« The dithering will continue... | Main | Hey, Bill... »

Kos They Can

Every so often I'll peruse the far left blogosphere, visiting such intellectual latrines as DU, HuffPo, and the Daily Kos, just to see what it would feel like to be in an insane asylum.

Today, I took the journey to see how the hacks at Kos had taken to the President's Ft. Hood memorial speech.

Predictably, they were struck with a sense of awe.

After thoroughly showering, de-lousing, and vomiting, I was able to absorb their utter selfishness and partisan delusions enough to form some cogent opinions.

The article, entitled "President Obama salutes fallen at Fort Hood," contained the full text of Obama's speech. This, by itself, would have been fine, and apt to do regarding the subject. However, the bootlickers at Kos just couldn't keep the focus on the reason for the tribute. Instead they used it to glorify The One, and pat themselves on the back for having the perceived wisdom to elect this shell of a man to the most revered office in the world.

Quoting several pundits, the author, "SusanG", made the statement that "the reviews are in."

Here were her hand-picked highlights:

John Dickerson: "President Obama's speech at Fort Hood, Texas, was a small masterpiece [...] The news has been full of every last detail about the shooter. Obama corrected that balance."

Mark Ambinder: "Today, at Ft. Hood. I guarantee: they'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge."

Chuck Todd: "That's going to be a speech that's remembered and quoted from for quite some time; struck a balance of commander and consoler; not easy."

Taegan Goddard: " President Obama's speech at Fort Hood may go down as one of his best ever. The president was able to balance his duties as Commander in Chief while consoling a nation in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy. That he was able to do this while taking away the focus on the shooter's religion was even more impressive. It was one of those speeches that makes you especially proud to be an American."

Good Lord.

Most of the comments which followed included not condolences, thoughts of sympathy, or prayers for the victims and their loved ones, but were comprised solely of nauseating endorsements of Obama, the mastery of his speech-writers, and his gift of oratory, with the word "eloquence" used dozens of times to describe his delivery.

Far and few were posts actually claiming that the speech may have been any comfort to the families and comrades of those who were butchered by this Muslim fanatic.

Many chose to use the occasion to partake in the usual Bush-bashing. Some chose to take pot-shots at Fox. And some bizarrely managed to work in some jabs at Sarah Palin (?).

However, perhaps most galling of all, was the following passage read by Obama himself:

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

How disconnected from reality must this man be to write such a statement of pure denial.

This was not a tragedy. It mas murder. Or more succinctly, terrorism. And, yes, Mr. President, there is one faith which justifies these "murderous and craven acts." Islam. Pure and simple. Stated within the Koran, peddled by those within the school of the "religion of peace," where it is taught that Allah does look upon these murderers with favor, promising virgins and martyrdom for them in the afterlife.

The freak-a-zoids at Kos who sell this stuff are indeed brainwashed.

They know not the meaning of shame.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37309.

Comments (54)

after reading your brief su... (Below threshold)
exceller:

after reading your brief summary I suddenly feel the need for a shower. what fools these people are. how long before it dawns on them that the king is not wearing any clothes.

Kos is the Disney World for... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Kos is the Disney World for the left: a place where they can truly suspend belief, where reality (despite their laughable claims to be "the reality-based" community) has no meaning at all, a place where they can massage each other's libidos with cooing assurances of moral superiority.

On an unrelated aside, just what do you suppose the odds would be that if you named a son, "Taegan," that he would turn out to be gay (not that there's anything wrong with that)? I mean, wouldn't it naturally make a boy yearn for a more manly name - like "Sue," for instance?

Liberalism is a disease. Be... (Below threshold)
recovering liberal democrat:

Liberalism is a disease. Been there, got the t-shirt.

The article, entitle... (Below threshold)
914:


The article, entitled "President Obama salutes fallen at Fort Hood," contained the full text of Obama's speech. This, by itself, would have been fine, and apt to do regarding the subject. However, the bootlickers at Kos just couldn't keep the focus on the reason for the tribute. Instead they used it to glorify The One, and pat themselves on the back for having the perceived wisdom to elect this shell of a man to the most revered office in the world.

Quoting several pundits, the author, "SusanG", made the statement that "the reviews are in."

Here were her hand-picked highlights:

John Dickerson: "President Obama's speech at Fort Hood, Texas, was a small masterpiece [...] The news has been full of every last detail about the shooter. Obama corrected that balance."

Mark Ambinder: "Today, at Ft. Hood. I guarantee: they'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge."

Chuck Todd: "That's going to be a speech that's remembered and quoted from for quite some time; struck a balance of commander and consoler; not easy."

Taegan Goddard: " President Obama's speech at Fort Hood may go down as one of his best ever. The president was able to balance his duties as Commander in Chief while consoling a nation in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy. That he was able to do this while taking away the focus on the shooter's religion was even more impressive. It was one of those speeches that makes you especially proud to be an American."

Good Lord.

Most of the comments which followed included not condolences, thoughts of sympathy, or prayers for the victims and their loved ones, but were comprised solely of nauseating endorsements of Obama

In other words.. They sucked.. Just like Osama,,, Obama or whatever the Hell this piece of work goes by now??

First off, specifically tar... (Below threshold)
jp2:

First off, specifically targeting military personnel automatically takes "terrorism" off the table.

Secondly, do you really want to compare comment threads? Do you think you have an edge here when it comes to sampling these sorts of things?

When did liberals ever give a damn about soldiers/veterans?
Liberalism is the root cause of why the country is where it is today. If I am an ignorant piece of shit you are a "useful" idiotic little turd. A very little turd.
Now, a poor muslim, who killed his fellow soldiers in the name of the bastardized religion he follows cannot be called a muslim or a terrorist. The left is absolutely beside themselves trying to portray muslims as victims. Hello! They are the enemy.
Yes, or like that Hermaphrodite covered up the massacre of dozens of children in WACO!
I am not saying kill them as they do us, but I am saying they are at this time the enemy and cannot be trusted. Not at all. How many more people have to be blown apart before you idiots on the left start questioning the motivations of Islam?
Obama simply doesn't care about the military...

These aren't even the worst/most childish. The drivel that your fan base oozes is equal parts comical and sad.

You know not the meaning of... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

You know not the meaning of shame, sir. I can respect you as a Republican faulting the president on a lot of things he is doing that you may not agree with. But this post and thread is a sick, twisted, disgusting abomination. I guess truly nothing is out of bounds for you people.

You know not the meaning of shame, to criticize the president's remarks, on this day, in the wake of this tragedy at Ft. Hood, you are the one who does not know the meaning of shame.

I can't even visualize what kind of sick creature you are.

God bless this day and the veterans who have given their lives for it. I called my grandpa in Arizona to express my gratitude for what he and his mates did for us in Germany over 65 years ago.

But to politicize this day, to politicize what the president of the United States had to say, on Veteran's Day, presiding over a memorial for fallen soldiers, you, sir, know not the meaning of shame.

I need a shower everytime I check in on this wretched website. You people are not worth the vomit my dog made on the lawn this morning.

"And, yes, Mr. President, t... (Below threshold)

"And, yes, Mr. President, there is one faith which justifies these 'murderous and craven acts.' Islam."

Exactly. This is the problem with the left; they just don't get it. They are so ready to embrace "diversity" that they don't bother to pause and actually understand what they are embracing. You can't possibly win against an enemy you are unwilling to look at without the Amero-centric, elitist, rose-colored glasses that are surgically implanted on liberal snouts.

Their refusal to understand that other cultures hold beliefs that are unlike our own and that cannot be explained away by looking narrowly at them through the myopic lens of their limited understanding of even our own culture leads not to enlightenment and intellectual superiority but to the hubris and elitism that insists that everyone is exactly the same as they are. If they wouldn't kill in the name of their God, no one else would, either. If they don't believe fervently in dying for a deep-seated belief, no one else would, either. If they don't believe that sane, if radical and extremist, people can conduct acts of such violence, no one else would, either.

Their "inclusiveness" extends no further than their own worldview, and their "acceptance" is dependent on their ability to force peoples of all races, religions, and cultures into their own small-minded box. What doesn't "fit" is either ignored or explained away as victimization or mental illness. Way to be "diverse," libs. I'm sure that radical Muslims appreciate being painted as and pandered to as victims or lunatics. How is that any different than early American views of Native Americans as "savages" or "near-animals"? It's not. It's simply reframing it in more "politically correct" terms.

