Fort Hood stuff is happening!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

A terrorist attack is some aggressive behavior by a group trying to influence a society by the use of fear.

Which is precisely what I consider this to have been. "Group" is not necessary to the definition, you will note on reflection -- Sirhan Sirhan and the late Timmy McVeigh come to mind.

And among the punditocracy: Obama's Wakeup Call?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Which is precisely what I consider this to have been. "Group" is not necessary to the definition, you will note on reflection -- Sirhan Sirhan and the late Timmy McVeigh come to mind.

And among the punditocracy: Obama's Wakeup Call?

"Group" is certainly necessary in the definition of a terrorist act under US law, as is a political motivation or intent to intimidate or coerce.

MCVeigh was not tried as a terrorist, but as a mass murderer. He acted alone (or with one co-conspirator) and there was no evidence of it being a political act.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Its possible. But even if he was influenced by a terrorist group, unless there is a larger strategy behind the killings,...
The only success I see from this, from the terrorist perspective, is that SOME MAY BE trying to discriminate against Muslims because of this, polarizing Muslims, and making them choose from being loyal to a society that treats them as second class citizens or fighting against them (that is Al Qaeda's grand stategy IMO). But that still is a massive stretch.

I don't see that as such a stretch. . . Would you have even considered the coordinated attacks including 9/11 as a "massive stretch?" If not, then you are in the very small minority.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I don't see that as such a stretch. . . Would you have even considered the coordinated attacks including 9/11 as a "massive stretch?" If not, then you are in the very small minority.

I worded that badly. Of course some people are going to discriminate against Muslims because of this. But, I believe it is a stretch that the attack was made for the strategy of getting non-Islamic westerners to discriminate against Muslims. There are other and much more effective methods. Random shoot ups are rarely strategic. Bombs, gas, etc, work much better.

[TheMercenary]

@ Bruce's pic....

[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.

[classicman]

no no no - The radicals may have seen this as an opportunity to gather more support for their cause and help unite their brethren in America.
I don't think this had much, if anything to do with discrimination.

[Cloud]

Maj. Hasan, . . .was shot several times during the incident and remains under intensive medical care. His lawyer said doctors have determined Maj. Hasan will remain paralyzed from his chest down and incontinent for the rest of his life.

judgment from on high? Maybe Allah is paying attention after all.

[piercehawkeye45]

\facepalm

[ZenGum]

cry out for divine punishment. Let´s punish, and punish, and punish

At last, your god-delusion is exposed

Seriously, in reply to

Frankly, where's the downside ...

The downside is for every extremeist we kill, two of his cousins swing from sympathiser to activist, and five of his neighbours swing from neutral to sympathiser. Just like fighting the Hydra, cutting the heads off one at a time doesn't get you anywhere.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But that begs the question, does the homicide bomber recruit more supporters by;
1-us killing him,
2-him successfully killing others?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The downside is for every extremeist we kill, two of his cousins swing from sympathiser to activist, and five of his neighbours swing from neutral to sympathiser. Just like fighting the Hydra, cutting the heads off one at a time doesn't get you anywhere.

Actually, no. And in any case, what of it? They die too -- two more well directed bullets, two fascists made into good fascists. And everyone around them says of them, "Those guys were complete idiots." Fundamentally simple, is it not? Particularly if you assume the supply of fascists is finite, which is my supposition and I've not seen much to contradict it, if anything at all. What needs to happen is that those who decide to assail the Leviathan get dealt a short lifespan, with no profit and no chance to breed others like themselves.

Insurgencies get ground down by holistic measures -- I'd like you to stop thinking I don't understand that. We who fight the insurgents also work on their societies, to undermine any feelings of grievance or any improper understanding of globalization's progress. Agitators, representatives of undemocratic social orders, try to stir their youth up to attack us. Yet their success is limited, and much of the blowing up is of coreligionist Muslims -- getting blown up for the offense of not subscribing to the terr's brand of thinking.

Cultures are tough things; they are not broken nor wiped away by widened trade, nor the freest flow of finances, security, people, goods, and ideas. The agitators generally couch their rabblerousings in terms of defending the purity of their culture, but this "defense" is not of the culture but of the privileges of the élite. Political liberty and highly secure property rights are essential building blocks -- our troubles come from places lacking in one or both, not from other parts of the world that have figured these out.

Education of girls and women will be important in this -- so important that anybody attacking a girls' school should be hunted down and dismembered in public, perhaps by insertion of a rectumful of Semtex (250 grammes ought to do; a kilo is overkill and bad for surrounding plate glass) and a blasting cap. We should show the anticivilized, anti-wealth, antidemocracy opposition that the world will no longer indulge their illegitimacy, but will move not to merely kill, but to vaporize it.

Hanging from a lamppost is just as public, just as effective, and less noisy too. Or borrow a gas station and string 'em up by the heels there, as was done with Mussolini.

Your problem, Zen, is that your present position is one of moral cowardice in the face of terroristic antiglobalist fanatical factions, and insufficient belief in the inherent worth of the liberal democracy those factions attack. I don't have that problem, and I'm here to tell you you don't need it, but can live a better life without it. Take a life-lesson, and review your values and your soul. It is not itself evil to battle to destroy evil.