Fort Dix "Terror" Plot?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Publius

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

A Nation/State Declaired War on our government. In fact it was timed to reach our State Department just prior to the attack but was delayed. That is not the same as a handful of nuts who think the police or military are legit targets to vent their frustrations.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

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.

So what? Why do you have to want to take on the entire military for it to be a military operation? And why are political statements and causing fear necessarily outside of military operations?

These are completely arbitrary standards you've set up, and by comparing what the US military does against them you'll see they're meaningless. We've attacked plenty of enemies without the intention of taking out their entire military...

Here's an example with Israel...when they bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. That was not meant to take out the entire Iraqi military, and it was meant to make a political point and instill fear in the Iraqis not to try to do anything like that again.

Was that terrorism?

It seems like every time someone in this thread throws up a ridiculous standard to justify using "terror" liberally, they don't test the standard against history to see how ridiculous it is.

And by the way, I would dispute that this attack was to cause fear. If you want to cause fear, you blow up people at the mall. You don't attack armed soldiers inside a military base.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So what? Why do you have to want to take on the entire military for it to be a military operation? And why are political statements and causing fear necessarily outside of military operations?

These are completely arbitrary standards you've set up, and by comparing what the US military does against them you'll see they're meaningless. We've attacked plenty of enemies without the intention of taking out their entire military...

What military is operating here? I suspect you simply want to define the military as a legit target and not a terrorist target?

Those operations are done on behalf of our government or the Israeli government and if the target Nations want to consider them and act of war or terror they can pick whatever words they want. They simply don't have the means or inclination to fight the offending military in whole or in part. I don't have any arbitary standards. There is a clear line between such acts done by recognized governments as opposed to various fanatical groups and those who mimic them.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

...when they bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. That was not meant to take out the entire Iraqi military, and it was meant to make a political point and instill fear in the Iraqis not to try to do anything like that again.

Was that terrorism?

It was done by the israeli military so no it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.

It seems like every time someone in this thread throws up a ridiculous standard to justify using "terror" liberally, they don't test the standard against history to see how ridiculous it is.

Tested....... not ridiculous.

And by the way, I would dispute that this attack was to cause fear. If you want to cause fear, you blow up people at the mall. You don't attack armed soldiers inside a military base.

I'd disagree with you. If you want to instill fear you can attack a mall or a very secure target. Anyone can walk in a mall with 200lbs of dynamite, but if they can get inside a military base then they can get *anywhere*.

[7960]

I hate it when people paste dictionary definitions but:

ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

so I click "terror" and get

ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>


I don't see a mention of military anywhere in there. My first reaction would have been to call this a terrorist act. It was an attack (almost) on the US by people not associated with a govt. IMO it doesn't matter much that the target was a military base or personnel. If you want to get pissy that terrorism can only be against civilians then so be it. I disagree that it's not terrorism because the target is a base and its soldiers.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

It was done by the israeli military so no it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.

Military organizations are capable of committing terrorism, US military does it all the time.

[nbiggershaft]

I'd say in this case, motivation here lends to defining it as terrorism. The purpose was mostly likely to instill fear and lower moral, not to accomplish any particular goal. It's just speculation, but I'd guess an attack like that is just trying to prove that they can hit us on our soil.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The purpose was mostly likely to instill fear and lower moral, not to accomplish any particular goal.

Why isn't instilling fear and lowering moral a goal in itself? Are those not things our military tries to accomplish? If not, WTF was the point of "shock and awe"?

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Military organizations are capable of committing terrorism, US military does it all the time.

It depends on how you define it and (like you said) their motivation. IMO if the military planned and executed a strike on a nuclear reactor because they feared a nuclear iran then it wasn't terrorism. Their motivation wasn't to scare iranians, it was to stop iran from building a reactor.

The motivation in the fort dix thing (and of course this is a guess) was to scare people. Killing a few soldiers on a base isn't going to significantly affect the military like blowing up that reactor stopped iran from being nuclear.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

What exactly is the main thing which civilized people find so repugnant about terrorism?

I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit what's so repugnant is that terrorists target civilians. This is as opposed to our military which goes to great pains to avoid killing civilians.

With that in mind, you've got some serious semantical acrobatics to do before you can remove the targeting civilians element from the definition of terrorism.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why isn't instilling fear and lowering moral a goal in itself? Are those not things our military tries to accomplish? If not, WTF was the point of "shock and awe"?

it was a military attack on iraq.

please name the military who organized to attack fort dix.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

it was a military attack on iraq.

please name the military who organized to attack fort dix.

It wasn't a military. So, I guess, therefore, you're arguing that it's not terrorism if a military is doing it?

Okay, so let's say we get into a war with Iran. As part of their war against us, they have agents of their military go into malls are start shooting people.

I guess that isn't terrorism because it was done by a military?

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

With that in mind, ...

That's not the only thing. But since you want this to not be a terrorist act then you're going to ignore anything that differs with your opinion. This is a classic case of someone having a preconceived conclusion and then going back to justify it.

If anyone is doing some serious semantical acrobatics it's you, trying to say 6 or 7 guys who've associated themselves with a known terrorist organization who planned to attack *anyone* *anywhere* are not terrorists.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

That's not the only thing. But since you want this to not be a terrorist act then you're going to ignore anything that differs with your opinion. This is a classic case of someone having a preconceived conclusion and then going back to justify it.

If anyone is doing some serious semantical acrobatics it's you, trying to say 6 or 7 guys who've associated themselves with a known terrorist organization who planned to attack *anyone* *anywhere* are not terrorists.

Are you just making this up as you go along? They were planning to attack soldiers and were not part of any larger terrorist organization.

Official: Radicals*wanted to create carnage at Fort Dix - CNN.com

One quote from the alleged recordings was defendant Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer saying, "My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers."

The men are believed to have been "inspired" by international terrorist groups, but not directly linked to a specific organization, he said.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It wasn't a military.

shock and awe wasn't our military?

So, I guess, therefore, you're arguing that it's not terrorism if a military is doing it?

I'm saying what I said... the military *can* do terrorist acts just like a policeman *can* murder someone. But if it's done in the course of his job it's rarely murder.

Okay, so let's say we get into a war with Iran. As part of their war against us, they have agents of their military go into malls are start shooting people.

I guess that isn't terrorism because it was done by a military?

... did you miss the part about motivation?

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Are you just making this up as you go along? They were planning to attack soldiers and were not part of any larger terrorist organization.

No. I'm writing about what I read

The alleged terror cell is described by investigators as disciples of Osama Bin Laden.

6 Charged In Alleged N.J. Terror Plot - News Story - WNBC | New York

Yes, I read Snow's comment saying "They are not charged with being members of an international terrorism organization," but THEY are associating themselves with AQ. THEY are saying they terrorists.

If I associate myself with the KKK then I'm racist, even if you read their membership lists and don't find my name.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

shock and awe wasn't our military?

No, it wasn't a military that was going to attack fort dix.

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm saying what I said... the military *can* do terrorist acts just like a policeman *can* murder someone. But if it's done in the course of his job it's rarely murder.

Okay, then of what relevance is being a military? Does it preclude terror? Are you saying being a military sets up a rebuttable presumption that it's not terror? What are you saying?

Originally Posted by 7960

... did you miss the part about motivation?

I guess I did...it's hard to keep up with your evolving definition of terrorism. So it's all about motivation? Or is that just a factor? Can you please sum up, to you, what exactly is terrorism and what is not?

My definition is quite simple: If you deliberately attack civilians, for whatever reason, it's terrorism. If you're attacking the military, for whatever reason, it's not terrorism.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

No, it wasn't a military that was going to attack fort dix.

I've said that a bunch of times.....that's been my point all along.

Okay, then of what relevance is being a military? Does it preclude terror? Are you saying being a military sets up a rebuttable presumption that it's not terror? What are you saying?

I'm saying exactly what I've been saying all along. So rather than bothering to type it I'll go back and paste from previous answers:

IMO if the military planned and executed a strike on a nuclear reactor because they feared a nuclear iran then it wasn't terrorism. Their motivation wasn't to scare iranians, it was to stop iran from building a reactor.

The motivation in the fort dix thing (and of course this is a guess) was to scare people. Killing a few soldiers on a base isn't going to significantly affect the military like blowing up that reactor stopped iran from being nuclear.

I guess I did...it's hard to keep up with your evolving definition of terrorism. So it's all about motivation? Or is that just a factor? Can you please sum up, to you, what exactly is terrorism and what is not?

Nothing in what I'm saying is evolving. Whether it's terrorism or not is based on (a) who did it, and (b) why. Your definition that "It wasn't terrorism because they were attacking soldiers" is ridiculous.

My definition is quite simple: If you deliberately attack civilians, for whatever reason, it's terrorism. If you're attacking the military, for whatever reason, it's not terrorism.

And like I've said 4 times now, I disagree with the part where you exclude terrorism just because the attack is against the military.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

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.

Any attack on American soil would do that, military or not.