in those they didn't take out. Not really. An even simpler definition of "terrorism" than I just provided would be "directed violence in the pursuit of a larger goal than the violence itself". Or, by way of example: I shoot up an airport terminal, that's a crime. I shoot up an El Al airport terminal with backing and support from an organized group executing a systematic and protracted campaign of violence against Israel to give up the West Bank, that's terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Simple working definition: "terrorism" is the application of criminal violence within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. An "act of terrorism" is a single criminal act that can be conclusively linked to other criminal acts by placing it within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. Actual, a simple working definition is almost useless in this regard. In my military civil relations class we've already had 4 guest speakers on the matter, all outside experts who have come to different conclusions on defining the term. Those who had a more loose definition seemed less tolerant on terrorist relations, and those who defined it with tighter restrictions tended to favor negotiations. Regardless of their conclusions, most experts agree that a terrorist falls under the category of being raised under a "lethal cocktail". I don't want to do this explanation injustice, but if you look up the term you can see some similarities between the qualifications and Hasan's resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You're the one who provided the baseline. Now defend it in your own words. Even the deepest knuckle dragging PPPers can google Wiki to get "your" definition of terrorism. My definition of terrorism is any pre-meditated crime which was carried out with the sole purpose of creating awareness for the perpetrator's cause. Shooting an abortion doctor because you think his trade violates your religious text: terrorism. Tree-huggers spray painting Hummers on the lot at a dealership: terrorism. Bombing the Madrid subway because you think your portion of the country is under-represented: terrorism. Flying planes into some of the world's most notable architectural icons: terrorism. Stringing a black-guy up a tree cuz he aint white: terrorism. Burning down a Synagogue cuz it aint Christian: terrorism. But since nobody knows why Hasan started greasing off on his fellow soldiers, I can't say he even had a cause he was trying to promote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 No, I'm saying it's ludicrous to use this as a stepping stone to drum-up anti-Muslim sentiments when, in similar instances, non-Muslims have caused just as much damage, and much more frequently so. There's a good reason for anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. The "religion of peace" has earned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Simple working definition: "terrorism" is the application of criminal violence within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. An "act of terrorism" is a single criminal act that can be conclusively linked to other criminal acts by an expressed philosophy.placing it within a coherent framework of planning and execution to achieve a specified goal defined within an expressed philosophy. Good, so it's settled, according to this definition, there is a 99% chance that this was an act of terrorism. Criminal violence: CHECK (shot over 40 people) coherent framework of planning: CHECK (purchased the gun a month before the act of "terror" and went to a targeted area where many armed service personel were set to be deployed to the middle east) Expressed philosophy: CHECK (as evidenced in the many many circumstantial pieces of evidence that has been provided in this thread) Glad you helped clarify things for us Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 Good, so it's settled, according to this definition, there is a 99% chance that this was an act of terrorism. Criminal violence: CHECK (shot over 40 people) coherent framework of planning: CHECK (purchased the gun a month before the act of "terror" and went to a targeted area where many armed service personel were set to be deployed to the middle east) Expressed philosophy: CHECK (as evidenced in the many many circumstantial pieces of evidence that has been provided in this thread) Glad you helped clarify things for us Tom and 93% of Americans apparently don't need clarification on terrorism... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/...acre-extremist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 and 93% of Americans apparently don't need clarification on terrorism... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/...acre-extremist/ HAHAHAHA, yes the infallible knowledge of the American public as shown in a FoxNews poll. CLASSIC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 HAHAHAHA, yes the infallible knowledge of the American public as shown in a FoxNews poll. CLASSIC! Just like a liberal to think that they're smarter than everyone else... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/f...0_n_304260.html The reason the lefty-liberal cable network ratings are so low is because in general, Americans are smart enough to know when they're getting completely hosed when hosts talk openly about tingles up their leg. The independents clearly have gone over to Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Just like a liberal to think that they're smarter than everyone else... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/f...0_n_304260.html The reason the lefty-liberal cable network ratings are so low is because in general, Americans are smart enough to know when they're getting completely hosed when hosts talk openly about tingles up their leg. The independents clearly have gone over to Fox. Hahaha, okay buddy. It's your way or the liberal way. Man, I wish I saw the world in such simple terms. Must be quite easy for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Both hate America, so they'd get along just fine. Not really- he capitalizes on the stupid people in this country, just like Rush Limbaugh does- making money off stupid people is the American way! Just like a liberal to think that they're smarter than everyone else... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/f...0_n_304260.html The reason the lefty-liberal cable network ratings are so low is because in general, Americans are smart enough to know when they're getting completely hosed when hosts talk openly about tingles up their leg. The independents clearly have gone over to Fox. Fox is right up there on my list with MSNBC. EDUCATED people follow CSPAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Not really- he capitalizes on the stupid people in this country, just like Rush Limbaugh does- making money off stupid people is the American way! Fox is right up there on my list with MSNBC. Insomniacs follow CSPAN Fixed for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Fox is right up there on my list with MSNBC. comatose people follow CSPAN Fixed it even better for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts