- This topic has 1,215 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2009 at 9:17 PM #481894November 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM #481072
surveyor
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
The whole idea behind terrorism is that you strike fear in people’s hearts by hurting others with the intent to motivate those still living to act in a way you want them to act. You can’t terrorize a dead person. People who are terrorized LIVE in terror. They see ongoing killings or torture and know that they or their families could be next if they don’t behave the way the killer wants them to behave.[/quote]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.
The utterance of “Allah Akbar” as a war cry showed clearly his jihadist motivation. This is what suicide bombers do before they themselves detonate. This is what the 9/11 hijackers said right before nearly 3000 of our people were killed.
Jihadists want the act of their destruction to be the act of terror that coerces change.
I hope that helps.
I myself consider McVeigh to be a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist. His motivation was anti-U.S. gov’t.
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM #481240Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
The whole idea behind terrorism is that you strike fear in people’s hearts by hurting others with the intent to motivate those still living to act in a way you want them to act. You can’t terrorize a dead person. People who are terrorized LIVE in terror. They see ongoing killings or torture and know that they or their families could be next if they don’t behave the way the killer wants them to behave.[/quote]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.
The utterance of “Allah Akbar” as a war cry showed clearly his jihadist motivation. This is what suicide bombers do before they themselves detonate. This is what the 9/11 hijackers said right before nearly 3000 of our people were killed.
Jihadists want the act of their destruction to be the act of terror that coerces change.
I hope that helps.
I myself consider McVeigh to be a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist. His motivation was anti-U.S. gov’t.
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM #481607Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
The whole idea behind terrorism is that you strike fear in people’s hearts by hurting others with the intent to motivate those still living to act in a way you want them to act. You can’t terrorize a dead person. People who are terrorized LIVE in terror. They see ongoing killings or torture and know that they or their families could be next if they don’t behave the way the killer wants them to behave.[/quote]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.
The utterance of “Allah Akbar” as a war cry showed clearly his jihadist motivation. This is what suicide bombers do before they themselves detonate. This is what the 9/11 hijackers said right before nearly 3000 of our people were killed.
Jihadists want the act of their destruction to be the act of terror that coerces change.
I hope that helps.
I myself consider McVeigh to be a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist. His motivation was anti-U.S. gov’t.
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM #481684Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
The whole idea behind terrorism is that you strike fear in people’s hearts by hurting others with the intent to motivate those still living to act in a way you want them to act. You can’t terrorize a dead person. People who are terrorized LIVE in terror. They see ongoing killings or torture and know that they or their families could be next if they don’t behave the way the killer wants them to behave.[/quote]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.
The utterance of “Allah Akbar” as a war cry showed clearly his jihadist motivation. This is what suicide bombers do before they themselves detonate. This is what the 9/11 hijackers said right before nearly 3000 of our people were killed.
Jihadists want the act of their destruction to be the act of terror that coerces change.
I hope that helps.
I myself consider McVeigh to be a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist. His motivation was anti-U.S. gov’t.
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM #481908Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
The whole idea behind terrorism is that you strike fear in people’s hearts by hurting others with the intent to motivate those still living to act in a way you want them to act. You can’t terrorize a dead person. People who are terrorized LIVE in terror. They see ongoing killings or torture and know that they or their families could be next if they don’t behave the way the killer wants them to behave.[/quote]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.
The utterance of “Allah Akbar” as a war cry showed clearly his jihadist motivation. This is what suicide bombers do before they themselves detonate. This is what the 9/11 hijackers said right before nearly 3000 of our people were killed.
Jihadists want the act of their destruction to be the act of terror that coerces change.
I hope that helps.
I myself consider McVeigh to be a terrorist, but not a Christian terrorist. His motivation was anti-U.S. gov’t.
November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM #481077Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Praying for God’s mercy and protection as a Christian is not the same as seeking God’s blessing to kill my enemies[/quote]
I understand this as the case Allan, but would the person dying at the hands of a soldier? If the last thing they saw was a cross hanging from the neck of their killer, what would they think? Is it really any different than a Christian hearing “Allahu Akbar” as his last words?
The point I’m trying to make is that how these symbols are interpreted depends entirely on where you’re coming from. So while hearing “Allahu Akbar” as you die is certainly a horrible thing for a Christian, so too is dying at the hands of a cross-bearing Christian for a Muslim — regardless of intent.[/quote]
Afx: As much as I’d like to disagree with you on this, I can’t. I’m reminded of German soldiers in WWI wearing belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”) as they invaded Belgium and then France in 1914.
Hitler repeatedly invoked God, and Germany’s “divine” mission (which, I guess, included killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and mentally handicapped). Of course, Hitler also admitted privately that he did this solely to engage the German people and didn’t really believe it himself.
One of my COs was a hard shell Baptist who loved Jesus, and hated Communism (I hated Communism, too, but not as a Catholic, but as an American) as a result. This was the same guy that kicked off operations with the expression, “Let’s go break things and hurt people”.
War, by its nature, is a filthy, nasty business and between trying to get soldiers to kill and rationalizing that same killing, pretty much anything goes in the “motivational” department. As a Catholic and an American, I’m alternately horrified and proud of those two histories. But both the Mother Church and the US Government are made up of people and thus flawed and fallible. Just like I am.
November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM #481245Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Praying for God’s mercy and protection as a Christian is not the same as seeking God’s blessing to kill my enemies[/quote]
I understand this as the case Allan, but would the person dying at the hands of a soldier? If the last thing they saw was a cross hanging from the neck of their killer, what would they think? Is it really any different than a Christian hearing “Allahu Akbar” as his last words?
The point I’m trying to make is that how these symbols are interpreted depends entirely on where you’re coming from. So while hearing “Allahu Akbar” as you die is certainly a horrible thing for a Christian, so too is dying at the hands of a cross-bearing Christian for a Muslim — regardless of intent.[/quote]
Afx: As much as I’d like to disagree with you on this, I can’t. I’m reminded of German soldiers in WWI wearing belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”) as they invaded Belgium and then France in 1914.
Hitler repeatedly invoked God, and Germany’s “divine” mission (which, I guess, included killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and mentally handicapped). Of course, Hitler also admitted privately that he did this solely to engage the German people and didn’t really believe it himself.
One of my COs was a hard shell Baptist who loved Jesus, and hated Communism (I hated Communism, too, but not as a Catholic, but as an American) as a result. This was the same guy that kicked off operations with the expression, “Let’s go break things and hurt people”.
War, by its nature, is a filthy, nasty business and between trying to get soldiers to kill and rationalizing that same killing, pretty much anything goes in the “motivational” department. As a Catholic and an American, I’m alternately horrified and proud of those two histories. But both the Mother Church and the US Government are made up of people and thus flawed and fallible. Just like I am.
November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM #481612Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Praying for God’s mercy and protection as a Christian is not the same as seeking God’s blessing to kill my enemies[/quote]
I understand this as the case Allan, but would the person dying at the hands of a soldier? If the last thing they saw was a cross hanging from the neck of their killer, what would they think? Is it really any different than a Christian hearing “Allahu Akbar” as his last words?
The point I’m trying to make is that how these symbols are interpreted depends entirely on where you’re coming from. So while hearing “Allahu Akbar” as you die is certainly a horrible thing for a Christian, so too is dying at the hands of a cross-bearing Christian for a Muslim — regardless of intent.[/quote]
Afx: As much as I’d like to disagree with you on this, I can’t. I’m reminded of German soldiers in WWI wearing belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”) as they invaded Belgium and then France in 1914.
Hitler repeatedly invoked God, and Germany’s “divine” mission (which, I guess, included killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and mentally handicapped). Of course, Hitler also admitted privately that he did this solely to engage the German people and didn’t really believe it himself.
One of my COs was a hard shell Baptist who loved Jesus, and hated Communism (I hated Communism, too, but not as a Catholic, but as an American) as a result. This was the same guy that kicked off operations with the expression, “Let’s go break things and hurt people”.
War, by its nature, is a filthy, nasty business and between trying to get soldiers to kill and rationalizing that same killing, pretty much anything goes in the “motivational” department. As a Catholic and an American, I’m alternately horrified and proud of those two histories. But both the Mother Church and the US Government are made up of people and thus flawed and fallible. Just like I am.
November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM #481689Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Praying for God’s mercy and protection as a Christian is not the same as seeking God’s blessing to kill my enemies[/quote]
I understand this as the case Allan, but would the person dying at the hands of a soldier? If the last thing they saw was a cross hanging from the neck of their killer, what would they think? Is it really any different than a Christian hearing “Allahu Akbar” as his last words?
The point I’m trying to make is that how these symbols are interpreted depends entirely on where you’re coming from. So while hearing “Allahu Akbar” as you die is certainly a horrible thing for a Christian, so too is dying at the hands of a cross-bearing Christian for a Muslim — regardless of intent.[/quote]
Afx: As much as I’d like to disagree with you on this, I can’t. I’m reminded of German soldiers in WWI wearing belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”) as they invaded Belgium and then France in 1914.
Hitler repeatedly invoked God, and Germany’s “divine” mission (which, I guess, included killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and mentally handicapped). Of course, Hitler also admitted privately that he did this solely to engage the German people and didn’t really believe it himself.
One of my COs was a hard shell Baptist who loved Jesus, and hated Communism (I hated Communism, too, but not as a Catholic, but as an American) as a result. This was the same guy that kicked off operations with the expression, “Let’s go break things and hurt people”.
War, by its nature, is a filthy, nasty business and between trying to get soldiers to kill and rationalizing that same killing, pretty much anything goes in the “motivational” department. As a Catholic and an American, I’m alternately horrified and proud of those two histories. But both the Mother Church and the US Government are made up of people and thus flawed and fallible. Just like I am.
November 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM #481913Participant[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Praying for God’s mercy and protection as a Christian is not the same as seeking God’s blessing to kill my enemies[/quote]
I understand this as the case Allan, but would the person dying at the hands of a soldier? If the last thing they saw was a cross hanging from the neck of their killer, what would they think? Is it really any different than a Christian hearing “Allahu Akbar” as his last words?
The point I’m trying to make is that how these symbols are interpreted depends entirely on where you’re coming from. So while hearing “Allahu Akbar” as you die is certainly a horrible thing for a Christian, so too is dying at the hands of a cross-bearing Christian for a Muslim — regardless of intent.[/quote]
Afx: As much as I’d like to disagree with you on this, I can’t. I’m reminded of German soldiers in WWI wearing belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”) as they invaded Belgium and then France in 1914.
Hitler repeatedly invoked God, and Germany’s “divine” mission (which, I guess, included killing all the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and mentally handicapped). Of course, Hitler also admitted privately that he did this solely to engage the German people and didn’t really believe it himself.
One of my COs was a hard shell Baptist who loved Jesus, and hated Communism (I hated Communism, too, but not as a Catholic, but as an American) as a result. This was the same guy that kicked off operations with the expression, “Let’s go break things and hurt people”.
War, by its nature, is a filthy, nasty business and between trying to get soldiers to kill and rationalizing that same killing, pretty much anything goes in the “motivational” department. As a Catholic and an American, I’m alternately horrified and proud of those two histories. But both the Mother Church and the US Government are made up of people and thus flawed and fallible. Just like I am.
November 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM #481082sdduuuude
Participant[quote=surveyor]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.[/quote]
A reasonable comment. I can’t say I’m comfortable with an implied demand. Apparently, you are. We can leave it at that – I think now we understand each other, at least.
He may very well fancy himself a terrorist but I, for one, don’t quite see it.
November 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM #481250Participant[quote=surveyor]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.[/quote]
A reasonable comment. I can’t say I’m comfortable with an implied demand. Apparently, you are. We can leave it at that – I think now we understand each other, at least.
He may very well fancy himself a terrorist but I, for one, don’t quite see it.
November 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM #481617Participant[quote=surveyor]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.[/quote]
A reasonable comment. I can’t say I’m comfortable with an implied demand. Apparently, you are. We can leave it at that – I think now we understand each other, at least.
He may very well fancy himself a terrorist but I, for one, don’t quite see it.
November 11, 2009 at 9:43 PM #481694Participant[quote=surveyor]I would submit sd that the killing of those people at Ft. Hood was the terrorism act itself intended to force the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq (and from the Middle East itself). In that context it should be called as it is, terrorism.[/quote]
A reasonable comment. I can’t say I’m comfortable with an implied demand. Apparently, you are. We can leave it at that – I think now we understand each other, at least.
He may very well fancy himself a terrorist but I, for one, don’t quite see it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.