• 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

Meanwhile --- the lastest about Brother Hassan

Galligan said he and Hasan’s Army-appointed defense lawyer also arranged for one of Hasan’s brothers to fly to Texas and join them at the hospital.

"I really wanted to have time for him to be with a close family member," the lawyer said.

He said the brothers’ meeting was emotional, with Hasan looking stricken when his brother heard for the first time about his paralysis.

"I could see it in his eyes," Galligan said. "I also witnessed the effect it had on his family member."

The lawyer would not identify the brother.

Hasan is in a neck brace, so his speech was "a little garbled," Galligan said. When asked to sign a power-of-attorney document, Hasan did "with some difficulty."

Awww... I'm broken up inside about this... really. I love how CBS identifies Hassas as a "suspect". LOL.

LINK
 
:2brickwal

Once again, we are putting words in people's mouths. I said the label does not matter.

And that is why you will never comprehend what we are fighting.

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.

If the facts truly mattered to you, you would not deny all the evidence this was an Islamic terrorist attack.

You deny the eye witness testimony of what he shouted.

You deny his "soldier of Allah" card he kept

You deny his constant emotional speeches and passionate debates with others about Islam

You deny his contact with an Islamic militant cleric overseas

Then to top it all off, you accept obama's "theory" that it was something other than Islamic terrorism without a shred of proof. Even proof to the contrary since this man gave away everything he owned, gave the key of his apartment back to the landlord and even gave away his Qur'an. Yet you still hold on to the unsupported theory Obama suggested that he is crazy.

We saw this delusion in people who couldn't accept Clinton had an affair with Lewinski until the dress appeared.

Now you've taken it a step farther and deny real evidence that points directly to Islamic Extremism.

It truly displays the inability of Liberals like yourself to judge people based on their actions and instead look for an alternative meaning no matter how far-fetched or unsupported because you cannot handle the reality that evil people do exist beyond the local political opposition.
 
According to what definition of terrorism?

You didn't answer the question... under what definition of terrorism?

Well, lets see...

First according to my own definition of it.

Second according to the FBI's definition of it.

All of which is irrelevant since I wasn't making an accusation in my statement but was asking a question.

To Ockam or Agent Farris

If an American Citizen whose Extremist Islamist kills a soldier in the states because he disagrees with their actions in the middle east for religious reasons, is it terrorism or murder?

If an American Citizen whose a Fundamentalist Christian kills an abortion doctor in the states because he disagrees with their actions in their hospital for religious reasons, is it terrorism or murder?

Neither are directly tied to any terrorist type group.

I'm asking, in your own personal definition.
 
And that is why you will never comprehend what we are fighting.

We are fighting a label? I thought we where fighting people who are a threat to our country and safety.



If the facts truly mattered to you, you would not deny all the evidence this was an Islamic terrorist attack.

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

You deny the eye witness testimony of what he shouted.

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

You deny his "soldier of Allah" card he kept

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

You deny his constant emotional speeches and passionate debates with others about Islam

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

You deny his contact with an Islamic militant cleric overseas

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

Then to top it all off, you accept obama's "theory" that it was something other than Islamic terrorism without a shred of proof. Even proof to the contrary since this man gave away everything he owned, gave the key of his apartment back to the landlord and even gave away his Qur'an. Yet you still hold on to the unsupported theory Obama suggested that he is crazy.

And another lie. I merely said that your are misrepresenting Obama's words.

We saw this delusion in people who couldn't accept Clinton had an affair with Lewinski until the dress appeared.

What does this have to do with anything?

Now you've taken it a step farther and deny real evidence that points directly to Islamic Extremism.

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

It truly displays the inability of Liberals like yourself to judge people based on their actions and instead look for an alternative meaning no matter how far-fetched or unsupported because you cannot handle the reality that evil people do exist beyond the local political opposition.

This is not what Obama did. He illustrated the need to investigate, suggested some unanswered questions, and chose to not jump to conclusions.

Your whole post is nothing but flat out lies. Nothing you said is even remotely close to the truth. You are sinking to one of the lowest forms of political discourse, lying about your opponent to smear them. I have not denied any of the things you claim I have, not one. You cannot find a single quote where I have denied them. Are you so desperate to "win" this argument that you will stoop to any level?
 
Well, lets see...

First according to my own definition of it.

Second according to the FBI's definition of it.

All of which is irrelevant since I wasn't making an accusation in my statement but was asking a question.

To Ockam or Agent Farris

If an American Citizen whose Extremist Islamist kills a soldier in the states because he disagrees with their actions in the middle east for religious reasons, is it terrorism or murder?
If he kills one soldier - it's a murder. If he kills 13 soldiers, it's terrorism. Don't forget wounding 2 civilians as well. I'll go further - a Christian extremist who kills a soldier, or Jewish extremist, or a Hindu extremist... same thing.

Neither are directly tied to any terrorist type group.
Where in the definition of the FBI does it say it has to be tied to a specific group? You're claiming an individual cannot carry out an act of terrorism without being backed by a group -- and I'd urge you to rethink that, i.e., Oklahoma City --- and let's not forget the Unabomber. Kaczynski called his own acts terrorism and belonged to no group.

I'm asking, in your own personal definition.
I believe an individual can carry out an act of terrorism against one person or a group of people without belonging to a group. Terrorism is not simply an act against a government or group meant to in-still fear but can be done by anyone. I think the Washington Sniper shot people to send chills of fear not to any one group but to an entire city of individuals.
 
If he kills one soldier - it's a murder. If he kills 13 soldiers, it's terrorism. Don't forget wounding 2 civilians as well. I'll go further - a Christian extremist who kills a soldier, or Jewish extremist, or a Hindu extremist... same thing.

So mass murder due to a religious reason is terrorism to you?

Where in the definition of the FBI does it say it has to be tied to a specific group? You're claiming an individual cannot carry out an act of terrorism without being backed by a group -- and I'd urge you to rethink that, i.e., Oklahoma City --- and let's not forget the Unabomber. Kaczynski called his own acts terrorism and belonged to no group.

I never said it couldn't be a singular individual

Ted Kaczynski specifically did his actions in hopes of using fear to send a political/ideological message, of which was made obvious by his letters he sent, thus in my mind making him a terrorist.

The Oklahoma City bombing was done against a decisively non-military government target for reasons that it was come to discover that were clearly and singularly aimed at trying to send a political message to the government through immense destruction and death.

I fully consider those terrorists acts. On the contrary, I don't consider the DC Sniper terrorism. There has been absolutely no clear cut obvious evidence that he was doing those attacks for a reason associated with sending some form of defined political or ideological message through the use of fear, with murder and or financial gain through extortion seeming to be the key goals. While it definitely "terrified" the population, I do not believe that in and of itself makes something a terrorist act. If a neighborhood store gets robbed it can cause "terror" in the population, that does not mean the robbery was an at of terrorism.

Likewise in this case the evidence thus far has not indicated fully that this was done for clear and calculated reasons in hopes of sending a political message through fear. Instead if it appears to be the desperate act of a mentally disturbed man brainwashed by an extreme sect of a religion in hopes and beliefs that it would better serve him to kill those around him he viewed as wrong and die a martyr while doing it than to actually deploy to a war he felt went against his very beliefs. To me, that is not terrorism, its psychotic mass murder performed due to insane extremist religious beliefs.

Too much people want to say "Look at the facts, its CLEAR". No, its not clear, its only clear if you look at the facts you want.

People try to quote Col. Lee's comments about Hassan's comments Arkansas shooting and american aggressors as "clear evidence" it was simply and completely religious. And yet they choose to completely ignore Col. Lee's comments that other officers would routinely harass him, calling him "Rag head" and other sort of derogatives towards his race and religion that could lead one to conclude that there was an emotional and mental part of this incident.

People tried early on to point out his brother stated he was always a muslim, not a convert, when the news first broke that he was a convert as proof he really always was a muslim yet ignores the fact his brother stated his Hassan always seemed to be a peaceful man.

People point out reports coming out about the power point that he did saying how the army needs to allow Muslims to become conscientious objectors or bad things will happen as proof to their point, but ignore reports coming out that Doctors overseeing him during training felt he was "psychotic" and "capable of killing fellow soldiers" which would support the notion that his mental state came into play.

They point out business cards he hands out with SoA on it as proof it was all his Islam, while failing to acknowledge the fact that the reason he (against muslims practices) stated he visited a local strip club was specifically because his fellow soldiers didn't go there leading to further evidence of a man that felt ostracized and separated from his fellow soldiers.

People continually want to focus ONLY on the evidence that supports THEIR view that helps THEIR political cause and base their conclusions solely on that
rather than on the facts as a whole.

They point out a radical imam that he spoke with as proof it was all about radical islam, but fail to acknowledge the fact he did not do this until it was nearing his time to actually be deployed in the conflict.

When you take the facts as a whole, this seems to not be a case of terrorism, but rather a mentally disturbed individual brainwashed by an extreme sect of a religion stuck in a position where in his twisted mind killing his fellow servicemen in the name of his perverted contortion of his religion was better than going to war against those he felt were his ideological brethren.

That's not terrorism, that's murder.
 
We are fighting a label? I thought we where fighting people who are a threat to our country and safety.





This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



And another lie. I merely said that your are misrepresenting Obama's words.



What does this have to do with anything?



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is not what Obama did. He illustrated the need to investigate, suggested some unanswered questions, and chose to not jump to conclusions.

Your whole post is nothing but flat out lies. Nothing you said is even remotely close to the truth. You are sinking to one of the lowest forms of political discourse, lying about your opponent to smear them. I have not denied any of the things you claim I have, not one. You cannot find a single quote where I have denied them. Are you so desperate to "win" this argument that you will stoop to any level?

Your post suggests an inability, or unwillingness to properly identify who the enemy is.
 
Meanwhile --- the lastest about Brother Hassan



Awww... I'm broken up inside about this... really. I love how CBS identifies Hassas as a "suspect". LOL.

LINK

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1166-implied-facepalm.jpg


Comrade Broadcasting System
 
Re: Obama now claims stress made the guy kill those soliders

But WHY would he be under stress if it wasn't for the very reasons he actually stated being his religion???

And what of the 4,000 other Muslims in the Armed forces that did not go on a killing spree?

Obviously there were reasons other than his religion wouldn't you say?
 
Your post suggests an inability, or unwillingness to properly identify who the enemy is.

Show me where I have said we should not identify the causes and any additional people involved. Go ahead, I would love to see where I said that. Put up or shut up.
 
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.

Another spitball of ignorance from the far right. You consider it terrorism if someone beats you out of a parking space.

Most of us recognize that real terrorism, the terrorism that deserves having a war waged against it, is the kind that is planned in caves in Pakistan, financed by charities in American mosques, carried out by operatives who have been secreted into America with valid passports, and designed to change our way of life by taking advantage of the loopholes in our freedom. The occasional nutcase like Hassan will not change our society, but the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden (still on the loose, thanks to the incompetence of your beloved George Bush) are a clear and present danger.
 
Another spitball of ignorance from the far right. You consider it terrorism if someone beats you out of a parking space.

Most of us recognize that real terrorism, the terrorism that deserves having a war waged against it, is the kind that is planned in caves in Pakistan, financed by charities in American mosques, carried out by operatives who have been secreted into America with valid passports, and designed to change our way of life by taking advantage of the loopholes in our freedom. The occasional nutcase like Hassan will not change our society, but the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden (still on the loose, thanks to the incompetence of your beloved George Bush) are a clear and present danger.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1197-obama-cool-story-bro.jpg


Can we take the chance that this nutbag was some Terror agent who fired prematurely?
 
We are fighting a label? I thought we where fighting people who are a threat to our country and safety.

Which you refuse to identify

This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



This is a lie, I do not deny this.



And another lie. I merely said that your are misrepresenting Obama's words.

Its not a lie. You have denied it all by refusing to acknowledge it.

What does this have to do with anything?

Exactly why you will never understand. Your denial of Islamic terrorism and claiming to "wait for the facts" despite facts being right in your face is exactly the same denial liberals like yourself used to deny Clinton's affair.

This is a lie, I do not deny this.

Yes you do every time just like now when you refuse to acknowledge it.

This is not what Obama did. He illustrated the need to investigate, suggested some unanswered questions, and chose to not jump to conclusions.[p/quote]

And again you lie about what he said. He did jump to conlcusions. Then tried to have it both ways by saying next we need to wait for the facts when that certainly didn't stop him from theorizing a motive without a shred of evidence to back it up and ignore the one motive with a mountain of evidence to back it up.

Just like you.

Your whole post is nothing but flat out lies. Nothing you said is even remotely close to the truth. You are sinking to one of the lowest forms of political discourse, lying about your opponent to smear them. I have not denied any of the things you claim I have, not one. You cannot find a single quote where I have denied them. Are you so desperate to "win" this argument that you will stoop to any level?

I never lied once. You deny the very motive with factual backing yet defend a motive put forth by the president without any factual backing then deny you did it.

It is the lowest form of political correctness and denial tactics I've seen in quite a while.

And I won the argument pages ago. This was an Islamic Terrorist attack. All the evidence points towards it and every time you deny it shows you don't have the courage to call it for what it is.
 
Show me where I have said we should not identify the causes and any additional people involved. Go ahead, I would love to see where I said that. Put up or shut up.

Every single time you have denied the evidence presented on Islamic Terrorism.


You keep laughably claiming I am lying about your position but I went through this entire thread. Not once do you ever admit Islamic terrorism was responsible despite all the evidence presented to you which you never once acknowledged by anyone who gave it to you.

That's denial.
 
Last edited:
Every single time you have denied the evidence presented on Islamic Terrorism.


You keep laughably claiming I am lying about your position but I went through this entire thread. Not once do you ever admit Islamic terrorism was responsible despite all the evidence presented to you which you never once acknowledged by anyone who gave it to you.

That's denial.
This is his MO, it's amazing how many times he says "show me where I...", like this guy just doesn't want to stick his neck our on an opinion.
 
Show me where I have said we should not identify the causes and any additional people involved. Go ahead, I would love to see where I said that. Put up or shut up.

You want to identify the causes and the people involved, just as long as we make sure that those causes and people involved can't be linked to Islamic extremism.
 
Which you refuse to identify



Its not a lie. You have denied it all by refusing to acknowledge it.



Exactly why you will never understand. Your denial of Islamic terrorism and claiming to "wait for the facts" despite facts being right in your face is exactly the same denial liberals like yourself used to deny Clinton's affair.



Yes you do every time just like now when you refuse to acknowledge it.



And again you lie about what he said. He did jump to conlcusions. Then tried to have it both ways by saying next we need to wait for the facts when that certainly didn't stop him from theorizing a motive without a shred of evidence to back it up and ignore the one motive with a mountain of evidence to back it up.

Just like you.



I never lied once. You deny the very motive with factual backing yet defend a motive put forth by the president without any factual backing then deny you did it.

It is the lowest form of political correctness and denial tactics I've seen in quite a while.

And I won the argument pages ago. This was an Islamic Terrorist attack. All the evidence points towards it and every time you deny it shows you don't have the courage to call it for what it is.

OK, you are obviously not very bright, so I will slow this way down for you. Waiting for an investigation to be complete before saying "OMG, this is the reason" is not denying any possible reason. Now, when you want to stop lying about me, we could, possibly have a discussion, but when your methods involve making **** up and lying about those you argue with, there really is no point.
 
Every single time you have denied the evidence presented on Islamic Terrorism.


You keep laughably claiming I am lying about your position but I went through this entire thread. Not once do you ever admit Islamic terrorism was responsible despite all the evidence presented to you which you never once acknowledged by anyone who gave it to you.

That's denial.

I have never, not once, not a single time denied there is evidence he is an Islamic terrorist. You cannot show where I have said he was not an Islamic terrorist(since you don't seem to know what the word "deny" means, I would have to do this to "deny" that he is).
 
This is his MO, it's amazing how many times he says "show me where I...", like this guy just doesn't want to stick his neck our on an opinion.

I offer many opinions. What I object to is people who tell me what my opinion is, when it is not. Certainly cowardly and dishonest people love to make up positions for you to have.
 
Can we take the chance that this nutbag was some Terror agent who fired prematurely?

Guess not, better go ahead and put the 4,000 Muslims in the Armed Forces in front of a firing squad. Just to be on the safe side. Or we could bomb Fort Hood which would be in keeping with our foreign policy. :roll:
 
You want to identify the causes and the people involved, just as long as we make sure that those causes and people involved can't be linked to Islamic extremism.

No, I want to identify the causes and the people involved, just as long as we get it right. My only vested interest in the results of the investigation is that they get it right.
 
No, I want to identify the causes and the people involved, just as long as we get it right. My only vested interest in the results of the investigation is that they get it right.

You'll never accept any other outcome to an investigation, other than he's one lone nutjob who suffered from PTSD. So far, you haven't once Considered the possibility that this cat committed this crime because he's a Muslim extremist.
 
Back
Top Bottom