Wow, this guy is on "Our" Side

[Mark Gambo]

It is one thing to be against the war but no US Politician, let alone a Senator should be saying the things about the US Service men and women that Schemer said in the Senate Chambers Click Here for the video and Audio

Whether or not you are for the war isn't the point, our elected officials in no way should demagogue the US Military for doing the job that the US Congress authorized.

We will be in alot of trouble if the Dems occupy both Congress and the White House. We would in essence be hanging out the welcome terrorist signs. To me, a person who lived through two attacks on the World Trade Center, this is a very scary thought.

For those of you who will inevitably attack me on this post just remember that since September 11, 2001 there hasn't been an attack in any US City to date.

Well let the attacks begin . . .

[mendhak]

For those of you who will inevitably attack me on this post just remember that since September 11, 2001 there hasn't been an attack in any US City to date.

And before September 11?

[Mark Gambo]

And before September 11?

I don't understand the point of your post.

[mendhak]

You said there haven't been any attacks against US cities since September 11. I wanted to know of attacks made against US cities before 9/11.

(Or if you're European, 11/9! Harrrr)

[Mark Gambo]

You said there haven't been any attacks against US cities since September 11. I wanted to know of attacks made against US cities before 9/11.

(Or if you're European, 11/9! Harrrr)

Well how about the first World Trade Center Bombing on Feburary 26, 1993, I am sure you have probably heard about it, if not take a look at these LINKS

[capsulecorpjx]

So many lies and scandals have come out of the Bush administration and Republican Party that I really can't even remember them all. I mean every single one of these scandals was really on the scale of Watergate, yet because there are so many of them, we've gotten "used to them" and there isn't even outrage anymore.

Also Bush just says so many stupid things. I seriously think his coke and alcohol binge has made him mildly retarded since his College days.

The incompetence level is high as well. Bush hired a incompetent, unqualified toadee to a major disaster relief department, FEMA.

And Brownie, that incompetent clown, couldn't get FEMA to New Orleans before the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, who sent aid before us. he couldn't get FEMA to New Orleans before Sean Penn, who drove there.

Bush didn't do anything either, when he should have stepped in and commandeered disaster relief after the first day, once he realized Brownie was doing nothing.

[Mark Gambo]

So many lies and scandals have come out of the Bush administration and Republican Party that I really can't even remember them all. I mean every single one of these scandals was really on the scale of Watergate, yet because there are so many of them, we've gotten "used to them" and there isn't even outrage anymore.

Also Bush just says so many stupid things. I seriously think his coke and alcohol binge has made him mildly retarded since his College days.

The incompetence level is high as well. Bush hired a incompetent, unqualified toadee to a major disaster relief department, FEMA.

And Brownie, that incompetent clown, couldn't get FEMA to New Orleans before the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, who sent aid before us. he couldn't get FEMA to New Orleans before Sean Penn, who drove there.

Bush didn't do anything either, when he should have stepped in and commandeered disaster relief after the first day, once he realized Brownie was doing nothing.

I understand your point, but what does that have to do with Schumer's comments about the US Service men and women?

[mendhak]

Aah, so they've been at it a long time. Well I'm glad that the terrorist threat has now been eliminated.

That makes sense. The Democrats must be conspiring with the terrorists to allow them to infiltrate America.

[Mark Gambo]

Aah, so they've been at it a long time. Well I'm glad that the terrorist threat has now been eliminated.

That makes sense. The Democrats must be conspiring with the terrorists to allow them to infiltrate America.

Well I would rather our Military fight the terrorists in the middle east (Iraq, Iran, etc.) than have the Police fight them here on Main Street.

[capsulecorpjx]

I understand your point, but what does that have to do with Schumer's comments about the US Service men and women?

Oh I'm sure they were bad. I don't like ultra liberals either.

But there are moderates in every party you know? I just hate the Bush Administration, most of the Republican congressmen and nearly every single Republican candidate for president righ tnow.

I only like McCain, because he's honest and moderate on domestic issues. However I wouldnt' vote for him because of his age, and his stubborness. I'm sure he would stay in Iraq for another 10 years and institute a draft.

[capsulecorpjx]

Well I would rather our Military fight the terrorists in the middle east (Iraq, Iran, etc.) than have the Police fight them here on Main Street.

I understand where someone can get that sentiment. But I really don't think it has anything to do with whether you get terroist attacks on your soil.

Remember, London, Spain all have had terrorists attacks on their soil even though all the supposed terrorists were fighting US Troops in Iraq.

And I do think European countries are too liberal and lax in their national security. Too scared of offending extreme muslims who profess hate speach, when they really should be monitoring these radicals and keeping an eye on them (hopefully they do now after those bombings).

How to keep terrorists attacks off your soil?
1) Strictly control and monitor who comes to the United States.
2) The FBI and CIA should continue to investigate and monitor radical hate groups, Muslim or otherwise. They should make sure these hate groups keep their hate to speech only.

[Mark Gambo]

But there are moderates in every party you know?

I agree with you, but it seems that these are the only people that are running for president. We can't show the world that all you have to do is bloody our nose and we will go away (ie: Vietnam).

. . . I'm sure he would stay in Iraq for another 10 years and institute a draft.

Maybe, or maybe not but I would rather the terrorists fight our Military in their countries that have our over burdened police departments here in the US. Additionally, we found out what happens when the administration treats a terrorist action (ie the First World Trade Center Attack) as a police incident rather that a terrorist attack.

[capsulecorpjx]

At any rate, I'm probably going to vote for Barak Obama. I'm surprised myself as I saw him as an upstart with no experience.

But I saw him answer some questions from voters in Iowa on CSpan, and I was extremely impressed. He's a very smart guy, the answers weren't fluff that meant nothing, but instead were straightforward, specific and insightful.

[Mark Gambo]

. . . And I do think European countries are too liberal and lax in their national security.

The formation of the European Union didn't help much in this regard.

Too scared of offending extreme muslims who profess hate speach, when they really should be monitoring these radicals and keeping an eye on them (hopefully they do now after those bombings).

How to keep terrorists attacks off your soil?
1) Strictly control and monitor who comes to the United States.
2) The FBI and CIA should continue to investigate and monitor radical hate groups, Muslim or otherwise. They should make sure these hate groups keep their hate to speech only.

THe Bush Administration had a plan but for reasons unknown to me democratic congressmen and US Senators though it would be a good idea to tell the terrorists and the world that the US was listening in on their telephone conversations, I can't understand why a citizen let alone an elected official who has sworn to protect the US would do such a thing. THat borbers on Treason in my book.

[Mark Gambo]

At any rate, I'm probably going to vote for Barak Obama. I'm surprised myself as I saw him as an upstart with no experience.

But I saw him answer some questions from voters in Iowa on CSpan, and I was extremely impressed. He's a very smart guy, the answers weren't fluff that meant nothing, but instead were straightforward, specific and insightful.

I worry about his relative inexperience is it relates to foreign policy. I don't believe anyone should run for president unless he or she was previous elected to a position in the executive branch (ie Governor, Mayor etc).

[CodedFire]

Some countries don't need to have beefed up national security. Take ireland, we have never had a terrorist attack from "extreme muslims" sure their is the north but that is a whole messy its ours not yours situation and even they have got bored of that.

I think the US have brought alot of this on itself. So have the UK by sticking their nose in were it didn't belong in the first place.

As for that guy slagging of US troops, he has some nerve, after all was it not his own goverment who sent them there. At the end of the day being in the army is just a job.

I think that the us goverment are also extremist, they are trying to shove democrocy down other peoples throat which is wrong too.

Democracy is not nearly as perfect as people would like to think. The only difference is the criminals were suits, its the same here in ireland im sick of slimeball politicans.

[FunkyDexter]

He doesn't slag the troops, he slags the strategy. The closest he gets to slagging the troops is when he says 'the inability of the troops to protect' but in the context of what he's saying I think it's pretty clear he's not laying the blame for that inability at the feet of the soldiers, he's laying it at the feet of the strategy and, by implication, the people responsible for that strategy.

I find it a constant source of amusement that the pro-war lobby seem unable to separate support for a policy from support for the men tasked to carry that policy out. I suspect it represents a willful disregard of anything which does not support the argument - if not I can only explain it as unbelievable stupidity.


BTW this might be better in world events

[nemaroller]

Mark,

I will agree there are some people in Congress who are so anti-Bush that they make very weak conclusions and statements. Most of these people are very bitter about the last two presidential elections - and I guess that's to be expected because the victory/lose margin was so narrow. They are trying to hype media reports of how bad Bush is so they can guarantee a democratic executive victory.

Bush was never my pick in 2000, but after seeing Al Gore parade around the country these last 7 years - I guess Bush - even with his sub-par public speech - was the better of the two picks.

Presidents and the executive branch are always high profile targets - Clinton was bashed up and down by the Republicans and conservatives while he was in office - and people blame everything bad that happens on the executive branch while most of the policy that affects them daily is enacted at the State and Federal Congressional branches.

The good news is Bush for all his weaknesses - still thinks independently and stands by his convictions (that was shown with the immigration reform bill in which his party was against the bill, but he was pushing it). I was against the reform bill myself - but I still admire he wasn't simply doing as his party told him to do.

After the I35W bridge collapse here in Minnesota, you really see how these politicians are grandstanding. There's another bridge over the St.Croix that is in far worse shape, but even though it was slated for replacement back in 95, the Sierra Club in California has been filing lawsuit after lawsuit claiming that the new proposed bridge would negatively affect local wildlife. When Bush came to office, he instructed the Federal Highway Commission to drop any impact studies and give the green light on that construction so it could get built as soon as possible. If now only the Sierra Club could value human life more than some bird's habitat and butt out of local affairs - we might prevent another infrastructure tragedy.

Anyway, most of the politicans - even the one you mentioned - are playing political games, and even the democrats secretly (Hillary publicly) acknowledge they won't be pulling US troops out of Iraq.

[GaryMazzone]

Just remember if a politicans mouth is moving he/she is lying out their a@@. If we all remeber this the politicans will give us as much humer as any comidian.

[grilkip]

The 'fighting them overthere, not overhere' has sounded retarded since the first time I've heard it. If any measure taken by the US gov. has helped to prevent attacks then it is probably to thank to an increase in monitoring (in all sorts), basically a more proactive intelligence body. And that's still IF.

The people that did 9/11 were very prepared, the 'enemies' in Iraq are by and large probably not even intellectually able to execute a similar attack, they only need to know how to fire an AK or pull a cord.

If there were a new attack on a similar scale, I wouldn't be surprised if people like Mark Gambo saw a reason in that to stay even longer in Iraq, 'fighting them overthere'.

[bgmacaw]

Bush didn't do anything either, when he should have stepped in and commandeered disaster relief after the first day, once he realized Brownie was doing nothing.

That isn't the way Federalism works, that's the way dictatorship works. In US Federalism, the state government does something and if they need help then they ask the Feds. That's the way it's worked quite well in Florida for decades.

Unfortunately, Louisiana is packed with corrupt politicians at all levels who were more concerned with covering their asses and scoring political points against their locals rivals and the Bush administration than actually helping people. This was coupled with Bush giving the FEMA job to polo pony fundraiser and his own desire to score politically as well, also to the detriment of people who were in trouble. On top of that we can also add the grossly incompetent and corrupt Army Corps of Engineers that allowed the potential for the disaster to fester away for years. Thus we got a harmonic convergence of political incompetence and corruption from both sides of the aisle as well as the non-partisan bureaucracy.

[homer13j]

If there were a new attack on a similar scale, I wouldn't be surprised if people like Mark Gambo saw a reason in that to stay even longer in Iraq, 'fighting them overthere'.

There are three reasons why US troops will be in Iraq for many years to come:

Shiastan
Sunnistan
Kurdistan

If the Dems succeed in forcing a complete withdrawal Iraq will cease to exist and will split into three factions. The Kurds will immediately declare their independence and most of Kurdish western Turkey will want to join them. The Turks will not stand for this and what is now known as northern Iraq will get very ugly very fast.

Meanwhile the Shiites will align with Iran which may embolden Iran enough to make a move on the Saudi oil fields. Even if they fail the oil markets will respond with sheer panic driving prices well beyond current levels and putting a major hurt on "The Great Satan." The Sunnis who used to run the place will be on the receiving end of all the crap they dished out under Saddam.

Regardless of what Iran does there will still be major Shiite/Sunni battles over Baghdad and the Iraqi oil fields. At this point only the wealthiest Americans will be able to afford to drive their cars. This is why it would be foolish to withdraw from Iraq now. But idiots like Schumer don't care about the consequences as long as they can declare the whole thing a failure and be able to say "I told you so."

If a Democrat becomes president in Jan. 2009 don't expect a withdrawal, either, as none of the current candidates will want to be saddled with the failure of Iraq.

[grilkip]

I may have suggested I would want a pull-out right away, I don't. I was trying to describe an attitude of sticking to a non-proven method.

Good post btw.

[Schatzy]

On top of that we can also add the grossly incompetent and corrupt Army Corps of Engineers that allowed the potential for the disaster to fester away for years.

I'd like to add that anything ever built is a potential disaster. You think that building you're sitting in is 'safe'? Look at Northridge '94, Loma Prieta '89, Kobe '95, San Fran 1906, the recent pipe failure in NY, Minnesote Bridge collapse, Twin Towers, Tacoma Narrows bridge, ... As engineers we can only predict possibilities. Furthermore, statistics play a huge role in determining to what extent our designs are built. Everything, at some point, will fail. It may take time, but it will happen.
Call me a terrorist for instilling fear, but, to some degree, there is an inherent amount of danger is just about everything you do.

[bgmacaw]

I'd like to add that anything ever built is a potential disaster. You think that building you're sitting in is 'safe'? Look at Northridge '94, Loma Prieta '89, Kobe '95, San Fran 1906, the recent pipe failure in NY, Minnesote Bridge collapse, Twin Towers, Tacoma Narrows bridge, ... As engineers we can only predict possibilities. Furthermore, statistics play a huge role in determining to what extent our designs are built. Everything, at some point, will fail. It may take time, but it will happen.
Call me a terrorist for instilling fear, but, to some degree, there is an inherent amount of danger is just about everything you do.

There's a difference between a 'wicked engineering problem' where the right solution to a problem can't be determined until after a failure, such as Tacoma Narrows, and a problem caused by human politics, such as skimming off money from projects or building/reenforcing levees in politically connected areas while not building/reenforcing them in ones less well connected.

[capsulecorpjx]

The formation of the European Union didn't help much in this regard.




THe Bush Administration had a plan but for reasons unknown to me democratic congressmen and US Senators though it would be a good idea to tell the terrorists and the world that the US was listening in on their telephone conversations, I can't understand why a citizen let alone an elected official who has sworn to protect the US would do such a thing. THat borbers on Treason in my book.

How the Bush Administration approached Wire tapping is a big scandal, and a huge breach of law and the constitution (in terms of checks and balances)/

There were ALREADY laws in place that allowed the government to do emergancy wire-taps for national security without having to get approval from a Judge first. The only requirement was that a Judge is notified afterwards. And if any balantant abuse of the emergancy wire tap surfaces, there will be an investigation.

The problem is the Bush administration refuses to even notify the Judges it's suppose to report to.

I feel scared that there are people like you who actually believe blatant disregard for balance of powers, and destruction of civil liberties is a good idea, and that people who oppose it are treasonus.

If another Republican administration continues, this country will go down the path of Totalitarianism.

[Schatzy]

There's a difference between a 'wicked engineering problem' where the right solution to a problem can't be determined until after a failure, such as Tacoma Narrows, and a problem caused by human politics, such as skimming off money from projects or building/reenforcing levees in politically connected areas while not building/reenforcing them in ones less well connected.

I understand your point. However, I don't think Tacoma Narrows is a good example of a problem where the right solution can't be determined until after a failure.
In addition, there were many other problems that led to this disaster besides political corruption, such as the city being built in a swamp land, generators placed in basements, lack of political action on all levels, to name a few. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier.

p.s. - I will no longer be replying to this post on this topic, as it is getting off subject.

[bgmacaw]

The problem is the Bush administration refuses to even notify the Judges it's suppose to report to.

This is largely an unresolved Constitutional issue and it's been a struggle since John Adams was President.

There is also the question does the wide ranging post-9/11 authorization of force given to Bush by Congress supersede earlier, peacetime, national security surveillance laws? This isn't very clear cut either.

If another Republican administration continues, this country will go down the path of Totalitarianism.

Some people think that would happen if Hillary or one of the other Democrats were elected.

I kind of prefer a split government, that seems to limit the damage.

[capsulecorpjx]

There are three reasons why US troops will be in Iraq for many years to come:

Shiastan
Sunnistan
Kurdistan

If the Dems succeed in forcing a complete withdrawal Iraq will cease to exist and will split into three factions. The Kurds will immediately declare their independence and most of Kurdish western Turkey will want to join them. The Turks will not stand for this and what is now known as northern Iraq will get very ugly very fast.

Meanwhile the Shiites will align with Iran which may embolden Iran enough to make a move on the Saudi oil fields. Even if they fail the oil markets will respond with sheer panic driving prices well beyond current levels and putting a major hurt on "The Great Satan." The Sunnis who used to run the place will be on the receiving end of all the crap they dished out under Saddam.

Regardless of what Iran does there will still be major Shiite/Sunni battles over Baghdad and the Iraqi oil fields. At this point only the wealthiest Americans will be able to afford to drive their cars. This is why it would be foolish to withdraw from Iraq now. But idiots like Schumer don't care about the consequences as long as they can declare the whole thing a failure and be able to say "I told you so."

If a Democrat becomes president in Jan. 2009 don't expect a withdrawal, either, as none of the current candidates will want to be saddled with the failure of Iraq.

Man that's sad, Iraq looks like a second Palestine at this point, endless conflict.

[18experience]

For those of you who will inevitably attack me on this post just remember that since September 11, 2001 there hasn't been an attack in any US City to date.

Well how about the first World Trade Center Bombing on Feburary 26, 1993, I am sure you have probably heard about it, if not take a look at these LINKS

Allright, lets do the math. 1993-2001; approximately eight years. 2001-2007; approximately six years.

So, what's your point? Saying there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US since 911 doesn't make any sense. Thats just misleading sensational nonsense. Terrorist attacks on US soil have always been fairly infrequent.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Allright, lets do the math. 1993-2001; approximately eight years. 2001-2007; approximately six years.

So, what's your point? Saying there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US since 911 doesn't make any sense. Thats just misleading sensational nonsense. Terrorist attacks on US soil have always been fairly infrequent.

Amen, people are supposed to be smart here, but the incidence of islamic attacks on the mainland US is too small to average. Touting the fact that there haven't been any more islamic attacks in the US is wildly misleading. It is no evidence of success, it isn't evidence of anything. The actual trend is not downward, because there isn't a trend.

As for overall terrorist attacks, the latest intelligence report that has been released show that they are on the rise. Terrorist attacks in the US may also be on the rise, it's just that islam isn't behind them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Got thinking last night about what is terrorism. It isn't an easy thing to define. Any simple definition seems to have holes. If you were to call terrorism simply the attempt to sway policy on some issue through killing and terrorizing civilians, then 9/11 doesn't really fit, because nobody was really sure, and most people aren't sure even now, what the "sway" was supposed to be. People have made up whatever made them feel comfortable ("they hate us because...."), but it is all just guessing. Nobody has ever heard a before the fact explanation of what the terrorists hoped to achieve.

The problem with that flimsy definition is that as long as you accept it, and accept that the rationalization that went into the attack was complicated, then there have been approximately three other terrorist attacks since 9/11 (at least ones that spring to mind): Mr. Anthrax, DC Snipers, and VTech. Of course, none of these appeared to have the same motivation as 9/11, but since we don't fully understand the motivation behind 9/11, what is so different about those other three?

Since Mr. Anthrax is currently unknown, we don't know what the point of that was, but it certainly produced an expensive, and somewhat deadly scare. Foreign or domestic? We don't know. Purpose? Unknown. Perpetrator? Unknown.

The DC Snipers caused some real terror in that area, and spawned a few copy cat crimes, too. The source was domestic, the purpose....uh....fun? Perpetrators: Caught. Was this terrorism? What else could it be called? They deliberately targeted civilians over the course of some time, and remorselessly caused considerable agitation. The fact that their reasoning is obscure is no mediating circumstance, because we don't understand the reasoning behind 9/11, either.

