• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hundreds sign petition calling OSU administrator to be fired

Tucker Case said:
Using that specific definition of "terrorism", it is clear cut. If you use a different one, such as the one in US code, it isn't.
Click to expand...
But the issue is the masses are judging her, and she's judging them. None of them are up on U.S. Code, nor should we expect them to be. Our election was based on the masses too. So trying to limit it to U.S. Code is primarily for people who probably aren't the issue anyway. But I'll check it because you mention it.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...

Is that what you're using?

His actions appears to meet all three criteria.
 
Tucker Case said:
Damn her for trying to show a level of Christ-like compassion for someone who was clearly disturbed.


Honestly though, her words actually shame me to some degree because my instant reaction to attackers like this guy is often to curse them and take some degree of pleasure in their death. I try to be compassionate even toward those who act in abhorrent ways, but I often fail, especially in situations where the person harms others. There's nothing wrong with someone trying to add more compassion and sympathy to this world. And it's easy to have compassion and sympathy for people who do good things. It's easy to have it for children with cancer or the innocent victims of a disturbed individuals attacks.

It takes a truly exceptional individual to have it for the dregs of society, though. To show compassion and sympathy for the people who behave in abhorrent ways that are anathematic to a civil society. Showing compassion and sympathy for a person does not mean you condone their behaviors or refuse to give them consequences for those behaviors.

When the families of the victims of the Charelston shooting demonstrated exactly this level of compassion to the murderer of their loved ones, I was so impressed by their ability to live in the fashion that Jesus taught. We need more people like that in this world, because people like that make this world a better place to live in.
Click to expand...

Jesus doesn't like Muslim terrorists.
 
Tucker Case said:
Excellent example of circular logic.
Click to expand...
It helps if you knew what circular logic actually was. Here's an example:

X is defined as Y.
X used to be defined as Z.
Therefore, X means Z.

My example is X is Y. (Terrorists (X) can, which this guy (Y) was.) That was a free lesson for ya. :wink:


Tucker Case said:
Yes, nobody is denying the "politically motivated" aspect of his actions. The point of issue is whether or not a lone wolf can be a "clandestine agent". The question for that is, agent (aka: a person acting on the behalf) of what, exactly?
Click to expand...
I have no point of issue or confusion, of course a lone wolf can be a clandestine agent. We know he was acting on behalf of ISIS, he was encourage by Al Alwaqi as I've already stated but you apparently ignored it.

Post #29 where I stated:

Ockham said:
The group he claimed to admire and act upon their behalf was Al Qaeda, specifically, Anwar-al-Awlaki who was an American born recruiter for Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...


Tucker Case said:
Wow. You really screwed the comprehension pooch on that one.
Click to expand...
I only have what you give me to work with.

Tucker Case said:
I'm saying he cannot designate himself to be an agent of some other entity, just like John Hinckley Jr. could not designate himself to act on behalf of Jodie Foster.
Click to expand...
Hinkley claimed he shot Reagan to impress Foster, Foster never urged anyone to kill anyone. Talk about screwing the pooch - that analogy did it in spades. However, ISIS and Anwar-al-Awlaki did urge lone wolf attackers to kill Americans and continue to do so. So he can claim he acted for Muslims everywhere (which he did) and claimed allegiance to ISIS, and likewise ISIS claimed he was their soldier.

What more do you need, a signed ISIS application in blood?

Tucker Case said:
don't know how the hell you possibly managed to **** comprehending that statement up to the degree that you did and, frankly, given the astounding degree of of inadequacy it would entail to **** it up to that level, I'm not sure I can explain it in simple enough terms for you.
Click to expand...
When your posts lack coherence you shouldn't be surprised when others come to unintended conclusions.


Tucker Case said:
No, I didn't. Did you forget writing this:
Click to expand...
I wrote that as a general statement, not specific to the OSU attack. You applied that to Artan... :shrug:


Tucker Case said:
Then you are having hallucinations. Serious hallucinations.
Click to expand...
Anything to add that's actually on topic, like the OSU administrator? I've been very accommodating with your little rants, but maybe you want to get back on topic at this point, and cut the personal accusations.
 
Tucker Case said:
"in the name of a cause."
"in the name of a cause."
Click to expand...
Parsing beyond that is silly.

McVeigh was a terrorist. He committed an act of terror...for a cause. Artan was a terrorist. He committed an act of terror...for a cause. Hell he even cited it in his writings.
 
Mach said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
Islamic terrorism is terrorist acts committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.[1] Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through interpreting the Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions.[2][3]

Looks pretty clear cut to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then, you arent desperate to protect Muslims and deflect obvious responsibility.
 
Ockham said:
OSU administrator called to be fired after Facebook post asking 'compassion' for Abdul Artan | Daily Mail Online




Ohio State University Staffer Asked for Sympathy for Campus Attacker : snopes.com


Snopes identifies that this cannot be verified, simply because the administrator cannot be contacted to verify, yet the screenshots show she did in fact post this message, and then subsequently delete it due to the viral outrage.

First this is not a BLM spokesperson, so I do not think BLM would back such a view. Second, she obviously saw the flaw in her sympathy for a terrorist who attempted to kill other OSU Buckeyes by removing the post. Third, I do not think BLM wants to associate themselves with Islamic Terrorists who failed in their attempt to kill Americans but maybe I'm wrong there. No I do not have sympathy for terrorists. No he is not a victim, he's a dead terrorists and the world is better off without him in it.
Click to expand...

Do you criticize terrorism from drone attacks? Did you try to get it shut down after learning a drone strike was ordered on a house that was knowingly occupied by children?

I agree terrorism is evil but we cannot use terrorism practices while denying guilt of terrorism as we condemn others for being terrorists and claiming to be in the business of the Constitution.
 
Ockham said:
OSU administrator called to be fired after Facebook post asking 'compassion' for Abdul Artan | Daily Mail Online




Ohio State University Staffer Asked for Sympathy for Campus Attacker : snopes.com


Snopes identifies that this cannot be verified, simply because the administrator cannot be contacted to verify, yet the screenshots show she did in fact post this message, and then subsequently delete it due to the viral outrage.

First this is not a BLM spokesperson, so I do not think BLM would back such a view. Second, she obviously saw the flaw in her sympathy for a terrorist who attempted to kill other OSU Buckeyes by removing the post. Third, I do not think BLM wants to associate themselves with Islamic Terrorists who failed in their attempt to kill Americans but maybe I'm wrong there. No I do not have sympathy for terrorists. No he is not a victim, he's a dead terrorists and the world is better off without him in it.
Click to expand...

i dont agree that the man had to be suffering to go terrorist and being furious with murderers and would be murders is normal id let her keep her job though unfriend her if you dont like her
 
Mach said:
But the issue is the masses are judging her, and she's judging them. None of them are up on U.S. Code, nor should we expect them to be. Our election was based on the masses too. So trying to limit it to U.S. Code is primarily for people who probably aren't the issue anyway. But I'll check it because you mention it.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism


Is that what you're using?

His actions appears to meet all three criteria.
Click to expand...


This one:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

From that link: "(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

It's definitely not clear cut on whether or not a 'lone wolf' attacker can be a "clandestine agent". I personally think that the term "by subnational groups or clandestine agents" wouldn't even be in the definition if they had meant "by anyone". I think making a lone wolf a clandestine agent means the definition could have simply been:

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets"

The inclusion of the description of who the perpetrators are eliminates the possibility of a lone wolf attacker from being classified as a terrorist while using this definition.

Now, I don't really care what people choose to call it. I'm just pointing out that there are multiple definitions of terrorism around. Some apply to this act, some don't.
 
Ockham said:
It helps if you knew what circular logic actually was. Here's an example:

X is defined as Y.
X used to be defined as Z.
Therefore, X means Z.
Click to expand...

No, circular logic is as follows:

X is Y.
Y is Z
Therefore X is Y.

Your argument "This guy's a terrorist. Terrorists can be agents. Therefore, he's a terrorist"




My example is X is Y. (Terrorists (X) can, which this guy (Y) was.) That was a free lesson for ya. :wink:
Click to expand...

You're not a competent teacher because you don't actually know what circular logic is. Congratulations on being the best example of the lower spectrum of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in a while, though. How does it feel to be so exceedingly competent at demonstrating your incompetence?

We know he was acting on behalf of ISIS, he was encourage by Al Alwaqi as I've already stated but you apparently ignored it.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it. I provided the example of John Hinckley Jr. to question the reasoning you are demonstrating. You then failed to comprehend that example.




So he can claim he acted for Muslims everywhere (which he did)
Click to expand...

So your position is that he DID act for Muslims everywhere?

Because there is a distinct difference between "did" and "claimed to".


What more do you need, a signed ISIS application in blood?
Click to expand...

Actual evidence that ISIS was involved.
When your posts lack coherence you shouldn't be surprised when others come to unintended conclusions.
Click to expand...

Dunning-Kruger.


I wrote that as a general statement, not specific to the OSU attack. You applied that to Artan... :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, I was asking "converted by whom" because the "by whom" is relevant. It doesn't change teh fac tthat you did, indeed, bring up the topic of conversion. You just forgot about it and then tried to pretend I did it.


Anything to add that's actually on topic, like the OSU administrator? I've been very accommodating with your little rants, but maybe you want to get back on topic at this point, and cut the personal accusations.
Click to expand...

I've been having a wonderful discussion in the thread about compassion. You're free to join it if you'd like. You're free to end the discussion we are having any time you'd like, though. I really don't give a ****. But please don't whine like a little bitch simply because I respond to your posts.
 
Tucker Case said:
This one:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f
Now, I don't really care what people choose to call it. I'm just pointing out that there are multiple definitions of terrorism around. Some apply to this act, some don't.
Click to expand...

That looks like State Department reporting criteria, for pushing it up the chain of command, etc. Which maybe makes sense, a lone wolf may be terrorist, but it's not all that actionable if they are self radicalized, etc. But who uses that?

It meets the Wiki definition of terrorism, and the FBI classifies it as terrorism, why disagree when its labeled as terrorist? There are multiple definitions of many words floating around, I think we can understand the meaning in this case. It's things like this that makes the administration look weak on terrorism. They say he may be a self radicalized terrorist, why not leave it at that. It clearly wouldn't imply a state sponsored/agent type act. It's still a terrorist act.
 
ocean515 said:
The problem I have with stories like this is they point to some trends which represent the nature of modern communication.

First, some people think they need to tell the "world" how they feel about everything. Somethings/thoughts are better kept to oneself.

Second, it points to how people react when such "stream of consciousness" posts are made. Rather than just dismiss the post as some misguided application of sympathy, there becomes an all out effort to destroy the person who posted the comments.

Beyond the stunning hypocrisy such efforts likely reveal, is this how we want to operate in our society? Are we to think very carefully about every thought we might put in writing in case we could bring down the wrath of the populace and destroy ourselves?

Is that what we want?
Click to expand...

No. To your point, that "there becomes an all out effort to destroy the person who posted the comments," this is what I find so troubling. It's not "enough" to shame someone; he or she must be destroyed (and maybe his or her family as well).
 
Brischera said:
Do you criticize terrorism from drone attacks?
Click to expand...
I don't see drone attacks as terrorism, but I do criticize drone attacks yes.
Brischera said:
Did you try to get it shut down after learning a drone strike was ordered on a house that was knowingly occupied by children?
Click to expand...
I have no position as White House staff so no, I did not try to get it shut down as the President is the head of the military and apparently he won't take my direct calls.

Brischera said:
I agree terrorism is evil but we cannot use terrorism practices while denying guilt of terrorism as we condemn others for being terrorists and claiming to be in the business of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Fighting back against terrorism is not terrorism. Yes, mistakes are made when military ordinance is used, there are always unintended consequences and in any war or military action there are innocent bystanders hurt - it's always been and will always be that way because humans are not perfect. If terrorists do not want to be killed, they should find a different (read: peaceful) ways to table their issues.
 
blarg said:
i dont agree that the man had to be suffering to go terrorist and being furious with murderers and would be murders is normal id let her keep her job though unfriend her if you dont like her
Click to expand...

I find her combination of empathy / sympathy based on the terrorists skin color more problematic than the simple victim card played. His skin color has nothing to do with terrorism - terrorists come in any and every skin color. Tagging this with blacklivesmatter is disgusting.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, circular logic is as follows:

X is Y.
Y is Z
Therefore X is Y.

Your argument "This guy's a terrorist. Terrorists can be agents. Therefore, he's a terrorist"






You're not a competent teacher because you don't actually know what circular logic is. Congratulations on being the best example of the lower spectrum of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in a while, though. How does it feel to be so exceedingly competent at demonstrating your incompetence?
Click to expand...
Congratulations on doubling down on your ignorance of circular logic.

I will not ignore your blatant disregard of the OP topic, nor the droll attempt at a personal attack.... truly your posts bore me. I've said all I will say on the terrorist himself. If you want to further discuss it, go make a thread. To reply to the rest of this baseless drivel, I'll simply ask that you re-read my previous position on it above.

Anything about the actual topic of this thread or are you done posting your vomit nonsense?
 
nota bene said:
No. To your point, that "there becomes an all out effort to destroy the person who posted the comments," this is what I find so troubling. It's not "enough" to shame someone; he or she must be destroyed (and maybe his or her family as well).
Click to expand...

I have trouble with the shaming part, but I guess if someone puts something out there in the "public", that is the risk they take.

The all out effort to destroy is DEEPLY troubling to me, and has precedent in human history that is very dark and evil. There are people still living who can share stories about what that looked like in their lives.
 
Ockham said:
OSU administrator called to be fired after Facebook post asking 'compassion' for Abdul Artan | Daily Mail Online




Ohio State University Staffer Asked for Sympathy for Campus Attacker : snopes.com


Snopes identifies that this cannot be verified, simply because the administrator cannot be contacted to verify, yet the screenshots show she did in fact post this message, and then subsequently delete it due to the viral outrage.

First this is not a BLM spokesperson, so I do not think BLM would back such a view. Second, she obviously saw the flaw in her sympathy for a terrorist who attempted to kill other OSU Buckeyes by removing the post. Third, I do not think BLM wants to associate themselves with Islamic Terrorists who failed in their attempt to kill Americans but maybe I'm wrong there. No I do not have sympathy for terrorists. No he is not a victim, he's a dead terrorists and the world is better off without him in it.
Click to expand...

The shocking thing is that liberal morons like her run America's education system

Well not shocking.

We have seen this kind of stupidity before.

But it is sad and depressing
 
ocean515 said:
I have trouble with the shaming part, but I guess if someone puts something out there in the "public", that is the risk they take.

The all out effort to destroy is DEEPLY troubling to me, and has precedent in human history that is very dark and evil. There are people still living who can share stories about what that looked like in their lives.
Click to expand...

Yes, it speaks to a darkness and evil that is part of the human condition. This is deeply troubling to me too. Why should someone lose his or her job for expressing an opinion?
 
nota bene said:
Yes, it speaks to a darkness and evil that is part of the human condition. This is deeply troubling to me too. Why should someone lose his or her job for expressing an opinion?
Click to expand...

Let's spin it around then... what if this was a white man who expressed his negative opinion about homosexuals, or perhaps a deep abiding view for say White Supremacists..... you'd feel the same way that he should keep his job?
 
Ockham said:
Let's spin it around then... what if this was a white man who expressed his negative opinion about homosexuals, or perhaps a deep abiding view for say White Supremacists..... you'd feel the same way that he should keep his job?
Click to expand...

I think that jobs should be held and kept based on merit and whatever is spelled out contractually. And I do support academic freedom.
 
nota bene said:
I think that jobs should be held and kept based on merit and whatever is spelled out contractually. And I do support academic freedom.
Click to expand...

At a high level I agree with your view..... but you didn't answer my question. :wink:
 
nota bene said:
Yes, it speaks to a darkness and evil that is part of the human condition. This is deeply troubling to me too. Why should someone lose his or her job for expressing an opinion?
Click to expand...

Liberals have been getting people fired over something they said for any years and now the shoe is on the other foot
 
Ockham said:
At a high level I agree with your view..... but you didn't answer my question. :wink:
Click to expand...

I think folks are entitled to express their opinions of homosexuals and white supremacists, hateful though those opinions may be. Again, though, every workplace establishes constraints by which all must abide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom