- NEW!
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on November 16th, 2009
The word "terrorist" is not well defined. His attack was not designed to cause terror to the population at large, and therefore does not match *my* definition of a terrorist. To me, his actions were just (another) gun rampage. This one happens to have been motivated by the Muslim religion, but otherwise it resembles other gun rampages, not carefully pre-planned terrorist events like 9/11
by jrbowler on November 17th, 2009
Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter?
by Hardcore Conservative on November 17th, 2009
He IS a terrorist. He was in contact with other terrorists. His actions are part of what defines terrorism...
"...are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
I'm guessing he'll be added to the military's death row.
by urk on November 17th, 2009
What qualifies a person to become a terrorist expert?
by Dr_Dredd on November 17th, 2009
Anyone can call themselves an expert. What are this guy's credentials?
by Alexander on November 16th, 2009
Because admitting that Hussein was a terrorist overlooked by CIA due to Eric Holder foray into those quarters would mean that the other Hussein was on terrorists' payroll too.
by mymoonq on November 16th, 2009
Right now he isn't fitting the U.S. law definition of terrorist. http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm .you did not provide a link and I can not find anything on why Mr. Livingstone is saying he is a terrorist. I think it is more of a wait and see what happens after the investigation.
by Moongrim on November 17th, 2009
Who has said he wasn't?
And more importantly will the Republicans admit that he was in the Army for most of their tenure?
And is Scott Roeder a Terrorist?
What do college graduates enter the national guard as?
by Answerbag Staff on May 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What do you think about the proposed panama ban in Louisiana
by Tonnee on February 13th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
How heavy is a Morgan coin?
by Answerbag Staff on May 12th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What does a precinct captain do?
by Answerbag Staff on May 12th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What does it mean to pay your fare share?
by jimmy23 on February 13th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Terrorist expert Neil Livingstone says that Hasan IS a terrorist. Why some of you deny that Hasan is a terrorist?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
"was not designed to cause terror to the population at large" I disagree! it doesn't have to involve a large number of people to be qualified for the terrorism.
Thank you for your answer.
by FairLady on November 16th, 2009
Are many people going around today saying "There may be another major Hasan around"? I don't see them. Whereas airports are full of people saying that there may be another 9/11 crew around. Plenty of people changed their plans after 9/11. How many have changed them after the Fort Hood events?
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on November 17th, 2009
I agree with you Alec, that the term terrorism should be taken literally. I don't see any other reason for using the term, nor any other meaning you could extract from the word itself, which could hardly be any more clear.
Fairlady, how then would you define terrorism?
by Pater Murmidonorum on November 17th, 2009
I'm not Fairlady, but the definition of terrorism is to instill terror in people. Terror could mean fear, panic, fear in teh anticipation of danger. If that is not terrorism and what he did, I don't know what is. If the object was not to instill terror, what was the object of the 9/11 strick? It cerainly scared alot of people who weren't even in NYC. It scared people on other planes, air-traffic controllers, wives waiting for their husbands who were on those planes and millions of others. That's terror.
by Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
I understand what terrorism is, and I know 9/11 was clearly undoubtedly terrorism, unless you want to believe the conspiracies... :P, but what this guy did might as well have been an act of frustration/desparation. at least from the information I got. It would only be terrorism if he did it sothat the army would be afraid of sending muslim soldiers to muslim countries, and I have not heard any reason for such a motivation.
by Pater Murmidonorum on November 18th, 2009