It seems like it might be a simple judgement call. Complicating factors are it was an attack on miliatry personel (not civilians) who were preparing to be deployed to an active theater of operations. So even if the motivation was political or religious and not madness it is still not so simple to label it terrorism. Was it a legitimate military target? Are attacks on military personel and military targets still terrorist attacks?
It seems like it might be a simple judgement call. Complicating factors are it was an attack on miliatry personel (not civilians) who were preparing to be deployed to an active theater of operations. So even if the motivation was political or religious and not madness it is still not so simple to label it terrorism. Was it a legitimate military target? Are attacks on military personel and military targets still terrorist attacks?
Yes, it doesn't fit neatly into terrorism or nuttiness. Life is seldom neat.
Al Queda would've killed him had he not attacked the people at Ft. Hood. Likewise, if one had a mugger's gun to their head, they would pay up or die.
No matter what the crime, the criminal has a logical reason or is insane.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace