On the way home from work I listened to the news about Ft. Hood, they cut to our commander in chief and I listened as he thanked the audience of some conferecnce, he actually sounded happy...then he addressed Ft. Hood.

Obama has lived up to every single concern we had before he was elected. Hes a pompous out of touch ass.

Thought the same thing as the newscasters built up the Obama statement on Ft. Hood, switched to Obama live who opened and continued on for several minutes about the conference before getting to the after thought: oh yes, and some soldiers were shot today in TX.........



Pretty LAME!

"Hey, this is a SHOUT OUT to all my Homies in the Teepees"...."HOW"....."what?...soldiers dead in Fort Hood?.....yeah...I'll get to that in a minute...first....a little about ME"....:yak5:

He's supposed to address this again today in a press conference. Let's see how he does when he has plenty of time to prepare and has people write down what he's supposed to say.

I'm not going to pile on in this thread but I was a little confused for a moment when I couldn't tell when he was done talking about Ft Hood and going into finishing the conference he was at. Just wasn't what I expected.

He's supposed to address this again today in a press conference. Let's see how he does when he has plenty of time to prepare and has people write down what he's supposed to say.

About 2 mins on Ft. Hood and how he met with FBI Director Mueller this morning.

Unemployment rose to 10.2% when they were expecting 9.9%

He is expanding unemployment benefits to 20 weeks for approx 1 million
of the 15.7 million unemployed.

He says this will help the economy as it will create jobs as this money is spent
on food and shelter.

The stimulus will help as it is spent on roads and bridges.

I guess he means the 9 month old shovel ready jobs.

To paraphrase the first lady's pre-election sentiments:
"This is the first time in my adult life that I have ever been embarrassed to have this clown as president."

He is doing everything he can do to trivialize the office of president and to ruin this country.
His constant displays of disrespect for the military is outrageous.
Also, has anyone compared the number of gaffs he's made in less than one year compared to...say, Bush's 8 years?
(I think he's already surpassed Bush.)

Also, has anyone compared the number of gaffs he's made in less than one year compared to...say, Bush's 8 years?
(I think he's already surpassed Bush.)

I think Not...don't forget to stroll through the years...

Bushisms - Adventures in George W. Bushspeak 2000 (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms2000.htm)

Would you consider throwing away a trillion dollars a gaff?

I just watched the entire video and wonder what some of you are smoking.

He's there to address a conference. He starts with his planned opening remarks and cuts them short to address the Ft. Hood issue, which was probably mostly ad lib and sounded quite genuine. Today when there's more information he makes a dedicated statement.

I'd wager that the script was edited by his staff and he didn't even know what was going on.

What exactly is the problem again? Oh, I forgot...

-spence

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html)

I'd wager that the script was edited by his staff and he didn't even know what was going on.

-spence

That's a suckers bet if ever there was one:rotf2:

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html)

Ummm, that's not a news story.

-spence

maybe he should have started with the shooting and skipped the shout out...:rotf2:

"I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you. "

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter. Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient. As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:


The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list. He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.

His constant displays of disrespect for the military is outrageous.


Well he did go to Dover AFB at 3AM in the morning with his camera crew to pay tribute to our fallen Heroes. :rolleyes:

Meantime he has left our troops to hang out to dry while he still waits to make a
decision on troop reinforcements. Great for morale and shows more weakness to
those who want to destroy us.

Meantime he has left our troops to hang out to dry while he still waits to make a decision on troop reinforcements. Great for morale and shows more weakness to
those who want to destroy us.
Did you ever stop and think how pathetic whining about how our troops are being "hung out to dry" might just be a bit ironic?

Hell, they've been there for 8 FREAKING YEARS ALREADY, and under Obama troops levels have gone up!

And now he's let them "hang out to dry"??? This makes no sense.

Why are you trying to undermine the mission?

-spence

Did you ever stop and think how pathetic whining about how our troops are being "hung out to dry" might just be a bit ironic?

Hell, they've been there for 8 FREAKING YEARS ALREADY, and under Obama troops levels have gone up!

And now he's let them "hang out to dry"??? This makes no sense.

Why are you trying to undermine the mission?

-spence

Under Obama more are being killed and wounded. Now that is not only a disgrace but in a sad pathetic way,.... ironic.

Under Obama more are being killed and wounded. Now that is not only a disgrace but in a sad pathetic way,.... ironic.

Hmmm, more troops = more wounded...that might just tell you why the Administration is carefully weighing the options.

-spence

Did you ever stop and think how pathetic whining about how our troops are being "hung out to dry" might just be a bit ironic?

Hell, they've been there for 8 FREAKING YEARS ALREADY, and under Obama troops levels have gone up!

And now he's let them "hang out to dry"??? This makes no sense.

Why are you trying to undermine the mission?

-spence

Ya, I've had 2 nephews serve in both Afghanistan and Iraq with one still
fighting in Kabul, and I'm trying to undermine the mission ?
That is quite an accusation. :smash:

My question to you Spence is, what is the mission????

Obama said the war against alqaeda should have been fought in Afghanistan
and now when the rubber meets the road, things get hot,
we just finish October with the most fatalities in any month, and he can't make a decision.

So what is his mission????

Wasn't it in August he was told by his general that they needed more troops?
Now it's November and he still hasn't acted.

So what is the Obama mission ?????

Hmmm, more troops = more wounded...that might just tell you why the Administration is carefully weighing the options.

-spence

Your wrong Spence, under Bush bringing in more troops to Iraq, resulted in less casualties. Obamas problem is he has no plan.

I just watched the entire video and wonder what some of you are smoking.

He's there to address a conference. He starts with his planned opening remarks and cuts them short to address the Ft. Hood issue, which was probably mostly ad lib and sounded quite genuine. Today when there's more information he makes a dedicated statement.

I'd wager that the script was edited by his staff and he didn't even know what was going on.

What exactly is the problem again? Oh, I forgot...

-spence

There in lies the problem he did not know what was going on. He is president of the US of A and better damn well know what is going on in his own country. When 9/11 hit President Bush stepped away so he couold be enlightened.

spence, your expectations are so low, nothing suprises, Now I only have a pddly state school degree, but here is a 2 second try at what O should have said,

Ladies and Gentlemen, as president of the US I want to be in front of you celbrating the great things we have as a nation, such as this conference. Unfortunalty I need to address a crisis that is unfolding at FT Hood. Today......blah blah blah details.
Then he can address the conference!
Too much to ask? This guy was sold as a brilliant speaker! He sounded like a High School President!

When 9/11 hit President Bush stepped away so he couold be enlightened.

How soon we forget...

NOTE: THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE FROM:
An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11 (http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday)

FULL DISCLOSURE SCOTTW/JOHNNYD REQUIRED NOTE:d
I DO NOT CONDONE OR SUPPORT ALL OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THIS WEBSITE, BUT THE TIMELINE WAS WHAT i WAS INTERESTED IN. NO

At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.

So why, at 9:03 a.m.—fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op?

How soon we forget...

NOTE: THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE FROM:
An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11 (http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday)

FULL DISCLOSURE SCOTTW/JOHNNYD REQUIRED NOTE:d
I DO NOT CONDONE OR SUPPORT ALL OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THIS WEBSITE, BUT THE TIMELINE WAS WHAT i WAS INTERESTED IN. NO

At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.

So why, at 9:03 a.m.—fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op?

Good effort on the copy and paste from that website, but it's wrong.
Spend some time looking over the 9-11 commission reports. You'll see the real testimony of what happened on that day, including sworn statements from FAA employees.

Good effort on the copy and paste from that website, but it's wrong.
Spend some time looking over the 9-11 commission reports. You'll see the real testimony of what happened on that day, including sworn statements from FAA employees.

OK.
How does it change the fact that Bush kept reading at the photo op when he was informed?

Even IF they didn't know it was an act of terrorism, it was asserted that Bush lept into action immediately...

OK.
How does it change the fact that Bush kept reading at the photo op when he was informed?

Even IF they didn't know it was an act of terrorism, it was asserted that Bush lept into action immediately...

I was just pointing out that you posted false information. Bush was originally told that it was a small twin engine plane that crashed into the first tower. He was not told until near the end of the classroom visit that the country was under attack. He was advised not to panic because the press corp was in the back of the room. They were finding out at the same time as him because it was on tv and they were getting cell phone calls. You need to keep in mind that it was being shown on CNN before the FAA even alerted the White House.

lets get back on track here. Its very distrubing that many of you cant be critical of Obama. Almost all of the conv/repubs out here have been critical of Bush. It went out across the airwaves that Obama was gign to address the nation on the shootings and he opened the comments laughing and giving a "shout out"
THIS GUY IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And let us not forget that a terrorist attack on our soil had not happened since 9/11 until this attack. Hmmm and I thought they all would love us by now.

And let us not forget that a terrorist attack on our soil had not happened since 9/11 until this attack. Hmmm and I thought they all would love us by now.

This wasn't a terrorist attack.

This wasn't a terrorist attack.

Really:confused: Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table and yelled "Alah Hu Akhbar" and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people. What would you call it JD?

Really:confused: Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table and yelled "Alah Hu Akhbar" and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people. What would you call it JD?

A shrink that went over the deep end and committed a horrible mass murder.

Terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

This was an extremely tragic event, but just because he's Muslim, doesn't make it terrorism.

A shrink that went over the deep end and committed a horrible mass murder.

Terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

This was an extremely tragic event, but just because he's Muslim, doesn't make it terrorism.

I'm thinking your wrong here JD.
I believe that had it not been for the PC movement then this would have been prevented and just to remain PC.... we won't call it terrorism. OK? Now we can all feel better. Safer? No.

I'm thinking your wrong here JD.
I believe that had it not been for the PC movement then this would have been prevented and just to remain PC.... we won't call it terrorism. OK? Now we can all feel better. Safer? No.

How exactly would this incident have been prevented "had it not been for the PC movement"?

How exactly would this incident have been prevented "had it not been for the PC movement"?

I believe he caught the attention of the FBI for his anti American remarks. I believe it was overlooked because he was a Muslum. That's not only my believe either JD.
This guy was a textbook terrorist. He meets your discription. He should have been locked up, or at least moved to Amherst. Why wasn't he? The truth will come out about this guy. It already is.

I believe he caught the attention of the FBI for his anti American remarks. I believe it was overlooked because he was a Muslum. That's not only my believe either JD.
This guy was a textbook terrorist. He meets your discription. He should have been locked up, or at least moved to Amherst. Why wasn't he? The truth will come out about this guy. It already is.

There is so much inaccurate with just about everything you said, I don't even know where to start.

There is so much inaccurate with just about everything you said, I don't even know where to start.

JD, read up on it. At the very least, he was investigated by a joint terrorism task force because of confirmed communications he was having with a radical iman who was possibly linked to terrorist groups.

Where are Buckman's statements so inaccurate? Do you read the information out there?

JD, read up on it. At the very least, he was investigated by a joint terrorism task force because of confirmed communications he was having with a radical iman who was possibly linked to terrorist groups.
I know. He was being investigated. That doesn't make this a terrorist act. A mass murder is different than terrorism. Assuming that it's terrorism because he's Muslim is ignorant.

Where are Buckman's statements so inaccurate? Do you read the information out there? You should try to be more open minded rather than use your little childish putdowns to belittle others. That act is getting a little lame at this point.
Where? Mostly all of them. Investigations are how other soldiers have the same stresses he faced and what signs of *stress* could be seen to prevent such an incident.

This was a "textbook case" of terrorism. I disagree. This guy committed this mass murder with no intention of influencing government policy or inciting fear into the general public - both of which are conditions of something that actually *would* be a textbook case of terrorism.

Yes, he was "investigated". But, as reported by an official:Federal authorities dropped the inquiry into Hasan's communications after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, one of the officials said.

Buckman also stated that "he should have been locked up." Under what grounds? He had communication with someone that's never had charges pressed against them?

You should try to put some facts behind your targeted criticisms of my posts. The chess game is fun, but only when it's supported. "Read up on it" isn't really a rebuttal. I'm also wondering where the "childish putdowns" were. A note for you though, backhanded insults are no different than blunt ones.

O.k. Johhny. You say Buckman's post is inaccurate, but you don't give examples. All you can muster is that you "don't know where to start." You seem to be intelligent enough that you could base your response on facts, no? By saying what you did, you're taking a little jab at him. You take your little shots at others in this forum all the time in lieu of posting facts to back up whatever your argument is.

First off, I never said it was a terrorist act. I only said that there are people out there that think it might be, and they aren't stupid or crazy if they do think that. Sure, the investigation was ended, but does that not mean that the guy was in contact with anyone who supported terrorism? If he was, it could be concluded that he was acting as a terrorist. Do you think that all terrorist acts have to be massive bombings or flying planes into buildings? Killing 13 people would make it a larger act of terrorism than many that have occured to date if it was in fact terrorism.

Rebuttal? I wasn't offering a rebuttal. I think Buckman can believe what he wants. As for his statement about locking him up, I took it as a joke since he mentioned sending him to Amherst. Do you really think Buckman wants terrorists sent to Amherst?

O.k. Johhny. You say Buckman's post is inaccurate, but you don't give examples. All you can muster is that you "don't know where to start." You seem to be intelligent enough that you could base your response on facts, no? By saying what you did, you're taking a little jab at him. You take your little shots at others in this forum all the time in lieu of posting facts to back up whatever your argument is.
I rarely "take shots" without supporting my comments.

First off, I never said it was a terrorist act. I only said that there are people out there that think it might be, and they aren't stupid or crazy if they do think that. Sure, the investigation was ended, but does that not mean that the guy was in contact with anyone who supported terrorism? If he was, it could be concluded that he was acting as a terrorist. Do you think that all terrorist acts have to be massive bombings or flying planes into buildings? Killing 13 people would make it a larger act of terrorism than many that have occured to date if it was in fact terrorism.
Pretty clearly stated above that an event being a terrorist act is dependent on the motivation behind it. Yelling "Allah is the greatest" doesn't demonstrate a motivation to incite fear or influence government. Also, not all terrorist acts include the killing of a large number of people, but that doesn't mean that all situations where a large number of people are killed must be a terrorist act. The number of deaths is not a determining factor, the motivation behind the acts are.

Rebuttal? I wasn't offering a rebuttal. I think Buckman can believe what he wants. As for his statement about locking him up, I took it as a joke since he mentioned sending him to Amherst. Do you really think Buckman wants terrorists sent to Amherst?
If it wasn't a rebuttal to a specific post, then it was just an open-ended criticism?

If it wasn't a rebuttal to a specific post, then it was just an open-ended criticism?

You'll have to figure that one out for yourself.:devil2:

JD you remind me alot of Barney Frank when you respond.
His reasons for killing the best women and men this country has,are the same reasons Bin Ladin has. Why do you fail to see that? Someone dropped the ball on this guy and maybe someday we will find out why. I still contend that trying not to offend muslums is part of it. You bring up his faith in one of your post as the reason not to jump to conclusions....case made made, Thanks

His reasons for killing the best women and men this country has,are the same reasons Bin Ladin has. Why do you fail to see that?
Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there.

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted.

There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on?

-spence

Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there. actually..it is...he routinely expressed many of the same views

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted. we actually don't know that he "cracked" ... we know that he did this out of religeous fervor the evidence is awfully strong, but we do know that he has a much longer history of radical Islamist thought and beliefs and countless displays of his radical thoughts and beliefs based on what his peers are saying far more than evidence of a history of mental illness...but his peers are probably just basing their observations on their own bigoted negative stereotypes, right?


There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on? there is also a line between deluding yourself in order to remain PC and putting others in danger due to your failure to recognize and act upon the obvious....whose side are you on?

-spence


isn't it amazing what and who the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s find themselves defending while constantly claiming to be the "smartest" among us?

not terrorism, just identity theft that would have resulted in an unfortunate tragedy...

Can we call this one terrorism or will it be classified as identity theft? The Telegraph has the story:

The plan, which reportedly would have been the biggest attack on America since 9/11, was uncovered after Scotland Yard intercepted an email.

The force alerted the FBI, who launched an operation which led to airport shuttle bus driver Najibullah Zazi, 24, being charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

The Afghan is alleged to have been part of a group who used stolen credit cards to buy components for bombs including nail varnish remover.

The chemicals bought were similar to those used to make the 2005 London Tube and bus explosives which killed 52 people.

Zazi, from Denver, Colorado, is understood to have been given instructions by a senior member of al Qaeda in Pakistan over the internet.

US authorities allegedly found bomb-making instructions on his laptop and his fingerprints on batteries and measuring scales they seized.

A phone containing footage of New York's Grand Central Station, thought to have been made by him during a visit a week before his arrest, was also found along with explosive residue. Zazi was also said by informants to have attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

The alleged plot was unmasked after an email address that was being monitored as part of the abortive Operation Pathway was suddenly reactivated. [...]

The British discovery also came at just the right time - the US had threatened to sever intelligence links over the release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi.

I guess he was about to "crack" too...violence likely resulting

For an officer to be openly critical of the disposition of servicemen within earshot of other miltary personal is very odd.
The military is still in dire need people that can interpret middle-eastern languages - so it could be that they are being very careful with respect to retention, but I don't think that was the case here, where we have an officer behind the act.
I think the measures the military has in place now (to identify potential threats within its ranks) is geared for enlisted men or junior officers returning from combat. I think they were blindsided because this guy was a major and an officer who had served stateside.

isn't it amazing what and who the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s find themselves defending while constantly claiming to be the "smartest" among us?
You're funny.

Speaking for myself, the only thing I'm defending here is objectivity. Religious ferver doesn't make one a terrorist, even if it's acted out with violence.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have more faith than the Jihadis :hihi:

-spence

I think he was a terrorist - that's the profile that is the best fit.

You're funny.

Speaking for myself, the only thing I'm defending here is objectivity. Religious ferver doesn't make one a terrorist, even if it's acted out with violence.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have more faith than the Jihadis :hihi:

-spence

scottw has the mentality of "either you agree with what I say, or you're some crazy liberal idiot that hates America." The crazy thing for him is that nothing about this topic has anything to do with a person's political ideology. But, take away partisanship, and he doesn't know how to be critical of someone so he blindly falls back to the only thing he knows - "They must have this view because they're liberals".

The terrorist reference is only being made because he's Muslim. Even the federal investigators are stating they believe this was him acting alone and motivated by him being deployed soon. Weird, *motivated by him being deployed soon* doesn't sound like "motivated to incite fear or influence government" to me.

Now, I'm curious what other non-facts will be used to continue scottw and buckman's unsupportable argument.

bottom line is a president should have more tact, and more COMMON SENSE, than to give a "Shout-out" at a moment like that. And how about if he just said he wanted to recognize someone, not give them a shout out like he was a DJ or something. It really does say something about his character, he is thinking more about himself than the country.

scottw has the mentality of "either you agree with what I say, or you're some crazy liberal idiot that hates America." not true The crazy thing for him is that nothing about this topic has anything to do with a person's political ideology. actually Hasan expressed his political and religeous views quite loudly and they were intertwined... But, take away partisanship, and he doesn't know how to be critical of someone so he blindly falls back to the only thing he knows - "They must have this view because they're liberals". an essential ingredient to liberalism is non-judmentalism, open mindedness and tolerance ...even if it gets someone killed...

The terrorist reference is only being made because he's Muslim. no, it's being made because he was demonstrably a radical muslim and shouted Allah Akbar and then gunned down 40+ innocent people Even the federal investigators are stating they believe this was him acting alone and motivated by him being deployed soon. Weird, *motivated by him being deployed soon* doesn't sound like "motivated to incite fear or influence government" to me.funny, if you listen to any of the accounts of his rantings this is exactly what he was ranting about

Now, I'm curious what other non-facts will be used to continue scottw and buckman's unsupportable argument.

hold on...I get it...there is no terrorism any more...this was a "man caused disaster"...as Chris Matthews said.."it's not against the law to call Al Qaieda"...poor guy, hope he gets some treatment and can resume his life as soon as possible, the Army probably just put too much stress on him and his peers were probably always teasing him because he was a Muslin, those intolerant bastards...it's all their fault..

you are scaring me...

I think he was a terrorist - that's the profile that is the best fit.

Careful expressing your opinion here, Joe. You should know that profiling people is wrong. Just because he harbored anti-American feelings and reached out to suspected terrorists who encourage terrorist acts against America doesn't make him a terrorist. He's just a guy who "went off the deep end".

Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there.

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted.

There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on?

-spence

Your right Spence, the conclusion is not there yet. That is the same attitude that allowed this to happen. Plenty of warning signs, agreed?

I'm on the side of the obvious. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist. It just that most terrorist are Muslim.

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?


He certainly might have. If that is the driving motivation, and he was scheduled to head to Israel or Palestine, maybe it would have been the case.

It's a tragedy, period.

I'm just going to throw this out there for you guys to think about. I'm not saying whether I think it was a terrorist act or not.

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.

As RIROCKHOUND wrote, it's a tragedy either way.

"cracking" to me is getting fed up and walking off a job.
This was planned and calculated and most importantly TARGETED. He went after military people. He knew what he was doing.

He certainly might have. If that is the driving motivation, and he was scheduled to head to Israel or Palestine, maybe it would have been the case.

It's a tragedy, period.

He wasn't going to the " front line" Brian. Stop making excuses.

Being PC and fair to everyone , not offending anyone and giving everyone ( except Bush) the benefit of the doubt is all fine and dandy on here, but in real life it gets people killed.

Maybe your attitude will change when you hear that it was Bush's administration that appears to have dropped the ball on this guy.

I'm just going to throw this out there for you guys to think about. I'm not saying whether I think it was a terrorist act or not.

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.

As RIROCKHOUND wrote, it's a tragedy either way.

He's being tried in a military court.

He's being tried in a military court.

Right. Not sure what you mean, though. The military tries cases of military criminals. There's still an investigation and attorneys involved. You don't want evidence being leaked that could give a defense attorney a reason for a mistrial.

He wasn't going to the " front line" Brian. Stop making excuses. Being PC and fair to everyone , not offending anyone and giving everyone ( except Bush) the benefit of the doubt is all fine and dandy on here, but in real life it gets people killed.

Maybe your attitude will change when you hear that it was Bush's administration that appears to have dropped the ball on this guy.

Right... we don't live in real life. Everyone is evil and no one is to be trusted....

I don't care who dropped the ball. Someone did. Doesn't change my opinion that it was a tragedy.

Was it premeditated, calculated etc?
ABSOLUTELY!

That does not mean terrorism, at least not in my book.

Should it mean that the army needs to un-PC, no one of Muslim faith can be in the army?

Right... we don't live in real life. Everyone is evil and no one is to be trusted....

I don't care who dropped the ball. Someone did. Doesn't change my opinion that it was a tragedy.

Was it premeditated, calculated etc?
ABSOLUTELY!

That does not mean terrorism, at least not in my book.

Should it mean that the army needs to un-PC, no one of Muslim faith can be in the army?

You know what I mean. There is a lot of gray area that can be looked at.
No one dies if you or I are wrong. The people you trust to keep your loved ones alive do not have that luxury. They have to question everything. They also have to profile, like it or not.

This wasn't a terrorist attack.

Sleeper cell.....

They also have to profile, like it or not.

Unfortunately for you, this vague Document in Washington that the last Administration tried to burn and throw out the window doesn't allow for it. That's also the same Document the honorable men and women in uniform are risking their lives to protect.

I'm willing to bet you wouldn't make a statement like that if you were a black man, instead of white. As I mentioned to Asswipe in the other thread, a lot of Muslims have given their lives to protect this country.

can't you picture JD sitting there on his couch with his hands over his ears? chanting.... LA-LA-LA-LA...I can't hear you...IT WAS NOT TERRORISM!!....LA-LA-LA-LA.....:rotf2:

Your right Spence, the conclusion is not there yet. That is the same attitude that allowed this to happen. Plenty of warning signs, agreed?
You can't live in a culture of paranoia. The military is a high amplitude environment and as such monitors their people differently than most business would. Certainly he looks to have displayed warning signs that should have impacted his deployment orders.

I'm on the side of the obvious. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist. It just that most terrorist are Muslim.
That might be true at the moment, but I'd also add that the vast majority of Muslim terrorism kills other Muslims. In the end, people do what they do, it doesn't matter what their religion.

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?
No, I wouldn't.

-spence

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.
The investigation should seek to determine the motive as it would in any criminal case involving such a terrible crime. If there is credible evidence of terrorism then it shouldn't be hidden, but that's a conclusion for a judge based on law.

-spence

"cracking" to me is getting fed up and walking off a job.
This was planned and calculated and most importantly TARGETED. He went after military people. He knew what he was doing.

How many people crack and shoot up their workplace? For all you know this was no different.

You are aware he worked for the US Army don't you?

-spence

can't you picture JD sitting there on his couch with his hands over his ears? chanting.... LA-LA-LA-LA...I can't hear you...IT WAS NOT TERRORISM!!....LA-LA-LA-LA.....:rotf2:
Any expert on al Qaeda will tell you their strategy is to provoke the United States, who they believe will lash out like a cowboy, into rampantly attacking the Muslim world and validate their assertion that the US is out to destroy Islam. Muslims, by their very fabric are drawn towards (even commanded to) protect the faith.

They also hope they can turn Americans against themselves, so that we compromise the foundational values that have made us so great and a beacon of inspiration for most of the world. If there's no leadership to defend free people under the rule of man's law then perhaps they have their opening and can challenge with a fundamentalist vision.

The last time I checked we assumed innocence until being proven guilty. It's supposed to be part of the "enlightenment" that separates US vs THEM.

You sir, are playing right into their hand.

-spence

Any expert on al Qaeda will tell you their strategy is to provoke the United States, who they believe will lash out like a cowboy, into rampantly attacking the Muslim world and validate their assertion that the US is out to destroy Islam. Muslims, by their very fabric are drawn towards (even commanded to) protect the faith.

They also hope they can turn Americans against themselves, so that we compromise the foundational values that have made us so great and a beacon of inspiration for most of the world. If there's no leadership to defend free people under the rule of man's law then perhaps they have their opening and can challenge with a fundamentalist vision.

-spence

That my friend is awesome!

That my friend is awesome!
It is the view of al Qaeda. The key fact is that it's not the same vision shared by the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world.

The more news I see about Hasan the more he looks to be the classic criminal killer and not the terrorist.

-spence

It is the view of al Qaeda. The key fact is that it's not the same vision shared by the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world.

The more news I see about Hasan the more he looks to be the classic criminal killer and not the terrorist.

-spence

It is the Major's view!!!

The investigation should seek to determine the motive as it would in any criminal case involving such a terrible crime. If there is credible evidence of terrorism then it shouldn't be hidden, but that's a conclusion for a judge based on law.

-spence

In any criminal investigation, the prosecution should play thngs close to the vest. Leaking information can damage a case. My supposition is that the Army investigators may know a lot more than they are letting on at this point. They would not come out right off the bat when things are still fresh and emotions are high and label it as terrorism even if they think it may be.

It is the Major's view!!!
You really don't know a lot about Islam do you?

-spence

You really don't know a lot about Islam do you?

-spence

I thought you were talking about al Qaeda . I try not to lump all Muslims in that group.

Any expert on al Qaeda will tell you their strategy is to provoke the United States, who they believe will lash out like a cowboy, into rampantly attacking the Muslim world and validate their assertion that the US is out to destroy Islam. Muslims, by their very fabric are drawn towards (even commanded to) protect the faith.

They also hope they can turn Americans against themselves, so that we compromise the foundational values that have made us so great and a beacon of inspiration for most of the world. If there's no leadership to defend free people under the rule of man's law then perhaps they have their opening and can challenge with a fundamentalist vision. this is the Progressive agenda, the terrorists and the Progressives have a lot in common...

The last time I checked we assumed innocence until being proven guilty. It's supposed to be part of the "enlightenment" that separates US vs THEM.

You sir, are playing right into their hand.

-spence

sounds like you are admitting that this was Al Qaeda sponsored terrorism...except the part about Hasan possibly being innocent...that's f'ed up...

what the hell does "lash out like a cowboy " mean ?

I'm playing right into Al Qaeda's hand? Do you ever step back and think about how stupid something like that is when you say it ?......I'm playing right into Al Qaeda's hand....you need professional help:rotf2:

seems to me the dumbass that can't mutter the word terrorism without wetting his panties is actually who would be playing into Al Qaeda's hands:uhuh:

sounds like you are admitting that this was Al Qaeda sponsored terrorism...except the part about Hasan possibly being innocent...that's f'ed up...

what the hell does "lash out like a cowboy " mean ?

I'm playing right into Al Qaeda's hand? Do you ever step back and think about how stupid something like that is when you say it ?......I'm playing right into Al Qaeda's hand....you need professional help:rotf2:

seems to me the dumbass that can't mutter the word terrorism without wetting his panties is actually who would be playing into Al Qaeda's hands:uhuh:
Wow, this is a weak post.

-spence

Wow, this is a weak post.

-spence

Most experts agree that you just make it up as you go along :uhuh:

In any criminal investigation, the prosecution should play thngs close to the vest. Leaking information can damage a case. My supposition is that the Army investigators may know a lot more than they are letting on at this point. They would not come out right off the bat when things are still fresh and emotions are high and label it as terrorism even if they think it may be.

I would agree, there maybe a lot more tied to this incident that they are looking into which could disrupt other plots if it truly is terrorism.
But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.

But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.
I'll bet you nearly wet yourself typing that.

-spence

I'll bet you nearly wet yourself typing that.

-spence

Ya, that and the fact that i've been accused of "undermining the mission" get's me all excited. :rolleyes:

To use a Spenceism, your statements are is so silly. :hihi:

I'll bet you nearly wet yourself typing that.

-spence

No kidding. This guy was in the armed services for 3+ separate administrations, but one guy losing his mind means that Obama isn't doing his job.

His statement is on par with the idiots that say 9/11 was Bush's fault.

JD, that is just a statement of fact. You can't blame Obama, but from what we've been told, there were indications this guy was being tracked because of his statements and associations.Not one imho, I'd want in our military.
Fore warned should have been fore armed.

JD, that is just a statement of fact. You can't blame Obama, but from what we've been told, there were indications this guy was being tracked because of his statements and associations.Not one imho, I'd want in our military.
Fore warned should have been fore armed.

Fact??? Nothing has been proven yet.

When liberals said similar things about Iraq they were accused of wanting US troops to die to help make their point.

-spence

Fact??? Nothing has been proven yet.

When liberals said similar things about Iraq they were accused of wanting US troops to die to help make their point.

-spence

By who?
And why do you keep coming on this lame thread?:rotf2:

By who?

Wouldn't surprise me if you did several times.

And why do you keep coming on this lame thread?:rotf2:
I'm trying to test my assumption that ScottW can't really product an unlimited number of non sequitors.

-spence

I would agree, there maybe a lot more tied to this incident that they are looking into which could disrupt other plots if it truly is terrorism.
But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.

Spence, this was the original post, what Fact??? are you questioning. :huh:

Unless there has been another terrorist attack i don't now about since 9/11
then "if they find it is terrorism in the end" the fact is it will be under Obama's watch.

If you are looking for facts pointing to terrorism, a few I remember, he had
e-mailed the al qaeda recruiter in Yemen, he went to the same Florida Mosque
that the 9/11 terrorists attended, he had SOA (soldier of Allah)under his name on his professional card,
and was charged with premeditated murder as he bought the guns he used shortly before the attack.
I go along with Fishbone's post and the possible reasons why he may not have been charged as a terrorist so far,
but if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Wouldn't surprise me if you did several times.


I'm trying to test my assumption that ScottW can't really product an unlimited number of non sequitors.

-spence

I don't know that I can "product" anything...