• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood Suspect Wants to Represent Himself.....AP Newswire

that is exactly why I said I think it might be changed after the courts martial. Right now it is for sure workplace violence. I am all for the injured people getting purple hearts, etc. and hope they do. The right in its mindless war on political correctness and calling everything terrorism just refuses to think about anything. A half decent defense attorney, and yes defendants really do have rights with a general courts-martial, could possibly attempt to use the military's prejudice of calling it terrorism as some form of defense. I am not an attorney but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express once. Right now the inarguably correct term is workplace violence.
It makes a difference to the victims. Compensation to them is different under workplace violence than act of terrorism.
 
:agree: How is equating what happened at Fort Hood even remotely similar to Normandy Beach? That spin has got to be the oddest comment we're likely to see today. Were our military personnel yelling "Allah Akbar" as they started shooting people? :bs:

Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:

Hi Pol.
Sometimes Obama supporters just repeat silly things they heard, sometimes they say troll-like things to occupy your time, sometimes they're just fanboys and that's that, & sometimes they actually might believe the things they say ... I worry about that last group the most.
 
He cant be called an enemy combatant, he is one of us, no matter how much we hate it. To be an enemy combatant he would have had to steal the uniform or lie to get in to trick the military with the intent of causing harm. Unfortunately the uniform has been his for years. I dont know, just guessing but a Major probably has 15+ years so it was years in the making. I also, from what I had read, believe he was radicalized at some later point, so he might have enlisted and sworn in with good intentions.

What does it matter if he is even a Natural Born Citizen.....once he turned on his own. There was no Coming back. He is a traitor. He did not discriminate. Male or female. Moreover if kids would have been there. I doubt that would have stopped him. At that Point he is an enemy of the State, and the Country. One can live their whole life here and be against their very own. Doesn't mean they even have to commit a violent act to be against ones own people.

This isn't like some civilian Job.....he is US government property and more to boot an Officer of Rank. Only ones sitting above him are Birds and Stars. He didn't just show up for work and attack his co-workers. Can't even consider it like Post Office Rage. As none have gone off on just the customers in such an event. It was always with their Co-workers.

This guy came in and was shooting at Troops lined up for whatever exams. That would be like shooting at Customers on the Civilian set. Moreover we know he flipped in finally saying he had enough of us. He even admitted he thought he would die and go out a Martyr for their Sake of AQ's cause.
 
I was not defending Obama or anyone, just stating the facts. That is why you have to come up with the ad hominem. Try harder.
Facts are not liberal or conservative, they are simply facts.
Yeah they are ... and WWII as terrorist attack is not one.
 
More high quality content. I am truly impressed.
Hi Pol.
Sometimes Obama supporters just repeat silly things they heard, sometimes they say troll-like things to occupy your time, sometimes they're just fanboys and that's that, & sometimes they actually might believe the things they say ... I worry about that last group the most.
 
Hi Pol.
Sometimes Obama supporters just repeat silly things they heard, sometimes they say troll-like things to occupy your time, sometimes they're just fanboys and that's that, & sometimes they actually might believe the things they say ... I worry about that last group the most.

More high quality content. I am truly impressed.

Thanks ... pretty much covers it, huh ... and I could name names but I dasn't.
 
that is exactly why I said I think it might be changed after the courts martial. Right now it is for sure workplace violence. I am all for the injured people getting purple hearts, etc. and hope they do. The right in its mindless war on political correctness and calling everything terrorism just refuses to think about anything. A half decent defense attorney, and yes defendants really do have rights with a general courts-martial, could possibly attempt to use the military's prejudice of calling it terrorism as some form of defense. I am not an attorney but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express once. Right now the inarguably correct term is workplace violence.

Once this nut is convicted, I doubt that there is any chance that the label will be changed. The label is there because it fits the agenda. Barry wants people to believe that he has the terror situation under control. But unless you consider all of Ft Hood his workplace, and all army personnel his coworkers, workplace violence is a stretch. I question whether the army even has a workplace violence category.

I think about lots of things, unlike your generalization, and when someone shoots random people while shouting religious slogans, I'm going with terrorism.
 
Lets see, he is an Army Major, on an Army post, shooting Army personnel. Of course it is not work place violence, it is just Obama making the Army use politically correct terms to fit the agenda. At some point (long ago) this right wing anti PC stuff went crazy. The Army used an exactly correct term.
Once this nut is convicted, I doubt that there is any chance that the label will be changed. The label is there because it fits the agenda. Barry wants people to believe that he has the terror situation under control. But unless you consider all of Ft Hood his workplace, and all army personnel his coworkers, workplace violence is a stretch. I question whether the army even has a workplace violence category.

I think about lots of things, unlike your generalization, and when someone shoots random people while shouting religious slogans, I'm going with terrorism.
 
that is exactly why I said I think it might be changed after the courts martial. Right now it is for sure workplace violence. I am all for the injured people getting purple hearts, etc. and hope they do. The right in its mindless war on political correctness and calling everything terrorism just refuses to think about anything. A half decent defense attorney, and yes defendants really do have rights with a general courts-martial, could possibly attempt to use the military's prejudice of calling it terrorism as some form of defense. I am not an attorney but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express once. Right now the inarguably correct term is workplace violence.

Have we really stepped back and considered why there even is such a criminal designation as "Terrorist Act"? We have laws that cover what this jamoke did without having to label it terrorist, workplace violence or anything else. Do we abridge someone's rights when something is classified "Terrorist Act"? Or does roadkill by any other smell better or worse?

Really, it's something we should think about. Many of us don't like the "hate crime" designation. Why should it matter to the survivors if it's workplace violence or terrorism? Why should their compensation be different?

That's probably the upshot of the question -- it's premeditated murder. Why should it matter (except to the soldiers wounded). And why should their compensation be different? The military will no doubt determine and prove his motives at trial.

PS: It's always been my understanding that the Purple Heart has been horribly cheapened by awarding it to soldiers who hurt their backs lifting a package. Has that changed?
 
As far as I know at this point it dont make a damn bit of differece what you call it. I think that is why the officicals stuck with the inarguably correct terminology. My understand is for the Purple Heart blood has to be drawn by enemy fire. So if you drop something on your foot during combat you dont get one, if you get nicked by a richoet in battle you do.
Have we really stepped back and considered why there even is such a criminal designation as "Terrorist Act"? We have laws that cover what this jamoke did without having to label it terrorist, workplace violence or anything else. Do we abridge someone's rights when something is classified "Terrorist Act"? Or does roadkill by any other smell better or worse?

Really, it's something we should think about. Many of us don't like the "hate crime" designation. Why should it matter to the survivors if it's workplace violence or terrorism? Why should their compensation be different?

That's probably the upshot of the question -- it's premeditated murder. Why should it matter (except to the soldiers wounded). And why should their compensation be different? The military will no doubt determine and prove his motives at trial.

PS: It's always been my understanding that the Purple Heart has been horribly cheapened by awarding it to soldiers who hurt their backs lifting a package. Has that changed?
 
Lets see, he is an Army Major, on an Army post, shooting Army personnel. Of course it is not work place violence, it is just Obama making the Army use politically correct terms to fit the agenda. At some point (long ago) this right wing anti PC stuff went crazy. The Army used an exactly correct term.

It's just that this is a legal challenge. Yes, this was "workplace violence," but it was also treason and a terrorist act inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
 
Fine. I am sure you are exactly right, except for the allegation of treason is terribly difficult to prove and I am not sure he was even charged with that. I am anti death penalty but secretly I wont be too mad if the Major gets it. I dont think any thinking person will think a bit differently about this incident wehter you call it terrorism or workplace violence or whatever. I dont think it has a damn thing to do with any supposed agenda, it just give the right wing noise machine more noise.
It's just that this is a legal challenge. Yes, this was "workplace violence," but it was also treason and a terrorist act inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
 
Fine. I am sure you are exactly right, except for the allegation of treason is terribly difficult to prove and I am not sure he was even charged with that. I am anti death penalty but secretly I wont be too mad if the Major gets it. I dont think any thinking person will think a bit differently about this incident wehter you call it terrorism or workplace violence or whatever. I dont think it has a damn thing to do with any supposed agenda, it just give the right wing noise machine more noise.

