Breaking: Pentagon Locked Down after Shots Fired. No Details Yet.

[goldcatt]

MSN has a report on already. They are sure it is not a terrorist attack. Man, these guys are good. Haven't interviewed the subject yet or done any background check, but the shooter is not a terrorist. Here's a idea government types, why not assume it is terror based and act accordingly, until you prove otherwise. Then we will all be safer and have responded better if it turns out to be a terror attack.

Oh Nooooooeeeeeezzzzz! There's terrrrerists everywhere! Run, run fer yer lives!

Let's see, Random Whackjob barricades himself in his house and shoots at cops. Check. Multiple checks.

Random Whackjob burns down his own house and flies into government building. Check.

Random Whackjob walks up to Pentagon cops and starts shooting? Sooooo farfetched. Couldn't be. Must be a terrerrist, there's no other possible explanation.

I know it might be too subtle a difference for you goldcatt, but I said for security reasons assume it could be terrorist related until you find out otherwise. Sort of like screen people at the airport before they get on the plane. Of course, we could just assume no one will take a jet and fly it into a building and then another and another. That was an expensive lesson wasn't it?

Actually, you said "assume it is" and act accordingly until you "prove" otherwise. That's a lot different from assume it "could be", which I actually agree with in cases like these. It Could Be.

But I guess the difference is too subtle for you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Save Liberty does have a point, how would a news organization have any Idea it was or wasn't anything? There is no way they could have known it was not terrorist related that soon. Unless they were quoting someone else who also couldn't have known that soon, unless they knew some other explanation and weren't talking.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Agreed, but before the sweep was even done, the media was reporting it was not a terror attack.

The problem I have is how do you define terrorism?

The word "terrorism" is rhetoric - it's a fluid term. That's why I don't like the term.

And I don't like the term pro choice, so what is your point?

I edited my post for clarity. So, my point is there, in my post.

 

[US Army Retired]

Well now they think there is a second suspect so this could be a terrorist incident.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...US-Pentagon-Metro-Shooting-Suspects.html?_r=1

Filed at 9:41 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement officials say they've got one person in custody and are investigating whether a second was involved in a shooting at Pentagon subway entrance

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still unfolding.

They say there's no immediate signs of terrorism but, with information coming in quickly, they haven't ruled anything out.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh Nooooooeeeeeezzzzz! There's terrrrerists everywhere! Run, run fer yer lives!

Let's see, Random Whackjob barricades himself in his house and shoots at cops. Check. Multiple checks.

Random Whackjob burns down his own house and flies into government building. Check.

Random Whackjob walks up to Pentagon cops and starts shooting? Sooooo farfetched. Couldn't be. Must be a terrerrist, there's no other possible explanation.

I know it might be too subtle a difference for you goldcatt, but I said for security reasons assume it could be terrorist related until you find out otherwise. Sort of like screen people at the airport before they get on the plane. Of course, we could just assume no one will take a jet and fly it into a building and then another and another. That was an expensive lesson wasn't it?

Actually, you said "assume it is" and act accordingly until you "prove" otherwise. That's a lot different from assume it "could be", which I actually agree with in cases like these. It Could Be.

But I guess the difference is too subtle for you.

Sounds like we are closer in agreement than it first appeared. I also get your point that we can't be driven to fear whenever these things happen. Terrorist win when you allow them to alter your life because of them.

 

[Si modo]

No link yet, but a guy trying to get in the Pentagon shot two guys, so far.

Pentagon cops shot him in the head.

There may be a second suspect.

Will post link when there is one.

threads merged

Thanks. Sorry about that.

 

[Ringel05]

Way to politicize a tragedy there asshole.

Um, dont you think this tragedy was politically motivated in the first place? The Pentagon isnt exactly a random location.

Why would the shooting of 2 DC cops at a train station next to the Pentagon be politically motivated?

Do you think the Militias are trying to make their move, starting with the Pentagon train station?

FYI - they are Pentagon Police officers, not DC police officers.

 

[jillian]

I would hope the lock down was part of an anti terrorist contingency. If not then I would be worried.

Agreed, but before the sweep was even done, the media was reporting it was not a terror attack.

The problem I have is how do you define terrorism?

The word "terrorism" is rhetoric - it's a fluid term. That's why I don't like the term. It's definition exists only in the person using the word. What I define as terrorism may be entirely different than you, and until a convention is decided upon, it's too fluid a term for me.

it's only a fluid term if people want it to be. But it actually has a definition... terrorism is violent action TARGETING civilians for political gain.

 

[saveliberty]

MSN headline: 2 Pentagon officers shot near Metro station Suspect also wounded; feds say shooting not an act of terrorism

2 Pentagon officers shot near Metro station - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

Responsible journalism please.

 

[goldcatt]

I know it might be too subtle a difference for you goldcatt, but I said for security reasons assume it could be terrorist related until you find out otherwise. Sort of like screen people at the airport before they get on the plane. Of course, we could just assume no one will take a jet and fly it into a building and then another and another. That was an expensive lesson wasn't it?

Actually, you said "assume it is" and act accordingly until you "prove" otherwise. That's a lot different from assume it "could be", which I actually agree with in cases like these. It Could Be.

But I guess the difference is too subtle for you.

Sounds like we are closer in agreement than it first appeared. I also get your point that we can't be driven to fear whenever these things happen. Terrorist win when you allow them to alter your life because of them.

And on that I completely agree.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well now they think there is a second suspect so this could be a terrorist incident.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...US-Pentagon-Metro-Shooting-Suspects.html?_r=1

Filed at 9:41 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement officials say they've got one person in custody and are investigating whether a second was involved in a shooting at Pentagon subway entrance

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still unfolding.

They say there's no immediate signs of terrorism but, with information coming in quickly, they haven't ruled anything out.

It's a strange strange world that we live in.

 

[jillian]

Well now they think there is a second suspect so this could be a terrorist incident.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...US-Pentagon-Metro-Shooting-Suspects.html?_r=1

Filed at 9:41 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement officials say they've got one person in custody and are investigating whether a second was involved in a shooting at Pentagon subway entrance

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still unfolding.

They say there's no immediate signs of terrorism but, with information coming in quickly, they haven't ruled anything out.

It's a strange strange world that we live in.

hasn't it always been?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Agreed, but before the sweep was even done, the media was reporting it was not a terror attack.

The problem I have is how do you define terrorism?

The word "terrorism" is rhetoric - it's a fluid term. That's why I don't like the term. It's definition exists only in the person using the word. What I define as terrorism may be entirely different than you, and until a convention is decided upon, it's too fluid a term for me.

it's only a fluid term if people want it to be. But it actually has a definition... terrorism is violent action TARGETING civilians for political gain.

The closest thing that I've been able to find as an international legal definition is the UN definition:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

To me, that definition leaves too much gray area.

 

[Si modo]

Way to politicize a tragedy there asshole.

Um, dont you think this tragedy was politically motivated in the first place? The Pentagon isnt exactly a random location.

Why would the shooting of 2 DC cops at a train station next to the Pentagon be politically motivated?

Do you think the Militias are trying to make their move, starting with the Pentagon train station?

The Pentagon has its own force. They aren't DC cops.

Even so, the Pentagon and the Pentagon station are not in the District.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Well now they think there is a second suspect so this could be a terrorist incident.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...US-Pentagon-Metro-Shooting-Suspects.html?_r=1

Filed at 9:41 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement officials say they've got one person in custody and are investigating whether a second was involved in a shooting at Pentagon subway entrance

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still unfolding.

They say there's no immediate signs of terrorism but, with information coming in quickly, they haven't ruled anything out.

It's a strange strange world that we live in.

hasn't it always been?

People are strange when you are a stranger.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Glad to hear the officers will be ok.

 

[jillian]

The problem I have is how do you define terrorism?

The word "terrorism" is rhetoric - it's a fluid term. That's why I don't like the term. It's definition exists only in the person using the word. What I define as terrorism may be entirely different than you, and until a convention is decided upon, it's too fluid a term for me.

it's only a fluid term if people want it to be. But it actually has a definition... terrorism is violent action TARGETING civilians for political gain.

The closest thing that I've been able to find as an international legal definition is the UN definition:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

To me, that definition leaves too much gray area.

That's cause you're going by the UN definition which expressly remains vague so that they can muddy the waters about what terrorism is.

it's the targeting of civilians that mark the difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

it's only a fluid term if people want it to be. But it actually has a definition... terrorism is violent action TARGETING civilians for political gain.

The closest thing that I've been able to find as an international legal definition is the UN definition:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

To me, that definition leaves too much gray area.

That's cause you're going by the UN definition which expressly remains vague so that they can muddy the waters about what terrorism is.

it's the targeting of civilians that mark the difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism.

I don't disagree with your definition. But the fact that there isn't a defined convention makes it very dangerous.

 

[random3434]

Not to get off topic, but don't all schools have a "Terrorist Plan" in their school, like a Fire Drill or Tornado Drill? We do, and I just assumed all schools do since 9/11.

 

[Si modo]

it's only a fluid term if people want it to be. But it actually has a definition... terrorism is violent action TARGETING civilians for political gain.

The closest thing that I've been able to find as an international legal definition is the UN definition:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

To me, that definition leaves too much gray area.

That's cause you're going by the UN definition which expressly remains vague so that they can muddy the waters about what terrorism is.

it's the targeting of civilians that mark the difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism.

Right. Seems pretty clear.