[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 11 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

I certainly hope the NcCain supporters can take a deep breath and think a little before they go into their chants.

Actually, McCain does sometimes contradict his more whacko supporters: McCain Lauds and Attacks Obama on Same Day

Quote

When a man told him he was “scared” of an Obama presidency, Mr. McCain replied, “I want to be president of the United States and obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be, but I have to tell you — I have to tell you — he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared" of "as president of the United States.” The crowd booed loudly at Mr. McCain’s response.

Later, a woman stood up at the meeting, held at Lakeville South High School in a far suburb of Minneapolis, and told Mr. McCain that she could not trust Mr. Obama because he was an “Arab.”

Mr. McCain replied: “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.”

Afterwards, campaign adviser Steve Schmidt explained that it was Palin's job, not McCain's, to "push up Obama's negatives."

[helene_t]

The links from RealClearPolitics are usually of tabloid quality, but The conservative case for Obama is a decent read IMHO.

[matmat]

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

Afterwards, campaign adviser Steve Schmidt explained that it was Palin's job, not McCain's, to "push up Obama's negatives."

this is correct. please remember that she is the bulldog with lipstick.

[firmit]

I read a fairly interesting article about Palin today: http://www.newsweek....d/160080/page/1

I must say - the author is well articulated!

[akhare]

These videos should give an idea of what the mob was likely to have been chanting:


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4fbpZXivv-M

[babalu1997]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

I do remember, in the fil version of the musical GREASE, the FBI experts were called to find out which students had mooned the camera at the prom.

Was a report ever released?

[matmat]

akhare, on Oct 11 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

These videos should give an idea of what the mob was likely to have been chanting:


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4fbpZXivv-M

gah
frightning.
especially the "die" and the cut-throat gesture. isn't that a terrorist threat?

[Mbodell]

TimG, on Oct 10 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

I tend to think of a terrorist as someone who attacks innocent civilians. Attacking people who are actually fighting you or doing the thing that you oppose is a little different from attacking random people hoping that this will scare those random people into pressuring your actual enemies to change policy.

Under your definition, bombing the office of a doctor who performs abortions as a way to protest abortions would not be considered terrorism. Not that I would definitively claim you are wrong, but I expect most would consider such a bombing an act of terrorism.

I think it depends on why you do it. Terrorism has two pieces:

the "terror" piece involves violence, or credible threats of violence, that is designed to frighten the population

the "ism" piece means the motive of the terror is aimed to intimidate or coerce the gov't policy or political situation.

You could be a terrorist without ever using a bomb if you could somehow produce a credible threat of using a bomb that succeeded in terrorizing your target population.

If you blow up the doctor's office, or abortion clinic, or hospital or what not it depends on your motive (or motives) if it is a terrorist act, IMO.

If you had, in part or whole, a motive that involved terrorizing the population to not be involved in abortion (be it patients, doctors, or whoever) then I think you are a terrorist. But if in a hypothetical counter factual world the motives of the bomber were merely to have property damage that results in abortions not being able to performed at this location (destruction not terror) then I think we would have a criminal act that is not terrorism (imagine this is a form of sabotage akin to stealing a delivery of needed medical supplies to the clinic or cutting off the power).

[onoway]

A question..could street gangs in some cases be considered terrorists? Certainly a large part of what they do is intimidate and threaten and in some cases harm civilians.
They certainly curtail civilian freedoms (such as walking in some areas) In one case I was told about people were unable to insure their homes because of active and constant gang activity in their district.
They alter the justice system in some places as police tend to have difficulty finding people to testify against gang members.
Does the political side to it have to have a specific agenda beyond power for power's sake (with economic perks asa result) to be considered terrorism?

[smiffy]

onoway, on Oct 11 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

A question..could street gangs in some cases be considered terrorists? Certainly a large part of what they do is intimidate and threaten and in some cases harm civilians.
They certainly curtail civilian freedoms (such as walking in some areas) In one case I was told about people were unable to insure their homes because of active and constant gang activity in their district.
They alter the justice system in some places as police tend to have difficulty finding people to testify against gang members.
Does the political side to it have to have a specific agenda beyond power for power's sake (with economic perks asa result) to be considered terrorism?

I think in this case it depends on whether their activities are organized in such a manner as to achieve what they see as their aims. So is their "terrorizing of the neighborhood" planned or is it just a by-product; collateral damage so to speak. If the former, i think they can be called terrorists. If the latter, they are mere criminals.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Oct 10 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

Just so there's no ambiguity here:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorist

Pretty clear that someone who isn't trying to kill someone but wants to scare the ***** out of them by planting a bomb at night is a terrorist.

Would any of you hesitate to label someone who supported the 'right to life' who blew up an abortion clinic at 3AM as a terrorist? I surely would and I hope you would too.

The 'cause' of the person, no matter how sympathetic we view it, should never obfuscate our definition of things like terror.

I think citing a dictionary to define 'terrorist' makes as much sense as citing a dictionary to define 'liberal'. The word has become very political, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on a definition.
Anyway, I would personally agree with blackshoe's distinction that throwing a bomb that is intended to scare innocent civilians is terrorism, whereas when it is clear to everyone that the bomb is only targeted at destruction of facilities, then it is just vandalism.

To onoway: Usually political motivation is included in the definition of terrorism.

[kenberg]

Arend,

I doubt that one person in a hundred would describe blowing up facilities with a bomb as vandalism. Slashing tires, breaking windows, that sort of thing is routinely described as vandalism. Planting bombs? I don't think so.

Here I am adopting the suggestion that we not consult a dictionary. You don't say how we should come to agreement on the meaning of words, but common usage seems one reasonable route. I was a fairly young adult at the time the Weather Underground was active. I cannot recall ever hearing them referred to as vandals. Certainly it is not a term I would use to describe them.

Ken

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 11 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

I certainly hope the NcCain supporters can take a deep breath and think a little before they go into their chants.

Actually, McCain does sometimes contradict his more whacko supporters: McCain Lauds and Attacks Obama on Same Day

Quote

When a man told him he was “scared” of an Obama presidency, Mr. McCain replied, “I want to be president of the United States and obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be, but I have to tell you — I have to tell you — he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared" of "as president of the United States.” The crowd booed loudly at Mr. McCain’s response.

Later, a woman stood up at the meeting, held at Lakeville South High School in a far suburb of Minneapolis, and told Mr. McCain that she could not trust Mr. Obama because he was an “Arab.”

Mr. McCain replied: “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.”

Afterwards, campaign adviser Steve Schmidt explained that it was Palin's job, not McCain's, to "push up Obama's negatives."

This, of course, is so that the damage will have been done when she steps aside for "personal (Rovian) reasons" and Jeb Bush steps forward for veep.

[luke warm]

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?

no, since the us settled for far less than a life lived by our rules

jdonn, on Oct 10 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?
2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims?


hmmmm

And hasn't Al Queda declared war against Americans (among many others)?

i suppose a terrorist can declare a war, so if that's so a terrorist organization can...

[smiffy]

luke warm, on Oct 11 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?

no, since the us settled for far less than a life lived by our rules

jdonn, on Oct 10 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 10 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 27 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

~~~
my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed
~~~

1. was the vietnam war a declared war?
2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims?


hmmmm

And hasn't Al Queda declared war against Americans (among many others)?

i suppose a terrorist can declare a war, so if that's so a terrorist organization can...

I don't think your definition is correct. First of all individuals cannot declare wars. Secondly, a terrorist does not necessarily need to use "the most horrifying means possible". I think one can safely say that he will use that which he deems most effective from what is available to him. He still might refrain from using Anthrax or some such. Not every terrorist is by definition blinded by fanaticism.
Thirdly, a terrorist might have an extremely high regard for the identity of his victims (the german RAF - Red Army Fraction - for example did pick their victims very carefully, just as the IRA; though certainly both were not bothered much by the death of innocents).
Also, a terrorist might settle for much less than a life lived by his rules. For example he might use his terroristic activity to force a government to free his imprisoned comrades. Or his activities target only some certain group but not society as a whole. Or he engages in terroristic activity because he sees no other way to make his case or that of his people known to the public.
And finally the ones who make up the movement do not need to die out or be destroyed. There are cases (again the german RAF) where terrorists had stopped their activity just by themselves. They simply - over the years - had lost their commitment. They are human beings after all.

I have a feeling with your definition of terrorism you had islamistic suicide bombers in mind, the Al-Quaida and nothing much else.

[han]

akhare, on Oct 11 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

These videos should give an idea of what the mob was likely to have been chanting:


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4fbpZXivv-M

Thank you for posting these videos.

I have a few republicans friends, but none that feel as strongly as these people. And since I cannot follow the logic or language of some of the republican frequent posters on this forum, I find it hard to understand what motivates people to root so strongly against Obama. These videos gives me an idea of what moves at least some Americans.

I wonder how large this group is, and even how many of the Hilary voters were doing so for similar motivations. I remember a landslide victory for her in some rural states (Kentucky?).

[y66]

Okay, now that Ms. Palin's qualifications are no longer a serious issue, maybe we can agree that she is interesting, gutsy, charming, authentic even -- and funny!

SNL debut story here.

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Oct 11 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 10 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 10 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I was just checking on the web. Apparently the Secret Service investigated the claim that someone had shouted "Kill him" at a McCain, or maybe Palin, rally and they found  no evidence that such a thing had been said. I hope that it has not been said.

You must have gotten that from Fox News. What really happened is, with McCain and Palin exhorting them on, it was the entire crowd that repeatedly chanted it.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQdKB_...5eyQlueyGvsmt7g

Here is part of it:

The alleged threat was made when Palin was speaking of Obama's relations with former 1960s radical Bill Ayers, whose group "The Weathermen" carried out a series of attacks in protest against the Vietnam War.

"We take every threat very seriously. Every time we receive or are reported information like that, we follow up," said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.

However, he cautioned that at the McCain rally, "no Secret Service agent overheard any threatening statement and no threatening statements were reported by law enforcement or the general public."

"We did make some inquiries after the Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a someone had yelled 'kill him,'" he added.

Donovan said it wasn't clear whether the threat was actually vocalized or, if so, if it was meant for Obama or even Ayers, both of whose names were uttered by Palin at that moment in her speech.

For those reasons, he added, the investigation was dropped.




Not Fox News. I certainly hope the NcCain supporters can take a deep breath and think a little before they go into their chants. Arguing that we should vote for McCain because Obama's middle name is Hussein will not be getting them my support. Otoh I also think that if the Secret Service finds no evidence that someone shouted "kill him" we should allow for the possibility that no one did shout "kill him".


Generally speaking, I am not fond of chants.

And in other news...

http://www.local6.co...129/detail.html

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/1...356/detail.html



Hopefully, neither candidate (and no candidate in any election) will be judged by the worst of his or her "supporters."

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Oct 24 2008, 04:05 AM, said:

Hopefully, neither candidate (and no candidate in any election) will be judged by the worst of his or her "supporters."

Comment 1: There is a damn big difference between the direct actions that Palin, McCain, and official campaign spokesmen are taking and the actions that we're allegedly taken by some bozo.

Comment 2: While Drudge may be hyping the Ashley Todd case, most people seem to think that its a hoax. (Even Malkin doesn't believe this one)

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Comment 2: While Drudge may be hyping the Ashley Todd case, most people seem to think that its a hoax. (Even Malkin doesn't believe this one)

That would certainly explain the "declined medical attention" bit.