4 US Marines killed by lone gunman/potential domestic terrorist

[SerialPeacemake]

This will sound highly crass but the only good thing I could say about this is at least this man's target seems valid : soldiers( or marines for technicality).
Most other attack of this nature targets civilians( The one in Australia e.g).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What a horrible situation. I wish they had killed the guy before he could have killed anyone. I know it will ruffle some feathers but I thought Spider-Aziz post was good. We kill each other enough in America we really should stop meddling in other countries affairs and bringing even more death here.

 

[Immortalfire]

This will sound highly crass but the only good thing I could say about this is at least this man's target seems valid : soldiers( or marines for technicality).
Most other attack of this nature targets civilians( The one in Australia e.g).

There is nothing good about this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This will sound highly crass but the only good thing I could say about this is at least this man's target seems valid : soldiers( or marines for technicality).
Most other attack of this nature targets civilians( The one in Australia e.g).

How is this valid? What the hell does that even mean?

The shooter was an American civilian. This wasn't a war zone. Were these soldiers even armed?

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's harsh to look at stories of deaths, stories of deaths by kills are harder to sit through, because human ends the life of another. I can only look at this event with remorse.

Question: What caused the terrorist to perform the task he did? What drove him to make the choice?
Answer: Greed, the prime cause of war.

Some unlawful wars were declared by a small number of Republicans running in the oval office, they chose to start wars in countries under the word of liberation, but the idea was basically sending troops as cannon fodder to kill plenty, a large number of military casualties unfairly sent to die, and cause a bigger number of unfair death of civilians. What are these wars really for? Resources to be mined, financial gain.

These terrorists attacking soldiers like the dead marine officers (and some of the soldiers probably had no involvement in the assaults that angered plenty of people like that guy) are angry, not moving under properly guided jihad (to clear a misconception; jihad is a fight to fend off assailants, it's not what media call terrorist attacks, and it's not what ISIS -or folks like this guy flying solo- do).

The angry man's attack was likely misguided and unfair, but it did not come out of nowhere, it was vengeance, and vengeance will lead to more vengeance, and more saddening casualties for both sides.

Likely misguided and unfair? He murdered his own countrymen in an ambush.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

There is nothing good about this.

There is nothing good about war.

How is this valid? What the hell does that even mean?

The shooter was an American civilian. This wasn't a war zone. Were these soldiers even armed?

Combatants, the targets were off-duty-combatants.Off-duty soldiers are still soldiers, attacking enemy troops during their R&R time, even when they're sleeping in their barracks/home is still valid.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

He murdered his own countrymen in an ambush.

He murdered enemy soldiers in an ambush.

 

[Schlosser85]

They weren't enemy combatants. He was an American who murdered American soldiers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is nothing good about war.




Combatants, the targets were off-duty-combatants.Off-duty soldiers are still soldiers, attacking enemy troops during their R&R time, even when they're sleeping in their barracks/home is still valid.

No it is not. Combatants in what? Tennessee is not a war zone. This jackass is not a soldier, or affiliated with any state or armed force.

This is a cowardly attack.

 

[Thundercrack85]

He murdered enemy soldiers in an ambush.

Enemy soldiers? He's American.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm a little confused why the media is so quick to label Muslims terrorists but couldn't do the same for the white supremacist shooter in South Carolina.

I guess it's easier to advocate unconstitutional anti-terror measures when you have little in common with those targeted.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm a little confused why the media is so quick to label Muslims terrorists but couldn't agree on the white supremacist shooter in South Carolina.

I guess it's easier to advocate unconstitutional anti-terror measures why you have little in common with those targeted.

You say that, but they seem reluctant to call this a terrorist attack.

So far the only outlets I have seen call this a terrorist attack are Fox News and the Jerusalem Post.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

They weren't enemy combatants. He was an American who murdered American soldiers.

He chose to align himself(presumably) with ISIS(an organization that pretty much considers US and its military as one of its enemies), thus forsaken his identity American .We can argue that he is a rebel, traitor,a turncoat or even criminal, there ground for him to fit in all of those.

 

[Thundercrack85]

He chose to align himself(presumably) with ISIS(an organization that pretty much considers US and its military as one of its enemies), thus forsaken his identity American .We can argue that he is a rebel, traitor,a turncoat or even criminal, there ground for him to fit in all of those.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

I, and as far as I know any international convention, do not consider one's own country's servicemen to be a valid target.

Morally it's reprehensible any way you look at it.

This man was a coward and a traitor. It's a pity he can't be hanged.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

He chose to align himself(presumably) with ISIS(an organization that pretty much considers US and its military as one of its enemies), thus forsaken his identity American .We can argue that he is a rebel, traitor,a turncoat or even criminal, there ground for him to fit in all of those.

There's some truth to this.

ISIS has changed the rules of war somewhat.

Any American who secretly supports them can carry out a terrorist attack against America.

It's not exactly domestic terrorism when a foreign group is pulling the strings.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I never saw much use in the qualifier "domestic".

 

[SerialPeacemake]

No it is not. Combatants in what? Tennessee is not a war zone.

No warzone started as one until belligerent managed to put any forces on ground.

This jackass is not a soldier, or affiliated with any state or armed force.

He clearly decided to affiliated himself( or at least he sees himself that way) with the enemies of America.

This is a cowardly attack.

Ambush, sleeper agent, drone strikes, launching cruise missile from the other side of the world etc.Any of those can be argued as cowardly.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You say that, but they seem reluctant to call this a terrorist attack.

So far the only outlets I have seen call this a terrorist attack are Fox News and the Jerusalem Post.

I heard MSNBC refer to the Marine shooting as a terrorist attack hours after it happened.

It wasn't just Fox News.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No warzone started as one until belligerent managed to put any forces on ground.



He clearly decided to affiliated himself( or at least he sees himself that way) with the enemies of America.





Ambush, sleeper agent, drone strikes, launching cruise missile from the other side of the world etc.Any of those can be argued as cowardly.

Then he is a traitor, not a combatant.

And to your third response, yes. And they are called that by many.

Typically though we declare war, or make some kind of declaration prior to firing cruise missiles.

Drones though, that is a legal and ethical issue.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I never saw much use in the qualifier "domestic".

I think it implies that added danger of a potential insurgency.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

You are making a lot of assumptions.

I, and as far as I know any international convention, do not consider one's own country's servicemen to be a valid target.

Rebellion usually start when countrymen killed each other.I mean the USA started that way.

Not saying this is a rebellion( that is stretching it), but he is a turncoat either way.

Morally it's reprehensible any way you look at it.

This man was a coward and a traitor. It's a pity he can't be hanged.

Are saying that anybody that fight against a regime he no longer associated with should be hanged ? Or do you make exception to successful one( like your founding fathers)?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think it implies that added danger of a potential insurgency.

An insurgency would imply some sort of organization.

I don't know if that would apply here. There is a common ideology, stemming from Islam, but there is no direct connection between the various individuals who carry out these attacks and would be attacks.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

Then he is a traitor, not a combatant.

And to your third response, yes. And they are called that by many.

Some enemy combatants can be called traitors.That is one of the caveat of civil war or asymmetric warfare.

Typically though we declare war, or make some kind of declaration prior to firing cruise missiles.

Drones though, that is a legal and ethical issue.

Those "declaration"( technically Amercan haven't declared war in decades) are usually done after/during the attack , not before it was commenced.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Rebellion usually start when countrymen killed each other.I mean the USA started that way.

Not saying this is a rebellion( that is stretching it), but he is a turncoat either way.



Are saying that anybody that fight against a regime he no longer associated with should be hanged ? Or do you make exception to successful one( like your founding fathers)?

The founding fathers were traitors, and would have been hanged as such had they not won (they knew that, as you can see in their writings). However, from a moral and to a lesser extent legal standpoint, the founders did formally declare independence with a list of their grievances a year into hostilities. The Continental Army also obeyed the customs of war. Admittedly, the irregulars, not so much.

The British didn't exactly have clean hands either.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

An insurgency would imply some sort of organization.

I don't know if that would apply here. There is a common ideology, stemming from Islam, but there is no direct connection between the various individuals who carry out these attacks and would be attacks.

I meant typically the use of the phrase "domestic terrorism" hints at a possible insurgency.

This ISIS attack and ones like it deserves their own category.