• 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
Labels have shifting meanings. Language is fluid. It really doesn't matter to me whether he gets the specific label of terrorist or not. I still think that there is a sizable element within Islam that encourages violence in the name of Allah against infidels.
 
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.

There is nothing to suggest that either of these people were mentally ill. And it would be kind of hard to take control of an entire country without being in their right mind.

Evil =/= insane.
 
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?"

Based on legal definitions of terrorism I'm inclined to believe that the answer is "yes".
 
There is nothing to suggest that either of these people were mentally ill. And it would be kind of hard to take control of an entire country without being in their right mind.

Evil =/= insane.

You're kidding, right... :rofl
 
Based on legal definitions of terrorism I'm inclined to believe that the answer is "yes".

By the legal definition, certainly neither of them were.
By other definitions, most of us probably are, depending upon who is doing the defining.
It's a rather meaningless term, actually. Mental illness.
 
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.

The youth are impressionable, not mentally ill.

There's a fine line between Brilliance and Madness, and while Hitler did tread it, Saddam was just a sore loser in charge of a whole lot of sand. He did **** like beating his Olympic soccer team for losing where as Hitler's armies (being led by some of the greatest strategists and badasses in all the Fatherland) conquered, nay RAPED Europe, North Africa, and most of the valuable part of Russia before being beaten back.

While I see your "Mentally Ill" argument, it's a serious matter of opinion when you compare the two.
 
Labels have shifting meanings. Language is fluid. It really doesn't matter to me whether he gets the specific label of terrorist or not. I still think that there is a sizable element within Islam that encourages violence in the name of Allah against infidels.

Similarly, there is an element within Christianity that encourages violence in the name of God against abortion doctors, an element within the racist community that encourages violence in the name of a pure race against blacks, and an element within the anti-government community that encourages violence in the name of a free society against government employees.

I'm trying to determine how these these examples can be logically distinguished from the Islamic example, if they can. Is it simply a matter of proportions?
 
Based on legal definitions of terrorism I'm inclined to believe that the answer is "yes".

So anyone who commits a hate crime is a terrorist? Does it depend on whether people are killed or not?
 
You're kidding, right... :rofl

Of course not. I don't see anything ridiculous enough to be laughed at in my post, myself. Whether or not you are an apologist of evil yourself, the idea that evil people suffer from a mental disorder is an entirely apologist one.

By the legal definition, certainly neither of them were.
By other definitions, most of us probably are, depending upon who is doing the defining.
It's a rather meaningless term, actually. Mental illness.

"Mental illness"? I was talking about terrorism.
 
Similarly, there is an element within Christianity that encourages violence in the name of God against abortion doctors, an element within the racist community that encourages violence in the name of a pure race against blacks, and an element within the anti-government community that encourages violence in the name of a free society against government employees.

I'm trying to determine how these these examples can be logically distinguished from the Islamic example, if they can. Is it simply a matter of proportions?

See, while Christian religious texts encourage violence, the majority stopped being violent and actually practice the 'turn the other cheek' strategy (Ya know, Kill 'em with kindness.) Islam is the other way around, they practice what their scripts say and only a few of them have progressed to the worldwide community idea of tolerance of religions not their own.
 
See, while Christian religious texts encourage violence, the majority stopped being violent and actually practice the 'turn the other cheek' strategy (Ya know, Kill 'em with kindness.) Islam is the other way around, they practice what their scripts say and only a few of them have progressed to the worldwide community idea of tolerance of religions not their own.

But here we run into the same problem as before - you seem to be saying that the question of whether what Hasan/Roeder/Brewer/McVeigh did constitutes terrorism is dependent on the actions of unrelated individuals spread across the globe.
 
There are a few fringe Christian groups that practice violence in America, but it's definitely less mainstream in Christianity. There is plenty of opportunity, with very few incidences. But this isn't the first attack by Muslims in the military on their fellow soldiers, and they are a tiny minority in the Military. It's concerning.
 
So anyone who commits a hate crime is a terrorist? Does it depend on whether people are killed or not?

Well, it probably depends on whether there was an attempt to kill people.

It also, I think, depends on whether the attack is a pre-meditated attempt to instill terror on people of the race in question, or just committed in the heat of hate-filled passion.
 
See, while Christian religious texts encourage violence, the majority stopped being violent and actually practice the 'turn the other cheek' strategy (Ya know, Kill 'em with kindness.) Islam is the other way around, they practice what their scripts say and only a few of them have progressed to the worldwide community idea of tolerance of religions not their own.

That is not true at all. Christian texts do not nor have they ever condoned conversion by the sword. That was man warping the OT into something it is not.

Do not blame the Bible for being used for unintended purposes.
 
