Something that has been bothering me about the Fort Hood shooting coverage.

[Reasonable]

TheRealMafoo said:

Reasonable said:

TheRealMafoo said:

ultima said:
Can I get a short summary of the story please?

There are so many stories on it, that it's hard to find one that's a good summary. Just google Fort Hood Shooting

Here is a quick synopsis of it:

 

A US Major entered Fort Hood recruiting center, killed 13, wounding 35 or so others.

 

He was a muslim who was against the war. he has on several occasions remarked about how we were on the wrong side of what's right in this war. He was about to be sent to the middle east, and decided to make his stand before he went.

 

He had written on a few blogs about how he does not think suicide bombers are the same as people who are suicidal, as most suicide bombers think that if they can take out members of the opposition who one day might kill there own, they are saving lives in what they do. He equated it to jumping on a grenade to save your fellow comrades.

If he's not clearly representing a country or the declared wishes of its leaders then it can't really be called an act of war.  To be honest, from what I've read, sounds like the guy was acting in a manner that, from a certain viewpoint (i.e. Western) was based on a mix of physcological problems and a self initiated act linked into ongoing propoganda by terrorist organizations.

Personally, the real flaw I see in US response here goes right back to Bush declaring a 'War on Terror'.  It shows a country and approach built around nations, clearly defined foes and obvious understanding of a winning/losing position.  This isn't the case, and you're looking at people acting for religious/conviction reasons with no real state behind them, many with issues that make them ideal fodder for this situation, and no clear winning strategy.

Nasty act though, no doubt about that, whatever drove him.

 

I should have used a different term. "act of war" has political meaning outside what I meant to say.

 

For example, if China invaded the US, took over my town, I (along with thousands of other Americans), would grab a gun, and fight back. We would not be told we need to do this, and we would not be acting under government orders.

 

I would consider my actions an act of war. War was declared on something I felt strong enough to defend, and I took it upon myself to stand up for what I thought was right.

 

Like this, if China had not invaded my town, I would not have been driven to take such action. Now, if I was effective enough to kill 13 and wound 35 before the Chinese caught me, I would expect them to kill me (like I would like to have done with this man), but I would hope China was smart enough to realize it's a reaction to there invasion, and not just label me a nut job.

Yeah, but that's my point.  If China, Russia, etc. invade it's War and you know where you stand.  War really defines conflict between countries (although in the past there have been religious war's these tended to split across countries as well).  He acted for a religion and a loose collection of countries without any actual backing other than implicit.

It simply can't be an act of War  unless I'm missing something.   To take another point you made well, about fighting back, who exactly would you fight back against in this case?  See, existing notions of states and conflict don't fit very well.