• 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!

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.

I can agree with that statement.
 
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)...

Then show how it fits under the definition in US law.
 
Closer, but there is no real evidence that I know of that his attack was motivated to end those wars.

So just to be sure. Every abortion clinic bombing isn't something you would label terrorism as your argue against those who call it such until a clear motive of hoping to coerce social or political change is found and proven? Simple religious or moral disdain for it would make it not terrorism, right?
 
So just to be sure. Every abortion clinic bombing isn't something you would label terrorism as your argue against those who call it such until a clear motive of hoping to coerce social or political change is found and proven? Simple religious or moral disdain for it would make it not terrorism, right?

I would consider that terrorism too. It's definitely trying to make a "social" and even a religious type of statement. Is it politically motivated though?
 
Then show how it fits under the definition in US law.

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
 
So just to be sure. Every abortion clinic bombing isn't something you would label terrorism as your argue against those who call it such until a clear motive of hoping to coerce social or political change is found and proven? Simple religious or moral disdain for it would make it not terrorism, right?

There where I believe 3 definitions in various places in US law(babysitting so can't check right now). The Fort Hood killings did not fit any of them. Where you quoted me was in reference to one of those definitions. Until I can look at those definitions closely, I can't give you a clear answer.
 
About this current case, the Boston bombing, from everything I've heard so far, these three that were arrested sound like they were just some bumbling idiot kids who did not realize the extent of which they were involving themselves. That's what I gather so far anyway. We'll see what other info comes out though.
 
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.

Oh, please.
 
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.
 
I'm quite torn on that Fort Hood incident. Although personally, I would probably consider it an act of terror, it would be difficult to actually prove that. I still think that religious motivating factors should be included in the definition.
 
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.

Since 9/11 wasn't politically motivated, apparently that was . . . what?? A bad hair day?
 
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.

Allahu Akbar
 
Since 9/11 wasn't politically motivated, apparently that was . . . what?? A bad hair day?

It was politically motivated. Try again.
 
Religious expression, not political.

Islam is BOTH a political and religious doctrine.

Do you consider the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist act? If so, please explain the differences...
 
There where I believe 3 definitions in various places in US law(babysitting so can't check right now). The Fort Hood killings did not fit any of them. Where you quoted me was in reference to one of those definitions. Until I can look at those definitions closely, I can't give you a clear answer.

Cool. Will refer you back here when your done baby sitting
 
Religious expression, not political.

which in current context, has extreme political connotations. I mean, it's not like someone couldn't easily demonstrate it's use as a call sign for militant and radicalized islam
 
Islam is BOTH a political and religious doctrine.

Do you consider the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist act? If so, please explain the differences...

Legally, dunno. I have not had time to read alot on it.
 
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.

A guy, known to have correspondence with Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, yells "Allahu Akbar" right before killing a bunch of soldiers to be deployed to Afghanistan.

Apolitical?
 
It was politically motivated. Try again.

See? Again, it's so difficult to make a true distinction between the two when it comes to Islam because Islam IS a totalitarian theocracy, encompassing just about all aspects of life.
 
Haven't had time to read a lot about which incident?

Boston.

A guy, known to have correspondence with Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, yells "Allahu Akbar" right before killing a bunch of soldiers to be deployed to Afghanistan.

Apolitical?

It is a religious statement, and some of his believed motivations fit with him using it.
 
See? Again, it's so difficult to make a true distinction between the two when it comes to Islam because Islam IS a totalitarian theocracy, encompassing just about all aspects of life.

Well, in the case of 9/11, it is easy as the motivation was, at least partly, US policy in regards to Israel.
 
Boston.



It is a religious statement, and some of his believed motivations fit with him using it.

The words used are "normal" just before committing a suicidal act by terrorists...
 
It is a religious statement, and some of his believed motivations fit with him using it.

That's being a bit disingenuous
 
Back
Top Bottom