View Poll Results: Terrorist or Not

Voters
161. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, A terrorist Attack

    110 68.32%
  • no

    51 31.68%
Page 6 of 39 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 390

Thread: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

  1. #51
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    terrorist attacks, by definition, are attacks against civilian- as opposed to military- targets.
    So, no.
    By whose definition?

    Dictionary.com
    ter⋅ror⋅ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ –noun
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
    3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
    .

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    By whose definition?



    .
    Dictionary'd

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    If attacking a military target is "terrorism, then what's the difference between terrorism and standard warfare?


    Terrorism: No Prohibition Without Definition

    "There have been previous attempts to address these issues; the U.S. State Department, for example, has put forward a definition according to which terrorism is the deliberate use of violence against non-combatants, whether civilian or not. However, this definition of terrorism will not work in practice, as it designates attacks on non-combatant military personnel as terrorism. Despite the natural tendency of those who have been harmed by terrorism to adopt this broad definition, terror organizations and their supporters can justly claim that they cannot be expected to attack only military personnel who are armed and ready for battle. If they were held to such a standard, they would lose the element of surprise and be quickly defeated. By narrowing the definition of terrorism to include only deliberate attacks on civilians, we leave room for a “fair fight” between guerillas and state armies. Thus we set a clear moral standard that can be accepted not only by Western countries, but also by the Third World and even by some of the terrorist organizations themselves. When such a moral distinction is internationally applied, terrorist organizations will have yet another reason to renounce terrorism in favor of guerilla actions. "
    Last edited by 1069; 11-07-09 at 02:18 AM.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    If attacking a military target is "terrorism, then what's the difference between terrorism and standard warfare?
    please see:

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    By whose definition?


    Dictionary.com
    ter⋅ror⋅ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ –noun
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
    3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

  5. #55
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,979

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    I dunno, the more I look at it, the more it seems that it matters not whether it was an individual act or a collaborative one, and what matters is the motivation, i.e. the use of terror to influence or send a message to a government. I mean, just look at the definition you posted. What the guy did fits that definition perfectly.
    But without a message of some sort (video, letter, blog, etc.) his act was selfish and personal. All terrorist plots and attacks have come with messages. They never occur without a word from the offfenders. The problem with defining "terrorism" is that Pearl Harbor could fit the definition too. Hell a person that terrorizes his city because he has a need to murder and eat human beings can be defined as a "terrorist."

    In a war where our enemies are, in fact, terrorists and militant supporters of them, we have to be able to step back keep perspective. This is why I have never liked the "War On Terror" name for what we are involved in.
    Last edited by MSgt; 11-07-09 at 02:18 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    If this was a terrorist attack then we had a terrorist openly serving as an Officer in the US military.

    I don't think that's what happened.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    I dunno, the more I look at it, the more it seems that it matters not whether it was an individual act or a collaborative one, and what matters is the motivation, i.e. the use of terror to influence or send a message to a government. I mean, just look at the definition you posted. What the guy did fits that definition perfectly.
    So when they do it to us, they're 'terrorizing" us, but when we do it to them, we're merely "shocking and awing" them.

    [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe[/ame]

  8. #58
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    You left out the "too early to tell" option.
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  9. #59
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,979

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    terrorist attacks, by definition, are attacks against civilian- as opposed to military- targets.
    So, no.
    Well, consider that these type acts during warfare have historically been labeled as "sabotage." The penalty for being caught as a saboteur was imprisonment in a POW camp, just like a spy or any other uniformed combatant, and sometimes immediate death. Today's saboteurs are labeled as terrorists because they come from an enemy that is without uniform, banner, or national origin (unless we address the nation of Islam as our enemy as they have demanded).

    We no longer live in a world where these definitions give us comfort for exactly how to deal with an enemy. Our enemies have adapted will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. We, on the other hand, seem consumed with what to even call them so as to "justify" our defenses.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #60
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I don't figure it was a "terrorist" attack, but I suspect his religion played a role. To me, the most likely problem is a depressive disorder in which his age and religion played a role. If he was opposed to the ME wars, he could have gotten out of the military over the past 8 years at some point (I'm guessing), so the fact that he stayed in makes me wonder about the entire circumstance of what was happening with this guy.
    Can shrinks diagnose themselves and understand when they are coming undone? Seems since as if he would have saw the signs of a depressive disorder in self and went to get some help before he snapped?
    ~Following My Own Flow~

Page 6 of 39 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •