Here's Why The Media Denies it Was 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. :lol:

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.

Curvelight ignores facts that don't fit into his world. But it's ok they understand him there.
 
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.

Curvelight ignores facts that don't fit into his world. But it's ok they understand him there.


Lol.....yep! (couldn't you have spiced up though? I prefer personal insults to have visible effort)

Btw, what do you base that accusation on? Is that when you said hasan was "born a muslim?"
 
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.

Curvelight ignores facts that don't fit into his world. But it's ok they understand him there.


Lol.....yep! (couldn't you have spiced up though? I prefer personal insults to have visible effort)

Btw, what do you base that accusation on? Is that when you said hasan was "born a muslim?"

Yes you actually remember, back when you admitted that you ignored facts. very good.
 
Curvelight ignores facts that don't fit into his world. But it's ok they understand him there.


Lol.....yep! (couldn't you have spiced up though? I prefer personal insults to have visible effort)

Btw, what do you base that accusation on? Is that when you said hasan was "born a muslim?"

Yes you actually remember, back when you admitted that you ignored facts. very good.

It's impossible to be born a muslim.
 
Lol.....yep! (couldn't you have spiced up though? I prefer personal insults to have visible effort)

Btw, what do you base that accusation on? Is that when you said hasan was "born a muslim?"

Yes you actually remember, back when you admitted that you ignored facts. very good.

It's impossible to be born a muslim.


You really are not well read are you?

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

Muslim's believe that all children are born as a Muslim especially their own children.

Major Malik Nadal Hasan was born a Muslim he has been a Muslim his entire life.

Please do try to keep up.

Every Child is Born Muslim
 
Yes you actually remember, back when you admitted that you ignored facts. very good.

It's impossible to be born a muslim.


You really are not well read are you?

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

Muslim's believe that all children are born as a Muslim especially their own children.

Major Malik Nadal Hasan was born a Muslim he has been a Muslim his entire life.

Please do try to keep up.

Every Child is Born Muslim

I did not know you are a practicing Islamic Fundamentalist.
 
What exactly are the options here?

Terrorist.

Enemy Combatant.

Mass Murderer.



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next § 2331. Definitions
How Current is This? As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf


Killing In The Name Of God:
Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda
By Dr. Jeremy Post M.D.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/post.pdf
 
Gotta luv ya Cali. My sentiments exacty.
This guy was in contact with a jihadist in Yemen. Sure the weather wasn't under discussion. He is an American born Muslim and his faith obviously meant more to him than his country or fellow soldiers. I will be interested to see what else investigation will reveal. Was he a nut job? Don't really care. Actions speak louder than words and his actions were those of a terrorist. Hope he burns in hell along with the rest of the terrorists.

I think we should torture him: print all of the foods that he ate that contained pork products and publish the list in Arabic and post it on line, so that all the terrorists know that the same fate will await them if they dare go against us. That will stop that whole virgin thing, they will be contaminated.
 
Terrorism?

Yes.

Organized terrorism? Eh, I think the jury is still out, but leaning towards "no".


The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.


Local cops? LOL

Try Department of Defense Police

You really should actually try reading something about a subject before opening your trap.

Now where would I get the idea it was local police?

"Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley, 34, was doing traffic control in the area when Hasan allegedly began spraying unarmed soldiers with rounds from two pistols.

The civilian cop headed straight for the sound of gunfire."
Fort Hood Officer Kimberly Munley Hailed as Massacre Hero - ABC News


Gee...a civilian cop doing traffic control....hmmm.....let's look at something else.


You were saying something about reading before opening my trap? What was that you said above that I should try "Department of Defense Police?"

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".
Department of Defense Police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude. You are seriously single handedly embarrassing all US Armed Forces. How much money will it take for you to take down that avatar and replace it with something that won't embarrass other Vets? How about:

I LOVE BUSH!

or

CHEESE DOODLES!

or

Jeapardy for Rednecks!
(14th runner up)


Whaddyathink?
 
Had it been a suicide bomb instead of guns, would there be any debate over whether it was a terrorist act?
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?


Could it be.....Satan's?
 
What exactly are the options here?

Terrorist.

Enemy Combatant.

Mass Murderer.



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next § 2331. Definitions
How Current is This? As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf


Killing In The Name Of God:
Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda
By Dr. Jeremy Post M.D.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/post.pdf


Where in all of that hoopla does it show the US running secret prisons is lawful either under national or international law?
 
The only ones involved were active duty soldiers so that means everything our military does is terrorism. I also find it disconcerting that on the largest military base in the US it wasn't prepared to defend itself and had to rely on local cops to stop the attack. Now hush your self righteous cries and listen why I say that: just like we didn't close our borders after 9E this helps show why the WOT is a myth. We are using that phrase to justify our imperialism.


Local cops? LOL

Try Department of Defense Police

You really should actually try reading something about a subject before opening your trap.

Now where would I get the idea it was local police?

"Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley, 34, was doing traffic control in the area when Hasan allegedly began spraying unarmed soldiers with rounds from two pistols.

The civilian cop headed straight for the sound of gunfire."
Fort Hood Officer Kimberly Munley Hailed as Massacre Hero - ABC News


Gee...a civilian cop doing traffic control....hmmm.....let's look at something else.


You were saying something about reading before opening my trap? What was that you said above that I should try "Department of Defense Police?"

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".

There is no such unified agency that goes under the title "Department of Defense Police".
Department of Defense Police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude. You are seriously single handedly embarrassing all US Armed Forces. How much money will it take for you to take down that avatar and replace it with something that won't embarrass other Vets? How about:

I LOVE BUSH!

or

CHEESE DOODLES!

or

Jeapardy for Rednecks!
(14th runner up)


Whaddyathink?

I think you didn't read the link when you looked it up. Damn you make it so easy.

"Department of Defense Police, not to be confused with Pentagon Police, are the uniformed civilian police officers of the United States Department of Defense (such as the Defense Logistics Agency) or various branches of the United States Armed Forces "

From your Link

DUH
 
Honest question:

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

It seems with the first shooter the Right is eager to label him as a terrorist. With the second shooter, the Right was quick to call the guy a nut. Seems to me that both cases are pretty similar.

The difference was 41 people in addition to a single person. Not excusing the shooting, just pointing out that it was 42 times worse (if you think all people are important).
 
What exactly are the options here?

Terrorist.

Enemy Combatant.

Mass Murderer.



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next § 2331. Definitions
How Current is This? As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nationÂ’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf


Killing In The Name Of God:
Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda
By Dr. Jeremy Post M.D.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/post.pdf


Where in all of that hoopla does it show the US running secret prisons is lawful either under national or international law?

Why do You rationalize that to be the reason for the Post? Why do You assume that My Post had Anything at All to do with Secret Prisons, National Law, or International Law, in Relation to Secret Prisons? Are You that Stupid? Is this just an attempt to Hi-Jack and Trash the Post?

What the Post is about, with Supporting References, is Three Perspectives in Relation to the Classification of a Lone Shooter. Each classification describes attributes which a Rational Person might consider, before coming to a conclusion of any kind. I recommend the three links to any sane Person on this thread, for more in depth study.

CurveLight: Where in all of that hoopla does it show the US running secret prisons is lawful either under national or international law?

My first civilized response is to Suggest You start a Thread on the Subject, It is not the issue being discussed here. The second response is to suggest you grow up. I was not attacking you.

You could refocus your destructive energy away from those you fail to cope with, and redirect it to those that target Us All. Just a thought.
 
Does the man's act fit THIS 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


Just plugging up yours ears and shouting nanny-nanny-boo-boo doesn't change the definition. And honestly, some of you folks who I have previously held in high regard doing just that, is very disappointing.

I have to wonder why?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring the definition? Your posts seem to make your agenda clear - the fact that you'll toss aside fact so easily in an effort to promote your agenda doesn't enhance credibility.

Possibly. It may fit the definition. I would add Religious Motive, or include that under Political.

Did the Administration and It's Policies obstruct the realization that this man was a Threat?
We need more free flow of information.

With islam, politics and religion are blurred together.
 
Honest question:

What's the difference between the Fort Hood Shooter, and the guy who shot the Abortion Doctor at a church?

It seems with the first shooter the Right is eager to label him as a terrorist. With the second shooter, the Right was quick to call the guy a nut. Seems to me that both cases are pretty similar.

The difference was 41 people in addition to a single person. Not excusing the shooting, just pointing out that it was 42 times worse (if you think all people are important).

Interesting perspective Dr. Traveler, there are similarities, yet one major difference is The Fort Hood Shooter will be praised by many that Would kill Us given half a chance. The Dr. Killer will be praised by very few. His actions were not acceptable or condoned by Our Society.
The Fort Hood Shooter seeks Martyrdom.

Logical4u, The Dr. Killer managed to contain His rage, limiting it to one victim. Had He struck at the Clinic, who knows how many more would have suffered. Very strange that He hit in a Church, decisive...... Weird.
 
15th post
It really is pathetic - all the more since doesn't solve the problem of why they couldn't get rid of this guy when they first had concerns about him.

I'd just like to see Him spend as much energy on making decisions as He does on avoiding them. We are set up for another 3 years of Him Voting Present? How about putting out some Fires, without Bankrupting Us.

I don't think he's avoiding decisions so much as weighing them. There's a very real lesson to be learned from Vietnam here and the fact that the elections did not produce a legitimate government raises serious concerns about our mission there and what it should be.

I was from the beginning supportive of the mission in Afghanistan (though not Iraq) and of the concept of "nation building" but now, I really don't know....and for the first time I'm thinking maybe we should limit the mission to rooting out Al Queda. Corruption in a culture like Afghanistan is so engrained it's the way things get done. We're not going to get rid of it by walking in and saying "you've got to get rid of it". I think there's a certain arrogance and naivety in that. As a country Afghanistan is going to have to decide what it wants and we will have to let them without propping up one side or the other. I think we should just plan on making it hard for Al Queda and other extremist terrorist groups to set up a base and leave it at that.

Hell if I know....I've been rethinking Afghanistan without coming up with any real decision except - no foreigner has ever conquored Afghanistan or controlled with any form of central government.

Yes, I wish congress and the president would "weigh" the bills that they are trying to ram through into law (stimulus, health care, cap n trade, illegal immigration, etc) for as long as the president is taking to 'weigh' the more troops issue.
 
Hasan on Islam

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.



Just a reminder for the apologists of a jihadist
 
Back
Top Bottom