Fort Dix "Terror" Plot? - Page 5

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

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.

Our special forces soldiers in Afghanistan supporting the Taliban's overthrow are on military operations backed by a government

These are six random dudes.

7960 · 05-09-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by lew

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.

Since the plot was foiled before it happened their going to be charged with a bunch of things that start with "Conspiracy to........."

Shnewer, Tatar and the Duka brothers were charged with conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers.

The Dukas also were charged with being illegal aliens in possession of firearms.

Abdullah, who authorities described as a sniper trained in Kosovo, was charged with aiding and abetting the Duka brothers in illegal possession of weapons and faces a lesser jail sentence.

lew · 05-09-2007, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Since the plot was foiled before it happened their going to be charged with a bunch of things that start with "Conspiracy to........."

Shnewer, Tatar and the Duka brothers were charged with conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers.

The Dukas also were charged with being illegal aliens in possession of firearms.

Abdullah, who authorities described as a sniper trained in Kosovo, was charged with aiding and abetting the Duka brothers in illegal possession of weapons and faces a lesser jail sentence.

Well, from what I've heard, I don't think I have any problem with this case. I mean, as long as it was much more than just a simple First Amendment issue, then I'm fine with it.

Of course I think the government can over react and trample upon people's rights all the time but from the limited amount of I've heard, everything thus far seems the right thing to do.

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Our special forces soldiers in Afghanistan supporting the Taliban's overthrow are on military operations backed by a government

These are six random dudes.

But we make such a big deal out of Iran or Pakistan or [insert Middle Eastern or otherwise Islamic nation here] supporting and funding terrorism, how do you know they aren't being backed by a government as well?

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

But we make such a big deal out of Iran or Pakistan or [insert Middle Eastern or otherwise Islamic nation here] supporting and funding terrorism, how do you know they aren't being backed by a government as well?

That would have been announced if that were the case, friend.

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That would have been announced if that were the case, friend.

Not if we don't know about it, friend. We can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran is aiding the fighters in Iraq by giving them weapons (though we all know this is true).

7960 · 05-09-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That would have been announced if that were the case, friend.

anyone who believes things that start with "but but but, THE GOVERNMENT.............!!!!!!!!!" is not going to accept this answer

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

anyone who believes things that start with "but but but, THE GOVERNMENT.............!!!!!!!!!" is not going to accept this answer

Or maybe I just believe that our government isn't all-knowing and may not actually be aware that these guys were funded/aided by a nation-state? No, that couldn't be it, I must just be an anti-statist...

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Not if we don't know about it, friend. We can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran is aiding the fighters in Iraq by giving them weapons (though we all know this is true).

What exactly are you arguing? You're debating about unknowns? The what-ifs' are endless, what's the point?

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Or maybe I just believe that our government isn't all-knowing and may not actually be aware that these guys were funded/aided by a nation-state? No, that couldn't be it, I must just be an anti-statist...

Dude I think you've lost it. Seriously, what are you arguing. Let's debate about what's known about these guys...that they're a couple dudes who didn't get their nonsense out during high school blowing things up, so they thought they'd be cool and join the terrorists overseas and do a little damage here, but they sucked so bad at it they got caught. How's that?

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What exactly are you arguing? You're debating about unknowns? The what-ifs' are endless, what's the point?

my point is that automatically calling it a terrorist attack is sensationalist, and expanding the definition of terrorism to attacking military installations basically says that soldiers working on be-half of any nation-state could technically be considered terrorists (and, if I remember correctly, terrorists are unprotected by the Geneva Conventions and thus in the future a nation we attack that captures some of our soldiers could just call them terrorists and treat them horribly).

It is very important that we define terms correctly if we're going to be throwing our weight around the world, especially when we use our Special Forces to spearhead attacks the way we did in Afghanistan. Defining this as terrorism is definitely verging on incorrect.

JaJae · 05-09-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

my point is that automatically calling it a terrorist attack is sensationalist, and expanding the definition of terrorism to attacking military installations basically says that soldiers working on be-half of any nation-state could technically be considered terrorists (and, if I remember correctly, terrorists are unprotected by the Geneva Conventions and thus in the future a nation we attack that captures some of our soldiers could just call them terrorists and treat them horribly).

It is very important that we define terms correctly if we're going to be throwing our weight around the world. Defining this as terrorism is definitely verging on incorrect.

These people are not in uniform and they do not claim to be the representative of any government. Nor has any government claimed responsibility for them. That makes them terrorists.

If they're not terrorists, they're soldiers. If they're soldiers.. we're at war.

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

my point is that automatically calling it a terrorist attack is sensationalist, and expanding the definition of terrorism to attacking military installations basically says that soldiers working on be-half of any nation-state could technically be considered terrorists (and, if I remember correctly, terrorists are unprotected by the Geneva Conventions and thus in the future a nation we attack that captures some of our soldiers could just call them terrorists and treat them horribly).

It is very important that we define terms correctly if we're going to be throwing our weight around the world, especially when we use our Special Forces to spearhead attacks the way we did in Afghanistan. Defining this as terrorism is definitely verging on incorrect.

Their MO seemed to fit every other terrorist attack

What's so different to you about these guys?

7960 · 05-09-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Their MO seemed to fit every other terrorist attack

What's so different to you about these guys?

they planned to attack soldiers........that's the ONLY difference

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Their MO seemed to fit every other terrorist attack

What's so different to you about these guys?

The fact that their target was a military base, not civilians. The military and its infrastructure are a legitimate target for any organization, thus calling it terrorism is questionable in my mind.

ballz2wallz · 05-09-2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The fact that their target was a military base, not civilians. The military and its infrastructure are a legitimate target for any organization, thus calling it terrorism is questionable in my mind.

That's hogwash. These are non-military guys attacking a base in their own country (I assume they were living here for a while). That's not an act of war.

Publius · 05-09-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's hogwash. These are non-military guys attacking a base in their own country (I assume they were living here for a while). That's not an act of war.

If the term terrorism weren't already being thrown around to describe almost any sort of crime I'd probably agree with you, but we're steadily calling more and more shit "terrorism" these days.

7960 · 05-09-2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

If the term terrorism weren't already being thrown around to describe almost any sort of crime I'd probably agree with you, but we're steadily calling more and more shit "terrorism" these days.

so you're saying this isn't terrorism because you don't like it that terrorism is being "overused"?

like he said........... hogwash

nbiggershaft · 05-09-2007, 02:15 PM

It may not fit the definition of the word terrorism, and frankly some of what I have heard called terrorism in this thread is disturbing, but these people definitely fit the description, for all useful purposes, of terrorists. At best they could be called spies or traitors, either way they are going to be in the same boat and I wouldn't fault anyone for describing it as a terrorist plot.

Publius · 05-09-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

so you're saying this isn't terrorism because you don't like it that terrorism is being "overused"?

like he said........... hogwash

No, I'm saying this is borderline as to whether or not it should really be called terrorism in my opinion, and if it weren't for the fact that we throw the word around so much today it probably wouldn't bother me that it's called terrorism since it is indeed (in my opinion) so borderline.