MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Translation: Muslim + violence = terrorism?
You have to commit an act of terrorism to be called a terrorist. In my world, shooting at enemy soldiers is not terrorism. In your world, all of our combat troops are terrorists.
I actually served with a black muslim when I was in the navy. Really great guy, smart as hell and incredibly motivated. The problem is not the religion, it is what some people do in the name of religion.
Again, from your own link:
Do you have such a powerful need to be right on this point that you ignore the Federal definition and don't see his actions as intimidating?? Oh!! Or perhaps you are just that desperate to buy the party line.
Your position is ridiculous. You really ought to stop.
lol, right, the religion just works as a mechanism to dehumanize, while instigating such people be targeted for violence. Again, this is like claiming nazism had no impact on how the Germans reacted after ww1
Whether you are intimidated or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he intended to intimidate. There is no evidence he did.
You can call his actions what you want, to fit your own personal definition of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the government has to work within it's framework of laws, and we both know if the government deemed something to be what it is not necessarily under the law, you would be the first one crying about it.
I see what you are saying, but I don't see how it doesn't fit. I think the fact that he allegedly screamed out his God's name while committing the murders kind of shows an intent to intimidate people in the name of his God.
Possibly, but religious motivation does not fit under the US definition of terrorism. Politics and religion are different things in the eyes of the law, and with good reason.
I don't believe that's the case with Islam though. I think that Islam has all the bases covered, politics, religion, you name it. Obviously countries that are Muslim-dominated are theocracies for the most part with very few exceptions I think.
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.
Fort Hood was just an incidence of workplace violence, wasn't it?
Whether you are intimidated or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he intended to intimidate. There is no evidence he did.
You can call his actions what you want, to fit your own personal definition of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the government has to work within it's framework of laws, and we both know if the government deemed something to be what it is not necessarily under the law, you would be the first one crying about it.
Point being, how to untangle that web and determine the exact motivation when the two are so closely entwined. :shrug: Religion and politics I mean.
According to the government it was.
Fort Hood was just an incidence of workplace violence, wasn't it?
I doubt very much I would use the word "just" to describe it in any way.
I think you err on the side of understatement. I think that is consistent with US law.
I do not much care for religions for that reason. However, the problems with religions in general are much greater than specific religions.
And we both know that if the government declared this was not Workplace Violence (which is joke in and of itself) that you, Redress, would not be arguing that it was Workplace Violence. So I say we stalemated.
As usual.
Government classifies incidents as it sees fit in order to suit its agenda...
The Fort Hood attack happened in the US, perpetrated by an American. We are not a theocracy. Further, most religions get involved in politics.
What would be the way you describe it?
A massive ****ing tragedy perpetrated by a vile individual would be the start.
If I thought for a moment that this was just some guy who happened to crack so to speak, then I would agree that it was workplace violence. However, there seems to be a lot more involved with that particular incident IMO. I believe there were mixed up (as are most Islamic extremists) religious/political motivations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?