9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012

[carlfense]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

For what its worth, Wiki disagrees with you Carl. Terriorism is hard to define, and no consensus has been reached on it.

Oh, no! I've lost wikipedia.

Terrorism is:

“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

28 C.F.R. Section 0.85

 

Iraq 2006: a Shiite is walking to a AQIIraq meeting, has his normal AK-47, and some grenades. Sees a group of Sunni leaving their mosque, and decides to throw a few grenades into the crowd. That is terrorism and spontaneous do you agree?

Violence. Not terrorism unless there was premeditation.

 

Could you show me where the initial characterization of the Benghazi attack by Barack Obama was that it was a spontaneous uprising?

[Ziggy]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Right before your little quote about the definition is this little blurb: "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism." Context is a wonderful thing. And yes that is immediately prior to your definition.

 

And your still not showing an actual definition that says terrorism can not be spontaneous.

 

And lastly I am not debating when Barack Obama characterized the attack as a spontaneous uprising. But it was clear the first 2 weeks after the attack his administration was talking about an attack that arose from a riot outside of the consulate.

[carlfense]

http://www.fbi.gov/s...orism-2002-2005

Right before your little quote about the definition is this little blurb: "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism." Context is a wonderful thing. And yes that is immediately prior to your definition.

Interestingly, your little blurb doesn't actually appear at my citation. Do you prefer to use the secondary source?

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/0-85-general-functions-19677030

 

And your still not showing an actual definition that says terrorism can not be spontaneous.

It requires a specific intent. That precludes spontaneous activity. I don't know how I can make that more clear. Do you at least understand my argument? You don't have to say that you agree with it . . . but do you understand what I mean?

 

And lastly I am not debating when Barack Obama characterized the attack as a spontaneous uprising.

Then what are you debating exactly? What is your argument and why should we care?

[Ziggy]

Your citation, pulls its information from my citation, and I didn't see a link to yours, so I just assumed you were using the FBI website since the " 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85" was also on the FBI page. I shouldn't assume, sorry.

 

Your definition has nothing in it about specific intent, but to answer the answer to that is the specific intent is to cause terror. I understand where your coming from, I do. I am not trying to fight just for the sake of it on this one.

 

Why do I care, because I think its important to know what people think terrorism is. Regardless of who takes blame, it seems like not everyone agrees what terrorism is, aka our debate. But the administration was pushing the riot thing, and used the phrase "Acts of terror" so I was trying to wrap my head around the logic of it all.

[carlfense]

Your citation, pulls its information from my citation, and I didn't see a link to yours, so I just assumed you were using the FBI website since the " 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85" was also on the FBI page. I shouldn't assume, sorry.

No . . . actually the FBI page pulls it's citation from the primary citation . . . which is the Code of Federal Regulations.

 

Your definition has nothing in it about specific intent, but to answer the answer to that is the specific intent is to cause terror.

Yes it does. The last clause of the sentence.

 

I understand where your coming from, I do. I am not trying to fight just for the sake of it on this one.

 

Why do I care, because I think its important to know what people think terrorism is. Regardless of who takes blame, it seems like not everyone agrees what terrorism is, aka our debate. But the administration was pushing the riot thing, and used the phrase "Acts of terror" so I was trying to wrap my head around the logic of it all.

[Ziggy]

The citation thing, blah whatever same thing different places.

 

I am a little dull right now but how does the last clause show that terrorism can not be spontaneous. Because it needs to further the objectives of a political or social movement? I just don't see how a spontaneous attack is not capable of causing terror in a specific group.

[knapplc]

I've covered this and nobody listens to me. It makes me sad.

 

A terrorist group is in place. They are set up, waiting for "the job." Suddenly, an opportunity presents itself. They go do "a bad thing" that is not the original job for which they've planned and trained. This is an act of terror by a terrorist group that is spontaneous.

 

By definition, any attack by al Qaeda on an American target would be terrorism. They are a terrorist group by definition, and they commit acts of terror. So whether the thing they do is done with months of planning or on the spur of the moment, it's still a terrorist act.

[Army Husker]

I've covered this and nobody listens to me. It makes me sad.

 

A terrorist group is in place. They are set up, waiting for "the job." Suddenly, an opportunity presents itself. They go do "a bad thing" that is not the original job for which they've planned and trained. This is an act of terror by a terrorist group that is spontaneous.

 

By definition, any attack by al Qaeda on an American target would be terrorism. They are a terrorist group by definition, and they commit acts of terror. So whether the thing they do is done with months of planning or on the spur of the moment, it's still a terrorist act.

 

I'm still reading up on this...i'm waiting for something to come out saying that it was a "green on blue" type attack. The whole thing seems odd.

[Ziggy]

I've covered this and nobody listens to me. It makes me sad.

 

A terrorist group is in place. They are set up, waiting for "the job." Suddenly, an opportunity presents itself. They go do "a bad thing" that is not the original job for which they've planned and trained. This is an act of terror by a terrorist group that is spontaneous.

 

By definition, any attack by al Qaeda on an American target would be terrorism. They are a terrorist group by definition, and they commit acts of terror. So whether the thing they do is done with months of planning or on the spur of the moment, it's still a terrorist act.

 

Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier, I agree with you, and I am sorry I made you sad...

[knapplc]

I've covered this and nobody listens to me. It makes me sad.

 

A terrorist group is in place. They are set up, waiting for "the job." Suddenly, an opportunity presents itself. They go do "a bad thing" that is not the original job for which they've planned and trained. This is an act of terror by a terrorist group that is spontaneous.

 

By definition, any attack by al Qaeda on an American target would be terrorism. They are a terrorist group by definition, and they commit acts of terror. So whether the thing they do is done with months of planning or on the spur of the moment, it's still a terrorist act.

 

I'm still reading up on this...i'm waiting for something to come out saying that it was a "green on blue" type attack. The whole thing seems odd.

 

That link you posted earlier was tremendously insightful. It even named the militia the locals claim was involved.

 

It sounds like this was just a random attack, ill-planned, but carried out against a really weak target so it succeeded. The bizarre thing about the attack is the lack of bullet holes. It's almost as if they just walked right into the compound with little or no resistance at all. From the description in that article, it almost seems like the kidnapping took place and then the "fight" evidence was staged later. Much of the damage seems unnecessary based on that article, and the whole thing is just... weird.

 

 

---

 

@ziggy - its OK. Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure it'll be a cold day in hell before I get the same from carlfense.

[Army Husker]

 

It sounds like this was just a random attack, ill-planned, but carried out against a really weak target so it succeeded. The bizarre thing about the attack is the lack of bullet holes. It's almost as if they just walked right into the compound with little or no resistance at all. From the description in that article, it almost seems like the kidnapping took place and then the "fight" evidence was staged later. Much of the damage seems unnecessary based on that article, and the whole thing is just... weird.

 

 

This is why i'm curious about green on blue. Not sure if mainstream America is up on that term, but it is all over the place here. We just had another one here 2 days ago which killed 7 friendlies.

[Ziggy]

Green on Blue, is basically where people who are supposed to be allies/civs intentionally or unintentionally kill members of our armed forces. correct?

 

I agree the situation is strange, and really it would be interesting (not the right word) if this wasn't terror, but perhaps a power play that went wrong. Maybe wanted arms, or ransom and things didn't go as planned. Regardless there is a lot of information that doesn't add up. I am also concerned, it may be linked to Syria or Iran and how that will play out if indeed true. I am always hopeful that Iran will have a coup from its people that we can support and end the Mullahs reign. Pipe dreams maybe.

[knapplc]

 

It sounds like this was just a random attack, ill-planned, but carried out against a really weak target so it succeeded. The bizarre thing about the attack is the lack of bullet holes. It's almost as if they just walked right into the compound with little or no resistance at all. From the description in that article, it almost seems like the kidnapping took place and then the "fight" evidence was staged later. Much of the damage seems unnecessary based on that article, and the whole thing is just... weird.

 

 

This is why i'm curious about green on blue. Not sure if mainstream America is up on that term, but it is all over the place here. We just had another one here 2 days ago which killed 7 friendlies.

 

I don't think Americans know green on blue. I had to look it up. The issue over in Libya is, who's green? There are something like 100 militias in the Benghazi area alone. It's hard to say who did this, and what motivation they had. I don't think there's any link between the militia named in that article and our own forces, but the situation is so fluid, who knows?

 

That's what makes these political nonsense accusations about whether it was or wasn't a terrorist attack so frustrating - we haven't a clue who did what, or why, and we're wasting time quibbling over minutiae. Stupid.

[Ziggy]

Without any information to keep us busy, it quibble time. <start MC Hammer "hammer time">.

[Army Husker]

 

It sounds like this was just a random attack, ill-planned, but carried out against a really weak target so it succeeded. The bizarre thing about the attack is the lack of bullet holes. It's almost as if they just walked right into the compound with little or no resistance at all. From the description in that article, it almost seems like the kidnapping took place and then the "fight" evidence was staged later. Much of the damage seems unnecessary based on that article, and the whole thing is just... weird.

 

 

This is why i'm curious about green on blue. Not sure if mainstream America is up on that term, but it is all over the place here. We just had another one here 2 days ago which killed 7 friendlies.

 

I don't think Americans know green on blue. I had to look it up. The issue over in Libya is, who's green? There are something like 100 militias in the Benghazi area alone. It's hard to say who did this, and what motivation they had. I don't think there's any link between the militia named in that article and our own forces, but the situation is so fluid, who knows?

 

That's what makes these political nonsense accusations about whether it was or wasn't a terrorist attack so frustrating - we haven't a clue who did what, or why, and we're wasting time quibbling over minutiae. Stupid.

 

Yeah, my apologies...will briefly explain that for others too. Green on Blue is a term used in Afghanistan, in which coalition forces (US, Aussie, British etc.), labeled "Blue" are killed by local forces (ie. Afghan National Police, Afghan Uniformed Police or Afghan National Army), labeled "Green". Since a majority of operations here are shifted towards training local forces and having them up front in the fight, coalition forces often plan and sleep in the confines of the same patrol bases as locals. During these normal day to day activities, friendlies aren't looking inside the wire for an attack. A local, who will have some ties to Taliban or AQ thru family, or is a Taliban or AQ simpathizer, will turn his weapon on unarmed or unknowing soldiers and kill them before most often getting put down by friendlies. This is a broad generalization, put the act has picked up in frequency throughout Afghanistan.

 

So I just used this act as generally US Forces who are working along-side local security forces, and wondered if there was something similar that occured in Benghazi. A quick google of Blue Mountain, the British security firm hired to secure the embassy produced this article...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-diplomatic-security-u-relied-small-british-firm-014650742.html

 

Blue Mountain was able to work in Libya because it forged a business alliance with a local security firm, as required by Libyan regulations.

 

Blue Mountain hired about 20 Libyan men - including some who say they had minimal training - to screen visitors and help patrol the mission at Benghazi, according to Reuters interviews.

 

So now we have local security people that have access to the embassy, making it a little easier for "terrorists" to gain access if persuaded. I know it's very conspiritorist of me, but how embarrassing would it be for the administration if that was in case what happened. And to throw fuel on the fire, maybe a reason why the administration said an act of terror, and left it at that. (Sorry Carl)