^It is difficult sometimes to distinigusih whether someone is being a smart aleck or joking around.

I don't believe an act of terrorism has to kill anyone to be deemed so, therefore, it's not just a euphamism for murder. It's any act that is designed to harm/kill, and send a message of fear.

 

I agree. In brief, I would also add that I believe terrorism to be an overtly political act and one that is attributable to a larger cause (i.e. I don't believe a terroristic act can be the isolated act of one person). But, it's a nearly indefinable word.

Does it really matter?

Does it really matter?

 

Yes and I'll attempt to explain my position briefly. It's a matter of preventing and combating future violence. Obviously, If a conventional army had attacked the US it would be a cut and dry case of military retaliation and war. If a terroristic act, the organization, doctrine, ideas and goals all have to be addressed. The military can't invade a terrorist organization or their ideas, a much broader solution is needed to secure safety. If this is an isolated incident, then solutions that address the specifics of the situation are needed, but no larger threat exists.

To charge someone with a terroristic act I believe the guideline has to with trying to intimidate the public and government.

^It is difficult sometimes to distinigusih whether someone is being a smart aleck or joking around.

Easy to understand, considering my ability to convey my thoughts to keyboard are very poor to say the least.

I agree. In brief, I would also add that I believe terrorism to be an overtly political act and one that is attributable to a larger cause (i.e. I don't believe a terroristic act can be the isolated act of one person). But, it's a nearly indefinable word.

I disagree with you on this point. I believe any Thomas, Deio or Hamza can commit an act of terror on their own with no connection to any terrorist group or organization.

So its not an "Obama" issue but, rather, a "government" issue, correct?

 

It is a political correctness issue in government. Even Bush was not immune, as he renamed a military action code-named Infinite Justice, because the Islamic leaders protested the name. Obama is a huge PC supporter.

It's not IMO.

 

I don't recall the media/taking heads spending so much time labeling it as "terrorism" when the clinic in Birmingham (I think) was blown up. Why? Is it because the guy was a Christian? Is it because it was in the name of "right to life?" Is it because he wasn't Islam?

 

I guess that's my real point in posing the question. We all agree that the taking of life is the taking of life no matter how we label it. I'm just curious why so many are now rushing to call THIS act terrorism when so many others weren't even considered to be anything other than a nutjob.

Do we agree that the "nut" in the abortion clinic bombing did the bombing out of a religious belief? If so, how is that any different than Hasan?

 

 

The difference is that Hasan wants to take down the entire nation. Both have misrepresented their faiths. I am open to being convinced the abortion clinic bombing is terrorism, but not easily.

The difference is that Hasan wants to take down the entire nation. Both have misrepresented their faiths. I am open to being convinced the abortion clinic bombing is terrorism, but not easily.

 

Have we seen proof that he wants to take down the nation? Or have we only seen proof that a)he doesn't believe in the war b)he was afraid to serve and c)he's a nut job.

I don't recall the media/taking heads spending so much time labeling it as "terrorism" when the clinic in Birmingham (I think) was blown up. Why? Is it because the guy was a Christian? Is it because it was in the name of "right to life?" Is it because he wasn't Islam?

 

I guess that's my real point in posing the question. We all agree that the taking of life is the taking of life no matter how we label it. I'm just curious why so many are now rushing to call THIS act terrorism when so many others weren't even considered to be anything other than a nutjob.

I would always have labeled something like that terrorism. The media has been, for the longest time, moronic and anything but consistent.

Umm, ok. Murder is murder, why does what we call it matter?

 

A caller to a talk show yesterday said if it is declared an act of terrorism those wounded could then receive a purple heart. Could someone confirm if that is a true statement or not?

Have we seen proof that he wants to take down the nation? Or have we only seen proof that a)he doesn't believe in the war b)he was afraid to serve and c)he's a nut job.

 

He is a misguided indivdual who sought to do as much damage as he could in this act of terrorism. Just as the homicide bombers in the Middle East.

I disagree with you on this point. I believe any Thomas, Deio or Hamza can commit an act of terror on their own with no connection to any terrorist group or organization.

 

This is making the distinction based on terrorism as a tactic, which I think can be labeled as such, but I don't believe the use of terrorist tactics makes the entity employing it a terrorist.