• 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!

Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

Terrorist or Not

  • Yes, A terrorist Attack

    Votes: 38 54.3%

  • no

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Total voters
    70
goldendog said:
You don't think acts like that terrorize the masses at large?
Click to expand...

I have to address this separately. With terrorism, the result doesn't always matter. The behaviors of some Blackhawk contractors intended to commit the criminal act - not send a message to the masses. This is a distractor and why people have difficult labeling terrorists.

People in American cities have been terrorized over serial killers at large. Does this mean that the serial killer is a terrorist? Does he really intend to act out his bad behaviors to convince or terrorize anybody other than his victim? The result isn't what makes a terrorist.
 
GySgt said:
I have to address this separately. With terrorism, the result doesn't always matter. The behaviors of some Blackhawk contractors intended to commit the criminal act - not send a message to the masses. This is a distractor and why people have difficult labeling terrorists.

People in American cities have been terrorized over serial killers at large. Does this mean that the serial killer is a terrorist? Does he really intend to act out his bad behaviors to convince or terrorize anybody other than his victim? The result isn't what makes a terrorist.
Click to expand...

To build on your statement: A "Terrorist" in the modern definition usually applies to someone with any message or agenda to get across that uses fear as a primary weapon. Serial Killers aren't all terrorists, but Terrorists can be Serial Killers. If you drew a venn diagram then the Serial Killer circle would overlap the terrorist circle just a little bit, but the two aren't mutually exclusive, unless serial killings are the Terrorist's preferred method of...terror. Now, The "Mass Murderer" circle and the "Terrorist" circle on the venn diagram will overlap a lot more, mostly because the definition of a mass murderer has the same default victims:time ratio of a terrorist.
 
EpicDude86 said:
To build on your statement: A "Terrorist" in the modern definition usually applies to someone with any message or agenda to get across that uses fear as a primary weapon. Serial Killers aren't all terrorists, but Terrorists can be Serial Killers. If you drew a venn diagram then the Serial Killer circle would overlap the terrorist circle just a little bit, but the two aren't mutually exclusive, unless serial killings are the Terrorist's preferred method of...terror. Now, The "Mass Murderer" circle and the "Terrorist" circle on the venn diagram will overlap a lot more, mostly because the definition of a mass murderer has the same default victims:time ratio of a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Good summary.
 
1069 said:
I hope that's sarcasm.
Click to expand...

No. It is a very complex thing. Black and white definitions just do not work today. Just look at how much trouble people are having over whether or not Fort Hood was an act of terror or not. Wasn't a black and white definition of terrorism produced?

What part did you not agree with? The serial killer thing was actually pretty good. Bashir has systematically slaughtered off extreme portions of the Sudanese population who were not of his tribe. This is serial killing and terror. The Sunni in Iraq sought the slaughter of certain tribe members. Isn't this serial killing while trying to influence the Shia led Iraqi government? The overlapping of labels is very true.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
I hope that's sarcasm.
Click to expand...


epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1125-venn-diagram-1069.jpg


i maed this for u
 
goldendog said:
You don't think acts like that terrorize the masses at large?

They were not unprofessionals engaging in a criminal act. They were Defense Contractors in the field acting on the behalf of the US government and yes they took oaths i'm sure and were acting in the name of their god.

If that is the case? Can't this one shooters acts be explained away as being the same thing? After all he was just a unprofessional engaging in a criminal act right?
Click to expand...




Contractors act in the name of thier god? :lamo
 
Phoenix said:
Terrorist attack or not?
Click to expand...

I maybe. But I am bordering on just a mass murder. I am sure that most likely he has a note somewhere and hopefully the Army exercises some common sense and burns the note so that douche bags in the media does not release it. Buy the media releasing these letters or reading whole or parts of the letter they are only giving the sicko what he wants.
 
jamesrage said:
Buy the media releasing these letters or reading whole or parts of the letter they are only giving the sicko what he wants.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. By making the statements of these loons public, we counter-intuitively reward them for their despicable actions.
 
The Pentagon, a military base, was attacked by Muslim extremists. If we call that a terrorist attack, wouldn't we call Fort Hood a terorist attack as well?
 
I believe that it was more of an Islamic inspired 'going postal' incident. I don't think the guy was part of an organized terrorist group. I think he had the usual Islamic resentments of Western culture, became increasingly influenced by that POV, started feeling more and more alienated from the mainstream, then snapped.
 
jamesrage said:
I maybe. But I am bordering on just a mass murder. I am sure that most likely he has a note somewhere and hopefully the Army exercises some common sense and burns the note so that douche bags in the media does not release it. Buy the media releasing these letters or reading whole or parts of the letter they are only giving the sicko what he wants.
Click to expand...

Jamesrage is taking the calm road on this one. Never thought I'd see reason with this fella.

Welcome aboard! :2wave:
 
EpicDude86 said:
You're right. It's absolutely absurd that we could have terrorists...hiding right...under...our....noses....


Terrorist.network.map%201.gif


Oh lawd.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, is it? No, what I said was if this was a terrorist attack then a terrorist was openly serving as an Officer in the US military. Quite a bit different from terrorists living amongst civilians in secret.
 
Here's an interesting article on this.

Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre - FOXNews.com

I have some questions. Let's say that this was a suicide bombing, instead of a shooting. Would that qualify it as terrorism? This was basically a suicide mission on this man's part. Is it only terrorism if he is part of an organized group? What's the difference between the Islamic motivated act of an individual that seeks to disrupt American national goals and acts done with organized backing?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Here's an interesting article on this.

Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre - FOXNews.com

I have some questions. Let's say that this was a suicide bombing, instead of a shooting. Would that qualify it as terrorism? This was basically a suicide mission on this man's part. Is it only terrorism if he is part of an organized group? What's the difference between the Islamic motivated act of an individual that seeks to disrupt American national goals and acts done with organized backing?
Click to expand...

From another thread - Which of these do you consider terrorism:

1) Muslim shoots up building because he believes his faith requires it
2) Muslim shoots up building because he has mental issues
3) Muslim shoots up building because he has mental issues and believes that his faith allows it in certain circumstances
4) Muslim shoots up building because he was bullied and wants revenge
5) Police raid a radical Muslim compound, Muslims shoot back, killing police
6) Christian shoots up building because he believes his faith requires it
7) Christian shoots up building because he has mental issues
8) Christian shoots up building because he has mental issues and believes that his faith allows it in certain circumstances
9) Christian shoots up building because he was bullied and wants revenge
10) Police raid a radical Christian compound, Christians shoot back, killing police

I'm not asking this because I think I have the answer, but because I think it's a useful way of thinking about the issue.
 
I think there's a lot of overlap. In my opinion, terrorist groups have a lot of mentally ill people. The leadership exploits mentally ill youth to accomplish their goals.

Take, for example, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. They were most likely mentally ill. Saddam Hussein was severely abused and exposed to horrors growing up. Hitler was a mad man. Even so, their ideological motives were evil.

This Hasan was influenced by violent underpinnings of a sizable minority faction of Islam. Of that I'm certain.
 
And, your comparison to Christians committing violent acts is valid in areas where Christian terrorism is a reality. Abortion clinic bombings, sectarian violence such as N Ireland or Bosnia, Serbia or Croatia, things like that. If an individual Christian attacks an abortion clinic, that could very well be viewed as terrorism. It all has to be considered within context.

The context of Hasan attacking American military personnel in a suicide type mission, after making anti-American statements over the years, could easily be construed as Islamic terrorism.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I think there's a lot of overlap. In my opinion, terrorist groups have a lot of mentally ill people. The leadership exploits mentally ill youth to accomplish their goals.

Take, for example, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. They were most likely mentally ill. Saddam Hussein was severely abused and exposed to horrors growing up. Hitler was a mad man. Even so, their ideological motives were evil.

This Hasan was influenced by violent underpinnings of a sizable minority faction of Islam. Of that I'm certain.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should make a venn diagram about it.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/art-and-entertainment/59724-show-me-your-venn-diagrams.html
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I think there's a lot of overlap. In my opinion, terrorist groups have a lot of mentally ill people. The leadership exploits mentally ill youth to accomplish their goals.

Take, for example, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. They were most likely mentally ill. Saddam Hussein was severely abused and exposed to horrors growing up. Hitler was a mad man. Even so, their ideological motives were evil.

This Hasan was influenced by violent underpinnings of a sizable minority faction of Islam. Of that I'm certain.
Click to expand...

But does the fact that he was likely influenced by it automatically change the analysis? I'm sure that most mass murderers are driven by a confluence of factors, ranging from the sacred to the profane. What causes me to hesitate is the argument that because religion likely played a part in this incident, it automatically falls into the category of "religious extremist terrorism" regardless of what other factors were involved.

Put another way: Say that .00001% of people are so screwed up in the head that they buy into an ethos that advocates the killing of others. Some of those people buy into radical islam and the concept of jihad, some of those people buy into radical christianity and the idea of murdering abortion doctors, some of those people buy into anti-black propaganda and the idea of killing black people, and some of those people buy into anti-government propaganda and the idea of killing government employees. We've seen this play out with people like Nadal Hasan, Scott Roeder, Lawrence Russel Brewer, and Timothy McVeigh. Do all these individuals qualify as "terrorists?" If not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom