Search results

He did perpetrate this horrid attack based on his religious beliefs. That much has been proven through his own statements. And that, is a fact.

He was spewing anti-war sentiments long before he tried to get out of the Army, though.

yes, yes I do. And yet, I am able to disagree with you respectfully without making personal attacks against you and vice versa. That is what a true debate is all about, my friend.

On the contrary, I see his behavior very much fitting a typical terrorist. His actions were very much done as a political statement against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.

The only thing that has been "ruled out" (and in actuality, they are still investigating the possibility) is that Hasan acted in coordination with outside sources. They simply stated that they gave up on the investigation months ago because it didn't seem to be leading anywhere....well, look...

Wrong, one truth, many perceptions. And who is to say which perception is right or wrong? I have backed my position with plenty of documentation, yet we both read into it differently and not necessarily based on emotion, logic, or rhetoric.

I don't see "the person in question" even responding right now, so that is a moot point. A good debate is based on presenting material, not personal bashing. There should be no "dishing it out" or "taking it".

Facts are based on documentation, which has been presented. Again, my perception of "truths" or "facts" will not necessarily coincide with your perception.

True, but who is to say your perception is any more relevant than mine or kokos?

The question is to whether or not the act was terroristic. One does not necessarily have to be working in collaboration with a group for ones acts to be deemed terroristic.

lmao

Just goes to show that the "truth" is not always the same between two people. My perception of what you posted and yours are two very different things, and yet we read the same article. :)

That only shows that Hasan was acting alone, not that his motive was not terroristic in nature.

I was referring to an honest debate being one that focused on attacking the issue, not the individual

not at all, the way I read it, it only went to support the fact that terrorism could be a consideration

I don't see him or anyone else personally attacking you, Jiro, dear

sure.

Just another prime example of someone resorting to petty personal attacks rather than defending their position by attacking the issue.

*sigh* I thought we agreed to avoid the personal bashings and stick to honest debates?

now y'all are just making me hungry!