That was pretty lame

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Really 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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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"?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

[fishbones]

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[buckman]

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

[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

[Joe]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Bocephus]

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]

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...

[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".

[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.

[fishbones]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

"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.

[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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[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.