I realize that you are just tugging on Buy Danish’s chain, but that is the definition. See ya in a more lively thread.

Wonder when MB4’s going to roll out of bed?

I hereby submit the Buy Danish Dictionary® definition of Terror Attack:

An unprovoked attack on civilian or military targets that does not occur as part of ongoing military operations where we are engaged against enemy forces or enemy combatants.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM

You’re literally hurting my ribs. But in a good way.

So let me make sure I understand your latest dictionary offering: words can have multiple literal or figurative meanings – depending entirely on how you choose to interpret them and the degree to which a particular definition happens to spin objective fact towards your subjective desired reality – except that some words only have exactly one meaning, with said one meaning determined solely by you?

That must be wonderfully convenient.

You are priceless, dude hon. Come find me in a current thread. I desperately want to hear more.

The fact that MB4 averred that I am “insentient” to the well-being of our military men and women merely because I define “terror attack” differently than he does is a tactic which does not reflect well on him.

I hereby submit the Buy Danish Dictionary® definition of Terror Attack:

An unprovoked attack on civilian or military targets that does not occur as part of ongoing military operations where we are engaged against enemy forces or enemy combatants.

So you don’t think that an IED is a terror weapon?

You must have nerves of steel.

Let me just take a “wild guess” here – you have never even been in the Army have you?

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Never in the Army, no, and I’m not sure what my nerves have to do with simple definitions.

Anything can be a terror weapon (as we saw on 9/11). The weapon used to carry out such attacks is irrelevant to the argument on what is terror and what isn’t. The dispute, however, was whether those under the official auspices of engaging an enemy were subject to anything that properly described by the adjective ‘terror.’

If you get to define “saw” however you see fit, no matter how ludicrous, I’m not sure why you get to insist MB4’s definition of “terrorism” is inaccurate.

Priceless. Just priceless.

I guess this is where MB4 posts a page-length dictionary definition to make his point?

Well done, Buy Danish. You the man.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Obviously, you are still fighting the Mitt Romney battle, which now seems a bit pointless in the larger sscheme off things.

I agree with Buy Danish (who is a woman, IIRC) on this subject. Maybe this next will help explain why.

IMO victims of terror–whatever the weapon used–are persons who are going about their daily lives with no reasonable expectation of being killed for ideological causes during that time period. American participants in OIF–who, of course, are all voluntary certainly don’t fall under that heading.

Counter? (I’ll be back later. Must go counter my ‘Blogger Spread.’)

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Sorry, Dude, but it is indisputable that “see” can be defined literally or figuratively, depending on the context. Indeed, I see that you are not a Professor of English.

Oh, and nobody defines “eve” as occurring at 9:00 AM like you do either.

Hitlery, claims to have known Ms. Bhutto for 12 years as if she was in constant contact with her as part of ‘Wild’ Bill’s foreign policy. Other’s also tried to tie their campaingns to the death of Ms. Bhutto.

I find these actions to be dispicible. None of them knew Ms. Bhutto-they had met her but did really know knew her? To know someone you have to have a regular relationship with that person (think husband/wife brother/sister) for a period of time to fully understand what motivates them and why they do certain things.

When I find an honest politician that says they simply meet her and were impressed and concur with her politics and vision of the what is good for the people of Pakistan, that’
s a politician who is truthful enough to vote for.

Nobody defines terrorist attacks on the United States as you do.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

After looking through this thread, that particular comment had me howling with laughter.

While I happen to agree with you on this one – you do realize just how laugh out loud funny that comment is coming from you, right?

Aren’t you the champion of the idea that how the overwhelming number of people define the common sense meaning of word … is completely irrelevant?

If you get to define “saw” however you see fit, no matter how ludicrous, I’m not sure why you get to insist MB4’s definition of “terrorism” is inaccurate.

Priceless. Just priceless.

I guess this is where MB4 posts a page-length dictionary definition to make his point?

Well done, Buy Danish. You the man.

At any rate, none of those who died in Iraq died from terror attacks.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

So you don’t think that an IED is a terror weapon?

You must have nerves of steel.

Let me just take a “wild guess” here – you have never even been in the Army have you?

But that shouldn’t make her a saint. Before proclaiming her as the panacea of all that ails Pakistan, why not look at her record?

I’ll ask you the same thing I’d ask your heroine: Who the hell said she was a saint or “the panacea,” and who beatified her?

::looks around::

Nobody here, from what I can see.

Someone else countered that, except for WTC 1993, none happened under Clinton.

That would be none other than DS, who has been known on numerous occasions to get things laughably wrong.

See? All that misunderstanding because the original source wasn’t properly considered. ;-)

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Agree w/ Buck. None of the above attackers of Debbie either cared, nor could demonstrate that her contention about Benazir’s Jihadist tendencies were false. Let alone her support for terrorism in Kashmir, nobody even bothers to remember that it was she who initiated the Paki policy of backing the Taliban in its bid to take over Afghanistan – something that even Gen Zia hadn’t done. Nor could anybody refute the fact that her support is limited to Sind – and she loses out to both Musharaf and Nawaz Sharif in Panjab – the largest province.

Also, the argument about her husband’s convictions in a Swiss court is irrefutable – sure they have kangaroo courts in Pakistan (with due apologies to kangaroos), but does anyone seriously want to contend that the same is true about Switzerland?

Nobody is rejoicing at her assassination (as far as I read). But that shouldn’t make her a saint. Before proclaiming her as the panacea of all that ails Pakistan, why not look at her record? In 1989, she actively sponsored terror in Kashmir shortly after being elected Prime Minister (after she was under no compulsion to placate the more Islamic parts of her electorate), and also, she changed the policy on Afghanistan to support the Taliban.

It’s fine to condemn her assassination, but given the above record, why are so many otherwise intelligent people under the illusion that it would have been better had she been running things?

It’s either that, or reading the comments of She Who Shall Not Be Named farther up.

Totally understood.

Perhaps liquids are involved.

I wish. My 10 year old is having a sleep-over.

It’s either that, or reading the comments of She Who Shall Not Be Named farther up. They tend to suck the common sense out of my brain.

Either way, my apologies for the misunderstandering on my part.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

A certain person said that there had been no terror attacks on the US by AQ since 9/11. Someone else countered that, except for WTC 1993, none happened under Clinton. I pointed out that several subsequent AQ terror attacks had happened during the latter time period, i.e. Khobar, Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam and the USS Cole. So I’m not sure where the idea came from that I’m saying these weren’t terror attacks. Perhaps liquids are involved.

Therefore, an attack on an American embassy is an attack on the U.S.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Yes I know! That’s what I’m arguing.

Nick Berg would disagree. So would Daniel Pearl, and the rest of the hostages murdered by Al Qaeda.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:22 AM

:::sigh::: Please review the context.

The grounds that embassies sit upon are considered part of the sovereign nation they represent. No different than, say, Texas.

Therefore, an attack on an American embassy is an attack on the U.S.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today. She was assassinated by a suicide bomber. They’ve been trying to get her since she returned to Pakistan from her self-imposed exile in hopes of winning a general election in th….

Therefore, one concludes that we haven’t had any terror attacks against the US by al Qaeda since 9/11

Nick Berg would disagree. So would Daniel Pearl, and the rest of the hostages murdered by Al Qaeda.

Deaths in battle aren’t the same as deaths from terror attacks, MB4.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Most of the American Soldier and Marine deaths in Iraq are NOT in battle.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 7:50 PM

You’re being intentionally obtuse. All of the deaths are under the rubric of OIF–i.e. battle. Maybe not in hand-to-hand combat, but all of those who die there (including via accidents) are only there to engage an enemy and/or support that engagement. Of course there are other objectives, but that is the main one. At any rate, none of those who died in Iraq died from terror attacks.

Therefore, one concludes that we haven’t had any terror attacks against the US by al Qaeda since 9/11 (in case you forgot the original assertion).

Who said anything about 5 years? Why do you make things up out of whole cloth?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Hello, that is how long “we” have been there as of now that is.

Actually “only” 4 and 3/4 years, I rounded.

Nobody defines terrorist attacks on the United States as you do.

The subject was terrorist attacks on Americans. American Soldiers and American Marines are Americans.

Here is a perfect example of how you distort things:

I said:

By the way, I am not interested in revisiting the Iraq War and arguing why we should or should not be there.

You respond:

So even though you don’t sound like even you are sure if “we” should still be there after 5 years, you think that our Soldiers and Marines should just stay anyway.

I think “we” need to be there as long as it takes and never implied otherwise. Who said anything about 5 years? Why do you make things up out of whole cloth?

That’s not a perfect example of anything other than your bouncing around.

And just how long do you think that “we” should be there then? And as long as it takes to do what? As long as it takes to “win” and “win” what? How many tours should the troops do while the rest of us are out shopping or watching big screen cable TV or bloviating on the internet? Three? Four? Five? Seven? Nine?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM