Fort Hood's 9/11

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

According to Lucky: American solider = terrorist.

I'm sure someone on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border will buy him a few non-alcoholic drinks for that one

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, we all know that according to lucky all muslims are tainted by the actions of extremists. What he means by that, in real terms is anyone's guess.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

You guys are that predictable aren't you.

You're only exposing yourselves as stupid with these comments. you know full well he is referring to McVeigh and his intention to kill innocent civilians be it a federal building or not he knew what he was doing. He had political terror on his mind. Not a muslim, but a terrorist.

Hopefully that ends your 10 year old twisted tirade.

[alienlovechild 75]

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?

You really should understand what a real backlash was/is. Remember Rodney King? That may be before you arrived in the U.S.

'The news of acquittal triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard restored order, the casualties included 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as Las Vegas and Atlanta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

[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.

You guys are that predictable aren't you.

You're only exposing yourselves as stupid with these comments. you know full well he is referring to McVeigh and his intention to kill innocent civilians be it a federal building or not he knew what he was doing. He had political terror on his mind. Not a muslim, but a terrorist.

Hopefully that ends your 10 year old twisted tirade.

and yet, you insist on taking posts like that seriously. Perhaps because all yours really are?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And here I thought it was just another BS one-liner.

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?

You really should understand what a real backlash was/is. Remember Rodney King? That may be before you arrived in the U.S.

'The news of acquittal triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard restored order, the casualties included 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as Las Vegas and Atlanta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

The point surely is that there is a reaction to an event that results in persecution and violence. It isn't difficult to understand.

[nowhereman 1]

MC, Big Dog, Nowhere, etc etc... All willingly wrong on the subject.

It was a politically and religiously motivated attack just by the admission of the terrorist himself. So by MC's own admission, he's a terrorist.

It doesn't matter what the target is - we still call Al Qaeda in Afghanistan Terrorists and they are attacking the military.

Nice word play MC "he doesn't have any "official" ties". Good way of covering yourself. He sat under the same imam that 911 hijackers sat under. He was very well aquainted with this radical imam and met with him many times. He even tried to contact Al Qaeda abroad. While killing servicemen and women he was shouting Allah Akbar.

You people would just as soon defend terrorists who want us all dead than you would your fellow countrymen. Its sickening. I guess the message of Osama bin Laden and the Democrat party has been in unison anyway for the past 6 or so years.

Your post is not only inaccurate it is highly offensive. One of us served in the military, including Iraq, and actually knows Muslims. One of us has lost a fellow soldier in the line of duty and attended his service. One of us experienced incoming direct fire so often that it became as normal as a dog barking. Guess what that person isn't you. If wanting to know the facts before making a judgement is sickening to you then it's very clear that you are even more ignorant than I already thought you are.

I usually give you enough rope to hang yourself on most issues, but this one is very personal to me. I find it disgusting & insulting that you even suggest that I would rather defend terrorists than my fellow countrymen. What Major Hasan did was senseless & despicable, resulting in the loss of 13 innocent lives. I am sickened by his actions and beyond disappointed that a fellow service member could do that to other service members. With that being said if you want to spread your ignorance please do it in another thread, but it doesn't belong here.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

MC, Big Dog, Nowhere, etc etc... All willingly wrong on the subject.

It was a politically and religiously motivated attack just by the admission of the terrorist himself. So by MC's own admission, he's a terrorist.

It doesn't matter what the target is - we still call Al Qaeda in Afghanistan Terrorists and they are attacking the military.

Nice word play MC "he doesn't have any "official" ties". Good way of covering yourself. He sat under the same imam that 911 hijackers sat under. He was very well aquainted with this radical imam and met with him many times. He even tried to contact Al Qaeda abroad. While killing servicemen and women he was shouting Allah Akbar.

You people would just as soon defend terrorists who want us all dead than you would your fellow countrymen. Its sickening. I guess the message of Osama bin Laden and the Democrat party has been in unison anyway for the past 6 or so years.

Your post is not only inaccurate it is highly offensive. One of us served in the military, including Iraq, and actually knows Muslims. One of us has lost a fellow soldier in the line of duty and attended his service. One of us experienced incoming direct fire so often that it became as normal as a dog barking. Guess what that person isn't you. If wanting to know the facts before making a judgement is sickening to you then it's very clear that you are even more ignorant than I already thought you are.

I usually give you enough rope to hang yourself on most issues, but this one is very personal to me. I find it disgusting & insulting that you even suggest that I would rather defend terrorists than my fellow countrymen. What Major Hasan did was senseless & despicable, resulting in the loss of 13 innocent lives. I am sickened by his actions and beyond disappointed that a fellow service member could do that to other service members. With that being said if you want to spread your ignorance please do it in another thread, but it doesn't belong here.

Still a lot of BS - He was a terrorist. He was motivated by islamic radicalism. Period. Your military service is to be commended but doesn't make you right by default on this subject.

I have worked with muslims - have 2 family members currently serving, and 1 overseas who works exclusively with muslims. Does this make me an expert? No, but neither are you. I just call a spade a spade.

Liberals do defend terrorists with far more zeal than they do their fellow countrymen. At least verbally. I'll have to get into a fight with them to find out what they would do in war. Not sure, since their words cause me to think.

Durbin comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Murtha accusing them of widespread rape and murder. The list can go on.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is presumably the root of where the accusations that people who didn't agree with the Bush administration were "anti-american".

What utter shite.

[Peikko 1,575]

This thread is not going to get any better. For some reason, wanting to acquire actual knowledge about an incident before making accusations is to side with terrorism. Go figure.

[alienlovechild 75]

And here I thought it was just another BS one-liner.

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?

You really should understand what a real backlash was/is. Remember Rodney King? That may be before you arrived in the U.S.

'The news of acquittal triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard restored order, the casualties included 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as Las Vegas and Atlanta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

The point surely is that there is a reaction to an event that results in persecution and violence. It isn't difficult to understand.

So now you're justifying a backlash if people feel angry enough? I don't think you mean that but I'm showing how much worse things have gotten or could get under the right conditions. That's why I deplore people getting targeted after 9/11 but it seemed subdued compared to what might have happened. In any case, I don't see an explosion of rage after the Fort Hood shooting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And here I thought it was just another BS one-liner.

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?

You really should understand what a real backlash was/is. Remember Rodney King? That may be before you arrived in the U.S.

'The news of acquittal triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard restored order, the casualties included 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as Las Vegas and Atlanta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

The point surely is that there is a reaction to an event that results in persecution and violence. It isn't difficult to understand.

So now you're justifying a backlash if people feel angry enough? I don't think you mean that but I'm showing how much worse things have gotten or could get under the right conditions. That's why I deplore people getting targeted after 9/11 but it seemed subdued compared to what might have happened. In any case, I don't see an explosion of rage after the Fort Hood shooting.

There was no "justification" - What I wrote was a statement of fact.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

This thread is not going to get any better. For some reason, wanting to acquire actual knowledge about an incident before making accusations is to side with terrorism. Go figure.

The fact is that even if you knew the facts (which you know plenty to make a conclusion) you wouldn't call him a terrorist EVER. So there's no aquiring knowledge on your part and then making an accusation.

You'll never call him one.

[Peikko 1,575]

This thread is not going to get any better. For some reason, wanting to acquire actual knowledge about an incident before making accusations is to side with terrorism. Go figure.

The fact is that even if you knew the facts (which you know plenty to make a conclusion) you wouldn't call him a terrorist EVER. So there's no aquiring knowledge on your part and then making an accusation.

You'll never call him one.

That's what I love about you Joe, you confuse facts with opinion all the time. This post is a perfect example.

What's totally brilliant is that you are telling me that your opinion of what I think is a fact and not just any fact, the fact that creates reality. Really, that's totally terrific.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

This thread is not going to get any better. For some reason, wanting to acquire actual knowledge about an incident before making accusations is to side with terrorism. Go figure.

The fact is that even if you knew the facts (which you know plenty to make a conclusion) you wouldn't call him a terrorist EVER. So there's no aquiring knowledge on your part and then making an accusation.

You'll never call him one.

That's what I love about you Joe, you confuse facts with opinion all the time. This post is a perfect example.

What's totally brilliant is that you are telling me that your opinion of what I think is a fact and not just any fact, the fact that creates reality. Really, that's totally terrific.

Its as simple as your liberal mentality. You're reserved to never call anyone a terrorist ever again. Because its "offensive"