• 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!

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.

In Bizzaro Land, where you live, your desperation to buy the party line on this issue probably makes sense. For the rest of us, we accept reality and don't need it defined for us by politicians.
 
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.

lol, right, the religion just works as a mechanism to dehumanize, while instigating such people be targeted for violence. Again, this is like claiming nazism had no impact on how the Germans reacted after ww1
 
I think they cleaned his dorm and threw out a backpack. I dont think they helped make the bombs or anything. I guess we will see though.
 
Again, from your own link:



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.

Whether you are intimidated or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he intended to intimidate. There is no evidence he did.

You can call his actions what you want, to fit your own personal definition of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the government has to work within it's framework of laws, and we both know if the government deemed something to be what it is not necessarily under the law, you would be the first one crying about it.
 
lol, right, the religion just works as a mechanism to dehumanize, while instigating such people be targeted for violence. Again, this is like claiming nazism had no impact on how the Germans reacted after ww1

I do not much care for religions for that reason. However, the problems with religions in general are much greater than specific religions.
 
Whether you are intimidated or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he intended to intimidate. There is no evidence he did.

You can call his actions what you want, to fit your own personal definition of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the government has to work within it's framework of laws, and we both know if the government deemed something to be what it is not necessarily under the law, you would be the first one crying about it.

I see what you are saying, but I don't see how it doesn't fit. I think the fact that he allegedly screamed out his God's name while committing the murders kind of shows an intent to intimidate people in the name of his God.
 
I see what you are saying, but I don't see how it doesn't fit. I think the fact that he allegedly screamed out his God's name while committing the murders kind of shows an intent to intimidate people in the name of his God.

Possibly, but religious motivation does not fit under the US definition of terrorism. Politics and religion are different things in the eyes of the law, and with good reason.
 
Possibly, but religious motivation does not fit under the US definition of terrorism. Politics and religion are different things in the eyes of the law, and with good reason.

I don't believe that's the case with Islam though. I think that Islam has all the bases covered, politics, religion, you name it. Obviously countries that are Muslim-dominated are theocracies for the most part with very few exceptions I think.
 
I don't believe that's the case with Islam though. I think that Islam has all the bases covered, politics, religion, you name it. Obviously countries that are Muslim-dominated are theocracies for the most part with very few exceptions I think.

The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.
 
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.

Point being, how to untangle that web and determine the exact motivation when the two are so closely entwined. :shrug: Religion and politics I mean.
 
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.

Fort Hood was just an incidence of workplace violence, wasn't it?
 
Whether you are intimidated or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he intended to intimidate. There is no evidence he did.

You can call his actions what you want, to fit your own personal definition of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the government has to work within it's framework of laws, and we both know if the government deemed something to be what it is not necessarily under the law, you would be the first one crying about it.

And we both know that if the government declared this was not Workplace Violence (which is joke in and of itself) that you, Redress, would not be arguing that it was Workplace Violence. So I say we stalemated.

As usual.
 
Point being, how to untangle that web and determine the exact motivation when the two are so closely entwined. :shrug: Religion and politics I mean.

I think you err on the side of understatement. I think that is consistent with US law.
 
Fort Hood was just an incidence of workplace violence, wasn't it?

I doubt very much I would use the word "just" to describe it in any way.
 
I think you err on the side of understatement. I think that is consistent with US law.

If I thought for a moment that this was just some guy who happened to crack so to speak, then I would agree that it was workplace violence. However, there seems to be a lot more involved with that particular incident IMO. I believe there were mixed up (as are most Islamic extremists) religious/political motivations.
 
I do not much care for religions for that reason. However, the problems with religions in general are much greater than specific religions.

People practice their religion in a respectable and civilized manner all the time. They're like other ideologies in that sense; some are good, others are bad.
 
And we both know that if the government declared this was not Workplace Violence (which is joke in and of itself) that you, Redress, would not be arguing that it was Workplace Violence. So I say we stalemated.

As usual.

I am pretty indifferent on the label "workplace violence". Not what I call it, but it does fall within the definition. See, there is this odd idea some of us have that words have meaning, and that the government should follow the laws it has, even when it isn't convenient. That you feel otherwise says alot.
 
Government classifies incidents as it sees fit in order to suit its agenda...

In a lot of instances, I would tend to agree with that.
 
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.

Islam was always just as much political philosophy, as it was religion, since it's founding. Which is probably why there is such resistence to secularism in the Islamic world (though the pan-arabs likely didn't help)
 
A massive ****ing tragedy perpetrated by a vile individual would be the start.

An act of terrorism would be more appropriate. His actions were not much different from a suicide bomber other than the fact he didn't die as well (yet)...
 
If I thought for a moment that this was just some guy who happened to crack so to speak, then I would agree that it was workplace violence. However, there seems to be a lot more involved with that particular incident IMO. I believe there were mixed up (as are most Islamic extremists) religious/political motivations.

There is some evidence that might be the case, but legally, there are not enough solid facts to prove that as I understand it.
 
Back
Top Bottom