Fort Dix "Terror" Plot?

[Scrum]

Funny that law enforcement and Intelligence busted this plot.


I thought Bush said terrorism couldn't be stopped with those tools.

[Kytro]

Terrorism is a tactic. Specifically it is a tactic that uses fear as tool to influence policy.

The target does not matter so much as the intended result of the attack.

Military conflicts usually include some degree of terrorism as a tactic

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

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

a couple of hundred U.S. special forces soldiers orchestrated the overthrow of the Taliban

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Publius

a couple of hundred U.S. special forces soldiers orchestrated the overthrow of the Taliban

Are you comparing these 6 random dudes to US special forces?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Funny that law enforcement and Intelligence busted this plot.


I thought Bush said terrorism couldn't be stopped with those tools.

what do you think the point of the patriot act is?

[kinggovernor]

for the record I wouldn't call them terrorists, I would call them anti-US forces

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what do you think the point of the patriot act is?

To strip citizens of certain liberties under a title nobody could vote against without committing political suicide?


So if the Patriot Act didn't exist, you think this attack would have succeeded?


Bush doesn't think terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. It's ironic that law enforcement is doing a good job fighting terror, but our use of the military may have made things much worse. That's the problem with the WOT.

[JaJae]

Some terrorists tried attacking a US military base on our soil and people are more concerned with the term "terror" being used on the news and taking cheap shots at Bush. Granted this was from my home state so I'm a bit touchy on this subject, but the debate going on here is pretty sad.

These were people using a means to terrorize a nation/government for their cause. The purpose of this was not just to attack a military force, it was to demoralize our nation and commit an act of terrorism in our country. Arguing semantics is fairly pointless.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

To strip citizens of certain liberties under a title nobody could vote against without committing political suicide?


So if the Patriot Act didn't exist, you think this attack would have succeeded?

I don't know, we will have to wait and see the facts of the case.

Bush doesn't think terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. It's ironic that law enforcement is doing a good job fighting terror, but our use of the military may have made things much worse. That's the problem with the WOT.

that is just political rhetoric that is not worth a response

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Some terrorists tried attacking a US military base on our soil and people are more concerned with the term "terror" being used on the news and taking cheap shots at Bush. Granted this was from my home state so I'm a bit touchy on this subject, but the debate going on here is pretty sad.

These were people using a means to terrorize a nation/government for their cause. The purpose of this was not just to attack a military force, it was to demoralize our nation and commit an act of terrorism in our country. Arguing semantics is fairly pointless.

ultimately it is sematics, but honestly I have no problem with these people attacking military bases. In fact, please attack military bases rather than the WTC or the mall or a school. At least they will be facing a trained counterpart that is ready to launch a counterattack rather than civilians

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

ultimately it is sematics, but honestly I have no problem with these people attacking military bases. In fact, please attack military bases rather than the WTC or the mall or a school. At least they will be facing a trained counterpart that is ready to launch a counterattack rather than civilians

Fort Dix isn't much of a military base... it's closing soon. They weren't brave enough to attack a real military base.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Funny that law enforcement and Intelligence busted this plot.


I thought Bush said terrorism couldn't be stopped with those tools.

the guys brought their training tape to a video store to be converted to DVD............ it wasn't even law enforcement or intelligence, it was fucking Sy Parrish from One Hour Photo

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Fort Dix isn't much of a military base... it's closing soon. They weren't brave enough to attack a real military base.

it is still a military base if they attacked a convoy of troops stateside, at least some of them would have security rounds

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is still a military base if they attacked a convoy of troops stateside, at least some of them would have security rounds

That's true. It's just sad... they didn't even have to complete the attack on the base. Just the plot of it was enough to get people to blame Bush and further divide our nation. It's ridiculous. I'm glad they caught them and nobody was hurt.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's true. It's just sad... they didn't even have to complete the attack on the base. Just the plot of it was enough to get people to blame Bush and further divide our nation. It's ridiculous. I'm glad they caught them and nobody was hurt.

i can understand why this would divide this nation, that really boggles me

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Terror: violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion

I guess you can. It fits the definition.

Just because you can, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's FOX NEWS bias

I can't assume Fort Dix is directly involved in a war, being that the war is in Iraq. Therefore, this is as much a terrorist act as any.

Insurgent fits. An Insurgent Attack upon Fort Dix

The word insurgent;
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source in·sur·gent
–noun
1.a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.

2.a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party. –adjective

3.of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.

4.surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
[Origin: 1755–65; < L insurgent- (s. of insurgéns) prp. of insurgere to get up, ascend, rebel. See in-2, surge, -ent]

—Synonyms 3. rebellious, revolutionary, mutinous.

[lew]

I haven't read much on this case, but can someone tell me if an actual law was broken?

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

I haven't read much on this case, but can someone tell me if an actual law was broken?

Their charges are going to begin with "Conspiracy to........" so from your previous posts, no matter what anyone says you're going to say no law was broken.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you comparing these 6 random dudes to US special forces?

In a way, yes. Just because they aren't a full-scale invasion force doesn't mean they are any less engaging in an "act of war" against the United States. Our special forces soldiers in Afghanistan supporting the Taliban's overthrow would have been engaging in state-sponsored terrorist operations, by your definition of a terrorist act.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

Their charges are going to begin with "Conspiracy to........" so from your previous posts, no matter what anyone says you're going to say no law was broken.

Not necessarily.


Like I said, I haven't read on this case so I was wondering what all the charges will be.



I'm not arguing one way or the other since, again, I haven't read up on this case.