Ft. Hood Attack Publicly Called “Terrorism”, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 24-2-2010 @ 02:24 PM by poedxsoldiervet
liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com...


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has become the first Obama Administration official to publicly describe last year's deadly shootings at Ft. Hood, Tex., as a terrorist act, according to a search of news clips and transcripts.

"Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning. "There is violent Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, [and] that is indeed a major focus of this department and its efforts."

In the months since an Army psychiatrist -- who had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen -- opened fired inside the Army base, many on Capitol Hill have urged administration officials to publicly identify the attack as terrorism.


reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 02:29 PM by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


About time! Get ready for the media talking the shooter as an al-queda member non stop. Is the shooter getting Life or Death?



reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 02:39 PM by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Sean48


What would you call him Sean?

I can understand your point there some called Stack a hero for flying a plane into a building for of Innocent IRSS workers. Or this Nutcase who turns his gun on his own troops.


reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 02:46 PM by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Sean48


I agree on that. Terrorism or not he still killed people. I might believe in survival of the fittest, but some do deserve to be locked away or worse.


reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 02:50 PM by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Sean48



Yes I would still call it Terrorism... I think Joe Stack is a Terrorist, Tim McVeigh, and Terry Nicols; They are all terrorist....

Now as far as the going postal thing, going in and shooting co-workers because your stressed is one thing, But he had ties to a radical Iman, who wants nothing more than to see the America fall... I think they finally made the right call.


reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 04:48 PM by getreadyalready
I would disagree about Stack and McVeigh. They are not terrorists.

The DC Sniper was a terrorist, and the Airline Hijackers were terrorists. Their intention was to strike "terror" in the heart of their targets that would outlive their single act. They wanted to change a lifestyle, they wanted to affect the way the witnesses of their act live.

McVeigh was just a criminal. He did a lot of property damage, he attacked innocent people, he had an agenda, but in order to call him a Terrorist, you would have to define all mass murderers and all organized crime syndicates as terrorism.



Definitions of terrorism on the Web:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism


Terrorist have the agenda of creating TERROR for a specific political or religious agenda.

McVeigh attacked a Federal Building. He wasn't trying to stop OKC residents from going to work, or trying to change their lifestyle. He was waging a one man war against the Federal Government.

Stack did a similar thing to the IRS. He wasn't threatening anybody, or trying to frighten anybody, or trying to create any terror. He was simply trying to attack a specific branch of government that he believed was out to get him.

These two are just run of the mill criminals with highly publicized cases.

On the other hand we have the DC Sniper. His entire goal was to prove that he could do whatever the dumba** police announced that he couldn't do. He was out to prove that nobody was safe. He made people afraid to pump gas, or walk to school. He began to impact the day to day activities of normal people. He was successful as a "terror"ist, but he was treated as a simple criminal?


reply posted on 24-2-2010 @ 05:27 PM by converge
reply to post by getreadyalready
You make a fair point, but I think this is where the whole thing becomes difficult to define.

You write that “terrorist have the agenda of creating TERROR for a specific political or religious agenda,” and say that Stack, for instance, wasn't trying to terrorize anybody. I agree with you. His motives, however, were political. The letter he wrote before carrying out his attack were political and ideological statements.

I'm on the fence about Joe Stack too and his attacks, on how to classify them, but if you qualify terrorism as actions to intentionally terrorize people, then does Hasan's Ft. Hood shooting qualify as such? He wasn't trying to “prevent people from going to work” like you say regarding McVeigh, and was Hasan intentionally trying to frighten people or were these the actions of a guy who disagreed with the Government's policies, snapped and killed people?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^