- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,554
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
People practice their religion in a respectable and civilized manner all the time. They're like other ideologies in that sense; some are good, others are bad.
An act of terrorism would be more appropriate. His actions were not much different from a suicide bomber other than the fact he didn't die as well (yet)...
Closer, but there is no real evidence that I know of that his attack was motivated to end those wars.
So just to be sure. Every abortion clinic bombing isn't something you would label terrorism as your argue against those who call it such until a clear motive of hoping to coerce social or political change is found and proven? Simple religious or moral disdain for it would make it not terrorism, right?
Then show how it fits under the definition in US law.
So just to be sure. Every abortion clinic bombing isn't something you would label terrorism as your argue against those who call it such until a clear motive of hoping to coerce social or political change is found and proven? Simple religious or moral disdain for it would make it not terrorism, right?
I am pretty indifferent on the label "workplace violence". Not what I call it, but it does fall within the definition. See, there is this odd idea some of us have that words have meaning, and that the government should follow the laws it has, even when it isn't convenient. That you feel otherwise says alot.
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.
Since 9/11 wasn't politically motivated, apparently that was . . . what?? A bad hair day?
Allahu Akbar
Religious expression, not political.
There where I believe 3 definitions in various places in US law(babysitting so can't check right now). The Fort Hood killings did not fit any of them. Where you quoted me was in reference to one of those definitions. Until I can look at those definitions closely, I can't give you a clear answer.
Religious expression, not political.
Islam is BOTH a political and religious doctrine.
Do you consider the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist act? If so, please explain the differences...
Legally, dunno. I have not had time to read alot on it.
And you can prove political motivation? Bet you can't. By the way, we have already been over all this in the thread. You are welcomed to read it.
It was politically motivated. Try again.
Haven't had time to read a lot about which incident?
A guy, known to have correspondence with Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, yells "Allahu Akbar" right before killing a bunch of soldiers to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Apolitical?
See? Again, it's so difficult to make a true distinction between the two when it comes to Islam because Islam IS a totalitarian theocracy, encompassing just about all aspects of life.
Boston.
It is a religious statement, and some of his believed motivations fit with him using it.
It is a religious statement, and some of his believed motivations fit with him using it.
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?