Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[Intense]

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

 

[Intense]

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

it depends on the perspective. to the families/close people of the civilians we kill, we are terrorists, the people who kill our civilians are terrorists to us. pick a side i guess

Looky here! An honest answer! Awesome!

An uninformed answer, how far are you supposed to get on "I Guess"? No offense intended Save Liberty.

 

[CurveLight]

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

 

[CurveLight]

it depends on the perspective. to the families/close people of the civilians we kill, we are terrorists, the people who kill our civilians are terrorists to us. pick a side i guess

Looky here! An honest answer! Awesome!

An uninformed answer, how far are you supposed to get on "I Guess"? No offense intended Save Liberty.

It was an honest answer by admitting the "terrorist" label is subjective.

 

[Intense]

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

It's not splitting hairs. They do not All qualify as Combatants either. It is a Legal Term.
We follow a set of Rules in War, they generally take precedent over even Illegal Orders. Our Enemy does not, at all.

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Privileged combatants
2 Unprivileged combatants
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Privileged combatants
The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants
Main article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.

Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Looky here! An honest answer! Awesome!

An uninformed answer, how far are you supposed to get on "I Guess"? No offense intended Save Liberty.

It was an honest answer by admitting the "terrorist" label is subjective.

Perspective contributes partially to the description, Fact contributes Wholly. Were Some Group to Bomb a Market, Primarily Targeting random People, the Action, the Fact that it was done, Reality Itself, would define it. It wouldn't be Subjective. I concede that there may indeed be instances where it can be.

 

[Annie]

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

You asked me earlier about 'you people.' It's people that don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to inform themselves. Yet feel free to go 'on and on' trying to make others prove their assertions. Which most can, you can't or won't.

 

[Intense]

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

You asked me earlier about 'you people.' It's people that don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to inform themselves. Yet feel free to go 'on and on' trying to make others prove their assertions. Which most can, you can't or won't.

When was the last time the Left used anything from the Geneva Convention to Help Us?
Feel Free to say anything constructive.

 

[CurveLight]

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

It's not splitting hairs. They do not All qualify as Combatants either. It is a Legal Term.
We follow a set of Rules in War, they generally take precedent over even Illegal Orders. Our Enemy does not, at all.

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Privileged combatants
2 Unprivileged combatants
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Privileged combatants
The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
For countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I), combatants who do not wear a distinguishing mark still qualify as prisoners of war if they carry arms openly during military engagements, and while visible to the enemy when they are deploying to conduct an attack against them.

[edit] Unprivileged combatants
Main article: unprivileged combatant
There several types of combatants who do not qualify as privileged combatants:

Combatant who would otherwise be privileged, but have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).
spies, mercenaries,[1] child soldiers, and civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section, (for example "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" would qualify as privileged combatants).[2][3]
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was Luanda Trial in Angola in June 1976.

Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the third time....in the context of this dialogue I was pointing out they weren't civilians....so yes you are painfully splitting hairs.

 

[CurveLight]

You just proved that you do not know what a combatant is. Nothing more.

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

You asked me earlier about 'you people.' It's people that don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to inform themselves. Yet feel free to go 'on and on' trying to make others prove their assertions. Which most can, you can't or won't.

Please point to an assertion I have made but failed to support. I care more about information than making mistakes so I enjoy being challenged on proving points. Thank you for your help.

 

[CurveLight]

If you want to split hairs then go to a barber shop. It's pretty damn clear active duty soldiers on a military base don't qualify as civilians.

You asked me earlier about 'you people.' It's people that don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to inform themselves. Yet feel free to go 'on and on' trying to make others prove their assertions. Which most can, you can't or won't.

When was the last time the Left used anything from the Geneva Convention to Help Us?
Feel Free to say anything constructive.

I hope you weren't alluding to me when you say "Left?"

As for your claim about how we follow the rules/laws of war could you show where it is okay for us to kidnap suspects and take them to secret prisons?

 

[Intense]

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

Fail.

 

[saveliberty]

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

Fail.

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

 

[Intense]

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

Fail.

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

No. The Statement was in fact in error. So is the understanding of the Term Terrorist Act in Relation to Noncombatants. The Geneva Convention and The US Code of Military Justice are Specific, not Arbitrary.

 

[CurveLight]

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.

Fail.

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

 

[Annie]

Fail.

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

What do you base your opinion on that he had any primary targets? Link please. We've done that when you asked so many times...

 

[saveliberty]

Fail.

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

Okay, so you entered this discussion at post #315, followed by 322, 327, 329, 330, 334, 335, 336, 340, 343, 346, 349, 353, 357, 360, 367, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 423, 424, 429, 430, 431 and then 435. Never once did you use the term "primary target", until post 435. Face it you ignored the civilians because it puts a hole in your little theory. By the by, please list "military installations" we have hit in Afghanistan with civilian deaths. Your going to have to include caves and mud houses to stretch that one. Fourty-one posts and you still are losig the terrorism debate.

 

[gautama]

Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

So....what terrorist group did Tim McVeigh belong to?

Answer: Liberal Aholes

 

[Annie]

Tried to turn his patients in for 'war crimes':

Hasan Wanted Soldiers Prosecuted, Officials Said - ABC News

Officials: Major Hasan Sought 'War Crimes' Prosecution of U.S. Soldiers
Rebuffed, Accused Fort Hood Shooter Took Extra Target Practice, Closed Bank Safety Deposit Box in Final Days, Investigators Say
By JOSEPH RHEE, MARY-ROSE ABRAHAM, ANNA SCHECTER, and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 16, 2009

Major Nidal Malik Hasan's military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to "war crimes" during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials.

FBI says Maj. Hasan grew frustrated over his belief of Army harboring criminals.

On Nov. 4, the day after his last attempt to raise the issue, he took extra target practice at Stan's shooting range in nearby Florence, Texas and then closed a safe deposit box he had at a Bank of America branch in Killeen, according to the reports. A bank employee told investigators Hasan appeared nervous and said, "You'll never see me again."...

 

[CurveLight]

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

What do you base your opinion on that he had any primary targets? Link please. We've done that when you asked so many times...

It's based on the fact he went in to a military building on a military base serving the sole purpose of deploying military personnel. But you're right.....it's also possible his primary target was cubicles. Good grief.