Friday’s shooting attack at a Pensacola naval base by a member of the Saudi Air Force continues to be the subject of a serious investigation. Social media posts by the attacker point to an ideologically motivated attack, though the Trump Administration likely doesn’t want to accuse a Saudi military officer of terrorism.
To that end, Defense Secretary Mark Esper is avoiding putting any label of the attack, saying it is too early to characterize the attack, and that everyone needs to let the FBI do its work.
The FBI, by contrast, doesn’t seem to be waiting for itself to do its work, saying they already are working “with the presumption that this was an act of terrorism,” adding that they do this with most shooter investigations.
The shooter, 2nd Lt. Mohammed AlShamrani, was believed to have acted alone, though the investigation has not concluded that definitively. There were no arrests among the other foreigners at the base, including another Saudi who was videotaping the shooting.
The Saudis also did the 9/11 attack, so much worse than this and of so much more consequence. The US responded by attacking two of Saudi’s enemies, Saddam and Iran. The US merely embraced the Saudis more tightly.
Such are the big money ties to people who matter. Lives don’t count, when serious money is at risk.
9/11 was a tripartite affair involving our spooks, Mossad and the KSA supplying the patsies.
Why would anyone believe a mere 3 guys would upset the status quo. We blamed 9/11 on Iraq, and then on Iran I suppose next we will blame it on Venezuela. Meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that 15/19 of the hijackers were Saudi.
A military officer killing another military officer and two military enlisted men on a military base isn’t “terrorism.”
Why would military people be above having ideological reasons for killing other military people? This wasn’t a battlefield.
Seeing how the definition of “terrorism” is utterly malleable depending on political need, my point may be moot. But a peacetime military officer’s killing of others for idealogical reasons and hatred of the other would usually qualify as terrorism.
Military units in a war zone, at war, can commit terror. It’s a tactic. Hiroshima was a terror attack, for example.
“Terrorism” is like “loitering”, it is a crime when the guys with guns and badges say so.
Yes, Hiroshima was a terror attack — because it targeted hundreds of thousands of non-combatants for the purpose of creating terror.
In US law, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (22 U.S. Code § 2656f).
Uniformed military personnel on military bases being attacked by uniformed military personnel of another country isn’t terrorism.
Neither is me robbing a liquor store or you burgling a comic book shop.
Words mean things.
In US law, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (22 U.S. Code § 2656f).
Military people in classrooms are noncombatant targets. I would think it was premeditated and politically motivated.
“Military people in classrooms are noncombatant targets.”
Why? Is war a game of tag and classrooms are base or something?
Training facilities are and always have been both legit and prime targets.
He is broadening the definition to win an argument not realizing he is also constructing his own future Guantanamo cell.
None of our opinions matter, if the POTUS says he is a terrorist, then he is, and will be treated as such. Goes for wars, me, you or the shooter.
Last I checked POTUS is no king.
Perhaps read the war on terror authorization, then tell me we don’t have a king.
What war? Those people didn’t get killed because we are at war with Saudi Arabia. Those classrooms weren’t combat zones. I agree that all military facilities are fair game during war but in this situation I don’t believe the killings were part of any military operation so I see no other appropriate definition other than terrorism.
Well, OK — but that’s like saying that since the people who robbed the bank weren’t members of the Genovese crime family, you see no other appropriate definition than prostitution.
What a load of hooey. You couldn’t come up with a better analogy than that? So there can be no terrorism on a military base? Bullsh*t.
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/12/09/saudi-gunman-tweeted-why-he-attacked-pensacola
“This could be a problem, since Lt. Alshamrani tweeted right before the attack exactly why he did it, which was related to US support for Israel and US hostility toward Muslim people. This puts the incident in an ideological context that would make it terrorism.”
Ok, perhaps Hiroshima is not the best example. I would refer you to “Everything We Had”, my favorite book on Vietnam. The chapter by Beanon describes terror missions against enemy troops. There is a completely different definition of “terrorism” in international law concerning borders and transportation. Terrorism is a tactic used by troops against enemy troops. The “green on blue” ( or whatever color they call it) are designed to demoralize, or spread fear, between apparently cooperating polities. The military value of such attacks are negligible.
US rationale “the Saudi`s are the good guys, they are our friends, well yeah they fund and spread Wahabisme and terrorism around the world, yes they chop- up people and kill thousands of civilians….but hey put hundreds of billion in our elites and their corporations pocketbook”.
We needed someone to fund the Wahhabism for us to use to recruit the terrorists we needed to keep Russia and China and any disagreeable nation in check, and KSA has been super obliging.
Talk about a buried lead!
When Saudis and Israelis attack the US, it is just considered “an extension of our foreign policy objectives”….never terrorism. Just ask the guys who survived the USS Liberty attack.
Hypocrisy at its highest stage…!