Gary Markstein by Gary Markstein

Gary Markstein

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Amazing the same folks who scream “BENGHAZI” are now upset if temporary precautions ARE taken.

  2. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    The terrorists win when a president is criticized for not taking precautions, and then again when he does.

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    ““We have al Quaida on the run.” – Corrupt, incomptent, pathological liar, Obama”

    “What you’re seeing here is the final death throes of the insurgency.” Dick Cheney

    What words would you use to describe Mr. Cheney?

    We have a long history of “misrepresentation” and “disinformation” in this country. I hope you had a nice nap, Mr. van Winkle.

  4. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Radish: VERY GOOD POINT! Since the chickenhawk in chief and his associate chickenhawk left office, the fear factor in America has been greatly, and rightly, reduced, except of course among our right-wing, bible-thumping, anti-Musllim, quaking under their sheets chicken-breathed commentators here at GC.

    Again,once again, while I do NOT support all Obama’s actions, like even helping Europe get rid of the governments in North Africa without getting any of our troops killed, and letting Stevens follow through on his error in Benghazi, or over-doing domestic surveillance, just like “W”, and authorized in the Patriot Act, it is time to ignore those shaking in their boots, or trying to drum up false fears, like Hannity, Rush, and other right wing whackos like Beck, Boehner, and McConnell.

  5. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    “……Corrupt, incomptent, pathological liar, Obama….”
    Or is it that you are dillusional?

  6. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    Nobody said there is no more war on terror. Perhaps a little more selectivity in how the term is used.
    Al Queda is on the run, but not defeated, as in eliminated. They never will be eliminated – its the nature of their tactics.
    I doubt to those killed at Fort Hood, the definition of how they were killed is of little relevance. Nor should it be of much relevance to anyone else.

  7. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    I stand on what I said – what difference to the dead and the injured whether you call it terrorism or work-place violence? The results are the same that men were killed and injured while serving their country, and there can be no doubt it was by hostile fire. They paid the ultimate price so don’t get picky on the survival benefits – give them combat benefits if that is the best deal. The problem is slavishness to terminology and definitions and losing sight of the big picture. I’d be inclined to call it murder and attempted murder and avoid the label of terrorism, which too often is attributed to Muslims and exacerbates intolerance. But I would not allow the innocent victims to pay the price for faulty military bureaucracy. Loosen up the rules it that is required for fairness.

  8. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    Your arrogance is obnoxious, but I’ll be patient. Firstly, you missed the nuance of my comments. I could elaborate, but there is a limit to my patience. Secondly, is your criteria for labelling an incident workplace violence or terrorism getting the maximum government benefits? What an interesting approach!

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    The terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” have almost lost their use except as terms of emotion. Those who think that the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, what definition are you using?

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    And your definition?

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    That’s not a definition, unless you mean that all terrorists must have traded emails with Al Awlaki, etc. That would be a set of one person, so I doubt that you mean that. A definition, please. You do know what a definition is and does, don’t you?

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    Justice Stewart’s comment was not worthy of an otherwise distinguished mind. (I didn’t know Potter Stewart, but I knew his brother well.) I gather that you are either unwilling or unable to present a definition of “terrorism” or “terrorist”. Okay. Not much point in further discussion if you can’t or won’t define your terms.

  13. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    “……. It’s dishonest and disgusting, and he’s not worth talking to…….”
    Once in a while I catch a whiff of independent thought, and then he reverts back to the party-line talking points. So maybe you’re right.

  14. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago


    “….. Not much point in further discussion if you can’t or won’t define your terms……”
    He seems to be doing his best imitation of a defense lawyer and avoiding a direct response.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    Nothing wrong with semantics. Semantics is the science of meaning. If you don’t know what you mean, your thinking probably won’t get very far.

    The definition of “terrorism” in the Oxford Canadian Dictionary isn’t very helpful. Here it is:

    “terrorism – the systematic employment of violence and intimidation to coerce a government or a community esp. into acceding to specific political demands.”

    I hope there’s no need to give a detailed critique – it’s obvious a poor definition. Those of us who deal in words learn very quickly that standard dictionaries have strengths and weaknesses; here the weakness is most in evidence.

    So I poked around in my collection of books about words, and I came across something a little better in “Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts”, second edition. Edited by Andrew Edgar and Peter Sedgwick. London: Routledge. 2008. Here it is:

    “The perpetration of violent acts against civilians designed in order to create a sense of terror in a general population (or national or ethnic group) with the intention of achieving political, ideological, economic, or religious goals.” (Their discussion then goes on for some pages, but this is perhaps enough for now.) To my mind this is much better, but not perfect. (It leaves out a kind of violence sometimes perpetrated by some crazy anarchists who seem to have no particular goal beyond the violence and the terror. But for our discussion this point may not matter.)

    This definition seems to include what is for me a crucial point. Terrorism is directed against civilians. And you seem to grant that point in your most recent message. So on this definition the Fort Hood attack was not terrorism. What difference that makes is another question.

    With this definition, I would venture that a contender for the greatest single act of terror was the bombing of Hiroshima. And a contender for the largest sustained terror campaign was the bombing of Vietnam.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).