• 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
I think some of you would fret over the hairsplitting motivational nuances of the shooter while you were standing in his line of fire amid incoming rounds. :roll::mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I think some of you would fret over the hairsplitting motivational nuances of the shooter while you were standing in his line of fire amid incoming rounds. :roll::mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about labeling it anything in that situation.
 
Well, it's really too early to tell what this guy's motivations are.

Either way, if it turns out there was some political/religious agenda behind his actions, then I'd say that it was not a terrorist attack. Like others said, I don't consider an attack on an army base a terrorist attack. In my opinion terrorism targets civilians, not military personnel.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I remember being scared whenever he was on the loose, much more so than any other time (other than the time my High school got shot up in 2005, bet the thread is still around here somewhere).

But I don't recall any intent to push an ideology or a religion it appeared to be nothing but the commitment to kill people.

--------------------------------------
Click to expand...

They were successful in sweeping his jihadism under the rug.

John Allen Muhammad (born December 31, 1960) is a spree killer from the United States. With his younger partner, Lee Boyd Malvo, he carried out the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks, killing 10 people. Muhammad and Malvo were arrested in connection with the attacks on October 24, 2002, following tips from alert citizens. Born John Allen Williams, Muhammad joined the Nation of Islam in 1987 and later changed his surname to Muhammad.[1] Drawings by Malvo describe the murders as part of a "jihad" (Arabic for "struggle").[2]
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad]John Allen Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Scroll to the bottom to see his jihadist scrawlings.

Michelle Malkin THE JIHADI SNIPERS REVISITED
 
You know what would be a reeeeeeeally interesting poll?

How many of us who are all worked up over this jihadist crap on the one hand have a problem with the concept of a "hate crime" on the other.

Murder is murder. It doesn't matter if he yelled ALLAH ACKBAR or DIRKA DIRKA JIHAD or EAT AT JOES or I LOVE OBAMA.
 
Doesent seem like just a random mad man psychopath.I could be wrong but im guessing motivated by islamic extremism he decided to kill "infidels".
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You know what would be a reeeeeeeally interesting poll?

How many of us who are all worked up over this jihadist crap on the one hand have a problem with the concept of a "hate crime" on the other.

Murder is murder. It doesn't matter if he yelled ALLAH ACKBAR or DIRKA DIRKA JIHAD or EAT AT JOES or I LOVE OBAMA.
Click to expand...

Well of course it is.Of course the result is the same but if it is terrorism it could suggest similar attacks to follow.Motivation is important.
 
bhkad said:
Are you saying a lone nut job can't be a terrorist?

Think John Mohammad, the DC sniper.
Click to expand...

Yes, lone nut jobs CAN be terrorists. The unibomber would be an example as he had a specific ideological agenda that he was attempting to push through fear by his actions.

The sniper would not be in my mind. As of now there doesn't seem like any over whelming evidence that he was doing his killings with the outward, stated or obvious purpose to push for an ideological agenda through fear tactics.

Simply causing people to be afraid for their lives is not "terrorism" in my mind. If that was the case every single robber could be a "Terrorist" cause I think most people are at least a little terrified if a gun is pointed at them or even if they're just being robbed.

In general for it to be terrorism in my eyes it needs at least a number of the following...

- Tied to some kind of group or network whose whole purpose is terrorism (eco, politico, religious, etc)

- Done in conjunction with something (letters sent out, video left behind, message clearly shown through the actual act, etc) that shows it was done in hopes of pushing an ideological agenda of some kind through fear and intimidation

- Done in a repeated fashion against a specific ideological target in hopes of causing problems for that target (repeatedly sending bombs to whatever company happens to be having a meeting with a CEO of one the person dislikes....repeated attacks against a number of churches in hopes of keeping people from going to church due to dislike for religion....attacking a number of government offices due to a grievance with the political party in power, etc)

- Specifically targeting Civilian targets, generally in such a way that it is random or focused more on simply a high total through collateral damage, giving the impression of "it could be anyone anywhere"

Doesn't have to fit into all those different things, but it generally needs a number of them for me to consider it a terrorist act. I think the word "Terrorism" gets thrown around far to much and too frequently, and far to often if they simply have "muslim" attached to them people immediately jump to that even if the exact same thing happened and he wasn't muslim it wouldn't be. Being muslim or not is not a criteria for Terrorism in my mind. There's been terrorism before muslims, there will be terrorism after muslims.
 
Phoenix said:
Terrorist attack or not?
Click to expand...

terrorist attacks, by definition, are attacks against civilian- as opposed to military- targets.
So, no.
 
This thread prompted me to go look up the definition of terrorism... only to find that nobody can agree on exactly what it is.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism]Definition of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The best source to use is probably the legal definitions used by the U.S. government.

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331[25] defines terrorism as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."
Click to expand...

The second definition... it seems to fit, to some extent.

The first definition is trickier, since the shooter would have to be part of a "subnational group" or "clandestine agents", and while soldiers are not "noncombatant targets", they weren't deployed....

For now I'm going to say "no" because there is nothing to suggest that the shooter was part of a terrorist organization, and because he attacked soldiers instead of civilians. It will probably become clearer in the future, as more information is released, whether this is really a "terrorist attack", whatever that even is.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Still soldiers and a legitimate military target. Military personnel and equipment are always a legitimate target.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Don't know what else to say.
 
I think the guy was just nuts.
He was scared ****less of going to Afghanistan.
Part of his fear was no doubt for his own physical comfort and safety; he was a coward.
Part of it might have been rooted in an internal conflict he was having because of the remote possibility he might be called upon to actually enter into combat against other Muslims, possibly even have to kill them.
That possibility is remote because of his rank and job description, although probably more likely in Afghanistan (where he was headed) than anywhere else in the world.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Still soldiers and a legitimate military target. Military personnel and equipment are always a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

I disagree when the perp is "one of them" and they [the victims] are not actively prepared for battle.
 
Phoenix said:
I disagree when the perp is "one of them" and they [the victims] are not actively prepared for battle.
Click to expand...

That's a training issue, then. Ever since Pearl Harbor every military installation in the US should be prepared to become a target at any time.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's a training issue, then.
Click to expand...
True. We need to do a better job of training the military to deal with militant muslim terrorists before they strike.
 
I'm going to vote Terrorist attack to further all the unjust fear-mongering going on against the Religion of Peace because I want to see this confrontation come to a head...wait...what's that? The Muslims are already doing the job by themselves? DAMMIT! Every time those damn Muslims make themselves look bad before I can even get a chance. :(
 
EpicDude86 said:
I'm going to vote Terrorist attack to further all the unjust fear-mongering going on against the Religion of Peace because I want to see this confrontation come to a head...wait...what's that? The Muslims are already doing the job by themselves? DAMMIT! Every time those damn Muslims make themselves look bad before I can even get a chance. :(
Click to expand...

There are nearly 4,000 Muslims serving honorably in the US army.
How dare you slander our troops.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's a training issue, then. Ever since Pearl Harbor every military installation in the US should be prepared to become a target at any time.
Click to expand...

Well if he was in uniform that'd make it a little harder to notice.
 
Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


The Fort Hood attack was less of a "terrorist" attack and more of a lone desire to lash out. Motivated by his Palestinian background and faced with a situation where he was at war against his own, he may have had religious and ideological motives. But in the end, there was no collaberation to any groups nor was there any statement planned to justify his act. Because he lived through this instead of going out with a "bang" for Allah, he will undoubteldy state his peace. But if all had gone according to plan, there would have been no "justifaction."

This was a criminal act and it just so happens to have had religion behind it. Of course, if it were a terrorist act, it would most certainly fall into the "Apocalyptic" category.
 
GySgt said:
Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


The Fort Hood attack was less of a "terrorist" attack and more of a lone desire to lash out. Motivated by his Palestinian background and faced with a situation where he was at war against his own, he may have had religious and ideological motives. But in the end, there was no collaberation to any groups nor was there any statement planned to justify his act. Because he lived through this instead of going out with a "bang" for Allah, he will undoubteldy state his peace. But if all had gone according to plan, there would have been no "justifaction."

This was a criminal act and it just so happens to have had religion behind it. Of course, if it were a terrorist act, it would most certainly fall into the "Apocalyptic" category.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom