Fort Hood's 9/11

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[alienlovechild 75]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

In other words because you didn't see a backlash, therefore there wasn't one.

Where did you get this idea that there wasn't "bloodshed", because you didn't see widespread civil unrest or your local Kwik Stop owner strung up from a lamp post?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

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

not wanting to jump the gun even though I think there is enough evidence

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

In other words because you didn't see a backlash, therefore there wasn't one.

Where did you get this idea that there wasn't "bloodshed", because you didn't see widespread civil unrest or your local Kwik Stop owner strung up from a lamp post?

admit it Gene america handled the situation pretty dam good and theres no need to act like we didnt and yes thats exactly what your doing

Edited November 10, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

In other words because you didn't see a backlash, therefore there wasn't one.

Where did you get this idea that there wasn't "bloodshed", because you didn't see widespread civil unrest or your local Kwik Stop owner strung up from a lamp post?

admit it Gene america handled the situation pretty dam good and theres no need to act like we didnt and yes thats exactly what your doing

What I am saying was that crimes against muslim americans went up after 9/11. If you don't want to take my word for it - you can look it up on the DOJ.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

I posted the definition, now mix that in with this situation and bam you meet the criteria, I know its not the definition you want but it is what it is and why you're so butt hurt with people calling him a terrorist just boggles my mind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

I posted the definition, now mix that in with this situation and bam you meet the criteria, I know its not the definition you want but it is what it is and why you're so butt hurt with people calling him a terrorist just boggles my mind.

What are the specific criteria?

[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.

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

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

not wanting to jump the gun even though I think there is enough evidence

That's not a set of criteria Simpson - that's someone fitting in with some unknown criteria that has yet to be specified. Care to take a stab at it?

I'll make it clear for you, just so you know where I stand on this, even though I thought I was being quite obvious. Any act of violence that results in the deaths of innocent people (innocent meaning the victims had not done anything to warrant being the object of the violence) are despicable acts. By this set of criteria, this act was despicable.

Having said that, I think it is very important that the reasons behind these acts become known, be they acts that are perpetrated because the shooter is affiliated to a terrorist organisation, or that he determined that this was the only way to take back control of his life (completely deluded but again, that is part of the motivation of shooters who pick random targets). Only with knowledge can any action be taken that might reasonably reduce the possibility of this happening again without resorting to broad brush generalizations such as muslims must not serve in the military, for example.

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

In other words because you didn't see a backlash, therefore there wasn't one.

Where did you get this idea that there wasn't "bloodshed", because you didn't see widespread civil unrest or your local Kwik Stop owner strung up from a lamp post?

admit it Gene america handled the situation pretty dam good and theres no need to act like we didnt and yes thats exactly what your doing

What I am saying was that crimes against muslim americans went up after 9/11. If you don't want to take my word for it - you can look it up on the DOJ.

of course there was but this would of happened regardless, we took great measure in trying to prevent this stuff and the fact you dont want to acknowledge this but yet point out the few stupid people that did is very irritating.

Edited November 10, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Pretty mild backlash considering the circumstances. There's plenty of violence here so it didn't seem so extreme. I'd argue far more Arab/Indian storekeepers are victims of more serious crimes that had nothing to with some 9/11 backlash.

Still waiting for answer as to why there wasn't more bloodshed? C'mon think outside your cage for once.

In other words because you didn't see a backlash, therefore there wasn't one.

Where did you get this idea that there wasn't "bloodshed", because you didn't see widespread civil unrest or your local Kwik Stop owner strung up from a lamp post?

admit it Gene america handled the situation pretty dam good and theres no need to act like we didnt and yes thats exactly what your doing

What I am saying was that crimes against muslim americans went up after 9/11. If you don't want to take my word for it - you can look it up on the DOJ.

of course there was but this would of happened regardless, we took great measure in trying to prevent this stuff and the fact you dont want to acknowledge this but yet point out the few stupid people that did is very irritating.

Stop making wild assumptions. All I said was that there was a backlash and that you can see it for yourself if you care to seek out the information.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

Shouting "Allahu Akbar" and blowing up a building makes one an Islamic Terrorist. Blowing up a building makes one a terrorist.

Since you are so obsessed with the criteria. What would your criteria be to be an Islamic terrorist?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

Shouting "Allahu Akbar" and blowing up a building makes one an Islamic Terrorist. Blowing up a building makes one a terrorist.

Since you are so obsessed with the criteria. What would your criteria be to be an Islamic terrorist?

Since when did you hate the US military?

[Peikko 1,575]

I think shooting american soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and considering his dicontent for our policies is enough to meet the criteria for a terrorist.

That's avoiding the question though - what are the criteria?

Is someone not a terrorist if they blow up a car bomb outside a Federal building and don't say "Allahu Akbar"?

Shouting "Allahu Akbar" and blowing up a building makes one an Islamic Terrorist. Blowing up a building makes one a terrorist.

Since you are so obsessed with the criteria. What would your criteria be to be an Islamic terrorist?

Normally news is fact driven...oh wait, this is the US. Never mind, carry on.

Blowing up a building makes one a terrorist. I'll have to tell all my demolition friends they are now terrorists, they'll be fascinated by this new development.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo