Fort Hood victims upset; suspect can question them
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
For the same reason the recent London attack wasn't, the attack was against a military target not a civilian one therefore by definition it is not a terrorist attack.
A terrorist attack is defined as a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
I am assuming however this definition does not take into account any attack committed by known terrorist groups although given that "terrorist group" these days is anyone that disagrees with you it is a pretty murky process.
In this case though what does it matter what he is tried as the sentence will be the same.
A terrorist attack is defined as a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
I am assuming however this definition does not take into account any attack committed by known terrorist groups although given that "terrorist group" these days is anyone that disagrees with you it is a pretty murky process.
In this case though what does it matter what he is tried as the sentence will be the same.
Things can get murky on definitions. You have an attack by a Muslim reportedly saying "Allah akbar" during the attack on what would be commonly percieved as Christian members of the Army. Does seem to be an obvious case of a lone wolf moslim terrorist pulling off an attack. Then you have Obama the Magnificent declaring it to be a simple act of "workplace violence" like it was a case of a disgruntled worker shooting up his place of emplyment. As a result the victims of the attack aren't eligible for any recognition (Purple Heart, ect,) of this attack that seems obviously a chapter in "The War on Terror".
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
No offense but it seems people are determined to turn anything into a terrorist attack is there any difference between this case and the countless cases of "going postal" workplace killings?
As I have pointed out before a Muslim goes nuts and kills 20 people and it is "Islamic terrorism" a Christian goes nuts and kills 20 people and it is "an unfortunate incident by a madman not representative of the religion at all", the double standard is rather glaring.
I can't think of any mass shootings here where the gunman was exclaiming that God & Jesus was his Savior, or anything else, that would indicate it was religiously motivated by his Christian beliefs, vs the reported exclamations of Hassan(and others).
brinktk
Active member
Perhaps not mass shootings, but there have been shootings that were religiously motivated where christian zealots took the law into their own hands and gunned down people they deemed as evil...
I can think of several incidents where they also bombed clinics as well. (on the abortion side of things)
On the 1st part of the comment they would seem to be "deranged" about a specific individual, vs moslems who target general members of other religions. On the 2nd part, abortion clinic bombings & assasinations of abortion doctors are Terrorism, but they are different subsets of Terrorism. Clinic bombers bomb buildings because of what goes on in the buildings, abortion doctors who are assasinated are killed for the work they do, not for thier religious beliefs.
brinktk
Active member
"Radical" Muslems...not ALL Muslems...
The people who assassinate these doctors are doing it largely as a tenet of their religious conviction.
We wern't talking about all muslims, just the Terrorist ones. And you seemed to miss the point that when a Christian nut kills an abortion doctor it's not because the doctor is a Christian, a Hindu or whatever, but it's because of the work he does.
Because Chairman Obama said so.
On a more serious note it was terrorism likes look at what the defintion of terrorism is.
ter·ror·ism(tr
-r
z
m)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
He wanted US troops out of muslim countries and launched this attack in the hopes of accomplishing that. As has been stated this thread none of these soldiers were awarded purple hearts. Which goes to show the military and the government didn't regard it as a military action.
brinktk
Active member
"On the 1st part of the comment they would seem to be "deranged" about a specific individual, vs moslems who target general members of other religions"
that sounds like all muslims to me.
You're missing the point that all of them are targeting based off of what their interpretation of their religion tells them. To say either or is not an act of devotion in their eyes to their God is pretty convoluted.