VATech we do understand the reasoning behind: The guy was locked in a mental nightmare that no sane person can fully understand. His goal was to kill as many people as he could, and die in the process. The fact that he was basically insane does not fundamentally differentiate this act from that of a person who shoots up a synagogue. We may not be able to fully comprehend the rationale of somebody who is insane, but the actions were identical even if the motivations were different. It was a non-focused attack against, not an individual, but an institution (I don't mean institution as in "the school", in case you missed the point).

In what way were any of these three less terrorist attacks than 9/11? In two ways: 1) They killed less people, 2) The perpetrators can't be demonized as "foreigners" (though in the case of VATech, some people tried before finding out the guy was naturalized).

The first point can be discounted, because the earlier attack on the WTC was not particularly lethal, either, so body count is not sufficient to make the distinction between terrorist/not terrorist.

The second point is more problematic, as it is inherently either racist or xenophobic, or both. However, even if we ignore that aspect, we should note that EVERY group that has sought power has done so by demonizing somebody. Bringing people to common cause by defining their enemy is a very effective move. I feel that the major reason the conservatives routinely overlook the incidents of domestic terrorism (OK City, Atlanta Olympic bombing, Unabomber, Mr. Anthrax, etc.) is because there is no advantage to them mentioning those. You can't very well mobilize people by demonizing the man in the mirror. Thus they define as terror those acts which arise from a group they choose to oppose as a means of drawing power. Those acts that do not give them any common enemy to demonize, and therefore offer them no power, are either downplayed, or categorized as something else.

If this is not the case, then perhaps somebody could provide a definition of terrorism which includes 9/11 and the first WTC bombing, but excludes the three examples stated above.

That might get some discussion going, though lots of people will skip over a lengthy post.

[zaza]

The chief difference that springs to mind is the the 9/11 attacks were coordinated, and the perpetrators had known links to an organisation that was still active.

In all the three examples mentioned above, those reponsible were effectively acting individually (ok, so the sniper was really two people but always acting together, and nobody can say about the anthrax guy but we assume it was one individual). The idea behind terroris is, as the name suggests, to inspire terror principally amongst civilians, and although the sniper certainly promoted some fear in the Washington area due to the random nature of his attacks, the others didn't really serve to inspire terror in the population at large.

Had there been multiple snipers in several US cities at the same time, then yes I would put it on a par with 9/11.
In the event, the two parts to inspire terror about 9/11 were: i) Massive coordinated killing of random civilians and ii) the prospect that these were just a small part of a group who were determined to do the same again.

Also, as a postscript, although the VTech guy did end up shooting himself, there is a distinct difference between one loony who shoots himself, which could happen on a daily basis somewhere in the US, and a group of about 15 comitting suicide simultaneously and trying to take as many others with them as possible.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was trying to stay away from issues of scale, which is what the last statement brought in, as well as the second to last, though to a lesser degree.

The problem with elements of degree is that by your definition, a single suicide bomber with a bomb belt, who walks into a department store and detonates the bomb wouldn't count as a terrorist because his death toll wasn't high enough. Surely that is not correct.

Furthermore, both the DC Snipers and Mr. Anthrax actually managed far more "terror" because they were prolonged. 9/11 is a closer match to VATech in that it was a nearly instantaneous event, though the death toll was much higher.

I would say that it is still terrorism if it happens over a long time period instead of an instant, and it is still terrorism if the deathtoll is pretty low (Mr. Anthrax killed a very small number of people, but had a HUGE financial and psychological impact).

This leaves the first statements. Is terrorism only terrorism if the person/persons are acting as agents for a known organization? What if the organization denies the involvement, but the attacker still claims to have acted in their behalf?

After all, by that definition, neither McVeigh, nor the Unabomber were actually terrorists, even though their techniques and methods appeared similar to other terrorist acts, because they were acting alone, and without ties to any organization. That's fine, but what about Eric Rudolph? He was the Atlanta Olympics bomber, and had bombed a few other places. He had ties to organizations, but the organizations denied that he represented them. While this might be true, it leaves the question of whether he was a terrorist.

Consider that if two people detonate bomb belts on busses in Israel. One of them is a member of a known organization, such as Hamas. The other was just pissed about Israelly occupation of Gaza, or even Starbucks. Is the second one not a terrorist simply because he didn't belong to a group? That doesn't sound right to me.

[nemaroller]

As Zaza suggested, 9/11 was coordinated by a large militia of religious zealots.

On the flip side, if those in the Waco compound had actually gone out blowing up parts of the civilian population - people would definitely label them a terrorist organization. The US government still confronted them without the label.

Al Queda is particularly dangerous since they had the financial resources to carry out attacks - and the lead organizer is bent on using religion to coerce its followers to execute its attacks. Further, once you kill 2000+ people and cause over billions in damage, you become an immediate and dangerous threat.

"The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion."

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp


Shaggy- As far as the definition of terrorist - the test in my opinion is you have a militia carrying out attacks against civilian populations - and that militia does not belong to a nation with a standing army. If Iran's army or even intelligence agents of Iran attacked US troops - that would be an act of war - not terrorism, because Iran has a standing internationally recognized government and army.

[penagate]

The United Nations' 'academic consensus definition' of terrorism:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).

This contradicts, to varying extents, other definitions given above.

In my opinion, any attempt to provide some formal definition of terrorism, that encompasses all historical acts generally considered to be terrorism and none that are not, is ultimately futile, for several reasons: people rely on subjective assessment of each individual case to determine whether it is to be labelled as terrorism or not (as can be observed in the posts above); consensus does not necessarily fit any formal definition that could be given; and such a definition, if possible, would be largely useless, since in nearly all contexts in which it were to be used, more specific definitions would be required.

Even a deliberately simplistic and broad definition, such as "the use of terror to effect some change", is rather useless: how does one define 'terror'? A serial murderer may incite feelings of terror in some people; are they a terrorist? Would they become a terrorist if the murders were carried out for some ultimate purpose, or if they held particular religious beliefs?
A line may be drawn between petty crime and serious crime, but it seems impossible to draw a line between serious crime and terrorism that satisfies every case that is generally regarded to be terrorism and every case that is not. As such, vague terms such as 'War on Terror' are meaningless and (in my personal opinion) inadequate justification for authorising any sort of war.

[nemaroller]

Well, 'war on terror' is an easier abbreviation from 'war against countries which sponsor and harbor terrorism'. The president has always had the ability to send troops wherever in the world; it's just out-of-budget funding requires authorization by Congress.

[homer13j]

The DC Snipers caused some real terror in that area, and spawned a few copy cat crimes, too. The source was domestic, the purpose....uh....fun?

Both snipers were jailhouse converts to Islam.

I was still working in a newsroom at the time and I was stunned by the amount of dejection and disappointment among most in the news business to find out these guys belonged to two "protected" groups by being both black and Muslim. After all, the most revered Chief Moose was convinced the sniper was a sicko white guy in a "white van", and this fit mainstream media's world view so perfectly it couldn't possibly be wrong so it was reported as fact.

When it turned out both men were on a personal jihad to kill infidels the media did such a bang-up job obfuscating and ignoring the facts of the case that most people reading the stories still have no idea these guys were doing it all in the name of Allah.

Just one of the many reasons I no longer work for the news media.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Both snipers were jailhouse converts to Islam.

I was still working in a newsroom at the time and I was stunned by the amount of dejection and disappointment among most in the news business to find out these guys belonged to two "protected" groups by being both black and Muslim. After all, the most revered Chief Moose was convinced the sniper was a sicko white guy in a "white van", and this fit mainstream media's world view so perfectly it couldn't possibly be wrong so it was reported as fact.

When it turned out both men were on a personal jihad to kill infidels the media did such a bang-up job obfuscating and ignoring the facts of the case that most people reading the stories still have no idea these guys were doing it all in the name of Allah.

Just one of the many reasons I no longer work for the news media.

I never did hear the reason, but I, too, assumed it was a white guy. We tend to provide most mass murderers of the small time type. Funny that we often have all the rage.

So what were they pissed about? They actually dropped out of the public eye long before anything much came out about them. Do they count as terrorists if they were killing because of Allah or Islam?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I tend to prefer Nemarollers definition to the UN one, though I see where the UN is coming from. The problem with the UN definition is that it not only includes the three examples I cited earlier, it includes a whole lot of others, as well.