Buckman: Happy hunting.

I will be around Kingfield Me. starting Sunday.

mmmm... cookies and milk. But you've gotta replace those cranberries for chocolate chips.

yeah...I'm sure that if a couple of guys from my mom's church were involved with the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans and a while later, I attempted to slaughter dozens of innocent Americans and was partially successful and it was discovered that I'd been contacting the known radical former leader of the church that my mom and the other guys had attended and had attended the church myself for any period of time...it would be a HUGE LONG stretch to try to draw any sort of link....yikes...we're in trouble BIG

like I said...probably just a coincidence

So you're asserting his mom was a terrorist also?

And everyone at the Mosque?

Do you trust any Muslim?

-spence

I don't have any problem with "any" muslims...just the ones prone to violence, like any other group that you'd like to create...as far as I'm concerned...Muslims come in many shapes colors and sizes so I'm not sure that I'd "recognize" a Muslim and be at that point capable of not trusting them based on appearance or for any other reason for that matter..If someone divulges to me that they are muslim, I don't think any differently of them that anyone else.... .I certainly have a healthy wariness about anyone who spent/spends time in a place of worship listening to and approving of by their continued presence the Anti- American hateful rantings of a radical lunatic....Why does everything lead back to Obama???

didn't say any of those things but that's a pretty high body count for that one Mosque.....

you seem really desperate to portray me as a racist or something similar...sorry to disappoint you but I'm just not...

you'd be fun in a fox hole Spence...the enemy charging and Spence standing and intellectualizing...."hold on guys, don't shoot yet...we don't have any evidence that they really want to harm us and we're not even sure if they are serious about pulling their triggers, they might just be bluffing.....after all we provoked them...not the other way around....let's try a little diplomacy" :rotf2:

You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:

A niece of mine has a husband that did such a thing and I still can't pronounce the name. Well, I mentioned to my wife that we had better keep an eye on that fella, Boy! did she crack me upside the head. You think them football players get a concussion, my :eyes: are still rolling.

That certainly explains your recent posts :hihi:

-spence

:cheers: Spence!

Yeah. Next thing you know, Muhammad Ali is going to blow up a school.

don't know where all of that came from but my only point was that I'd never put all muslims in any all inclusive box and make a judgement such as "And everyone at the Mosque? Do you trust any Muslim?" or any other rediculous assertion that you'd like to make...

so desperate to level that charge that the leaps are astounding...

however...if a teacher named Muhammed Ali blows up a school tomorrow and had been for years openly espousing Anti-American and radical violent thoughts that the administration had apparently ignored, will your knee- jerk response continue to be that this is not terrorism, just mass murder by a guy that "cracked"?

I'd have to start wondering if some here were not terrorist sympathizers involved in a cover up? :uhuh:

That's a "question".

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence

12 years as an officer and 8 as an enlisted man.....20 years of service.

far more credible than your "eagerness" to characterize someone who believes this to be an act of terrorism as somehow racist and bigoted toward all muslims.....

My question was in direct response to your remarks, and the remarks of others.

Hence, it's cause and effect.

I'm simply defending objectivity and the legal principals of our Founding Fathers.

-spence

this is truly amazing, I don't recall the "years of service" being factored into the savaging of the Haditha Marines by the liberal media and elected democrats...and I'm quite sure that I can pull countless quotes from elected dems and the left referring to our military members in the most unflattering ways but that would now like to reserve judgement and weigh "years of service" for this terrorist....

Ahhh, the old "two wrongs do make a right" defense...nice.

-spence

It came as a response to FlyRod saying "You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:"

When I include a quote from someone in my post, then my response is directly to them.

In FlyRod's defense, I do believe he said that in jest.

-spence

no, not at all.....just compare the reaction...................

hey....didn't Tim McVeigh have some "years of service"?...I don't recall but did we hold off on referring to what he did as terrorism until after the trial in deference to his "years of service"?

All i did was correct a fact....Its amazing how a simple correction can set your gears in motion.

Didn't say it mattered.....just corrected the facts. :rolleyes:

As I've been saying, either you agree 100% with what the conservatives say, regardless of the topic, or you hate America.

Charging ANYONE with terrorism is a very serious assertion. "LEVELING" a charge of any kind on anyone is very serious. Accusing a soldier, an officer, anyone, of just plain old "mass murder" is a very serious assertion. Claiming or believing that a soldier, an officer, mass murdered because he just "snapped" is a very serious assertion.

What does "almost eager" mean? Not quite eager, therefore not really eager? Or just that there is no proof of eagerness so just an implication that makes it sound like Scott is "eager."

If a soldier, an officer, with 20 years of service, who had not shown any signs of mental disturbance, or any indication that he was a run-of-the-mill garden variety mass-murderer, but had expressed several, clear, vociferous statements that indicated Jihadist beliefs and had tried to contact Al quaeda, should anything have been done, and what, if so, should that have been, and under what grounds?

Quite honestly, I don't care how he's charged as long as he's given a death sentence.

My question is directed toward future prevention, not the execution of the Hasan case. There seems to be a consensus here that somebody dropped the ball in allowing this man to do what he did. In what way can a similar event be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs, other than strong Jihadist tendencies, that he will turn on his comrades?

just reacting to the idea that 20 years or 100 years of service buys you anything after you slaughter and mamed that many innocent people...

apparently we can't accurately identify obvious extremism of this type

According to Ret. Col Terry Lee, who had worked with Hasan in the psych ward at Ft Hood, Hasan was constantly broadcasting his beliefs:

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.... When there was a shooting at Little Rock--he was almost sort of happy about it.... (He said) this is what Muslims should do. People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.... He was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out...when things weren't going that way he became more agitated, more frustrated.... He made his views well known...."

but WOW...Janet Napolitano is an expert on extremism of this type


[COLOR="blue"](U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today. [/COLOR]

apparently years of service puts you at the top of the watch list if .......

huh?, according to the current administration, right wing extremist groups are currently recruiting disgruntled military members to carry out violence as "lone wolves or small terrorist cells"...

I think they need to refocus...

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

Or if one explored the meaning of violent actions (like Hasan's jumping on a grenade comment) without actually calling for or explicitly condoning violence?

Is attending a mosque where radical preachers are know to oppose the US a warning sign or just an exercise of free speech?

Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

why don't we ask Napolitano, she seems to have outlined in detail "strong right wing extremist tendencies"...

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

Perhap's, if he were a Muslim.

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)