Ford Hood: Terrorist Attack Or No? [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Jorddyn

11-12-2009, 09:22 PM

ter⋅ror⋅ism
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

He wasn't trying to intimidate or coerce - he was a nutjob who was afraid of war, and decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Anyone afraid because of this act isn't too bright. It was a one-off, the guy is in the hospital and not likely to see the light of day to do it again.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

If by resisting government you mean "suicide by cop so I don't have to go to war", then ok. Otherwise, no.

I think we're far to quick to assign the word "terrorism" to things that are terrible, heinous, unthinkable, and death-penalty-worthy even to tree hugging liberals such as myself.

Androidpk

11-12-2009, 10:20 PM

He wasn't trying to intimidate or coerce - he was a nutjob who was afraid of war, and decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

You don't know that for a fact.

I think we're far to quick to assign the word "terrorism" to things that are terrible, heinous, unthinkable, and death-penalty-worthy even to tree hugging liberals such as myself.

There is a reason why you are hearing "terrorism" in this case, it isn't like they just decided to pull it out of their asses. The guy was under investigation for suspected links to Al Qaeda.

Gelston

11-12-2009, 10:23 PM

If he was afraid of the war, why would he get himself into a shootout?

Jorddyn

11-12-2009, 10:26 PM

You don't know that for a fact.

I don't know for a fact that you're not a nutjob terrorist, but I'm not going to go around spouting that word.

There is a reason why you are hearing "terrorism" in this case.

Yea, he's muslim.

Terrorism has a purpose - to TERRIFY people into doing what one wants them to do. So far, there's no note, no statement that he's lying in his hospital bed screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA", no terrorist group stepping up to claim responsibility. At best, he's a jackass nutjob with a personal suicidal jihad. Doesn't make it terrorism. Let's leave that word where it belongs.

Latrinsorm

11-12-2009, 10:28 PM

You don't know that for a fact.And yet you feel that being "under investigation for suspected links" to a terrorist organization is enough evidence to cast your vote?

phantasm

11-12-2009, 10:28 PM

Hate to internupt yaddah yaddah but this guy is the worst terrorist ever, he didn't even have a bomb.

Jorddyn

11-12-2009, 10:29 PM

If he was afraid of the war, why would he get himself into a shootout?

Because he's not a highly logical person?

Androidpk

11-12-2009, 10:36 PM

And yet you feel that being "under investigation for suspected links" to a terrorist organization is enough evidence to cast your vote?

It's enough evidence for me to decide that just maybe this was more than just some disgruntled soldier going postal.

bluesmith

11-12-2009, 10:55 PM

No vote from me. We don't know enough yet one way or another.

pabstblueribbon

11-12-2009, 10:56 PM

No vote from me. We don't know enough yet one way or another.

Fence sitter!

Stanley Burrell

11-12-2009, 10:58 PM

I voted for the third one because I am a filthy attention slut.

Jorddyn

11-12-2009, 11:01 PM

I voted for the third one because I am a filthy attention slut.

And that's why we love you.

Nieninque

11-12-2009, 11:16 PM

Speak for yourself. Some of us have a little class.

Jorddyn

11-12-2009, 11:16 PM

Speak for yourself. Some of us have a little class.

It's one thing I'm never accused of.

Xanator

11-13-2009, 12:06 AM

So. Let's assume for the moment that the idea that he was a disgruntled American Muslim who objected to U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and felt he was treated poorly by his peers because of his religion is correct. He snaps and opens fire in a crowded room because he's a nutjob, as has previously been stated here. It's an act of personal vengeance, sure, and probably also born of his fear of deployment. You really want to deflect the notion that the intent to send a deeper message to the masses potentially existed? It's apparently safe to assume that not all objectors are of the conscientious variety. Are we that afraid of being accused of profiling or political incorrectness that even in light of the facts beginning to surface in this discussion, we don't want to include the word "terrorism" because of the shooter's religion?

Haven't read anything about him conscientiously objecting to his paycheck or his free ride through medical training, as a bit of an aside.

Jorddyn

11-13-2009, 12:12 AM

You really want to deflect the notion that the intent to send a deeper message to the masses potentially existed?

What message? Where's the note, the package to the media, the letter to his mother, the video sent to the FBI?

How is it terrorism, how is he coercing (or attempting to coerce) if we don't know what in the hell he's trying to coerce us to do or intimidate us from doing? I've many times in my life said that stupid people should be killed, but if I roam around town randomly shooting people, is it really intimidation to get better funding for our schools and therefore terrorism, or am I just a nutjob?

ETA: And, if I'm a "lone gun", where's the terrorism once the threat is gone? If I'm not a lone gun, why hasn't my group claimed credit?

radamanthys

11-13-2009, 12:23 AM

Terror organizations would do a better job.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 12:25 AM

So by your logic one isn't a terrorist until he joins the terrorist fan club and receives his certified members card.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 12:32 AM

Some of you are reading TOO much into the definition (of which there are like 100) of the word terrorism. Just because he doesn't fit YOUR criteria does not mean it isn't possible.

Jorddyn

11-13-2009, 12:32 AM

So by your logic one isn't a terrorist until he joins the terrorist fan club and receives his certified members card.

By my logic, one guy, guns blazing, is great at inflicting pain and fear, but very ineffective at terrorism. Terrorism implies that he's trying to gain/influence/coerce something. He went in, shot a bunch of people, got shot, and is now imprisoned - have you heard what he was shooting people in protest of/in support of? Did I miss the memo?

Jorddyn

11-13-2009, 12:36 AM

Some of you are reading TOO much into the definition (of which there are like 100) of the word terrorism. Just because he doesn't fit YOUR criteria does not mean it isn't possible.

Some of you are reading TOO little into the definition. When a word is overused/abused, it loses its power.

Rape: Horrible thing. When someone says "I feel like I've been raped" because a jackass stole their purse, it lessens the word.

War: Horrible thing (though sometimes necessary). We as a country have declared war on everything from drugs to illiteracy to poverty - it takes away from the true meaning of the word.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 12:42 AM

Kind of hard for a word to lose it's meaning when it has NO clear cut definition to begin with.

radamanthys

11-13-2009, 12:57 AM

"I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" is a terrorist activity.

The question needs to be framed better:
Was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization? Probably not.
Was his absolute motive to cause fear and panic? Probably not.

Was he a batshit crazy religious nut who couldn't handle the stresses the dichotomy between his religious/cultural beliefs and current culture were posing on him? Did he want revenge, screaming the name of his deity? Seems so.

He was a dangerous brown guy who further reinforced people's already deep-seeded fear of brown people? That same fear that apparently caused his anguish? Resulting in a fuckton of irony? Yep.

TheEschaton

11-13-2009, 01:14 AM

Some of you are reading TOO much into the definition (of which there are like 100) of the word terrorism. Just because he doesn't fit YOUR criteria does not mean it isn't possible.

So you're saying even if the balls don't touch, it might be gay?

"Personal criteria" are not part of the definition of a word. Terrorism is a very clearly defined word, if we want to make it as broad as you want to, every act of mass killing is terrorism then.

Keep everything the same about the guy, but make him a white Christian screaming "God damn you all!" What is that guy? Is he a terrorist? Nope, and this guy wasn't a terrorist either, any more so than any nut who shoots a place up.

-TheE-

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 01:27 AM

Terrorism is a very clearly defined word, if we want to make it as broad as you want to, every act of mass killing is terrorism then.

If it's such a clearly defined word why did a study on it come up with 109 definitions that cover 22 different definition elements?

Mabus

11-13-2009, 02:38 AM

No vote from me. We don't know enough yet one way or another.

:yeahthat:

radamanthys

11-13-2009, 02:40 AM

:yeahthat:

Will we ever?

Mabus

11-13-2009, 02:48 AM

Will we ever?
Good question.

As it is a military justice matter I am unsure. Generally, such proceedings would be open to the public, but if there are any "national security concerns" they could be closed hearings.

It would be in the interest of both the administration and the military to have this just be some "disgruntled nut-job", and not a political statement by someone following the request (or guidance) of a person involved in a terrorist organization. I am not saying it is the latter, but without further information it (or other possible scenarios) cannot be easily dismissed.

Kembal

11-13-2009, 08:38 AM

AnticorRifling

11-13-2009, 08:46 AM

So you're saying even if the balls don't touch, it might be gay?

-TheE-

I can't rep you but this is win.

Gelston

11-13-2009, 09:21 AM

It's not terrorism, even if Hasan is proved to be a Al Qaeda member. He attacked a military installation, and generally, terrorism involves attacking civilians/noncombatants.

If you consider it terrorism because the soldiers killed and wounded were not actually engaged in warfighting at the time, then you have to consider our drone-based missile attacks in Pakistan as terrorism too.

It's not a road we as the U.S. really want to pursue.

If you want to read more on the subject, here's some recent blog posts on the subject:

National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRjMWY5MGNiMzQyNzM3Zjg0ZmJjYzA4NTMxYjEzYjg=)
National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg (Post 2) (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTAxNGFmYmY0MTA1YzM3Mzc0ZjRjMDcwNGNiMjFhNGU=)
National Review Online, Cliff May (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2YwN2EyODk4ZTVlNWM4NzIyZDk3OTlkMmI4ODIyNzQ=)
Salon, Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/09/terrorism/index.html)

Terrorism isn't confined to civilians.

A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.That's is the definition per the FBI. It doesn't differentiate between military or civilians. Just between humans and yetis and shit. The difference between what happened in Pakistan and what occured in the US, is that we were not necessarily trying to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. We were trying to kill Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders.

As of whether THIS even was terrorism, well it may or may not be. We don't know what his objective was. It doesn't matter either way what label we apply to it though, it was a terrible act.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 09:25 AM

Paradii

11-13-2009, 09:34 AM

If it's such a clearly defined word why did a study on it come up with 109 definitions that cover 22 different definition elements?

There are 61 definitions of a dirty sanchez on urbandictionary, but everyone on this boards knows what it really means.

Valthissa

11-13-2009, 09:37 AM

I think of the Fort Hood shooting as an act of treason. Whether it is also terrorism is debatable, but I'm leaning towards yes.

C/Valth

Kembal

11-13-2009, 09:47 AM

Terrorism isn't confined to civilians.

A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.That's is the definition per the FBI. It doesn't differentiate between military or civilians. Just between humans and yetis and shit. The difference between what happened in Pakistan and what occured in the US, is that we were not necessarily trying to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. We were trying to kill Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders.

As of whether THIS even was terrorism, well it may or may not be. We don't know what his objective was. It doesn't matter either way what label we apply to it though, it was a terrible act.

It's a terrible act. Definitely evil, possibly a war crime, possibly treason.

However, if we're defining this as a war, and we assumed that Hasan was on the other side, I would think there is potentially a military objective to attacking soldiers getting ready to deploy to the battlefield. That, in and of itself, would pretty much constitute it as not being terrorism.

What Gelston said. There have been attacks on military installations in the past that were labelled as terrorist attacks.

Sure. Beirut is a great example. The reason it was considered a terrorist attack is that those U.S. soldiers were considered peacekeepers, and peacekeepers, by legal definition, are non-combatants.

I really suggest reading the links I provided. The NRO ones are from the right, Greenwald's a left-leaning civil rights advocate...it's a pretty good spectrum of argument. And for those not understanding where I'm coming from, it's pretty simple: if we define this act as terrorism, it becomes much harder to not define some of our own acts in Pakistan and Afghanistan as terrorism. And that's not a road we want to go down.

Clove

11-13-2009, 09:49 AM

Will we ever?Do we care?

Sean of the Thread

11-13-2009, 09:49 AM

They can also be considered espionage and treason although that would be much harder for the government to admit publicly for obvious reasons.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 09:57 AM

What about Khobar Towers and USS Cole? Those are labeled as terrorist attacks as well.

Clove

11-13-2009, 09:58 AM

What about Khobar Towers and USS Cole? Those are labeled as terrorist attacks as well.You're reaching now. The USS Cole was a warship, it was not at war. The same for the Khobar Towers there were military housed there, but they weren't at war. They weren't occupying or deploying in a conflict.

Everytime I glance at this thread I can only think of one thing.

JOSH: I'm not very good at sports, but I'll give it a try. My best sport is
video hockey.

PAUL: That isn't a sport.

JOSH: Well, it takes eye to hand coordination.

PAUL: It's not a sport if you don't sweat!

JOSH: What about golf? You don't sweat and that's a sport.

PAUL: Yeah, and you're not sittin' there letting some machine do all the
work!

JOSH: What about car racing?

PAUL: Aw shut up Baskin!

Methais

11-13-2009, 10:07 AM

Clove

11-13-2009, 10:11 AM

Here's a question to everyone saying it wasn't a terrorist act:

If he had strapped C4 to himself and blew him and all those other people up instead of using guns (I think it's safe to say he wasn't expecting to survive the gunfight, making it a suicide mission for all intents and purposes), would you still not consider it a terrorist attack?

Political correctness is going to be the death of this country, starting with those killed at Fort Hood.I'd consider it a very dramatic suicide. I think you have to determine if it was 1) a mission and 2) aimed at non-combatants. A suicide/=suicide mission, that implies some external directive or purpose.

You throw out a "political correctness" criticism; I throw out "stop being a media tool" criticism.

Sean of the Thread

11-13-2009, 10:20 AM

If you don't sweat when you're golfing you're not trying.

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 10:29 AM

I'd consider it a very dramatic suicide. I think you have to determine if it was 1) a mission and 2) aimed at non-combatants. A suicide/=suicide mission, that implies some external directive or purpose.

You throw out a "political correctness" criticism; I throw out "stop being a media tool" criticism.

Was Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a US Government building an act of terrorism? He didn't have a "purpose" or directive and we weren't at war with the white trash hicks of the country.

What about the Columbine Massacre?

To be honest, I'm not sure if this is or is not considered a terrorist attack... I just found it amusing that immediately after the Fort Hood shootings, the "media" said it wasn't. Not really sure what the political motivations are for whether it is or not, but clearly it's being politically driven in both directions.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-13-2009, 11:10 AM

I'd say it struck terror into those relatives, friends of those on the fort, as well as those on the fort. An attack on US soil to me should always be considered a terror(ist) attack.

The guy in DC who was shooting folks from the trunk of his car when I was there, certainly had his reign of terror. Does that make him (or this guy) a terrorist? I'll let the wordsmiths figure that out, but IMO yes.

Kembal

11-13-2009, 11:21 AM

Here's a question to everyone saying it wasn't a terrorist act:

If he had strapped C4 to himself and blew him and all those other people up instead of using guns (I think it's safe to say he wasn't expecting to survive the gunfight, making it a suicide mission for all intents and purposes), would you still not consider it a terrorist attack?

Political correctness is going to be the death of this country, starting with those killed at Fort Hood.

Hell no, that doesn't change much. Were Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War 2 terrorists?

This isn't about political correctness, Methais. This is about using a definition of terrorism that doesn't come back to bite our own soldiers in the ass later on.

Keller

11-13-2009, 11:22 AM

To be honest, I'm not sure if this is or is not considered a terrorist attack... I just found it amusing that immediately after the Fort Hood shootings, the "media" said it wasn't. Not really sure what the political motivations are for whether it is or not, but clearly it's being politically driven in both directions.

I assume its so that we don't further sterotype muslims as terrorists.

At least that's why I am overly cautious to not consider it an act of terrorism until (i) we have a definition of terrorism and (ii) this act fits within that definition on its face.

Kembal

11-13-2009, 11:27 AM

I'd say it struck terror into those relatives, friends of those on the fort, as well as those on the fort. An attack on US soil to me should always be considered a terror(ist) attack.

Wha? Pearl Harbor is now a terrorist attack, and not simply an act of war? That's a crazy definition.

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 11:32 AM

I assume its so that we don't further sterotype muslims as terrorists.

At least that's why I am overly cautious to not consider it an act of terrorism until (i) we have a definition of terrorism and (ii) this act fits within that definition on its face.

So.. it is about political correctness on steroids. Do you believe that it's because of this political correctness that his supervisors didn't bring up their concerns about him 2 years ago?

Keller

11-13-2009, 11:40 AM

So.. it is about political correctness on steroids. Do you believe that it's because of this political correctness that his supervisors didn't bring up their concerns about him 2 years ago?

I don't know about their intentions and cannot speak to them.

I think my intentions are out of respect for other human beings. I recognize that we all have limited mental capacity and often, to make our lives easier, we categorize people by external factors that are not at all indicative of who that person is or what they believe. I try to resist that urge because I have respect for other people.

Clove

11-13-2009, 11:42 AM

Was Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a US Government building an act of terrorism? He didn't have a "purpose" or directive and we weren't at war with the white trash hicks of the country.

In order for something to be a "suicide mission" there needs to be a "mission".

"A man with nothing left to lose is a very dangerous man and his energy/anger can be focused toward a common/righteous goal. What I'm asking you to do, then, is sit back and be honest with yourself. Do you have kids/wife? Would you back out at the last minute to care for the family? Are you interested in keeping your firearms for their current/future monetary value, or would you drag that '06 through rock, swamp and cactus...to get off the needed shot? In short, I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters...And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose" - Timothy McVeigh

"ATF, all you tyrannical mother fuckers will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials. But...but...but...I only followed orders...Die, you spineless cowardice bastards" - Timothy McVeigh

BigWorm

11-13-2009, 11:44 AM

Why do you guys keep bringing up political correctness? I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. I don't give a shit about offending muslims but I think its stupid to use such a loaded word for the wrong reasons.

radamanthys

11-13-2009, 11:54 AM

Do we care?

Not particularly. He'll hang either way.

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 11:59 AM

In order for something to be a "suicide mission" there needs to be a "mission".

So, if we find out that Hassan had very extremist muslim views like infidels should be burned in oil and beheaded in the name of Islam.. you would say he was a terrorist?

Clove

11-13-2009, 12:00 PM

So, if we find out that Hassan had very extremist muslim views like infidels should be burned in oil and beheaded in the name of Islam.. you would say he was a terrorist?I would say he may have had a mission. Learn to read.

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 12:03 PM

I would say he may have had a mission. Learn to read.

What would it take for you to say "Yea, I think the shootings at Ft. Hood were a terrorist attack"?

ElvenFury

11-13-2009, 12:07 PM

What would it take for you to say "Yea, I think the shootings at Ft. Hood were a terrorist attack"?

Some sort of message claiming responsibility for organizing the strike along with a claim that if things don't change, similar incidents will continue to occur. That would definitely seal the deal for me.

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 12:14 PM

Am I the only one that laughed a little bit today when I found out Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down?

radamanthys

11-13-2009, 12:16 PM

Am I the only one that laughed a little bit today when I found out Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down?

So we won't get the satisfaction of seeing his feet jerking and kicking when he's hanging from the gallows? That's a shame.

Clove

11-13-2009, 12:39 PM

"Terrorist" is a politically and emotionally charged term. We can all agree that his actions were morally reprehensible and criminal. Is that not enough to seek justice?

Given that there's no universally accepted definition of terrorism, I'll give mine: to me, "terrorism" implies that civilians are being intentionally targeted/attacked in order to obtain a political goal.

Attacking soldiers, to me, is not a "terrorist" act. It's certainly a criminal one, a treasonous one, and he deserves the full measure of the law.Precisely on all counts. And the main reason I don't want to define specify violence against soldiers deployed in a military action as terrorism is so that it won't further be used against our soldiers.

Keller

11-13-2009, 12:44 PM

Precisely on all counts. And the main reason I don't want to define specify violence against soldiers deployed in a military action as terrorism is so that it won't further be used against our soldiers.

I can't imagine individuals seeking to become "terrorists" will only take such actions as are clearly defined as "terrorism."

I just don't see the argument that calling this terrorism somehow invites copycats.

Clove

11-13-2009, 12:46 PM

I can't imagine individuals seeking to become "terrorists" will only take such actions as are clearly defined as "terrorism."

I just don't see the argument that calling this terrorism somehow invites copycats.I don't want the definition to be used against our soldiers when they are unleashing violence on combatants.

Keller

11-13-2009, 12:48 PM

I don't want the definition to be used against our soldiers when they are unleashing violence on combatants.

That makes more sense.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 12:57 PM

I don't want the definition to be used against our soldiers when they are unleashing violence on combatants.

Who are you worried about calling our soldiers terrorists? The terrorists we're fighting? I think they're too busy calling them infidels.

Gelston

11-13-2009, 12:58 PM

I don't want the definition to be used against our soldiers when they are unleashing violence on combatants.

It wouldn't be terrorism, because they aren't breaking applicable laws and are in uniform. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are often and properly labeled terrorists.

Tsa`ah

11-13-2009, 01:02 PM

Some of you are reading TOO much into the definition (of which there are like 100) of the word terrorism. Just because he doesn't fit YOUR criteria does not mean it isn't possible.

Yet there is only one definition of terrorism that will apply to this case since its likely to be a court martial ... that of the DoD.

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Until ties and intent can be established and proved ... it's not terrorism.

Clove

11-13-2009, 01:14 PM

Who are you worried about calling our soldiers terrorists? The terrorists we're fighting? I think they're too busy calling them infidels.Because only terrorists are interested in criticizing our soldiers. Don't be naive.

It wouldn't be terrorism, because they aren't breaking applicable laws and are in uniform. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are often and properly labeled terrorists.inorite? That would be like calling George Bush a 'war criminal'!

TheEschaton

11-13-2009, 01:21 PM

Like I said before, if targetting soldiers during wartime even if not formally engaged is "terrorism", everything we've done in Pakistan is terrorism. Your differentiation of us not breaking our own laws is moot, as I'm sure the other side would say they're not breaking their own laws when they do shit to us.

As to "all attacks on U.S. soil should be considered terrorism.." Are you fucking serious? That's a childish view.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 01:45 PM

Because only terrorists are interested in criticizing our soldiers. Don't be naive.

I'm not being naive, I just asked a simple question.

Clove

11-13-2009, 01:48 PM

I'm not being naive, I just asked a simple question.Then the simple answer is "no" I'm not worried about terrorists accusing our soldiers of terrorism; and your assumption that I could be was naive.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 02:10 PM

Then the simple answer is "no" I'm not worried about terrorists accusing our soldiers of terrorism; and your assumption that I could be was naive.

Christ man!

lol

I'm sorry you didn't catch my sarcasm. Next time I won't forget the italics. Now that THAT is out of the way, who do you think will accuse our soldiers of terrorism?

Clove

11-13-2009, 02:14 PM

Christ man!

lol

I'm sorry you didn't catch my sarcasm. Next time I won't forget the italics. Now that THAT is out of the way, who do you think will accuse our soldiers of terrorism?Well the E for one. Look man, I'm not going to spell out all the possible ramifications of my statements for you. If you can't make conclusions on your own this is already a waste of time.

Methais

11-13-2009, 02:23 PM

Why do you guys keep bringing up political correctness?

Because there were people concerned about the things the guy was saying and doing for quite a while now, but didn't bring it up to their superiors out of fear of being labeled a bigot/racist/anti-muslimwhatever, etc. What other reason would there be to not speak up or take action?

And now 13 people are dead because of it. Mmmm mmmm mmmm.

Like I said before, if targetting soldiers during wartime even if not formally engaged is "terrorism", everything we've done in Pakistan is terrorism.

Not that I'd expect you to see it, but there's a gigantic difference between targeting enemy soldiers, and targeting your own soldiers, most of who were unarmed at time -- especially on your own soil at your own base.

Hopefully I'm just reading your post wrong, but I doubt it.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 02:23 PM

No. The only waste of time has been me trying to get you to clarify

And the main reason I don't want to define specify violence against soldiers deployed in a military action as terrorism is so that it won't further be used against our soldiers.

Don't try to skirt the issue if you can't answer the question.

Clove

11-13-2009, 02:25 PM

No. The only waste of time has been me trying to get you to clarify

Don't try to skirt the issue if you can't answer the question.I'm not skirting the issue, the definition can be used against our own soldiers. By anyone. If you think that isn't an important point, speak to it; or shut the fuck up.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 02:42 PM

CrystalTears

11-13-2009, 02:45 PM

Clove

11-13-2009, 02:46 PM

No, I don't think it's an important point just because anyone can use that definition. Now if there were specific groups that use this against soldiers for their own reasons that would be another matter.Why would that be another matter? You wouldn't care if anyone could walk into your house and steal your TV? It's only relevent if specific groups could for their own reasons?

I'm sorry you lack imagination and can't really criticize my point. Cry me a river.

Clove

11-13-2009, 02:47 PM

Anti-war people who feel that soliders are terrorists for acting on demand without question, i.e The E.And more than just them other nations for that matter. But you know it's not really a threat unless specific groups use them for their own reasons.

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 02:53 PM

Why would that be another matter? You wouldn't care if anyone could walk into your house and steal your TV? It's only relevent if specific groups could for their own reasons?

I'm sorry you lack imagination and can't really criticize my point. Cry me a river.

If some random kid in his moms basement thinks US soldiers are acting like terrorists it really isn't going to matter much. By the way It sounds like you're the one that's doing all the crying. All for getting asked your opinion on something you said. :lol:

pabstblueribbon

11-13-2009, 02:57 PM

Seblantics!

Morans!

no im not the moran guy

Mabus

11-13-2009, 02:59 PM

And for those not understanding where I'm coming from, it's pretty simple: if we define this act as terrorism, it becomes much harder to not define some of our own acts in Pakistan and Afghanistan as terrorism.
The Pakistan attacks are acts of war without authorization by a formal declaration of war by Congress.

They have went on past the 60+30 days allowed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which also makes them illegal (though I doubt the constitutionality of the WPA, it has not been struck down).

I consider these drone attacks (especially those that kill civilians) as "War Crimes".

Guess who that makes the leading war criminal now?

Mabus

11-13-2009, 03:01 PM

Like I said before, if targetting soldiers during wartime even if not formally engaged is "terrorism", everything we've done in Pakistan is terrorism.
I believe that our efforts in Pakistan have been illegal.

Clove

11-13-2009, 03:06 PM

If some random kid in his moms basement thinks US soldiers are acting like terrorists it really isn't going to matter much. By the way It sounds like you're the one that's doing all the crying. All for getting asked your opinion on something you said. :lol:I gave my opinion. You're too stupid to understand it apparently. Our troops get plenty of criticism, idiot. Not just from kids in basements.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-13-2009, 03:07 PM

As to "all attacks on U.S. soil should be considered terrorism.." Are you fucking serious? That's a childish view.

So Professor, what would you call an attack on U.S. soil? Not that I said all attacks, but I'm curious now.

Clove

11-13-2009, 03:09 PM

So Professor, what would you call an attack on U.S. soil? Not that I said all attacks, but I'm curious now.An invasion?

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 03:26 PM

I gave my opinion. You're too stupid to understand it apparently. Our troops get plenty of criticism, idiot. Not just from kids in basements.

Do you always act like a wide set vagina when someone questions your opinion?

CrystalTears

11-13-2009, 03:30 PM

It was an ignorant question though. You haven't heard people criticize soldiers? What makes you think calling them terrorists isn't possible by more than just a basement dweller?

Androidpk

11-13-2009, 03:39 PM

It was an ignorant question though. You haven't heard people criticize soldiers? What makes you think calling them terrorists isn't possible by more than just a basement dweller?

Not personally, no. Please point out to me where I said it wasn't possible. All I said was not everyone's opinion about US Soldiers acting like terrorists would pose a threat to US soldiers. That's it.

Clove said he didn't want that definition to be used against US Soldiers, I asked him to expound upon it. That's it.

Are there groups who would do that? Certainly. All I asked was for him to specify whom he thought those people/groups may be that could use it in a harmful way against soldiers

:jerkit:

CrystalTears

11-13-2009, 03:47 PM

Referring to soldiers as terrorists IS harmful, IMO.

Clove

11-13-2009, 03:47 PM

Are there groups who would do that? Certainly. So you admit to realizing there are people who could use that definition to harmfully criticize our troops; but you want to hear me list them? Way to be a tool.

TheEschaton

11-13-2009, 03:50 PM

I criticize soldiers all the time. Our soldiers teach counterinsurgency at Fort Benning to South American death squads. It's called WHISC, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the School of the Americas, and has produced most of the Western Hemispheres worst dictators and brutal police death squads.

If what we've done in SA isn't terrorism, then the word means nothing.

TheEschaton

11-13-2009, 03:51 PM

Methais

11-13-2009, 05:33 PM

Furthermore, Methais, I understand your point, but that just makes the guy a double agent, a spy of sorts. If an American soldier infilitrated an al Qaeda camp posing as al Qaeda, won trust, rose through the ranks in Pakistan, then one day shot the fucking place up, would that be terrorism?

Nope, it would be effective espionage, and as people have said in this thread, treason, from the p.o.v. of al Qaeda.

Except for the fact that Hasan didn't join the army for that purpose. He joined for a "free" psychology degree.

He tried to get out of the army and even offered to pay them back for his psychology degree if they'd let him go. That's not exactly something a double agent would be doing.

Your double agent theory doesn't apply.

Kembal

11-13-2009, 07:09 PM

Except for the fact that Hasan didn't join the army for that purpose. He joined for a "free" psychology degree.

He tried to get out of the army and even offered to pay them back for his psychology degree if they'd let him go. That's not exactly something a double agent would be doing.

Your double agent theory doesn't apply.

That indicates the profile of someone who mentally snapped as opposed to a committed terrorist. Thus, not a terrorist attack.

TheEschaton

11-13-2009, 09:06 PM

Well, I didn't know those facts because I can't watch the news any more because it makes me mildly ill. ;)

Parkbandit

11-13-2009, 09:22 PM

That indicates the profile of someone who mentally snapped as opposed to a committed terrorist. Thus, not a terrorist attack.

So.. anyone who doesn't want to live up to their commitments and obligations are individuals who mentally snapped?

Awesome.

Latrinsorm

11-13-2009, 09:37 PM

Are we that afraid of being accused of profiling or political incorrectness that even in light of the facts beginning to surface in this discussion, we don't want to include the word "terrorism" because of the shooter's religion?I think some of us have an emotional attachment to that "innocent until proven guilty" thing, emphasis on the "proven" bit. "Facts beginning to surface" is BS - "facts" began to surface after the Oklahoma City bombing that a Muslim was responsible, how did that turn out? Random Muslims got the shit kicked out of them.

It's unbelievable how hard people will cry about the terrible political correctnessisis given any opportunity.

Kembal

11-13-2009, 10:20 PM

So.. anyone who doesn't want to live up to their commitments and obligations are individuals who mentally snapped?

Awesome.

Nice try, PB. Try it the other way around: I highly doubt a committed terrorist offers to pay back their college tuition grant to the U.S. Army.

Clove

11-13-2009, 10:53 PM

Nice try, PB. Try it the other way around: I highly doubt a committed terrorist offers to pay back their college tuition grant to the U.S. Army.Unless! They know that you'll think that they aren't really terrorists if they do that so then they do so that you think they aren't.

Methais

11-13-2009, 11:07 PM

That indicates the profile of someone who mentally snapped as opposed to a committed terrorist. Thus, not a terrorist attack.

What doesn't indicate someone mentally snapping are things like praising suicide bombers, handing out Korans to people, blabbering jihadist propaganda even to his own "patients", saying the muslim people need to rise up against their oppressors, trying to contact Al Qaeda, yelling ALLAHU ACKBAR as you shoot the place up, etc.

All the signs are there and the evidence is overwhelming. It's just a matter of whether you want to turn a blind eye to it or not.

Then again considering that the mastermind behind 9/11 is going to get a civilian trial in New York City within walking distance of Ground Zero (and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets off the hook, as ridiculous as that sounds), turning a blind eye seems to be becoming the standard in this country.

Gan

11-13-2009, 11:53 PM

So the latest I heard is that some evidence found at his residence was a stack of new business cards with his name, profession and then the initials SOA. Of course the media is saying that most jihadists refer to themselves as soldiers of allah...

And by the way - the current coined term is that the guy could be a radical islamist jihadist (which then could be parlayed into being a terrorist).

If he's smart (he appears to be somewhat smart except for the whole OK Corral thing) he'll simply keep his mouth shut. Not that he can deny being the one who was pulling the trigger or anything...

:popcorn:

Kembal

11-14-2009, 12:18 PM

What doesn't indicate someone mentally snapping are things like praising suicide bombers, handing out Korans to people, blabbering jihadist propaganda even to his own "patients", saying the muslim people need to rise up against their oppressors, trying to contact Al Qaeda, yelling ALLAHU ACKBAR as you shoot the place up, etc.

All the signs are there and the evidence is overwhelming. It's just a matter of whether you want to turn a blind eye to it or not.

Methais, I don't think he mentally snapped. I think he deliberately did the crime. I was just pointing out that the fact you cited about offering to pay back his tuition grant does not fit the profile of a committed terrorist, and thus, it's not really helping your argument about it being a terrorist act.

All I've argued is that attacking soldiers at a military base should not be considered terrorism, because it'll cause problems for our soldiers later on.

Methais

11-14-2009, 12:30 PM

Methais, I don't think he mentally snapped.

V

That indicates the profile of someone who mentally snapped as opposed to a committed terrorist.

^

I think he deliberately did the crime. I was just pointing out that the fact you cited about offering to pay back his tuition grant does not fit the profile of a committed terrorist, and thus, it's not really helping your argument about it being a terrorist act.

All I've argued is that attacking soldiers at a military base should not be considered terrorism, because it'll cause problems for our soldiers later on.

I think it maybe went something like this. This is the short, short version:

Hasan: I don't want to go to war with muslims. Can I leave the army?

Army: NO!

Hasan: ...

Hasan: ...

Hasan: INFIDELS! ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!!1

TheEschaton

11-14-2009, 01:27 PM

And how is that terrorism?

By the way, I hate this guy for making us as a nation have to debate this. Ugh.

Androidpk

11-14-2009, 01:39 PM

Well he's certainly not a freedom fighter. :)

Gan

11-14-2009, 02:34 PM

Once everyone agrees on a standard definition of terrorism, then we can have this debate...

Clove

11-14-2009, 05:45 PM

Once everyone agrees on a standard definition of terrorism, then we can have this debate...Like it matters. Just hang the fuck.

Gan

11-14-2009, 10:52 PM

If Obama signs off on it. I dont see it happening.

Tsa`ah

11-14-2009, 11:27 PM

If Obama signs off on it. I dont see it happening.

What makes you think that?

Clove

11-15-2009, 02:21 AM

Executive decisions are funny that way.

Back

11-15-2009, 04:07 AM

Not a sleeper. Just a frustrated American.

Androidpk

11-15-2009, 05:42 AM

Not a sleeper. Just a frustrated American.

Frustrated americans honk their horns and swear, not commit premeditated mass murder.

Clove

11-15-2009, 06:48 AM

Ever hear of "going postal"?

Gan

11-15-2009, 09:27 AM

What makes you think that?

Politics...

I dont see him signing any death warrant, especially since it would be considered by his left to be acting like Bush.

However, as commander in chief of the armed forces - I would hope he would sign off on a death warrant as a punishment for such a blatant and cowardly attack on members of our armed forces and civillians on an army post.

Rocktar

11-15-2009, 10:18 AM

I am not real sure that a Court Marshal is eligible for Executive Pardon. In addition, the military does not need Presidental approval to execute this nut bag. I would think that he and the grenade throwing idiot in Iraq should both face summary Court Marshal, the one in Iraq should not have had to wait more than 1 day and this idiot should be facing court next week.

In Iraq, should have rounded up 3 flag officers, JAG reps and had his trial, convicted him and had him executed at dawn the following day by firing squad. You do crap like that in a war zone and that is what should happen to you. Of course, to me, I have to ask, why the hell are either of these idiots even coming to trial, the one in Texas should have been killed by return fire flat out.

Oh, and here is some light reading on the UCMJ on the topic.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl118.htm

http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/should-major-nidal-malik-hasan-the-fort-hood-shooter-face-the-death-penalty-under-the-ucmj-1459664.html

Clove

11-15-2009, 10:23 AM

I am not real sure that a Court Marshal is eligible for Executive Pardon.So being both Chief Executive and Commander in Chief isn't enough power to stay a court-martialed execution? Really? Really?

EasternBrand

11-15-2009, 12:29 PM

DOJ says the President has pardon power over military courts martial.

http://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

See #2.

Clove

11-15-2009, 12:32 PM

Of course he does. Seriously EB, there's no need to prove Rocktar is talking out of his ass.

Tsa`ah

11-16-2009, 01:43 AM

Executive decisions are funny that way.

They certainly are, yet there has been no action taken in the past by Obama to suggest that he would commute a sentence handed down a military judge over seeing the general court martial. To suggest Obama would intervene is speculative at best.

But yes, executives are funny that way ... just ask the Somali pirates ... oh wait, you can't.

Frustrated americans honk their horns and swear, not commit premeditated mass murder.

As Clove pointed out ... going postal. There's also bomb the pentagon and other government facilities ... though giving warning before hand.

There's also blowing up a federal building and not giving any warning.

Attempting to or actually assassinating the President.

Founding or joining a militia hell bent on over throwing the government.

Americans have show what extremes they will go to in frustration ... and I doubt we've seen the end of it.

Politics...

I dont see him signing any death warrant, especially since it would be considered by his left to be acting like Bush.

However, as commander in chief of the armed forces - I would hope he would sign off on a death warrant as a punishment for such a blatant and cowardly attack on members of our armed forces and civillians on an army post.

I don't believe the president has to sign anything in order to validate a death sentence handed down by a military judge or any judge for that matter.

I'm sure he could potentially order the judge to take capital punishment off the table, but considering Holder has stated he's going to pursue such a sentence in the 9/11 trials, and given he didn't restrain the tactics used by Seal snipers to free a US hostage ... suggesting he's going to intervene on the behalf of this piece of shit is a stretch made in an attempted political smear.

Gan

11-16-2009, 07:23 AM

I don't believe the president has to sign anything in order to validate a death sentence handed down by a military judge or any judge for that matter.

Yes, the President must sign off on all death sentences by military court. Its been the topic of news stories all weekend.

If history is any judge, the Army will find it difficult to impose the death penalty on the accused killer in the bloodiest mass shooting on a U.S. military base in history.

Military experts say Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is almost certain to face capital charges before an Army court-martial. But they warn that death penalty cases are so rare in the military, and so prone to big mistakes, that death sentences rarely stick.

And executions themselves are almost nonexistent. The last American serviceman to be executed was hanged in 1961.

Since 1984, when Congress revamped military law regarding the death penalty, the United States has sought to execute 49 service members, though never an officer. Fifteen of those defendants were convicted and sentenced to death.

But in 10 cases, the sentences later were commuted by their commanders – or overturned on appeal

That leaves five condemned soldiers, Marines or sailors sitting on death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Of those, only a single soldier has exhausted his military appeals and been ordered to die by the president, as required. And his case has been held up by a last-minute habeas corpus appeal in a civilian U.S. district court in Kansas, even though the military has done all it can to send him to the federal death chamber in Terre Haute, Ind...

more...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110909dntexpenalty.4081ec8.html

AnticorRifling

11-16-2009, 07:39 AM

I can't see him getting anything other than a death sentence. Although he'll probably die in prison.

Gan

11-16-2009, 08:30 AM

He wont be in GP. Its protective custody for him while he's there. That way he only has to worry about the guards. ;)

Clove

11-16-2009, 08:49 AM

They certainly are, yet there has been no action taken in the past by Obama to suggest that he would commute a sentence handed down a military judge over seeing the general court martial. To suggest Obama would intervene is speculative at best.No shit? It's speculation? And here I thought all you people were Washington insiders!

But yes, executives are funny that way ... just ask the Somali pirates ... oh wait, you can't..You're going to compare an execution with a hostage rescue? Really? Really?

I wouldn't say there isn't anything to suggest he would commute a death sentence.

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006
Since he's allowed the possibility given enough public outrage I think it's unlikely he would commute this particular case. But it's clear that he is critical of death penalties (at least in Illinois). He's had little opportunity to set any precedent as chief executive.

Rocktar

11-16-2009, 08:59 AM

So being both Chief Executive and Commander in Chief isn't enough power to stay a court-martialed execution? Really? Really?

At what point did you miss the statement "I am not sure..."? indicating that I didn't have personal knowledge of the issue? I flat out admitted I didn't know and you still rant on. The President isn't God for fucks sake, grow the fuck up.

Gods above, you just post to up your post count, don't you?

AnticorRifling

11-16-2009, 09:10 AM

He wont be in GP. Its protective custody for him while he's there. That way he only has to worry about the guards. ;)

Sometimes people fall down and hit their head.

Clove

11-16-2009, 09:19 AM

At what point did you miss the statement "I am not sure..."?Well thanks for telling us you don't know what you're talking about. How difficult is it for you to inform yourself about current events before talking about current events? FFS turn on a news program.

Gods above, you just post to up your post count, don't you?Since you took time out of your busy day to tell us you didn't know anything about what you were talking about, I'd say you were more guilty of this than I.

Rocktar

11-16-2009, 10:45 AM

Well thanks for telling us you don't know what you're talking about. How difficult is it for you to inform yourself about current events before talking about current events? FFS turn on a news program.
Since you took time out of your busy day to tell us you didn't know anything about what you were talking about, I'd say you were more guilty of this than I.

Don't own a TV, so get a life. And it would make no difference anyway, again, the President is not God and does have limits, unlike your vapidity.

And you took time out of your day to inform us all that you thought that my saying I was not sure on something was bad. Aren't you just full of fail?

I swear, a woodpecker pecking on a steel pole has more sense than you.

Rocktar

11-16-2009, 10:46 AM

Sometimes people fall down and hit their head.

36 times consecutively in a short period of time, each landing on the edge of a step. One can only hope.

Clove

11-16-2009, 10:59 AM

Don't own a TV, so get a life. And it would make no difference anyway, again, the President is not God and does have limits, unlike your vapidity.Come to think of it I don't think radio, newspapers or internet media outlets have been discussing the President's power to pardon federal convictions or commute sentences for the past two weeks. Some life you have. It's true the President is not God. You learn that in high school- when they teach you about executive powers. I guess only us vapid people paid attention.

Rocktard: No TV. No Education. No Problem.

And you took time out of your day to inform us all that you thought that my saying I was not sure on something was bad. Aren't you just full of fail? And yet your little disclaimer didn’t stop you from shooting your yap off and making statements that are false (despite admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about). Also, learn how to spell court martial. It’s martial. As in “martial law” Rocktard.

I am not real sure that a Court Marshal is eligible for Executive Pardon. In addition, the military does not need Presidental approval to execute this nut bag.Yes, yes they do need Presidential approval to execute this nutbag. I mean he isn't God or anything but they do need his approval. That much he can do.

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 11:20 AM

I sometimes wonder about the sick-fuck factor in all of y'all. I can acknowledge how awful the shit this guy did, but the thought of physically harming him myself makes me queasy.

-TheE-

CrystalTears

11-16-2009, 11:24 AM

I sometimes wonder about the sick-fuck factor in all of y'all. I can acknowledge how awful the shit this guy did, but the thought of physically harming him myself makes me queasy.

-TheE-
The queasy factor obviously didn't bother him enough to stop him.

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 11:25 AM

And? His violence doesn't justify violence on my end towards him.

Clove

11-16-2009, 11:27 AM

The Sikhs would disagree.

AnticorRifling

11-16-2009, 11:28 AM

I sometimes wonder about the sick-fuck factor in all of y'all. I can acknowledge how awful the shit this guy did, but the thought of physically harming him myself makes me queasy.

-TheE-

I wouldn't call it carte blanche "sick fuck factor". Just like I don't automatically assume you lack a spine :)

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 11:29 AM

"The Sikhs would disagree"? What does that have to do with the price of ice in hell? I'm not Sikh, I'm Christian, and I'm pretty sure Jesus was a non-violent pacifist.

radamanthys

11-16-2009, 11:31 AM

I sometimes wonder about the sick-fuck factor in all of y'all. I can acknowledge how awful the shit this guy did, but the thought of physically harming him myself makes me queasy.

-TheE-

:hippie:

AnticorRifling

11-16-2009, 11:33 AM

"The Sikhs would disagree"? What does that have to do with the price of ice in hell?
Why are we talking about Star Wars?

I'm not Sikh, I'm Christian, and I'm pretty sure Jesus was a non-violent pacifist.
Don't know I never met him to ask.

Clove

11-16-2009, 11:34 AM

"The Sikhs would disagree"? What does that have to do with the price of ice in hell? I'm not Sikh, I'm Christian, and I'm pretty sure Jesus was a non-violent pacifist.Their religion is as germane as yours. Sikhs carry ceremonial knives because they are expected to protect the innocent even to the point of violence. As for Jesus, personal behavior/=civic behavior. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't imprison an evil doer in his home for 20 years either.

Atlanteax

11-16-2009, 11:55 AM

Well, there's another form of terrorism available for all "dissatisfied" Muslims.

http://cagle.com/working/091113/bors.jpg

Clove

11-16-2009, 02:31 PM

Ford Hood: Terrorist... 11-16-2009 10:47 AM You are dumber than my blond cocker spaniel. Rocktar Apparently, even Rocktard's blonde cocker spaniel knows that the President has the right to commute sentencing from a court martial.

Cephalopod

11-16-2009, 02:42 PM

I was going to rep you with:

"You're dumber than my black Lab mutt who, despite being a member of Mensa, still eats her own poop. This still places you millions of years of evolution beyond Rocktar, though, so take heart."

...but I can't rep you right now.

Methais

11-16-2009, 03:15 PM

There's also bomb the pentagon

Like Obama's pal Bill Ayers?

The President isn't God for fucks sake..

That depends who you ask, at least until 2012.

I sometimes wonder about the sick-fuck factor in all of y'all. I can acknowledge how awful the shit this guy did, but the thought of physically harming him myself makes me queasy.

-TheE-

That's because you're a big vagina.

Latrinsorm

11-16-2009, 03:42 PM

36 times consecutively in a short period of time, each landing on the edge of a step. One can only hope.Hope... for a completely illegal murder? Jack Ruby much?
Sikhs carry ceremonial knives because they are expected to protect the innocent even to the point of violence.Many of which are not actually sharp, hence "ceremonial".

Methais

11-16-2009, 03:43 PM

Many of which are not actually sharp, hence "ceremonial".

A butter knife isn't sharp either but you could still stab someone with it if you really really wanted to.

Clove

11-16-2009, 03:53 PM

Many of which are not actually sharp, hence "ceremonial".Well thanks for defining "ceremonial". It'll keep you off the Delta flight. It's a reminder that they are not to remain passive in the face of unjust violence that they are required to act, even violently to stop evil... Which was my point... About them disagreeing with the E.

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 04:57 PM

Damn good thing I, and the majority of this country, is not Sikh. Not to mention it doesn't apply here, since their belief is to stop violence as it is occuring, not to promote retribution.

Clove

11-16-2009, 05:00 PM

Damn good thing I, and the majority of this country, is not Sikh. Not to mention it doesn't apply here, since their belief is to stop violence as it is occuring, not to promote retribution.Funny that Mosiac law (the one Jesus came to fulfill and said not one letter of it would be stricken) includes capital punishment. Personal behavior/=Civic behavior.

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 05:05 PM

Clove

11-16-2009, 05:41 PM

Funny how Jesus said "I am the new law."

And while Jesus never talked about civic behavior, it seems pretty clear to me that if your civic behavior violated the beliefs of your personal behavior, Jesus wasn't cool with that, either.Oh he did. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Paul (his disciple) also said in Hebrews that if he were guilty of anything deserving death then he should be put to death. Jesus accused the Pharisees of not honoring their fathers and mothers and reminded them that they should be put to death for that crime. Jesus (pacifist that he was) made a whip and attacked the money-changers at the temple. You keep using his name. I don't think "Jesus" means what you think he means.

Androidpk

11-16-2009, 05:50 PM

You keep using his name. I don't think "Jesus" means what you think he means.

You just described the greater majority of christians.

Latrinsorm

11-16-2009, 08:32 PM

Funny that Mosiac law (the one Jesus came to fulfill and said not one letter of it would be stricken) includes capital punishment. Personal behavior/=Civic behavior.Actually Jesus specifically said "the Law", not "Mosaic law", and not three verses later goes on a 21-verse diatribe about Mosaic law, directly contradicting it multiple times. I suppose you can pretend he changed his mind immediately after saying the "one stroke of one letter" line, if you really wanted to.

Gan

11-16-2009, 09:19 PM

Sometimes people fall down and hit their head.
I've 'seen' people do that.
:whistle:

That's because you're a big vagina.
BINGO

A butter knife isn't sharp either but you could still stab someone with it if you really really wanted to.
Sharpend toothbrush handles also work well. And a myriad selection of other items that can be found in prison. ;)

TheEschaton

11-16-2009, 10:42 PM

Congrats, Clove, you've managed to point out the three things in the New Testament that might, wholly out of context, support your position.

The first, as Latrin mentioned, refers to a different law. Namely, the law of the prophecy of his coming.

The second is by Paul, a man who never met Jesus. Nevertheless, discounting that, I couldn't exactly find which verse in Hebrews said what you think it said, but the context of the whole epistle is about how Christ is the new law, and has made the old law pass away. One example: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13). I don't see how any of Paul's epistle can be said to construe that the old law should supercede the law of Christ, which he expounds on in later chapters of the epistle, as love, and brotherhood, etc, etc.

Your third verse, of accusing the Pharisees, I've never heard of. I'd have to see a verse to address it.

The moneychangers story is a favorite of the people who suggest Jesus was not a pacifist. What most biblical scholars agree is that it at the very least suggests he was not a passivist (pun mine). The story is tied up in the question of the authority of Jesus to do such a thing, not in the act itself, which most theological scholars believe invoked no sense of violence. The whole passage (from John, all four have the story):

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!" 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." [a (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#fen-TNIV-26109a)]

18 The Jews then responded to him, "What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 They replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. [b (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#fen-TNIV-26115b)] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need human testimony about them, for he knew what was in them.

If anything, this idea of "zeal for [God's] House" overcoming Jesus is given as the reason, in condemnation of what: making the Temple a market place, IE, making the sacrosanct vulgar.

While the display itself is disturbing to many pacifists, it is also noted that it is a singular event in the Gospel, whereas multiple times (when Peter cut off the ear of one of the men who came to arrest Jesus, when a woman was about to be stoned for her adultry, where Jesus specfically says, "Turn the other cheek," etc). If anything, it echoes for those believers in Jesus who follow Catholicism his utter humanity.

-TheE-

Gan

11-17-2009, 12:10 AM

http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/SniperJesusMotivational.jpg

AnticorRifling

11-17-2009, 08:21 AM

That's what we should do, we should discuss fiction instead of rallying to have this fucker swinging at the gallows.

Parkbandit

11-17-2009, 08:26 AM

That's what we should do, we should discuss fiction instead of rallying to have this fucker swinging at the gallows.

OMG DID U JUST CALL THE BIBLE FICTION!?

I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL, YOU BASTARD!!!

PS - I hate having Tuesdays off.... I guess I'll watch Star Trek today.

AnticorRifling

11-17-2009, 08:38 AM

OMG DID U JUST CALL THE BIBLE FICTION!?

I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL, YOU BASTARD!!!

PS - I hate having Tuesdays off.... I guess I'll watch Star Trek today.
Yeah I actually have to do work today, damn clients with their needs and problems....

Yes I called it fiction. It's a great story, a great guide to help center you morally but it's fiction in my opinion. Pretty sure my pastor hates me.

Tsa`ah

11-17-2009, 08:40 AM

You're going to compare an execution with a hostage rescue? Really? Really?

Yes, yes I am.

Obama could have ordered non-lethal measures be taken since there wasn't a history of said pirates killing hostages. One could argue that he ordered any measure taken knowing very well he was ordering the deaths of the kidnappers.

I wouldn't say there isn't anything to suggest he would commute a death sentence.

There's nothing but past statements to go on for the pro-commutation of a death sentence. There is current action to argue the likeliness of a commutation is dismal ... see Holder seeking the death penalty (that you conveniently ignored in your reply).

AnticorRifling

11-17-2009, 08:46 AM

Parkbandit

11-17-2009, 08:46 AM

Yeah I actually have to do work today, damn clients with their needs and problems....

Yes I called it fiction. It's a great story, a great guide to help center you morally but it's fiction in my opinion. Pretty sure my pastor hates me.

Eh.. I view the Bible as history from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know the answer on how it happened. Take the Flood and Noah's Arc. There is evidence showing that there was a cataclysmic flood on the eastern side of the Mediterranean.. so to the people who witnessed the aftermath, they came up with the story of how Noah built this arc and that's how there are people and animals on the planet today.

Parkbandit

11-17-2009, 08:48 AM

AnticorRifling

11-17-2009, 08:49 AM

Eh.. I view the Bible as history from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know the answer on how it happened. Take the Flood and Noah's Arc. There is evidence showing that there was a cataclysmic flood on the eastern side of the Mediterranean.. so to the people who witnessed the aftermath, they came up with the story of how Noah built this arc and that's how there are people and animals on the planet today.

Ahh the Al Gore approach to natural happenings. Got it.

Tsa`ah

11-17-2009, 08:56 AM

Regardless of your stance we can all agree that head shot was fuckin amazing. I mean accounting for wind, etc on land is tough but from a ship with natural roll to another ship doing the same. Outstanding.

What the Seals did was just mind boggling. I was actually surprised that those on the right rush in with immediate criticism ... more surprised that most on the left just kept their mouths shut about it.

AnticorRifling

11-17-2009, 09:02 AM

Did they confirm it was SEAL snipers? I wasn't fully engrossed in those goings on.

Methais

11-17-2009, 10:02 AM

Just heard on the news that Hasan was wanting a lot of his patients charged with war crimes.

Sure sounds like a snapper gone postal to me!

CrystalTears

11-17-2009, 01:20 PM

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/111809dnnathasanlieberman.2c67550f6.html

"President Barack Obama (http://topics.dallasnews.com/topic/Barack_Obama) has vowed to examine the events leading up to Hasan's attack, including reports that the Army and FBI (http://topics.dallasnews.com/topic/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) missed warning signs about his extremist sympathies. But Obama has warned against inquiries that might turn into "political theater" or interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. "

Cephalopod

11-17-2009, 01:29 PM

I sure am glad congress is investigating this. They'll get to the bottom of it.

Clove

11-17-2009, 01:45 PM

Yes, yes I am.

Obama could have ordered non-lethal measures be taken since there wasn't a history of said pirates killing hostages. One could argue that he ordered any measure taken knowing very well he was ordering the deaths of the kidnappers.So you're saying that advocating the use of deadly force in a hostage situation is equivalent to advocating capital punishment? You're a piece of work.

Clove

11-17-2009, 02:04 PM

Congrats, Clove, you've managed to point out the three things in the New Testament that might, wholly out of context, support your position.I disagree with both you and Latrin about its context. Jesus went on a diatribe of the Pharisees application and interpretation of the law but I believe he meant (and I think it makes a good deal of sense) that not one letter of the old testament law would be stricken; though I will allow that he could have have been referring to "do unto others" and "love one another" as ridiculous as it that may be.

The second is by Paul, a man who never met Jesus. I'm going to stop the conversation here. You've never met Jesus either, nor have any of your teachers, colleagues or brothers and sisters of your faith, so I feel safe in ignoring your perspective by your own criticism. I did misspeak; Paul's statement isn't in Hebrews it is in Acts 25:11 and another relevant passage Romans 13:4. Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for not honoring their parents can be found in I believe two Gospels but it is certainly found in Mathew 15:4. Jesus acknowledges Pilate's right to execute him in John 19:11 and there are more.

For the record I am very, very critical of capital punishment, though there are (very rare) circumstances that I advocate it.

Latrinsorm

11-17-2009, 04:34 PM

Jesus went on a diatribe of the Pharisees application and interpretation of the law but I believe he meant (and I think it makes a good deal of sense) that not one letter of the old testament law would be strickenA lot of OT law is very cut and dry, it's not really a question of interpretation. There is no question that Moses specifically allowed for and codified divorce, there is no question that Moses specifically allowed for and codified taking oaths, but Jesus says "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.", Jesus says, "But I say to you, make no oath at all", leading to the famous bit about "will you swear by the hair on your head? you cannot turn one hair white or black". It is certainly true that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and every other -ees offered a particular interpretation of Mosaic law, but Jesus isn't saying no to them, he's saying no to Moses, hence saying no to (a very fundamental) part of the Old Testament.
Jesus acknowledges Pilate's right to execute him in John 19:11 and there are more.Jesus says the one with authority over Pilate "has the greater sin"; this implies that Pilate is still sinning, just not as much as the unspecified being above Pilate (which is really the interesting part of this passage, but isn't relevant to the topic hand). In the other canonical Gospels Jesus barely says a word to Pilate, I think you will have trouble finding anything said by Jesus to support your claim.

Clove

11-17-2009, 06:11 PM

Jesus says the one with authority over Pilate "has the greater sin"; this implies that Pilate is still sinning, just not as much as the unspecified being above Pilate (which is really the interesting part of this passage, but isn't relevant to the topic hand). In the other canonical Gospels Jesus barely says a word to Pilate, I think you will have trouble finding anything said by Jesus to support your claim.Sinning by executing an innocent man or sinning by upholding the policy of execution? Which Gospels are correct?

Latrinsorm

11-17-2009, 09:50 PM

Sinning by executing an innocent man or sinning by upholding the policy of execution?I don't think it's worthwhile to try and extract too much from a single statement, which brings me to:
Which Gospels are correct?There is no contradiction on this matter. My point was that your claim which had at best tenuous footing in John would find no firmer ground in the other Gospels.

I take no position as to whether Jesus' statements as presented in the Gospels support or decry capital punishment; my position is only that he certainly does not acknowledge any right to execute when he speaks with Pontius Pilate.

Gan

11-17-2009, 10:00 PM

Regardless of your stance we can all agree that head shot was fuckin amazing. I mean accounting for wind, etc on land is tough but from a ship with natural roll to another ship doing the same. Outstanding.
Can I get an AMEN?
Oh, and...
You must mean OUTSTANDING!

Seriously. And 3 at the same time? Unfucking believable.
Like I said earlier... OUTSTANDING!

I sure am glad congress is investigating this. They'll get to the bottom of it.
:lol:

Gan

11-17-2009, 10:06 PM

Just heard on the news that Hasan was wanting a lot of his patients charged with war crimes.

Sure sounds like a snapper gone postal to me!

Its not on the major news outlets yet.

At first, I didn’t make too much over this report (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111709dntexshooter.3f2db30.html) that Nidal Hasan may have gone on a killing spree because his requests that his patients be investigated for war crimes was denied.

Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Malik Hasan sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him, a captain who served on the base said Monday.
Other psychiatrists complained to superiors that Hasan’s actions violated doctor-patient confidentiality, Capt. Shannon Meehan told The Dallas Morning News.
[snip]
It wasn’t clear Monday what information Hasan received from patients and what became of his requests for prosecution. ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this triggered the shootings.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/hasan-and-war-crimes/

Tsa`ah

11-18-2009, 12:18 PM

So you're saying that advocating the use of deadly force in a hostage situation is equivalent to advocating capital punishment? You're a piece of work.

Nope.

I'm saying it's reasonable to conclude, given previous action (see pirates) or inaction (see Holder's desired sentence in 9/11 case), that Obama would not commute a death sentence handed down by this particular general court martial despite past objections to such sentences.

If you could be bothered to research you would know that Obama's misgivings about capital punishment are by and large rooted in the knowledge of how many wrongfully convicted people are sitting on death row or have sat on death row. He has stated in the past that there certainly are crimes worthy of capital punishment and each state should make the determination of what, if anything, is worthy of such a punishment.

p.s. Just because Jesus constructed a whip does not mean he actually beat people with it.

Clove

11-18-2009, 01:36 PM

Nope.

I'm saying it's reasonable to conclude, given previous action (see pirates) or inaction (see Holder's desired sentence in 9/11 case), that Obama would not commute a death sentence handed down by this particular general court martial despite past objections to such sentences.Advocating use of deadly force in a conflict is not the same as advocating an execution. I'm sure there are critics of the death penalty that would not have a problem with a police officer shooting an armed assailant or a sniper shooting an armed hostage holder.

If you could be bothered to research you would know...No shit Sherlock, his primary reason for criticizing capital punishment is stated in plain in English in the quote I provided. No research was necessary only reading comprehension:

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006 I thought I was acknowledging his reasons when I followed that quote with:

Since he's allowed the possibility given enough public outrage I think it's unlikely he would commute this particular case. But it's clear that he is critical of death penalties (at least in Illinois). He's had little opportunity to set any precedent as chief executive.From his own book he is critical of capital punishment because 1) he does not believe there is evidence that it deters crime sufficeintly 2) specifically in Illinois sentencing was seriously flawed. He acknowledges its limited necessity but he is critical of its use. I thought I was being pretty fair about his fucking stance Tsa'ah, even to the point of admitting I didn't think he would commute this particular sentence should it turn out to be a death penalty. He isn't however, a strong capital punishment advocate, he does have criticisms so it IS a possibility. And no, authorizing deadly force in a hostage situation doesn't automatically make a person "pro-execution". You're reaching for an argument.

p.s. Just because Jesus constructed a whip does not mean he actually beat people with it.Again, no shit. I can read. From the passage it seems pretty obvious he was using the whip to drive out the sacrificial animals being sold. He also turned over tables and scattered money and confronted the moneychangers violently. It's not really the behavior of a pacifist. Violence doesn't necessarily involve physically assaulting a person, if I turn over your dinner table while you're eating it's violence.

Mabus

11-18-2009, 02:44 PM

From his own book he is critical of capital punishment because 1) he does not believe there is evidence that it deters crime sufficeintly 2) specifically in Illinois sentencing was seriously flawed. He acknowledges its limited necessity but he is critical of its use.
You are confusing what he says to get elected (and to score political points) with what he really believes. These two things are often opposites.

When asked about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial being in New York being offensive to some people:
Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed - MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/)

"Uh, I don't think it will, uh, be offensive at all when he is convicted, uh, and when the death penalty is applied to him." - President Obama

Already convicted and executed in his eyes. He then backtracked and stated he was not prejudging.

Ought to be interesting, since the defendant was not read his Miranda Rights, was not given access to a lawyer, did not receive a speedy trial and was tortured. If afforded the rights of citizens any of these could be disqualifications that would cause the case to be dismissed, and the defendant freed.

EasternBrand

11-18-2009, 02:58 PM

Ought to be interesting, since the defendant was not read his Miranda Rights, was not given access to a lawyer, did not receive a speedy trial and was tortured. If afforded the rights of citizens any of these could be disqualifications that would cause the case to be dismissed, and the defendant freed.

There is absolutely zero chance that he will be afforded any of these rights. He is a foreign national arrested on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has already held that full procedural rights are not required in those cases.

Parkbandit

11-18-2009, 03:09 PM

I personally hope he is found not guilty and watching what Obama will do next.

Although, this won't ever go to trial until after November 2012.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-18-2009, 03:56 PM

What does Obama have to do with it?

Parkbandit

11-18-2009, 04:12 PM

What does Obama have to do with it?

With bringing KSM to NYC for trial? Well, according to Obama, nothing... he claims it was all Attorney General Eric Holder's decision.

I believe him.. about as much as when he said that 95% of working Americans will see a tax cut.

Mabus

11-18-2009, 05:10 PM

There is absolutely zero chance that he will be afforded any of these rights. He is a foreign national arrested on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has already held that full procedural rights are not required in those cases.
SCOTUS cases please?

Remember, the trial is in a regular federal court, not the Congressionally approved military tribunals.

If he is not "afforded any of those rights" then it is just a show trial, and will make us look like brutes to outsiders.

There is always the chance that this is an effort by the administration to indict the former administration's practices. By a federal judge freeing this defendant because of abuse they could say, "See. It's all Bush's fault!".

Clove

11-18-2009, 06:18 PM

You are confusing what he says to get elected (and to score political points) with what he really believes. These two things are often opposites.I was quoting his book "Audacity of Hope" which I'm sure he quoted while campaigning, but I don't consider it tantamount to campaign speeches. I expected his book to be a better snapshot of his beliefs. In the end I think Obama's choice will be whatever is most popular at the moment.

EasternBrand

11-18-2009, 10:13 PM

SCOTUS cases please?

Remember, the trial is in a regular federal court, not the Congressionally approved military tribunals.

If he is not "afforded any of those rights" then it is just a show trial, and will make us look like brutes to outsiders.

There is always the chance that this is an effort by the administration to indict the former administration's practices. By a federal judge freeing this defendant because of abuse they could say, "See. It's all Bush's fault!".

Sorry, I was in a rush and may have oversimplified. A line of cases does exist that allows for severely curtailed procedural rights in military commissions (Hamdi's plurality opinion makes room for limits on procedure even when the accused is a citizen). The bounty of procedural rights that a citizen is entitled to in federal district court are simply not enjoyed by non-citizen enemy combatants arrested on foreign soil. You're right to point out that this is federal district court and those cases are military commissions, but I think the difference is going to be minimal in this case because of the timeline.

When KSM was arrested, but before he was brought to U.S. sovereign soil (I don't actually know when that was), the district courts did not have jurisdiction. Therefore, any procedural or constitutional rights that a district court would enforce didn't exist as to him. They would not have needed to Mirandize him or provide him with due process under the 5th Amendment, or provide him with a lawyer under the 6th. They may actually have had to do many of these things within a reasonable time once (a) he was on U.S. soil and (b) they had made the decision to charge him in federal court, but I can't imagine they didn't Mirandize him as a precaution like a week ago (or more, depending on the timeline here). My point is, they didn't need to do this when he was captured, or at any time until he was here and charges had been filed or were imminent.

The torture issue may be more complex, and it's too long to get really deep into, but assuming that his torture was sufficiently unconstitutional to trigger the exclusionary doctrine, what could it possibly exclude but any confession he gave them? You have to think there's mountains of evidence against him that they didn't need him for, and in fact they may not even need to present him with it under state secrets statutes. True, this is a practical and not a wholly legal argument, but I really don't see it having any bearing. The 8th Amendment doesn't work procedurally in criminal trials the same way as the 5th and 6th do. For instance, a failure to provide Miranda warnings and properly cure the failure, or a failure to provide an indigent defendant with a lawyer, will result in a conviction being thrown out on appeal. A violation of the 8th Amendment may overturn the conviction if it leads to exclusion of evidence crucial to the conviction.

EasternBrand

11-18-2009, 10:20 PM

Shit, there's a whole other thread about this? I'm moving this debate there.

Parkbandit

11-19-2009, 03:06 PM

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee on Thursday opened the first public hearings into the Fort Hood shootings, with several legislators asserting that the incident in which 13 people were killed was a terrorist attack by a homegrown extremist who may have slipped past law enforcement and military authorities.

Hours later at a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced that former Army Secretary Togo West and a former chief of naval operations, Vernon Clark, would lead a broad Pentagon review of the circumstances surrounding the shootings in which 13 people were killed and 43 were injured.

Mr. Gates said the 45-day review would look into how the military identifies service members who might be a threat to others and how well military bases are equipped to respond to such incidents.

At the Congressional hearings, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that the Nov. 5 shootings allegedly carried out by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was a “homegrown terrorist attack” and that law enforcement and military agencies may have failed to act appropriately.

“The purpose of our investigation is to determine whether that attack could have been prevented, whether the federal agencies and employees involved missed signals or failed to connect the dots in a way that enabled Hasan to carry out his deadly plan,” Mr. Lieberman said. “If we find such negligence we will make recommendations to guarantee, as best we can, that they never occur again.”

But Mr. Lieberman’s hearing made only limited headway because the Obama administration has refused his requests for witnesses from the F.B.I. and Defense Department. Mr. Lieberman said he had spoken with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Mr. Gates, who told him they would cooperate with his inquiry, but did not want to compromise the criminal investigation.

As a result, Mr. Lieberman proceeded with several non-government experts and former officials, including Frances Fragos Townsend, formerly the homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. She expressed concern that “political correctness,” and fear of intruding on Major Hasan’s free speech rights, may have interfered with the sharing of information earlier this year, when an F.B.I.-led counterterrorism team examined his e-mail exchanges with Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known radical cleric, but found nothing amiss.

The administration has irritated some lawmakers by trying to delay their inquiries into the shootings, though some committees have postponed investigations, such as the Senate Armed Services Committee. Instead, officials from the Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have provided closed-door briefings for some lawmakers.

Military and law enforcement agencies are also conducting their own internal inquiries. The Army’s chief of staff, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is organizing a military panel to examine possible warning signs that were ignored by the Army authorities at Fort Hood or the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where Major Hasan was stationed until July. The review will encompass Major Hasan’s entire Army career and focus on how to prevent such an attack in the future.

The F.B.I.’s Office of Professional Responsibility is also continuing its own investigation, ordered by the agency’s director, Robert S. Mueller III. The Army and the F.B.I. are reporting their findings to the White House, where the National Security Council is leading its own inquiry. That investigation, ordered by President Obama, is expected to conclude by the end of the month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20hood.html

Clove

11-19-2009, 03:35 PM

As a result, Mr. Lieberman proceeded with several non-government experts and former officials, including Frances Fragos Townsend, formerly the homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. She expressed concern that “political correctness,” and fear of intruding on Major Hasan’s free speech rights, may have interfered with the sharing of information earlier this year, when an F.B.I.-led counterterrorism team examined his e-mail exchanges with Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known radical cleric, but found nothing amiss.I'm really curious about this quote. If the FBI found "nothing amiss" what was there of concern to share? I know the guy is a fruit-loop but it almost seems like Townsend is suggesting that if something looks suspiscious it should be circulated and examined until it is found to BE suspicious. That doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

crb

11-19-2009, 04:02 PM

How can there be 22 people who don't think this was a terrorist attack?

Was the purpose of the attack meant to cause terror and bring attention to a cause?

It has nothing to do with the guy's skin color or to what god he was shouting while pulling the trigger. Abortion bombers are terrorists, Tim McVeigh was a terrorist, these are white christians. It is the action, not the perpetrator's background, that defines a terrorist attack. So the guy who was against the war, and thought the suicide bombings were just, and supporting jihad, went around randomly shooting people while yelling "Allah Ackbar". With the attack being planned and premeditated with the attacker having the knowledge that he was either going to die or never be free again. The attack was random violence meant to cause terror and fear, the attacker had a cause, the actions of the attacker seemed to link the two together.

This is the very definition of a terrorist attack. Piss off with the political whitewash.

Was the guy not right in the head? Is any suicide attacking terrorist right in the head? Were the 9/11 hijackers free from mental illness? Being mentally disturbed does not preclude you from terrorism.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 07:41 PM

It is the action, not the perpetrator's background, that defines a terrorist attack.

Yep.

So the guy who was against the war, and thought the suicide bombings were just, and supporting jihad,
That'd be background, which you said doesn't define terrorism.

went around randomly shooting people while yelling "Allah Ackbar".

That'd be unsubstantiated.

With the attack being planned and premeditated with the attacker having the knowledge that he was either going to die or never be free again.

Definitely. So we're at mass murder.

The attack was random violence meant to cause terror and fear,

Was it random violence, or was it a planned attack (see previous quote)? Either way, is "Scaring people" really enough to declare an attack terrorism? If so, jackass who punched my friend in the face a few weeks ago was a terrorist.

the attacker had a cause, the actions of the attacker seemed to link the two together.

I completely agree that there has to be some purpose, some cause to make it terrorism. But, what was the cause? If there was one, he really should have sent a letter, left a note, sent a video to the media, posted a blog, sent a mass email, or written "FOR ALLAH" on his body. He did none of those.

He did however, do a piss poor job of getting the message out, which would be ironic if his intent was to get the message out.

Methais

11-19-2009, 07:43 PM

Would you feel better if we called him a "Jihad Extremist" instead?

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 07:48 PM

Would you feel better if we called him a "Jihad Extremist" instead?

When did he declare jihad on Fort Hood, the United States, or the Army?

Seriously. All he had to do was leave a note saying "In the name of Allah" or "I declare Jihad on the US", and I would completely agree this was a terrorist attack. As it stands, it looks like a horrible, purposeless tragedy.

Methais

11-19-2009, 07:55 PM

When did he declare jihad on Fort Hood, the United States, or the Army?

Seriously. All he had to do was leave a note saying "In the name of Allah" or "I declare Jihad on the US", and I would completely agree this was a terrorist attack. As it stands, it looks like a horrible, purposeless tragedy.

He had a business card or whatever it was that said "Soldier of Allah" on it.

He yelled ALLAHU AKBAR before he opened fire, which is a common thing terrorists do before blowing themselves up or whatever they're doing at the time to pwn shit.

He tried spreading jihadist propaganda on his patients and other people.

He wanted several of his patients to be charged with war crimes.

He praised suicide bombers and what they do.

He tried to contact Al Qaeda.

He wanted out of the military because he didn't want to fight against muslims.

There's more but I that's all I got off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to find the rest of the stuff.

Those are not the actions of someone who just snapped and went nuts and forgot to leave a note declaring jihad on the US.

Though yelling ALLAHU AKBAR which means "God is great" while he's murdering people is pretty much the same as leaving a note that says "In the name of Allah", which you just said would be enough evidence for you to consider it a terrorist attack.

Gan

11-19-2009, 08:03 PM

I also heard that he had a set of business cards with SOA after his name and profession. Investigators are saying that it stands for Soldier of Allah - which is a common self description of jihadists (terrorists). Thats confirmed from numerous radio news programs including NPR.

I did not know he yelled Allahu Akbar before he opened fire. If thats witness confirmed then its a foregone conclusion of what his intent was.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:03 PM

Those are not the actions of someone who just snapped and went nuts and forgot to leave a note declaring jihad on the US.

So when did he declare jihad, so that your description of "Jihad Extremist" are accurate?

Though yelling ALLAHU AKBAR which means "God is great" while he's murdering people is pretty much the same as leaving a note that says "In the name of Allah", which you said would be enough evidence for you.

Again, he "reportedly" yelled it. Who "reported" that he did? (see also: Jeff Goldblum dies in New Zealand) Perhaps the same person who reported that white chick was the hero? Or a person who thought they heard it while running for their lives?

And it isn't the same thing anyway. It's more like a Christian screaming "Jesus Christ" or "Oh God".

Gan

11-19-2009, 08:04 PM

And it isn't the same thing anyway. It's more like a Christian screaming "Jesus Christ" or "Oh God".

:facepalm:

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:05 PM

I did not know he yelled Allahu Akbar before he opened fire. If thats witness confirmed then its a foregone conclusion of what his intent was.

You didn't know it, because every story I've seen has said he "REPORTEDLY" said it, without saying who "REPORTEDLY" said he did. There is no confirmation.

And it still isn't foregone conclusion. See my previous post.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:06 PM

:facepalm:

Why?

He screams "GOD IS GREAT". That makes him a muslim. It doesn't mean that he is declaring jihad.

Gan

11-19-2009, 08:07 PM

If you can confirm from any of his ex-lovers that he screams Allahu Akbar before blowing a wad during sex then I'll believe that previous post nonsense.

Otherwise - the pont stands that its a similar reference to the phrase commonly shouted out by [islamist terrorists/jihadists] suicide bombers prior to pushing the button.

Methais

11-19-2009, 08:09 PM

So when did he declare jihad, so that your description of "Jihad Extremist" are accurate?

Again, he "reportedly" yelled it. Who "reported" that he did? (see also: Jeff Goldblum dies in New Zealand) Perhaps the same person who reported that white chick was the hero? Or a person who thought they heard it while running for their lives?

And it isn't the same thing anyway. It's more like a Christian screaming "Jesus Christ" or "Oh God".

What more do you require to stop being in denial despite all the facts being in front of your face? It's been confirmed all over the place that he yelled that before he opened fire. It's not some alleged Fox News spin or whatever if that's what you're insinuating.

To directly answer your question as to who "reported" that he said that, the answer is: Everyone.

As for the white chick, why wouldn't she be a hero? She's the one that shot him and basically stopped his rampage in its tracks if I'm not mistaken.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:12 PM

Otherwise - the pont stands that its a similar reference to the phrase commonly shouted out by [islamist terrorists/jihadists] suicide bombers prior to pushing the button.

Seriously? If I went crazy and decided to "push the button", I may very well yell "HOLY SHIT" or "JESUS CHRIST", which would neither mean I was praising God's excrement, nor extolling the virtue of the supposed son of God.

They use the phrase a LOT of ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir).

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:15 PM

What more do you require to stop being in denial despite all the facts being in front of your face? It's been confirmed all over the place that he yelled that before he opened fire. It's not some alleged Fox News spin or whatever if that's what you're insinuating.

What more do you require to understand what I'm saying? Jeff Goldblum's death was widely reported - and yet he lives. Every single piece I've seen has said he "REPORTEDLY" shouted it, without saying reportedly by WHOM.

To directly answer your question as to who "reported" that he said that, the answer is: Everyone.

I'm not saying who is putting it up on their website, or on their news show - I'm asking WHO HEARD HIM SAY IT.

As for the white chick, why wouldn't she be a hero? She's the one that shot him and basically stopped his rampage in its tracks if I'm not mistaken.

Except that maybe she wasn't (http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-real-hero-fort-hood-shooting-story,0,3638333.story)

Methais

11-19-2009, 08:18 PM

Seriously? If I went crazy and decided to "push the button", I may very well yell "HOLY SHIT" or "JESUS CHRIST", which would neither mean I was praising God's excrement, nor extolling the virtue of the supposed son of God.

They use the phrase a LOT of ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6516570/Fort-Hood-shootings-the-meaning-of-Allahu-Akbar.html

Fort Hood shootings: the meaning of 'Allahu Akbar'
The Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar", shouted by the Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Malik Hasan before he opened fire, is known as the takbir and is used by Muslims to express a wide range of emotions.

Translated as "God is great", it can be used to express delight and euphoria or as a war cry during battles.

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage that killed 13 people at Fort Hood military base in Texas have reported that gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire.

Yes there's more in the link about the non-jihad uses of it. I'm posting the relevant parts that pertain to this thread.

Are you going to say the soldiers are making it up now too?

crb

11-19-2009, 08:25 PM

Yep.

So the guy who was against the war, and thought the suicide bombings were just, and supporting jihad,

That'd be background, which you said doesn't define terrorism.

Did you graduate from highschool?

I said actions. Is making speech an action? Speech is a verb, verbs are action words. Is posting something on the Internet an action? Things you've said and done are not background, they are actions. Again, a verb denotes an action.

That'd be unsubstantiated.

What do you need for proof? A recording? I'm sorry, that doesn't exist. You can conveniently hold your idiotic position because the only evidence you will accept does not exist?

Was it random violence, or was it a planned attack (see previous quote)? Either way, is "Scaring people" really enough to declare an attack terrorism? If so, jackass who punched my friend in the face a few weeks ago was a terrorist.

You can plan a random act of violence. Here you say, "I'm going to go out and shoot the first blonde man I see." You understand? You're killing a random person, but you planned it. Again, I go back to my highschool question. Either you're purposefully acting dumb, or just are dumb. And then you toss in a strawman to boot. No, I never said your jackass or your friend were terrorists, but if you find it more convenient to argue against that statement, by all means, have a go.

The difference between a random act of violence and most act of violence is that most acts of violence are between people who know each other. A random act of violence, as a phrase within law enforcement, is used to denote situations where victims are chosen at random. These types of violence scare people more because most of us feel comfortable in the knowledge that we don't know any murderers, so we don't worry about people we know hurting us, which again, is most acts of violence. What we worry about are where we're randomly chosen to be victims by someone, a random act of violence. Something you don't see coming.

So, you are confused in that you think a random act of violence is someone suddenly getting an impulse out of the blue, happening to have a gun on them, and shooting someone. This is not the case. The phrase refers to how the victims were chosen. Ergo an attack can be both planned and random.

An unplanned attack is not referred to as random, but rather as a crime of passion, or, more technically, aggravation.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is vision, so please, eyes open.

I completely agree that there has to be some purpose, some cause to make it terrorism. But, what was the cause? If there was one, he really should have sent a letter, left a note, sent a video to the media, posted a blog, sent a mass email, or written "FOR ALLAH" on his body. He did none of those.

Maybe he thought it would be obvious? The Atlanta Olympic Bomber did not leave a note, did he? Was that not terrorism?

Is it because he used a gun? What if he had dropped pipe bombs all over, killed and wounded the same number of people. Would that have been terrorism? Is a bomb the tool of the terrorist and the gun the tool of the madman? Why?

And of course, let us not forget, the FBI busted a plot where a terrorist cell was more or less planning this exact type of attack. Would that have not been terrorism?

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:26 PM

Since when do you have to be organized or part of an avowed terrorist group to be a terrorist?

You don't, but it sure as hell helps, since terrorism is used to make a point.

Suppose an evangelical christian plans for and then executes a plan whereby he takes a gun into a Planned Parenthood office and kills everyone. Suppose he is part of no avowed terrorist organization, maybe he posted on some radical anti-abortion websites, or emailed someone involved in violent protest, but otherwise he acted alone, as a lone wolf. Is this man a terrorist?

Did he WORK at the Planned Parenthood office?

The guy posted on the Internet that he thought killing soldiers in Iraq was just. He then goes and kills soldiers in Texas.

We obviously think killing soldiers and civilians (on the other side) is just or we wouldn't be in the war.

Was the purpose of the attack to cause terror? Yes, a random act of mass violence is the definition of that.

"Making people scared" does not meet any normal definition of terrorism. There has to be an intent to change or influence - whether policy or people.

Was the attacker motivated or influenced by a political or religious belief? Yes.

Did he HAVE political and religious beliefs? Of course. Did he do this BECAUSE of them? Don't know. He could have just been nuts.

Terrorist.

This county has gotten way too fucking partisan when so many people purposefully stick their head up their ass to minimize an event because it could be seen as a negative to whatever fucking party they support or politician they idolize.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. This has NOTHING to do with my political affiliation, and everything to do with me wanting to reserve such a horrible word as "TERRORISM" for acts that merit it. Otherwise, next thing you know, some guy who shoots his neighbor because the dog pooed on his yard will be a terrorist, both lessening the word and lessening the horrible terrorist attacks that DO happen (see: 9/11).

I do have a question for everyone declaring that this man is a terrorist due to facts/rumors of what he did leading up to the crime:

If he was acting in such a bold manner that makes you believe him such an obvious and lucid terrorist - why didn't we stop him ahead of time?

Methais

11-19-2009, 08:36 PM

You don't, but it sure as hell helps, since terrorism is used to make a point.

Did he WORK at the Planned Parenthood office?

We obviously think killing soldiers and civilians (on the other side) is just or we wouldn't be in the war.

"Making people scared" does not meet any normal definition of terrorism. There has to be an intent to change or influence - whether policy or people.

Did he HAVE political and religious beliefs? Of course. Did he do this BECAUSE of them? Don't know. He could have just been nuts.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. This has NOTHING to do with my political affiliation, and everything to do with me wanting to reserve such a horrible word as "TERRORISM" for acts that merit it. Otherwise, next thing you know, some guy who shoots his neighbor because the dog pooed on his yard will be a terrorist, both lessening the word and lessening the horrible terrorist attacks that DO happen (see: 9/11).

I do have a question for everyone declaring that this man is a terrorist due to facts/rumors of what he did leading up to the crime:

If he was acting in such a bold manner that makes you believe him such an obvious and lucid terrorist - why didn't we stop him ahead of time?

Respond to my other post with the article for more facts and answers.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1026999&postcount=211

I'm gonna go pwn some MW2. This brick wall conversation is:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/12/128710037872615390.jpg

Parkbandit

11-19-2009, 08:39 PM

With the number of experts today saying the Ft Hood shootings were an act of terrorism, I'll go ahead and accept their reasoning.

Methais

11-19-2009, 08:40 PM

With the number of experts today saying the Ft Hood shootings were an act of terrorism, I'll go ahead and accept their reasoning.

WHO ARE THESE "EXPERTS"?!

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:53 PM

Are you going to say the soldiers are making it up now too?

Nope. I'm saying that I've yet to see a confirmed report of a soldier saying "Yes, I heard him say that".

There are lots of reports of reports of people saying he reportedly yelled that.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:54 PM

I'm done. You are just as welcome to believe he's a terrorist as I am that he's a nutjob. So, carry on.

Methais

11-19-2009, 08:57 PM

I guess there's nothing left but to post pictures then.

http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand.jpg

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 08:58 PM

Nope. I'm saying that I've yet to see a confirmed report of a soldier saying "Yes, I heard him say that".

There are lots of reports of reports of people saying he reportedly yelled that.

I haven't been keeping up with this whole conversation, but I haven't seen this confirmed yet, either. Just like it was never confirmed that:

a) The shooter was killed
b) There were multiple shooters

It may certainly turn out that he did yell this, but unconfirmed reports have been hitting a pretty low batting average with this story.

Edit: Nevermind, it was confirmed by Lieutenant General Robert Cone. Keeping this here just for the point that not everything written about this story so far has turned out to be true, and because I'm willing to admit when I'm not 100% informed.

Jorddyn

11-19-2009, 08:59 PM

I guess there's nothing left but to post pictures then.

http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand.jpg

I wasn't before, but NOW I'm definitely convinced that points you've made are well thought out and intelligent.

Gan

11-19-2009, 09:03 PM

Gan

11-19-2009, 09:16 PM

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifFord Hood: Terrorist... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1026990#post1026990)11-19-2009 07:08 PM racist hear-say idiot.

Edit: Nevermind, it was confirmed by Lieutenant General Robert Cone. Keeping this here just for the point that not everything written about this story so far has turned out to be true, and because I'm willing to admit when I'm not 100% informed.

How's that KOOLAID tasting?

:lol:

Latrinsorm

11-19-2009, 09:19 PM

He had a business card or whatever it was that said "Soldier of Allah" on it.
Though yelling ALLAHU AKBAR which means "God is great"
Investigators are saying that it stands for Soldier of Allah - which is a common self description of jihadists (terrorists).Here is the flaw in your reasoning: you are saying that because he did things that terrorists generally do, he is a terrorist, but none of these things are themselves terroristic. Terrorists breath: not all people who breath are terrorists. Not all people who praise God, speak Arabic, and/or murder people are terrorists, and so on.
And of course, let us not forget, the FBI busted a plot where a terrorist cell was more or less planning this exact type of attack. Would that have not been terrorism?You seem to have abandoned the idea that it is the motivation behind the attack that makes it terrorist: is this because you are unable to provide any evidence to support your claim?

Latrinsorm

11-19-2009, 09:26 PM

Was the purpose of the attack to cause terror? Yes, a random act of mass violence is the definition of that.People have been killing each other for all kinds of reasons as long as there have been people, your "definition" is absurd.

Methais

11-19-2009, 10:19 PM

Parkbandit

11-19-2009, 10:29 PM

This is probably the dumbest post I've read all week. And that's including Coin's posts.

You obviously don't read too many of Latrine's posts.. this is pretty much typical.

Case in point:

All of Florida is below sea level...

Gan

11-19-2009, 10:31 PM

Here is the flaw in your reasoning: you are saying that because he did things that terrorists generally do, he is a terrorist, but none of these things are themselves terroristic. Terrorists breath: not all people who breath are terrorists. Not all people who praise God, speak Arabic, and/or murder people are terrorists, and so on.You seem to have abandoned the idea that it is the motivation behind the attack that makes it terrorist: is this because you are unable to provide any evidence to support your claim?

Lets see what evidence is brought up when the investigation is complete. I see what you're doing though. I respect the devil's advocate, even when I believe its a futile role in this instance.

Edited to add:

I suppose WR2 the shouting of Allahu Akbar before he started shooting. Do many non-terrorists shout such a phrase before killing other people in some form of fashion or another in a non-combatant situation (meaning it was not armed combat but an unprovoked attack against unarmed participants instead of armed combatants)?

I dont know many folks who go on shooting rampages, perhaps you do and can enlighten us. :)

Methais

11-19-2009, 10:35 PM

You obviously don't read too many of Latrine's posts.. this is pretty much typical.

Case in point:

I've been trying to convince myself that Latrin is an ingenious forum troll for a while now but I've had no luck :(

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 10:36 PM

How's that KOOLAID tasting?

:lol:

To be fair, in the same announcement Lt. General Cone also said:

a) Hassan was not considered to be a risk (when people all over the place, military and non-military, are being shown to have pointed out that he was a risk for months leading up to this)

b) Munley shot the gunman four times despite being shot herself. "It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," he said. (It now turns out she may not have actually shot him.)

Doesn't look like any further official confirmations (http://www.mysanantonio.com/military/69629042.html) since around November 7th for the particular claim of shouting 'Allahu Akbar', and the two I cited above have both been proven false or not accurate. So, seems appropriate to not quite deem this 'solid' confirmation. But I will admit someone in authority stated it.

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 10:41 PM

I dont know many folks who go on shooting rampages, perhaps you do and can enlighten us. :)

It's not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number _of_victims#Mass_murders) unheard (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rlz=1C1_____enUS341US341&q=United+states+shooting+rampage+-%22Fort+Hood%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder).

Camden massacre (United States, 1949): Howard Unruh, a World War II veteran, murdered 13 people in Camden, New Jersey, with a German Luger before surrendering to police.

Starkweather/Fugate rampage (United States, 1958): Charles Starkweather and his adolescent girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate murdered eleven people over the course of eight days before being apprehended by police. Starkweather was executed and Fugate was imprisoned until 1976.

University of Texas at Austin massacre (United States, 1966): Charles Whitman, a student at the University of Texas at Austin killed 14 people and wounded 31 others as part of a shooting rampage from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building. He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother. He was eventually shot and killed by an Austin police officer.

Red Lake massacre (United States, 2005): Jeff Weise shot and killed his grandfather and his grandfather's girlfriend, both police officers. He then proceeded to a local high school and shot and killed a security guard. Once inside the school Weise shot and killed five students and a teacher before committing suicide. Weise killed 9 and injured 15.

Virginia Tech massacre (United States, 2007): Seung-Hui Cho, using two pistols, killed 32 in two separate events and then himself in the course of about three hours.

Geneva County massacre (United States, 2009): Michael McLendon using SKS rifle, Bushmaster AR-15, and .38-caliber handgun killed 10 on 10 March and before shooting himself.

Or did you mean know them personally?

Out of curiosity, using the criteria listed in this thread for terrorism, which of the above are or are not terrorist acts?

Methais

11-19-2009, 10:42 PM

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 10:43 PM

Another update that just came out:

It hasn't been confirmed that Hulk Hogan was not there cutting a Hulkamania promo with Mean Gene Okerlund in preparation for a steel cage match with Rowdy Roddy Piper.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h86/Rey_Mysterioso/WWE%20Gif/HulkHoganFreaking.gif

I believe it's now been confirmed that Glenn Beck has NOT YET denied that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, while simultaneously shouting 'ALLAH AKBAR!"

Methais

11-19-2009, 10:44 PM

I believe it's now been confirmed that Glenn Beck has NOT YET denied that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, while simultaneously shouting 'ALLAH AKBAR!"

I actually typed in "In before Glenn Beck" in my last post, and then changed my mind and deleted it.

BUT IT STILL COUNTS!!!!!!!!!1

radamanthys

11-19-2009, 10:47 PM

He's a dangerous brown guy. In some people's mind, that means terrorist.

He's a violent Muslim extremist. In some people's mind, that means terrorist.

He sought out ties to extremist muslim organizations: colloquially 'terror groups'. In some people's mind, that means terrorist.

He was responsible for a mass killing on a part of the country's establishment. In some people's mind, that means terrorist. Tim McVeigh was considered a terrorist. So was the Unabomber. Terrorism <> brown guy, to some folk.

There are plenty of reasons to name him one.

That said:
Was he an active operative for Al Qaeda, acting on higher orders? Probably not.

Was he part of a larger conspiracy to cause grievous harm to the United States for some sort of an ideological agenda? Probably not.

Should we be scared? Is he a harbinger of greater things to come? Probably not.

I don't really give a shit if liberals want to use this to get all kissy-face with brown people to serve some political end. I don't give a shit if conservatives wanna use this as an excuse for more fear-based politics.

Really, it's over. Hang the heinous criminal, dump his body in a rat-infested back-alley dumpster and be done with it.

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 10:51 PM

I don't really give a shit if liberals want to use this to get all kissy-face with brown people to serve some political end. I don't give a shit if conservatives wanna use this as an excuse for more fear-based politics.

This pretty much nails the driving forces behind both sides, I think. For myself, I don't believe it's terrorism because I feel it's feeding too much into fear-based politics. I have no political motives towards Muslims, though, and I'm fairly liberal. Maybe my feelings are buried too deep for me to even recognize them!

I just feel labeling this as terrorism is another form of fear-mongering for no real purpose other than to point to Obama and say "YOU DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE!" at some indeterminate point in the future. Likely during election season.

Really, it's over. Hang the heinous criminal, dump his body in a rat-infested back-alley dumpster and be done with it.

Agreed. Preferably after a trial.

Methais

11-19-2009, 10:55 PM

He should be goatse'd to death by a violent gay biker. Goatse'd RIGHT IN HALFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

Parkbandit

11-19-2009, 11:08 PM

I've been trying to convince myself that Latrin is an ingenious forum troll for a while now but I've had no luck :(

Take out ingenious and you should be set.

Cephalopod

11-19-2009, 11:09 PM

He should be goatse'd to death by a violent gay biker. Goatse'd RIGHT IN HALFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

Sometimes I just plug phrases like 'goatse violent gay biker' into GIS:
http://cottonandsand.com/sandandcotton/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/goatse2.jpg

GIS hardly ever disappoints.

Latrinsorm

11-19-2009, 11:44 PM

Do many non-terrorists shout such a phrase before killing other people in some form of fashion or another in a non-combatant situation (meaning it was not armed combat but an unprovoked attack against unarmed participants instead of armed combatants)?Many non-terrorists shout their praise for God in peculiar languages in many situations. I don't know of any reliable database of what murderers say - the point is that there's nothing conclusive about anyone saying "allahu ackbar".
Case in point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
All of Florida is below sea level...Because if an offhand wisecrack about geography can tell you anything, it's... well, actually it can't really tell you anything, but you keep on with it. It's easier than forming a cogent thought of your own.

Parkbandit

11-19-2009, 11:52 PM

Because if an offhand wisecrack about geography can tell you anything, it's... well, actually it can't really tell you anything, but you keep on with it. It's easier than forming a cogent thought of your own.

Generally speaking.. wisecracks are supposed to elicit humor or thought. Your "wisecrack" did neither as it wasn't funny, nor even close to being factual.

If it was a "wisecrack", let's be honest and call it a complete failure. It's better than the alternative.. that you are simply a really, really stupid person.

Oh heck.. if we're being honest.. it wasn't close to being a wisecrack, so I'm leaning towards the later.

Gan

11-20-2009, 08:23 AM

It's not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number _of_victims#Mass_murders) unheard (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rlz=1C1_____enUS341US341&q=United+states+shooting+rampage+-%22Fort+Hood%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder).

Or did you mean know them personally?

Out of curiosity, using the criteria listed in this thread for terrorism, which of the above are or are not terrorist acts?

Did any of the ones you mentioned shout out Allahu Akbar prior to opening fire?

Gan

11-20-2009, 08:25 AM

I don't know of any reliable database of what murderers say - the point is that there's nothing conclusive about anyone saying "allahu ackbar".

If said behavior is documented by previous instances with a frequency that merits a trend or pattern *(like before some fanatic blows up a vest of symtex in a crowded market or opens fire with an AK-47 that is later claimed by some terrorist/jihadist organization as being responsible for) - you bet your sweet bippy that it can be conclusive.

crb

11-21-2009, 11:07 AM

Carl Levin, senior democratic senator from Michigan, calls it a terrorist attack, calls Hasan a terrorist, and wants an investigation into how no one saw the red flags.

So there, one democrat speaking the truth should give the rest of you cover to finally come to your senses.

Latrinsorm

11-21-2009, 09:21 PM

Parkbandit

11-22-2009, 06:56 AM

This may come as some surprise, but it turns out that being an elected representative does not grant a person comprehensive knowledge of and mastery over truth and the English language. President Obama could come out tomorrow and call former President Bush a terrorist, an arsonist, a pederast, and a shoplifter - that would not make it so.

This may come as some surprise, but it turns out that there isn't a single individual with the credentials to determine if this was a terrorist attack on this message board either.

Wait, what was your point again?

Daniel

11-22-2009, 11:43 AM

I suppose WR2 the shouting of Allahu Akbar before he started shooting. Do many non-terrorists shout such a phrase before killing other people in some form of fashion or another in a non-combatant situation (meaning it was not armed combat but an unprovoked attack against unarmed participants instead of armed combatants)?

I'm really alarmed that you've managed to procreate. Seriously.

Gan

11-22-2009, 12:42 PM

Gan

11-22-2009, 12:43 PM

I'm really alarmed that you've managed to procreate. Seriously.

At least I can...

Stanley Burrell

11-22-2009, 01:19 PM

Sometimes I just plug phrases like 'goatse violent gay biker' into GIS:
http://cottonandsand.com/sandandcotton/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/goatse2.jpg

GIS hardly ever disappoints.

Is it just me or LOL Edvard Munch's "The Scream" as Goatse Man's anal void?

Latrinsorm

11-22-2009, 05:42 PM

This may come as some surprise, but it turns out that there isn't a single individual with the credentials to determine if this was a terrorist attack on this message board either.

Wait, what was your point again?The same point I've been making since this tragedy occurred: that there is not enough reliable evidence available to describe it as a terrorist attack with any level of intellectual honesty. The counterclaim has been that it is patently obvious that Major Hasan is/was a terrorist, so any disagreement on the matter must stem from political or ideological grounds. Hence, a person would cite a politician's description even though it is wholly irrelevant to the actual matter at hand, because <insert last post here>.