Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[CurveLight]

You had to ignore the civilian killed and the others injured to get there though. Fail.

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

Okay, so you entered this discussion at post #315, followed by 322, 327, 329, 330, 334, 335, 336, 340, 343, 346, 349, 353, 357, 360, 367, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 423, 424, 429, 430, 431 and then 435. Never once did you use the term "primary target", until post 435. Face it you ignored the civilians because it puts a hole in your little theory. By the by, please list "military installations" we have hit in Afghanistan with civilian deaths. Your going to have to include caves and mud houses to stretch that one. Fourty-one posts and you still are losig the terrorism debate.

What the ****? I never ignored civilians and this is not the only thread on the shooting I've posted in. What the **** is your malfunction in not understanding my position? How the hell does one dead civilian blow a hole in my theory einstein?
Then you create some genius question about military installations in afghanistan?

I'm going to state it one more time:

When we attack military targets we dismiss any and all civilian deaths as collateral damage and we never label our actions as "terrorism."

This hasan asshole chose a military target yet and 95% of the dead are Soldiers but people want to label it as terrorism. It's ******* hypocrisy.


Somebody posted an opinion from the nyt saying we drop leaflets and announce on loudspeakers we are going to attack to give civilians a chance to get away. Who the **** buys that dumb shit? Do you really think our military fights in a way to give enemies a chance to get away so they won't get killed? ******* retarded!

"Hey bad guys! Here we come. Stay right where you are and don't leave and hide."

 

[CurveLight]

Tried to turn his patients in for 'war crimes':

Hasan Wanted Soldiers Prosecuted, Officials Said - ABC News

Officials: Major Hasan Sought 'War Crimes' Prosecution of U.S. Soldiers
Rebuffed, Accused Fort Hood Shooter Took Extra Target Practice, Closed Bank Safety Deposit Box in Final Days, Investigators Say
By JOSEPH RHEE, MARY-ROSE ABRAHAM, ANNA SCHECTER, and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 16, 2009

Major Nidal Malik Hasan's military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to "war crimes" during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials.

FBI says Maj. Hasan grew frustrated over his belief of Army harboring criminals.

On Nov. 4, the day after his last attempt to raise the issue, he took extra target practice at Stan's shooting range in nearby Florence, Texas and then closed a safe deposit box he had at a Bank of America branch in Killeen, according to the reports. A bank employee told investigators Hasan appeared nervous and said, "You'll never see me again."...

Yep. No indication his primary target was soldiers! Geez......

 

[MajikMyst]

I am really not sure I understand how this debate about it being terrorism came to be?? The reason he did it was he was trying to commit suicide by military police.. He didn't want to go to Afghanistan and be placed in a situation to fight against his fellow muslims.. I can understand that to a degree.. How many jewish people in our military wouldn't want to fight against Isreal?? Would you Christians want to fight against other Christians??

There is no terrorism here.. Just a sick man trying to prevent himself from being forced to fight a war he doesn't want to fight..

If he were a terrorist.. He would have done something other than walk into a croweded room with a hand gun.. A few granades come to mind.. Terrorists want to kill as many as they can.. He certianly didn't use any method to kill as many as he could.. He didn't even use an assault rifle..

Now stop this nonsense.. He is a murderer.. Plain and simple.. Just because he happens to be muslim doesn't mean it is terrorism.. I suppose we could say the same for every christian that commits murder.. Or are you morons going to claim a double standard??

 

[Annie]

I am really not sure I understand how this debate about it being terrorism came to be?? The reason he did it was he was trying to commit suicide by military police.. He didn't want to go to Afghanistan and be placed in a situation to fight against his fellow muslims.. I can understand that to a degree.. How many jewish people in our military wouldn't want to fight against Isreal?? Would you Christians want to fight against other Christians??

There is no terrorism here.. Just a sick man trying to prevent himself from being forced to fight a war he doesn't want to fight..

If he were a terrorist.. He would have done something other than walk into a croweded room with a hand gun.. A few granades come to mind.. Terrorists want to kill as many as they can.. He certianly didn't use any method to kill as many as he could.. He didn't even use an assault rifle..

Now stop this nonsense.. He is a murderer.. Plain and simple.. Just because he happens to be muslim doesn't mean it is terrorism.. I suppose we could say the same for every christian that commits murder.. Or are you morons going to claim a double standard??

No!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nope there would still be no debate - it STILL would not be an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the definition because of the targets - the METHOD doesn't mean squat in terms of defining it as an act of terrorism.

You can try to ignore the definition and proclaim "I am right" until you are blue in the face. THAT doesn't make you correct in labeling this an act of terrorism either.

What the guy did (allegedy) was a deplorable, reprehensible act that (IMHO) deserves the most severe punishment we can dish out.

But it wasn't an act of terrorism - even if the guy turns out to be a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, that doesn't change the definition. THIS was not an act of terrorism.

So....what terrorist group did Tim McVeigh belong to?

Answer: Liberal Aholes

Yes of course, McVeigh was SUCH a liberal.

 

[Intense]

I am really not sure I understand how this debate about it being terrorism came to be?? The reason he did it was he was trying to commit suicide by military police.. He didn't want to go to Afghanistan and be placed in a situation to fight against his fellow muslims.. I can understand that to a degree.. How many jewish people in our military wouldn't want to fight against Isreal?? Would you Christians want to fight against other Christians??

There is no terrorism here.. Just a sick man trying to prevent himself from being forced to fight a war he doesn't want to fight..

If he were a terrorist.. He would have done something other than walk into a croweded room with a hand gun.. A few granades come to mind.. Terrorists want to kill as many as they can.. He certianly didn't use any method to kill as many as he could.. He didn't even use an assault rifle..

Now stop this nonsense.. He is a murderer.. Plain and simple.. Just because he happens to be muslim doesn't mean it is terrorism.. I suppose we could say the same for every christian that commits murder.. Or are you morons going to claim a double standard??

No!

Annie, They have a point, They are Right, He is Not a Terrorist, He is an Illegal Combatant, in Violation of The Geneva Convention and The Uniform Code Of Military Justice. He should Forfeit Trial and Be Shot at Our Earliest Convenience.

Thank You Guys so much for bringing Us to where we now find Ourselves!!!!!!!

 

[saveliberty]

Oh boy. The civilians were not ignored. I said his primary target were active duty soldiers on a military base. When we hit a military installation we call any civilian deaths "collateral damage" and other bullshit terms. But here some are trying to label it simply as terrorism.

Okay, so you entered this discussion at post #315, followed by 322, 327, 329, 330, 334, 335, 336, 340, 343, 346, 349, 353, 357, 360, 367, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 423, 424, 429, 430, 431 and then 435. Never once did you use the term "primary target", until post 435. Face it you ignored the civilians because it puts a hole in your little theory. By the by, please list "military installations" we have hit in Afghanistan with civilian deaths. Your going to have to include caves and mud houses to stretch that one. Fourty-one posts and you still are losig the terrorism debate.

What the ****? I never ignored civilians and this is not the only thread on the shooting I've posted in. What the **** is your malfunction in not understanding my position? How the hell does one dead civilian blow a hole in my theory einstein?
Then you create some genius question about military installations in afghanistan?

I'm going to state it one more time:

When we attack military targets we dismiss any and all civilian deaths as collateral damage and we never label our actions as "terrorism."

This hasan asshole chose a military target yet and 95% of the dead are Soldiers but people want to label it as terrorism. It's ******* hypocrisy.


Somebody posted an opinion from the nyt saying we drop leaflets and announce on loudspeakers we are going to attack to give civilians a chance to get away. Who the **** buys that dumb shit? Do you really think our military fights in a way to give enemies a chance to get away so they won't get killed? ******* retarded!

"Hey bad guys! Here we come. Stay right where you are and don't leave and hide."

I see you figured out military installations as a poor choice of terms. You used in your first quoted posts, but dropped it in favor of military target in the last. Reframing the terms doesn't help your position.

Terrorism happens outside of a war situation. Collateral damage happens in a war zone. I understand the argument you are attempting. I just think it is totally wrong. You never mentioned civilian deaths in any of your posts except two, when confronted about your oversight.

 

[saveliberty]

I am really not sure I understand how this debate about it being terrorism came to be?? The reason he did it was he was trying to commit suicide by military police.. He didn't want to go to Afghanistan and be placed in a situation to fight against his fellow muslims.. I can understand that to a degree.. How many jewish people in our military wouldn't want to fight against Isreal?? Would you Christians want to fight against other Christians??

There is no terrorism here.. Just a sick man trying to prevent himself from being forced to fight a war he doesn't want to fight..

If he were a terrorist.. He would have done something other than walk into a croweded room with a hand gun.. A few granades come to mind.. Terrorists want to kill as many as they can.. He certianly didn't use any method to kill as many as he could.. He didn't even use an assault rifle..

Now stop this nonsense.. He is a murderer.. Plain and simple.. Just because he happens to be muslim doesn't mean it is terrorism.. I suppose we could say the same for every christian that commits murder.. Or are you morons going to claim a double standard??

You were right in the beginning. You are not sure. Suicide by cop, please. You need two guns and multiple clips to do that? You fire at fifty to sixty people at close range? Taking other people's lives was definitely part of the plan.

BY your definition thirteen dead can't be a terrorist act, because not enough people died. You are a total whack job.

 

[Intense]

Illegal Combatant!!! War Criminal!!! Firing Squad!!! Bang Bang!!! Next!!!!

 

[CurveLight]

Okay, so you entered this discussion at post #315, followed by 322, 327, 329, 330, 334, 335, 336, 340, 343, 346, 349, 353, 357, 360, 367, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 423, 424, 429, 430, 431 and then 435. Never once did you use the term "primary target", until post 435. Face it you ignored the civilians because it puts a hole in your little theory. By the by, please list "military installations" we have hit in Afghanistan with civilian deaths. Your going to have to include caves and mud houses to stretch that one. Fourty-one posts and you still are losig the terrorism debate.

What the ****? I never ignored civilians and this is not the only thread on the shooting I've posted in. What the **** is your malfunction in not understanding my position? How the hell does one dead civilian blow a hole in my theory einstein?
Then you create some genius question about military installations in afghanistan?

I'm going to state it one more time:

When we attack military targets we dismiss any and all civilian deaths as collateral damage and we never label our actions as "terrorism."

This hasan asshole chose a military target yet and 95% of the dead are Soldiers but people want to label it as terrorism. It's ******* hypocrisy.


Somebody posted an opinion from the nyt saying we drop leaflets and announce on loudspeakers we are going to attack to give civilians a chance to get away. Who the **** buys that dumb shit? Do you really think our military fights in a way to give enemies a chance to get away so they won't get killed? ******* retarded!

"Hey bad guys! Here we come. Stay right where you are and don't leave and hide."

I see you figured out military installations as a poor choice of terms. You used in your first quoted posts, but dropped it in favor of military target in the last. Reframing the terms doesn't help your position.

Terrorism happens outside of a war situation. Collateral damage happens in a war zone. I understand the argument you are attempting. I just think it is totally wrong. You never mentioned civilian deaths in any of your posts except two, when confronted about your oversight.

You're trying to respond to my claim by ignoring the whole of the position and trying to ignore it by some really ******* silly nitpicking so I don't care what you think or say. You can't even explain how the dead civilian blows a whole in my "theory." most people can see my position so if you want to keep splitting hairs you'll be doing it in vain.

 

[saveliberty]

What the ****? I never ignored civilians and this is not the only thread on the shooting I've posted in. What the **** is your malfunction in not understanding my position? How the hell does one dead civilian blow a hole in my theory einstein?
Then you create some genius question about military installations in afghanistan?

I'm going to state it one more time:

When we attack military targets we dismiss any and all civilian deaths as collateral damage and we never label our actions as "terrorism."

This hasan asshole chose a military target yet and 95% of the dead are Soldiers but people want to label it as terrorism. It's ******* hypocrisy.


Somebody posted an opinion from the nyt saying we drop leaflets and announce on loudspeakers we are going to attack to give civilians a chance to get away. Who the **** buys that dumb shit? Do you really think our military fights in a way to give enemies a chance to get away so they won't get killed? ******* retarded!

"Hey bad guys! Here we come. Stay right where you are and don't leave and hide."

I see you figured out military installations as a poor choice of terms. You used in your first quoted posts, but dropped it in favor of military target in the last. Reframing the terms doesn't help your position.

Terrorism happens outside of a war situation. Collateral damage happens in a war zone. I understand the argument you are attempting. I just think it is totally wrong. You never mentioned civilian deaths in any of your posts except two, when confronted about your oversight.

You're trying to respond to my claim by ignoring the whole of the position and trying to ignore it by some really ******* silly nitpicking so I don't care what you think or say. You can't even explain how the dead civilian blows a whole in my "theory." most people can see my position so if you want to keep splitting hairs you'll be doing it in vain.

Your whole position is ridiculous. It was a terrorist attack period. You tried to hide behind the fact military personnel were attacked. You lose. Then you tried to deflect the discussion by talking about military actions in a war zone. No traction there either. SInce you don't care about my position I look forward to no response from you on this post.

 

[CurveLight]

I see you figured out military installations as a poor choice of terms. You used in your first quoted posts, but dropped it in favor of military target in the last. Reframing the terms doesn't help your position.

Terrorism happens outside of a war situation. Collateral damage happens in a war zone. I understand the argument you are attempting. I just think it is totally wrong. You never mentioned civilian deaths in any of your posts except two, when confronted about your oversight.

You're trying to respond to my claim by ignoring the whole of the position and trying to ignore it by some really ******* silly nitpicking so I don't care what you think or say. You can't even explain how the dead civilian blows a whole in my "theory." most people can see my position so if you want to keep splitting hairs you'll be doing it in vain.

Your whole position is ridiculous. It was a terrorist attack period. You tried to hide behind the fact military personnel were attacked. You lose. Then you tried to deflect the discussion by talking about military actions in a war zone. No traction there either. SInce you don't care about my position I look forward to no response from you on this post.

If an active duty uniformed, albeit crazy, soldier attacking other active duty uniformed soldiers qualifies as a terrorist attack then all hostilities between uniformed soldiers must also be terrorism.

 

[saveliberty]

You're trying to respond to my claim by ignoring the whole of the position and trying to ignore it by some really ******* silly nitpicking so I don't care what you think or say. You can't even explain how the dead civilian blows a whole in my "theory." most people can see my position so if you want to keep splitting hairs you'll be doing it in vain.

Your whole position is ridiculous. It was a terrorist attack period. You tried to hide behind the fact military personnel were attacked. You lose. Then you tried to deflect the discussion by talking about military actions in a war zone. No traction there either. SInce you don't care about my position I look forward to no response from you on this post.

If an active duty uniformed, albeit crazy, soldier attacking other active duty uniformed soldiers qualifies as a terrorist attack then all hostilities between uniformed soldiers must also be terrorism.

You missed:

1. Soldier of Allah on business cards.
2. Yelling, "Allah Akbar", as you jump on a table and start firing.
3. Contact with Muslim extremists.
4. Your targets are unarmed
5. You kill and injure civilians in the atttack (yes, that one is back again).

Interesting how my comments were meaningless to you, but you felt compelled to respond.

 

[drsmith1072]

That is the reason for the OP.

So do you admit that you are applying it because you want it to reflect on him?? After all you brought in the opinion of dick morris to try and blame obama for this incident so it's only natural to believe that is your intent. If that is not the case could you clarify your intent?

obama's watch...obama's fault.....just trying to be consistant pres to pres....

IF the righties were HONEST and consistent then based on how they used the "it's his watch, it's his fault" argument when clinton was presdient then they would have applied that same standard to W. However, the fact is that the right did NOT apply that same standard to W and now that a dem is in office they are once again flip flopping and showing how truly hypocrtiical and inconsistent they are.

 

[drsmith1072]

Wow, you are quick!

In no time at all you read the post, analyzed the language, put two and two together...and almost figured out what I said!

Did you miss "... a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that..."?

Next time bust out that dust covered Collegiate Dictionary and check out the meaning of 'theory."
See, it's a theory, one which connects many of the events in recent days, 'theory'- that's why "It's your call." Duh.

Now, here is another of your problems: "when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them?"

An understanding of this OP requires that one that one was immersed in the series of events, and followed the myriad posts outlining the statements of fellow students in medical school about outburst by the Major, the FBI's admission that they knew he tried to contact Al Qaeda, his PowerPoint presentation about Islam, Muslims, and the military, etc.

See, these are 'Red Flags.'

"...you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president..."
Wrong. I am clearly stating a persuasive theory, and if you had the intellect, you would parry my thrust by outlining a counter-theory that would connect the dots, i.e. all of the MSM coming up with the same concept, as an alternative.

Instead, you are reduced to something along the lines of 'you meany, you just don't like the President..."

So, you blew it. Today could have been your annual 'smart day.'

So that's the best excuse that you have to offer for trying to blame obama for this massacre?? Oh and another funny thing is that in all of your spin based response I don't see an answer to the question that I asked concerning your "theory" based accusation. Instead you present spin and BS avoiding substantiating YOUR own claims by hiding behind what you claim has been discussed in other threads. I wonder why??

Fact is that you presented an unsubstantiated OPINION based on the OPINIONS of dick morris and calling it a theory as you try to spin this and blame obama doesn't make it valid. If you were as smart as you pretend to be you would have known that already.

I suggest you post in your native language.

1. I have not suggested that President Obama is responsible for this horrendous act.

Uh yeah you did and you did so with this comment.

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

You made a few comments about your new attitude and then presented this in attempt to assign blame to obama.

Perhaps you should focus more on your own lack of understanding of the english language and stop trying to insult others for calling you out for your inept and dishoenst arguments?

2. I am suggesting that the milieu he has put forward, the anti-Bush attitude toward terrorism is a factor in not acting swiftly in the pursuit of terrorism and terrorists.

Actually based on what you said it had NOTHING to do with acting swiftly and more to do with assigning blame against obama based on dick morris' opinions on this "new attitude."

3. "unsubstantiated OPINION..." I demand a definition. In English, please.

LOL So you attack my understanding of english and then ask me to define a simple term for you. LOL that's hilarious.

4. Try to make it like this: theory-: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

What facts are you talking about?? In your OP you didn't provide any links or anything to substantiate you claims so once again, calling your OPINIONS a theory does not provide any validity to your claims.
The funny thing is that you demand proof from others and that others prove your argument in the OP to be flawed when you failed to provide anything of substance to back up the OPINIONS that you presented in the OP. Other posters even called you out for not providing proof of your claims and your response was to attack them personally like you did "NYcarbineer" who asked you to provide some proof.

5. "...substantiating YOUR own claims ..." To which claims are you referring?

read the posts, there are several that you "skipped" and other posters asked you for similar and you failed to substantiate your claims in those instances too.

6. Assuming that you are male, to what features or aspects of the Obama regime do you attribute your man-crush?

aw look at that, you present a flawed and failed argument and your only response is to dodge and avoid questions that you don't want to answer as you lash out and attack those who dare to question your OPINIONS.

 

[drsmith1072]

A lot of silly bastards are again making the rounds in this thread i see.

Maj Jihadi committed an act of TERRORISM, no matter how much you want it not to be:

•S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

WordNet Search - 3.0

So can we stop the Clintonain bullshit of trying to say what 'is' is?

How would you define "calculated use of violence" and what were his goals "politically or religious or idealogical"?

Go split hairs somewhere else Junior, you bore me.

Wow, so you can't even answer a few simple questions in order to substantiate your own arguments. Imagine that.

