|
|
| Next: Video:Congrats to 10,000th Dutch shoplifter |
| Author |
Message |
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
That's rich. So they counted all of the insurgent attacks committed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the war as terrorist acts because civilians were killed and an call it a huge increase in terrorism, LOL. Quite true in so far as it goes and very, very misleading. Yet it is another prime example of how the truth is twisted to back up an agenda. This is good propaganda. I hope you don't actually read and believe this stuff do you.
Oh and while we're on the subject I appreciate the list of foiled terrorist plots. I'ts a nice long list but it doesn't show how many plots were foiled that aren't a matter of public knowledge or how many terror acts were foiled because the terorists were killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars before they could commit them now does it. Since you'll probably ask me for proof of the latter statement let me answer by asking how many terrorist acts have actually been commited against us in this country since 9/11. |
Q. if the insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are "not" classed as terrorism or acts thereof may i ask how they are classed, please … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
That's rich. So they counted all of the insurgent attacks committed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the war as terrorist acts because civilians were killed and an call it a huge increase in terrorism, LOL. Quite true in so far as it goes and very, very misleading. Yet it is another prime example of how the truth is twisted to back up an agenda. This is good propaganda. I hope you don't actually read and believe this stuff do you.
. |
As I said, those were just the first three links of thousands on Google. Feel free to do your own search and find ones that meet your definition of terrorism. How many terrorist attacks occured in Iraq before we invaded?
| Quote: |
| Oh and while we're on the subject I appreciate the list of foiled terrorist plots. I'ts a nice long list but it doesn't show how many plots were foiled that aren't a matter of public knowledge or how many terror acts were foiled because the terorists were killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars before they could commit them now does it. Since you'll probably ask me for proof of the latter statement let me answer by asking how many terrorist acts have actually been commited against us in this country since 9/11 |
i was speaking of the terrorist attacks that Bush has been speaking about. ALL foiled because of police work and all on the list I provided. As i looked through the list (A LOT longer than i thought), i could find NONE that was foiled because of our actions in Iraq.
As far as terrorist acts that have been committed since 9/11 goes ... I'll say none. But, what does that mean? Are you implying that since we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 that we are safer? I could argue that since there were no terrorist attacks for the 7 years before 9/11 that we were safer then too. What's your point? Do Americans killed in overseas terrorist attacks not count? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Chicago Homicides Exceed U.S. Iraq Deaths [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2009/01/02/chicago-homicides-exceed-u-s-iraq-deaths-it-news
| Quote: |
...
In the sheer exhilaration of the impending Age of Obama, it's understandable that some stories are overlooked. One that might not be considered newsworthy is the fact that last year homicides in Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago substantially exceeded the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. As the AP itself reported:
According to a tally by The Associated Press, at least 314 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in 2008, down from 904 in the previous year.
And the Chicago Tribune reported today:
Chicago closed out the year with 509 homicides, an increase of about 15 percent over 2007. . .
Obama, of course, has characterized U.S. involvement in Iraq as a "complete failure" and advocates the withdrawal of our military. If Iraq's a total failure, how does Obama view what's taking place in his own hometown? Should America stop sending millions, possibly billions, of dollars in assistance to what is obviously a losing effort? ... |
More good news in Iraq ignored by the media. And of course the good news was caused by us ignoring the surrender calls from Obama. And I agree with the question - should we now surrender Chicago? |
Concerning the bold part.
On this point I disagree. Our intervention was not just for the immediate, stated purposes of the intervention: to deprive Iraq of weapons of mass destruction or the capacity to build such; to eliminate a murderous political regime; and to remove Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism, (not just Islamic terrorism).
Imediate results of removing Saddam Hussein can be shown
| Quote: |
| The main argument against intervening in Iraq was that it might cause terrorism to increase. This accusation is false. It is true that up to 2003 there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq, which was free of international Islamic terrorist groups. But this does not mean that in that same time period there were no victims of terrorism. Statistics for the years 1968-2003 show that over thirty-five years Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror caused the death of 28,600 people a year, or 80 people a day. Fortunately the terrorist attacks after the fall of Baghdad have not managed to cause as many casualties, and their activity decreased after the parliamentary elections..... |
But it's the long term results in the middle east and the world that many seem to miss.
| Quote: |
| Clearly the monarchies and dictatorships of the region have lost their resilience. Nothing will be the same again. The only questions remaining are how fast the changes will occur, and what their ultimate outcome will be. These changes have been initiated by external factors: namely the oft-condemned intervention in Iraq. The U.S. – against the opinion of its adversaries and some of its formal allies – understands that democracy, especially in its Western form, can not be simply imported as a finished product. George W. Bush has begun to admit, unnecessarily, that the intervention in Iraq has not fully achieved its goals. The immediate, stated purposes of the intervention: to deprive Iraq of weapons of mass destruction or the capacity to build such; to eliminate a murderous political regime; and to remove Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism, (not just Islamic terrorism), were all true. But these purposes were declared primarily to satisfy public opinion, as they were easily accepted and understood. It would be naive to expect the public to support and accept heavy sacrifices and casualties in the name of long-term strategic aims. For this reason the opinion expressed in the book Iraq: One Year After (Stéphane Courtois, editor): that concealing this strategic aim was a mistake, is unjustified. The true ultimate purpose of the intervention was to help Arab countries reshape themselves in accordance with the Arab Human Development Report of 2002. This document, prepared by Arab experts and intellectuals, has pointed out three main reasons for the underdevelopment and backwardness of the region........ |
Here. is an interesting read and the source for the quotes above.
Obama's challenge will be finishing off the Taliban and our friend OSB and guiding as best as possible some of the changes that will certainty happen during his time in office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I'm not sure if any of these would rise to the level of a terrorist attack domestic or otheriwise although the anthrax case comes close. In the first two cases the culprit(s) were found to be individuals not linked to any organized group and apparently acting alone. In the last case no culprit has been found though it looks more to me to have been a hate crime as opposed to an act of terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnlevo
Joined: Jan 07, 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
Woot !!! 300 Americans died in Iraq. I'm sure their families are celebrating right now.
How many Americans would have died there if we had pulled our troops out?
As far as Chicago goes. Their murder rate is MUCH lower than it was in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, etc. Why no post here with THAT great news? Their murder rate is far less than deaths in Iraq in previous years yet, nobody posting the good news here. Why is Chicago so important now? |
It's because it's news. Nobody posts news that is good news (even though any murder isn't good...it's the fact that the murder rate is lower then before). Every news journalist loves to dig up what is the worst and most likely to get people reading. It's pathetic. I used to want to be a journalist until I realized that the majority of them are hypocrites that call other people names and what have you but they are no better then the people bad people they report on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I'm not sure if any of these would rise to the level of a terrorist attack domestic or otheriwise although the anthrax case comes close. In the first two cases the culprit(s) were found to be individuals not linked to any organized group and apparently acting alone. In the last case no culprit has been found though it looks more to me to have been a hate crime as opposed to an act of terrorism. |
Terrorism isn't limited just to Muslims attacking westerners. The DC sniper was tried, found guilty and convicted of committing terrorism. The Anthrax case was definitely terrorism and the act of bombing the mosque certainly fits the bill. I've seen people say that the bombing of abortion clinics isn't terrorism. If it isn't what is it? Whether the person(s) committing these acts acted as individuals or as part of a group is irrelevant; the acts are still acts of terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:36 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| Since you'll probably ask me for proof of the latter statement let me answer by asking how many terrorist acts have actually been commited against us in this country since 9/11. |
As of November 13, 2007, 19.
U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorist Attacks Against America Since 9/11
| Quote: |
| A review of publicly available information on at least 19 terrorist conspiracies thwarted by U.S. law enforcement |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:09 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| cnlevo wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
Woot !!! 300 Americans died in Iraq. I'm sure their families are celebrating right now.
How many Americans would have died there if we had pulled our troops out?
As far as Chicago goes. Their murder rate is MUCH lower than it was in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, etc. Why no post here with THAT great news? Their murder rate is far less than deaths in Iraq in previous years yet, nobody posting the good news here. Why is Chicago so important now? |
It's because it's news. Nobody posts news that is good news (even though any murder isn't good...it's the fact that the murder rate is lower then before). Every news journalist loves to dig up what is the worst and most likely to get people reading. It's pathetic. I used to want to be a journalist until I realized that the majority of them are hypocrites that call other people names and what have you but they are no better then the people bad people they report on. |
But this thread was started because of good news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I'm not sure if any of these would rise to the level of a terrorist attack domestic or otheriwise although the anthrax case comes close. In the first two cases the culprit(s) were found to be individuals not linked to any organized group and apparently acting alone. In the last case no culprit has been found though it looks more to me to have been a hate crime as opposed to an act of terrorism. |
And all being investigated and brought to justice with good police work rather than war in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I'm not sure if any of these would rise to the level of a terrorist attack domestic or otheriwise although the anthrax case comes close. In the first two cases the culprit(s) were found to be individuals not linked to any organized group and apparently acting alone. In the last case no culprit has been found though it looks more to me to have been a hate crime as opposed to an act of terrorism. |
And all being investigated and brought to justice with good police work rather than war in Iraq. |
So.......what was it again that brought about the authorities ability to work together and share information allowing them to track and stop terrorist attacks on US soil? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
I'm not sure if any of these would rise to the level of a terrorist attack domestic or otheriwise although the anthrax case comes close. In the first two cases the culprit(s) were found to be individuals not linked to any organized group and apparently acting alone. In the last case no culprit has been found though it looks more to me to have been a hate crime as opposed to an act of terrorism. |
And all being investigated and brought to justice with good police work rather than war in Iraq. |
So.......what was it again that brought about the authorities ability to work together and share information allowing them to track and stop terrorist attacks on US soil? |
The war in Iraq? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/05461.html
| Quote: |
terrorism
(DOD) The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. |
By the military's definition, I don't think any of those were terrorism.
