2012 Debates

[alfa1]

Democracy: the tyranny of the majority!
The Majority of Voters: those who have more children!
For example: more than 40 percent of the world's population lives within the tropical zone; this means in the future they will control the world.
My equations show that we are not equals in evolution!
Because wise people are only a small minority, they have a small influence in the society.

The solution:
My PTM political party: The wisest will be the president of PTM (no elections).

 

[Tricky]

Democracy: the tyranny of the majority!
The Majority of Voters: those who have more children!
For example: more than 40 percent of the world's population lives within the tropical zone; this means in the future they will control the world.
My equations show that we are not equals in evolution!
Because wise people are only a small minority, they have a small influence in the society.

The solution:
My PTM political party: The wisest will be the president of PTM (no elections).

Well that was surreal.

 

[RandFan]

Well that was surreal.

I was going to chalk it up my Friday night happy hour. Guess I'm not as incoherent a I thought.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the homeowner was your only target, then no, it's not terrorism. It's just arson.

I don't think that's true. If your intent was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, it's terrorism regardless of how many people (if any) you target with violence.

 

[RandFan]

{sigh} for some the facts simply just don't matter.

ter·ror·ism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

What kind of lack of reading comprehension do some people have? Where does it say that there is a minimum number of people needed? Why is it when some demonstrate their point others ignore it and just make unsubstantiated claims?

Like pulling teeth. I swear. I hate semantic arguments. Words evolve. they aren't fixed in stone and different groups and different people have different usages. It's fine if someone disagrees but if they are going to tell me that the dictionary is wrong then please HAVE SOME OPPOSING EVIDENCE? Please? Just some? Any? When did opinion about the definition of a word trump what the dictionary says?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In fact, going by the USC that both Dynamic and I have cited, it doesn't even require actual intent--it only has to appear that that was the intent. That can make a big difference in what evidence is required.

It also has to satisfy the other elements of a crime, but I'm only focusing on what distinguishes terrorism from other crimes.

 

[Tricky]

What kind of lack of reading comprehension do some people have? Where does it say that there is a minimum number of people needed? Why is it when some demonstrate their point others ignore it and just make unsubstantiated claims?

Like pulling teeth. I swear.

To be fair, I don't think that brief description is comprehensive enough to cover the various contexts and meanings of the word. Indeed, I find that the word is trotted out whenever you wish to demonize your opposition. It's the old "We are freedom fighters, but you are terrorists" argument. By that brief definition you provided, any sort of unprovoked attack, especially if for political purposes, is terrorism, and I don't think that is necessarily the case.

 

[RandFan]

To be fair, I don't think that brief description is comprehensive enough to cover the various contexts and meanings of the word. Indeed, I find that the word is trotted out whenever you wish to demonize your opposition. It's the old "We are freedom fighters, but you are terrorists" argument. By that brief definition you provided, any sort of unprovoked attack, especially if for political purposes, is terrorism, and I don't think that is necessarily the case.

If the freedom fighters intent is to terrorize then why not call it terrorism? You've lost me. Remember, the requirement based on my definition is the intent to terrorize.

Clear that up for me, please?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair, I don't think that brief description is comprehensive enough to cover the various contexts and meanings of the word. Indeed, I find that the word is trotted out whenever you wish to demonize your opposition. It's the old "We are freedom fighters, but you are terrorists" argument. By that brief definition you provided, any sort of unprovoked attack, especially if for political purposes, is terrorism, and I don't think that is necessarily the case.

[ETA: And not any unprovoked attack. Any crime that appears to be for the purpose of threatening or intimidating civilians, or to affect government by a number of specific crimes: kidnapping, assassination, etc. See post 1728.]

True enough, but people are criticizing the President oddly enough for using the term "terrorist acts" before many of the details were known about and for not using the term "terrorist attacks" soon enough.

Owing to these objections, I think taking the strictest definition puts the issue in the most favorable light for the critics of Obama. And even so, their criticism is still unfounded.

 

[RandFan]

BTW:

Since when does war not have a terrorist component? I think the word terrorism has taken on a separate criminal component that we don't want to associate with. I'm sorry, war is terrorism whether it is the Americans fighting it or anyone else. Now, we might try to comfort ourselves with platitudes about reducing collateral damage and we may well intend to not kill civilians but if you think for a moment we don't want the enemy scared in order to coerce them into giving up then you are lying to yourself.

I tell you, war is Hell! --William Tecumseh Sherman

I think that is part of the problem. We've convinced ourselves that we are the righteous ones. We can't commit atrocity. That's the other side. No it's not. I'm not a pacifist. Neither am I blinded to the crimes my nations engages in.

 

[TheSapient]

{sigh} for some the facts simply just don't matter.

What kind of lack of reading comprehension do some people have? Where does it say that there is a minimum number of people needed? Why is it when some demonstrate their point others ignore it and just make unsubstantiated claims?

Like pulling teeth. I swear. I hate semantic arguments. Words evolve. they aren't fixed in stone and different groups and different people have different usages. It's fine if someone disagrees but if they are going to tell me that the dictionary is wrong then please HAVE SOME OPPOSING EVIDENCE? Please? Just some? Any? When did opinion about the definition of a word trump what the dictionary says?

