• 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!

Obama Suggests Still Possible Hasan May Have Cracked Under Stress

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Columbine happened on National "Get High" Day...Klebold and Harris must have been pro-pot activists.

Yep ties to radical Iman jihadist recruiters, his own claims to be a Soldier of Allah, screaming the jihadist battle cry before opening fire, justification and glorification of suicide bombers, saying that Muslims should kill Americans etc etc, nothing to see here folks, clearly this was not a radical Islamist jihad attack but rather some guy who just snapped. :roll:

I was born at night but not last night.
 
According to liberlism, terrorism doesn't exist. So, thus the arguing over whether Hasan was a terrorist. We say he is, they say he isn't.

Can we try and at least keep to some semblance of facts, and not just making stuff up? Me personally, what we label him does not matter to me.
 
He didn't kill civilians?

No, he did not. And according to military planner (USN) boyfriend, attacks on military populations AT ANY TIME, whether in a state of readiness or not, are considered fair game during wartime. NOT terror attacks.
 
Yep ties to radical Iman jihadist recruiters, his own claims to be a Soldier of Allah, screaming the jihadist battle cry before opening fire, justification and glorification of suicide bombers, saying that Muslims should kill Americans etc etc, nothing to see here folks, clearly this was not a radical Islamist jihad attack but rather some guy who just snapped. :roll:

I was born at night but not last night.

Again, killing people for religious reasons does not equal terrorism.
 
Really, the list of facts that I presented doesn't pass the litmus test? What does he need a business card that says "I'm a Jihadist" on it. Oh wait he had one of those. :roll:

LOL - you're too funny - but spot on.

You remind me of an old quote:

"The longer I live the more I think of humor as in truth the saving sense."

Jacob August Riis
 
In my opinion, Hassan should be viewed as a new kind of terrorist cell. I would call him a "latent, independent cell".

The strategy of the Jihadist network is to radicalize these lone-wolf types so that they'll act independently of the command structure; this would serve not only to increase the randomness and number of terrorist attacks but to further decentralize the Jihadist network. Decentralization makes it that much more difficult to identify, locate, and target the enemy.

Very cunning.
 
No, he did not. And according to military planner (USN) boyfriend, attacks on military populations AT ANY TIME, whether in a state of readiness or not, are considered fair game during wartime. NOT terror attacks.

What country did Hassan represent and is the United States military at war with that country?
 
So if a person that a fundamentalist christian kills an abortion doctor that's terrorism, not murder?

Id just call it insane like anyone that goes postal and starts randomly shooting people or straps bombs to themeselves or
 
I agree that the simple association of Islam is not sufficient to classify Hassan as a terrorist. I do believe, however, that his association with the Jihadist network in conjunction with his avowed radicalism is enough to label him as such.

Just because he didn’t receive explicit marching orders from AQ doesn’t mean he can’t be a terrorist cell. Perhaps the Jihadists wants to further decentralize their network by encouraging lone-wolf types to act independently of their command structure; this would increase the randomness and frequency of attacks on our soil. I’m not sure why some people find this idea so objectionable or far-fetched.
 
The FBI defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use of force or 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."

So are street gangs in New York charged with terrorism? Because they do the same thing. Again, you are grasping at straws here.
 
Can we try and at least keep to some semblance of facts, and not just making stuff up? Me personally, what we label him does not matter to me.

Why not, doesn't it matter when trying to prevent this from happening again?
 
I agree that the simple association of Islam is not sufficient to classify Hassan as a terrorist. I do believe, however, that his association with the Jihadist network in conjunction with his avowed radicalism is enough to label him as such.

Just because he didn’t receive explicit marching orders from AQ doesn’t mean he can’t be a terrorist cell. Perhaps the Jihadists wants to further decentralize their network by encouraging lone-wolf types to act independently of their command structure; this would increase the randomness and frequency of attacks on our soil. I’m not sure why some people find this idea so objectionable or far-fetched.

I do not find your idea objectionable or far-fetched - it's the truth - Iran is trying hard not to have their prints on their deeds.

All sensible people know that it is all being created out of Iran - they have the oil money to do it - it's nothing new - from funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and probably even Al Quaeda, the leaders of Iran have been doing the dirty deed on people for too many years now, even on their own people - everybody knows it, but not all say it.

If they get the oil fields of Iraq if we pull out it will get worse for the world. Iraq must have their own country and their own resources for themselves.

Among many other things, one way or the other, through mosques, whatever, they create guys like Hasan - instead of him being able to live a good life for himself and his family, he now may be paralyzed from the waist down and is facing charges of 13 counts of premeditated murder, which WILL put him in prison for the rest of his life - you have to feel for all the families' lives he screwed up, including his own.

They do this stuff through mosques and good people who like to attend services at mosques are left with the stigma of it all. It's not right. And the United States will not put up with it. Everyone has a right to freedom of religion in America, so trust that America will make it right for good people who want to visit mosques for services to be able to do so without being stigmatized.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the simple association of Islam is not sufficient to classify Hassan as a terrorist. I do believe, however, that his association with the Jihadist network in conjunction with his avowed radicalism is enough to label him as such.

Just because he didn’t receive explicit marching orders from AQ doesn’t mean he can’t be a terrorist cell. Perhaps the Jihadists wants to further decentralize their network by encouraging lone-wolf types to act independently of their command structure; this would increase the randomness and frequency of attacks on our soil. I’m not sure why some people find this idea so objectionable or far-fetched.

You know, while I don't necessarily agree with your conclussion, I don't think your definition is so far out of stretch as others. Many seem to be equating simply islam with it, but you're at least going the step further and saying it has to have ties...even if not direct...to jihadist terrorist networks for it to be consider as such.

I generally disagree, I don't think simply being inspired by those type of networks or ideology to act makes someone a terrorist. However I think that's a far more reasonable way to come to the conclussion rather than simply he's a muslim and a bit extreme and therefore must be a terrorist.
 
You know, while I don't necessarily agree with your conclussion, I don't think your definition is so far out of stretch as others. Many seem to be equating simply islam with it, but you're at least going the step further and saying it has to have ties...even if not direct...to jihadist terrorist networks for it to be consider as such.

I generally disagree, I don't think simply being inspired by those type of networks or ideology to act makes someone a terrorist. However I think that's a far more reasonable way to come to the conclussion rather than simply he's a muslim and a bit extreme and therefore must be a terrorist.
well, to be fair, he is more than a bit extreme.
 
Why not, doesn't it matter when trying to prevent this from happening again?

:2brickwal

Once again, we are putting words in people's mouths. I said the label does not matter. The facts do, finding ways to prevent it happening in the future does, finding out if any one else was involved definitely matters. Seeing him at the very least locked up for the remainder of his life matters. What we call him, that does not matter.

Just a suggestion: when you have to take what some one says and exaggerate it all out of meaning to try and make an argument, you probably would do better just not making that argument.
 
Re: Obama now claims stress made the guy kill those soliders

Well, well. It's nice to hear Barack Hussein Obama making excuses for Nidal Malik Hasan.

"conservative" says it all.
 
So if a person that a fundamentalist christian kills an abortion doctor that's terrorism, not murder?

You didn't answer the question... under what definition of terrorism?
 
So are street gangs in New York charged with terrorism? Because they do the same thing. Again, you are grasping at straws here.

New York gangs scream allah ackbar, and opened fire on a group of people? Got a link?

Tell you what --- they could scream "In Jesus name!" or "Up with Jehova" or "The Talmud is great" as well... any gangs doing those will be fine..
 
You know, while I don't necessarily agree with your conclussion, I don't think your definition is so far out of stretch as others. Many seem to be equating simply islam with it, but you're at least going the step further and saying it has to have ties...even if not direct...to jihadist terrorist networks for it to be consider as such.

I generally disagree, I don't think simply being inspired by those type of networks or ideology to act makes someone a terrorist. However I think that's a far more reasonable way to come to the conclussion rather than simply he's a muslim and a bit extreme and therefore must be a terrorist.

Correct, his being a Muslim in no way denotes that he is a terrorist; to think as much is utterly absurd.

However, I do view this man as a new kind of terrorist - like a psychological warhead whose firing mechanism was triggered by radical Jihadist propaganda, rhetoric, and insinuation, e.g., calls to Jihad, demonizing infidels, celebrating and encouraging the violent death of Americans, etc.

The radical Jihadist network, I believe, is purposefully reaching out to these kinds of individuals in order to radicalize them such that they act independently of the formal command structure; the random nature of such actors makes it virtually impossible to prevent these kinds of attacks from occuring in the future which, I suspect, is the motive of the Jihadist network.
 
While being a Muslim may have been his motive for this act, that does not make him a terrorist. He was a murderer with a motive, he had no care for the political implications of his actions, something which sets a terrorist apart from a crazy radical.
 
Back
Top Bottom