Fort Hood Targeted for Second Terrorist Attack

The serviceman, identified by the FBI as Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo, 21, was taken into custody by the Killeen Police Department near Fort Hood after the owners of a local ammunition store, Guns Galore, alerted the police to Abdo's "suspicious" behavior in the store.

The gun dealer, Greg Ebert, told the police that he was "concerned with the quantity of his request and his general demeanor." Ebert added, "There was clearly something wrong with him."


http://www.investigativeproject.org/3068/fort-hood-targeted-for-second-terrorist-attack

This is the same gun shop that the first Fort Hood terrorist bought a bunch of stuff at (legally) that many here vilified. One thing that made the gun shop very suspicious, but not in this report - I've only seen it on video on TV, was that he wanted to buy a lot of gun powder but didn't know what it was used for.

Anyone that knows anything about reloading and gun powder already knows what brand and type of powder they want/need before they walk into a gun store. So the gun store called the local cops and another terrorist attack was thwarted. Hats off to Gun's Galore.

...of all times. They're just trying to distract attention from the situation in Norway.





























































:sarcasm:

This guy seems to have a real "winning" career track.

From the Volokh Conspiracy

That seems to be the story of Naser Abdo, who has been in the news much more than the average private. See “Devout Muslim Soldier Hopes to Avoid Deployment to Afghanistan” (ABC News, Aug. 31, 2010), “ charged with child pornography after 34 images were found on his government issued computer” (Leaf Chronicle (Tenn.), June 15, 2011), “The Army says a Muslim soldier from Fort Campbell who won conscientious objector status but then was charged with possessing child pornography has gone AWOL” (AP, July 20, 2011), “FBI: AWOL soldier had bomb materials near Ft. Hood” (AP, July 28, 2011); UPDATE: “Fort Hood Plot: AWOL Soldier Planned Dual Bombing, Shooting, Officials Say” (ABC News, July 28, 2011).

Isn't an attack on a military target not terrorism by definition?

Else when the US bombs military targets, wouldn't that be terrorism too? I despise double standards and conveniently morphing definitions. This is treason and criminal conduct, but terrorism?

On edit: Don't know if that info is in the O.P. link or not, I watched that info on TV this morning.

Isn't an attack on a military target not terrorism by definition?

So the bombing of the Beirut barracks wasn't a terrorist attack? There is no precise definition so there isn't a double standard where a standard doesn't exist.

terrorism. The attack on the Marines in Beirut was not terrorism, but it was an attack by individuals not operating under the flag of a particular country and not uniformed. They are saboteurs and can be subject to summary execution as illegal combatants.

In the case of the airplane attack on the Pentagon, since it involved the hijacking of a commercial airline and the deaths of all civilians on the airline, then it was terrorism. If they used a private plane for example, then it would not be terrorism. Further if they were uniformed and acting under a state agent then it would be an act of war by that state but not terrorism.

...it was an act that killed indiscriminately and with all the usual religious/political/social motivators of a terrorist act. Most of who died were non-combatants and therefor there is no distinction to be made between them and the civilians that were killed. Also, if you researched the event, you'd know that these where not uniformed actors working with a recognized State.

Blown330, post #12:

exboyfil, post #10:

Y'all are on the same page concerning the facts; the distinction seems to be between calling it an "act of terrorism" or a "war crime." That distinction would hinge, I think, on whether you considered the United States to be a belligerent party in the armed conflict taking place in Lebanon at the time, but either way, I think we can agree the bombing was a "perfidious act," to use a term I learned in classes on the laws and customs of warfare in NCO school.

If terrorism means "violence of which the speaker disapproves" we should simply say "illegitimate violence."

In The Ethics of War (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_ethics_of_war.html?id=7T7UAAAACAAJ), Paskins & Dockrill define terrorism as "the indiscriminate waging of evasive warfare," "evasive warfare" being where one side (as a whole) seeks to avoid detection when not fighting by disguising itself as non-combatants, hiding in the forests, or the like. While such a group may legitimately attack the opposing security forces, if they do it indiscriminately (e.g. by placing a car bomb in a busy street; it might take out a passing police/army patrol, but it'll most likely harm more non-combatants than it will combatants), then it becomes a terrorist act.

The consequence of Paskins & Dockrill's definition, incidentally, is that indiscriminate violence inflicted by the security forces (e.g. massacring an entire village to get four unidentified insurgents) is also terrorism.

Dutch political scientist Alex Schmidt came up with a "quick and dirty" definition of terrorism as "any action committed in peacetime that, if committed in wartime, would be a war crime." It's far from perfect, but it's a hell of lot less unwieldy than his longer, more exhaustive definition while still giving you a pretty good general idea of what counts.

The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One

and

Counter Insurgency

Both by David Kilcullen.

Thank you for a job well done.

Semper Fi,

That said a gunstore in NC also turned him in. They didnt like how he was acting, so they refused to sell him a pistol. They then reported it to the provost marshall. the FBI and army showed up to talk to gunstore people