FORT HOOD: Now that I took Obama's advice and didn't jump to conclusions I think.....

[nodoginnafight]

Did this guy really go to Virginia Tech - REALLY? Is there something in the water there?

 

[Misty]

He may have been harrassed because by all accounts he was a religious zealot extremist. For islam, in touch with al Qaida. And funneling money to al Qaida.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did this guy really go to Virginia Tech - REALLY? Is there something in the water there?

Indeed!!! V-Tech instills violence in people I guess considering all the people who went there that have done crazy crap over the last few years.

I dont really think V-Tech is out there preaching violence BTW .

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's not an act of terrorism. It MAY wind up being the act of a terrorist - but THIS was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.

("2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

What he did was a reprehensible, indefensible act. But every deplorable act isn't terrorim.

those soldiers were noncombatant at the time they were shot. Hence act of terrorism.

well no - you don't have to actually be shooting your weapon at that exact instant to qualify as a "combatant." But this issue has already been resolved. See, my definition of terrorism is found in the law that directs the state department in how THEY are to define terrorism.

Patek came up with the law that defines terrorism in the U.S. criminal code. And since the attack took place on U.S. soil, I agreed that the U.S. Criminal code is the more appropriate definition to apply. The U.S. Criminal Code defitnition doesn't include the section about "noncombatants."

And now we have found out for sure that he is being charged with murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which has no definition of terrorism that I can find.

Anyway - the crux is that I have withdrawn my objection to the use of the term terrorism being applied that I based on the inappropriate definition.

 

[jillian]

I feel this may have actually been a terrorist attack. I've had several days now to process all the different facts and opinions in relation to fort hood and in light of everything I think this guy actually intended to use violence for a political purpose to intimidate his fellow US soldiers that were deploying to fight against people of Muslim faith.

I know I know I was bitching and moaning at all of you who were saying this the day it happened and the day after but I didn't like how everyone just immediately jumped to that conclusion.

I've had time to look at what happened and look at the stuff the shooter actually said and posted on-line and it does seem like "terrorism" For purposes of this discussion I will include the definition of terrorism below from dictionary.com

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorizing.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm not saying he did it because he was a Muslim. I still hold to my position that he did this because he is a psychopathic a-hole. However, it does appear to be at the least politically (internally within the base) motivated shooting that was done to make a statement and instill fear into people.

I think it's pretty clear that the guy was both a psychopathic freak AND acted for political purpose.

But terrorist attack? Hmmmmmmmmmm... I have always defined, and seen terrorism defined as an attack on civilians for political purpose. It's my understanding that if it's an attack on military interests, that wouldn't fit the definition of terrorism.

So an attack? Check.
By a nutter? Check
For political purpose? Check.

But not on civilian target... it's a military target.

Doesn't make it better, but it does mean it doesn't fit the traditional definition of terrorism.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm NOT saying a word

Paaateeek .....

 

[Emma]

Did this guy really go to Virginia Tech - REALLY? Is there something in the water there?

Indeed!!! V-Tech instills violence in people I guess considering all the people who went there that have done crazy crap over the last few years.

I dont really think V-Tech is out there preaching violence BTW .

Y'all need to keep up. Sheesh.

Ft. Hood Killer part of Government Mind Control Program

The Ft. Hood killer is Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Virginia Tech graduate.
Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui ChoSeung-Hui Cho killed 32 students at Virginia Tech, then himself, in April of 2007.
Cathy O'Brien claims to have been a victim of a U.S. Government mind control program operating in a secret facility near Blacksburg, Virginia, home of Virginia Tech.
Cathy O'Brien wrote a book about this in 1995 entitled TRANCE-FORMATION of AMERICA. She claims Virginia Tech is good for two things, engineering and mind control. She adds that most of the mind control experimentation being conducted on the east coast of the United States is being performed from this secret underground facility near Blacksburg, Virginia.
This mind control program is run by DARPA, an agency of the Department of Defense responsible for the develpoment of new technology for use by the military. Developing Manchurian Candidates seems to be an important part of their agenda.
DARPA is an acronym meaning Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Supposedly you can use Google Earth to find the approximate location of this secret underground facility. Type in the words "Kimballton Mine Blacksburg Virginia"
or try typing in the words "DUSEL Blacksburg". DUSEL is an acronym meaning Deep Underground Science Engineering Laboratory.
You can also Google the MK ULTRA project and learn more about the mind control programs the U.S. Government has been working on ever since the Philadelphia Experiment went horribly wrong in the 1940's.

Allvoices.com - Ft. Hood Killer part of Government Mind Control...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thanks for your input Jillian, I owe a bunch of you rep now.

especially you emma, that last post EOTS here we come

 

[Article 15]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

My opinion is if it look's like a dog, and barks like a dog, it's a dog. Course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions like Obama did when he pre-judged that Cop and then invited him over for some cold suds. ~BH

 

[jillian]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

I think he acted alone, too.

I also think he was influenced by other nutters who think just like him.

As for the terrorism issue, I would contend that if the target is military, it isn't terrorism. Terrorism is defined as:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet Search - 3.0

We need to differentiate between terrorism and guerilla warfare... and traditional warfare. The only reason people are attaching the word terrorism to this loon is the fact that he is a Muslim and yelled "Allah Akbar". Was the loon on the LIRR, Colin Ferguson, a terrorist?

 

[jillian]

My opinion is if it look's like a dog, and barks like a dog, it's a dog. Course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions like Obama did when he pre-judged that Cop and then invited him over for some cold suds. ~BH

You can have whatever opinion you want. But words have meaning.

Chaging those meanings because you feel like?

Puleeze...

And as for the unnecessary and stupid snipe...

piss off.

and I say that in the nicest possible way.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

We were discussing that before and were trying to figure out if them not being on active duty made a difference.

What did we all agree on again guys? Did we decide it was domestic terrorism or was it just that he was a doucebag traitor?

 

[AllieBaba]

Lots of terrorists act alone. THey do it at the urging of imams who tell them they'll go to paradise if they'll take out targets...military AND civilian.

 

[Article 15]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

We were discussing that before and were trying to figure out if them not being on active duty made a difference.

What did we all agree on again guys? Did we decide it was domestic terrorism or was it just that he was a doucebag traitor?

Whether they were active duty or not is irrelevant, IMO. They were getting prepared to deploy.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

My opinion is if it look's like a dog, and barks like a dog, it's a dog. Course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions like Obama did when he pre-judged that Cop and then invited him over for some cold suds. ~BH

You can have whatever opinion you want. But words have meaning.

Chaging those meanings because you feel like?

Puleeze...

And as for the unnecessary and stupid snipe...

piss off.

and I say that in the nicest possible way.

What the hell are you babbling about now? ~BH

 

[Harry Dresden]

Now, this piece of waste will be tried, convicted and executed. If I had my way he'd be dipped in a vat of pigs blood first, then wrapped in the carcass of a dead pig, and buried in a pile of heavily used feminine napkins. He is the scum of the earth.

wow i take it you dont like this dirtbag to much....

 

[Emma]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

I think he acted alone, too.

I also think he was influenced by other nutters who think just like him.

As for the terrorism issue, I would contend that if the target is military, it isn't terrorism. Terrorism is defined as:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet Search - 3.0

We need to differentiate between terrorism and guerilla warfare... and traditional warfare. The only reason people are attaching the word terrorism to this loon is the fact that he is a Muslim and yelled "Allah Akbar". Was the loon on the LIRR, Colin Ferguson, a terrorist?

I understand what you're saying but I have to disagree with you...

Was the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 not a terrorist act?

 

[saveliberty]

The media doesn't distinguish a suicide bomber in a outdoor market from one who attacks a police headquarters. They are both terrorist attacks.

Not everyone hurt or killled in the attack was military. He did not show civilians or police any different treatment than military personnel.

Why is it so important for some of you to have this NOT be a terrorist attack?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I can understand it being called a terrorist attack even though he attacked a military target ... the guy's motives were pretty clear but without a conspiracy I still think he's a lone nutter.

We were discussing that before and were trying to figure out if them not being on active duty made a difference.

What did we all agree on again guys? Did we decide it was domestic terrorism or was it just that he was a doucebag traitor?

Did not fit the definition that the State Department is instructed by law to use in identifying terrorism; it MAY fit the definition under the U.S. Criminal Code (not enough facts yet to say for certain imho) and that it does fit what a whole lot of people define as terrorism.

But we decided on consensus that he's a murderer and a nutter and that whatever label you attach, he should meet some swift and harsh punishment.

Is that safe to say?