• 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!

Boston PD Arrest 3 More Suspects in Bombing Plot -- Uh-oh!

MaggieD said:
I take it this is sarcasm. You must make it clearer.



DOD Labels Ft. Hood Attack 'Workplace Violence' - Politics - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
Click to expand...

Convincing military enemies to turn on their comrades isn't terrorism, it's espionage. Soldiers are legitimate targets of war. It's not terrorism for our troops to shoot at Al-Qaeda members, why would it be terrorism for them to shoot back?

American intelligence convinces insurgents to go turncoat all the time, you're not suggesting our guys are terrorists for doing that, are you?
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Probably three of his buddies who helped him after the fact. They might not have even known what he had just done, or foolishly didn't believe it. That he ended up alone in the boat doesn't really suggest these three stuck with him all that long.
Click to expand...

In the update I just posted, it does say that one lied.
 
Deuce said:
Convincing military enemies to turn on their comrades isn't terrorism, it's espionage. Soldiers are legitimate targets of war. It's not terrorism for our troops to shoot at Al-Qaeda members, why would it be terrorism for them to shoot back?
Click to expand...

You and I have a different take on what happened. When somebody shoots up a place, killing 13 and wounding dozens more while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!!!" (God is great!!!)... when he is wearing the garb of the shaheed the morning of his jihad...when he was giving out qurans the morning of his jihad...and his business card said "soldier of allah," sorry, I just don't see that as workplace violence. Maybe that's just me.

Not.

What world do you live in?
 
Redress said:
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me which legal definition of terrorism it would fall under. Political motives seems to be a requirement, and there is no evidence he had one.
Click to expand...

This one, from your link:

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...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"
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
You and I have a different take on what happened. When somebody shoots up a place, killing 13 and wounding dozens more while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!!!" (God is great!!!)... when he is wearing the garb of the shaheed the morning of his jihad...when he was giving out qurans the morning of his jihad...and his business card said "soldier of allah," sorry, I just don't see that as workplace violence. Maybe that's just me.

Not.

What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing Maggie. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the motivation was terrorism in that particular instance as well. I think the only reason why someone would be hesitant to refer to it as an actual terrorist attack would be because of the fact that the guy acted kind of as a lone wolf, as far as we know.
 
MMC said:
Yep, I just threw this one up in the Prof's Thread too..... Rueters has confirmed too.

A U.S. law enforcement source said that two of the suspects taken into custody on Wednesday include classmates of the younger brother at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth. They are being held by immigration officials for violating the terms of their visas. The source said they are likely to face charges related to obstruction of justice and with making false statements to investigators.

Police are investigating whether the classmates threw away a backpack at Tsarnaev's request after the bombing, which killed three people and injured 264 others. Last week law enforcement officials were seen searching dumps in southeastern Massachusetts.

The third person taken into custody on Wednesday was a U.S. citizen, and all three were being investigated for actions taken after the bombings, the U.S. law enforcement source said.

The lawyer for one of the men detained on Wednesday, identified as Dias Kadyrbayeye, said his client was being held for violations of his student visa.

The lawyer, Robert Stahl, said his client was "not a target" of the bombing investigation, but declined to comment on any other specifics. He said his client had "cooperated fully" with investigators and "wants to go home to Kazakhstan."

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines
Click to expand...

Thank you MMC! :)
 
ChrisL said:
What about religious motives? Those would be considered terrorism too, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Legally, religious motivation is not terrorism.

MaggieD said:
You and I have a different take on what happened. When somebody shoots up a place, killing 13 and wounding dozens more while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!!!" (God is great!!!)... when he is wearing the garb of the shaheed the morning of his jihad...when he was giving out qurans the morning of his jihad...and his business card said "soldier of allah," sorry, I just don't see that as workplace violence. Maybe that's just me.

Not.

What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

The world that has laws. The law defines what is terrorism for purposes of the law. Emotional judgements are not the law.

MaggieD said:
This one, from your link:
Click to expand...

There is no evidence he tried to coerce or intimidate any one.
 
The DOD and the POTUS do not want to make belief in Islam the litmus test for terrorism (understandably). We have way too many people serving who are Muslim to do that. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot and would malign some very good service people.
 
