- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,191
- Reaction score
- 9,689
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Everybody is implying D-Day is a terrorist attack because it was an attack for a political purpose, and to instill fear in a certain group (the Nazis).
That is apparently the sole criteria for terrorism, so pretty much every act of violence in history is terrorism.
Every attack, of every kind, military, civilian, terrorist, all of them, have had "a planned result outside of the attack". That's the entire idea of attacks, to cause a result.
By this loan criteria of yours, EVERYTHING is terrorism. If I go shoot someone on the street, terrorism. Invasion of Iraq? Terrorism.
Bull****. No way does it take longer than 5 seconds to shoot someone who just cut your comrade. No self respecting soldier on the planet will start rendering first aid while the enemy is standing 2 feet from him.
There's no scenario where this is ok. They should be demoted for being worthless cowards.
It has to be a mass, indiscriminate attack against non-combatants in order to instill fear or cause a desired outcome.
For example: 9/11, Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City, etc.
Wrong examples: Punching someone in the face, stabbing someone, or committing crimes while muslim.
Couple of things you are ignoring. Terrorist actions are undertaken by civilians or non uniformed combatants. The intent of a given attack is to cause terror in the populace, it doesnt have a tactical or territorial purpose. The purpose is terror, not just any result.
How about kidnapping a lone soldier, beheading him then televising it? How do you qualify that?
This attack following so closely on the heels of the other attack appears suspicious. Im not saying its terrorism yet. Im saying it could be.