The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla

[Damocles]

Clearly, others had the same reaction. Your post was a loser response, and not well thought out at all.

Now, I have no doubt that you'll try to defend it for a few pages here, but trust me - it was pathetic.

Not quite, you'll note that even Jarod had more to say than your regular mantra. Even if he did try to ride the coat tails of your "insult"...

The post was a starter for a conversation, one that you could have participated in rather than showing you had nothing to add by starting off with an inane and fruitless ad hom.

You could have said, "Please tell! Damocles (or whatever ad hom you wanted) why you would think this was terrorism!" or something worthwhile, instead all you had in the arsenal of your missing intellect was, "ye're a hack you hack!"

 

[Jarod]

Right, because lone suicidal gunmen couldn't possibly be proceeding with Jihad like a lone suicidal bomber...

Inane.

And the reality is we were not at war in two theaters based on a terrorist attack from McVeigh and Company at that time.

We learned, or should have, from Clinton that treating this as a "crime" only let people plan and implement truly horrific acts. People would expect him to act, and a bit more than trying to tell everybody that it is unimportant that the gentleman was practicing the art of Jihad all by himself with nothing else that could possibly have attributed to that act.

What would you like President Obama to do about this "terrorist" attack at Ft. Hood? Other than have the perp prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

 

[Onceler]

Not quite, you'll note that even Jarod had more to say than your regular mantra. Even if he did try to ride the coat tails of your "insult"...

The post was a starter for a conversation, one that you could have participated in rather than showing you had nothing to add by starting off with an inane and fruitless ad hom.

You could have said, "Please tell! Damocles (or whatever ad hom you wanted) why you would think this was terrorism!" or something worthwhile, instead all you had in the arsenal of your missing intellect was, "ye're a hack you hack!"

Ah, the ol' "conversation starter."

Some posts are not worthy of response, Damo. I stand by my words: your response was one of a hack. I've never dismissed the idea that this COULD be terrorism, but Dixie's 1st response on learning this guy was a Muslim was that it DEFINITELY was terrrorism.

And the idea that people would try to avoid calling it terrorism because (gasp!) Obama would have to "do something about it" - simplistic nonsense. I can get better intellect out of talk radio.

 

[Topspin]

they want him to assault and occupy all Mosks in the US.

 

[Jarod]

This is silly, terrorism or not it was a crime.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right, because lone suicidal gunmen couldn't possibly be proceeding with Jihad like a lone suicidal bomber...

Inane.

And the reality is we were not at war in two theaters based on a terrorist attack from McVeigh and Company at that time.

We learned, or should have, from Clinton that treating this as a "crime" only let people plan and implement truly horrific acts. People would expect him to act, and a bit more than trying to tell everybody that it is unimportant that the gentleman was practicing the art of Jihad all by himself with nothing else that could possibly have attributed to that act.

First, every horrific act is not an act of terrorism. The D.C. sniper was not a terrorist. That fellow at Virginia Tech was not a terrorist. The fact that a Muslim performs a horrific act does not make it a terrorist act. The fact that a radical Muslim performs the horrific act does not make it terrorism. The key is that the act must be done to achieve a political, not personal, objective. I haven't seen any indication that this guy was trying to achieve a political objective. Based on that, I don't think it was a terrorist act.

Second, we have learned that whether you treat terrorism as a crime or as an act of war the persons that are intent on performing horrific acts of terrorism will plan and implement truly horrific acts.

Third, nothing bothers the shit out of me more than people claiming that someone else must "act" without specifying what action they want the other person to take. Obama must act. How? What act(s) do you want him to take and what do you expect that act(s) to accomplish?

 

[Canceled2]

This is silly, it was not an organized attack.

What did Bush do about the Anthrax attacks? Were they terrorism?

Depending on your defination of terrorism this was the act of an insane wannabe terrorist.

If it was "terrorism" what are you going to do? Was what Timothy McVeigh did "terrorism"? Did the public demand President Clinton "do" something?

Come on Damo, your posts are usually more intelegent than that!

How can you deduce it was not organized? He specifically gave away belongings, took a recently purchased gun to where he knew a large crowd would be gathered in a confined space....That sounds pretty damned organized to me?

 

[Jarod]

How can you deduce it was not organized? He specifically gave away belongings, took a recently purchased gun to where he knew a large crowd would be gathered in a confined space....That sounds pretty damned organized to me?

It was organized by the perp. Sorry I was not clear, I mean it was not a conspiracy.

Notice Damo abandoned this thread!

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Right, because lone suicidal gunmen couldn't possibly be proceeding with Jihad like a lone suicidal bomber...

Inane.

And the reality is we were not at war in two theaters based on a terrorist attack from McVeigh and Company at that time.

We learned, or should have, from Clinton that treating this as a "crime" only let people plan and implement truly horrific acts. People would expect him to act, and a bit more than trying to tell everybody that it is unimportant that the gentleman was practicing the art of Jihad all by himself with nothing else that could possibly have attributed to that act.

I agree with you Damo. This was an act of terrorism, period. We have found at least 20 e-mails from him to Al Qaeda. The left will try to make this killer into a victim.

 

[Canceled2]

It was organized by the perp. Sorry I was not clear, I mean it was not a conspiracy.

Notice Damo abandoned this thread!

I don't note whatDamo does or does not do Jarod, you either.

I do not agree that we can say it was not a conspiracy i.e. that he did not see himself as part of a collective mindset of Islamic Jihadist's. In fact I think it is becoming more clear that that is how he saw himself. This Imam (sp) he was in contact with preached this kind of behavior as part of the whole.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

It was organized by the perp. Sorry I was not clear, I mean it was not a conspiracy.

Notice Damo abandoned this thread!

He probably left because he is disgusted with the left, knowing that they and the president are clueless. God help us all.

 

[Damocles]

It was organized by the perp. Sorry I was not clear, I mean it was not a conspiracy.

Notice Damo abandoned this thread!

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be terrorism.

And that's the beauty of message boards, unlike chat your words are there for me to read when I have time to get back to the thread.

 

[Damocles]

First, every horrific act is not an act of terrorism. The D.C. sniper was not a terrorist. That fellow at Virginia Tech was not a terrorist. The fact that a Muslim performs a horrific act does not make it a terrorist act. The fact that a radical Muslim performs the horrific act does not make it terrorism. The key is that the act must be done to achieve a political, not personal, objective. I haven't seen any indication that this guy was trying to achieve a political objective. Based on that, I don't think it was a terrorist act.

Second, we have learned that whether you treat terrorism as a crime or as an act of war the persons that are intent on performing horrific acts of terrorism will plan and implement truly horrific acts.

Third, nothing bothers the shit out of me more than people claiming that someone else must "act" without specifying what action they want the other person to take. Obama must act. How? What act(s) do you want him to take and what do you expect that act(s) to accomplish?

True, not every horrific act is an act of terrorism, nor is every act of terrorism a huge conspiracy. IMO, this was an act of Jihad and a continuation of activity already perpetrated by larger conspiracies. And I did not say that I would be saying he should act, I said that people (as in John Q) would expect some action.

 

[Bonestorm]

True, not every horrific act is an act of terrorism, nor is every act of terrorism a huge conspiracy. IMO, this was an act of Jihad and a continuation of activity, already perpetrated by larger conspiracies. And I did not say that I would be saying he should act, I said that people (as in John Q) would expect some action.

No, not every act of terrorism is part of a huge conspiracy, hence the term "lone wolf." Sometimes religious fanatics perpetrate acts of violence out on their own in furtherance of a larger political objectives without formally being part of a group, like Scott Roeder.

Perhaps you could explain what you think was the political objective he sought to accomplish. I mean, saying it was an act of Jihad is easy to do but it is pretty meaningless. Based on what I've read he was acting for personal reasons, not political ones.

As for your "people (as in John Q)" nonsense, it's classic Damocles horseshit and it's a classic rhetorical device used by people that want to say something but don't want the responsibility of having said it.

 

[lostsoul]

I read this earlier and maybe it is a definition we can all agree on...

"It was not a terrorist attack, targeting noncombatants, but an act of guerrilla warfare, carried out by one of our own in apparent contact with the enemy, and hence an act of treason."

Roger Pilon
Vice President for Legal Affairs, Cato Institute

 

[Damocles]

No, not every act of terrorism is part of a huge conspiracy, hence the term "lone wolf." Sometimes religious fanatics perpetrate acts of violence out on their own in furtherance of a larger political objectives without formally being part of a group, like Scott Roeder.

Perhaps you could explain what you think was the political objective he sought to accomplish. I mean, saying it was an act of Jihad is easy to do but it is pretty meaningless. Based on what I've read he was acting for personal reasons, not political ones.

As for your "people (as in John Q)" nonsense, it's classic Damocles horseshit and it's a classic rhetorical device used by people that want to say something but don't want the responsibility of having said it.

Sometimes there are "lone wolfs", however in only one religion that we know of today are we attacked consistently by people who are urged to do so for heavenly rewards. This particular act was a continuation of that principle. To say otherwise simply rejects relevant information in favor of what you want to believe.

And I take responsibility for what I actually said, not what you pretend I said.

 

[Damocles]

I read this earlier and maybe it is a definition we can all agree on...

"It was not a terrorist attack, targeting noncombatants, but an act of guerrilla warfare, carried out by one of our own in apparent contact with the enemy, and hence an act of treason."

Roger Pilon
Vice President for Legal Affairs, Cato Institute

Works for me.

 

[Jarod]

I don't note whatDamo does or does not do Jarod, you either.

I do not agree that we can say it was not a conspiracy i.e. that he did not see himself as part of a collective mindset of Islamic Jihadist's. In fact I think it is becoming more clear that that is how he saw himself. This Imam (sp) he was in contact with preached this kind of behavior as part of the whole.

How he saw himself is not relevant to the reality of what was.

 

[Jarod]

So even if it was "terrorism" and not the act of a delusional individual... how does it make a difference? Why would it matter? How should we react differently?

So if a delusional individual tries uncessfully to contact Al Queda and coordinate an attack with them, then goes and shoots a bunch of people, how is that more terrorism than crazy? And in the end why does it matter what label you put on it?

 

[Thorn]

So even if it was "terrorism" and not the act of a delusional individual... how does it make a difference? Why would it matter? How should we react differently?

So if a delusional individual tries uncessfully to contact Al Queda and coordinate an attack with them, then goes and shoots a bunch of people, how is that more terrorism than crazy? And in the end why does it matter what label you put on it?

If it had been part of an attack planned by a remote organization then our agencies' responses would be vastly different than if it was the act of an individual. Understanding his motives helps the authorities determine what course of action, if any, to take next.