McVeigh was anti-government. His religion of origin (I think he was baptized and raised Catholic) wasn't any factor in his attack.
 
That is not true at all. Christian texts do not nor have they ever condoned conversion by the sword. That was man warping the OT into something it is not.

Do not blame the Bible for being used for unintended purposes.

There are a sprinkling of verses that are most likely allegorical in nature, but by and large the New Testament encourage believers to pray for their enemies and heap only coals of kindness on their heads.
 
There are a few fringe Christian groups that practice violence in America, but it's definitely less mainstream in Christianity. There is plenty of opportunity, with very few incidences. But this isn't the first attack by Muslims in the military on their fellow soldiers, and they are a tiny minority in the Military. It's concerning.

I believe it's the second. I don't think we can draw any meaningful conclusions from such a small sample size. Further, even if we could, what does that necessarily mean? If 0.0005% of the individuals of a particular group will buy into an extreme ethos and kill people while only 0.0002% of the individuals from other groups would do the same, how should we react to that? Does it change the nature of the actions when they do occur?

Well, it probably depends on whether there was an attempt to kill people.

It also, I think, depends on whether the attack is a pre-meditated attempt to instill terror on people of the race in question, or just committed in the heat of hate-filled passion.

This seems like one of the most logically defensible positions that has been offered. I don't know that it would be the position that most people would initially agree with, but I'm certainly swayed by it.

McVeigh was anti-government. His religion of origin (I think he was baptized and raised Catholic) wasn't any factor in his attack.

I didn't mean to imply it did, my apologies.
 
That is not true at all. Christian texts do not nor have they ever condoned conversion by the sword. That was man warping the OT into something it is not.

Do not blame the Bible for being used for unintended purposes.

Oh so you have access to the Papal Archives??? Ooooh, I'd love to hear what all those hippie Popes were writing about to the many Missionaries and Crusaders abroad!
 
There are a sprinkling of verses that are most likely allegorical in nature, but by and large the New Testament encourage believers to pray for their enemies and heap only coals of kindness on their heads.

Pretty much.
 
But here we run into the same problem as before - you seem to be saying that the question of whether what Hasan/Roeder/Brewer/McVeigh did constitutes terrorism is dependent on the actions of unrelated individuals spread across the globe.

Terrorism is based on the actual Terrorist, their views, and their method of the attack/act. It goes no deeper than that unless you are trying to decide if an Organization as a whole or in part is a terrorist organization. Each case of terrorism must be looked at closely, then decided upon. There is no template or stereotype for a Terrorist. That's like saying there is a template for guerrillas.
 
This seems like one of the most logically defensible positions that has been offered. I don't know that it would be the position that most people would initially agree with, but I'm certainly swayed by it.

Huh. This might be the first time in my entire DP history that I've actually swayed someone's position on an issue.
 
Huh. This might be the first time in my entire DP history that I've actually swayed someone's position on an issue.

Ha ha, that is a rare event on a discussion board! :doh
 
Oh so you have access to the Papal Archives??? Ooooh, I'd love to hear what all those hippie Popes were writing about to the many Missionaries and Crusaders abroad!

What do the "Papal Archives" have to do with the Bible? The Bible outside of the Apocrypha and mistranslation has not been changed since it's inception by the Emperor.

Please point out a single verse that says Christians are to go out and convert via the sword?

Many things were done in God'a name that had nothing to do with Chrsitianity or the Bible. It had to do with mans lust for power.

Please point out where in the NT it says to go and conquer the Holy land or any such nonsense.

Your argument thus far is not only weak, but just plane uninformed and ridicules.
 
Last edited:
Terrorism is based on the actual Terrorist, their views, and their method of the attack/act. It goes no deeper than that unless you are trying to decide if an Organization as a whole or in part is a terrorist organization. Each case of terrorism must be looked at closely, then decided upon. There is no template or stereotype for a Terrorist. That's like saying there is a template for guerrillas.

My apologies if I misconstrued your earlier statement. I thought that you were arguing that an act should be classified differently depending on whether the religious motivation was Islam or Christianity, due to the way in which each is interpreted across the globe.
 
What do the "Papal Archives" have to do with the Bible? The Bible outside of the Apocrypha and mistranslation has not been changed since it's inception by the Emperor.


The Papal Archives part was a joke, but you said Christian texts. This would include Christian writings, books, Letters from the Papacy, and other religious-based documentation. I even italicized it in my qoute.

And let's see. Who called for each Crusade? You do realize there were Convert-or-Kill clauses attached to, not only the purpose of the Crusades, but many of the "Mission Statements" of Knightly Orders as well?
 
Back
Top Bottom