Terrorism

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russ: I am NOT painting you as anti-American. I’m simply reading what you write and commenting on that. Unlike the more Left-leaning posters, I don’t demand anyone behave a certain way, that’s the true beauty of this country. Believe what you want, its your business.

Where I take issue is when you either ignore facts or make assertions of your own without any basis in fact. Examples would be the oft repeated meme of “America attacking the Mideast” (echoing Susan Sontag’s exculpation of Islamic fundamentalism on 9/11 under the rubric of “This happened because we deserved it”) or “Perversion of Christian ideals as we subjugate Muslim lands”.

These are fairly extremist perspectives in their own right and, when challenged on them, your response is to generally round on your opponent and accuse them of imperialistic ambitions or being a crazy right-winger.

I don’t advocate or agitate for the destruction of Islam. What I do advocate, however, is the complete and utter elimination of any adherents to the radicalized version that counts bin Laden and al-Qaeda among its members. During the Cold War, I also believed that eradicating Communism from the face of the earth was a good thing, too. After all, supporting a “faith” that killed 100MM people seemed like a really bad idea.

I doubt very much you’d condone Nazism and its perverted “theology”, so why do the same with this brand of Islam?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I think we’re getting into protocol and punctilio here as far as what constitutes a terrorist. Once you connect all of the dots in Hasan’s personal life, it goes from mass murder to terrorism, or a “terroristic act” (better?). Using hate crime guidelines, we’d certainly have crossed the threshold by now.[/quote]

The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.” Both have a goal, both involve a greater organization, both are often driven by personal passion, and both use violence. And some organizations do both. When al-Queda sends a suicide bomber to a marketplace, they are acting as terrorists. When they fire an RPG at a Marine Humvee, they are acting as enemy soldiers.

This distinction is important: if we apply a broad definition of terrorism to others, we have to be prepared to have the same standard applied to us. Much of the Islamic world considers the US to be a terrorist state and, if we use a “loose” definition of terrorism, it is a valid claim. I’d like to think that the claim not true, but it won’t be if we don’t take care to define standards of conduct and actually abide by them.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I think we’re getting into protocol and punctilio here as far as what constitutes a terrorist. Once you connect all of the dots in Hasan’s personal life, it goes from mass murder to terrorism, or a “terroristic act” (better?). Using hate crime guidelines, we’d certainly have crossed the threshold by now.[/quote]

The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.” Both have a goal, both involve a greater organization, both are often driven by personal passion, and both use violence. And some organizations do both. When al-Queda sends a suicide bomber to a marketplace, they are acting as terrorists. When they fire an RPG at a Marine Humvee, they are acting as enemy soldiers.

This distinction is important: if we apply a broad definition of terrorism to others, we have to be prepared to have the same standard applied to us. Much of the Islamic world considers the US to be a terrorist state and, if we use a “loose” definition of terrorism, it is a valid claim. I’d like to think that the claim not true, but it won’t be if we don’t take care to define standards of conduct and actually abide by them.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I think we’re getting into protocol and punctilio here as far as what constitutes a terrorist. Once you connect all of the dots in Hasan’s personal life, it goes from mass murder to terrorism, or a “terroristic act” (better?). Using hate crime guidelines, we’d certainly have crossed the threshold by now.[/quote]

The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.” Both have a goal, both involve a greater organization, both are often driven by personal passion, and both use violence. And some organizations do both. When al-Queda sends a suicide bomber to a marketplace, they are acting as terrorists. When they fire an RPG at a Marine Humvee, they are acting as enemy soldiers.

This distinction is important: if we apply a broad definition of terrorism to others, we have to be prepared to have the same standard applied to us. Much of the Islamic world considers the US to be a terrorist state and, if we use a “loose” definition of terrorism, it is a valid claim. I’d like to think that the claim not true, but it won’t be if we don’t take care to define standards of conduct and actually abide by them.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I think we’re getting into protocol and punctilio here as far as what constitutes a terrorist. Once you connect all of the dots in Hasan’s personal life, it goes from mass murder to terrorism, or a “terroristic act” (better?). Using hate crime guidelines, we’d certainly have crossed the threshold by now.[/quote]

The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.” Both have a goal, both involve a greater organization, both are often driven by personal passion, and both use violence. And some organizations do both. When al-Queda sends a suicide bomber to a marketplace, they are acting as terrorists. When they fire an RPG at a Marine Humvee, they are acting as enemy soldiers.

This distinction is important: if we apply a broad definition of terrorism to others, we have to be prepared to have the same standard applied to us. Much of the Islamic world considers the US to be a terrorist state and, if we use a “loose” definition of terrorism, it is a valid claim. I’d like to think that the claim not true, but it won’t be if we don’t take care to define standards of conduct and actually abide by them.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I think we’re getting into protocol and punctilio here as far as what constitutes a terrorist. Once you connect all of the dots in Hasan’s personal life, it goes from mass murder to terrorism, or a “terroristic act” (better?). Using hate crime guidelines, we’d certainly have crossed the threshold by now.[/quote]

The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.” Both have a goal, both involve a greater organization, both are often driven by personal passion, and both use violence. And some organizations do both. When al-Queda sends a suicide bomber to a marketplace, they are acting as terrorists. When they fire an RPG at a Marine Humvee, they are acting as enemy soldiers.

This distinction is important: if we apply a broad definition of terrorism to others, we have to be prepared to have the same standard applied to us. Much of the Islamic world considers the US to be a terrorist state and, if we use a “loose” definition of terrorism, it is a valid claim. I’d like to think that the claim not true, but it won’t be if we don’t take care to define standards of conduct and actually abide by them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.

[NotCranky]

Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.

[NotCranky]

Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.

[NotCranky]

Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.

[NotCranky]

Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.

[Author]

Posts