4 police officers were shot and killed in a coffee shop outside Seattle on Saturday. This is an awful crime, and I would like to know if this crime is considered "terrorism", since members of law enforcement were targeted and brutally murdered in a coffee shop?

My guess is that those in the coffee shop at the time of the shooting were definitely terrorized, and that most of the Seattle area will be on edge until this individual is captured. The individual suspected of shooting the officers is NOT of Arabic decent, and is not know to be a practicing Muslim. So, does that mean this incident cannot be considered an "act of terror"? I ask this question because something tells me if the individual suspected of the crime was a known Muslim, then many would be siting this as yet another example of "terrorism". And, in my opinion, the religious beliefs and ethnicity of the individual committing the act ought not matter when citing a crime of this type as terrorism.

In my opinion, if the attacks at Fort Hood were "terrorism", then this brazen attack in broad daylight on 4 police officers in a coffee shop is also terrorism. The individuals killed were not members of the military, but they were law enforcement officers, and those in law enforcement play as a big a role in keeping the country safe from "acts of terror" as due members of the military.

Four police officers fatally shot near Seattle
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-police-shooting30-2009nov30,0,1236156.story

No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Huckabee supposedly let the guy out of jail 9 years ago through Clemency in Arkansas. If true, this officially ends any hopes he ever had of becoming President as this is Willie Brown to the nth degree.


This was not an act of terror, just a crazy person with a long criminal history who finally lost it for good.

TERROR: It depends on how "Webster" and others "define" it.
TERRORISM: It depends on how "Webster" and others "define" it.

TERROR: Now it depends on how "YOU" define it.
TERRORISM: Now it depends on how "YOU" define it.

TERROR: It now depends on how a particular political party wants to define it.
TERRORISM: It now depends on how a particular political party wants to define it.

The "act of terror": Whose definition do you want? What is the "agenda" of the person/people attempting to "define" it? ETC.

Many questions are raised as one tries to give meaning to this term and this particular "act of CHOSEN BEHAVIOR".
Was it "terror like"? YES IMHO
Was it an "act of terror"? YES IMHO.

But was it an "act of terror" in today's "world of fear" and "over-reaction"? In my book, maybe not. In other people's mind of "living in fear", YES. They want to blame everything since 9/11 on a particular group of people. I understand their "emotions" and "thinking process", but I don't have to buy into it or accept it. And in many cases, I don't.

Let the facts come out. Let the judicial procedures proceed to "carrying out justice". Maybe then we can come to a "rational/intelligent" conclusion. Then again, that might be difficult for some people here on the "freehuddle" IMHO! I may be asking/expecting too much from people in general.

Then, it is just ME!

Glory Days wrote: No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Religious motivation doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either though.

To make this an act of terror, the man needed to kill the police officers in order to scare the people into making a political change. That is the only way this could be an act of terror.

Although terrorism seems to be the new buzzword these days and everyone loves using it for everything.

Glory Days wrote: No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Not the definition of terrorism.

I see no difference between this and Ft Hood, other than the obvious (that the shooter at Ft Hood was a Muslim and we don't yet know who the shooter in Seattle was)

Mass Murder might work.

eersandbeers wrote:Religious motivation doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either though.

Killing the infidel in the name of Allah in order to bring about secular government controlled by Muslim clerics as prescribed by Radical Islam, is indeed religious motivation and the epitome of terrorism.

eersandbeers wrote:To make this an act of terror, the man needed to kill the police officers in order to scare the people into making a political change. That is the only way this could be an act of terror.

I can agree with you on this point. If this clown did it simply because he has a personal erection on for police officers, he's a mass murderer....which is what I believe we have in this case.

However, if the perpetrator in this situation turns out to be Muslim and claims he did this in the name of Allah, then it becomes yet another act of terror on behalf of Radical Islam.

cbus4life wrote:

Glory Days wrote: No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Not the definition of terrorism.

According to who? thats what the text book i have says. but i went to webster just to make sure:"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." and the FBI :"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." and the Cornell law school definition: "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"

Eers, just depends on which experts you ask. According to the government of Ohio, it does.

Glory Days wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

Glory Days wrote: No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Not the definition of terrorism.

According to who? thats what the text book i have says. but i went to webster just to make sure:"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." and the FBI :"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." and the Cornell law school definition: "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"

Eers, just depends on which experts you ask. According to the government of Ohio, it does.

Fair enough, and good sources. Still, i'll wait on more information to determine whether i believe it was an actual act of "terror."

Thanks for definitions!

Glory Days wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

Glory Days wrote: No it is not. his motive was to kill cops, not for some religious, political or social reason. If the guy at fort hood was doing it for Allah or to support Al Qaeda(which may be the case since he did belong to a supposively radical mosque) it would be terrorism.

Not the definition of terrorism.

According to who? thats what the text book i have says. but i went to webster just to make sure:"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." and the FBI :"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." and the Cornell law school definition: "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"

Eers, just depends on which experts you ask. According to the government of Ohio, it does.

Pre-9/11 (before terrorism became the rallying cry for all governments to gain legitimacy for their cause) terrorism was universally recognized as a political act. If there is no political motivation it cannot be terrorism. This is also true in scholarly circles. The definition has definitely been warped since it became the hot button issue.


"No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:•

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.•

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.•

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983"

www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2419.html

Great posts. Keep them coming!

eersandbeers wrote:Religious motivation doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either though.

To make this an act of terror, the man needed to kill the police officers in order to scare the people into making a political change. That is the only way this could be an act of terror.

Although terrorism seems to be the new buzzword these days and everyone loves using it for everything.

Not exactly. Religious motivation can have a lot to do with terror. Especially when terror is used to get people to "convert" to the terrorizers religion. In this case it can be the sole motivation for inflicting the terror. History is full of such expamples.

Christian groups such as Catholic church terrorize the Antibaptists.
http://atheism.about.com/od/baptistssouthernbaptists/a/baptisthistory_3.htm

Spanish Inquisition.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm

Islamic forced conversions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2153026/posts

Although religious beliefs may not always be the primary motive for many terrorist groups, I would argue that in many terrorist groups religious and cultural beliefs play a role in their terror campaigns. They may seek political change but you often find like religious beliefs uniting members of a terrorist group.

Listed below are ome groups that used terror tactics at some point in their campaigns to bring political change. Religion clearly played varying roles in all of them. I am not say every single member held same religious beliefs, but large majorities did.

IRA - Catholic
KKK - Christian protestants
PLO - Islam
Al Quaida - Islam
Hamas/Hezzbolah - Islam
Irgun Zvai Leumi -Jewish
Gush Emunim Underground - Jewish

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Religious motivation doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either though.

To make this an act of terror, the man needed to kill the police officers in order to scare the people into making a political change. That is the only way this could be an act of terror.

Although terrorism seems to be the new buzzword these days and everyone loves using it for everything.

Not exactly. Religious motivation can have a lot to do with terror. Especially when terror is used to get people to "convert" to the terrorizers religion. In this case it can be the sole motivation for inflicting the terror. History is full of such expamples.

Christian groups such as Catholic church terrorize the Antibaptists.
http://atheism.about.com/od/baptistssouthernbaptists/a/baptisthistory_3.htm

Spanish Inquisition.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/inquisition.htm

Islamic forced conversions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2153026/posts

Although religious beliefs may not always be the primary motive for many terrorist groups, I would argue that in many terrorist groups religious and cultural beliefs play a role in their terror campaigns. They may seek political change but you often find like religious beliefs uniting members of a terrorist group.

Listed below are ome groups that used terror tactics at some point in their campaigns to bring political change. Religion clearly played varying roles in all of them. I am not say every single member held same religious beliefs, but large majorities did.

IRA - Catholic
KKK - Christian protestants
PLO - Islam
Al Quaida - Islam
Hamas/Hezzbolah - Islam
Irgun Zvai Leumi -Jewish
Gush Emunim Underground - Jewish

This is the correct answer and an excellent post.

Unless we find out the shooter in Seattle had some political/religious motivation, it's an act of mass murder. The shooting at Ft. Hood was most definitely an act of terrorism.

majorspark wrote:
Not exactly. Religious motivation can have a lot to do with terror. Especially when terror is used to get people to "convert" to the terrorizers religion. In this case it can be the sole motivation for inflicting the terror. History is full of such expamples.

Religious motivations can play a role in terrorism but religious motivations alone cannot make something an act of terror. There has to be some type of political nexus tied to the attack.


For example, if I'm just going around killing women because I think its my religious duty then it is not terrorism. If I am trying to force a political change (such as removing womens rights) by killing women because I think its my religious duty then its terrorism.

eersandbeers wrote: Religious motivations can play a role in terrorism but religious motivations alone cannot make something an act of terror. There has to be some type of political nexus tied to the attack.


For example, if I'm just going around killing women because I think its my religious duty then it is not terrorism. If I am trying to force a political change (such as removing womens rights) by killing women because I think its my religious duty then its terrorism.

People have been killing and terrorizing each other for centuries trying to force religious change. You can not deny history. Some just don't want to aknowledge it today for political reasons.

Are you saying Christian and Catholic groups who at one time killed those who spoke against infant baptism were not using terror in order to change the beliefs of those opposed to its doctrine?

Or conversions under the threat of death is not terrorizing in order to produce religious change?

Terrorism can be motivated by religion alone by attempting to force change in religious beliefs. Or it can be motivated by politics alone in order to force change in political ideology. Or it can be a mixture of both. With one or the other taking a more prominant role.

^^^^ Agree!

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Religious motivations can play a role in terrorism but religious motivations alone cannot make something an act of terror. There has to be some type of political nexus tied to the attack.


For example, if I'm just going around killing women because I think its my religious duty then it is not terrorism. If I am trying to force a political change (such as removing womens rights) by killing women because I think its my religious duty then its terrorism.

People have been killing and terrorizing each other for centuries trying to force religious change. You can not deny history. Some just don't want to aknowledge it today for political reasons.

Are you saying Christian and Catholic groups who at one time killed those who spoke against infant baptism were not using terror in order to change the beliefs of those opposed to its doctrine?

Or conversions under the threat of death is not terrorizing in order to produce religious change?

Terrorism can be motivated by religion alone by attempting to force change in religious beliefs. Or it can be motivated by politics alone in order to force change in political ideology. Or it can be a mixture of both. With one or the other taking a more prominant role.

According to the universally accepted definitions of terrorism your above scenario does not count as terrorism. Some people redefine it to fit other situations, but the current accepted definition needs to have some type of political motivation.

Not terrorism, just a dude that had been locked up and hated cops.

Way to go Huckabee. I'd LOVE to hear his reason for letting this guy go.

eersandbeers wrote:

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Religious motivations can play a role in terrorism but religious motivations alone cannot make something an act of terror. There has to be some type of political nexus tied to the attack.


For example, if I'm just going around killing women because I think its my religious duty then it is not terrorism. If I am trying to force a political change (such as removing womens rights) by killing women because I think its my religious duty then its terrorism.

People have been killing and terrorizing each other for centuries trying to force religious change. You can not deny history. Some just don't want to aknowledge it today for political reasons.

Are you saying Christian and Catholic groups who at one time killed those who spoke against infant baptism were not using terror in order to change the beliefs of those opposed to its doctrine?

Or conversions under the threat of death is not terrorizing in order to produce religious change?

Terrorism can be motivated by religion alone by attempting to force change in religious beliefs. Or it can be motivated by politics alone in order to force change in political ideology. Or it can be a mixture of both. With one or the other taking a more prominant role.

According to the universally accepted definitions of terrorism your above scenario does not count as terrorism. Some people redefine it to fit other situations, but the current accepted definition needs to have some type of political motivation.

Since when did you start accepting universal definitions? Use your own common sense. My own common sense tells me I am just as terrorized by some group wanting to kill or harm my family because of my political beliefs as I am some group wanting to kill or harm my family because of my religious beliefs.

Was the shooter muslim? According to some fools that is the only way this would be considered terrorism.

I want to thank all of the people who have posted on this thread. And, I have noticed that people have been giving rational, well thought out responses rather than resorting to name calling and going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the question posed.

I have enjoyed reading all the responses, and from reading the responses I would agree that this was not a crime that fits the literal definition of a terrorist act, though I do believe the crime has created terror for those who were at the restaurant, the entire Tacoma/Seattle area, and all members of law enforcement who know there is a proven "cop killer" still on the loose.

I do wonder though if the reaction would be different if the individual who committed these crimes was Muslim, even if he had not shouted any type of religious phrase, not mentioned Allah and had no ties to radical clerics from other countries, but was known by others to be a very devout follower of Islam?

dwccrew wrote: Was the shooter muslim? According to some fools that is the only way this would be considered terrorism.

My favorite is an interview i read with a guy complaining about the "terrible" history textbooks found in schools today.

One of his complaints was that they didn't define Muslims as "terrorists," and that they didn't explain that only Muslims could be terrorists. No joke.

I think many who have been hurt or had family members killed by the IRA would beg to differ.

cbus4life wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Was the shooter muslim? According to some fools that is the only way this would be considered terrorism.

My favorite is an interview i read with a guy complaining about the "terrible" history textbooks found in schools today.

One of his complaints was that they didn't define Muslims as "terrorists," and that they didn't explain that only Muslims could be terrorists. No joke.

I think many who have been hurt or had family members killed by the IRA would beg to differ.

Interesting viewpoint by that individual. All these years, and I never knew that Timothy McVeigh was a practicing Muslim. :huh: