A few days ago a young muslim from Kosovo shot and killed some US soldiers at Frankfurt airport in transit to Afghanistan. Reportedly he yelled out "Allah Akhbar!". Maybe we should have let Milosovic do what he wanted with Kosovo?

Anyway, is this simply a multiple murder or an example of terrorism because the killer was Muslim and yelled out the terrorists' favorite slogan?

The link below has the story and some analysis from across the political spectrum in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,749173,00.html

Germany is in a state of shock following Wednesday's fatal shooting at Frankfurt Airport, which left two US airmen dead and two wounded. It appears to have been the first deadly attack with an Islamist motive on German soil.

Our Islamic apologists will claim he was a 'freedom fighter'.

However, one statement in the Der Spiegel article jumps right out at me.

________________________________________________________

"It appears to have been the first deadly attack with an Islamist motive on German soil."

________________________________________________________

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought Munich was part of Germany in 1972?

The question should bring some interesting replies. I would think of it as murder. The young man specifically targeted US military personnel and that is what he got. Terrorism usually targets a specific group, but the damage and injury is indiscriminate.

Terrorism, IMO, would be something like placing a bomb on the bus that kills not only the soldiers, but the driver, the mechanic. He presented less risk to non-targeted persons.

Terrorism, IMO, would be something like placing a bomb on the bus that kills not only the soldiers, but the driver, the mechanic. He presented less risk to non-targeted persons.

+1

More from the British press.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8359759/Frankfurt-airport-shooter-shouted-Allahu-akhbar-before-opening-fire.html

With regard to Kosovo, to me this was a most serious mistake and capitulation to the Islamist apologists. This was a part of Serbia, although with a large Albanian-muslim-immigrant section of the population.

It would be like taking Arizona away from the US and making it independent, because of a large Mexican-immigrant section of the population.

Or casting Liverpool adrift because of a large Irish population.

Both are from neighbouring countries, have a different religion to the main religion of the base population - although by breeding and non-conversion they make it the dominant religion in certain parts of the areas they have occupied.

This was a terrorist act. It was indiscriminate shooting - not aimed at any one person, but just a general discharge at a bus full of people.

And not only was Munich a previous terrorist act, but the night-club in Berlin was another, and I seem to remember the Baader-Meinhof gang doing a little bit of naughty from time to time.

So, if it is a Muslim that does it, it is terrorism?

So, if it is a Muslim that does it, it is terrorism?

Yep.

This group of American servicemen were in transit from Lakenheath (UK) to Afghanistan.

How did this guy know they were there?

Or did he go to the airport armed, just to shoot any American he saw?

In either case it was not a personal grievance, it was motivated by a general wish to kill a certain section of society.

I don't care if he is muslim, RC, animist or atheist - if he is out to kill people he doesn't know, merely because they do not belong to his grouping, or because he believes his grouping is being unfairly targetted by the other, then it is either war or terrorism.

In terrorism it is an act designed to terrorise the target group until they desist in their efforts to control your grouping. And it works both ways. For me, the bombing of Libya by Reagan (assisted by Thatcher) was an act of terror.

Wait until the homeless start shooting the bankers, or vice versa, and describe that.

Wait until the homeless start shooting the bankers, and describe that.

First words that come to mind?

predictable consequence, retaliation

This group of American servicemen were in transit from Lakenheath (UK) to Afghanistan.

How did this guy know they were there?

Or did he go to the airport armed, just to shoot any American he saw?

In either case it was not a personal grievance, it was motivated by a general wish to kill a certain section of society.

I don't care if he is muslim, RC, animist or atheist - if he is out to kill people he doesn't know, merely because they do not belong to his grouping, or because he believes his grouping is being unfairly targetted by the other, then it is either war or terrorism.

In terrorism it is an act designed to terrorise the target group until they desist in their efforts to control your grouping. And it works both ways. For me, the bombing of Libya by Reagan (assisted by Thatcher) was an act of terror.

Wait until the homeless start shooting the bankers, or vice versa, and describe that.

Only disagree with your opinion of the Reagan/Thatcher action. They had good evidence that Libya was directly involved in terrorist activities, in Germany, and supported such operations in other countries, far as I'm concerned, they got off easy.

So, if it is a Muslim that does it, it is terrorism?

Yep.

He targeted Americans and yelled ALLAHU AKBAR as he pulled the trigger. Sounds like an Islamic terrorist to me.

Sounds like revenge to me.

He targeted Americans and yelled ALLAHU AKBAR as he pulled the trigger. Sounds like an Islamic terrorist to me.

I guess by that definition

if an Israeli said YHWH/Yahveh before he shot a Palestinian he would be a Israeli terrorist?

Or if a US Soldier said God before he shot an Afghan,Pakistani,Iraqi etc. he would be a American terrorist?

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The man, who lived in Frankfurt but was originally from Kosovo, was not previously known to authorities and appears not to have been a member of an Islamist group. However, the suspect's Facebook page, which has now been taken offline, indicates that he had contacts to Islamists from the radical Salafist movement.

The group has declared its intention to attack Algerian, Spanish, French, and American targets. It has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State, and similarly classed as a terrorist organization by the European Union.

the deputy federal prosecutor general, said there was no evidence that Arid U. had belonged to a terrorist organization, although he appeared to be influenced by Islamist thinking and had visited Islamist websites.

1. Was this a politically motivated attack?

2. What is the difference between belonging to a terrorist group and having contact with them? Did he carried out the attack in order to be able to join to a terrorist group?

3. What exactly is "Islamic Thinking"

4. What evidence is needed in order to proof someone is a member of a terrorist organisation?

I think this person was lured into his action to show he was worthy. Very similar to a pedophile that is lured into commiting a crime in order to join a network.

"...violence perpetrated against noncombatant..."

The target was military personnel. They are considered combatants. The motive was probably more religious than political. Having had contact with a terrorist group and being a member or being directed by them are very different things.

Your comparison to pedophiles is way, way off base, by the way.

And not only was Munich a previous terrorist act, but the night-club in Berlin was another, and I seem to remember the Baader-Meinhof gang doing a little bit of naughty from time to time.

the Spiegel journalist wrote

"It appears to have been the first deadly attack with an Islamist motive on German soil."

there's a difference in the meaning of "islamic" and "islamist" in today's diction. Munich 1972 was carried out by palestinian terrorists who happened to be muslims. but the background and reasons were not related to Islam or islamistic activities.

So, if it is a Muslim that does it, it is terrorism?

Yep.

and if a Christian kills two Muslims in Lahore by shooting them in the back he is "a hero for the entire free world".

Munich 1972 was carried out by palestinian terrorists who happened to be muslims. but the background and reasons were not related to Islam or islamistic activities.

Talk about splitting hairs.

and if a Christian kills two Muslims in Lahore by shooting them in the back he is "a hero for the entire free world".

When they are criminals, yes!

And not only was Munich a previous terrorist act, but the night-club in Berlin was another, and I seem to remember the Baader-Meinhof gang doing a little bit of naughty from time to time.

the Spiegel journalist wrote

"It appears to have been the first deadly attack with an Islamist motive on German soil."

there's a difference in the meaning of "islamic" and "islamist" in today's diction. Munich 1972 was carried out by palestinian terrorists who happened to be muslims. but the background and reasons were not related to Islam or islamistic activities.

The murder of Jews by Arabs was not Islamic or Islamist related????

I know the Nazi murdering of the Jews wasn't Islamic related but the Palestinians?

Please explain how you can say the background and reasons for the murders were not related to Islam or Islamic activities.

You have your murderers confused.

You have your murderers confused.

and your comprehension of english is lacking. or did you just break your reading glasses?

You have your murderers confused.

and your comprehension of english is lacking. or did you just break your reading glasses?

As usual you evade a direct question and add a snide remark to deflect the question.

I am still waiting on you to respond to the hundreds of S-300 missiles that don't exist in Saudi Arabia.

I don't know why I waste any time with you.

And not only was Munich a previous terrorist act, but the night-club in Berlin was another, and I seem to remember the Baader-Meinhof gang doing a little bit of naughty from time to time.

the Spiegel journalist wrote

"It appears to have been the first deadly attack with an Islamist motive on German soil."

there's a difference in the meaning of "islamic" and "islamist" in today's diction. Munich 1972 was carried out by palestinian terrorists who happened to be muslims. but the background and reasons were not related to Islam or islamistic activities.

The murder of Jews by Arabs was not Islamic or Islamist related????

I know the Nazi murdering of the Jews wasn't Islamic related but the Palestinians?

Please explain how you can say the background and reasons for the murders were not related to Islam or Islamic activities.

You have your murderers confused.

If I remember rightly the Munich massacre was carried out by Fatah or Black September, both of which were political (socialist) groups rather than Islamic. They were conducting terror acts against Israel, not for religious reasons, but for political ends.

With the Berlin night-club I am not sure. That was aimed at Westerners in general and therefore more likely to have had an Islamist colouring.

Palestinians were basically not motivated much by Islam until Hamas came along - after the Egypt Israeli peace accord. They sucked up all the dissidents in a new format and kept putting new fuel on the fire.

"...violence perpetrated against noncombatant..."

The target was military personnel. They are considered combatants. The motive was probably more religious than political. Having had contact with a terrorist group and being a member or being directed by them are very different things.

Your comparison to pedophiles is way, way off base, by the way.

Then please expain what pedophiles have to do in order to join a greater network.

It might be a similar method that lures people into joining a terrorist group, as I said.

So, if it is a Muslim that does it, it is terrorism?

Yep.

Your bigotry is getting in the way of simple understanding of the meaning of some words.

There is a big difference between "Muslim" and "Islamist".

IRA terrorists were/are Catholic....from your reasoning, any Catholic that commits violence must also be a terrorist.

From the OP: "Maybe we should have let Milosovic do what he wanted with Kosovo?"

That is one of the nastier displays of your bigotry and religious/racial intolerance. To suggest that the mass murder and genocide of Muslim civilians, men women and children, should have been condoned is disgraceful.

It was along the lines of a rhetorical question and not meant seriously.

Anyway, didn't you just say on another thread that there is no good or evil? It seems that bizarre philosophy only applies when defending Islamic terrorists.

If I remember rightly the Munich massacre was carried out by Fatah or Black September, both of which were political (socialist) groups rather than Islamic. They were conducting terror acts against Israel, not for religious reasons, but for political ends.

explaining something to people who wear blinkers is a waste of time Humphrey. and as far as this specific case is conserned did you really think that Chuck or Ulysses had the slightest idea about Black September or al-Fatah? they don't even know the difference between the expressions "islamic" and "islamist". but then... we have to be lenient. they don't speak english, they are american and speak american.

of course they will google now and will arrive at the conclusion "Black September = Islamist Terrorists!" and "Munich = Nazis = conspiracy with islamistic Islamists!"

"Black September = Islamist Terrorists!" and "Munich = Nazis = conspiracy with islamistic Islamists!"

The absurd conspiracy theories are your forte'.

From the OP: "Maybe we should have let Milosovic do what he wanted with Kosovo?"

That is one of the nastier displays of your bigotry and religious/racial intolerance. To suggest that the mass murder and genocide of Muslim civilians, men women and children, should have been condoned is disgraceful.

Some people are like that. The civilised ones.