Fort Hood's 9/11

[_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

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.

How is this -

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

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

Considering his discontent for what america was doing and what he said as he was shooting american soldiers I think that qualifies. How does that not qualify?

[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.

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

I'm reserved to? Regardless, I am glad that's settled, I was worried there for a while it's not like me to ever be offensive that danger has passed. It's all good, I'm glad. Thank you Joe.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

How is this -

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

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

Considering his discontent for what america was doing and what he said as he was shooting american soldiers I think that qualifies. How does that not qualify?

Because its offensive to muslims.

You can't offend anyone unless its Christian conservatives. Them, go after them all you want. Heck even have your homeland security department warn about right wing extremism! Or warn about US veterans!

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

You seem to have made your conclussions based upon unconfirmed facts. There is absolutely no corroboration about what the major was saying as he shooting. Yes he did pray at a mosque that had a radical cleric there, but as I've read, it is a very large and popular mosque in VA. Would you make similar indictments about all those who worshiped there? At this point, they are still determining if this was an act of terrorism or an isolated act of madness. Why can't you wait until the facts have been determined? Conjecture is not a proper substitute for facts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Play that victim card, Joe!

[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.

How is this -

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

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

Considering his discontent for what america was doing and what he said as he was shooting american soldiers I think that qualifies. How does that not qualify?

Everything in bold is heresay - there are no clear facts as to his motivation. That has been my point all along which I have made completely clear.

I can totally agree with the terms of the definition though, and if it is confirmed that this was his intent, to create fear in order to further a political agenda, then so be it, he would indeed be a terrorist.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[_Simpson_ 250]

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.

fine fine fine hang your hat on "we dont know for sure" but I just find it a little naive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you have no problem assuming guilt before its actually been proven?

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

fine fine fine hang your hat on "we dont know for sure" but I just find it a little naive.

Waiting for the facts to be discerned rather than indicting someone based on conjecture is naive?

[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.

fine fine fine hang your hat on "we dont know for sure" but I just find it a little naive.

Waiting for the facts to be discerned rather than indicting someone based on conjecture is naive?

No, really? There was me thinking being naive was making assumptions based on pre-conceptions and generalizations. Perhaps we need to re-think the definition of naive now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This should be adopted in court rooms.

"We know he's guilty, just look at him!"

[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.

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.

BS? Please tell me how a single sentence of anything I have said in any of my posts on this matter would constitute BS. You equate my wanting to know the facts with "defending terrorists", which is somewhere between ridiculous and stupid. As for being an expert I am certainly more informed on this matter & have first-hand experience, while you know a guy who knows a guy. Not exactly the same thing.

Opinions are strong & emotions are high about this subject and that's of course understandable, but making dead wrong statements (i.e. suggesting that I am a terrorist sympathizer) are highly offensive & have no place here. We're all entitled to our opinions but nobody is entitled to their own facts & that's where your remarks make you look ignorant. Again you need to check yourself & think before you type.

[_Simpson_ 250]

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.

fine fine fine hang your hat on "we dont know for sure" but I just find it a little naive.

Waiting for the facts to be discerned rather than indicting someone based on conjecture is naive?

good grief Im not the court of law, I am a individual with a opinion and a educated one at that

Is he a murderer or do you need the court of law to prove it first?

[nowhereman 1]

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.

fine fine fine hang your hat on "we dont know for sure" but I just find it a little naive.

Major Hasan will get what's coming to him... I see a Death Penalty conviction in his future. As for whether or not he is a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer or just a nut who snapped will come out, so lets all just take a deep breath & try to calm down. Nobody is defending Hasan's actions or feeling sorry for him & we're all disgusted by what he did.

[_Simpson_ 250]

This should be adopted in court rooms.

"We know he's guilty, just look at him!"

Is it wrong for us to call him a murder?