IMO, Not really.....for a crime there is a motive, the purpose. Here we have nothing but the Purpose of the Major and his Own actions and attempts to contact AQ and al Awlaki. While his motive was to go out like a martyr all in the Good name of AQ and their alleged version of Islam.
 
Are you saying it would not be hard to prove terrorism?
IMO, Not really.....for a crime there is a motive, the purpose. Here we have nothing but the Purpose of the Major and his Own actions and attempts to contact AQ and al Awlaki. While his motive was to go out like a martyr all in the Good name of AQ and their alleged version of Islam.
 
Fine. I am sure you are exactly right, except for the allegation of treason is terribly difficult to prove and I am not sure he was even charged with that. I am anti death penalty but secretly I wont be too mad if the Major gets it. I dont think any thinking person will think a bit differently about this incident wehter you call it terrorism or workplace violence or whatever. I dont think it has a damn thing to do with any supposed agenda, it just give the right wing noise machine more noise.

I can't understand being opposed to the death penalty but being secretly glad. (I do oppose the death penalty.)

Trying to reduce Hasan's crimes to grist for the "right wing's" mill does a disservice to us all, though.
 
In no way am I trying t reduce Hasan's crimes, a strawman, I aint falling for it.

Intellectually I know the death penalty is wrong, occassionally emotionally I wish someone would get it. Never said I was perfect...
I can't understand being opposed to the death penalty but being secretly glad. (I do oppose the death penalty.)

Trying to reduce Hasan's crimes to grist for the "right wing's" mill does a disservice to us all, though.
 
Are you saying it would not be hard to prove terrorism?

I don't think it would be hard to prove that it is terrorism. Would you say this definition is exactly what the Good major can be identified as doing? Was the attack calculated? Was it Religious, Political, and or Ideological in nature?

An act of Terrorism is the calculated use of violence against civilians, the government or any subject thereof in order to attain goals that are political, religious, and or Ideological in nature. It is Premeditated by thought with action. Time is a non factor.....snip~
 
Link please?
 
Link please?

Yeah, okay.....here ya go NB. ;)

What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and 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" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

HowStuffWorks "What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?"
 
I dont disagree with that, but it is a subset of workplace violence. He did it at his workplace. It was violent. The Army used the undeniably correct term. I was just arguing using the appropriate term does not constitute policically correctness.
Yeah, okay.....here ya go NB. ;)

What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and 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" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

HowStuffWorks "What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?"
 
Alright RA.....like in the other thread we were in. What about this part of the FBI definition?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and 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" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

According to the FBI.....ANY segment of the government and or civilian population. So why shouldn't the grounds be Pressed for the issue to be declared an act of terrorism.

Because it was simply an attack on a military target. There is nothing differentiating this between anything we do.
 
Yeah, okay.....here ya go NB. ;)

What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?

The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and 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" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~

HowStuffWorks "What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?"

Thanks for the link. And here is one for you--interested in your opinion: Exclusive: Suspect was inspired by cleric banned from UK after urging followers to behead enemies of Islam - Crime - UK - The Independent
 
Because he attacked soldiers on a military base.

So if a Muslim radical, Christian radical or atheist radical walked on MCB 29 Palms and detonated a body bomb and yelled God is Great, or My gal is Madalyn Murray O'Hair and killed a number of Marines in a Chapel service you would classify it as?
 
So if a Muslim radical, Christian radical or atheist radical walked on MCB 29 Palms and detonated a body bomb and yelled God is Great, or My gal is Madalyn Murray O'Hair and killed a number of Marines in a Chapel service you would classify it as?
It is a military target on a military base occupied by soldiers, therefore it is not terrorism.

Would it be terrorism if one of our soldiers screamed "praise jesus!" as he shot or dropped a bomb on an enemy combatant?
 
Back
Top Bottom