• 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

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.

Speaking out is all they do. But, let someone insult Islam with a book, or a cartoon and see how long before thousands of Muslims take to the street in protest.
 
Please answer my original question. You've established an argument, I'm asking for clarification from you before we proceed.

Well, if now something, then say it. Don't throw flamebait out there.
 
Speaking out is all they do. But, let someone insult Islam with a book, or a cartoon and see how long before thousands of Muslims take to the street in protest.

Generalization.
A few thousand complained.

We are a religion of over a BILLION.
That protest was nothing.
 
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'

Name his illness. I'd say it's Jihad. How about you?
 
Name his illness. I'd say it's Jihad. How about you?

Mentally unstable for me.

And Jihad is not an illness, not medically recognized either :roll:
 
Generalization.
A few thousand complained.

We are a religion of over a BILLION.
That protest was nothing.

Oh, it was nothing? What about when Muslims killed that author a few years back? I don't remember his name.

"Nothing", you say?
 
He wrapped himself in the beliefs and the actions of the islamic terrorist, to rationalize a justification for this mass murder spree...
You don't know that yet. You don't know why he actually decided to murder those people.


That said, still terrorism to me, as he took up a cause, whether it was for sincere or superficial reasons.
I'm against the war in Iraq, but if I go kill ten people at the recruiting station that doesn't mean you can say I did it because I'm against the war. You have to verify that I did because of my protest against the war.

Terroism Research...What is terrorism?
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is 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." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of 1974 is"…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that .draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event.
 
I will agree that a connection would increase the position, but, i don't think its required.

We'll just have to agree that we disagree. I don't see the things you're saying as any indication that this is a "terrorist" act. I don't see it any different than if he instead patterned himself over a movie and set about trying to depict that movie thorugh the killings. He seemingly sympathized with the terrorists, and took on some of their culture, but that alone does not make a mass murder into an act of terrorism in my eyes.

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

No, even when you quote that, that is not DEFENDING the guy. It is saying that its a legitimate thing to assert that there may be other CAUSES for what lead to him doing this other than simply his religious beliefs. Again, that is not DEFENDING that is stating a CAUSE. Those are different things. If someone kills someone because they were picked on for years on end and finally snap, pointing the bullying out is not DEFENDING the act (essentially saying the act was justified or okay) but stating one of the CAUSES of the act (a reason why it occured).

Those are two different things.

With how you are trying to define "defend", you and everyone else saying this was purely religiously motivated are "defending" him by saying this isn't HIS, fault but the fault of his religion.
 
Mentally unstable for me.

And Jihad is not an illness, not medically recognized either :roll:

I love how some people throw around terms like "Jihad" or "praise Allah" when they obviously haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
 
Oh, it was nothing? What about when Muslims killed that author a few years back? I don't remember his name.

"Nothing", you say?

Who?
:confused:
 
Mentally unstable for me.

And Jihad is not an illness, not medically recognized either :roll:
True.
Jihad is not an illness.
More dangerously however, a pathological part of the religion of Islam.
-
 
Last edited:
No, even when you quote that, that is not DEFENDING the guy. It is saying that its a legitimate thing to assert that there may be other CAUSES for what lead to him doing this other than simply his religious beliefs. Again, that is not DEFENDING that is stating a CAUSE. Those are different things. If someone kills someone because they were picked on for years on end and finally snap, pointing the bullying out is not DEFENDING the act (essentially saying the act was justified or okay) but stating one of the CAUSES of the act (a reason why it occured).

Those are two different things.

With how you are trying to define "defend", you and everyone else saying this was purely religiously motivated are "defending" him by saying this isn't HIS, fault but the fault of his religion.


Not defending his actions, but definitely defending his motive.
 
You don't know that yet. You don't know why he actually decided to murder those people.


True, but as a major in the Army who has never deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Cowardice is a pretty safe bet. Using the enemies rhetoric to justify it to himself. Not so far fetched.


I'm against the war in Iraq, but if I go kill ten people at the recruiting station that doesn't mean you can say I did it because I'm against the war. You have to verify that I did because of my protest against the war.

Terroism Research...What is terrorism?
[/quote]


I understand I am speculating a bit. I have a strong feeling, though I won't be far off brother.
 
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.

Okay.
So you tell me what you expect Moderate Muslims to do. In detail if you please.

Also include the strategies and tactics you would suggest we use to try and eradicate the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Something the West has failed to do.
 
Well, if now something, then say it. Don't throw flamebait out there.

Nothing in my post is flamebait. You made an argument regarding the conflict in Sudan. I've asked you a question about your comment. Man up and answer it or simply avoid it. Either way I don't care. If you refuse to answer it then my assessment of your actual knowledge on the subject will be verified. If, however, you choose to answer it we can proceed to the next phase of our debate regarding the issue of the Sudan.
 
He killed out of cowardice from his pending deployment. He embraced extremist islamic fascism to rationalize his pending actions....

As a psychiatrist he knew he'd be unlikely to see combat or run over IED's. Your post is rather speculative.
 
Lerxst and others:



Hasan's cousin Nader Hasan said that she believed it was his upcoming deployment combined with the wartime horror stories he heard from his patients that set him off.

Hasan had reportedly recently hired an attorney to help him get out of the military.

Fort Hood Shooting by Army Doctor Nidal Malik Hasan Leaves 12 Dead - ABC News



I am suspecting more and more strongly, this was an act of cowardice, wrapped up in the trappings of a terrorist.


Dood is a major and never deployed? o_O
 
As a psychiatrist he knew he'd be unlikely to see combat or run over IED's. Your post is rather speculative.

The entirety of your contributions to this thread are speculative and based in ignorant rhetoric. So? Rev's explanation, while I don't fully agree, is much more plausible than yours. The whole "Islam seed makes a mass killer" theory.
 
Nothing in my post is flamebait. You made an argument regarding the conflict in Sudan. I've asked you a question about your comment. Man up and answer it or simply avoid it. Either way I don't care. If you refuse to answer it then my assessment of your actual knowledge on the subject will be verified. If, however, you choose to answer it we can proceed to the next phase of our debate regarding the issue of the Sudan.

No, I've asked that we get back to the thread subject. As the OP please obey my request or I'll be forced to take action.
 
The entirety of your contributions to this thread are speculative and based in ignorant rhetoric. So? Rev's explanation, while I don't fully agree, is much more plausible than yours. The whole "Islam seed makes a mass killer" theory.

You, perhaps, misunderstand?
 
WOW!! Too much posting for me, I gotta work. I can't keep up. :)
 
Lerxst and others:







I am suspecting more and more strongly, this was an act of cowardice, wrapped up in the trappings of a terrorist.


Dood is a major and never deployed? o_O

I agree with you on everything but the terrorist part. I think his emotional melt down is the predominant factor. He didn't need to use Islam as an excuse to kill, the excuse is irrelevant. He had snapped. Where I think Islam plays a factor is that it was a big part of his life, and as in most cases of mental break down and delusion, the elements of your life are dramatically affected. Perception is altered, reality warped.

There is no evidence he was a sane person who was simply fulfilling his religious duties to smite the unbelievers as some have forwarded. There is plenty of evidence that he was very much against the war and emotionally distraught. The emotional meltdown here is the predominant factor in my opinion, not his religion.
 
No, I've asked that we get back to the thread subject. As the OP please obey my request or I'll be forced to take action.

Take action then? You're very much complicit in any turn this thread has taken with your wild eyed theories about Islam.
 
Back
Top Bottom