Clinton: CYA?

[MsThang]

I would have to agree that the definition of the word terrorist would be someone who uses fear or coercion for political or idealistic gain.

[Tex]

I would have to agree that the definition of the word terrorist would be someone who uses fear or coercion for political or idealistic gain.

I'd have to agree. But it seems Outsider (at least my view of it) is trying to insinuate Al-Qaeda and the rest of their kind aren't terrorists.

That's bullshit if that's the case. If it's not, then I stand corrected. I'd add, if I'm wrong on my interpretation of his position, then it would seem he just wants to argue about the definition of a word, and it's pretty childish and stupid.

Osama has made demands to the American people, and government, as to how we can avoid further attacks in the early years of this conflict. The acts perpetrated on 9-11 were something he used to instill fear in the American people, and it's a tool he's using to try and "coerce" foreign policy and to get his demands met.

Just like Iraq. I read an article where on a tape or some transcript Osama said that if his attacks in Iraq were to be successful and make the American people pressure the government to "cut and run," his mission would be complete.

The attacks of terror are for coercion and a definite goal. He's a terrorist in every sense of the word.

The sad thing is people are going right in the direction he wants them to go. So many are calling for an immediate withdrawal it appears his strategy is working. That's the reason we haven't left. People are so fucking stupid they can't see it's just what he wants to make him even more of a hero in the Muslim world. He saw what happend in Somalia, Afghanistan, and he's hoping for the same type of result in Iraq.

And in our country we have the Democrats IMO playing right into his hands, at least some of them, with their "immediate withdrawal" plans. I'm not sure if they're pandering to the common American idiot who knows nothing about these issues and are looking for votes or if they truly believe the shit they're shoveling.

Going into Iraq was wrong, but now it's our responsibility to make it right and not let Al-Qaeda force us into withdrawal prematurely. And the president is right when he says Iraq is the frontline on terror, or words to that effect. That's what it's become. Though, it shouldn't have been that in the first place. Afghanistan should have been.

Bah. Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of Dems and people who think we should just up and leave Iraq and hand the terrorists just what they desire most, a victory over the United States, just like the Soviets, with us leaving with our tail tucked between our legs.

[MsThang]

This is what I get for jumping in at the end. I really didn't ready anything but the last few posts, so count me out.

[GoodCitizenDan]

Are the terrorists not a threat?

Sure, terrorists are a threat. Splinters are a threat. Having too much sugar in your diet is a threat.

Sooo, should we chop down all the trees and burn the sugar plantations?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't respond at all, but the response that we have seen has been completely incompetant. Yesterday bush got up and started talking about unity in the war on terrorism, but what he really meant was unity on the iraq war and his insane ideas on handling POWs.

The truth is that terrorism is almost a non-issue(atleast in our country). We aren't israel. We don't have anything resembling consistent terror attacks. We've had one really signifigant attack in the whole of our nations history. Terrorism is simply the hot-button-issue of the day that the government can use to it's advantage. 30-something years ago it was communists...

Having a consistent enemy is good for policy, especially one that you can not identify, IE: The enemy within. Now they can limit our rights and treat us all like potential 'terrorists', all in the name of protecting you from something you have a 0.000001% chance of dying from.

[Tex]

This is what I get for jumping in at the end. I really didn't ready anything but the last few posts, so count me out.

:laugh: I said, "Sorry for the rant," Ms. Thang. I was just venting in my long post, and it wasn't at you. I covered what you said in the first two small paragraphs, and it only related to Outsider's stupid semantics game he's playing. We're in agreement on the definition.

[Tex]

The truth is that terrorism is almost a non-issue(atleast in our country). We aren't israel. We don't have anything resembling consistent terror attacks. We've had one really signifigant attack in the whole of our nations history. Terrorism is simply the hot-button-issue of the day that the government can use to it's advantage. 30-something years ago it was communists..

And why do you think it is that "we don't have anything resembling consistent terror attacks"? Our intelligence agencies woke up, security is tighter at airports, and elsewhere, and attacks have already been thwarted.

Also, comparing terrorism to communists? LOL. That's a whopper if I've ever heard one. Al-Qaeda puts out tapes on a regular basis stating killing Americans is Allah's bidding, that we'll be attacked again, and countless other threats against our citizens. The threat is real.

No matter what you think, terrorism is a huge threat, and it won't be long before another attack occurs on our soil that we won't be able to stop.

I'll remember your words when another event similar to 9-11 happens. Quite honestly, it's a miracle one hasn't happened already.

[GoodCitizenDan]

And why do you think it is that "we don't have anything resembling consistent terror attacks"? Our intelligence agencies woke up, security is tighter at airports, and elsewhere, and attacks have already been thwarted.
Also, comparing terrorism to communists? LOL. That's a whopper if I've ever heard one. Al-Qaeda puts out tapes on a regular basis stating killing Americans is Allah's bidding, that we'll be attacked again, and countless other threats against our citizens. The threat is real.
No matter what you think, terrorism is a huge threat, and it won't be long before another attack occurs on our soil that we won't be able to stop.
I'll remember your words when another event similar to 9-11 happens. Quite honestly, it's a miracle one hasn't happened already.

You really think that we haven't had any more attacks because of our due dilligence?

Wow... just wow...

[Tex]

You really think that we haven't had any more attacks because of our due dilligence?
Wow... just wow...

Have you not been following current events? Wow... just wow... to you, as well.

[Tex]

Now, these weren't all in the United States, but some actually were. Also, I've stated I'm surprised we haven't been hit again, and I don't put 100 percent of that victory on the shoulders of our intelligence agencies. But they have helped, just as in these instances you'll see.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

White House lists 10 foiled attacks
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Posted: 10:56 a.m. EST (15:56 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday that the U.S.-led global war on terror had "weakened" al Qaeda and cited as proof international efforts that he said had thwarted a terrorist plot to attack Los Angeles.

Members of an al Qaeda affiliate in Asia had planned to crash a commercial airplane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles in 2002, Bush said.
In a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building, Bush gave more details on the purported plot.

It was one of a list of 10 terrorist plots that U.S. authorities first released in October 2005.

The list and details from the White House:

1. West Coast airliner plot:

In 2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a commercial airliner to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plot was "set in motion" by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.

2. East Coast airliner plot:

In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.

3. The Jose Padilla plot:

In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."

4. 2004 British urban targets plot:

In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.

5. 2003 Karachi plot:

In spring 2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. Heathrow Airport plot:

In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the September 11, 2001, attacks.

7. 2004 Britain plot:

In the spring of 2004 the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.

8. 2002 Persian Gulf shipping plot:

In late 2002 and 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Persian Gulf.

9. 2002 Strait of Hormuz plot:

In 2002 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.

10. 2003 tourist site plot:

In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was."

************************************************** *******
If you can't see a threat, think Al-Qaeda, among other groups, is just full of shit, you're not thinking straight. That's for sure. I mean, they say in their tapes they want to kill us, they will, and you're trying to say they don't aim to make good on their promise?

Fucking please. What happened to you, GCD? Now you're saying the government is just using all this to their advantage, there's really no threat, blah-blah-blah. WOW times ten, man.

[TheZenMan]

Yes, I want you to define a word that you seem to be just tossing around. My definition is the one from a dictionary. It is the accepted usage of the word. Using commonly accepted definitions is how we are able to speak a language and effectively communicate.

You want to paint with a very broad bush something that is pretty specific. You said exactly what you said and now you are saying it meant something different. This is why I'm hounding you to flesh out your definition of a terrorist or terrorism even. So that you don't jump around all over the place applying a word in ways that it doesn't apply.

You aren't exactly the right person to say you don't want to discuss semantics.

I'm not telling you anything other than to have a consistent usage of a word. I've directed posts at other people in here about a few more things. But here in this thread that's not what I've done with you.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?terror03.wav=terrorism'))
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror) especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?terror04.wav=terrorist')) /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?terror05.wav=terroristic')) /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective


Main Entry: ter·ror http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?terror01.wav=terror'))
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tremble)
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scourge) b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/worry) d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/brat)
3 : REIGN OF TERROR (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reign+of+terror)
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fear)
- ter·ror·less http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?terror02.wav=terrorless')) /-l&s/ adjective


Main Entry: co·erce http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?coerce01.wav=coerce'))
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ark)
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
synonym see FORCE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/force)
- co·erc·ible http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?coerce02.wav=coercible')) /-'&r-s&-b&l/ adjective

I'm not disputing the definition for Godsake. I constructed my answer based on what I've seen happen to us. The only thing here that I didn't seem to mention is the possible demands it applys on a population or government. I kinda figured that speaks for itself given the original topic.

Your original question was if the terrorists were a threat, I answered you.
State your case and stop trying to convince me that I don't use the word correctly.

Are al-Queada terrorists? Yeah, I'd say they sure are.
Saddam terrorized his own people. The two reporters held captive and forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint were told to do so by Palestinian terrorists.

What don't you get?
You're the one asking whats different about my definition of the threat and yours, then when I tell you, you say I'm wrong. What's next? We gona dispute the definition of threat?

Main Entry: 1threat http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?threat01.wav=threat'))
Pronunciation: 'thret
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/threatens)
3 : an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

[TheZenMan]

Sure, terrorists are a threat. Splinters are a threat. Having too much sugar in your diet is a threat.

Sooo, should we chop down all the trees and burn the sugar plantations?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't respond at all, but the response that we have seen has been completely incompetant. Yesterday bush got up and started talking about unity in the war on terrorism, but what he really meant was unity on the iraq war and his insane ideas on handling POWs.

The truth is that terrorism is almost a non-issue(atleast in our country). We aren't israel. We don't have anything resembling consistent terror attacks. We've had one really signifigant attack in the whole of our nations history. Terrorism is simply the hot-button-issue of the day that the government can use to it's advantage. 30-something years ago it was communists...

Having a consistent enemy is good for policy, especially one that you can not identify, IE: The enemy within. Now they can limit our rights and treat us all like potential 'terrorists', all in the name of protecting you from something you have a 0.000001% chance of dying from.


That's very nice, but what are you saying?

That our own government is responsible for the presence of terrorists, as well as splinters and diabetics? If terrorists are a threat, then how can they also be simply a hot button?

Was Communism not a threat 30 years ago, or did they make that up too?

I'm having a hard time with your notion that terrorism is almost a non-issue here in America, I mean I know it's September 13th now, but did you forget that fast what happened 5 years ago? Or am I just bringing that up to distract you from the corrupt governments invasion of Iraq?

I don't really consider significantly reducing the chances that I will die in a terror attack as limiting of my rights. I guess I'm just blind and a victim of all the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration though huh?

[outsider]

As long as you care to put words into my mouth, or as long as you try to twist and warp what I have said into something completely different I'll keep harping on the details.

[TheZenMan]

As long as you care to put words into my mouth, or as long as you try to twist and warp what I have said into something completely different I'll keep harping on the details.

What the hell are you talking about? All you've been doing is harping details.
I never once told you what you said, I have interperted your meaing from things that you've said in an attempt to understand them. I pose them to you as questions, not as assumptions. You don't answer them. So how the hell can I be telling you what you mean? That's not even possible. Only you can say what you mean and you seem unwilling to.


ZenMan, who are the threats?

The terrorists.


So you are saying that terrorists are the threat to America?

Yes.


No, keep going. I want to flesh out these ghastly terms you want to use in such a sublime manner.

Are terrorists the threat to America?

If so define who/what a terrorist is.

Yes. And I gave you this definition: People or groups of people who seek to kill Americans (of course not just Americans, I just happen to live in America so it's relevant to me) and are not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise. Those who demand our death and nothing else.


How have you taken a different perception of what a terrorist is than I?

And my different perception lies in the solution to the potential problem. A terrorist is a component or war, the responsibility of the military. A sociopath is a criminal component and the responsibility of law.

The second part of your last question remains unanswered. All you have offered is:


So maybe your first definition of terrorism was wrong?

Here is a definition of terrorism:

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.I'd like to see you further explore your definition of what terrorism is. It's not one I'm at all familiar with.

So then...did I make any of that up?


Yes, I want you to define a word that you seem to be just tossing around. My definition is the one from a dictionary. It is the accepted usage of the word. Using commonly accepted definitions is how we are able to speak a language and effectively communicate.


And finally, I don't care what you want me to do. Not doing what you wish I would doens't make me wrong. So state your point or shut the fuck up. You've said jack shit.

[TheZenMan]

EDIT: Double post

[Tex]

As long as you care to put words into my mouth, or as long as you try to twist and warp what I have said into something completely different I'll keep harping on the details.