The Beltway Snipers weren't convicted of terrorism, just murder. Also, according to wikipedia, their plan was to extort money from the federal government, not "coerce or to intimidate governments or societies". While they may have used fear as part of his tactics, according to the definition it wasn't terrorism.
In the other two cases, nothing was ever claimed. No on claimed credit, no one tried to change our society, it would be very to call them terrorism.
All of them were tragic and horrible, but terrorism has a specific meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:04 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/05461.html
| Quote: |
terrorism
(DOD) The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. |
By the military's definition, I don't think any of those were terrorism.
The Beltway Snipers weren't convicted of terrorism, just murder. Also, according to wikipedia, their plan was to extort money from the federal government, not "coerce or to intimidate governments or societies". While they may have used fear as part of his tactics, according to the definition it wasn't terrorism.
In the other two cases, nothing was ever claimed. No on claimed credit, no one tried to change our society, it would be very to call them terrorism.
All of them were tragic and horrible, but terrorism has a specific meaning. |
But the military is not the only agency that determines what is terrorism. The FBI has this to say:
| Quote: |
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:
l Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)] |
FBI
By the FBI definition all 3 cases meet the threshold of terrorism. As for the DC sniper indeed was convicted of terrorism.
| Quote: |
| The jury deliberated about 13 hours over two days before finding Malvo guilty of terrorism and capital murder in the October 14, 2002, killing of FBI analyst Linda Franklin outside a Home Depot in Falls Church, Virginia. Malvo also was found guilty on one count of using a firearm in commission of a felony. |
Source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Sgt Schultz wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/05461.html
| Quote: |
terrorism
(DOD) The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. |
By the military's definition, I don't think any of those were terrorism.
The Beltway Snipers weren't convicted of terrorism, just murder. Also, according to wikipedia, their plan was to extort money from the federal government, not "coerce or to intimidate governments or societies". While they may have used fear as part of his tactics, according to the definition it wasn't terrorism.
In the other two cases, nothing was ever claimed. No on claimed credit, no one tried to change our society, it would be very to call them terrorism.
All of them were tragic and horrible, but terrorism has a specific meaning. |
But the military is not the only agency that determines what is terrorism. The FBI has this to say:
| Quote: |
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:
l Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)] |
FBI
By the FBI definition all 3 cases meet the threshold of terrorism. As for the DC sniper indeed was convicted of terrorism.
| Quote: |
| The jury deliberated about 13 hours over two days before finding Malvo guilty of terrorism and capital murder in the October 14, 2002, killing of FBI analyst Linda Franklin outside a Home Depot in Falls Church, Virginia. Malvo also was found guilty on one count of using a firearm in commission of a felony. |
Source |
| Quote: |
| The jury deliberated for 6 1/2 hours over two days before convicting Muhammad of two counts of capital murder. One accused him of taking part in multiple murders, the other - the result of a post-Sept. 11 terrorism law - alleged the killings were designed to terrorize the population. Muhammad is the first person tried under the Virginia law. |
http://www.courttv.com/trials/sniper/muhammad-verdict.html
Sorry but I disagree. While it is true the DC sniper was convicted under the new terrorism law I still maintain they do not rise to the level of terrorism. While his actions did incite terror they weren't terrorism. If so then every serial killer in the country could be considered a terrorist.. Even in the more general FBI defintion the DC sniper case only tenuosly would fall under the intimidate and coerce provision of the definition since that was not his prupose in comitting the crimes. Simply calling it terrorism doesn't make it so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Sgt Schultz wrote: |
But the military is not the only agency that determines what is terrorism. The FBI has this to say:
| Quote: |
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:
l Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)] |
FBI
By the FBI definition all 3 cases meet the threshold of terrorism. As for the DC sniper indeed was convicted of terrorism. |
I stand corrected about the DC snipers. They were convicted or terrorism (my source only said murder).
None of those cases meet the FBI's definition, though. That definition lays out 4 clear requirements for something to be "terrorism":
1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state;
2. appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
3. to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
4. and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The "and" means that all 4 must be met to be terrorism. The mosque and anthrax cases are easy - no one ever claimed responsibility, made demands, etc., so #3 is not met. Even the DC sniper case, which at first blush may appear to meet the criteria, falls short: they weren't trying "to influence the policy of a government", they were just trying to get money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 7378
Location: St. Louis area
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5425
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| I don't find it odd for a minute that the FBI would claim that they had defeated "terrorism" even when by their own definition the cases weren't terrorism. That's how you get money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
After 9/11 virtually everything gets called terrorism which is unfortunate since it tends to diminish the seriousness of real terrorism. Under the current guidlines Ted Bundy would be considered a terrorist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| If a sniper were picking people off around you, you'd be terrified. If you received anthrax in the mail, I'm sure you would be terrified too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General