Dismissively diminishing fervently-held beliefs and cultural-religious worldviews is dangerous (as we saw when we, during World War II, didn't understand the nature of kamikaze pilots--we couldn't wrap our minds around it, so they got the upper hand for a while), and it is divisive, ultimately rooted in the same sense of their innate superiority that marks the least savory aspects of our history.

jp2:"First off, specificall... (Below threshold)
cirby:

jp2:"First off, specifically targeting military personnel automatically takes 'terrorism' off the table."

No, not really.

There's nothing in most of the common definitions of the term that excludes military targets specifically. For example, the suicide bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 is usually considered to be a terrorist attack (except by people who don't really believe in "terrorism" to begin with).

The recent attempt to redefine "terrorism" down to nonexistence is very interesting, though - it's almost like some people have discovered that their worldview is wrong, and need "terrorism" to stop existing so they can ignore a lot of what's happening...

Shawn, this thread was a sm... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Shawn, this thread was a small masterpiece. The news has been full of every last detail about the shooter. You have corrected that balance.

They'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge.

This is going to be a thread that's remembered and quoted from for quite some time; struck a balance of commander and consoler; not easy.

This is one of those threads that makes you especially proud to be an American.

(Just trying out the Nauseating Obama Swoon Lock button on my new keyboard.)

First up, Sean, I'm getting... (Below threshold)

First up, Sean, I'm getting sick and tired of you writing articles that I wish I had written. It's getting on my nerves.

And when you hang titles on them that I only wish I could have come up with, it only compounds things.

But there's an aspect here that you missed, where the Kossacks put the lie to their own fulsome praise.

They talked about how movingly Obama spoke of the fallen... but apparently he -- as usual -- drew all the attention on himself and essentially used the dead as props to glorify himself even more. And the proof is in how all these sycophants didn't talk about the slain -- the subject of his speech -- but about Teh Won.

J.

Actually, cirby, you are in... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

Actually, cirby, you are incorrect. Terrorism by its very nature is an attack on civilians to achieve a political end. Attacks on government targets to achieve a political end are known as "acts of war." The attacks on the Marine barracks, the various embassies, Khobar Towers and the Cole were acts of war. We call them terrorism as a way of limiting ourselves from responding to them with our own state of war. Since 9/11, terrorism is seen as just cause for war, which is why the Left is searching for a new euphemism like "tragedy" or "man caused catastrophe" for both terrorism and acts of war.

Ryan:"I need a ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan:

"I need a shower everytime I check in on this wretched website."

Then I suggest you find somewhere else. Certainly nobody's forcing you to come here, much less actually (horror of horrors) read and think about what you see here. You seem very happy and satisifed within your little world where Obama is a wonderful leader full of wisdom and unerrant thinking - it would be a shame for you to lose that pleasing certainty by exposure to non-vetted sources.

I'm afraid that what I see when I look at Obama, Ryan, is someone who's gotten where he is by a remarkable ability to convince people of his sincere support and attention to what they think is important at that particular time that he is speaking to them. Thirty seconds after they turn away, he'll be convincing someone else that what THEY want is the most important thing in the world to him.

He would have been an amazing televangelist, or used car salesman. Promise everything, and never worry about the delivery...

But unfortunately he's the President. As such, he is NOT EVER above criticism. EVER. AT ANY TIME. This was eloquently shown by those wonderful people on the left who piled on Bush for 7 years, showing no restraint, tact, forebearance or even anything resembling common sense.

The left was very zealous when they set the standard for Bush. Nothing was beneath criticism, no matter the date or subject. Maybe someone should of thought of that at the time, hmmm?

So, your protestations about how horrible and unfair it all is that we (gasp) criticize Obama on (sob) VETERAN'S DAY (weep) just plain don't cut it.

By the way, if your dog is eating grass and puking on your lawn, you're probably feeding it something that's not good for it. And you might want to check your own intellectual diet while you're at it. You tank up on junk food, you're not going to want anything else - but it's not good for your health in the long run.

This discussion is bringing... (Below threshold)

This discussion is bringing up a truly fascinating topic -- can an "act of war" be committed by something other than a nation-state? Can we "declare war" or "wage war" on a group that is not a nation? Our whole definition of war -- REAL war, not "war on poverty/drugs/terror" rhetorical bullshit -- is built on the model of there being a nation at the other end of the fight. A nation that we can negotiate with, or demand a surrender from, as circumstances dictate, to give the whole situation a relatively clean resolution.

I've always considered "acts of war committed by a group short of a nation-state" as a form of terrorism to differentiate them from simple crimes. For a long time, while the terrorists primarily attacked civilians, it worked pretty well. But now it's a lot closer to a military conflict, but still with no central governing body that we can address... it's complicated.

Geez, I might just go for a whole posting out of this thought...

J.

"Our whole definition of... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Our whole definition of war -- REAL war, not "war on poverty/drugs/terror" rhetorical bullshit -- is built on the model of there being a nation at the other end of the fight. A nation that we can negotiate with, or demand a surrender from, as circumstances dictate, to give the whole situation a relatively clean resolution."

That's something the military was somewhat struggling with up until the time I retired, JT. War is, by modern definition, an offensive by one country against another country for land or resources. To the extent ideology plays into it, it's used to get support from the population for the actions, or for the defense of the offended country. And an end-state is pretty easy to define - you win (WW2), you fight to a draw (Korea), or you lose (Viet Nam). If you're lucky, the proxy battlespace is far from home (Korea, Viet Nam) so you don't have to worry overmuch about the consequences of your loss.

But how do you fight against an ideology which isn't attached to a specific country? Which can be circulated and gain adherents through the internet?

It's kind of the difference between fighting a parasitic infection and a systemic infection. You can isolate and destroy the parasites, (the central, governing body) by surgery if needed - but about all you can do with the systemic infection is flood the system with antibiotics and hope to supplement the natural defenses. A few bacteria that survive can reproduce to sicken the host again.

And with radical Islam, there's no 'governing authority' that can surrender. Any two-bit Imam who's got a C4-belt jones and can talk a follower into qualifying for the 72 leaky blow-up dolls in a Motel 6 can suddenly be a martyr-making 'leader' and 'continue the struggle'.

It does complicate things when you're looking at trying to 'win', doesn't it? It's hard to break even - and you can't get out of the game.

Re: "First off, specificall... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Re: "First off, specifically targeting military personnel automatically takes "terrorism" off the table."

Wrong! They were un-armed.

As for the topic, SusanG and the idiots at Kos in general show that words are all that matter. Here was have a terrorist attack on US soil yet again, and all they care about is the flowery rhetoric from our ditherer-in-chief.

Truth is, no one is going to remember or quote this so-called speech years from now. What future historians will instead be doing is wondering how someone so eloquent and "smart" could be so ineffective as the leader of the US, and more importantly, how he ever got elected in the first place.

Not only were the soldiers ... (Below threshold)

Not only were the soldiers unarmed, but attacked by one of their own. And if indeed it can be considered an act of war then who are we at war with?
Obama can deliver a speech, this we all know now. He always strikes me as insincere and his words have a hollow ring to them because he still has never backed them up with action. The "bootlickers" just need to believe in HIM. They do not believe in our God or our Country or they would not be falling for this charade with tingly legs and ambivalent disconnected passion. There are some who wish to be ruled, and Obama, like many charismatic "leaders" from our past world history, has found his flock.

I forgot to add that even a... (Below threshold)
j:

I forgot to add that even a broken clock is right twice a day and when Obama stated that "no just and loving God looks upon them with favor" he started to scratch around the edges of a place he personally will never have the fortitude to go. That may be as close as Hussein Obama ever gets to denying that Allah is God and Islam is a religion of Peace.

There is a jarring disconne... (Below threshold)
Frosty:

There is a jarring disconnect between the way the whole world views Obama and the way the Small-Amount-of-People-Left-in-the-Republican-Party view him.

Is that because the Small-Amount-of-People-Left-in-the-Republican-Party are smarter than the whole world?

Jay Tea,In your po... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

Jay Tea,

In your post, you might consider modern (since Napoleon) definitions of war, US conceptions of war since the Civil War and particularly since WWII (and why we don't declare war any more), and what war was considered to be prior to the Napoleonic era.

This is not the first time, by a long chalk, that wars have been fought against groups that are not nation-states, even against ideologies. The Westphalian system is breaking down, and I suspect we'll see reversion to a pre-Westphalian system. Those who are breaking the system (including both the jihadis and the Western Left, though for different reasons) likely won't appreciate the result.

By the way, to some of the other commenters, whether or not the targets are unarmed is not really an appropriate part of the definition of terrorism. That's like saying that A didn't murder B because B was armed. Uh, what?

Ryan,Are you anoth... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Ryan,

Are you another liberal with poor reading comprehension? Shawn's piece is not about Obama's speech, but the response to it by commenters on Kos.

Jp2,

The difference you failed to notice is that Wizbang has a much higher tolerance for dissenting views than Kos in particularly and liberal blogs in general.

--------------------------------------------------------

My take on Obama's speech is that it's just more of the same shtick. Like other one hit wonders, Obama's rhetorical style is one dimensional. The words change and yet it all sounds the same. What was one of Obama's greatest strengths in his political career is becoming background noise by it's overuse. Likely, it will become annoying to most of the public by 2012.

jp2 wrote:First... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jp2 wrote:

First off, specifically targeting military personnel automatically takes "terrorism" off the table.

Nope.

Terrorism is defined by federal statute.
18 U.S.C.S. § 2331(5) says:

" . . . the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

There is nothing excluding acts targeting military personnel. It might be too early to know about the other elements of the definition, but the shooter's contacts with international terrorist groups seem to take us a long way there.


Barry has made soooo many "... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Barry has made soooo many "memorable" speeches. Can anyone recite even part of one FROM MEMORY?

Sure "I want to give a shou... (Below threshold)
JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred]:

Sure "I want to give a shout out to Medal of Honor Winner Old Crowe..."

Okay so that isn't text perfect, but definitely something I will always remember.

Oh also, "Yes we Can!"

Alright, I'm out...

Jeff Medcalf: "Actually, ci... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Jeff Medcalf: "Actually, cirby, you are incorrect. Terrorism by its very nature is an attack on civilians to achieve a political end."

Once again: No, it's not.

That's a recent "revised definition" that's popular with quite a few leftists (and terrorists), but it really, REALLY isn't true, and doesn't hold up at all, historically. Basically, some folks decided "terrorism isn't terrorism if it's against people we don't like too much," and included the military in that category.

Up until the last eight years or so, very few people used the "only civilians" definition in discussing terrorism. It's almost like some large, flashy event happened in 2001 that made a lot of people want to narrow the definition to uselessness...

That's some pig.... (Below threshold)
Conservative Digest:

That's some pig.

"This was not a tragedy. It... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

"This was not a tragedy. It mas murder."

Ummm, that's maybe why he talked about "murderous and craven acts." I suppose if you want to be pedantic, it wasn't strictly speaking a tragedy, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable description of the murder of 13 people.

Also:"Most of the ... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

Also:

"Most of the comments which followed included not condolences, thoughts of sympathy, or prayers for the victims and their loved ones"

Is it really so unreasonable that a piece about the President's speech should concentrate on the President's speech? It really should go without saying that all our sympathies and condolences go out to the victims of this horrible crime, and you should be ashamed of yourself, Shawn, for suggesting otherwise.

So the attacks by the Revol... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So the attacks by the Revolutionaries on the Red Coats during the Revolutionary War were acts of terrorism, cirby?

"Barry has made toooo many ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Barry has made toooo many "memorable" speeches. Can anyone recite even part of one FROM MEMORY?"

CAREFUL!! Your treading on racist ground there!

"Is it really so unreasonable that a piece about the President's speech should concentrate on the President's speech?"


What speech? His jihadi moment or His self agrandization?

"Jeff Medcalf: "Actually, cirby, you are incorrect. Terrorism by its very nature is an attack on civilians to achieve a political end."

Once again: No, it's not"

It depends on what the meaning of is is?

"This was not a tragedy. It mas murder."

"Ummm, that's maybe why he talked about "murderous and craven acts." I suppose if you want to be pedantic, it wasn't strictly speaking a tragedy, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable description of the murder of 13 people"

According to liberal correctness it was a "Man made disaster!"

Hyper get a clue you childi... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper get a clue you childish imp.

Obama is going to give a speech on how important it is that he give speeches. This guy loves to read aloud in public.

All I hear is,"me, me, me ,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me and me. And God Bless me." ww

OK, cirby, I'll bite: defin... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

OK, cirby, I'll bite: define terrorism. Be sure to differentiate it from other acts that are not terrorism, as I did in the definition I gave above. I'm happy to discuss on your terms; I just need to know what they are.

WildWillie. You really oug... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

WildWillie. You really ought to get to a doctor about your hearing. Assuming you have insurance, of course.

"According to liberal corre... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

"According to liberal correctness it was a "Man made disaster!""

This sort of comment is contemptible. Are you really stupid and hate-filled enough to think that those with differing political opinions from yours are basically monsters with no human empathy? Or are you climbing on top of the bodies of dead soldiers in the attempt to score a cheap, nasty political point?

Either way, it's pretty disgusting.

By the way, the definition ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

By the way, the definition under US law (U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)) is:

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

Jeff Medcalf:"OK, cirby, I'... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Jeff Medcalf:"OK, cirby, I'll bite: define terrorism."

Nope. There are enough close-enough definitions for it already, and I'm not interested in having you dig up some other (recent, PC) definition of it that disagrees.

I know it's part of the leftist mindset that "either everything is terrorism, or nothing is," but that's your problem, not mine.

Alfonso Paulista:"This sort... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Alfonso Paulista:"This sort of comment is contemptible. Are you really stupid and hate-filled enough to think that those with differing political opinions from yours are basically monsters with no human empathy?"

You're going to have to talk to the person who actually said that...

Janet Napolitano, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, earlier this year: "In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters."

So, basically, you just referred to one of Obama's appointees as one of those "monsters, with no human empathy."

cirby - I could care less a... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

cirby - I could care less about Janet Napolitano, quite frankly, more so a single sentence from her quoted out of its original context. 914 attributed that attitude to liberals, not to any individual.

You're just as pathetic if you're defending him/her.

I've been trying to ignore ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

I've been trying to ignore your repeated ad hominem, cirby, but I suppose I should address it. I am in no way a leftist, or the least bit PC; your assumptions are wildly incorrect.

It's intellectually dishonest of you to simultaneously hold that my definition is wrong, and to also refuse to provide a definition you would accept. Your "there are already a lot of definitions" is a cop-out, because I provided one (consistent with US law, which I did not realize at the time I wrote it) and you rejected it. I assume, given the strength of your statements, that you strongly hold to a particular definition. Like I said, I'm willing to debate on your terms, so long as you let me know what they are.

Jeff Medcalf: "(2) the term... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Jeff Medcalf: "(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

So it was terrorism, then, since the guy who did it wasn't from a country that is currently at war with the US, and some of the people he attacked and killed were civilian noncombatants (yes, he deliberately targeted them, from the reports). Unless you think the pregnant woman was a combatant of some sort?

You might also note that the part of the US Code you're referring to only defines reporting definitions for "Annual Country Reports on Terrorism," and isn't a strict legal definition by any stretch, but is instead a set of guidelines for an annual report on international terrorism. There are other US laws and definitions that easily override this bureaucratic outline.

I did notice that you carefully left out the "As used in this section" part.

I wasn't carefully leaving ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Medcalf:

I wasn't carefully leaving anything out. I googled the US legal definition of terrorism, and posted it as a point of interest. It substantially agrees with my definition, so I stopped there. I do realize that there are other definitions of terrorism in US law, as well as the various and sundry problems that arise from the parties attempting to define terrorism doing so in such a way as to exclude their own acts, or those they sympathize with.

So, I can't tell: are you willing to use that definition, or would you prefer to substitute one of your own? Since you both responded as if you accept the definition, and then tried to minimize the definition, I suppose I get to pick for now. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume that you agree with the definition given, and I'll address your arguments.

So it was terrorism, then, since the guy who did it wasn't from a country that is currently at war with the US, and some of the people he attacked and killed were civilian noncombatants (yes, he deliberately targeted them, from the reports). Unless you think the pregnant woman was a combatant of some sort?

So is any act in which any "civilian noncombatants" are killed, even if they are killed incidental to the attack rather than as the deliberate target of the attack, an act of terrorism? (My understanding is that there was one civilian killed, Michael Cahill.)

As to the pregnant woman, I assume you are referring to PVT Velez? If so, does being pregnant automatically make one not "a combatant of some sort" even if the pregnant person is a uniformed soldier?

As I point out in #21 above... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

As I point out in #21 above, Hasan's acts meet the definition of "terrorism" for purposes of the federal criminal code. That means he can go to jail for committing "terrorism." That should resolve the question. Jeff Medcalf's citation has to do with a report on "terrorism" from the Secretary of State to the House, and doesn't mean much, if anything.

Whether or not it is within... (Below threshold)
j:

Whether or not it is within the defined descriptions of an act of Terror is really moot at this point. What Hassan did deserves the firing squad and it should happen quickly, like within the month? We drag these things out and argue about what is or is not an act of terrorism at the expense of our National unity. Liberal and Conservative alike abhor this act of murder and if it is not terrorism, is it not at least a hate crime? It is against our military so it is an act of war, in one form or another. I say give Hassan the martyrdom he covets. The more Islamists that find out their form of martyrdom is not what it's cracked up to be, the better.

Jeff Medcalf: "I wasn't car... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Jeff Medcalf: "I wasn't carefully leaving anything out. I googled the US legal definition of terrorism, and posted it as a point of interest."

No, you Googled a definition of terrorism that was used in one situation, that isn't anything like THE legal definition of terrorism. Oddly enough, it's the same inaccurate cite that keeps turning up in half-assed leftist attempts to show that this wasn't terrorism.

It's also fairly obvious that you had it in mind when you tried to get me to define terrorism for you well upthread.

For your information, there are at least three major definitions of terrorism that WOULD apply in this case (your cite certainly doesn't - since we're not preparing a document for Congress on behalf of the State Department about international terrorism).

"So is any act in which any "civilian noncombatants" are killed, even if they are killed incidental to the attack rather than as the deliberate target of the attack, an act of terrorism?"

Nope. Try reading the whole paragraph you quote, and stop trying the junior-high debate tactic of editing your opponent's arguments to suit the poor counters you have waiting.

Except that, again, you are... (Below threshold)

Except that, again, you are wrong. I googled the definition after I asked you to provide one. Look, I'm not trying to trap you, here. I'm not your ideological foe, so far as I can tell (though I'm beginning to wonder about your ability to argue in good faith). So I was at work at the time, and didn't take the time to separate out how many different definitions of terrorism the US uses, and where they come from. Take it as a warning not to use Wikipedia.

So fine, you don't like my definition, and you don't like the definition I found with a quick search. What definition do you like? I'm happy to use it as a basis for discussion. I know why I prefer the definition that I gave initially, which is that it resolves many, many, many ambiguities (probably not all) between terrorism and other violent and politically-charged acts: it's precise. The only point I'm trying to get to is that I don't accept Hasan's attack as terrorism, because I cannot find a definitions of "terrorism" and "war" that allow Hasan's act to be terrorism and do not allow our targeted killings of jihadis to not be terrorism unless we get quite precise, as I did in the definition I initially gave and as the definition I found via Google was.

Here's the thing. There is a very specific definition involved that goes beyond the definition of terrorism, and that is found in the Constitution (Art III, sec 3): "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Now here we have a case where someone subject to American law (required implicitly by the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the US, not the world in general) has committed an overt act of war to which there are two witnesses. Hasan, in other words, is a traitor in the literal meaning of the word, and needs to be treated like one. Squishy definitions of terrorism allow for the act to be treated as criminal, and thus for the civil justice system to come into play. That should not happen. The guy is a traitor. He committed a treasonous act of war against the US military. He should be treated as such.

Now, clearly you have made up your mind about me. You have refused to act with any kind of civility (well, I suppose you were civil in Internet terms; I just expect better) since I disagree with you about something. You seem to want to attack me for my definitions without offering a definition of your own. When I attempt to understand your position on the one definition you put forward an arguable position on, you simply revert to attacking me. Not with specifics, mind you, that could be debated, but with more ad hominem and misdirection.

OK, you win: I won't argue any more. You are still wrong, though, which I would have been willing to argue had you cared to do so. It's just that now, by refusing to even consider rational discussion of whether you were wrong, you've shown yourself to be thin-skinned and petty. And I still think you're wrong. So how you've come out ahead I don't know, but congratulations: the field is yours.

"Are you really stupid and ... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

"Are you really stupid and hate-filled enough to think that those with differing political opinions from yours are basically monsters with no human empathy?"

But this post and thread is a sick, twisted, disgusting abomination. I guess truly nothing is out of bounds for you people.

Asked and answered. These are two trolls, get it, trolls?

"These are two trolls, get ... (Below threshold)
Alfonso Paulista:

"These are two trolls, get it, trolls?"

One of the good things about Wizbang is that differing views are, if not exactly welcomed, then at least tolerated - you won't be banned for not indulging in group-think (unlike some other right - and left - wing blogs and sites) and while the resulting discussions aren't always good-natured, and opinions are rarely changed, at least there's a discussion.

I'm not liking so much being dismissed as a troll for objecting to a poster using the massacre at Ft. Hood to score a cheap political point. To see the constant proclamations of how the left, Obama, anyone with a different political outlook, hates the military, but then to see the horrible, senseless deaths of military personnel the right claim to revere so much used in such a cheap and disrespectful way... I think it's disgusting, beneath contempt.

Jeff Medcalf wrote: ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Jeff Medcalf wrote:

The only point I'm trying to get to is that I don't accept Hasan's attack as terrorism, because I cannot find a definitions [sic] of "terrorism" and "war" that allow Hasan's act to be terrorism . . ."

18 U.S.C.S. § 2331(5), you dumbass. And, you are a dumbass, aren't you. Dumbass.

First off, specifically ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

First off, specifically targeting military personnel automatically takes "terrorism" off the table.

No it doesn't.

The USS Cole example 1.

This is not one standing army in battle with another. This is a lunatic religion slaughtering other people because they aren't in the same religion.

It would be the same if the Scientologists decided to wreak havoc upon Fort Hood.

Ryan:.But to poli... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Ryan:
.But to politicize this day, to politicize what the president of the United States had to say, on Veteran's Day, presiding over a memorial for fallen soldiers, you, sir, know not the meaning of shame.

Cut the crap, Ryan. From damn near after 9/11 to today, the Left have brought their politics into it. Hell, over Halloween, Code Pink did it's best to do so:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/09/obama-ally-code-pink-targets-children-of-military-families-for-psychological-abuse/

And who could forget the banner:
"we support our troops when they shoot their officers"


I need a shower everytime I check in on this wretched website. You people are not worth the vomit my dog made on the lawn this morning.

Well, then get the fuck out of here then and stop writing long screeds about not being worth the vomit to respond.

Hightail it back to Kos and Counterpunch and high-five/fist bump the sanctimonious twats there.

I've stopped giving a shit about people like you for a long time now.

Jeff:18 USCS 2331:... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Jeff:

18 USCS 2331:

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

CHECK.


(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.

14 CHECKS.

Keep in mind that terrorism... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Keep in mind that terrorism is often justified, especially within the context of American political history. The Revolutionaries killing the Red Coats is as much an act of terrorism as the bombing of the USS Cole. Never an ideal way to try and accomplish something but sometimes it's a reasonable last resort.

In the case of Islamic terrorists vs. the infidels--whether the military or civilians, whether abroad or on your soil--I don't think any of their acts of terrorism are justified. But I do think that Colonial troops were justified in killing some British troops despite not wearing uniforms and not following the commonly accepted "rules" of battle.

Here's a thought: who cares if Hasan is a "terrorist" or merely a "mass murderer of innocent people, motivated at least in part by religious and ideological considerations"? One isn't necessarily worse than the other. They're both awful enough that every decent person ought to categorically condemn his actions without having to split hairs over the legal definition of terrorism.

I should add that the Frenc... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I should add that the French Revolutionaries and Simón Bolívar are other good examples of people that we would classify as terrorists today, though Bolívar's troops fought mostly in uniform.

Here's another good one: Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA as a terrorist vs. the Soviets in Afghanistan, quite effectively and for the greater good (not that we should make moral judgements based only on outcomes and not principles). But now he's a bad terrorist. Or maybe he always was and his American backers were shortsighted to the point of failing in a moral and not merely practical sense.

Splitting hairs can often lead to interesting discussions, so I'm a pretty big fan of it myself.

Sometimes you win, sometime... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But you never seem to learn anything hyperbolist. The reason for that is that your mind is completely closed. You don't argue to discover truth, you argue to feel better about yourself.

Truth.

Whatever dude. Everything I... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Whatever dude. Everything I said @ 51-52 is correct so who knows what you're referring to.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy