Shooting At Ft.Hood [Archive] - Page 2

Husar

11-12-2009, 11:58

Then what would you suggest? If we lock them up then all the euroweenies and terrorist loving libs will scream louder than a Code Pink hussy in front of a Marine recruiting center. Please, Ole Wise One, give us the wisdom to correct our Barbaric and simple ways. Cure us of our ignorance and bring forth the enlightenment that we've yet to discover.:laugh4:

But honeybunny, I never said I had THE solution, I was just saying that your "solution" might just mean shifting the problem elsewhere, unless of course it were the soldiers harassing him who caused this in which case throwing him out would take away the reason this happened, but so would disciplining the harassers until they stop.
If it was just him going nuts then it should have been reported and he should have been under some sort of surveillance or supervision. Of course then you gun-loving reps would scream louder than a NIMBY grandpa in front of a needle on his front porch. :juggle2:
It's the problem with free speech, in the US you can apparently proclaim to become a mass murderer and still own two legal guns. :shrug:
Here, when you say the wrong things and get reported, the police are supposed to check you.
PC doesn't seem to stop a lot of people here from reporting such things in general, some imams etc here are closely watched by the law, just like the neo-nazis.

You may also want to comment on my point that is seems a bit illogical that a muslim in the west would go nuts like that if he enjoyed our freedom and democracy as much as everyone else, if he was harassed by other free individuals on a constant basis I could see why he didn't.

KukriKhan

11-12-2009, 17:36

Yeah I don't think he planned to survive. Which makes me think pork should be introduced into the trial, otherwise he is gonna say a lot of unreliable crap because he knows he is the center of attention. It's basic human behavior to do so when put in this mans situation. Hopefully, he is blocked from outside news and politics so he can't play into it, and his JAGOFF lawyer doesn't play that card.

I watched his civvie attorney (retired JAG Lt Colonel, hired by his Virginia family) last night on Larry King. He and the active duty MAJ JAG assigned defense lawyer visited the perp in hospital. He was awake, but under meds, so the lawyers explained his right to counsel of his choice, and that was it, Civvie said.

Civvie also said he hadn't yet seen a Charge Sheet. Let's hope the Ft Hood JAG office is meticulous about crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's. We don't want this thing thrown out on some technicality or admin oversight - it's gonna be circus enough as it is.

Devastatin Dave

11-13-2009, 03:55

LOL, turns out this guy might have been sending his money to support jihadists in Pakistan. Are the lefty's here still contending that his religion had nothing to do with him "going muslim"?

Strike For The South

11-13-2009, 04:20

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-13-2009, 04:31

I missed this stuff. :smash:

It was in the Dallas News, Pete Hoekstra appears to be one of the primary sources for it. We have to wait until more details emerge before we can be sure though.

Strike For The South

11-13-2009, 04:34

It was in the Dallas News, Pete Hoekstra appears to be one of the primary sources for it. We have to wait until more details emerge before we can be sure though.

Well there's your problem. I don't read anything that comes out of New York.

A Very Super Market

11-13-2009, 06:41

Sasaki Kojiro

11-13-2009, 07:00

I think an Ottawa editorialist summed it up well. I quote him, for I descend into madness whenever I try to write anything of worth.

"......It's possible that this was an act both of madness and terrorism. Marc Lépine was in a state of derangement when he committed the 1989 Monstreal massacre, but his derangement expressed itself as hatred of women. It is impossible to analyse the Montreal massacre without talking about misogyny, just as it's impossible to talk about Fort Hood or honour killings without talking about religion."

I disagree. Well, certainly it is possible. But it's presumptive to say that there aren't any features of islam that might push people towards suicide attacks. Cults can lead to mass suicide, right? Sure you have to have a certain braintype to be susceptible, but that might be more common than we'd like to acknowledge.

Husar

11-13-2009, 11:07

LOL, turns out this guy might have been sending his money to support jihadists in Pakistan. Are the lefty's here still contending that his religion had nothing to do with him "going muslim"?

You must have missed that I have long shifted my argument from "what made him go crazy?" to "what made him go crazy/muslim fundy?" And you still haven't answered that question, your argument seems to be that he was genetically a muslim fundamentalist, it could have never been changed, only he is to blame for being born that way and he should have been cleansed by fire, or something like that. :inquisitive:

Fragony

11-13-2009, 12:48

You must have missed that I have long shifted my argument from "what made him go crazy?" to "what made him go crazy/muslim fundy?" And you still haven't answered that question, your argument seems to be that he was genetically a muslim fundamentalist, it could have never been changed, only he is to blame for being born that way and he should have been cleansed by fire, or something like that. :inquisitive:

Hussy if someone is nasty to you give them a good beating. If you let it happen until you crack you are simply a pussy who should ask himself if this world really was his sort of thing in the first place, but at least do it without ruining the lives of people that can manage all that.

edit, was a few years back, saw an old classmate, I really wrecked his life he said, even went into therapy. I never noticed I did such a thing I really had no idea what he was talking about until he told me and then I agreed. But there was never any harm intended.

Vuk

11-13-2009, 15:13

hmmm...interesting. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091112/us_time/08599193841500)

Husar

11-14-2009, 00:31

Hussy if someone is nasty to you give them a good beating. If you let it happen until you crack you are simply a pussy who should ask himself if this world really was his sort of thing in the first place, but at least do it without ruining the lives of people that can manage all that.
Yeah, well, some people can't just beat someone up so they go a level higher in weaponry and get a gun, but it takes a load of stored anger for them to dare that step and once they're there it ends up being a rampage of revenge. Kinda preventable if the other guy just stops being nasty to them, but hey, his choice, it's most likely him who might get shot in the end anyway...
Some things fight back in ways you didn't expect, just respect other people and you're usually fine.
I used to beat up some guy who was nasty to me almost every day in primary school. After a long time my dad suggested I warn him three times before beating the **** out of him until he ran screaming to the teacher, we kind of became friends in the end...
That sort of approach doesn't always work but when people snap it's often because they really feel hopeless, like the whole world hates them(might be rather subjective but we all are at times), I think this can often be prevented, remember in many school shootings people are spared because they were nice or at least neutral towards the shooter, so it isn't only blind rage and stupidity, there is often(maybe not always) a reason for this.

Now here you can say he did it because he was a fundie, but maybe he only became a fundie because he wasn't even accepted as a moderate, just a guess but worth considering I think.

Devastatin Dave

11-14-2009, 00:31

KukriKhan

11-14-2009, 03:55

What was the question? I was too busy ranting, trolling, and lambasting liberals and euroweenies to remember. :2thumbsup:

LOL. Truth from Teh Devastator. Who knew Dave could use the word "lambasting" in a sentence? He knows I love him. ~:grouphug:

...people snap it's often because they really feel hopeless...

When trying to describe the shooter's mental state some time prior to the shooting, I think you're right on.

Not that it excuses the atrocity, just maybe explains it.

Thus: Hopeless(can't find a woman; can't get respect from peers, superiors, or clients)>search for reason to keep breathing>find a cause>amplify with guilt (I'm Muslim, in America (satan), in the instrument (army) that kills my newfound brothers)>adopt direct violent action as an option>purchase an anti-armour firearm (in case I decide to go through with it)>practice loading and reloading in my lonely apartment, imagining how they will finally fear, if not respect, me)>receive Mobilization order and notice to report to SRC>plan an outburst>shoot>die (gloriously).

That may well have been how it went inside Nidal's head, the "snap" happening at the "...search for reason to keep breathing>find a cause...>" stage - everything else simply falling into place.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-14-2009, 04:08

Thus: Hopeless(can't find a woman; can't get respect from peers, superiors, or clients)>search for reason to keep breathing>find a cause>amplify with guilt (I'm Muslim, in America (satan), in the instrument (army) that kills my newfound brothers)>adopt direct violent action as an option>purchase an anti-armour firearm (in case I decide to go through with it)>practice loading and reloading in my lonely apartment, imagining how they will finally fear, if not respect, me)>receive Mobilization order and notice to report to SRC>plan an outburst>shoot>die (gloriously).

That may well have been how it went inside Nidal's head, the "snap" happening at the "...search for reason to keep breathing>find a cause...>" stage - everything else simply falling into place.

This sounds very likely to me, good post.

I have heard it said that islam lends itself to having more single young men than other religions.

Devastatin Dave

11-14-2009, 07:26

This sounds very likely to me, good post.

I have heard it said that islam lends itself to having more single young men than other religions.

So we need to get the Middle East laid or Lemur and I need to show them the joys of gay sex. :2thumbsup:

Fragony

11-14-2009, 10:00

@Hussy

Things aren't always what they seem, we had a Canadian expat here, nice guy everybody liked him. But he completely lost it one day, thinking we were all out for him. It's a Dutch national sport to be as obnoxious as you can possibly get we don't see anything behind it but he did. Left, never saw him again.

Kadagar_AV

11-15-2009, 13:18

Husar

11-15-2009, 14:19

Nevermind that this terrorist was some psychological nutcase... Cause we all know that only US terrorists are psychological nutcases, foreign terrorists are part of a world-wide network of agents much resembling the COBRA from the G.I. Joe cartoon...

:laugh4:

That's a good point actually but you have to see that both are effects of their religion of evility.

Ser Clegane

11-15-2009, 15:57

I would highly appreciate if this thread would not turn into a troll-fest.

To that end the last couple of posts have not been very helpful.

No general religion/race bashing

No flame-baiting

Thanks

Husar

11-15-2009, 16:55

Sorry if you mean me, I wrote "evility", which AFAIK, does not exist, to indicate that I wasn't very serious, I think my real point, that a lot of people blame Islam everytime an individual or a group associated with Islam kills someone is quite obvious though.
My argument here was/is that Islam is probably not the only "thing" to blame in this case.

I should remember to mark my sarcasm better, so your words are noted. :bow: :sweatdrop:

Aemilius Paulus

11-15-2009, 19:32

Bleah, after reading entire ten pages of the debate, I have nothing to add, and nor does anyone else for that matter, IMHO. However, as usual, The Onion comes out on the top with its succinct yet down-to-the-point article: American Muslims To Fort Hood Shooter: 'Thanks A Lot, *******' (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort)(WARNING: since it is the Onion, you can expect some profanity) (I hope that passes your laws for profanity, Banquo, I already had to edit the title)

Sasaki Kojiro

11-19-2009, 03:24

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1

November 10, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Rush to Therapy
By DAVID BROOKS

We’re all born late. We’re born into history that is well under way. We’re born into cultures, nations and languages that we didn’t choose. On top of that, we’re born with certain brain chemicals and genetic predispositions that we can’t control. We’re thrust into social conditions that we detest. Often, we react in ways we regret even while we’re doing them.

But unlike the other animals, people do have a drive to seek coherence and meaning. We have a need to tell ourselves stories that explain it all. We use these stories to supply the metaphysics, without which life seems pointless and empty.

Among all the things we don’t control, we do have some control over our stories. We do have a conscious say in selecting the narrative we will use to make sense of the world. Individual responsibility is contained in the act of selecting and constantly revising the master narrative we tell about ourselves.

The stories we select help us, in turn, to interpret the world. They guide us to pay attention to certain things and ignore other things. They lead us to see certain things as sacred and other things as disgusting. They are the frameworks that shape our desires and goals. So while story selection may seem vague and intellectual, it’s actually very powerful. The most important power we have is the power to help select the lens through which we see reality.

Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.

That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.

This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.

When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did that in Fort Hood, Tex., last week, many Americans had an understandable and, in some ways, admirable reaction. They didn’t want the horror to become a pretext for anti-Muslim bigotry.

So immediately the coverage took on a certain cast. The possibility of Islamic extremism was immediately played down. This was an isolated personal breakdown, not an ideological assault, many people emphasized.

Major Hasan was portrayed as a disturbed individual who was under a lot of stress. We learned about pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and secondary stress disorder, which one gets from hearing about other people’s stress. We heard the theory (unlikely in retrospect) that Hasan was so traumatized by the thought of going into a combat zone that he decided to take a gun and create one of his own.

A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.

There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.

This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.

Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.

The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.

It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.

A good article I think.

Husar

11-19-2009, 09:39

But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.

Yeah, tough luck, let's just hope all the other people we harass make the good choice and either accept their inferiority or just kill themselves. :dizzy2:

Vuk

11-19-2009, 15:08

Yeah, tough luck, let's just hope all the other people we harass make the good choice and either accept their inferiority or just kill themselves. :dizzy2:

lmao, most kids take more heat in Highschool! You know, he could have just done what normal people do when they get harrassed, and said "Yeah, they are *******, but I am not gonna sink to their level. I will just ignore them". You know, I have recieved a LOT of harrasment myself for the type of person I am (esp in college), as did my family. You know what you do? You ignore them. Supposing that Hassan really got harrasment, that is what he should have done. He was not a dumby. He knows enough to know that murder and terrorism is not right. He knows enough to ignore idiots. He was a murderer and a terrorist.

Strike For The South

11-19-2009, 16:38

lmao, most kids take more heat in Highschool! You know, he could have just done what normal people do when they get harrassed, and said "Yeah, they are *******, but I am not gonna sink to their level. I will just ignore them". You know, I have recieved a LOT of harrasment myself for the type of person I am (esp in college), as did my family. You know what you do? You ignore them. Supposing that Hassan really got harrasment, that is what he should have done. He was not a dumby. He knows enough to know that murder and terrorism is not right. He knows enough to ignore idiots. He was a murderer and a terrorist.

And high school children have some of the highest rates of sucide, drug abuse, and depression. I'm glad your family is thicker than armadillo hide but most people are not. Simply ignoring them sometimes isn't an option.

Simply telling someone well you know that's not right so don't do it, without giving a helping hand is a recipe for disaster.

Is this man a monster? of course but to sit here and say that he should've just sacked up with no help reeks of a faux macho attitude.

I will say fear of breaching this touchy subject is one of the reasons he got no help and that's just asinine

Fragony

11-19-2009, 17:38

he said faux

Vuk

11-19-2009, 22:53

And high school children have some of the highest rates of sucide, drug abuse, and depression. I'm glad your family is thicker than armadillo hide but most people are not. Simply ignoring them sometimes isn't an option.

Simply telling someone well you know that's not right so don't do it, without giving a helping hand is a recipe for disaster.

Is this man a monster? of course but to sit here and say that he should've just sacked up with no help reeks of a faux macho attitude.

I will say fear of breaching this touchy subject is one of the reasons he got no help and that's just asinine

Life happens, not ones life is easy. That is not an excuse...not at all...not for anything. Yeah, IF he really did get harrassed, then that was bad, and they should not have done it, but that is not why he did what he did, that is not a valid excuse. He did it because of the type of person he is, and because of his extremist beliefs. Thing is that he is NOT a highschool student, he is a fully developed adult capable of making mature decisions. Not shooting your fellow soldiers because you were insulted is not 'macho', it is sane and mature. If he really was harrassed (so far it is only his family saying so), he should have reported it.
And yes, I agree, he should have been taken care of a long time ago. It is leftist BS groups like the ACLU you have to thank for it as well, because they had the Army soo afraid of touching the guy because he was a muslim of Middle Eastern ancestory. He is fully responsible for his own actions, and the people who did not report him are fully responsible for theirs. Don't try to shift the blame.

drone

11-19-2009, 23:57

It is leftist BS groups like the ACLU

:inquisitive:

Vuk

11-20-2009, 00:00

:inquisitive:

What I mean is, if the Army had kicked Hassan out or tried to prosecute him, you could be that the ACLU and other leftist groups would jump all over them and claim that they were discriminating against him because he was a muslim arab.

Husar

11-20-2009, 02:08

Life happens, not ones life is easy. That is not an excuse...not at all...not for anything.

And that you're apparently antisocial enough to just look over having no friends, only enemies, is not going to stop others from going insane and shooting everybody. So what? :inquisitive:
You're saying people should just adapt to the harassment, which effectively makes you an apologizer for those who harass others, how exactly is that better than being an apologizer for Hassan?
Do you really think driving people into suicide, mass murder, depression and other things is just fine and the weaklings should just grow a brain? If I told you to grow a brain now, could you do it? If I told you to stop harassing other people, would that be easier or harder? :inquisitive:

Vuk

11-20-2009, 03:58

And that you're apparently antisocial enough to just look over having no friends, only enemies, is not going to stop others from going insane and shooting everybody. So what? :inquisitive:
You're saying people should just adapt to the harassment, which effectively makes you an apologizer for those who harass others, how exactly is that better than being an apologizer for Hassan?
Do you really think driving people into suicide, mass murder, depression and other things is just fine and the weaklings should just grow a brain? If I told you to grow a brain now, could you do it? If I told you to stop harassing other people, would that be easier or harder? :inquisitive:

Antisocial? lmao. First of all, he did have friends. The reason he did not have more was his fault, not someone else's.

driving people into suicide, mass murder, depression and other things
lmaoX2 Are you kidding me? You are just throwing the blame off of him and onto others. Many, many others underwent the same and worse than what he did and did not do that. The difference is that THEY were not murderers and terrorists. I never said that harrassing some was a good thing (and I love how you keep taking his family's word on that over all the words of the soldiers who denied it), but it does not even compare to being a murderer or terrorist. Why do you try so desperately to defend a murderous terrorist BTW? After a while doesn't PC get a little low?

Strike For The South

11-20-2009, 04:39

Life happens, not ones life is easy. That is not an excuse...not at all...not for anything. Yeah, IF he really did get harrassed, then that was bad, and they should not have done it, but that is not why he did what he did, that is not a valid excuse. He did it because of the type of person he is, and because of his extremist beliefs. Thing is that he is NOT a highschool student, he is a fully developed adult capable of making mature decisions. Not shooting your fellow soldiers because you were insulted is not 'macho', it is sane and mature. If he really was harrassed (so far it is only his family saying so), he should have reported it.
And yes, I agree, he should have been taken care of a long time ago. It is leftist BS groups like the ACLU you have to thank for it as well, because they had the Army soo afraid of touching the guy because he was a muslim of Middle Eastern ancestory. He is fully responsible for his own actions, and the people who did not report him are fully responsible for theirs. Don't try to shift the blame.

Never said he was excused nor that he is an any way right.

However to sit here and say he just needs to suck it up is the worst kind of outsider perspective. I'll agree the army was afraid to touch him because he was muslim and that's a tragedy that what were obvious cries for help went unheeded simply because the military wasn't sure how they should handle the suituation.

No man is an island and everyone needs a helping hand once in a while, even the vile and evil people. The army should use this as a learning expereince.

He should rot in prison for the rest of his life and you need to stop watching Roadhouse.

Vuk

11-20-2009, 04:45

Never said he was excused nor that he is an any way right.

However to sit here and say he just needs to suck it up is the worst kind of outsider perspective. I'll agree the army was afraid to touch him because he was muslim and that's a tragedy that what were obvious cries for help went unheeded simply because the military wasn't sure how they should handle the suituation.

No man is an island and everyone needs a helping hand once in a while, even the vile and evil people. The army should use this as a learning expereince.

He should rot in prison for the rest of his life and you need to stop watching Roadhouse.

Never seen it in my life. (roadhouse that is)
I never said that people harrassing him were excused (IF people harrassed him; I am still waiting to find out more about that). All I am saying is that it is excusing Hassan and his personal choice to say that his fellow soldiers "drove him to it". Such a statement lays at least as much blame on them and considerable lessens/removes the blame from Hassan. And I never said he should suck it up, I said he should have done some more rational and less evil than be a terrorist and murder people.

Strike For The South

11-20-2009, 04:55

Never seen it in my life. (roadhouse that is)
I never said that people harrassing him were excused (IF people harrassed him; I am still waiting to find out more about that). All I am saying is that it is excusing Hassan and his personal choice to say that his fellow soldiers "drove him to it". Such a statement lays at least as much blame on them and considerable lessens/removes the blame from Hassan. And I never said he should suck it up, I said he should have done some more rational and less evil than be a terrorist and murder people.

lmao, most kids take more heat in Highschool! You know, he could have just done what normal people do when they get harrassed, and said "Yeah, they are *******, but I am not gonna sink to their level. I will just ignore them". You know, I have recieved a LOT of harrasment myself for the type of person I am (esp in college), as did my family. You know what you do? You ignore them. Supposing that Hassan really got harrasment, that is what he should have done. He was not a dumby. He knows enough to know that murder and terrorism is not right. He knows enough to ignore idiots. He was a murderer and a terrorist.

To endure a period of mental, physical, or emotional hardship with no complaining.

Sounds like sucking it up to me. I'm not laying the blame on anyone but him. But simply because it's his fault does not mean there aern't other factors at work and if he just gloss over those and look at his religion we are missing very large points that need to be addressed

This man clearly had mental issues but he was not part of any world wide terror organasation nor did he have any stated goals other than to kill. Those are some very important distinctions.

Vuk

11-20-2009, 05:04

To endure a period of mental, physical, or emotional hardship with no complaining.

Sounds like sucking it up to me. I'm not laying the blame on anyone but him. But simply because it's his fault does not mean there aern't other factors at work and if he just gloss over those and look at his religion we are missing very large points that need to be addressed

This man clearly had mental issues but he was not part of any world wide terror organasation nor did he have any stated goals other than to kill. Those are some very important distinctions.

First of all, you took what I said out of context. Yes, I said he should have ignored them, but what I meant was let what they did get to him. If he was really harrassed, he should have reported it or spoke to the people.
Second of all, you are taking the word of a terrorist's family that a terrorist told them something. So you are taking the word of a terrorists family so you can take the word of a terrorist. I don't know about you, but I am more inclined to believe the words of the soldiers (some of whom risked their lives to save others) over that of a terrorist's family and a terrorist. Right now he may or may not have been harrassed as they say, but until more information about this comes out, I don't think it is fair to just assume that he really was harrassed.
Third of all, it does not matter if he was not part of an international organization, he believed in an international ideology and religion of violence. The same one that motivated the 911 hijackers: radical islam. That says, he did seem to have at least some contact with mainstream radicals, so he was connected to terror organisations.

Strike For The South

11-20-2009, 05:14

First of all, you took what I said out of context. Yes, I said he should have ignored them, but what I meant was let what they did get to him. If he was really harrassed, he should have reported it or spoke to the people.
You didn't say that amigo.

lmao, most kids take more heat in Highschool! You know, he could have just done what normal people do when they get harrassed, and said "Yeah, they are *******, but I am not gonna sink to their level. I will just ignore them". You know, I have recieved a LOT of harrasment myself for the type of person I am (esp in college), as did my family. You know what you do? You ignore them. Supposing that Hassan really got harrasment, that is what he should have done. He was not a dumby. He knows enough to know that murder and terrorism is not right. He knows enough to ignore idiots. He was a murderer and a terrorist.

Where does it say he should report it to the authorties in this post? I'll tell you. Nowhere. Multiple refrences to ignoring. So either defend it or admit you were wrong but don't revise what you said to make a better arguement.

Second of all, you are taking the word of a terrorist's family that a terrorist told them something. So you are taking the word of a terrorists family so you can take the word of a terrorist. I don't know about you, but I am more inclined to believe the words of the soldiers (some of whom risked their lives to save others) over that of a terrorist's family and a terrorist. Right now he may or may not have been harrassed as they say, but until more information about this comes out, I don't think it is fair to just assume that he really was harrassed.

You seemed pretty ready to make that assumption. Soldiers are simply people. I know many guys who joined all branches and I know some who probably would give this guy crap. These guys are mostly young christian kids, you really think there isn't going to be some teasing of such an openly devout socially akward muslim?

Third of all, it does not matter if he was not part of an international organization, he believed in an international ideology and religion of violence. The same one that motivated the 911 hijackers: radical islam. That says, he did seem to have at least some contact with mainstream radicals, so he was connected to terror organisations.

Well I guess people whom bomb abortion clincis are part of some giant christian conspiracy.

I know he tried reaching out to legitamize himself but did anythign ever matrialize? Hell I want to be French but that doesn't mean it's happening. Wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which onefills up first.

Vuk

11-20-2009, 05:27

You didn't say that amigo.

I know I didn't, I didn't think I had to. I was not commenting on his inactivity, simply on him not letting the attacks get to him. (and therefore drive him to terrorism, blah, blah, blah.

Where does it say he should report it to the authorties in this post? I'll tell you. Nowhere. Multiple refrences to ignoring. So either defend it or admit you were wrong but don't revise what you said to make a better arguement.

I did not revise it, I explained it. My comments were about him not letting himself get upset. What I said above was simply that that of course does not rule out action such as reporting it. (which I still wonder why he didn't...surely he noticed how people walked on eggshells around him.)

You seemed pretty ready to make that assumption. Soldiers are simply people. I know many guys who joined all branches and I know some who probably would give this guy crap. These guys are mostly young christian kids, you really think there isn't going to be some teasing of such an openly devout socially akward muslim?

Socially awkward? You mean like saying that they are infidels and should have their throats cut open and boiling oil poured down them? Yeah, I dare say that that could be awkward. I don't know, I think most people would have been afraid of him. Regardless though, I am not assuming that. I simply said that there is no reason to assume the opposite on much less evidence and start talking as if it were true. Think of it, who do you think is more likely to be honest?

Well I guess people whom bomb abortion clincis are part of some giant christian conspiracy.

I never said it was part of a conspiracy, but of an ideology and religiously motivated. And an ideology TAUGHT by mainstream radicals (who he contacted and even worshipped with. I highly doubt anyone but him new about it, but his motivation still came from a mainstream radical ideology. There really is no such broad, widely held and supported belief among Christians about the morality of murdering people in abortion clinics. Those lone bombers did not get their ideology from larger terrorist groups and even countries.

I know he tried reaching out to legitamize himself but did anythign ever matrialize? Hell I want to be French but that doesn't mean it's happening. Wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which onefills up first.

I never said he joined any of those groups, but it does not mean that they did not influence his beliefs, or that he did not learn from them.

Anyway, it is late, so I gotta tuck in and go nighty-night.

Strike For The South

11-20-2009, 05:37

I know I didn't, I didn't think I had to. I was not commenting on his inactivity, simply on him not letting the attacks get to him. (and therefore drive him to terrorism, blah, blah, blah.

No you were telling him to suck it up and basically saying he should've ignored them.

I did not revise it, I explained it. My comments were about him not letting himself get upset. What I said above was simply that that of course does not rule out action such as reporting it. (which I still wonder why he didn't...surely he noticed how people walked on eggshells around him.)

No you told him to suck it up and then you said he should report it and now you are wondering why people were walking on eggshels around him. Even though you said eralier he wasn't being harrassed. So this begs the question. Should've he gone to the authorties to ask why people don't like him?

Socially awkward? You mean like saying that they are infidels and should have their throats cut open and boiling oil poured down them? Yeah, I dare say that that could be awkward. I don't know, I think most people would have been afraid of him. Regardless though, I am not assuming that. I simply said that there is no reason to assume the opposite on much less evidence and start talking as if it were true. Think of it, who do you think is more likely to be honest?

Do you have a link for that quote? At this point both sides have motive for lying. No one wants our troops saying dirty nasty things out of xenophobia but it may have happend and I assume it did based on my exp. with these guys.

I never said it was part of a conspiracy, but of an ideology and religiously motivated. And an ideology TAUGHT by mainstream radicals (who he contacted and even worshipped with. I highly doubt anyone but him new about it, but his motivation still came from a mainstream radical ideology. There really is no such broad, widely held and supported belief among Christians about the morality of murdering people in abortion clinics. Those lone bombers did not get their ideology from larger terrorist groups and even countries.

And all indictations say this man acted alone to. He wanted to be a martyr. Nothing more, nothing less and not allot different than many other religons. Nothing as of right now points to him being part of a larger group or him having anyother goals other than just to kill. You know, like pshycopaths.

I never said he joined any of those groups, but it does not mean that they did not influence his beliefs, or that he did not learn from them.

Same could be said for people who bomb clinics.

drone

11-20-2009, 07:30

that the ACLU and other leftist groups

:inquisitive:

Major Robert Dump

11-20-2009, 07:56

I don't think the ACLU has ever been in a VS. with the US military.

But thanks you Vuk, I could finally contribute to this thread again and not have the post deleted. Now if the NRA and AARP would just leave the Coast Guard alone!!!

Hax

11-20-2009, 09:38

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers was simply one thing: hatred towards the United States. Islam is/was a tool they could use to gain support.

HoreTore

11-20-2009, 09:42

Husar

11-20-2009, 11:27

Antisocial? lmao. First of all, he did have friends. The reason he did not have more was his fault, not someone else's.
Sure, it's always the fault of the guy who is being harassed, that's exactly why the guy who was murdered also only has himself to blame for his behaviour, same thing really.

lmaoX2 Are you kidding me? You are just throwing the blame off of him and onto others. Many, many others underwent the same and worse than what he did and did not do that. The difference is that THEY were not murderers and terrorists.
Well, you're also throwing all the blame off the harassers, many, many others have been killed for their harassment, yet these people didn't learn a thing, it's survival of the fittest out there and Hasan survived, go figure... The point about terrorism has been addressed by HoreTore already.

