Printable View
Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
Update: Police say Suspect Targeted Military
All the same muddy questions as in the first thread we can ask here, but as gugi said in the first thread,"Play nice"
Again, all rather cut and dry...but is it?
I also wonder if this will hit the news cycle like the good doctors story or will the media let it die for...let us just say their own reasons?
I started this thread as I noted some making the comparison of the man who shot the good doctor to a terrorist.
i don't know what defines somebody as a terrorist, but the link says that they'll charge him as such.
Well, I have to say it's murder pretty plain and simple. I don't, for a minute, imagine that the shooter really ever spent any time pickiting that recruitment center, or pamphliting, or speaking out against the war in any meaningful way. I'm willing to bet he didn't even vote in the last election. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to take their protest to the level of homicide without first exhausting all the other possibilities, and I think he needs to be put in prison. In fact, I suspect that his fantasy is to be imprisoned for his beliefs. Guess what? He's actually going to to prison for murder.
One point to ponder: if one of the recruiters was a pregnant female and she died and the baby died he would be up for 2 counts of murder. If someone shot him before he could pull off a round to kill the recruiter they would be a hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by joesixpack
I find inconsistencies fascinating.
uhm, i'm not sure whether pregnant recruiters fits the military code.
the murder counts is legal matter and i'm pretty sure that it'll be a single count.
On a positive note, it's good to see there are still some people willing to give a helping hand...
YouTube - China bridge jumper 'gets a push' 1
Now that's a whole new can of worms, if the "helper" didn't have psychiatric problems, what could/should he be charged with?:confused:
Thats right ray. Just go ahead and add to the fun! As if this thread isn't going to get rather muddy without your help!:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Rajagra
I'm not sure I would call this an inconsistency... Whether or not the recruiter was a pregnant female doesn't really have anything to do with "hero" intervention. I'd say the person is still a hero either way if he/she stops a wacko from shooting somebody.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Unless I missed the point of your statement completely, in which case, I apologize. I'm a few drinks in and it's muddied the water, so to speak.
Cheers,
Ogie
Someone, who shall remain nameless Ogie;):D, compared the murderer of the good doctor in my previous thread to a terrorist and I was pointing out an inconsistency, not only to the comparison but to legalized abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oglethorpe
Haha! Right you are my friend. I believe I was (one of) the nameless someones.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
And, if you asked me again (and I suppose you are), I would say that this crime has the same terrorist properties -- cowardice, shame, and I forget what the last thing I said was, but that, too. As far as I'm concerned, any time someone attacks someone else who is innocent and/or defenseless for some "cause", I'd say that's pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Told you I was a few drinks deep. I already forgot what I wrote this afternoon!
Bottoms up!
Ogie
So, by your definition abortion is an act of terrorism. Is that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oglethorpe
I swore after that last thread that I wasn't going to post if it wasn't straight razor related ..... never say never.... :shrug: I haven't looked it up in the dictionary but I am under the impression that someone who uses violence to affect political change is by definition a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
:roflmao:roflmao I have that effect on people!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
In my eyes it's simple. Anyone who uses terror to achieve his ends is a terrorist. * I expect that man wanted to strike fear in other doctors doing similar abortion work, so yes, I'd call him a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
(*) Of course that implies that there are "good" terrorists as well as bad ones, legally acting ones as well as illegally acting ones...
The phrase "good terrorists" sounds odd, but when we firebombed Germany in WW2 I'd call that terrorism, but ultimately in a good cause. Same thing nuking Hiroshima.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
So were the founding fathers terrorists, just trying to refine the definition and not putting words into anybody's mouth.
I've made that particular pledge a couple of times now...in fact, I promised mysef I wouldn't even READ a thread that wasn't razor related.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
See how that's worked out for me? :rolleyes:
OK, now here's my trouble.
The guy is a murderer. Absolutely. But why terrorist? I mean...why did they go through the theater of calling the bomb squad? Did he make bomb threats? Did he say he was going to kill all the infidels in the great Satan? There seems to be a lot of information missing from the news...
Or, and I might be opening up a whole NEW can of worms, might it POSSIBLY be because he is a muslim, or probably more likely a member of the Nation of Islam (not EXACTLY the same thing, I believe...)?
According to Wikipedia (not an unimpeachable source, I know, but also not total crap), the government uses 5 criteria in the definition of terrorism in line with DHS anti-terrorist action: Violence (Check), Psychological impact and fear (Arguable, could go either way...), Perpetrated for a politcal goal (intent--so it might be, we've not actually been told), Deliberate targeting of non-combatants (Hmmm....recruiters are not active combatants, but they ARE military. The language clearly states that civilian targets are part of the criteria for terrorism...This is the big question, in my opinion); Illegality (goes without saying...).
CNN features the following
"Police have arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in connection with the shooting. He has been charged [sic] first-degree murder and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act for shooting at an occupied building. Military officials believe that Muhammad may have been targeting soldiers."
So...Shooting at an occupied building is terrorism? Even if you deliberately target non-civilians? Hmmm....
If you were british.....yesQuote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Absolutely not. But I see where you are going (innocent/defenseless, etc). In these two articles I am directing my terrorist comments towards the shooters.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I stated before that I'm not offering my stance on abortion, but you can infer it based on my responses here.
I see the two cases as related in the attacks, but unrelated abortion. Abortion is a whole different animal (especially as it relates to terrorist activities.
Well I don't think so but King George III thought they were for sure. :) I guess it is like former President Truman said in an interview when asked about the American civil war and Quantrill's Raiders, "The winners write the history". So if you were, like President Truman, from Independence, Missouri they were freedom fighters and if you were from Lawrence, Kansas they were terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
IIRC the founding fathers like all of the colonists were British. So would they have considered themselves terrorists. Still looking for that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Great job Jimmy!:rofl2: So is one mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter? BTW I believe the shooter was simply a criminal unless they can find some other evidence that would prove it as a terrorist act.
BTW#2 The best thing to ever happen to Lawrence kansas was a kitchen match. The red legged murderers had it coming.
:OTI guess it's off topic...:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
It's been a long time since I read up on it. Maybe thirty years, but I recall reading that President Washington had been a loyalist and was reluctant to see the colonies declare independence. Old King George's policies finally convinced him.
Of course! By definition...he is his own freedom fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Well it looks like I'm the only one willing to interpret the word literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Redefining words that already have perfectly good meanings is a slippery slope. It makes it impossible to have rational discussions. And that's why they do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
I'm awake and slept off the drinks. This definition of terrorism is on par with what Ray gave us earlier in the thread, plus "for political purposes". I also believe nobody would find argument if we said "for political and religious purposes".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
THIS is why abortion is not terrorism, JMS (at least by definition). There's no cause behind abortion, aside from the fact that somebody is trying to shirk the responsibility of raising a child (in non-rape, non-incest, etc cases). I wouldn't call that political (or religious).
As for the quote above (nun2sharp), I'd say that the act could be labeled terrorist (not just criminal) if we infer that the attacker was targeting the recruiters to inhibit the ability to train more soldiers for American campaigns. Based upon the fact that the attack was carried out in such a way and not just at random (i.e. a Columbine-esque shooting spree), I'm willing to presume there was political motive.
Of course, this is my opinion, but as logic would play out based upon the definition (since you asked), I think it holds up pretty well.
Time to make the donuts,
Ogie
I really wouldn't consider the founding fathers to be terrorists, they were more of a militia that engaged in guerrilla warfare, kind of like the viet cong. Of course, that type of warfare was frowned on at the time, so they may have fit the definition of 18th century terrorists. They didn't kill civilians and try to terrorize the populace, just make things so bothersome and expensive for the British that they would want to leave, so they don't really seem to fit the modern definition of terrorists.
Well... Texas is always talking about wanting to secede. What if a group of texans started an armed militia and used guerilla warfare against US military personnel and attacking Federal buildings to make texas to bothersome and expensive for the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_S
As long as they stuck to military targets and didn't pull Tim Mcvays then I really wouldn't call them terrorists. Rebels, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
To further your example, say 70% of the Texas populace decided to join the fight and engaged in open warfare with the US military? Would they still be terrorists?
But I agree the line between terrorist, freedom fighter, and rebel is fairly thin (and in some cases interchangeable), prolly helped by the fact that "terrorist" sells more newspapers then an alternate word. My idea of a terrorist is pretty similar to the one given above, where they use fear as an instrument of political change, are usually willing to attack civilian targets, and don't really engage in traditional military actions. The founding fathers really didn't conform to this, in my opinion.
Let's forget the word "terrorist" and just describe who we are talking about by what they are doing :p
I have to agree with that. A case in point being the 1916 uprising in Dublin. The IRB fought the British army. Years after the Irish Free State fell apart and Michael Collins was assassinated the IRA expanded to indiscriminate bombing and such. Still there are many who would defend what they did and call them freedom fighters... I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_S