What is the difference?
Best I can tell is an "act of terror" can be committed at any time , anyplace, by anyone.
While a "terrorist attack" is planned and carried out by dedicated terrorist.
Politicians are splitting hairs over the issue.
"Act of terror" or "Terrorist attack" ?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Oct 18, 2012.
-
-
There can be very few reasons why the president is so reluctant to call a terrorist attack what it is.
1. He just doesn't want to put his Islamofascist buddies out there as the perpetrators.
2. He doesn't want it said that a terrorist attack took place while he had the watch.
3 He's afraid it will harm his chances of re-election.
After all, he still hasn't called the Fort Hood terrorist attack a terrorist attack yet.
I, personally lean toward a combination of 1 and 2, in general. But #3 comes very strongly into play this time.
I also find it odd that 63 people have read the poll, but decline to opine. Could be they see no real differences between the choices, as Obama so clearly does.
OTOH Maybe it's just not a good subject for a poll.:) -
Incidentally, I do not asses either the Hood or Libya attacks as acts of terrorism / terrorist attacks. When I served in the Army I understood the term to apply to attacks on civilian targets intended to incite terror (go figure) in the civilian population in order to garner political, military, religious, etc gain. The Fort Hood attack was a strictly military target, so it does not fit that definition of terrorism. The attacker nevertheless constitutes an enemy combatant (not to mention TRAITOR) given his affiliations and motivations, but I don't consider his actions terrorism.
Similarly, the Benghazi attacks were directed at a political target. Although politicians are by definition civilians, they are government targets and not part of what we might consider the the "general public" civilian population. In that estimation, I do not judge the Benghazi attacks as terrorist attacks. An assault and / or act of war? Yes. Terrorism? Not so much. The 9/11 attacks on the WTC better fit the classical definition of terrorism with which I am familiar, since the target was a civilian center. Therefore, even the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon isn't actually a "terrorist" attack.
The problem we see is that we really don't have a contemporary, set definition for terrorism. The suicide bomber attacking my troops in Iraq didn't commit a terrorist act, just a simple military attack. -
Also I disagree about Benghazi. It was not a military target and I believe islamists consider all religious and government targets as legitimate and desireable as civilians as a target.
I do agree , however that military targets are fair game in any war. Embassies and consulates have never been considered so. -
A CIA post is not a military target?
-
A consulate or embassy is not.