From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
I, like many , have seen the reports about 6 Muslims planning an attack on Fort Dix, New Jersey over the past few days. It's great that they caught these guys, although, again, it had nothing to do with any of the money we have blown on high tech equipment or efforts we have exhausted on eliminating rights in the name of freedom. But more on that later....

1st, my question...

Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? Isn't part of terrorism's definition an attack on a civillian target? Is Fort Dix now a civillian target? I'm just curious to what now qualifies as a military target in this age of hysteria.

And back to how we caught these 6....

They were caught because they tried to get someone, namely a circuit city store clerk, to copy a video they made "training" for their lil battle. Authorities say her tip was vital to the capture as they would have never had any clue if not for her. Once again, it is the people who stop these things, not the military, not a bunch of high tech toys that only serve to line the pockets of the profiteers, or the hinderence of rights. Just good old vigilance and patriotism.


Comments (Page 1)
on May 09, 2007

Good point on number 1.  I guess they are calling any non-state aligned people attempting death and destruction "terrorism".

Number 2 is a given.  Only in a police state could the "feds" know all.  In our country it will just take observant citizens.

on May 09, 2007
I went to the Online Webster and under Terror:

violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Also even with a Military Target you will get civilian casualties. And such an attack would instill fear in the local populace.

IG
on May 09, 2007
I went to the Online Webster and under Terror:

actually, your "definition" is the 4th entry...here's the full definition...

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect 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


and it seems to be a little bit of a'political" definition. i have the feeling that was added recently. but i don't know...i'll have to check some older dictionaries and get back to ya. i could be wrong there,,,but...

here's some highlights from a more complete definition of terrorism from Wik...

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army[1] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence[2]. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security.[3] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

the full definition is here...
Link

you can take that for what it's worth geek, my point is that by that definition and by your statement that "even with a Military Target you will get civilian casualties. And such an attack would instill fear in the local populace" kind of defines every single military conflict in the history of man.

is that the way you see it?
on May 09, 2007
this article got featured? well bust my buttons...wierd,,,well,,,ya never can tell...lol
on May 09, 2007

well bust my buttons

ok Wiz!

Congrats on the feature.

on May 09, 2007

is that the way you see it?

No, because this is not a military conflict. (in the U.S.). This is a small group of men who want to cause damage and fear to promote their cause. They are not soldiers, beholding to a code or structure.

And what exactly is a lawful use of violence to promote a political agenda?

IG




on May 09, 2007
1. I'm not sure which definition of terrorism you are using. Yes, many of them talk about civilian targets, but certainly not all of them. While Wikipedia is more and more suspect as time wears on: Link

2. The military is full of "people" who exhibit "good old vigilance and patriotism." Please don't rule them out.
on May 10, 2007
actually, your "definition" is the 4th entry...here's the full definition...

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect 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


I'm curious, no where in this definition does it say anything about excluding military locations. All the definitions seem to agree on one thing, fear. And unless the military is immune to fear, an attack on any location (military or not) where there is no military conflict (as InfoGeek stated) such as here on American soil would be considered a terrorist attack cause the purpose was to create fear not necessarily destroy the target. It would have been their intention to demostrate that they could hit us anywhere at anytime, not necessarily looking to cripple us as would be in the battlefield.
on May 10, 2007
is that the way you see it?

No, because this is not a military conflict. (in the U.S.)


haven't we declared a "GLOBAL war?"

I'm curious, no where in this definition does it say anything about excluding military locations. All the definitions seem to agree on one thing, fear.



so, how is our invasion of a sovereign nation where we bagan the invasion with "operation shock and awe" which was designed to scare the iraqi's into submission by showing how powerful we are any different?



on May 10, 2007
one correction,,,the CC clerk was a male, not a female...my apologies
on May 10, 2007
Double Post
on May 10, 2007
The word was coined to describe specifically attacks against civilian targets to instill fear in the population. Attacks against military target are not terrorism, even if there are civilian casualties. If the Palestinians had only ever attacked the Israel’s military they would have never been called terrorist, they would be called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance".
on May 10, 2007

Reply By: stubbyfinger

While I do not know if that is the "standard" definition, that is the one I use.  SO my answers are predicated upon that understanding.

on May 11, 2007
so, how is our invasion of a sovereign nation where we bagan the invasion with "operation shock and awe" which was designed to scare the iraqi's into submission by showing how powerful we are any different?


Do I really have to explain it to you? And here I thought you were a pretty smart guy. Let's see, we sent an entire army, with a lot of warning. Told them if they didn't change their minds that we would attack. Sat there for a little while, in plain view, then we attacked and it took how many days to accomplish anything?

Now, here we have 6 guys, planning an attack on a military base. Completely hidden from us, prepared to attack without warning and were fully aware that the damage would be minimal (I mean after all, unless they had a nuke, how bad could their attack really have been? I seriously doubt they were gonna hi-jack more planes.) but enough to make a point.

I don't know if you're acting ignorant or this is what you are, but unless you are calling the American people terrorist, you can not compare the concept of sending an army, in plain view, to fight a war (where the enemy will be facing us on the same grounds) with the intention of changing the entire structure of the country with a small "group" of guys who wanted to make a statement. Especially when these 6 guys are the type that would have ended their adventure and their lives in a single attack and not be able to do more damage, which is not how our military works.

So I ask, are you saying that we, the American people, are terrorist? Cause if you are then please blacklist me as of now cause I promise to attack every article you write as of now as if I was a terrorist, since it's what you would seem to expect from me, an American.
on May 11, 2007
The word was coined to describe specifically attacks against civilian targets to instill fear in the population. Attacks against military target are not terrorism, even if there are civilian casualties. If the Palestinians had only ever attacked the Israel’s military they would have never been called terrorist, they would be called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance".


I'm curious to know why we have dictionaries and why we send our children to school to learn when people can give their own version of what they believe a word really means and that is acceptable? God forbid I ever pick up another dictionary and look up the meaning of a word just to be contradicted by someone who thinks the word means something else.

While I do not know if that is the "standard" definition, that is the one I use. SO my answers are predicated upon that understanding.


I understand your point DrGuy, but I have to stick to the belief that the definition of a word should be followed and not a "what you get from it" meaning. That's why Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman cause sex. They used a "what you get from it" meaning.