Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't want this to be another 9/11. (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This needs an HR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pragmaticidealist

    I know I've engaged you. But this level of denial just requires the conversation be shut off and terminated.  

    Setting off two bombs in public crowds meets the common concept of terrorist. And yeah, several deaths  missing limbs are entered into evidence.

    •  Terrorism - by US Federal Government (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      prosecuting guidelines require evidence that the deed was done to further social or political goals.

      Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
      that's given in this diary

      Do you have any evidence that these acts were done in furhterance of political or social goals?

      I think not.  Therefore by definition it's not terrorism.

      So it's you and your blatant disinformation that * really * needs to be hide rated.

      But it's nice that you've so nicely outed yourself as one of those fearmongers that cry "terrorism" at every drop of the hat.

      •  You just wallow in your minutae (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auron renouille

        Three dead at the race, scores injured, a dead police officer, IEDs and explosive vests add up to a shitload more than "zero evidence" nor a "drop of a hat".

        Pathetic.

        •  Again, it doesn't matter how many (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          times you say it - words have meaning (well, not to you clearly, but in theory they do at least) - and terrorism has a necessary component of pursuing a political or social goal.

          Now it * might * be possible that these guys met that criteria and actually were terrorists, but up to now I have seen absolutely no evidence of that.  And I note the you opted to not supply any such evidence when I suggested it.  So you seem to agree in that respect and just re-iterate a bunch of nonsense.

          In any event, it seems much more likely that they were just a couple of completely fucked up nutcases.

        •  Give it up. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund

          Anyone who chooses not to grasp the difference between a definition for the purposes of a specific law and the general use definition of the same word in conversational English isn't interested in discussion. From the rest of the thread -- and I've engaged with him repeatedly as if he were intending to be rational -- it's clear that he just wants to see whether he can keep the rest of us from doing something more important than arguing with a rock.

          It's not worth the annoyance.

          "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

          by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 12:46:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are of course entirely correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pragmaticidealist

            In addition to your sound advice ... Now that I have issued an HR, site rules say I should not engage him further. Based on both sources, I will comply.

            Getting harder to find wine among all the dregs in the DKos cask these days. Thanks for providing me a refreshing glass.

    •  I think the "terrorist" label should be reserved (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      for those acting to further a political or possibly theological agenda or ideology, in concert with others,  as opposed to deranged individuals acting out some personal agenda with a one (or two)-person crime-wave.

      The theory goes that a "terrorist" acts deliberately to terrorize a population in order to sway it politically, towards the "terrorists'" goals.  I would grace neither the CO movie theater shooter nor the Sandy Hook shooter with that label. They were each random crazies, not part of some "movement".  

      We don't know yet what the Boston guys had going for an agenda, what was driving them.

      don't always believe what you think

      by claude on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site