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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
“……. 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.
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.
That was informative. This incident has come down to semantics, but not by these posters, by the military and the politicians who are intent on advancing their particular agenda and missing the big picture. The key point does seem to be that terrorism is an act perpetrated against large numbers of the civilian population. At Fort Hood, Major Hasan turned the workplace into a battlefield by engaging the soldiers with hostile gunfire. It seems to be splitting hairs to deny the casualties full combat benefits because of a questionable definition. This incident doesn’t fit neatly into any box, but “combat casualty” seems to come closest. One term that is out of place is “terrorism.” It is an overused word too often used in tandem with Muslims, and too often only promoting more religious strife.
Is terrorism a legitimate way to defeat the enemy’s will to fight? Was the terrorism at Hiroshima justified? Was the terrorism of the bombing of civilians in Vietnam justified?
By the way, now that you’ve agreed that the Fort Hood attack was not an instance of terrorism, would you care to reconsider your note posted above: “^ These are the people who refuse to call it a War on Terrorism, but a “man-made bad thingy”. Perfect Obamabots.”
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Amazing the same folks who scream “BENGHAZI” are now upset if temporary precautions ARE taken.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 10 years ago
The terrorists win when a president is criticized for not taking precautions, and then again when he does.
I Play One On TV over 10 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.
Dtroutma over 10 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.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
“……Corrupt, incomptent, pathological liar, Obama….”.Or is it that you are dillusional?
Gypsy8 over 10 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.
Gypsy8 over 10 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.
Gypsy8 over 10 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!
lonecat over 10 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?
lonecat over 10 years ago
And your definition?
lonecat over 10 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?
lonecat over 10 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.
Gypsy8 over 10 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.
lonecat over 10 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.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
That was informative. This incident has come down to semantics, but not by these posters, by the military and the politicians who are intent on advancing their particular agenda and missing the big picture. The key point does seem to be that terrorism is an act perpetrated against large numbers of the civilian population. At Fort Hood, Major Hasan turned the workplace into a battlefield by engaging the soldiers with hostile gunfire. It seems to be splitting hairs to deny the casualties full combat benefits because of a questionable definition. This incident doesn’t fit neatly into any box, but “combat casualty” seems to come closest. One term that is out of place is “terrorism.” It is an overused word too often used in tandem with Muslims, and too often only promoting more religious strife.
lonecat over 10 years ago
Is terrorism a legitimate way to defeat the enemy’s will to fight? Was the terrorism at Hiroshima justified? Was the terrorism of the bombing of civilians in Vietnam justified?
lonecat over 10 years ago
By the way, now that you’ve agreed that the Fort Hood attack was not an instance of terrorism, would you care to reconsider your note posted above: “^ These are the people who refuse to call it a War on Terrorism, but a “man-made bad thingy”. Perfect Obamabots.”