You'll "harp" on the details because your arguments are pathetically void of intelligence and go off on crazy tangents.

Here Zen is asking questions to clear up your position, but you keep dodging. No different than when I asked you to answer the hypothetical I put up in another thread so we could maybe have some middle ground in the discussion or you could show me you were correct, to which I said then I might agree with you. You'll have nothing of it and didn't provide dick.

Unless you're in the position of being 100 percent correct, you don't care to discuss it. You're a coward, and manipulative douche, and quite frankly one strange-ass fellow.

[TheZenMan]

You'll "harp" on the details because your arguments are pathetically void of intelligence and go off on crazy tangents.

Here Zen is asking questions to clear up your position, but you keep dodging. No different than when I asked you to answer the hypothetical I put up in another thread so we could maybe have some middle ground in the discussion or you could show me you were correct, to which I said then I might agree with you. You'll have nothing of it and didn't provide dick.

Unless you're in the position of being 100 percent correct, you don't care to discuss it. You're a coward, and manipulative douche, and quite frankly one strange-ass fellow.


I think he's got you on ignore.

Hopefully by qutoing you so he can see it, he'll add me to that list as well.

[MsThang]

:laugh: I said, "Sorry for the rant," Ms. Thang. I was just venting in my long post, and it wasn't at you. I covered what you said in the first two small paragraphs, and it only related to Outsider's stupid semantics game he's playing. We're in agreement on the definition.

Yeah, what I was saying is that I didn't read enough to decide if I agreed with you as to whether or not he was suggesting they were terrorists, so I can't really add anything of value to that.

[Tex]

I think he's got you on ignore.

Hopefully by qutoing you so he can see it, he'll add me to that list as well.

He says I'm on ignore, but when I put up this thread, there were no replies in it, he was viewing it for a good while. I think he's, as usual, full of hot air and bullshit.

[Tex]

Yeah, what I was saying is that I didn't read enough to decide if I agreed with you as to whether or not he was suggesting they were terrorists, so I can't really add anything of value to that.

I hear you, Ms. Thang. Sorry if my post came across that I was harping on you. That couldn't be further than the truth. We agree on the definition. It's Outsider's position I was taking issue with.

[outsider]

What the hell are you talking about? All you've been doing is harping details.
I never once told you what you said, I have interperted your meaing from things that you've said in an attempt to understand them. I pose them to you as questions, not as assumptions. You don't answer them. So how the hell can I be telling you what you mean? That's not even possible. Only you can say what you mean and you seem unwilling to.

You ask if I mean the absolutely least unlikely thing when I write something. You want to get hung up on the least noteworthy part of what I write. Why then should you be getting so upset that I want you to use a regular definition of a word instead of making a new definition up on the fly?




The terrorists.

Yes.
Yup, we established that that is the group you are talking about.





Yes. And I gave you this definition: People or groups of people who seek to kill Americans (of course not just Americans, I just happen to live in America so it's relevant to me) and are not open to discussion, negotiation or compromise. Those who demand our death and nothing else.

Yes. You write as though that is an absolute definition. You don't actually acknowledge anything other than what you want to see. Terrorist is a very specific word, one that you just aren't using correctly. You are speaking of sociopaths or psychopaths. Some terrorists are sociopaths or psychopaths and some socio/psychopaths are terrorists but not all terrorists are socio/psychopaths and not all socio/psychopaths are terrorists. You can argue with that logic all you want but again, it won't change anything.




And my different perception lies in the solution to the potential problem. A terrorist is a component or war, the responsibility of the military. A sociopath is a criminal component and the responsibility of law.

No, a sociopath is someone with a mental disorder that may lead to criminal behavior. Criminal thought is not criminal behavior and should not be confused for it. Trying to blend the two won't help your end of the discussion.


The second part of your last question remains unanswered. All you have offered is:



So then...did I make any of that up?
Yes. You described someone that may be a terrorist and may have tendencies to be a terrorist but not someone that absolutely is a terrorist.



And finally, I don't care what you want me to do. Not doing what you wish I would doens't make me wrong. So state your point or shut the fuck up. You've said jack shit.

You logic is broken and never will be fixed until you sit down and reevaluate quite a few things. All you've said in so many words is that you are afraid and that you hate. No more, no less.