Thread: What is Terrorism
#1 What is Terrorism11-12-2009, 01:52 PM
I was thinking about this the other night so I will put the question(s) to the members of CU. What is your criteria for an action to be considered a terrorist act and does the Ft. Hood event meet that standard?
I see a terroristic act as one that is attempting to incite fear in the general population of the country it is aimed at and causing that population to alter it's behavior because of that fear. Using that as my standard, I don't see Ft. Hood so much as a terrorist act as it seems to be an action expressly aimed at the military to show it that infiltration of the ranks has been achieved. Indirectly it is an act of terrorism because of the way people responded to it, but I don't see terrorism at it's main goal.
Please, I don't want some big argument started here, I'm just interested in everyone opinions.Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
11-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Judge Napolitano on FOX said that the legal definition includes this - (paraphrased) 2 or more acts of violence with intent to cause change to American policy/law.
SOmething like that.
I say terrorism is any violent (or implied violence like a threat) against people that terrorizes.
Fort Hood was terrorism - under both Judge Napolitano and my definitions.If leftists didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
11-12-2009, 02:13 PM
Given that the FH killings have terrorised the families of the soldiers he killed and injured, and wrecked those families, it qualifies as a terrorist act. The fact that he effectively infiltrated the service to carry out his acts also qualifies.
He may not have conspired with AQ, but he still committed an act of terrorism (and treason) in my view.
11-12-2009, 02:18 PMit seems to be an action expressly aimed at the military to show it that infiltration of the ranks has been achievedI feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
11-12-2009, 02:23 PM
The question here is not whether the families of those killed were terrorized by the event because they most certainly were, the question is was that the shooter's primary intention?Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
11-12-2009, 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by FlaGator
Last edited by hampshirebrit; 11-12-2009 at 02:26 PM.
11-12-2009, 02:26 PMNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
11-12-2009, 02:28 PMNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
11-12-2009, 02:36 PM
If you have two armies or combined arms going against each other that is war, declared or not, not terrorism. It may also have the effect of terrorising the civilian populations, but it's still symmetric, not asymmetric warfare.
If you have a non-governmental group or individual attacking either civilian or military targets, that's terrorism, even if the perpetrator has successfully infiltrated an armed service as in this case.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|