Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

In the thread about the official statistics about terrorist attacks in the USA, event horizon (who was banned) under his new alias seemed to be supporting the strange view that one soldier going on a shooting spree in the USA, killing unarmed fellow soldiers/military personnel was a terrorist, but that another US soldier going on a shooting spree and killing women, children and men, and then burning their corpses was not a terrorist.

The report listing terrorist acts has a cynical way to excuse any terrorist act by serving US soldiers - because it chooses to define terrorist acts in a very underhand way, as was pointed out in the article in the OP of that thread:

This is because it’s only terrorism when our enemies (especially Muslims) do it.
This huge double standard is apparent from the NCTC report itself, which declares on the opening page:

In compiling the figures of terrorist incidents that are included in the CRT and the NRT, NCTC uses the definition of terrorism found in Title 22, which provides that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” (See, 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)[2]).

I therefore asked eh to clarify his stance on Christian terrorists in the US, and pointed out that the crimes were the same:

I also refer you to the related topic of your support for Christian terrorists in the USA, which seems related to your agreement that Bales is not a terrorist but Nidal is - for carrying out exactly the same crime of shooting up unarmed people - (both were soldiers), after all. And just to be clear - either both are terrorists or both aren't. Hence the 'double standard' that the OP article is talking about

The reason Bale's crime is not classified as terrorism under the report is because he was a serving soldier and not a member of the highlighted groups in the definition. It remains to be seen whether Nidal was either - but let's say that they suspect him to be a 'clandestine agent'.


HOWEVER, I've started this thread to hear eh's opinion in what way the CRIME committed by Bales was different from Nidal's crime. The report's definition means that a soldier carrying out a terrorist attack will not be called a terrorist.

But to me the crimes are no different - shooting up innocent, unarmed people. In cold blood. Bales was the more horrific because he went house to house and killed women and children at point blank range etc.

So, eh - care to explain how the crimes differ? Silence or changing the subject will be taken as an admission that the crimes are the same. Only that you don't consider Bales a terrorist, but you do Nidal.

Cheers,
Shafique