• 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
1069 said:
terrorist attacks, by definition, are attacks against civilian- as opposed to military- targets.
So, no.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

.
 
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:
1069 said:
If attacking a military target is "terrorism, then what's the difference between terrorism and standard warfare?
Click to expand...

please see:

TOJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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]
 
You left out the "too early to tell" option.
 
1069 said:
terrorist attacks, by definition, are attacks against civilian- as opposed to military- targets.
So, no.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? :doh
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's absolutely absurd that we could have terrorists...hiding right...under...our....noses....


Terrorist.network.map%201.gif


Oh lawd.
 
Our enemies have adapted will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.
Click to expand...

Most of them are just impoverished and uneducated peasants.
True, they're determined, but how hard can it be to kick their butts, really?
We're the most powerful and technologically advanced military force the world has ever known.
 
1069 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bad comparison.

"Shock and Awe" was declared openly and delivered afterward with a clear understanding that we were at war with Hussein's regime - not the shopkeeper on the corner. Our enemy, on the other hand, sneaks up and slaughters without any obediance to rules and then delivers a message from behind masks of their "justifications" why civilians were targetted.

You would have been better off using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a comparison. But in the end, this philosophical stand about how we are all the same is garbage. In the end there are winners and losers. And for the last few centuries, "God" has been pummeling "Allah" on every social and military level. Which civilization do you wish to be a part of today?
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
Most of them are just impoverished and uneducated peasants.
True, they're determined, but how hard can it be to kick their butts, really?
We're the most powerful and technologically advanced military force the world has ever known.
Click to expand...

Also: They're determined, and that determination transfers to our own neglected and downtrodden populations such as convicts and social outcasts who pick up the ideology and don't have some of the telltale signs of a terrorist until it's too late.

also, I'm sure the Soviet Union had the same sentiments about Afghanistan.
 
Jerry said:
I'm going with terrorist attack.

Just another towel-head pissed off because we let our women vote. **** him.
Click to expand...

Can you provide me with some proof that this man was pissed off about the womens right to vote? Maybe I missed something but have heard nothing of the sort?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Also: They're determined, and that determination transfers to our own neglected and downtrodden populations such as convicts and social outcasts who pick up the ideology and don't have some of the telltale signs of a terrorist until it's too late.

also, I'm sure the Soviet Union had the same sentiments about Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Soviet Union would've kicked their asses too, if we hadn't been arming and abetting them against the Soviets.
 
1069 said:
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.

Shock and awe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


We go Democracy, all over their collective faces. We're all like "Do you wanna go that way? Do you really wanna go that way?" and they're all like "Yeah, we wanna go that way" so...we go that way. And so the way is gone...the way is gone hard you know? and then we're like "Do you still wanna go this way? Do you want to take it down that way, cause that's the way we're headed" and they're apparently like "That's the way we like it so let's take it that way" and so once more we take it that way and, wow, let me tell you. It most certainly is taken that way. That way...well, it's taken. hard.
 
We go Democracy, all over their collective faces.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's working out real well. :roll:
I think we've pretty much abandoned the whole "exporting democracy" plan at this point.
 
This idea that the shooter was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is as silly as...well...every other apocryphal liberal argument in defense of terrorists and violent felons.

Can liberals just go one day without coddling terrorists? I mean, seriously...:doh
 
GySgt said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you know he did not leave note somewhere? I am sure there are things they are not making public. What about him handing out the Quran before it all happened? That could be a message.
 
Kali said:
How do you know he did not leave note somewhere? I am sure there are things they are not making public. What about him handing out the Quran before it all happened? That could be a message.
Click to expand...

Like he'd tell the truth in a note. It'd be an excellent cover though, thanks for bringing that up!
 
1069 said:
Most of them are just impoverished and uneducated peasants.
True, they're determined, but how hard can it be to kick their butts, really?
We're the most powerful and technologically advanced military force the world has ever known.
Click to expand...

Yet it only took a handful of them to bring New York City to it's knees. It's the few of them that have the entire world pointing weapons in all directions. And it is the most of them that become the few. And in the end, our technological wonder land is being matched against an impoverished, uneducated peasant with an IED. When it comes to the media and world opinion, who is getting a bigger "bang" for their buck?

It doesn't seem to matter that dozens to a hundred of our enemy gets slaughtered in a single's day of fighting. What matters is that 4 American deaths have started to equal our defeat to the ignorant in even the west. We are in a war against time. Eventually, no matter what we do will equal defeat to the masses.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Like he'd tell the truth in a note. It'd be an excellent cover though, thanks for bringing that up!
Click to expand...

We have no clue if he left some sort of message behind at this point. We are not aware of everything going on no matter how much the media wants us to think otherwise. :roll:
 
Kali said:
Can you provide me with some proof that this man was pissed off about the womens right to vote? Maybe I missed something but have heard nothing of the sort?
Click to expand...



Alright Captain Serious Business. I'm gonna have to ask you to take a deep breath and not consider everything you read here as fact, truth, or honest opinion. There are things called sarcasm, trolls, and morons out there on the internet and well, you're gonna go crazy or look like an ass if you take everything so serious.

;)
 
1069 said:
Yeah, the Soviet Union would've kicked their asses too, if we hadn't been arming and abetting them against the Soviets.
Click to expand...

This is a fact too many people gloss over in their quest to declare Afghanistan unwinnable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom