Thread: Is the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist?

Quote: Originally Posted by CoolHandCox I want to ask you about one quick point. How are you interpreting "appear intended to intimidate a civilian population" to require an influence of public policy? I've admittedly only read the statute, if there's caselaw or whatever that adds the influence public policy requirement let me know. It very well could. The point is not the intimidation. If someone is murdered in a...

This was absolutely in the "postal" category.

Quote: Originally Posted by intention The point is not the intimidation. If someone is murdered in a neighborhood, people in the area may be intimidated from going out on the street. But that doesn't make it terrorism. The point is to intimidate a group into doing something . Typically, although as you point out not exclusively, this is to intimidate people into changing some policy with public implications. Fair enough. I actually like...

Quote: Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic Basically it sounds like there's no way to really exclude anybody from the definition, because it's defined in whatever self-serving and arbitrary manner that the government (or anyone else) wants to define it. It's a word that basically has no definition but a demagogic one. Even if the U.S. statutory definition(s) of terrorism are not specific enough, it may not matter much,...

Quote: Originally Posted by intention Minor pet peeve: it's "bated" breath, from "abated", meaning you are holding your breath waiting for his answer. Not to argue, but I couldn't resist Dio's bait with that contradiction and I'll bet he has an incredible answer for a response.

Please flesh out your defense of B. I don't see future intimidation of bullies being relevant. Once the Columbine shooters were killed or jailed ,the threat was gone. I see it an an angry revenge shooting.

Quote: Originally Posted by DigitalC I didn't say anything about them being an enemy, personally that whole discussion seems pretty silly. I was agreeing with Dios claim that they are not a "serious threat to the U.S." which you seemed to find unbelievable. The you misunderstand - I disagree with using whether they are a serious threat as a major criterion in determining whether they are "enemy".

Quote: Originally Posted by Sidney Evgeni Jordan I realize that this is Great Debates, but I wish it was possible to ask for a cite without people getting worked up about it. In my posts in this thread I have been saying that we do not yet know Hasan's motivations or mental state at the time of the crime; for this reason I have not advocated for or against the "terrorism" issue. I am trying to evaluate the available...

Quote: Originally Posted by intention Declan, there is a precise definition of terrorist in the criminal code cited upthread. It does not say anywhere that someone has to be a member of a "terrorist organization or nation state that promotes terrorism" to be a terrorist. Yes i read that, what I was trying to convey was his target list while tragic , was not something that I would think would spread terror, suspicion...

Quote: Originally Posted by intention You are right, it could be just a coincidence that he wanted the Army to make special rules for Muslims, and when they didn't he killed as many Army personnel as he could. Or not ... Yeah, you see, you said that he did what he did to make the army allow more Muslims to be COs, but what he did isn't going to do that nor is it likely he meant for it to do that. But fuck it, right? Just keep saying...