I agree with this completely. The argument being made seems to be that Obama failed in some way because he used the word "terror" in a way that is correct, yet different than some different, specific, and somewhat confused definition. This is what happens when one does not read for comprehension, but rather to confirm pre-drawn conclusions.

 

[RandFan]

Case Law:

source Fourth defendant found guilty in AG cross burning case

A jury late Monday convicted the fourth member of a group involved in burning an 11-foot cross in a vacant lot adjacent to a mixed-race family’s Arroyo Grande home last year.

Jeremiah L. Hernandez, 33, of San Simeon, was found guilty of arson, cross burning, terrorism, conspiracy and three related hate crime enhancements.

Virginia v. Black

However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.

That's my argument. Intent. I've offered a dictionary definition for the colloquial usage and I've provided the legal definition (intent must be proven).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree with this completely. The argument being made seems to be that Obama failed in some way because he used the word "terror" in a way that is correct, yet different than some different, specific, and somewhat confused definition. This is what happens when one does not read for comprehension, but rather to confirm pre-drawn conclusions.

As far as Obama's use of the word "terrorist" is concerned, what he called it is one thing. What worries me more is that it's designation was extremely inconsistent between himself and the state department. Whatever bureaucracy is leading to that, it's making his administration look clumsy on a good deal of the handling

 

[RandFan]

Gotcha politics:

As far as Obama's use of the word "terrorist" is concerned, what he called it is one thing. What worries me more is that it's designation was extremely inconsistent between himself and the state department. Whatever bureaucracy is leading to that, it's making his administration look clumsy on a good deal of the handling

I think it is such nit picking gotcha. I know of no political leader that has had a perfect tenure. It's a damn complex job. And what is terrorism? Seriously? Why couldn't a riot be terrorism if the purpose of the riot was to terrorize. Look I don't know but what you call something is hardly critical. I honestly don't think Obama did anything wrong, I don't even think it was clumsily. BTW: Extremely inconsistent? I think there was a lot of confusion and I don't think people knew a day after or even days after.

 

[TheSapient]

As far as Obama's use of the word "terrorist" is concerned, what he called it is one thing. What worries me more is that it's designation was extremely inconsistent between himself and the state department. Whatever bureaucracy is leading to that, it's making his administration look clumsy on a good deal of the handling

I understand. Would you want to take a crack at this?

I'd like to hear what specific negative repercussions the US has suffered from its citizens being unclear for 14 days as to what exactly happened prior to the Benghazi attack. Does anyone think that this intelligence/communication problem compare in severity to, say, the claim that Iraq was building WMD's?

 

[Dymanic]

As far as Obama's use of the word "terrorist" is concerned, what he called it is one thing. What worries me more is that it's designation was extremely inconsistent between himself and the state department. Whatever bureaucracy is leading to that, it's making his administration look clumsy on a good deal of the handling

You want to see clumsy? Elect Mitt Romney. There's a guy who could have us ALL longing for the good old days when we had a real statesman at the helm: George W. Bush.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm not asking for a lot of sensitive operational detail. But it doesn't compromise anyone else's safety to note that our ambassador had no Marine contingent, the security detail that was with him was too small, inadequately armed, and essentially untrained, and the consulate itself was protected by nothing more than ordinary door locks. These failures were all peculiar to that specific event, and do not represent the general state of diplomatic security.

By the way, you might want to have a look at this:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...p_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And what is terrorism? Seriously? Why couldn't a riot be terrorism if the purpose of the riot was to terrorize.

I'm not wasting my time with a semantics game; let's deal with reality okay? Elements of the attack were coordinated and planned, down to using the riot as cover to do the attack in the midst of protests. The people on that end made security requests to the state department under indications that the situation there was deteriorating, two months before it boiled over. The requests were turned down by the State Department. Obama might not have received the requests through the bureaucracy, but the requests were still made, and the State Department, and more than one request was refused.

I don't know where you get that pointing this out is nitpicking gotcha moments... or that I'm somehow placing ridiculously high standards of "perfection".

Look I don't know but what you call something is hardly critical.

I agree in the sense that the official designation of the murders doesn't influence the outcome of the attacks. People are still dead regardless of what you want to call it. And in the sense that the question still remains on what influence the lack of added security details at the consulate would have helped or to what degree. We don't know that since the requests were turned down. Otherwise... the information determines the significance of the "words"...

I honestly don't think Obama did anything wrong, I don't even think it was clumsily. BTW: Extremely inconsistent? I think there was a lot of confusion and I don't think people knew a day after or even days after.

Obama described the attack in terms of terror the day after the attack, but in the days that followed neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently. Many of the suggestions pointed at the youtube video, more recent reports suggests that the intelligence community knew it was a coordinated attack well before two weeks out. I don't think it being "confusing" is sufficient to justify the inconsistency in the administration. Whether that includes Obama himself or not, isn't my concern.

 

[grunion]

You want to see clumsy? Elect Mitt Romney. There's a guy who could have us ALL longing for the good old days when we had a real statesman at the helm: George W. Bush.

I still haven't had the chance to watch the (second) debate. I'm in India and because of limited media access and time zone challenges, I haven't been able to see more than a few brief soundbites in web videos. But I am encouraged by the consensus that Obama was more agressive in challenging Romney this time around.

What really interests me is how so many of my Indian co-workers are following it so closely and responding to it. Here democracy and elections are more extreme streetfights. For example, a friend was complaining about his car being stolen, and blaming the BJP (one of the dominant political parties here.) I didn't really understand the complaint, thought it was just "blame the other guy for everything," but apparently he really did have a gripe. In the weeks leading up to election time, auto theft increases dramatically. Apparently political hacks steal cars and swap the tags and change the VINs so they can paint them up to use for electioneering. They rip holes in the roof, rig up speaker systems, and drive around villages campaigning for their guy, handing out bidis (cheap cigarettes) and booze.

Anyhow, pretty much everyone in the office (except the boss) is a big Obama supporter. They were so excited to talk to me about the debate, that finally Obama is showing "that boot-ne-ka Romney" that he can't get away with "these bahen-chod lies." Very amusing. But moreover it indicates to me how much Obama has improved our standing in the world. They see Bush as they see their own corrupt politicians, a rich child of privilege who bought his way into the office and bungled his way through eight horrible years. They see Romney in the exact same light. Obama, for all his faults, represents democracy to them.

This whole "soft on terror" attack makes me wonder if Karl Rove is still running the show. At the least he has taught his disciples very well. The RNC and its pimp-PACs again are masterful at hitting the President on his strengths and their own candidates weaknesses. The immediate political fallout from the Benghazi attack was completely anti-Romney - it was just recently so we don't have to strain to hard to remember how quickly Romney seized the microphones, while the ambassador's body was still warm, to launch the whole Rovian surrender-monkey accusation. There was zero basis for it, and I think the majority of people were justifiably angry at him for doing so. It was a bad couple of days for Romney-Ryan. But now they have turned it on its ear by fabricating another "soft on terror" narrative out of whole cloth. There is nothing there. Like there was nothing to the swift boating of Kerry, or the "I invented the Internet" story about Gore.

Obama got Bin Laden. That would have been enough to win him the election right there. But they have been remarkably effective at marginalizing that long-awaited accomplishment, and even criticizing it by casting doubt on the exact circumstances regarding how many shots it took to kill him. Really? Is that important? Apparently it is more important to them than the fact that he is dead and gone.

Unemployment is <8%. There a good story. But they throw a senile old kook like Jack Welch under the bus by having him accuse the Obama administration to be in complicity with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is nothing there. But it sticks, in the "fair and balanced equal time for all sides no matter how true or false it is" media world we live in.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your criticism strikes me as premature.

Premature? It's been over a month now since the attacks. When will criticism NOT be premature? After the election?

You might keep in mind that if there are issues with communication between the White House and the State Department, or between the State Department and any of its Bureaus or operatives, or anything of that nature, rectifying that sort of situation is not a process that can easily be hampered by GOP obstructionism.

What on earth are you talking about? The legislature plays no role in any of this except with respect to oversight, and the executive branch can get whatever they need to do done with or without that oversight. Oversight isn't obstructionism under any reasonable definition of the word.

I don't see Obama as the kind of leader who would be comfortable sacrificing a member of his team as a scapegoat with purely political means in mind

Go on, pull the other one. Obama's got a long trail of people he threw under the bus to get where he is today.

I find it slightly comical that you followed that statement with a list of operational details which might reasonably be considered sensitive.

They might have been sensitive beforehand. They sure as hell aren't sensitive now. If you don't understand why, I really can't help you.

I think you might want to reconsider whether that's an argument you really want to make. The conclusion it would lead to is that Benghazi was a fluke, and not representative of any widespread problems with the way diplomatic security is being handled under the current administration.

I think that's quite likely. But I don't know why you think that gets the administration off the hook. Most embassies are well established, so stuff like security arrangements are, to a very significant degree, carried over from administration to administration. But our operations in Libya were brand new, so it's essentially completely the product of the current administration. And they screwed up, massively.

I reject your description of the response on all counts, and would ask: Would it have been better if they had endorsed it? Do YOU endorse that video's message? How would YOU have handled the response?

You've set up a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between endorsing or condemning the video. One need not take any stand on the contents of the video at all. I would simply have said that we stand by our principles of free speech, and will continue to do so regardless of any threats or attacks, end of story. I wouldn't have said anything that could be interpreted as a judgment in any direction about the contents of those videos, and I would not have aired advertisements saying how terrible and offensive the government thought the video was. The US position should have been that the video simply doesn't matter, because honestly, it doesn't.

That obviously is not the case, as part of the response to the Benghazi attack was an immediate order for increased security at all overseas facilities.

In other words, revealing operational details of the Benghazi attacks won't compromise security at other installations which have already adjusted their security arrangements since. I'm glad you now agree with me that this isn't actually an impediment.