ChrisL said:
What about the fact that he was against the wars, and he was against killing his fellow Muslims, whether they be radicalized or not.
Click to expand...

Closer, but there is no real evidence that I know of that his attack was motivated to end those wars.
 
clownboy said:
The DOD and the POTUS do not want to make belief in Islam the litmus test for terrorism (understandably). We have way too many people serving who are Muslim to do that. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot and would malign some very good service people.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that at all. It's RADICAL Islam that we are concerned with.
 
clownboy said:
The DOD and the POTUS do not want to make belief in Islam the litmus test for terrorism (understandably). We have way too many people serving who are Muslim to do that. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot and would malign some very good service people.
Click to expand...

I actually served with a black muslim when I was in the navy. Really great guy, smart as hell and incredibly motivated. The problem is not the religion, it is what some people do in the name of religion.
 
Redress said:
Closer, but there is no real evidence that I know of that his attack was motivated to end those wars.
Click to expand...

Well I thought I heard or read that he wrote some things suggesting that as a motivation. Also, I thought he also tried to get conscientious objector status? I could be wrong, but I thought that. :shrug:
 
Redress said:
I actually served with a black muslim when I was in the navy. Really great guy, smart as hell and incredibly motivated. The problem is not the religion, it is what some people do in the name of religion.
Click to expand...

I used to have a couple who lived next door from me who were Muslim and were also very nice polite people who kept to themselves and minded their own business. I liked them a lot. I have nothing against Muslims, just the radicalized sector which WAS prominent predominantly in the ME, but now seems to be spreading like wild fire.
 
ChrisL said:
No one is suggesting that at all. It's RADICAL Islam that we are concerned with.
Click to expand...

I understand, however, there is PR and perception the DOD and the POTUS must pay attention to. Also troop morale. The last thing they want to do is to sew seeds of distrust of fellow troops.
 
clownboy said:
I understand, however, there is PR and perception the DOD and the POTUS must pay attention to. Also troop morale. The last thing they want to do is to sew seeds of distrust of fellow troops.
Click to expand...

Well, if that's who the "enemy" is that you are supposedly fighting against, then what you are saying really doesn't make any sense to me. Those who are NOT radicalized need not worry. That's like me being offended whenever someone says something negative about the KKK or something (in the sense that they are a radicalized group of white, supposed Christians).
 
MaggieD said:
You and I have a different take on what happened. When somebody shoots up a place, killing 13 and wounding dozens more while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!!!" (God is great!!!)... when he is wearing the garb of the shaheed the morning of his jihad...when he was giving out qurans the morning of his jihad...and his business card said "soldier of allah," sorry, I just don't see that as workplace violence. Maybe that's just me.

Not.

What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

Translation: Muslim + violence = terrorism?

You have to commit an act of terrorism to be called a terrorist. In my world, shooting at enemy soldiers is not terrorism. In your world, all of our combat troops are terrorists.
 
Deuce said:
Translation: Muslim + violence = terrorism?

You have to commit an act of terrorism to be called a terrorist. In my world, shooting at enemy soldiers is not terrorism. In your world, all of our combat troops are terrorists.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. NOT terrorists.
 
Redress said:
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me which legal definition of terrorism it would fall under. Political motives seems to be a requirement, and there is no evidence he had one.
Click to expand...

I would say the evidence is more inconclusive. Being that we know he had contact with radical islamic elements and often cited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as grievences. But at the same time was apparently going through the process of some mental breakdown
 
Redress said:
Legally, religious motivation is not terrorism.
Click to expand...

lol, yes, if we ignore the political forms of religion like the christian identity movement or most of mainstream islam
 
Redress said:
Legally, religious motivation is not terrorism.

The world that has laws. The law defines what is terrorism for purposes of the law. Emotional judgements are not the law. There is no evidence he tried to coerce or intimidate any one.
Click to expand...

Again, from your own link:

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...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"
Click to expand...

Do you have such a powerful need to be right on this point that you ignore the Federal definition and don't see his actions as intimidating?? Oh!! Or perhaps you are just that desperate to buy the party line.

Your position is ridiculous. You really ought to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom