What is the Definition of Terrorism? Don’t ask the UN, They Don’t Know.

by Jack

There are about 6000 North Korean agents dedicated to cyber-terrorism, so says today’s headlines.   In a perfect world any government that engaged in State sponsored terrorism ought be sanctioned into oblivion.  But, because the PRNK is protected by China and Russia, this gives their punk dictator, Kim Jong-un a green light to do his worst to us and our allies.

This dictator loves playing the bad guy too and every week, we’ve got some new kind of threat coming his mouth.   The P.R.N.K. was behind the attack on Sony, says the FBI.   Clearly, many of their past actions  fall into the category of State sponsored terrorism, sending saboteurs in South Korea, attacking US border guards, hijacking the Pueblo, even sinking a South Korean patrol boat.

We ought to have wide range of options to deal with these characters, but apparently we don’t and we’ve actually played the “appeasement’ game with them in the past.  Of course it never worked.

Can’t the UN do something?  The short answer is no.  Going to our impotent United Nations  for leverage against Kim Jong-un is almost laughable.  The UN can’t even define what terrorism is, let alone fight it.   I’m serious, they really can’t define terrorism.  Despite literally thousands of examples of Muslim terrorism over many decades, international law the UN can’t define terrorism!    Only academic recently said, “The term terrorism is an emotive word with negative connotations: Terrorism, like beauty, remains in the eye of the beholder.”   (What fatuous BS)  Dutch political scientist Alex P. Schmid said the five most frequently identified elements of terrorism were:  Violence or force, political purpose, terror or fear, threat, and anticipated psychological effects or reactions by third parties.”  Why can’t the UN agree on that, seems pretty obvious?  If they can’t even define it, how can they come up with a solution to stop it?

Section 1605 of Title 28 U.S. Code, defines cyber-terrorism and covers the penalty.   But, when I researched this law I was shocked to discover it limits our response to basically monetary damages.   I’m not kidding.   In other words, we can’t launch a cruise missile into the hacker’s office or even issue an arrest warrant for hacking into our American businesses.   So, when President Obama responds to a Sony-like attack and says we’ll have a proportioned response, he’s really talking about a monetary penalty or if it’s really bad, the use of a trade sanction.    So, that’s it, penalty-wise.   Our laws, our policies and presidential options have basically no deterrence against State sponsored cyber-terrorism.

Global technology and the criminal threat potential that comes with it has outpaced our legal system and brother, do we need an update!  It’s like the world is running on Windows 20.0 and we’re stuck in the dark ages with Windows XP.  We’ve been asking for this legal update for years and I get the strong feeling our legislators just don’t have the savvy to appreciate what we’re up against.

So, when it comes to cyber-crime (cyber-terrorism) our legislators seem to have no clue what to do about it, and that ignorance is putting us at major risk.

Guess we’ll have to wait until somebody hacks our power grid and we have a multi-state blackout for a month.  Then maybe we’ll get around to fixing it, but until then chances are nothing will change.  We are stupid that way.  I remember pre-9/11 when the Flight Attendants Union tried to get airlines and the FAA to provide a secure cockpit door…they didn’t see the need.   This is how we operate – its how we always have operated, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, today its Sony, next its… (?)

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to What is the Definition of Terrorism? Don’t ask the UN, They Don’t Know.

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: The term terrorism is an emotive word with negative connotations: Terrorism, like beauty, remains in the eye of the beholder.

    Fatuous doesn’t even begin to describe that statement. Neither does fatuous, vomitous, and moronic taken altogether begin to describe that “lofty” suicidal lunatic anal-ysis.

    It should be pretty clear that organizations like Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Hamas, and states like Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Uganda under Idi Amin are terrorist.

    In 1964 (Jacobellis v. Ohio) United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote about obscenity and pornography, “I shall not today attempt further to define [hard-core pornography] and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

    You can say the same thing about terrorism, you know it when you see it.

    But seeing as the UN has a large collection of dictatorships, communists, hand-wringing Euro-socialists and other assorted socialist varieties, turning a blind eye to terrorism seems really quite natural.

    I can’t wait to see a left-wing commenter, Palestinian sympathizer, or Israel hater come along and state that the US is terrorist.

    One thing is for certain — Where Islam goes, terrorism follows.

  2. Libby says:

    “One thing is for certain — Where Islam goes, terrorism follows.”

    Bigots. Religious bigots.

    And a damned sight more dangerous to this nation than any Jihadist.

  3. Tina says:

    Eventually we might come to list acts of terrorism in degrees, like we do assault and murder. Now that could be an interesting discussion.

    One of the problems I see is that so many people don’t/can’t recognize the bad guys anymore. When chopping off heads and flying planes into buildings can be dismissed with a moral equivalency argument we’ve lost one of the basics of civilized existence.

    And when the U.N. can put Iran on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights, and Syria on UNESCO’s human rights committee, it’s clear that wolves have taken up residence with the herd.

    One cyber expert told Varney this morning that old tech was used to hack into Sony. Something about phony phone messages from any official agency or company that when responded to would give them a doorway to grant them access (My words not his)…very low tech rather than something complex.

    Terrorism is a tactic used to impose tyranny and domination. Intent should be an important component of any definition used by world bodies. To me there is a big difference, HUGE, between imposing fear or discomfort with no intention to do lasting harm as a means of extracting information in a battle for basic liberties and the tactics used by Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and all of the others in this world’s long history of tyranny and abuses. Any suggestion that these are equal and should be treated the same is deeply offensive. Might as well just surrender and submit.

    Re: recognizing obscenity and pornography, is there anything that’s considered too offensive anymore? “Normal” has been defined down substantially in the last few decades to the point where even children are seen as just very short adults…there for the pickins’, so to speak. Is it any wonder so many people have trouble recognizing and naming evil when they see it?

  4. J. Soden says:

    As long as the muslim community remains silent about the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, the terrorists will continue to be identified as muslims.

    And for Libby – Kinda hard to argue they aren’t muslims or islamists when they’re shouting “allahu akbar” while killing people . . . .

  5. Harold says:

    I will agree with Pie’s comment ” Where Islam goes, terrorism follows.” and Jacks final line of” so to speak. Is it any wonder so many people have trouble recognizing and naming evil when they see it?”

    As to Islam and jihadist zealots, I believe that until the peaceful members of the Islamic faith step forward and help remove the cancer of Jihadist then it is all one entity.

    One can not stand by and allow their beliefs to be misused in the form of terrorism and not have some culpability.

    So I take strong exception to post number 3 and only find it to be of an argumentative nature, not so much as a belief, but simply a ideological rebuttal statement to post number 1 or 2.

  6. Chris says:

    J Soden: “As long as the muslim community remains silent about the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, the terrorists will continue to be identified as muslims.”

    Harold: “As to Islam and jihadist zealots, I believe that until the peaceful members of the Islamic faith step forward and help remove the cancer of Jihadist then it is all one entity.”

    There are plenty of Muslims speaking out against Islamic terror. One of them was Imam Rauf, the man behind the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” I haven’t forgotten how this blog treated him. Your statements are disengenuous.

  7. Tina says:

    Obviously speaking out is not enough. This has been going on for centuries in reality. “peaceful Muslims” have had centuries to eradicate extremist elements. Reforms at the highest level must take place.

    Would apologists for the other than peaceful elements have the same level of tolerance for any other religion? No. In fact they sympathize with those who plot and plan to “drive the Jews into the sea” while condemning Israel (The Jews) for defending themselves. They empathize with Palestinian while criticizing Israel. Christianity/Evangelicals are criticized for expressing their opinions about the lives of the unborn. When a miniscule fractional minority person calling himself Christian murders isn’t all of Christianity criticized even though Christians have been quick to condemn such acts.

    There’s no explaining the leftist position.

    Chris your statement about Rauf is disingenuous. We posted evidence of Rauf’s deceptive speech. He speaks one way when he talks in America and quite another when he talks in the ME. You chose to dismiss this information but that doesn’t change the fact that he is a suspect voice.

    also, we didn’t “treat him” with anything other than healthy skepticism which he has earned through words.

  8. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris your statement about Rauf is disingenuous. We posted evidence of Rauf’s deceptive speech. He speaks one way when he talks in America and quite another when he talks in the ME. You chose to dismiss this information but that doesn’t change the fact that he is a suspect voice.”

    No, what you did was take his words out of context, twist them into their worst possible interpretations, and ignore when similar statements were made by people on your side of the aisle. I dismissed your deliberate misrepresentations, because they were utterly without merit.

  9. J. Soden says:

    Give it up, Tina. You’re knocking your head against the wall when attempting reason with Chris.

  10. Chris says:

    For proof of the misrepresentations Tina has made of Imam Rauf’s statements, see this thread from 2010. Tina continued to accuse Imam Rauf of supporting Hamas even after I posted proof from the community center’s website of Rauf referring to Hamas as a terrorist group and condemning their acts of terror. She also continued to claim that his book title was offensive for using the term “World Trade Center Rubble,” and refused to explain why. She dismissed his years working for the FBI fighting radical Islam under both Bush and Obama as “irrelevant.” And throughout the entire conversation, she continued to hide behind the “Hey, I’m just asking questions!” defense cowards always make whenever they can’t substantiate any of their wild allegations.

    Kind of like, “We should be very suspicious that Tina Grazier beats her husband every night. Hey, I’m just asking questions!”

  11. Chris says:

    ATTENTION CHRIS: You have violated our rules when called me a bigot over this photo. I responded at the time and explained and you were taken to task by many other commenters over it.

    However, you couch it, direct or indirect, that is still name calling Chris. In fact, it is so over the top outrageous that calling someone a bigot that its likely to provoke a violent response. And it was a baseless claim too which is libelous! We don’t allow commenters to do that to us Chris, we didn’t in that old post you dredged up and we still don’t. You were called on your bad language back then too, so you leave me no choice now and I must confer with Tina and our ER editor to see if you should be allowed to continue posting here.

    Here is what you said, maybe out readers will have something to say about it too:

    “Then there was this lovely little meme posted by Jack baselessly accusing the “mega mosque cultural center” of promoting honor killing, child brides, and clitoridectomies:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/07/22/picture/

    This meme was met with thunderous applause by the conservative commenters here, and Jack never apologized for running it.

    Bigotry, plain and simple.” Chris S.

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #3: Libby the lunatic rides again! Take your slur slinging and stick it where the sun don’t shine, dear.

    No Libby, I am not a bigot, neither am I a religious bigot. In fact, I am a confirmed agnostic. I am of the opinion that it is not in the capacity of man to understand the nature of a possible supreme being and given that such a force does exist, that existence does not depend upon us believing it exists or not.

    I am quite well read in not only several of the worlds religions but tribal religions in Africa and the Americas. I have a modest formal background in anthropology, specifically the anthropology of religion. The religions I have studied all contain many common threads, one of which is people trying to understand the nature of the universe and the mind of God (or gods). You might be surpized at the commonality that exists between prehistoric Amer-Indian religious pictographs and petroglyphs and Biblical messages. You might look into Joseph Campbell, he was a pretty well informed scholar on the nature of religion and human beings.

    Not that anyone asked, but I was an atheist for the early part of my adult life until I realized that 99.999% of atheists were not really all that bright. Atheists mostly consist of obnoxious, whiny, spoiled, bigoted, prejudiced, presumptive, angry brats like Libby. In a word — tiresome.

    Stick that in your bong and smoke it, dear Libby.

    THE FACT REMAINS, where Islam goes, terrorism follows.

    France’s deadliest terror attack in decades
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

  13. Chris says:

    Jack, I did not call you “a bigot,” I accused you of promoting bigotry. I hope you can appreciate the difference between labeling a person and critiquing behavior.

    You never offered a real explanation for why you believe the meme you posted was not bigoted. Instead, you claimed that you had no idea it was about the cultural center near Ground Zero. This claim was ridiculous–what else could “The Mega Mosque Cultural Center” possibly refer to?–but even if true, it is no defense for posting it. If you didn’t know what cultural center it was referring to, then why would you post a meme accusing it of teaching such barbaric practices? Just because it is run by Muslims, you assumed that it taught such things? And then after learning that it referred to Rauf’s center, you did not apologize for posting it, even though you know that Rauf has condemned such practices in the past.

    Can you explain why it is not bigoted to accuse a specific group of Muslims of teaching barbaric practices, when that specific group explicitly condemns those practices? How is that not judging people based on group identification rather than on individual character?

    Can you also explain why you think that baselessly accusing someone of teaching honor killings, child marriage, stoning and clitoridectomies is morally acceptable, but accusing someone who does this of bigotry is so over the line as to merit physical violence?

    You don’t have to answer these questions, of course, but I wish that you would.

    I will not stop calling out bigotry when I see it. If this offends you so much, and if you are unwilling to consider how your own statements and behavior at this blog constitute bigotry, then ban me.

  14. Harold says:

    Chris write: “There are plenty of Muslims speaking out against Islamic terror”.

    I expected this rebuttal from Chris or even Libby. To me it is Obvious there are not enough speaking out loud enough or turning in those who implement Jihad practice’s and waste human life in doing so.

    As I view it, there are so many more that keep silent, that the few that do speak up are more like whispers in the wind….

  15. VET says:

    I looked at what that guy Chris linked to and I didn’t see anyhing bigoted. I would not kick him off for being stupid or jumping to conclusions, but if he has been a problem with you people for a long time then give him the boot. Thats my vote.

  16. VET says:

    I am having trouble posting to your blog. It says I have a duplicate post?

  17. Chris says:

    VET, I will ask you the same question I asked Jack:

    Can you explain why it is not bigoted to accuse a specific group of Muslims of teaching barbaric practices, when that specific group explicitly condemns those practices? How is that not judging people based on group identification rather than on individual character?

  18. Tina says:

    Chris: “For proof of the misrepresentations Tina has made of Imam Rauf’s statements, see this thread from 2010. Tina continued to accuse Imam Rauf of supporting Hamas even after I posted proof from the community center’s website of Rauf referring to Hamas as a terrorist group and condemning their acts of terror.”

    Which is fine as long as the man is always completely honest and never acts in a deceptive manner. I showed you plenty of evidence to demonstrate the man is deliberately deceptive. One example:

    ournalist Andrew McCarthy has revealed that What’s Right with Islam was originally published in 2004 in Malaysia, under a different title: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. What’s Right with Islam was a “special, non-commercial edition” of the book and was produced after the original, with Feisal’s cooperation, by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Both of those organizations are American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood. McCarthy explains the meaning of the term Dawa, from the book’s title:

    “Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread…. [D]awa is proselytism… “The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as ‘stealth jihad,’ the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising. This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will ‘conquer America’ and ‘conquer Europe’ through dawa.”

    Rauf’s book suggests that the “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law” (i.e., sharia). The author concludes, therefore, that the “American political structure is sharia-compliant.” “The only truly clashing area” between the Constitution and sharia law, he once claimed, “is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America. The penal code is the area that people in the Western world are worried about – but these are things that aren’t even observed today in most of the Muslim world. Apart from the Taliban and a few places like that, where do you see this happening?”

    In December 2007 Rauf promoted his book at a Malaysia gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir, an organization that seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide.

    I don’t think that simply pointing out what is to me documented troubling behavior is a misrepresentation. That you do only demonstrates your mind is closed to any information that doesn’t fit your impression of the man.

    And from the same link evidence that he avoids answering questions about support of Hamas:

    In a June 2010 interview with newsman Aaron Klein on New York’s WABC Radio, Rauf was asked whether he agreed with the State Department’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Rauf replied:

    “I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…. I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another.”

    I have to go but I think what I’ve posted is enough to support the doubts I have about Raufs honesty.

  19. Tina says:

    As for calling me a coward, I think Chris misunderstands quite often. He did the same thing about the questions we had about the Presidents birth certificate after he brought up the subject! He can’t seem to distinguish between curiosity, mild interest, or inquiry and a firm declaration. He’s right and that’s that! I must bend to his will or be labeled a coward, a liar, a racist.

    I’m pretty clear that our Chris has a closed mind and is carrying a lot of arrogance around with him. His accusations roll off my back and I don’t trust much of what he says.

  20. Pie Guevara says:

    Re#15 Chris: “Jack, I did not call you “a bigot,” I accused you of promoting bigotry.”

    WOW! Gigantic and absolutely spectacular material and semantic difference there! STUNNING! I applaud the English major!

    To paraphrase Chris (sans weasel-words) — Jack, you are not a bigot, you only publish opinions and material that is bigoted.

    Yes, go ahead and ban the sniveling, weasel-worded coward who cannot even stand by his own assertions without trying to squirm out of them. (With apologies to any and all of the species weasel.) If not for anything else, ban Chris just for the fun of it. (You can always lift the ban later if you miss him.)

    Chris so loves to play this asinine semantic game which he thinks clever and thinks shields him with the the cloak of deniability. It is really not at all clever, it is tedious, tiresome, and a total waste of time.

  21. Chris says:

    Tina: “I showed you plenty of evidence to demonstrate the man is deliberately deceptive.”

    You really didn’t, and you still haven’t.

    “Journalist Andrew McCarthy has revealed that What’s Right with Islam was originally published in 2004 in Malaysia, under a different title: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. What’s Right with Islam was a “special, non-commercial edition” of the book and was produced after the original, with Feisal’s cooperation, by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Both of those organizations are American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

    I can’t think of a single Muslim organization that hasn’t been accused of being a tentacle of the Muslim Brotherhood. I think I need a little more than just the accusations of a guy named McCarthy before I take that charge as fact.

    “McCarthy explains the meaning of the term Dawa, from the book’s title:

    “Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread…. [D]awa is proselytism… “The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia.”

    A religious leader proselytizing? Que sinestro!

    Look, I don’t like proselytization. But I don’t accuse everyone who does so of being a possible stealth terrorist.

    Rauf has been abundantly clear that his interpretation of sharia is very different from that of the radicals. Sharia just means “God’s law.” Yes, the dominant form of sharia in the Middle East includes horrible, barbaric practices. But Rauf has dedicated his entire life to speaking out against those practices and imploring Muslims to do better! That is a good thing.

    “Scholar Robert Spencer”

    ahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Robert Spencer is no “scholar,” Tina. He is a radical bigot and a friend of white nationalism.

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/11/09/muslim-basher-robert-spencer-shows-white-nationalist-colors/

    “Rauf’s book suggests that the “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law” (i.e., sharia). The author concludes, therefore, that the “American political structure is sharia-compliant.” “The only truly clashing area” between the Constitution and sharia law, he once claimed, “is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America. The penal code is the area that people in the Western world are worried about – but these are things that aren’t even observed today in most of the Muslim world. Apart from the Taliban and a few places like that, where do you see this happening?””

    There is nothing wrong with any of these statements. If Rauf thinks that the Constitution is consistent with his version of sharia, isn’t that a good thing? That means he isn’t trying to change the Constitution to comport with sharia!

    “In December 2007 Rauf promoted his book at a Malaysia gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir, an organization that seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide.”

    Without context this is meaningless. It makes it look like Rauf must support this group when in all likelihood the opposite is true. Imam Rauf has of course spoken to many radical groups…for the purpose of promoting moderation. This was the job that he was hired to do under the Bush administration, for God’s sakes!

    After looking into this charge, it seems like the people you are getting your information from are the ones being deceptive:

    A NYC anti-mosque activist, Madeline Brooks, has published an article on “Pajamas Media,” alleging Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf attended a “Hizb-ut Tahrir Conference” in 2007, with a “feeling of celebration.”

    However, her article appears to provide a misleading view of the event based on foreign web pages that she has linked to her article without translations, which appear to be contradicted by a translation of the Indonesian web site that she uses as her basis. The translated Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia website condemns Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for his support of the U.S. Constitution, calls him a “propagandist,” and condemns his “propagandist lie” that the U.S. Constitution supports “freedom, justice, equality and fraternity”…

    …The translations make it appear that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was holding a book tour to promote his book in Bandung, Indonesia. There is no information as to who sponsored the event, other than a poster on the wall that was apparently promoting Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book. Bandung is the second largest metropolitan area in Indonesia with a population of 7.4 million people. Without more information, certainly not on the web page in English right now, there is no specific indication as to who sponsored this apparent book promotion, which could have been any number of groups in this major Indonesian city, although Madeline Brooks concludes that this was a Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia conference.

    From the translated web page, we know that apparently there were some HTI members there and they asked Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf questions during the questions and answers period. What the rough English translation states is “when the question and answer session opened, some of his pen [sic], including the delegation of HTI Jabar, Lutfi Afandi convey several things to Imam Feisal and hundreds of attendees who crowded the discussion room.”

    We can see by the Google translation of the HTI web page into English that Rauf defends the U.S. Constitution as allowing support for religious freedom and diversity, something that the Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia members apparently rejected. The HTI web page states that Rauf defends the U.S. Constitution as compatible with Islam pointing out what is “common between Islam and the U.S. Constitution, namely freedom, justice, equality and fraternity,” and stating it “guarantees huquq (rights) fundamental human rights, which according to Feisal, is in the U.S. constitution.”

    We also can see by the Google translation of the HTI web page into English that the Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia members were obviously unhappy with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his message, at one point calling him a “publicist” for America,” “American agent,” and an American propagandist. The HTI web page article concludes “do we believe [the] American propaganda lie?”

    Because in one photo a person is smiling, Madeline Brooks states in her article that “there is a feeling of celebration in these photos.” I suggest that you see for yourself – in a language you can read.

    I can’t help but chuckle when you accuse others of being deceptive while at the same time posting lies of your own in order to smear your political enemies. All it took was a few minutes on Google to prove that Rauf is not an ally of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Your goal here was to defend yourself from charges of misrepresenting Imam Rauf…and in order to do so, you once again posted misrepresentations about Imam Rauf. Well done.

    As for the Hamas trap, Rauf was being politically savvy. He knows that Hamas has a lot of support in the Middle East and he didn’t want to alienate potential listeners. He did explicitly condemn their behavior, and on the website for the cultural center, it clearly says that Hamas is a terrorist group. This interview proves nothing.

    “I have to go but I think what I’ve posted is enough to support the doubts I have about Raufs honesty.”

    You haven’t posted nearly enough evidence to make a reasonable person doubt Rauf’s lifelong commitment to moderation and peace. You have shown only that my characterization of your attacks on this man were entirely correct; you have twisted his words and actions into the complete opposite of what they actually are, and you still have not provided a shred of evidence to justify your baseless and politically motivated attacks on his character. You. Have. Failed.

  22. Chris says:

    Pie can’t tell the difference between criticizing someone’s character and criticizing their behavior. No wonder he can’t tell the difference between an argument and a personal attack.

    Pie, in case I haven’t made my opinion about you clear: You are a bigot.

  23. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #24: Well, well, the denial is IN! I stand by my statements in #22 which are reinforced by Chris calling me a bigot.

    The notion that there is a significant material or semantic difference between calling someone a bigot and declaring they act like a bigot is ludicrous.

    But there you have, Chris’ denial, such as it is.

    Slinging slurs of bigotry is a personal attack, period. Chris enjoys slinging slurs and then attempts to deny them in a twisted “logic” so full of holes that it would be jaw dropping were it not paradigmatic of the extreme left.

    Chris, I am not calling you a silly, specious and laughable a**hole, I only think you act like one.

  24. Pie Guevara says:

    By the way, I am not really that much in what precipitated Chris’ predictable slide downwards into slur mongering, we have been over and over THAT subject ad nauseam.

    I merely occasionally enjoy catching Chris out in his habit of committing the fallacy of personal attack (and other fallacies too numerous to bother mentioning here, that ground has already been covered)and then watching him try to squirm his way out by splitting semantic hairs he actually believes are valid.

    The guy would try to split a hair on a fruit fly’s butt if he thought it would serve his purposes.

    I screamed when he called me a bigot. That was too perfect. I am still laughing.

  25. Pie Guevara says:

    Oops, somehow dropped the “interested” after the “much” in the first sentence above. Oh well. So it goes.

  26. Chris says:

    Pie, everyone occasionally acts in a bigoted manner, because everyone has bigoted ideas they get from society. Only those who engage in bigoted behavior routinely, and show no sign of changing their behavior, earn the title of “bigot.”

    I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Everyone knows that everyone lies, occasionally. But we don’t go around calling every single person a “liar” for telling white lies like “No, honey, you don’t look fat in that dress.” But if someone lies as a matter of routine, we call that person a liar. The difference between criticizing a behavior and criticizing a person is understood by all rational people.

    But you routinely act in a bigoted manner, you routinely lie, and you routinely refuse to behave like a rational person. So you know what that makes you.

Comments are closed.