Shooting at Ft Hood; 7 dead, 20+wounded

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was spewing anti-war sentiments long before he tried to get out of the Army, though.

yes - spewing anti-American propaganda. and then later put in several requests to get out.... while continuing to spew anti-American propaganda.

that's not really a fitting description of domestic terrorist. Just a domestic dissent.

btw - you might want to check on the timeline of his anti-war sentiments and 9/11.
 
Facts are based on documentation, which has been presented. Again, my perception of "truths" or "facts" will not necessarily coincide with your perception.

no. that's not what you did. you stated a couple of perceptions (ie. your post #105) as fact.
 
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.
 
There is a poll currently being taken on why Americans believe Obama won't call Hasan a terrorist. Options being considered are A) Obama doesn't want to admit an act of terror occurred on his watch, B) Just like he renamed the "War on Terror" an "overseas contingency operation," Obama has his own definition of terror, C) Obama is afraid the label "act of terror" will enflame the muslim world, or D) All of the Above.

Like it or not, it is a matter of perception.
 
You shouldn't discount Fox simply because you disagree with them. I guess the Wall Street Journal isn't "intellectual" either? Dorothy Rabinowitz: Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer - WSJ.com

That article is merely an opinion of the writer, valid for her OWN point of view but when news make headlines saying "TERRORIST HASAN" without getting the facts first, that's not smart.

Kokonut accuses the MSM for not calling it "terrorist" when in fact, he's trying to impose his belief on readers by saying it's terrorism. There is a difference between stating facts and dishing out opinions.

The facts so far are still not gathered. There are many assumptions. Hasan just woke up and we don't have what Hasan had to say.

And to this day, the government is still not ready to call it a terrorist act and it's a wise move. If it gets enough data to indicate that he fits the definition of "terrorist", then he will be labeled as a terrorist.
 
Here's another opinion then....but I will bet you would refer to it as "fact" (although, I dare say this is probably one we will actually agree upon):

Our Enemy Is Not Islam -- It's Extremists - FOXNews.com
Our Enemy Is Not Islam -- It's Extremists

Let's be clear: The United States is not at war with Muslims or Islam. We are at war, whether we like it or not, with Islamic heretics who argue that their own beliefs supersede traditional Islamic law and that traitors to Islam -- as they define it -- should be killed.

Both left- and right-wing accounts of the mass murder at Ft. Hood are haunted by the specter of "political correctness."

Faced with a man reportedly yelling "Allahu Akbar!" and mowing down dozens of soldiers on a U.S. military base in Texas, journalists at mainstream news organizations and left-wing bloggers were nearly unanimous in promoting explanations that allowed them to ignore the suspect's religious and political beliefs.

In an article that was widely echoed in other newspapers and broadcasts, Erica Goode of The New York Times explained Sunday that the alleged killer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was a victim of "post-traumatic stress disorder" even before he had "experienced the reality of war."...
 
Fact - Hasan had been spewing anti-Iraq war sentiments and condoning suicide bombings
Fact - Hasan did have business cards which identified him as a "soldier of Allah"
Fact - FBI is now investigating whether Hasan wired money to Pakistan militants.
Fact - Hasan communicated by email with a radical imama with possible ties to Al Queda and who has now referred to Hasan as a hero and urged other muslims to "follow in his footsteps"
Fact - Hasan attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists
Fact - Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" while opening fire

How many facts do we need before we are able to draw conclusions?
 
It's still an opinion, Eve. I like what she said but she ignored the right wing blogs that seek out to attack Muslims and link them to terrorism.
 
I don't think we are attacking ALL muslims (just the militants....just as I would attack Christian militants who bomb abortion clinics), nor are we linking ALL muslims to terrorism (just the militant ones who vocally condone suicide bombings and then open fire on 40 some-odd people while yelling "Allahu Akbar"). This is about Hasan and anyone who wishes to "follow in his footsteps".
 
Who stated that him not being a terrorist is a fact?

The fact is... he opened up fire on his co-workers after 8 years of trying to get out of the army. He killed 13 adults, and one of them happened to be a pregnant woman.

We're just saying-- he may not be a terrorist. He may be one, but however his behaviour doesn't fit the typical domestic terrorism, but more along the line of the Virginia Tech or Columbine (especially in regard to how people planned it out and spoke about their intents prior to the shootings.)

mmm, I see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I believe I mentioned that it seemed more like something along the lines of the Texas Tower murderer earlier in this thread but Va Teach and Columbine are more recent examples as well.
 
