Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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
|
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?
Threaded Mode