• 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!

12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

Lol
Still you act like Islam is the only religion with violence in it's history.
Jesus must be rolling in his grave at what Christians have done in his name a thousand+ years ago :roll:

Another word: Sudan. How many Christians have the Muslim militias killed, to date?
 
Oh, ok. Here's one, right here.

It's not his fault, it's the fault of, "those who have harrassed him...", and the fault of, "the system that is forcing him into some kind of nightmare..."

I rest my case.

Cause is not the same as Defense.

If that's your definition of defense, then every person in this thread saying the cause was singularly religion are also defending him, because its religions fault not his fault...by your logic.

Stating reasons WHY someone may do something is not DEFENDING what they do.
 
Another word: Sudan. How many Christians have the Muslim militias killed, to date?

**** knows.
Who keeps up with Sudan?
 
You would think that with that many Muslims in the world, they could quell the violence within their own reigion.

Like it's that easy? The majority of peaceful Muslims are no more capable than we are at quelling the violence in their own religion.
 
You would think that with that many Muslims in the world, they could quell the violence within their own reigion.

I'm not a soldier.

I do enough in my own community. What else do people actually expect me to do? Don a hat and a gun and go hunting for terrorists in Pakistan?
 
Lol
Still you act like Islam is the only religion with violence in it's history.
Jesus must be rolling in his grave at what Christians have done in his name a thousand+ years ago :roll:

What oath is used today by Christians committing violence in Jesus' name?
 
See, this is one of the issues with this war. Nothing makes sense. Case in point....

You're saying now that anyone that takes a criminal action for the same cause of the enemy is not doing a criminal act, or an act of war, but is doing a terrorist act.


Excuse my quoting independently but I want to address all your points.

No, blogging about pro-islamic fundamentalist issues, whether you are sincere or using it for an excuse for your sociopathic responses, becomes a terrorist attack.


So therefore all those people setting off IED's or that have attacked our embassy in Iraq after the invasion are not acts of war but terrorist acts.



Now here you bring up a good point, perhaps this was an "act of war" as it was on a military base, though he attacked unarmed troops, and thier families, I think its still the latter.


But when I point out that we didn't have any attacks on our land from 1993 to 2001 I get told that the embassy bombings count as "our land", but they don't count when they've happened in the past 8 years because those aren't terrorist acts but actions of war.

huh?



It seems people are wanting it both ways, being able to call anything terrorism or not terrorism how it suits them for the argument their making.


I would say, had he not used his blog, and his apparent comments and arguments as his impetus for his rampage, then it would simply be a sociopath and a trigger....



So what you're saying is that anyone that commits a criminal act because they agree with the enemy, they're a terrorist?


Not at all. I am saying, perhaps, he is not a terrorist, the fact that he used all these trapppings of the enemy, that he indeed became a terrorist, if only for a brief time. From an article:

Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class.



I think in recent weeks, he became the very thing, a terrorist, they all gotta start somewhere...

That said, I think his deployment orders, were his trigger, and he took these trappings of the terrorist to get "right with in his mind" what he was planning to do.

So a kid spray painting "Stop this illegal war", which is a belief the terrorists share, is a terrorist cause he's taking up their cause? Yes, that's going to an extreme, but you've given me no other real criteria to go off of.

Sorry, unless he's actually found to be CONNECTED to that group in some way shape or form, to me this is an obvious and clear act of MASS MURDER....just like columbine, or the museum shootings, or all other mass shootings in recent memory.

Unless there comes out some evidence he's connected to a terrorist cell, has some things in place after that was hoping to send a political message, or he was specifically targetting civilians on the base to inspire fear in them, there's nothing here that shows me "terrorism".



I will agree that a connection would increase the position, but, i don't think its required.
 
Also...

could someone tell me why this is terrorism and not a mass murder?

if this was done by a christian, or an athiest, who disagreed with the war and us being over there would it be a "terrorist" act.

Sorry, I've never seen any definition of a terrorist act as "Any murder done by a muslim"

Why is this terrorism?

It didn't seem intended by anything that's came out so far to send a political message through fear. It wasn't targetting civilians. There's been zero evidence thus far of being tied to any actual terrorist groups.

Why is this terrorism?

I've been asking essentially the same question from the beginning. Why did this guy kill? Terrorism is a very deliberate act with specific goals beyond a simple desire to kill. The motivations are based in something other than personal vendetta or some kind of emotional breakdown. Religion and politics come to mind.

Religion is an obvious factor, it's the degree the religion played in his decision to carry out this act that makes or breaks the some of the arguments here. Was it an act of jihad or was it a Muslim who simply had a mental meltdown and snapped...deciding to kill those who he felt were persecuting him personally? This could have very well been a suicide by cop/MP/soldier thing. It doesn't matter that he was a soldier and a psychologist. He can still become depressed about his life and that can turn to violence. It happens almost daily in the U.S. In fact it's much more common than acts of religion fueled homicide.
 
Like it's that easy? The majority of peaceful Muslims are no more capable than we are at quelling the violence in their own religion.

I've head all the excuses, but itnever fails, when someone criticizes Islam, the Muslims are out in force. Why they can't muster up that kind of protest against Islamic extremists doesn't make Muslims look good. All we hear from the Muslims is lip service in their condemnation of Muslim terrorists.
 
Lol
Still you act like Islam is the only religion with violence in it's history.

Jesus must be rolling in his grave at what Christians have done in his name a thousand+ years ago :roll:

LOL Indeed.
The old IRRELEVANT Apologism of HISTORIC christianity (Crusades/Inquisition, etc) vs CURRENT Islam.


Wanted: a Muslim Reformation
National Post (Canada)
Sept 26, 2003

No religion has a monopoly on violence. Christianity has the Spanish Inquisition and the bloody excesses of the Crusades...."

But it will Not do to take the Politically Correct course and Lump all Religions in the Same basket, at least not insofar as our own era is concerned.
Christian civilization underwent a Reformation in the 16th century, embraced the Enlightenment with its intellectual and theological pluralism, separated Church from State and encouraged scholarship and democracy. Judaism has followed a similar process -- as have, more recently, the faiths of the far East.
Islam, on the other hand, is still struggling with this transition. And if there is to be peace in the Middle East and an end to terror worldwide, Muslims must accept that their faith is overdue for a doctrinal overhaul...."


"....Christianity still has its fanatical, bigoted elements. But those Christians who advocate the slaughter of non-believers make up an almost imperceptibly tiny fraction of the faithful. Much is made of the intolerant pronouncements of high-profile evangelists. A few deranged anti-abortion snipers aside, however, this is just talk. Even terrorists that claim to be part of the Christian world-- such as Spain's Basque extremists and America's Timothy McVeigh-- typically do not operate under any sort of religious aegis.

By contrast, a Large minority of the world's one billion Muslims still adhere to militant interpretations of their faith, including the Wahabi sect of Sunni Islam, centred in and spread by Saudi Arabia. These interpretations all embrace as a central tenet the duty of jihad -- which, despite whitewashing efforts in the West, continues to mean what it has meant since the 7th century: the slaughter or forced conversion of non-Muslim "infidels." With few exceptions -- such as old-school Palestinian terrorists who cling to Marxist rhetoric -- Muslim terrorist groups all explicitly take Islam as their inspiration. Osama bin Laden is a Hero to Hundreds of Millions of Muslims, and al-Qaeda continues to receive financing from a wide array of Muslim charities.
Christians kill. Jews kill. Hindus kill.
But no other faith group on the planet has embraced random slaughter in anything approaching the manner of radicalized Muslims.

The mainstream Arabic media is shot through with the most extreme sort of Hatred...
"Muslim advocacy organizations in the West, including Canada's own Canadian Islamic Congress, typically reject the claim that there is a problem with contemporary Islam, preferring to lay the world's problems at the feet of Israel and U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, any Critical Scrutiny of their Religion is decried as "Bigotry"..... But it is evident these commentators are putting pride of faith above Truth.
The celebrations in the Islamic world on Sept. 11, 2001...."


Original link (National Post, Canada) expired, The full article can now be found here:
http://www.jewishtoronto.com/content_display.html?ArticleID=85448
 
Last edited:
Another word: Sudan. How many Christians have the Muslim militias killed, to date?

Is religion the only factor driving the conflict in the Sudan. Answer carefully.
 
Oh yeah. Nevermind that, huh?

Erm ... yeah, pretty much.
I'm not going to lie and say that I have the slightest clue on the day to day happenings in Sudan.
My news is dominated with other stories.
 
We are veering terribly far afield here. Let's rein it in shall we? Let's get back to the subject of the thread. Hasan and his act of violence in the name of Allah.
 
Lol
Still you act like Islam is the only religion with violence in it's history.
Jesus must be rolling in his grave at what Christians have done in his name a thousand+ years ago :roll:





What's Jesus doing in a grave? o_O
 
I've been asking essentially the same question from the beginning. Why did this guy kill? Terrorism is a very deliberate act with specific goals beyond a simple desire to kill. The motivations are based in something other than personal vendetta or some kind of emotional breakdown. Religion and politics come to mind.

Religion is an obvious factor, it's the degree the religion played in his decision to carry out this act that makes or breaks the some of the arguments here. Was it an act of jihad or was it a Muslim who simply had a mental meltdown and snapped...deciding to kill those who he felt were persecuting him personally? This could have very well been a suicide by cop/MP/soldier thing. It doesn't matter that he was a soldier and a psychologist. He can still become depressed about his life and that can turn to violence. It happens almost daily in the U.S. In fact it's much more common than acts of religion fueled homicide.

It honestly sounded to me like he snapped. It seems to me that if his religion was a huge factor in the motivation that it would have been far more coordinated and organized. Then again, who knows for sure?
 
I've been asking essentially the same question from the beginning. Why did this guy kill? Terrorism is a very deliberate act with specific goals beyond a simple desire to kill. The motivations are based in something other than personal vendetta or some kind of emotional breakdown. Religion and politics come to mind.

Religion is an obvious factor, it's the degree the religion played in his decision to carry out this act that makes or breaks the some of the arguments here. Was it an act of jihad or was it a Muslim who simply had a mental meltdown and snapped...deciding to kill those who he felt were persecuting him personally? This could have very well been a suicide by cop/MP/soldier thing. It doesn't matter that he was a soldier and a psychologist. He can still become depressed about his life and that can turn to violence. It happens almost daily in the U.S. In fact it's much more common than acts of religion fueled homicide.






He wrapped himself in the beliefs and the actions of the islamic terrorist, to rationalize a justification for this mass murder spree...


That said, still terrorism to me, as he took up a cause, whether it was for sincere or superficial reasons.
 
Cause is not the same as Defense.

If that's your definition of defense, then every person in this thread saying the cause was singularly religion are also defending him, because its religions fault not his fault...by your logic.

Stating reasons WHY someone may do something is not DEFENDING what they do.

He was defending the guy, because this is the post he was responding to.

Originally Posted by GySgt
Immigrant parents of Palestine have quite an impact about the Israeli issue on their children (Palestinian children are encouraged to walk on the Star of David in their schools). Being "made fun of" is a pathetic excuse. He had deep torn feelings about fighting in a war where Muslims were the enemy. Perhaps he got far more pressured harassment from his parents post 9/11.

So this is to go down as a "School shooting" where the nerd had a bully problem? All other factors are to be shoved as far away as possible....until the next time....again? This is going to have so much media BS on this.
 
What oath is used today by Christians committing violence in Jesus' name?

The oath for the last time is not and was never intended to be used in violence!
 
Is religion the only factor driving the conflict in the Sudan. Answer carefully.

So, what are you saying? It's only a coincidence that Christians are being slaughtered by Muslim Militias?
 
I've head all the excuses, but itnever fails, when someone criticizes Islam, the Muslims are out in force. Why they can't muster up that kind of protest against Islamic extremists doesn't make Muslims look good. All we hear from the Muslims is lip service in their condemnation of Muslim terrorists.

You don't really understand the human condition do you?
 
I've head all the excuses, but itnever fails, when someone criticizes Islam, the Muslims are out in force. Why they can't muster up that kind of protest against Islamic extremists doesn't make Muslims look good. All we hear from the Muslims is lip service in their condemnation of Muslim terrorists.

I would do the same against someone criticizing any other religion in a similar way. I'm not Muslim either. And Muslims do speak out against the extremists. The news organizations in this country don't deem it interesting enough to showcase it on the news like they do the horrible stuff.
 
So, what are you saying? It's only a coincidence that Christians are being slaughtered by Muslim Militias?

Please answer my original question. You've established an argument, I'm asking for clarification from you before we proceed.
 
It honestly sounded to me like he snapped. It seems to me that if his religion was a huge factor in the motivation that it would have been far more coordinated and organized. Then again, who knows for sure?

You are right. He killed in the name of Allah.
 
We are veering terribly far afield here. Let's rein it in shall we? Let's get back to the subject of the thread. Hasan and his act of violence in the name of Allah.

He was a sick individual who seemed to have snapped and used Islam as a excuse or a cover to hide the fact he was too much of a coward to do his duty to his country.

He is clearly crazy. I mean, no sane person gets up and thinks 'Let me go kill as many people as possible today'
 
Back
Top Bottom