Will the U.S.A. suffer another terrorist attack on their homeland before the end of the 2008 election?

Why no settlement date?

The end is only definable for option 'no'.

Defining an end date is redundant in my opinion because the users will request settlement if it happens or at year end, which ever occurs first.

This seems to work, and it makes proposing a question about half the effort.

regards,
mork

Mork you say "before the end of the 2008 election?" this would mean that the question is asking if this will happen before Nov. 4th, the day when the 2008 elections occur.

I realize now that I should have put an end date in.
I think It will have to be sent for settlement manually when the election ends, or unless, God forbid, an attack occurs.

Ok well I'll just edit in an end date.

Ryan
U.S. Politics Content Editor

thx doc

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

so how is the BOMBING of a MILITARY RECRUITING CENTER, potentially by a POLITICALLY motivated group, NOT terrorism???

I think until they have a clue as to who did this and why this question should not settle. A crazy person does not qualify as a terrorist. On the other hand I would agree that all terrorists are lunes. I the interest of full disclosure I stand to gain if you settle this as a Yes, but I still think we don't know enough

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335828,00.html
"The Associated Press obtained a copy of an e-mail from the office of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to other lawmakers Thursday that reads:
'A few offices on the House side have received a letter today addressed to `Members of Congress' with a picture of a man standing in front of the Times Square recruiting station that was bombed in New York today with the statement `We did it.' He is standing in front of it with his arms spread out and he's attached his political manifesto.'"

so we have "unlawful use of force" "against property" in connection with a "political manifesto". game set match, my friends.

you may want to read that foxnews article again Dan. It states that the manifesto is unrelated to the bombing. It not only states it; its the headline.

it didnt say that when i posted it. in fact, the article evolved (in that it grew to almost twice its size) in the time it took me to post that message. it wasnt until a day or two later that the story changed to the photo behind the claim of responsibility being "an incredible coincidence." perhaps a little too incredible...

im still confident that this will turn out to be an act of terrorism. however, im not confident that it will be deemed as much by those in charge of settling the market. nigel may well have been right not to settle this one yet, but not for the reason provided. if it *was* an anti-war group, then this is most certainly the doings of a "terrorist".

Hi, we've discussed this market and we are leaving it open. We have looked at the articles and taken comments into account. Even the rhetoric of the articles does not specify that it was an act of terrorism.

question: so even if it were an anti-war group found to be culpable, the nyc recruiting station bombing wouldnt be considered an act of terrorism? if not, im compelled to ask what hubdub's definition of terrorism is, since it obviously wouldnt match up with what the dictionary says?

I agree with all of you.
They have since released a photo of a suspect on a bicycle and are investigating a bicycle that may have been dumped.
They are also investigating an incident at the Canadian border crossing in which two men ran off.
They American government is clearly investigating this as an act of terrorism.
Even though this may not be an issue of foreign affairs it may still be classified as an act of terrorism.
The Oklahoma incident several years back was considered an act of terrorism even though it was committed by an American over national issues.

^^^

terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
"'The peace protesters are not peaceful," said Catherine Moy, executive director of Move America Forward, which released the report. "They are violent. They are causing havoc in an illegal manner on recruiting offices across the United States.'"

wow, its almost like reading the definition of terrorism again!

note that the picture on the foxnews article ive linked to shows such an attack, complete with ideological/political slogan, further bolstering my application of the term "terrorism" to this attack.

"The Pentagon reviewed the report but couldn't confirm that the more than 50 incidents listed were actual 'attacks.'

'Beyond incidents of vandalism, it's obviously difficult to count non-violent protests as an actual attack since these demonstrations usually do not result in deliberate acts against the U.S. military,' said Paul Boyce, a U.S. Army spokesman at the Pentagon."

plz note that move forward america counts many peaceful protests as "attacks". in this article, the government obviously disagrees on this point. but paul boyce (spokesman for the pentagon, in case u missed that) makes clear in the first 4 words of his quote that destruction of property is indeed viewed as an "attack".

so lets review: we have the definition of "terrorism" met 100%. a pentagon spokesman classifies destruction of property as an "attack". take ur pick from any number of said attacks on recruiting stations located in the united states' "homeland": http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report. and last i checked, the 2008 election was still going strong.

seems to me that this question couldnt be any more ripe for settlement. so should this settlement request fall on deaf ears (or inboxes, as the case may be), i expect a valid reason to be offered on how the conditions of this question have not been satisfied.

Please join the HubDubbers Strike! We are protesting the cheater known as "Satyaki" and hubdubs refusal to penalize him for artificially getting himself on the top ladder of the leader boards BY CHEATING!

Please go to these links and post a protest as well and HELP the HubDub Community regain it's integrity!
http://www.hubdub.com/public/contact
^ There's an email form on that page ^
Post your decision at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/i_am_on_strike

lucidstates (This user: Is On Strike)

i need my h$ out of this market, so im being forced to cash out partially. i sure would appreciate an explanation as to why this hasnt been settled.

this is pretty ridiculous i cant believe this hasn't been settled

I have no H dough in this, just happened by. when reading the title I knew this could be a powder keg o' trouble just waiting to get SPITZERED here. problem is there is no clear
definition of "suffer another terrorist attack", at first glance I figured this means civilian casualty and or destruction above certain dollar amount. this market is too vague for hd community to settle. reading the requests to settle makes me think this Q will either get void so that more clear details can be spelled out in the refined version. in all honesty, until it is clarified by mork what the sprit of the question is. only the spirit of the question does not count in hubdubland.
we need it clear, concise, non-contentious and inarguable. or we wither and fail. miserably.

as in the spitzer question (if we're referring to the same one), words mean things. the dictionary defines "resign" clearly, as it does for the wording of this question. this market DOES NOT refer to body counts or dollar loss. it says what it says. any attempt to make it say otherwise, after the fact, is bogus.

hear hear! dan

dan, there is no reference to any spitzer question. words mean things and the word spitzered stands alone.
look it up in the hubdub dictionary. your definition of terrorism would mean that every week there is an act or 2 or more of terrorism on U.S. soil. so why should this market ever have been in play? it should be flagged, not wagered on because it is a gamed question, so honest upright "users" of hubdub are not tempted to cheat by wagering on questions like this. acts of terrorism as per your definition happen all the time in the U.S.
shame on anyone who wagers on this market and did not flag it. the starting odds were waaay off. the "yes" should have started at 95% as per your definition. hubdub needs clean concise clarity.

tis not MY definition of "terrorism", but that of the dictionary's. important distinction.

If the starting odds are way off, then why, after nearly 25,000 h$ invested in this question, and over two months has passed since the creation of this question, the odds have only changed by 15%?

I do not appreciate your suggestion that this question has anything to do with gaming the site.

I created this question after news media reported that John McCain's ratings would increase if another terrorist attack occurred.

The definition of the word terrorism is not entirely relevant.
I suspect the reason hubdub has not settled this question is because no major news source has reported that America has been struck by terrorism.
Please refer to the settlement details before the dictionary.

ive posted links to the stories where they HAVE reported it. maybe *they* didnt use the word terrorism, but they reported acts that are clearly included in the definition of the word.

if hubdub relied solely on the media's wording, the spitzer thing would have been settled differently as many news outlets DID report that he had resigned before he actually had. but it wasnt settled based on the media's wording. it was settled according to the market's wording, whose meaning was governed by the english dictionary.

what would be nice would be to NOT have to guess why there is no settlement, but for an admin to explain hd's position rather than ignore us.

Hubdub has suspended this market and we are moving discussion here:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/terrorism

diana wrote:
"Talk continues within Hubdub that this was an act of "terrorism"; however, admins did not come across major mainstream media coverage labeling this as an act of terrorism--we're talking NY times, CNN, etc."

if hd DOES rely on the media's wording (rather than th emeaning of those words), then the spitzer settlement needs to be reversed if u are to maintain any consistency. after all, SEVERAL "major mainstream media" outlets declared he had resigned when he had only *announced* his intent to do so.

what say u?

Dan - please go comment on the getsatisfaction page. Its where we do all our best arguing.

no thanks. im not making another account on another site to keep track of.

Since my previous post here I have been doing some Googling and have come to a different conclusion due to this news article from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOn...

Two excerpts:

-"We're treating it as if it were an incident of vandalism," Army spokesman Paul Boyce said at the Pentagon.

-Homeland Security Department said there was no sign of an immediate threat to the United States from the incident and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism.

I cannot find any article stating that the US government has changed their opinion on this matter.

We would be false to conclude that this was a terrorist attack when the victim of the attack clearly says otherwise.

I now conclude that this question should be allowed to continue as it is.

ask a cop how many times domestic abuse victims claim they "fell." my point being that the victim's (public) viewpoint is definitive by no means.

the loose definition of the market's wording has been met.

ive cited source, where precedent has been demonstrated, of prejudice being given to a word's *meaning* rather than its usage by some reporter.

maybe some wish the question to be more specific (1000+ victims, $10mil in damage, perpetrated by 'brown' ppl). but it isnt that specific. it is what it is.

as i see it, hd is gonna have to either settle this as 'yes' or go back on precedent somewhere. im equally interested in either choice they make. what i dont like is indecision and the 'put it up to a vote' method. they need policy for the rest of us to follow, so we can all reasonably know what to expect.

im done with the soapbox. who wants it now? ;-)

diana wrote:
"See Get Satisfaction forum and user recommendation, particularly the market creator, mork. Settlement of this market is based on an act of terror, one that is reported as such by mainstream media and the US federal governement. The NY Times bicycle bombing can be interpreted as an act of protest, not an act of terror per se."

so should we expect the spitzer settlement to be reversed?

Spitzer never settled, it was voided. I agree it shouldn't have been but let's not forget this thing is still in beta Dan. I am sure the administrators are learning as time progresses here. I am confident that the spitzer thing was part of the learning process and don't anticipating it happening again.

P.S. I lost alot of $H on spitzer but I want to move on. . After Spitzer and Satyaki, I want to start enjoying this site again.

below is the spitzer market ive been referring to. sorry for the confusion, i should have posted a link to begin with.
http://tinyurl.com/3enq3r

That's hilarious Dan. Those sure were good times. I didn't realize there were two controversial spitzer questions. This one is the one I lost my shirt on:

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/When_will_New_York_Governor_Elliot_Spitzer_resign_as_a_result_of_his_involvement_in_a_prostitution_ring_scandal_3983

Notice over 270 comments,

good times, indeed.

270+ comments...yikes!

Oops, I may be misunderstood again. I did not mean to sound mean, and no way want you to think accusations of gaming are afoot. it was just that, well...I meant to get a point across that the bicycle "vandelism" should not settle this question. your creation was right on with odds and everything else. regretts my writing is misconstrued. glad to see this market still open. hopefully it will settle proper.