Fort Hood stuff is happening!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?

As you said, ". . .political motivation or attempt to intimidate or coerce." I'd count a large explosion as intimidating, particularly so if it's downtown. And would it necessarily have to be thought out in any organized or complete fashion before the guy starts building his car bomb or dragging his footlocker full of guns and ammo to the top of that Texas tower?

Trying him for mass murder simply indicates that we don't have or take political prisoners in our system. This will likely also be pointed out in the upcoming KSM-et-alia trial if that attempt to try POW's ever gets going. I don't see the good in that, except perhaps the negative result of showing an entire generation that the law-enforcement paradigm should not substitute for the war-fighting paradigm.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?

As you said, ". . .political motivation or attempt to intimidate or coerce." I'd count a large explosion as intimidating, particularly so if it's downtown. And would it necessarily have to be thought out in any organized or complete fashion before the guy starts building his car bomb or dragging his footlocker full of guns and ammo to the top of that Texas tower?

Trying him for mass murder simply indicates that we don't have or take political prisoners in our system. This will likely also be pointed out in the upcoming KSM-et-alia trial if that attempt to try POW's ever gets going. I don't see the good in that, except perhaps the negative result of showing an entire generation that the law-enforcement paradigm should not substitute for the war-fighting paradigm.

There was no threat of further action, no claim that the bombing was in response to......or demands for the US government to...(pick one - release prisoners, withdrawal US troops from anywhere, end its support of Israel, or even more localized demands like providing better health care and/or jobs to homeless vets,....).

There was no strategy to use the bombing to further any political goals, either personally or of an organization.

It was an act of an angry or emotionally unstable man (men).

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?

Just because the motivation was political doesn't mean it is equivalent to something like the 9/11 attacks. For example, let say we have a kid who gets bullied a lot at school, so he breaks down, gets a gun, and shoots up the school. Then, another kid with the same situation, finds his three biggest bullies, hangs them in front of the school, and says anyone else who bullies will get the same fate. Both had the same cause and motivation but the second had an actual strategy to change the social setup of the school using fear. There is a clear difference and the second is much more dangerous because it attempts to control others.

I did not see any strategy related to McVeigh even if the attack was political in nature. Same with the Fort Hoot shootings. Al Qeada wants to US to keep attacking Islamic countries, forcing pro-Western Muslims to choose between those two identities, causing a war between the west and Islam. That is much more dangerous then anything McVeigh did or what happened at Fort Hood.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Al Qaeda wants to US to keep attacking Islamic countries, forcing pro-Western Muslims to choose between those two identities, causing a war between the west and Islam.

Which "forcing" doesn't seem to be a matter of much moment to the pro-Western Muslims in question.

Frankly, where's the downside in making anti-Westernism extinct by shortening its practitioners' lifespans? Can anti-Westernism endure a thousand years of pruning? I doubt it. The arrogant anti-globalist, woman-abusing Islamofascists cry out for divine punishment. Let´s punish, and punish, and punish, until it is no longer fashionable in any circle to remain stupid. Let us provide our death-loving opponents with a glut. Show the world their unprofitability.

They're actually doing a pretty fair job of this already. The working definition of a terrorist is somebody whose ideas are so unpopular he can only press them by violence. The terrs are spending more time and explosives blowing their co-religionists up than anything else. In the name, apparently, of scaring off the West.

What happens to those guys if the West doesn't scare, but comes a-hunting?

A rope and a lamppost, I think.