Fort Dix "Terror" Plot? - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 05-08-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wow, you're really stretching, huh?! The US military is heavily involved in a war, and you say the enemy attacking a home military base is too far removed from Iraq to be called a military target, so it's terrorism? What sort of link between Fort Dix and the Iraq war do you require to say it's not terror?

I would argue that a war on our homeland would enable you to call an attack on a military installment an act of war. But because we are not actively fighting a physical war on our turf, it is an act of terrorism, just like the WTC was an act of terrorism. If we had a war on our homeland, the WTC would be just another result of war, would it not?

ballz2wallz · 05-08-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay.

Good.

Publius · 05-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

so if someone directly attacks a military base, besides "stupid" what would you call it?

an act of war?

Publius · 05-08-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I would argue that a war on our homeland would enable you to call an attack on a military installment an act of war. But because we are not actively fighting a physical war on our turf, it is an act of terrorism, just like the WTC was an act of terrorism. If we had a war on our homeland, the WTC would be just another result of war, would it not?

So the attack on Pearl Harbor was terrorism, not an act of war?

7960 · 05-08-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Don't you find it absurd that we're supposedly in a war on terror, yet people are starting to throw around the word so liberally that the USA is encompassed in the definition?

I do find it absurd when it's used for people who kill dogs or scare middle school kids. But when it's used in relation to attacking and killing as many soldiers as possible then it's terror.

7960 · 05-08-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

...and you say the enemy attacking a home military base .......

whoa, whoa......... by "the enemy" you mean soldiers from our enemy in the war on terror planned this attack?

are you saying these guys were part of some army or something?

7960 · 05-08-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

an act of war?

was it done by a military on behalf of a country?

ballz2wallz · 05-08-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

So the attack on Pearl Harbor was terrorism, not an act of war?

Are you comparing these 6 dudes to an entire military fleet?

Diesel66 · 05-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

how can you decide whether it was going to be an act of terror or not based solely on the target?

terrorism is against civilians. A strike on a military base is by definition an act of war.

Depends on who they attack though. If they went after the on-base housing, that could be terrorism or just collateral damage.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-08-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

terrorism is against civilians. A strike on a military base is by definition an act of war.

Depends on who they attack though. If they went after the on-base housing, that could be terrorism or just collateral damage.

I don't see why it matters whether it was housing or somewhere else. An enemy soldier is an enemy soldier. When we send cruise missiles to Al Queda training camps, we don't make sure to only hit the monkey bars instead of their sleeping tents.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-08-2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I would argue that a war on our homeland would enable you to call an attack on a military installment an act of war. But because we are not actively fighting a physical war on our turf, it is an act of terrorism, just like the WTC was an act of terrorism. If we had a war on our homeland, the WTC would be just another result of war, would it not?

When has this homeland/frontline distinction ever existed? During WWII, all of the powers did or tried to attack each other's homeland regardless of where the frontline was...and that was attacking civilians, not even pure military bases. No one ever called it terrorism apart from the war. It was all part of the war.

It's considered completely legitimiate to attack the enemy's "home base" as part of war, regardless of whether there's active fighting going on there.

Diesel66 · 05-08-2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't see why it matters whether it was housing or somewhere else. An enemy soldier is an enemy soldier.

because there are civilians in the housing. The soldier's spouse and children arent legitament targets. They could be considered collarteral damage though.

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

When has this homeland/frontline distinction ever existed? During WWII, all of the powers did or tried to attack each other's homeland regardless of where the frontline was...and that was attacking civilians, not even pure military bases. No one ever called it terrorism apart from the war. It was all part of the war.

It's considered completely legitimiate to attack the enemy's "home base" as part of war, regardless of whether there's active fighting going on there.

oh shit missed that argument by Ballz

its not war because they arent fighting where we want to fight

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-08-2007, 06:06 PM

To further illustrate the absurdity, Fox also regularly calls attacks on US soldiers in Iraq attacks by "terrorists," purely by virture of the fact that they've attacked US soldiers.

What are they trying to do? Make "terrorist" a synonym for "enemy forces"? In the future, will warring factions routinely refer to the other side as terrorists because it's fashionable? Is the term going to become purely rhetorical instead of having some relation to an objective defintion?

Diesel66 · 05-08-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

To further illustrate the absurdity, Fox also regularly calls attacks on US soldiers in Iraq attacks by "terrorists," purely by

That is a bit different.

We are fighting al-qaeda and other internationally recognized terrorist groups. They are terrorists because they are fighting for a terrorist organization and it doesnt matter who they are targeting at the moment.

of course then you have the question on who specifically was the attacking group.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-08-2007, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

That is a bit different.

We are fighting al-qaeda and other internationally recognized terrorist groups. They are terrorists because they are fighting for a terrorist organization and it doesnt matter who they are targeting at the moment.

of course then you have the question on who specifically was the attacking group.

That's my point. They have no idea whether the attackers were AQ or simply pissed off Iraqis who want the occupying force out. It doesn't matter to them. If you attack the US military, you're a terrorist.

All this is doing is diluting the terrorist designation. Don't be surprised in the future if people start looking down at terrorists less and less because they'll subconsciously or consciously take it less seriously, as everyone will be called a terrorist.

This is also going to create legal and international relations problems. There are some ambiguous references to terrorism in some US statutes. As if there weren't enough problems with that ambiguity already, loose usage of the word will further bring those laws into question.

For example, if in the future America tries to pressure another nation to freeze a "terrorist organization's" assets, don't be surprised if nations become less responsive because they'll look upon the designation with suspicion, since America seems to apply the term to anyone it doesn't like.

7960 · 05-08-2007, 06:39 PM

"al qaeda" is not an army.
they are not forces of any country.
they are not "the military" so terrorist is a better term for them then enemy forces.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-08-2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

"al qaeda" is not an army.
they are not forces of any country.
they are not "the military" so terrorist is a better term for them then enemy forces.

How do you know these guys were members of AQ? And furthermore, what does their group affiliation have to do with whether the acts they commit are acts of terrorism? Are you saying that if someone is a member of a terrorist organization, anything they do is a terrorist plot? If an AQ member goes to the store to buy a banana, it that a "terrorist banana plot"?

If a day care center blows up, I don't need to know anything about the people who did it to know it's terrorism, just like I don't need to know anything about the people who attack a military base to say it's not an act of terrorism. (this assumes there's not a war and the day care center wasn't blown up by an errant missile or something)

7960 · 05-08-2007, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How do you know these guys were members of AQ? And furthermore, what does their group affiliation have to do with whether the acts they commit are acts of terrorism?

So it matters who is attacked but it doesn't matter who does the attacking?

Are you saying that if someone is a member of a terrorist organization, anything they do is a terrorist plot? If an AQ member goes to the store to buy a banana, it that a "terrorist banana plot"?

If they bring a gun with the intention of killing everyone in the store, yes.

DosEquis · 05-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Attacking military targets is not in within the typical terrorist attack.

A terrorist attacks civilians to negatively affect public morale, resulting an in increase pressure on the leaders of the opposing government to give in to the organizations demands.

RMNIXON · 05-08-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Fox and I'm sure other organizations are calling this a "terror" plot. How can you call a plot "terrorism" when the target was a military installation?

Unless the act is a declaration or war it is terror. I don't those responcible wanted to take on our entire military do you? They wanted to make a political statement and cause fear. That is defined by terror in my book no matter the target.

P.S. I have been busy and am just hearing about this story. Need to catch up!