Bloodless Coup

you know, it's almost impossible, especially in the wake of the movie, to close a commentary with "good night and good luck." but damn if he doesn't earn himself the distinction in those 10 minutes. it's not entirely familiar, it's actually lengthy enough to probe the heart of the matter, and it's eloquent, heartfelt, and honest as hell.

when did he get so goddamned cool!? that's seriously the best -- the most useful thing i've seen come from the MSM in lord knows how long. and i say so in full knowledge that stewart has, on occasion, has had spectacular moments, and with respect for the diabolical genius of colbert's PCD speech.

seriously, is Keith O always like that these days?

I haven't seen that many of these, honestly - though I've been told by one of the Coup's regular lurkers that I should definitely catch up on them. So I made a point to watch this one tonight. All the ones I've seen are in this vein - but this is my favorite, so far.

keith olberman lost me within the first 45 seconds, when he failed to give a correct definition of terrorism. talk about incompetent. olberman and his sensless babbling scare me, not to mention the fact that he and it seems so popular. Talk about fear mongering. i guess we should feel more threatened by our president than the people and ideaology that toppled the world trade centers. Olberman is shameless, although my contempt for him is softened a little bit by how pathetic he seems. no wonder he gets his ass kicked in the ratings by Bill O'Rielly. By the way, O.B., its "President Bush".

And, what, pray tell, is the "correct definition of terrorism?" And, if you are feeling up to it, what do you mean by "correct?"

you're a democrat aren't you baltar? the re-defining of words ("what 'is' is") is right up there with the "race card" as the tactic of last resort for democrats. Talk about orwellian.

Oh, that's good. Do you have the textbook open right in front of you? Perfect!

did the catcher call that pitchout?

i forgot, you take your orders from the manager.

No, Baltar is not a Democrat.

And I too would be fascinated to hear what a "correct" definition of terrorism is, and how one determines that it is "correct".

It strikes me that essentially it is trying to exert power or authority through the use of fear/terror - so it seems reasonable to assert that terrifying the country into a cowering submission could qualify as terrorism (though obviously different bodies and organizations will differ on how appropriate the usage of the word is in particular circumstances).

Hey, it was a simple question. I'm not trying to redefine anything, I'm asking for an initial definition. When I disagree with whatever you give me, then you can accuse me of "redefinition."

You aren't playing the game right: you jumped ahead too much.

(All kidding aside, I'm am curious as to what your definition is.

well armand, i submit that you're in the minority with that understanding of thw word. terrorism is about "force" exercised by those other than nation states, and to make "force" more clear, "physical violence". I suppose if one wanted to get closer (although it still wouldnt be very close) to alinging the definition terrorism with the Bush administration or Republicans in general they could argue that simply threatening the use of "force" suffices. But terroists and the war on terrorism (however stupid you think that designation might be) did not get their name because they merely instilled terror or fear in people. Plenty of people instill terror or fear in other people, including keith olberman and probably Bill o'reilly as well. Terrorists get their name because they use "force". The thousands of men and women in the world trade center or pentagon on 9/11 were not merely coerced or scared or "terrorized", they were subjects of acts of "force", or "physical violence" and killed. "Terrorism" has always been about the application of "violence" and not merely cocerion through fear. Trying to change the definition during the middle of the game can be cunning rhetoric, but its utterly shameless and chillingly Orwellian. Therefore, despite the fact that its equally applicable by his definition, I will not adopt Olberman's pathetic rhetoric and will resist the temptation to give him the same wateredown, flimsy, and altered-to-a-point-beyond-recognition label he has given President Bush.

If I cut through that lengthy (and mostly irrelevant) response, are you saying (simply) that "terrorism is the use of force by non-state actors."

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if I'm wrong.

even if we're accepting the baltar-speaking-for-[blank] definition, there must be some end to the application of that force -- and that end isn't really killing the infidel. this country could of 300M could absorb a monthly 9/11 and still be the scourge of the developing world for a long time to come. the end is to coerce behavior (or passivity) by the creation of fear. for tiny groups, random violence is an especially effective way to accomplish this end. the united states government, however, doesn't need to resort to violence to stir fear in its populace; it's managed to do so in all the instances cited by olbermann and many others through the effective use of propaganda and misinformation. same end, though: to coerce behavior (or passivity) by the creation of fear.

So are you saying that terrorism can't be committed by states? There's a big literature that disagrees with that proposition - though there are some arguments made in favor of it as well (widely supported by states themselves, which is of course predictable). But that just goes to show that there are multiple definitions of terrorism.

And I'm not at all sure that actual violence is needed to commit a terror campaign. You can't be terrorized unless you are physically assaulted? I'm not inclined to agree. I mean the word isn't assaultism.

look baltar, im tired of playing games with disingenious (and mostly irrelevant) intellects. however irrelevant, your posts are chilling all the same, in that they indicate the extent to which some people who hate President Bush are willingly to play the orwellian hand (maybe if we substitute the dictionary definition of "terrorize" for the commonly accepted definition of "terrorism" no one will notice!). not to mention the chill wind that blows from Moon's intimation that all means to the same end are equally deplorable.

it's a chill wind, all right, but it's not blowing from my preference for democracy, which requires an informed rather than a deceived electorate to function. tyranny hides in shadows. was something olbermann said about the overblown NFL "threat" factually inaccurate? has anyone at the administration shown anything to contradict his claims, or apologized for the mistake in leveraging the facially bogus "plot" hatched by a 20-year-old misanthrope to garner a few more votes come november 7? does it strike you as strange how the headlines suggesting progress in the "war on [whatever we're calling] terror" seem to proliferate in the weeks before each election, only to give way to begrudging acknowledgments of continuing failure a few weeks after the results are in? you have noticed that, right?

Dude, I'm not playing games. I've asked for the definition of a word. I'm not looking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking how you are interpreting it. You should note that there is no commonly accepted definition of terrorism among people who research it (which is not only academics, but government folks as well). Thus, asking you what your definition is, is not "chilling" or "disingenious." It's the normal part of conversation: I don't know what you mean, so I'm asking you to clarify.

Dialogue: you should try it sometime.

(PS: I haven't said a single word about Bush or any administration policy anywhere in this thread. Why do you keep bringing it up?)