Shooting at Ft Hood; 7 dead, 20+wounded

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seizing assets is different than convicting the preacher/leader. The government is coming in and taking control of the whole entity. It's similar to seizing drug assets in some ways.
 
netrox said:
"Whatever the details of the government's case against the owners of the mosques, as a civil rights organization we are concerned that the seizure of American houses of worship could have a chilling effect on the religious freedom of citizens of all faiths and may send a negative message to Muslims worldwide," said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper."

That's stupid. We do that with Christians too - just recently, we convicted a preacher having sex with minors. If there is illegal activity, the government has the right to seize churches or temples or mosques.
Click to expand...

Almo? If so, he got what he deserved.
 
The mosque being seized in my city has a private school. I'm surprised that the members don't send them to public schools. We have some Muslim children at my son's school. It's very diverse.
 
I've watched CNN earlier today that they said the fort hood shooter is paralyzed. He can't feel his legs and his arms are in extreme pain.
 
About.com definition...

Funny... when a man shot and killed an abortionist, he's called an "extremist" or a "radical" but not a "terrorist" when the man had a social objective??!?

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
 
Did the news cast say if authorities have questioned him?
 
netrox said:
About.com definition...

Funny... when a man shot and killed an abortionist, he's called an "extremist" or a "radical" but not a "terrorist" when the man had a social objective??!?

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Steel X said:
It is possible that the DC sniper is a terrorist because he's against politics to our government and such since it has something to do with the 9-11th attacks.
Click to expand...

Not really, judge don't charge on him as terrorist.
 
Beowulf said:
You're objectifying it. Quick, how do we make war on terror? ;)
Click to expand...

Domestic terrorism vs. ???? Terrorism? I am using pager so I can't do a google to look up the definition for terrorists who attack people for their political or religous beliefs.
 
"Hoekstra confirmed this week that government officials knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and the radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

A joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI learned late last year of Hasan's repeated contact with the cleric, who encouraged Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The FBI said the task force did not refer early information about Hasan to superiors because it concluded he wasn't linked to terrorism."

The Associated Press: Lawmaker: Hasan had communications with Pakistan
 
I don't think this guy is a terrorist..just someone who went off the deep end.
 
Back, went out to do grocery shopping...

And no, if you read on the history of the Virginia Tech massacre, he had a big issue with Christianity and the Bible. I remember that event too. Some of the fundamentalists on various forums (IGN, SomethingAwful and so on) were calling him a terrorist because of that history.

Anyway, if the guy tried to blow up a government property, then it's a definite act of terrorism. If the guy held someone hostage in exchange for demands, then it's a definite act of terrorism. However when it come to shooting someone, that is where we get into the gray area: is it terrorism, or is it just a lunatic?
 
Thanks, Jiro. No surprise that he took the 5th.
 
shel90 said:
Domestic terrorism vs. ???? Terrorism? I am using pager so I can't do a google to look up the definition for terrorists who attack people for their political or religous beliefs.
Click to expand...

I was just joshing you a bit since I always thought that the term Global War on Terror to be utterly idiotic. After all, terror is an emotion, like joy or fear. How can one wage war on an emotion?
Anyway, that term is out, thank goodness. It is being replaced with Overseas Contingency Operation. That makes more sense, but not by much, lol.
'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name - washingtonpost.com
 
I think that we can all agree that gunning down people belongs in the "evil category."
 
souggy said:
And where is the political motive?

Getting out of the U.S. military? Challenging the government?

Yes, he may had contacted cells; yes, he may had gotten a business card stating he was a Soldier of Allah, however the big question is:

Does he just want out, or is he trying to change things?
Click to expand...
He wanted the US to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
souggy said:
Back, went out to do grocery shopping...

And no, if you read on the history of the Virginia Tech massacre, he had a big issue with Christianity and the Bible. I remember that event too. Some of the fundamentalists on various forums (IGN, SomethingAwful and so on) were calling him a terrorist because of that history.

Anyway, if the guy tried to blow up a government property, then it's a definite act of terrorism. If the guy held someone hostage in exchange for demands, then it's a definite act of terrorism. However when it come to shooting someone, that is where we get into the gray area: is it terrorism, or is it just a lunatic?
Click to expand...

well - a person is labeled terrorist if it's an attack on noncombatant targets (civilians). military property is a combatant targets so it's an act of war.

a plane flying into Pentagon - a military headquarter is an act of war.
a plane flying into WTC - a noncombatant target is an act of terrorism.
 
Jiro said:
I'm asking Eve because I'd like to know what she thinks.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe Malvo was also a terrorist and I’m obviously not the only one who thought so because he was found to be a terrorist by the Virginia court due to several erratic diatribes about what he termed “jihad” against he United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/n...l=1&adxnnlx=1258167627-XfcFaQ5Tj/2JT4krRzN0AQ

Furthermore, at the 2006 trial Malvo testified that the aim of the killing spree was to kidnap children for the purpose of extorting money from the government and to “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/us/24malvo.html

shel90 said:
I thought a terrorist is someone who terrorizes people?
Click to expand...
And you don’t think that the slaughter of 13 and injury to 31 inflicted “terror”?

netrox said:
Funny... when a man shot and killed an abortionist, he's called an "extremist" or a "radical" but not a "terrorist" when the man had a social objective??!?
Click to expand...
I would define him as a terrorist, as well.
 
shel90 said:
Domestic terrorism vs. ???? Terrorism? I am using pager so I can't do a google to look up the definition for terrorists who attack people for their political or religous beliefs.
Click to expand...

there's usually just 2 kinds - domestic and foreign terrorist regardless of cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top