 

[Intense]

So do you admit that you are applying it because you want it to reflect on him?? After all you brought in the opinion of dick morris to try and blame obama for this incident so it's only natural to believe that is your intent. If that is not the case could you clarify your intent?

obama's watch...obama's fault.....just trying to be consistant pres to pres....

IF the righties were HONEST and consistent then based on how they used the "it's his watch, it's his fault" argument when clinton was presdient then they would have applied that same standard to W. However, the fact is that the right did NOT apply that same standard to W and now that a dem is in office they are once again flip flopping and showing how truly hypocrtiical and inconsistent they are.

Golly Gee Wizz is it OK to blame the CIC for the PC and the tone it creates? What Think You OP? Is the PC tone different under the DNC than it was under the RNC? Did the PC tone effect the Abilities involved? Was the DOD effected differently under DNC rule, or is this PC an excuse and are the RNC Hypocritical.

AAAAAA the Association for the Abolition of Abused Abbreviations and Asinine Acronyms
Military Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations

 

[drsmith1072]

Let me share with my fellow board members a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...
1. Major Hasan was just a ‘nut,’ and his actions were not related to Islamofascist terrorism
2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…
3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’
4. It's all those right-wingers...

Here is the real skinny’
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
2. We had to rely on the British press to find out Major Hasans outbursts and links to terrorists.
3. Red-flags as to the dangers posed by this individual were buried based on a fear of being painted with the red letter “R” for racist.

Here is Dick Morris’ analysis, one which ties together both sets of bullet-points:

A major criticism of both Candidate Obama and of President Obama was that his attitude and actions with respect to protecting this country form Moslem terrorism was both the laxity and use of the power of government to investigate and restrict, vis-à-vis the Bush Administration.
1. Close Gitmo
2. Make nice with captured terrorists
3. Pressure interrogators to restrict investigations
4. Create the atmosphere that makes citizens reluctant to question any 'strange' activities

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

It's your call.

LOL It's funny how you end your spin and propaganda with "it's your call" when you had already prepped your counter insult and attack if the reader didn't agree with your spin. oh and since you went there when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them??

The sad thing is that you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president while you are apparently out to blame him based on your spin from dick morris when you have presented no factual evidence to support your OPINIONS.

^^^^^ one of the cave guys

Says the cave dwelling hack still quoting the "21%" comment from an old poll that showed republicans still losing when independents where pressed to choose between democrat and republican. LOL

 

[CurveLight]

Your whole position is ridiculous. It was a terrorist attack period. You tried to hide behind the fact military personnel were attacked. You lose. Then you tried to deflect the discussion by talking about military actions in a war zone. No traction there either. SInce you don't care about my position I look forward to no response from you on this post.

If an active duty uniformed, albeit crazy, soldier attacking other active duty uniformed soldiers qualifies as a terrorist attack then all hostilities between uniformed soldiers must also be terrorism.

You missed:

1. Soldier of Allah on business cards.
2. Yelling, "Allah Akbar", as you jump on a table and start firing.
3. Contact with Muslim extremists.
4. Your targets are unarmed
5. You kill and injure civilians in the atttack (yes, that one is back again).

Interesting how my comments were meaningless to you, but you felt compelled to respond.

Conjecture and guessing aside....a uniformed soldier......never mind.

 

[saveliberty]

If an active duty uniformed, albeit crazy, soldier attacking other active duty uniformed soldiers qualifies as a terrorist attack then all hostilities between uniformed soldiers must also be terrorism.

You missed:

1. Soldier of Allah on business cards.
2. Yelling, "Allah Akbar", as you jump on a table and start firing.
3. Contact with Muslim extremists.
4. Your targets are unarmed
5. You kill and injure civilians in the atttack (yes, that one is back again).

Interesting how my comments were meaningless to you, but you felt compelled to respond.

Conjecture and guessing aside....a uniformed soldier......never mind.

Points one through five are confirmed. You choose to see them as conjecture and guessing, because it fits your view, not reality. I'd believe the never mind comment, but some how I just don't think you can leave it alone.