• 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!

Two U.S. Soldiers Reportedly Killed in Shooting at Germany's Frankfurt Airport

Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, not justified. But Not necessarily terrorism. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Click to expand...

The dude yelled, "allah akbar", right before he opened up. Hmmm, let's see...
 
Ron Mars said:
I agree it can be reasonably described as an act of war. However, since one of their methods of fighing this war is by means of terrorism, I also believe what happened in Germany can also be reasonably described as an act of terrorism. But it's still way too early to form a solid opinion about this one incident IMO.
Click to expand...
Not to repeat my point, but it's the motive of the killing which I believe determines if it's terrorism or not. And while I agree there isn't nearly enough information among the public to make such a determination yet, I don't see other Muslim engaging in terrorism as evidence this was. It's all about the motive.

Ron Mars said:
This site is quite different than AWE and I do miss some of the banter. Didn't you think AWE was becoming a bit of a train wreck? The level of prejudice against other posters race and religion was getting out of hand. I had over 40 people on my ignore list.
Click to expand...
My ignore list was also rather extensive, though not as much as yours. But at least the option was there.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not to repeat my point, but it's the motive of the killing which I believe determines if it's terrorism or not. And while I agree there isn't nearly enough information among the public to make such a determination yet, I don't see other Muslim engaging in terrorism as evidence this was. It's all about the motive.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, and that's NOT my intention, but isn't it rather playing into the neo-con 'War on Terrorism' game to have a semantic discussion about whether the attack was a terrorist act or not? I think the point about motive is correct. If the motive was to make Allied, particularly American, soldiers feel threatened wherever they might be in the world, then you could describe it as 'terrorism'. The trouble is, the term has been so misused for its propaganda value that in the minds of many, if not most people, it has ceased to mean anything.

Whether it was an act of terrorism or an act of guerrilla warfare, it was just one more murderous event in a conflict that no one seems interested in bringing to an end by negotiated, peaceful means. Where is the peace process that might edge towards a reduction in the conflict between Islamism and the West?
 
apdst said:
The dude yelled, "allah akbar", right before he opened up. Hmmm, let's see...
Click to expand...
That just means the killing was for Allah. That alone doesn't make it terrorism.
 
Andalublue said:
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, and that's NOT my intention, but isn't it rather playing into the neo-con 'War on Terrorism' game to have a semantic discussion about whether the attack was a terrorist act or not? I think the point about motive is correct. If the motive was to make Allied, particularly American, soldiers feel threatened wherever they might be in the world, then you could describe it as 'terrorism'. The trouble is, the term has been so misused for its propaganda value that in the minds of many, if not most people, it has ceased to mean anything.
Click to expand...
I agree the word is often misused and often used for political purposes. But I feel we should determine if this was terrorism or not. It's not about semantics, it's about knowing what we're up against. For example, if this incident was some individual from Kosovo whose family was killed by Americans years ago, it's likely an isolated incident. But if it is terrorism and it was motivated my anti-American radical-Islamic propaganda, we should know that because it could be useful information in the ongoing war on terror.

Andalublue said:
Whether it was an act of terrorism or an act of guerrilla warfare, it was just one more murderous event in a conflict that no one seems interested in bringing to an end by negotiated, peaceful means. Where is the peace process that might edge towards a reduction in the conflict between Islamism and the West?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's possible to negotiate peace with terrorists nor do I believe we should even entertain the notion. Terrorists only understand one thing: death. The only question is whose; ours or theirs?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I agree the word is often misused and often used for political purposes. But I feel we should determine if this was terrorism or not. It's not about semantics, it's about knowing what we're up against. For example, if this incident was some individual from Kosovo whose family was killed by Americans years ago, it's likely an isolated incident. But if it is terrorism and it was motivated my anti-American radical-Islamic propaganda, we should know that because it could be useful information in the ongoing war on terror.
Click to expand...
Well, it might prove useful to know who was behind it for tactical military purposes, but then we, as the general public, would have no real need to know. In fact it might be militarily advantageous for the truth to be withheld. I've got no issue with keeping military secrets secret.

I don't believe it's possible to negotiate peace with terrorists nor do I believe we should even entertain the notion. Terrorists only understand one thing: death. The only question is whose; ours or theirs?
Click to expand...
Then you've got a lot of killing to get on with. After 10 years the West hasn't even been able to break Al Qaeda and find Osama BL, how long is it going to take and how many more soldiers lives will it cost to destroy all the 'terrorist' groupings? In the end the only thing that ends conflict is negotiation.
 
