The point was that I would have expected some nut job to just go out and buy a 9mm as that is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) calibre handgun.

But to choose an exotic weapon like the 5.7, I find interesting.

Be interesting to find out if Hasan was an avid shooter or whether he bought this weapon specifically for this shooting....and why?

You actually have to ask why?

Well... without knowing the reason, yeah I guess I need to ask.

No suprise that Subsims rabid anti-americans and politically correct useful fools are downplaying this incident.

There is a large amount of info on the shooter, clearly pointing this to be an terrorist act.
He acted based on his conviction, as he understood his religion, this act set him free and purified him in his mind.
I was in Egypt at the time of the incident and the locals also seemed pleased with his act.

Faced with good arguments and facts i can correct my wiews accordingly.
But with Islam as a ideology and the threat it poses to our culture, my wiews have only strenghtened during the past 10 years.

RIP to the victims and their families.

What is terrorism?

What took him so long then?

What is terrorism?

What took him so long then?

Western nation's laws and interntional treaties as well as special literature on terrorism list over 130 definitions of terrorism. Engage in that debate, and you move in circles until the end of the decade.

But Skybird, when certain people can't argue the reality of a situation, they fall back on talking points and circular reasoning as a way of trying to avoid a serious debate. That was the whole point of the questions....

AKA - don't feed trolls.

I know, Haplo - and that is what I wanted to illustrate. Trying to exactly define terrorism where authors, juristic experts and governments fail to acchieve an international consensus since loooong time is most likely a distraction from the real discussion here. You could at best list some characteristics that most of the time most people agree upon, but still have too many differences left as that you could talk of a generally agreed consensus. European governments do not even agree in full on the legal definitions used by the EU, although one would assume that the EU definitions had been formed by these national governments.

Also, plenty of opportunism in accepting this part of the defintion, but not that part, as representative for "terrorism".

The only real danger here is that the absence of any consensus enables factions to maske use of the opportunity to push their agenda and interest and trying to prevent opposition to it by declaring their own attempt as "fighting terrorism". In fact this has taken place massively in the years since 2001, from America over Europe to Russia and China. even north Korea claimed to "fight terrorism".

Having a consensus on the meaning of "terrorism" would be nice, but the only thing we know for sure is that we do not have it, and probably never will - which holds its own risks that we possibly cannot avoid. Therefore we need to find a balance between pragmatism and theory that all in all works well enough. Means that works if not in most cases so then in a sufficient majority of cases.

Exactly, which is why it makes no sense for someone to say
Other way round, calling it terrorism is a distraction as that term is increasingly meaningless.

They make a strawman and ask people to prove the truth of something that was never claimed in the first place.:up:

On ecan grab a handful of sand in a fist, see it disappearing between the fingers - and opening the hand with just a few grains of sand left, you still have no dobt that it sand you are talking about.

If that murderer did not ran amok due to shortcircuiting, but was ideologically motivated to do the deed (and it more and more seems to be the case), then it was a terrorist attack linked to and caused by the ideological content of the islamic message (with the Quran being in explicit defence of using tactics of terror and fear black on white, i just want to remind of that). It is islamic terror then, with him being an Islamic terrorist.

The problem is when people take a grain of sand and say it is a whole desert.

BTW, your thing about Islam(though you do have a thing about all religions), your take on the scripture is very common. Lots of islamic nuts take it that way, if you go to somewhere like Gates of Vienna or Jihadwatch they will have the same take on it, lots of publications use the translations of a very reknowned French/Jewish scholar to demonstrate the "explicit" message. They will use passage after passage of his work to illustrate it, yet they never seem to bother with his actual study on that particular issue though.
Which is that the only way it can be used to justify such actions is if it is taken out of context and misinterpreted.

I've red the better part of the Quran except the last quarter where it becaame so very bad that I could not stand it any longer, and plenty of secondary literature on it and the Hadith and Sharia, and history, some of it considered academic standard works. I was part in confronting Islam at court and preventing a local grow of islamic influence on the basis of fraud and lies here in my city, I confronted islamic speakers at "information desks" in the pedestrian zones and raised support on the scene and so chased them away on two occasions, and I remember quite some comments and arguments I was given in a most natural manner when being in islamic countries for quite some months (15, all in all) and local residents in places told me what they were thinking about life and the world, and the West and the role of Islam in it all.

So go on, tell me about "misunderstanding" Islam. I do something more usefull meanwhile, I go to sleep.

I'll say this: for better or for worse, Skybird seems to have the basic grasp of the tenets of Islam. I tend to agree with most of his views on religion in general, actually - except for perhaps the manner in which they are presented. Ironically, though, he's not bogged down by the biased views of your typical anti-religious liberal - am I the only one that finds it odd that people so accustomed to bashing any form of Christianity seem to often FEAR any affront to Islam, even though the beliefs of Muslims fly far more in the face of your average liberal's ideals?

That's why, agree with him or not, I typically respect Skybird's position because - most of the time - it seems well thought out rather than arbitrary. That being said, everyone knows I don't always agree. However, on Islam I do.

Aramike - Liberals hate Xtianity because it is the dominant religion here in the US. Thus, its moralistic teachings are a threat to some of the desires of liberalism. Islam on the other hand, is a religion that is NOT highly relevant in the same way. It is unable to push any moralistic views within the political climate here. Therefore, its not a threat to their agenda at this time.

Yes, if they paid attention, they would realize its a far greater threat, but most true liberals have on blinders. It is the obstacle in front of their nose they see, never looking down the road.