I never said that harrassing some was a good thing (and I love how you keep taking his family's word on that over all the words of the soldiers who denied it)
Yeeees, I'm sure those noble soldiers would be the first to admit that they harassed him...

but it does not even compare to being a murderer or terrorist. Why do you try so desperately to defend a murderous terrorist BTW? After a while doesn't PC get a little low?
Yes, it does not compare, destroying a soul is obviously far worse, so bad that the destroyed soul might go on a rampage. At least, being the good soldiers they were, they'll all go to heaven or whatever nice place you believe in. You know, not everybody is like you and disregards what others say, for some people words can hit really deep and hard, be very hurtful, like a bullet. He just gave some of it back with real physical bullets because he couldn't win the mental shootout. Cause and consequence, you can stand under a waterfall and whine that it makes you wet and that it is a murderous terrorist waterfall but that won't stop it from making you wet until you leave it alone and go away. Or to paraphrase Einstein, everything is relative. Walk into a lion's den and you suffer the consequences, expecting it to behave like a rabbit won't help, you end up dead anyway. Those people harassed the wrong guy and paid dearly for it, that's life, deal with it.

Fragony

11-20-2009, 12:30

Husar

11-20-2009, 16:35

You know, not everybody is like you and disregards what others say, for some people words can hit really deep and hard, be very hurtful, like a bullet.

I really have no patience for this. You see a bullet also hits the people surrounding the victim, his friends, his family, I have a little bit more sympathy for their distress. It's a very ego-centrist approach you are taking, you feel helpless so it's right everybody must suffer? Maybe you just can't take a joke. I know you mean well and that it isn't really your point, but that's a lot of understanding wasted on what is a cold blooded murderer.

I was completely overreacting, on purpose. I can tell you that when you want to kill someone you do not take the hurting of their family etc. into account because you are so concentrated on the hate etc. By your example every kill a soldier makes would hit the civilians as well though, so he would essentially just have killed people who are like him?!
It's not about being unable to take a joke, it's about not being able to take hundreds or thousands of "jokes", if anyone snaps from just one misunderstanding, then yes, they're nuts.
Having fun on the expense of other people over a long time is also rather self-centered, don't you think? and one of the consequences of this might just be that the other person goes on a rampage. What I'm saying is you should grab the issue at the root, not just pick the obvious guy to blame for everything and explain the rest away by calling him sick or a weakling, mental abuse is very often completely underestimated. And I do recognize that it may never have happened but then as I said, the perpetrators would hardly admit to it anyway, much easier to blame everything on the guy noone likes anyway.

drone

11-20-2009, 16:45

Why has this devolved into a discussion on terrorism?

The man attacked a military installation and killed soldiers. That's an act of war, not terrorism.

Thus, the man is an enemy soldier, not a terrorist.

Technically, he is not an enemy soldier, he is a citizen of the US and a member of the US armed forces. So he's not a terrorist, he's a traitor.

HoreTore

11-20-2009, 21:34

Technically, he is not an enemy soldier, he is a citizen of the US and a member of the US armed forces. So he's not a terrorist, he's a traitor.

As far as I know, it's not required for every soldier to declare their allegiance in a war, all that is required is that the governments in question declare war before starting hostilities. Nor is it required that you have citizenship of the nation you are fighting for.

So I still classify this man as an enemy soldier.

drone

11-20-2009, 21:40

all that is required is that the governments in question declare war before starting hostilities.

Well, we in the US are still waiting for that to happen. :juggle2:

HoreTore

11-20-2009, 21:42

Well, we in the US are still waiting for that to happen. :juggle2:

....?

Bush declared war before invading Iraq.... Can't remember if he did so before afghanistan, but I would assume so...

EDIT: and OBL declared war in the 90's...

Aemilius Paulus

11-20-2009, 22:27

HoreTore

11-20-2009, 22:41

Drone is correct, HoreTore. The US has not declared war since Second World War. Hundreds of conflicts, yet no official state of war. Funny how US works, eh? Convenient loophole too. Why follow the Geneva Convention when there is no war? And US does just that - evade the rules. Why else would they use napalm/napalm-like compounds as well as cluster munitions and white phosphorus, among many things they dropped on Iraq, all of which are prohibited?

Huh.

Then what was that hour-long speech by Bush just prior to the invasion about? I remember him calling on Saddam to abdicate, or he would face war... I thought that one was followed up by a declaration of war after Saddam declined...

EDIT: Hmm.... It seems that war has to be declared by the congress in the US? I thought it was the responsibility of the president, as it's only the King who can do it here....hmmm....

drone

11-20-2009, 23:09

EDIT: Hmm.... It seems that war has to be declared by the congress in the US? I thought it was the responsibility of the president, as it's only the King who can do it here....hmmm....

:yes: Only Congress can declare war, and Congress is responsible for funding it, the President only commands the forces. The War Powers Resolution grants limited deployment/action, but is of questionable constitutionality. In a lot of people's minds, both Iraqi and Afghanistan actions (especially the long term occupation) are unconstitutional without the formal Declaration of War, and Congress uses an "authorization of military force" to keep from having to grow a pair and actually declare war. Basically, Congress is shirking it's duty to the people, and is attempting to push all the blame onto the Executive Branch.

Politically, a formal Declaration of War is a big step, both internally and globally, so it is to be avoided at all costs. Just like a war should be. :idea2:

KukriKhan

11-21-2009, 17:23

...Congress uses an "authorization of military force" to keep from having to grow a pair and actually declare war. Basically, Congress is shirking it's duty to the people, and is attempting to push all the blame onto the Executive Branch.

Politically, a formal Declaration of War is a big step, both internally and globally, so it is to be avoided at all costs. Just like a war should be.

Yes to all. :thumbsup:

Kadagar_AV

11-23-2009, 06:29

I wouldn't call him an enemy combatant, nor a traitor or terrorist.

I would say freedom fighter / nutcase.

And above speakers are right... The "war" on terrorism is, in fact, not a real "war". No war has been declared.

No, the reason why the US invades Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with a WAR, so to say. It's just some troops going to another country where they are not welcomed and...

uh....

Can someone please explain this to me again? I seem not to get it :(

Fragony

11-23-2009, 12:21

Can someone please explain this to me again? I seem not to get it :(

How about unlimited funds because of opium production, hosting terrorist training camps, proximity to a nuclear power and in the worst case acces to a nuclear bomb it needs to be destroyed. Iraq could just have been a mistake, I don't think it was, but it could be.

HoreTore

11-23-2009, 18:28

How about unlimited funds because of opium production

....That started after the US invaded, Frags... Except for the US' allies though of course, they've been growing opium before that.

drone

11-23-2009, 18:50

And above speakers are right... The "war" on terrorism is, in fact, not a real "war". No war has been declared.

No, the reason why the US invades Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with a WAR, so to say. It's just some troops going to another country where they are not welcomed and...

uh....

Can someone please explain this to me again? I seem not to get it :(

If I remember correctly from September/October 2001, the reason war was not officially declared against Afghanistan was that we didn't want Afghanis (specifically) and Muslims (by association) to think that we had it in for them. We just didn't like their leadership. Similar to the Gulf "War" in '90-91.

I'm still not sure why we really invaded Iraq the second time, there are lots of reasons why an official declaration is absent. Which is a shame, because that is one venture that really needed at least a vote for one from a psychological aspect.

Basically, declaring war is not PC.

Fragony

11-23-2009, 18:54

....That started after the US invaded, Frags... Except for the US' allies though of course, they've been growing opium before that.

That is simply not true ever heard of the golden triangle

HoreTore

11-23-2009, 19:35

That is simply not true ever heard of the golden triangle

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

In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

Fragony

11-23-2009, 19:57

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

I know all bearded people kinda look like santaclaus I understand. Good I guess it doesn't happen anymore, yay drugstrade is gone, someone finally has an opinion.

HoreTore

11-23-2009, 19:59

I know all bearded people kinda look like santaclaus I understand. Good I guess it doesn't happen anymore, yay drugstrade is gone, someone finally has an opinion.

Drugtrade isn't gone, it skyrocketed again after the taliban was removed....

Fragony

11-23-2009, 20:19

Drugtrade isn't gone, it skyrocketed again after the taliban was removed....

It has never been gone, confiscating and banning are different things by the way, or do you really actually think heroin-production dropped.

Vladimir

11-23-2009, 21:57

The Taliban 'ban'ed the drug trade for everyone except themselves. Don't get all misty-eyed over Taliban opium eradication.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-23-2009, 22:03

Fragony:

Under the Taliban, the production of poppies in Afghanistan was greatly curtailed. This curtailment was brief, terminating in 2002/2003, but it may have continued had Taliban control of Afghanistan continued. Had the curtailment lasted, Burma may have picked up the gap in the supply. As is is, more heroin poppies are being cultivated than ever before. Production will continue until the market for the product is reduced -- that's market economics.

Horetore:

We will learn what Major Hasan considers himself to be fairly soon. Under U.S. law and the UCMJ, he is very likely to be viewed as a pre-meditated murderer (Fed, Military and Civilian statues would all agree on this as a charge), as a traitor (U.S. citizen and military volunteer who attacked his own during time of war; this is a harder charge to prove by Constitutional requirement), and as a terrorist (attacking unarmed individuals including civilians in pursuit of a political agenda). Whatever neuroses he sufffers, it is unlikely that he will be adjudged as LEGALLY insane, as the standard is pretty simple (can tell right from wrong).

Perhaps the major does view himself as an infiltration-soldier of some kind or other. I don't think it will help him legally.

On the other hand, the coming public trials in New York will probably give us all a look at what terrorism is and isn't; from the perspective of the USG, the media, the public, and some of those who view themselves as being "at war with America."