Fort Hood Massacre

Shooter advised Obama

Ah, I knew Obama was somehow behind it, the Muslim!

Obama: Where's the nearest bathroom? I tried shit on a shingle as a publicity stunt 40 minutes ago.

Hasan: 2nd floor, third door on the left. Don't take the elevator because it smells like an old, steel urinal.

Obama: Thanks for the advice.

Why cant a spree killing be considered an act of terrorism?

the motive

I guess one could spree as a terrorist act, but that certainly doesn't appear to be the case here

edit: looks like "mass murder" might be more appropriate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

And why do you say that?

because there is no evidence that the attack was staged to intimidate the American public into making a specific political policy decision.

EDIT: For instance, a suicide bomb attack in a crowded market which targets primarily civilians is a terrorist attack because it is interfering with individual lives and attempting to cause enough disruption and fear that people side with the terrorist, or rather, no longer do what the terrorists are fighting against. A suicide bomb attack against a military institution, bent on damaging the material ability of one army to fight another army is a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.

You say that as if that is the definition of terrorism. When in fact, there is no exact definition. At least one agreed upon internationally. The only characteristic agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.

lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

I can see where inimalist is going with this.

Since "terrorizing" is a derivative of "terrorism"...if a man terrorizes his family, would it be because he wants to intimidate them into obeying him? Because if he didn't, he could just kill them, which according to the def. above, wouldn't be terrorism. It would just be a killing spree.

its also the most common way that terrorism is talked about academically.

Though, yes, like "religion", "state", "government", "capitalism" and essentially any other abstract concept about which people discuss, there is no set-in-stone definition for Terrorism.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

Don't be so pompous. You can't say there is one strict definition for terrorism man.

Originally posted by Quincy
Don't be so pompous. You can't say there is one strict definition for terrorism man.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, like "religion", "state", "government", "capitalism" and essentially any other abstract concept about which people discuss, there is no set-in-stone definition for Terrorism.

but more on point, are you saying this was an act of terrorism, or are you just trying to say that it is impossible to talk about terrorism in the first place?

Neither of those things

then what is your point?

I was correcting you

which statement of mine was incorrect?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

You were joking I hope?

Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

Originally posted by inimalist
because there is no evidence that the attack was staged to intimidate the American public into making a specific political policy decision.

EDIT: For instance, a suicide bomb attack in a crowded market which targets primarily civilians is a terrorist attack because it is interfering with individual lives and attempting to cause enough disruption and fear that people side with the terrorist, or rather, no longer do what the terrorists are fighting against. A suicide bomb attack against a military institution, bent on damaging the material ability of one army to fight another army is a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.

Originally posted by Quincy
You say that as if that is the definition of terrorism. When in fact, there is no exact definition. At least one agreed upon internationally. The only characteristic agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.

stoned

Originally posted by ChakraStrings

Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

Yeah those 2 unborn children at Omagh. The decisions they made in the home office to oppress Catholics had to be met with blowing them up...No other way for it.

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
You were joking I hope?

? is it not obvious

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

indeed, attacks leveled against British military personnel would not be considered terrorism, but warfare.

however, the necessity of violence is irrelevant. Terrorism is determined by the target of violence and the motivation for such violence.

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

I won't argue because I'm largely unfamiliar with the workings of the IRA proper. However, Ireland has suffered from a plethora of terrorism, committed by Irish nationalists and by the British military.