Fact - Hasan had been spewing anti-Iraq war sentiments and condoning suicide bombings
Fact - Hasan did have business cards which identified him as a "soldier of Allah"
Fact - FBI is now investigating whether Hasan wired money to Pakistan militants.
Fact - Hasan communicated by email with a radical imama with possible ties to Al Queda and who has now referred to Hasan as a hero and urged other muslims to "follow in his footsteps"
Fact - Hasan attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists
Fact - Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" while opening fire

How many facts do we need before we are able to draw conclusions?

Fact 1 = i am against iraq war and that makes me a terrorist?

Fact 2 = many Christian soldiers call themselves "solder of God"

Fact 3 = FBI *is investigating* - it doesn't make it true. Just because it's investigating doesn't mean it actually happened.

Fact 4 = communicating with radicals does not make one a terrorist. I communicate with radicals like Kokonut and it doesn't mean that I share with his ideas

Fact 5 = going to a same church with a terrorist doesn't make you a terrorist just like going to Catholic Church doesn't make you a pedophile

Fact 6 = soldiers have shouted God is glory or God is great many times, are they terrorists?
 
There are just too many facts pointing toward terrorism for the idea to be so simply dismissed.
 
Fact 1 = i am against iraq war and that makes me a terrorist?
It wasn't that he was against war, itself, but what he perceived as a war on Islam. That alone would not be enough to say he is a terrorist, but that accompanied by other facts lends to this belief. He was obviously no pacifist or he wouldn't have joined the Army, much less killed 13 and injured 31.

Fact 2 = many Christian soldiers call themselves "solder of God"
Again, this only lends credence to the fact that religion played an aspect in the reason behind his attack

Fact 3 = FBI *is investigating* - it doesn't make it true. Just because it's investigating doesn't mean it actually happened.
I doubt this would have been brought up at all, if it weren't something that had occurred. They are also "investigating" Hasan's attack. Does this mean it didnt happen? Try telling that to the 44 people he fired upon and their families.

Fact 4 = communicating with radicals does not make one a terrorist. I communicate with radicals like Kokonut and it doesn't mean that I share with his ideas
These weren't benign communications. This was the imam of his own mosque, one with radical ideas he shared with Hasan.

Fact 5 = going to a same church with a terrorist doesn't make you a terrorist just like going to Catholic Church doesn't make you a pedophile
No, but again, too many circumstances to be overlooked.

Fact 6 = soldiers have shouted God is glory or God is great many times, are they terrorists?
It depends on what their intentions were when they yelled it. In this instance, Allahu Akbar is generally used as a war cry. Who was Hasan at war with?
 
There are just too many facts pointing toward terrorism for the idea to be so simply dismissed.

If you're a Christian and you go mad and shoot people, I could easily make those same "facts" and link them to portray you as a Christian terrorist. Just sayin! :)
 
If you're a Christian and you go mad and shoot people, I could easily make those same "facts" and link them to portray you as a Christian terrorist. Just sayin! :)

lol IF I were to go mad and open fire on a large group of people because I felt they were at war with my religion and I shouted "God is Great" based on those beliefs, then yes, I would be a Christian terrorist, just as I believe Hasan to be a militant Islamic terrorist.
 
"It wasn't that he was against war, itself, but what he perceived as a war on Islam."

It could be the way HE PERCEIVED (and probably so but that's just an assumption) but remember, many Muslims are waging war against Muslims in the Middle East as well so for him to say that the war we're having now is a war against Islam is just a lame excuse on his part.
 
Fact - Hasan had been spewing anti-Iraq war sentiments and condoning suicide bombings
Fact - Hasan did have business cards which identified him as a "soldier of Allah"
Fact - FBI is now investigating whether Hasan wired money to Pakistan militants.
Fact - Hasan communicated by email with a radical imama with possible ties to Al Queda and who has now referred to Hasan as a hero and urged other muslims to "follow in his footsteps"
Fact - Hasan attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists
Fact - Hasan yelled out "Allahu Akbar" while opening fire

How many facts do we need before we are able to draw conclusions?

The only thing we can conclude from these facts is that he had sympathies toward those who had terrorist tendenices based on what is known to us. I believe the context behind allahu akbar has been pointed earlier in this thread.

There's not too many mosques around so it's not as far fetched as it may seem for him to attend the same mosque as two known terrorists.

From what I've seen so far, terrorists bomb places an people and everything that I see so far seems more like mass murder than an act of terrorism.. 9/11 clearly was an act of terrorism and there never was any dispute of that.

I'm sure that few would disagree with me that he should pay for this crime.
 
So what prevents Seung-Hui Cho from being an atheist terrorist?

He did threaten everyone who was a Christian should die... and so on...
 
deafskeptic said:
I'm sure that few would disagree with me that he should pay for this crime.
This seems to be the only point on which we do agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top