Andalublue said:
Then you've got a lot of killing to get on with. After 10 years the West hasn't even been able to break Al Qaeda and find Osama BL, how long is it going to take and how many more soldiers lives will it cost to destroy all the 'terrorist' groupings? In the end the only thing that ends conflict is negotiation.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I just don't believe that people who are evil enough to hijack airplanes and fly them into office buildings can be negotiated with. Nor do I believe they possess the integrity required to maintain any such negotiations. A year later and they're hijacking more planes because they decide on a new grievance. They're also so fragmented, that even if you could find a terrorist who could maintain a peace deal, there's 20 others who will break it with murder, if for no other reason than to disrupt any form of peace. Then there's the whole conundrum of giving in to terrorists will only serve to feed terrorism as that feeds into the whole reason they were committing acts of terrorism to begin with.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I just don't believe that people who are evil enough to hijack airplanes and fly them into office buildings can be negotiated with. Nor do I believe they possess the integrity required to maintain any such negotiations. A year later and they're hijacking more planes because they decide on a new grievance. They're also so fragmented, that even if you could find a terrorist who could maintain a peace deal, there's 20 others who will break it with murder, if for no other reason than to disrupt any form of peace. Then there's the whole conundrum of giving in to terrorists will only serve to feed terrorism as that feeds into the whole reason they were committing acts of terrorism to begin with.
Click to expand...

I dare say we may not agree. I remember the British government saying that people who would blow up whole city centres, pubs full of innocent people, the Queen's uncle by marriage, and the hotel housing the entire British cabinet could not be negotiated with, but they were and peace (albeit imprefect) returned to Ireland. South Africa is another example of where negotiation with your enemies resulted in peace, also imperfect, but a quantum degree better than the outcome would have been should the route of conflict have been followed through to the end.

First acknowledge your enemy's humanity, then speak, then negotiate.
 
Ron Mars said:
Apparently we still don't know exactly why he did this. Was he working with a terrorist group who ordered the attack or was he on his own like the nut case like in AZ. I’m sure Germany has a few of them too. This one jihadi might be a dim bulb or completely nuts I agree that’s a reasonable possibility.

But make no mistake, the jihadis we are fighting today are educated and have proven to be extremely intelligent and very resourceful.
Click to expand...

Intelligence has many dimensions. Some of today's Islamic extremists are quite resourceful and "intelligent," but in my opinion anyone who thinks that they'll make the world a better place by doing ***** **** like this has serious moral reasoning issues.
 
They guy was probably mentally unstable like the US Army base shooter.
 
Andalublue said:
Well there is a degree of mitigation on both sides, no? The soldiers killed in Germany, if you accept that there is a state of war existing between radical Islam and the West, were legitimate targets, were they not? It doesn't make their deaths any less regrettable, nor does the fact that the Afghan boys were killed deliberately, but in error, make their deaths any less regrettable.

What is totally regrettable is this state of war, and I'm not seeing anyone on either side trying to resolve it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Click to expand...

The soldiers were unarmed. To me this is akin to an American civilian running up to a bunch of unarmed Afghan soldiers in the Kabul airport and shooting them dead while yelling, "God wants me to do this!" At least the Kabul airport is located in a legitimate war zone. The airport in Germany was not.

In a debate, any position can be logically justified. Some are just more difficult to justify than others.
 
Last edited:
The soldiers were unarmed. To me this is akin to an American civilian running up to a bunch of unarmed Afghan soldiers in the Kabul airport and shooting them dead while yelling, "God wants me to do this!"
Click to expand...

It's completely different.

And WTF is a "legitimate war zone"?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It's completely different.
Click to expand...

Why?

And WTF is a "legitimate war zone"?
Click to expand...

Inside a country with which NATO is conducting joint military operations. Whether I like it or not, and I don't, Afghanistan is a multi-national, NATO sanctioned battleground.
 
DiAnna said:
Why?



Inside a country with which NATO is conducting joint military operations. Whether I like it or not, and I don't, Afghanistan is a multi-national, NATO sanctioned battleground.
Click to expand...

Pakistan is not, neither is Yemen


Does that mean the US conducted acts of terror when it attacked people in those countries?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Pakistan is not, neither is Yemen


Does that mean the US conducted acts of terror when it attacked people in those countries?
Click to expand...

Thanks for not answering the question that was put to you, which was Why?

Nobody asked about Pakistan or Yemen. Clearly, you are trying to equate the slaughter of unarmed USA soldiers in a German airport with terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. Also, the ignoring of NATO soldiers in Afghanistan is quite telling. It was a cold-blooded slaughter of unarmed USA soldiers in an area that was supposedly a neutral zone.

Basically I'm getting from you, dead Americans, A-okay. Which pretty much makes me want to do unacceptably violent things to those who think as you do... and the disgusting people who agree with your pathethicly vile hatefulness.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Inside a country with which NATO is conducting joint military operations. Whether I like it or not, and I don't, Afghanistan is a multi-national, NATO sanctioned battleground.
Click to expand...
No, not all of Afghanistan is an active battleground, just as not all of LA is a battleground between rival urban gangs. A part of it is, but not all and hence you cannot simply dismiss every awful thing that happens there by saying, "Meh, it's a warzone."
 
Last edited:
This is so very sad. May they RIP, and may there families receive comfort in this horrible time in their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom