That was pretty lame

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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?

[scottw]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

-spence

[Joe]

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Joe

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".

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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