Comments on: State Department reports Global Terrorism increasing!

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:19:06 +0000

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/71803.htm

Title for Chapter 3

National Review uses the term constantly…

Even the title of a book …

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:04:55 +0000

and if you do a search for the term, you’ll get over 30,000 hits.

Today’s terrorist is a flappen catch phrase and you’re so deeply brainwashed you think you just coined the term yourself?

Oiy!

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:02:54 +0000

Aubrey,

Sematics? All you have left in the way of ideas is sematics?

No substance? Not even style?

Just this vague sort of defense that “Mad didn’t say it the right way. And, I just coined the term, today’s terrorist.”

Wow! The fringe right has nothing to offer. No plans. No facts. No vision.

You’ve not nothing, including a bad memory?

Come on! The future of the world depends upon you and Mike.

Get your acts together!

By: Aubrey

Aubrey — Wed, 02 May 2007 17:28:35 +0000

MD,
Really?…come on. Nice spin. “Today’s terroists”, as far as I know, I made the term up. I can’t recall a time that I’ve either read the phrase or heard on tv/radio.

By: David O'Rear

David O'Rear — Wed, 02 May 2007 10:09:59 +0000

“Mission Accomplished, GOPers!”

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:13:32 +0000

Good question and an excellent way to define terrorists.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:36:20 +0000

So who’s a terrorist? MMM so who are people most scared to criticize these days?

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:03:45 +0000

Caroline,

I guess since Eric Robert Rudolph blew people up, a perfectly acceptable way to kill people in the Western way of thinking, he’s not a terrorist.

Now, if he had used a kitchen knife, cut off somebody parts… ops! He’d be a serial killer. David Koresh… not a terrorist. The UnaBomber … not a terrorist … The Oklahoma City bombers … not terrorists … The SLA … not terrorists … The Black Panthers … not terrorists … Mexican drug gangs … not terrorists even when they run sections of the Mexican government, assassinate police and judges … Columbian drug gangs … Korean gangs … The Bloods, the Crips, The Republican Party of Georgia… not terrorists.

By: caroline

caroline — Tue, 01 May 2007 19:48:22 +0000

Well, why don’t we call people like Eric Rudolph Christian terrorists? Terrorists are adherents of radical fundamentalism no matter what religion they claim as their own. What’s wrong with just calling them terrorists? It’s what they all are.

By: Mad Dog

Mad Dog — Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:11 +0000

Aubrey,

At least you didn’t use the word crusade. However, you’ve been brainwashed. “Today’s terrorist” …? Who was yesterday’s terrorist? Tomorrow’s terrorist?

I don’t listen to those non-mainstream media types. But, I’d bet the phrase, today’s terrorist, gets repeated often enough to be more than a sound bite.

If you would read the pitiful State Department report, you’d see that terrorism isn’t limited to Iraq, Iran, and Israel.

The short list of terrorist organizations can be found here.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm

A longer list can be found here

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt

Neither list is comprehensive. Each list is western ethno-centric. Information used to compile the list is finite and dependent upon voluntary reporting.

For example, I don’t believe the report when it says China experienced no act of terrorism. China just didn’t report any acts of terrorism within it’s territory.

For example, China makes a territorial claim to Kashmir. So does Pakistan and India. Pakistani based terrorists routinely operate in Kashmir. But, China reports none of this.

How does the State Department reconcile that? Or, how does it in the report deal with a disputed territory like Kashmir?

Certainly, the methodology hurls chunks.

But, as horribly flawed as the State Department report is and always will be, it’s light years ahead of the non-mainstream people like you and Mike.