Fort Hood's 9/11

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Why do you think some people want to call this man a terrorist without knowing the facts? Can we look forward to all shootings being described as being perpetrated by terrorists? Or is this appelet going to be reserved for some acts and not others? What are the criteria for this expansion of its use? That's the important question, the one that needs to be asked.

People want to call him a terrorist because he shot american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" He had discontent with the army and its policy's around the world and to write that off as "well we dont know his true intent" seems a little foolish to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Why do you think some people want to call this man a terrorist without knowing the facts? Can we look forward to all shootings being described as being perpetrated by terrorists? Or is this appelet going to be reserved for some acts and not others? What are the criteria for this expansion of its use? That's the important question, the one that needs to be asked.

People want to call him a terrorist because he shot american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" He had discontent with the army and its policy's around the world and to write that off as "well we dont know his true intent" seems a little foolish to me.

Who is 'writing it off"? Where did you infer that?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Joseph.... taking stupid to a whole other level each and every day.

[Nina~ 431]

People want to call him a terrorist because he shot american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" He had discontent with the army and its policy's around the world and to write that off as "well we dont know his true intent" seems a little foolish to me.

That is pure speculation. It has not been confirmed yet if he said "Allahu Akbar" before he started shooting.

[Peikko 1,575]

Please address the important question, the criteria that is now the standard for describing an act as that of being by a terrorist.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

So several OpEds (which are generally not endorsed by editorial board's of directors) are a danger to the rights of Muslims? Should those opinions be silenced?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Oh you did, so your telling me there is hope for you. I have mentioned before on VJ that I watch very little fox nowadays but to write me off as "one of them" and not address the point I was making seems a little dishonest to me. I think way to many people are trying to be the great protector of Muslims, its silly, people get over it this isn't the stone age and there will be no backlash.

I hardly watch any TV. Let alone Fox News. I basically watch TV when I am sick or horribly bored which might happen once a month or so.

But Simpson, lets be honest. You and I are only saying that so we can bring ourselves back into the credited argument again. Whereas if they knew the truth, we'd have no credibility whatsoever. Lets keep it on the downlow. Don't want them libs to find out.

shh dammit you weren't supposed to say anything.

I find that often fox news will be brought into a debate as if to try to discredit a person and sadly I think it works with all the fox haters out there, most of who have watched very little fox news.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

So several OpEds (which are generally not endorsed by editorial board's of directors) are a danger to the rights of Muslims? Should those opinions be silenced?

The opinions reflect underlying prejudice. Not too difficult to understand.

Luckily those opinions aren't very pervasive, but its worrying that such things appear on mainstream outlets.

[_Simpson_ 250]

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

by creditable people? Examples?

[alienlovechild 75]

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

You mean the one guy who killed a Sikh four days after 9/11 and shot some other people? Bush got no credit for imploring Americans to not take it out on Muslims, Arabs or anyone else the day after 9/11. I was afraid there would be riots and whole communities burned down and numerous people killed.

I've seen heard Americans get roughed up abroad for far less. Hard to believe but I keep my mouth shut abroad on politics.

Edited November 10, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

You mean the one guy who killed a Sikh four days after 9/11 and shoot some other people? Bush got no credit for imploring Americans to not take it out on Muslims, Arabs or anyone else the day after 9/11. I was afraid there would be riots and whole communities burned down and numerous people killed.

I've seen heard Americans get roughed up abroad for far less. Hard to believe but I keep my mouth shut abroad on politics.

You seriously think it was just "one guy"?

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

by creditable people? Examples?

Do your own reading - I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

How hard is it to look back in the archives?

[_Simpson_ 250]

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

You mean the one guy who killed a Sikh four days after 9/11 and shot some other people? Bush got no credit for imploring Americans to not take it out on Muslims, Arabs or anyone else the day after 9/11. I was afraid there would be riots and whole communities burned down and numerous people killed.

I've seen heard Americans get roughed up abroad for far less. Hard to believe but I keep my mouth shut abroad on politics.

How we reacted towards Muslims in this country after the 9/11 was simply remarkable and I think it cant be said enough times, so sad when people want to point the one or two guys out to try to prove a point. There was so many people at that time saying this isnt all Muslims and as a country we went out of our way to make that point. I think that is the main reason I now have no patience with the people who are going beyond ridiculous to make sure there isnt a backlash.

[alienlovechild 75]

You seriously think it was just "one guy"?

One well-known killing directly connected to the 9/11 backlash. Were other people beat up. I'm sure they were. Know any more you'd like to share with us over the last 8 years? This country has plenty of guns (and nuts) so how do you explain that the streets weren't red with blood?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

You mean the one guy who killed a Sikh four days after 9/11 and shoot some other people? Bush got no credit for imploring Americans to not take it out on Muslims, Arabs or anyone else the day after 9/11. I was afraid there would be riots and whole communities burned down and numerous people killed.

I've seen heard Americans get roughed up abroad for far less. Hard to believe but I keep my mouth shut abroad on politics.

You seriously think it was just "one guy"?

As I said you clearly haven't been following the news.

There have been several op-ed pieces suggesting precisely that - that muslims should not be allowed to serve in the military. Several threads have already been posted in O/T to that effect.

by creditable people? Examples?

Do your own reading - I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

How hard is it to look back in the archives?

There are other disturbing things in op-eds that one can disregard outright. Read it or don't read it. When it starts being proposed as policy, then I'd say get up in arms about it.

Such as the one I read a while back, and I totally forget the news outlet, but it suggested that all down-syndrome babies should have been aborted and that Sarah Palin was sick and twisted for letting her little baby live.