• 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!

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

Here's a justification comment:

Terrorism in the middle east is not that different from some of the actions of the Continental Army during the U.S. revolution and bears great similarity to the tactics used against native Americans by U.S. forces.

Should I lose my job? Be arrested?

Very Similar? How about the Founding Fathers would be considered terrorists by today's standards. I offer you this from my Organized Crime class.

Epic Dude
CJC-223
Organized Crime
Domesticated Terror?


Instruction:
Most of us are familiar with the concept of international terrorism, but have little understanding of the extent of domestic terrorism in the modern USA. Give us your definition of domestic terrorism. Then identify groups you consider to be domestic terrorist organizations. Tell us why you believe them to be terrorists. Tell us about specific terrorist acts that those groups have carried out. Respond to another student's posting.

My definition of Domestic Terrorism is a Terrorist or Terrorist group that operates within their own Nation or locality exclusively. Some Home-Grown Terrorists might be considered though some become part of an International Organization and thus become International Terrorists. Groups that I would consider Domestic Terrorists? The Black Panthers, Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, The Animal Liberation Front, The Army of God, Black Liberation Front, Jewish Defense League, Symbionese Liberation Army, Weathermen, any number of the home grown Islamic groups that operate specifically in the United States and have mainly American citizens, Gangs such as the Crips and Bloods (though it could be argued they may have stepped onto the international scene, most of them stay here at home), and my FAVORITE of all Domestic Terrorists, THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THESE UNITED STATES. They are terrorists because they fit the definition of a terrorist: Using Fear and Terror, ususally through acts of violence, to fight an enemy or “persuade” the general populace and get their message or agenda across. Specific terrorist attacks include the Revolutionary War of 1776, where then British Citizens would threaten and kill British Officials in an attempt to weaken the British resolve and hold on the colonies. The Wall Street bombing of the J.P. Morgan building (by what is believed to be followers of Luigi Galleani) was perpetrated by Anarchist Communists. The Unabomber, who sent letter bombs to various professors or researchers. The Oklahoma City Bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh was the deadliest Domestic Terror attack to date, killing over 150 people. Most recently, the Holocaust Museum shooting happened in June of this year when an elderly man, believed to be a Neo-Nazi, went into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC and proceeded to fire at security officers with a rifle.



On a side note, many people believe that groups such as the Oathkeepers, and these “Crazy Right Wing Extremists” that are protesting the Government might be Domestic Terrorists, the DHS even included this warning in a report it published (PDF opens in new window) What are everyone's thoughts on this?



References:

Lynman, Michael D., & Potter, Gary W. (2007). Organized Crime. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Critique away. Ignore the last paragraph, that was mostly to spur discussion on the boards.
 
Last edited:
Very Similar? How about the Founding Fathers would be considered terrorists by today's standards. I offer you this from my Organized Crime class.
I actually agree. The Continental Army didn't use terror tactics as their primary M.O., but their attacks against loyalist families would fit the strict definition.
 
Why though did they not deal with it? That is something we need to find out.

For all we know, he was removed from patient contact and driving a desk where he could do little harm.

As for being kicked out? Probably not. But given that this Major had never been overseas (shocking in itself), He was not going to make LTCOL anyway.

That sends a message all by itself, to be blunt, given the need for counselors, etc. in combat zones.

I tell you what, if I was just coming back from a-stan with ptsd and some major started telling me I needed to come to islam..... I might not have acted uhm, professionally...
Being the greatness that is the Rev., you could have silenced him with a paper clip.




*through the tongue.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree. The Continental Army didn't use terror tactics as their primary M.O., but their attacks against loyalist families would fit the strict definition.

agree'd. My favorite though would have to be Francis Marion "The Swamp Fox". Dude riled up quite a few Redcoats.
 
agree'd. My favorite though would have to be Francis Marion "The Swamp Fox". Dude riled up quite a few Redcoats.

Of course, the British forces used heinous tactics against the civilian populations, which didn't help.
 
I think Political Correctness had a part in no action at all being seemingly taken against him. However, much like I was saying the other day, people are arguing in part because people are pushing too far.

Becasue Political Correctness may be a factor doesn't mean we need to view all Muslims as potential time bombs of radicalism or ban muslims from serving in the military of think that since we don't know which muslims are radical we must distrust them all. And the problem is many of those pushing the PC issue (not all, but many) are the same that seem to be thanking, implying, tacitly agreeing, or straight up stating the extreme on the other side.

And even if PC playd a part in it, its much like other instances that the right like to say "its the people, not the views/objects".

Political Correctness doesn't kill people. People who refuse to do their job for fear of Political Correctness may kill people, but PC doesn't. People Kill People.

Maybe it was Political Correctness. Maybe it was certain matters of protocal. Maybe it was actually simply the law and the constitution and him not having done anything enough to warrant action by those that could. Maybe it was friends of him not taking him serious. Maybe some people just viewed him as harmless. Maybe a lot of this is getting exposed now because its sensational but in reality makes up a very small percentage of what most people knew about him. Maybe action HAD been taken up to the point that it was legally or structually able to have been.

But people, again, just want to assume something and zoom in on something not because they care, or they give a damn, but they're trying to play these pathetic political games and jump on anything they can to be able to raise up the flag of whatever token issue they want and to use the deaths of these people...in this case our troops...as exploited pawns in their attempts to make political points over actually caring about the facts or reality of a situation.
 
I think Political Correctness had a part in no action at all being seemingly taken against him.

I dunno...I can see the headline now:

FBI Takes Man into Custody over Perceived Threat:
"We're still working on the rest of the evidence though"


:lol:
 
You would think that self-proclaimed conservatives would have a problem with this sort of thing. Or at least, I would.
 
Hoekstra said he is "absolutely furious" that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan's attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News. [/QUOTE]

If the authorities are waiting to see if Hasan had direct on tact with Al Qaeda to determine if this was a terrorist attack are just I believe goofy.
In my mind this was terror whether it was a conspiracy or just a solo act it was terror.
 
Wow, the so the FBI was watching him for six months or so because he was an Islamist officer in the U.S. military, and now the CIA had been watching him for the same thing. A whole bunch of fellow Army officers had complained several times that he was an anti-American Islamist.

Yet nobody ever made it a point to go visit this guy?

Yeah, okay. If that is the case then a nice big portion of our intelligence community, the FBI, and the officer corp of the U.S. Army is an absolute joke...completely incompetent.

No.

Not quite.

That is the cost of political correctness.

I think Alan Keyes answered it well in the 2000 debate. I remember this moment like it was yesterday because I was disappointed by McCain and Bush... Keyes knocked it out of the park.

This guy should have been the first black president. He is a straight shooting son-of-a-gun.

KING: Alan?

KEYES: I know everybody thinks that this doing some favor to a racial group, but if our police and enforcement people have the experience that a given crime is disproportionately being committed by folks from a given ethnic group, we are now going to pass a law that says you can't notice that?

I -- I...

KING: But they haven't done the crime yet.

KEYES: Excuse me, no, no. All I'm saying is we're going to pass a law and we're going to enforce a law that says that we can't notice the characteristics of individuals who commit crimes and develop profiles to help folks pursue the solving of crimes based on our experience.

Experience by the way is not prejudice. Prejudice is an opinion you form apart from experience, prior to experience. An opinion formed based on experience is not prejudice. It is judgment. And I think our law enforcement officers ought to be able to...

KING: You wouldn't mind being stopped by a car if there was a high prevalence of...

KEYES: You know the person I would blame for that? If there are black folks out there disproportionately committing certain kinds of crime, my parents raised me to know that I represent the race in every thing I do. And I wish that everybody would take that attitude and stop committing crimes and doing things that bring a bad reputation on to people.

KING: But if you were stopped...

KEYES: That's what I resent.

KING: ... if you were stopped you wouldn't be angry?

KEYES: I just told you who I would be angry at.

Right on, right on bro.

.
 
I think Political Correctness had a part in no action at all being seemingly taken against him. However, much like I was saying the other day, people are arguing in part because people are pushing too far.

Becasue Political Correctness may be a factor doesn't mean we need to view all Muslims as potential time bombs of radicalism or ban muslims from serving in the military of think that since we don't know which muslims are radical we must distrust them all. And the problem is many of those pushing the PC issue (not all, but many) are the same that seem to be thanking, implying, tacitly agreeing, or straight up stating the extreme on the other side.

And even if PC playd a part in it, its much like other instances that the right like to say "its the people, not the views/objects".

Political Correctness doesn't kill people. People who refuse to do their job for fear of Political Correctness may kill people, but PC doesn't. People Kill People.

Maybe it was Political Correctness. Maybe it was certain matters of protocal. Maybe it was actually simply the law and the constitution and him not having done anything enough to warrant action by those that could. Maybe it was friends of him not taking him serious. Maybe some people just viewed him as harmless. Maybe a lot of this is getting exposed now because its sensational but in reality makes up a very small percentage of what most people knew about him. Maybe action HAD been taken up to the point that it was legally or structually able to have been.

But people, again, just want to assume something and zoom in on something not because they care, or they give a damn, but they're trying to play these pathetic political games and jump on anything they can to be able to raise up the flag of whatever token issue they want and to use the deaths of these people...in this case our troops...as exploited pawns in their attempts to make political points over actually caring about the facts or reality of a situation.

Two points:

1) This administration didn't seem to mind making everyone aware that there is a threat to this country from ex-military, right wing extremists.

2) It's already illegal for members of the KKK, The Nazis and street gangs to be members of the armed forces.

Treating Muslims a little different, because of an obvious threat from within the Muslim community would be any different.

But, we all know that ain't gonna happen.
 
Two points:

1) This administration didn't seem to mind making everyone aware that there is a threat to this country from ex-military, right wing extremists.

And many conservatives raised holy hell about how the government shouldn't be degrading hard working citizens because of a few extremists out in the middle of north Dakota.

2) It's already illegal for members of the KKK, The Nazis and street gangs to be members of the armed forces.

Some kind of link for proof that its ILLEGAL for KKK members or Nazi's to get into the military. I can understand if its just general policy that they fail basic background checks, but "illegal"?

And even then, are you seriously comparing muslims, in general, to KKK member, Nazi's, and the Bloods and Crips?

The KKK and the Nazi party exist for no other purpose than to push extremely racist views and ideals and promote the degradation of various races; not some of them, that's what the MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE is partially about. Street Gangs on a whole perpetrate crimes. And you're comparing this to a religion who have an extreme minority, even in this country, of their members that actually act out in a way that puts them even close to on par with the KKK and the Nazi's?

Not to mention the military is an extension of the Executive Branch and as such one could argue the "No Religious Test Clause" of the constitution would come into play. Or shall you act like Truth Detector previously, droning on and on about how great the Constitution is and how liberals are trying to destroy it and the moment it acts against your favor say "its not a suicide pact".

Treating Muslims a little different, because of an obvious threat from within the Muslim community would be any different.

Its not an "obvious" threat. The amount of insane Muslims acting out in extreme fashion is a MINUSCULE percentage and you're suggesting to **** on the constitution to punish millions of innocent Muslims because of likely less than 5% of their population in this country's actions.

This is like saying we need to Bar Christians from being able to enter the Hospitals that have any ability in any way of performing abortions because of an obvious threat from within the Christian Community due to the murder of George Tiller, the Bombing of Clinics, and other crimes against them.
 
Some kind of link for proof that its ILLEGAL for KKK members or Nazi's to get into the military. I can understand if its just general policy that they fail basic background checks, but "illegal"?

DoD regulations prohibit soldiers from being members of extemist orginizations and/or criminal gangs. Hence, it's illegal.

And even then, are you seriously comparing muslims, in general, to KKK member, Nazi's, and the Bloods and Crips?

When's the last time that any of those groups pulled something like this? Name one.

The KKK and the Nazi party exist for no other purpose than to push extremely racist views and ideals and promote the degradation of various races; not some of them, that's what the MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE is partially about. Street Gangs on a whole perpetrate crimes. And you're comparing this to a religion who have an extreme minority, even in this country, of their members that actually act out in a way that puts them even close to on par with the KKK and the Nazi's?

When you consider how Muslims think of all non-Muslims as infadels and not worthy to live, then Muslims could easily fall into the same category. Ever been to Mosque with other Muslims? Wanna take a guess why it will never happen? That's right, because you're an infadel and you won't be allowed in the place.

Not to mention the military is an extension of the Executive Branch and as such one could argue the "No Religious Test Clause" of the constitution would come into play. Or shall you act like Truth Detector previously, droning on and on about how great the Constitution is and how liberals are trying to destroy it and the moment it acts against your favor say "its not a suicide pact".

I bet that didn't hold if a Bushido'ist wanted to join the service during WW2. Bushido was a religion...sorta. Don't forget that part in the oath where it says, "enemies, foreign and domestic". I keep thinking of that, for some reason.

The Constitution is great. I think it should be used more to protect my right to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", than the rights of religious nutjobs to try and kill me. I'm funny like that.


Its not an "obvious" threat. The amount of insane Muslims acting out in extreme fashion is a MINUSCULE percentage and you're suggesting to **** on the constitution to punish millions of innocent Muslims because of likely less than 5% of their population in this country's actions.

Yeah, tell that to the families of those 13 dead soldiers. 14, if you count the baby that one woman was carrying. 46 Casualties, minuscule, yeah, ok. Ever been shot before?

This is like saying we need to Bar Christians from being able to enter the Hospitals that have any ability in any way of performing abortions because of an obvious threat from within the Christian Community due to the murder of George Tiller, the Bombing of Clinics, and other crimes against them.


If the Libbos had their way, it would happen.
 
No, with incarcerating people without proof of guilt. A criminal justice major should be extremely aware of such issues.

Three words for you to answer the original statement:

USA PATRIOT ACT


lol ;) I am very aware.
 
No.

Not quite.

That is the cost of political correctness.

I think Alan Keyes answered it well in the 2000 debate. I remember this moment like it was yesterday because I was disappointed by McCain and Bush... Keyes knocked it out of the park.

This guy should have been the first black president. He is a straight shooting son-of-a-gun.



Right on, right on bro.

.

Profiling saves lives and that's the ****ing truth sir. Keyes made a good point...
 
As has been noted before, the first step in failure belongs within the chain of command, and the fellow officers/soliders that Hassan had interacted with. I saw on ABC news(I believe) that Hassan had attended some official press conference in the past and had spoken out negatively about the US role. This guy was a ****ing Major. While it is a decent paying grade, it's not at all near the top of the list with regards to policy decision, and certainley not a rank that warrants open, public questioning of those policies while in uniform. Even generals that have issue with doctrine and policies laid down by the CinC usually exercise greater restraint in questioning it publically.

Lucky for us(but unfortunantley for the vicitms families), Hassan was an idiot and went crazy. Had he taken his retirement, or left the US military, he would have had some credibility(particularly with war protestors that eat up what few former military members they can exploit) due to his profession and rank, in speaking his mind about the war, and various things he had espoused unprofessionally while in uniform.

Its just too bad the people that responded didn't put one round in the head and finish the job. Of course, a military execution could possibly be the better option. If we aren't willing to execute someone in our ranks that had no problems executing his fellow soliders himself, then the Armed forces have lost their way. Particularly when it appears that this wasn't just some heat of the moment, passion killing, but an enemy within.
 
As has been noted before, the first step in failure belongs within the chain of command, and the fellow officers/soliders that Hassan had interacted with. I saw on ABC news(I believe) that Hassan had attended some official press conference in the past and had spoken out negatively about the US role. This guy was a ****ing Major. While it is a decent paying grade, it's not at all near the top of the list with regards to policy decision, and certainley not a rank that warrants open, public questioning of those policies while in uniform. Even generals that have issue with doctrine and policies laid down by the CinC usually exercise greater restraint in questioning it publically.

Lucky for us(but unfortunantley for the vicitms families), Hassan was an idiot and went crazy. Had he taken his retirement, or left the US military, he would have had some credibility(particularly with war protestors that eat up what few former military members they can exploit) due to his profession and rank, in speaking his mind about the war, and various things he had espoused unprofessionally while in uniform.

Its just too bad the people that responded didn't put one round in the head and finish the job. Of course, a military execution could possibly be the better option. If we aren't willing to execute someone in our ranks that had no problems executing his fellow soliders himself, then the Armed forces have lost their way. Particularly when it appears that this wasn't just some heat of the moment, passion killing, but an enemy within.


That's not allowed, regardless of rank.

Bottom line is, if this guy had been cashiered for that, the cries of descrimination would still be echoeing.
 
DoD regulations prohibit soldiers from being members of extemist orginizations and/or criminal gangs. Hence, it's illegal.

I'll admit, I'm not a hugely boned up on laws. But wouldn't that make it against regulations, not "illegal" in the sense it seemed you were using? Or do you simply mean illegal as in, not allowed, not against the law/criminal?

When's the last time that any of those groups pulled something like this? Name one.

You mean shoot up a U.S. Military Base? Not to my knowledge. Than again, before last week, the same could be said about Muslims. But just stupid illegal murdering in general?

This KKK member, his son, and other members on trial for murder, rape, and obstruction of justice

This KKK leader charged with murder after being released from prison

This Neo-Nazi killed 1, critically injured 2 with a gun and hatchet.

This Neo-Nazi kept in prison due to attempts at inciting murder of blacks and threats of murder

Yes, you're absolutely right, these groups don't do anything. Pure as the wind driven snow. And this is just off a quick google search, and focusing only on murder. Not even factoring in rapes, beatings, and vandalisms.

When you consider how Muslims think of all non-Muslims as infadels and not worthy to live, then Muslims could easily fall into the same category. Ever been to Mosque with other Muslims? Wanna take a guess why it will never happen? That's right, because you're an infadel and you won't be allowed in the place.

Really? All muslims think that? I'm glad I have your amazing knowledge to inform me of that. Lalia, I'm sad, I didn't know you consider me the infadel and that I'm not worthy to live. I mean, he did say all muslims believe that so you must because he said so and I mean...it can't be that he's hysterically over reacting and over exaggerating due to it helping his ability to push his xenophobic, anti-consitution political agenda...right?

The Constitution is great. I think it should be used more to protect my right to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", than the rights of religious nutjobs to try and kill me. I'm funny like that.

Ah so you're an "activist" that picks and chooses what parts to follow.

Yeah, tell that to the families of those 13 dead soldiers. 14, if you count the baby that one woman was carrying. 46 Casualties, minuscule, yeah, ok. Ever been shot before?

Awww. Appeals to emotion. I thought Rush said only liberals do that?

Yes, he was one man in 2.5 MILLION. That is miniscule. It is a horrible, horrendous tragedy. You trying to play on emotion, rather poorly as well, doesn't change facts. I know that may hurt you inside, but it doesn't.
 
That's not allowed, regardless of rank.

I remember watching a C-Span where former Marine General(and Commadant) James Jones(now Obama's NSA advisor) was able to delineate what he thought were weaknesses in the current military structure and deployability, and that our forces as they were aligned(this was pre-9/11) and used in combat would not be sufficient to handle two MTW(major theaters of war) simultaneously. But he was circumspect, respectful, direct and open with his assesment.

It can be done at that level. It is somewhat questioning publically, but only after being asked publically by those who oversee the military, for an assesment. A Major has no place in that discussion, much less just showing up to a function and doing so without permission.
 
I'll admit, I'm not a hugely boned up on laws. But wouldn't that make it against regulations, not "illegal" in the sense it seemed you were using? Or do you simply mean illegal as in, not allowed, not against the law/criminal?

A soldier can be court martialed and sent to prison for violating Army Regulations, so by that logic, the regs are the law.



You mean shoot up a U.S. Military Base? Not to my knowledge. Than again, before last week, the same could be said about Muslims. But just stupid illegal murdering in general?

Well, that's where you would be wrong. A Muslim soldier launched a grenade attack on fellow soldiers in Kuwait back in '03. The levels of violence from Muslim soldiers against fellow soldiers is un-matched by any other group of nut jobs. And, that's just the stuff we've heard about. We all know that the Lamestream Media is going to report any unflattering stories about Muslims, unless there's a large loss of life. If this dipstick would have only wounded one person, I doubt we would have even heard about it.


I enver said that and you damn well know it!



Really? All muslims think that? I'm glad I have your amazing knowledge to inform me of that. Lalia, I'm sad, I didn't know you consider me the infadel and that I'm not worthy to live. I mean, he did say all muslims believe that so you must because he said so and I mean...it can't be that he's hysterically over reacting and over exaggerating due to it helping his ability to push his xenophobic, anti-consitution political agenda...right?

Go to a mosque. See if they let you past the foryer.
 
I remember watching a C-Span where former Marine General(and Commadant) James Jones(now Obama's NSA advisor) was able to delineate what he thought were weaknesses in the current military structure and deployability, and that our forces as they were aligned(this was pre-9/11) and used in combat would not be sufficient to handle two MTW(major theaters of war) simultaneously. But he was circumspect, respectful, direct and open with his assesment.

It can be done at that level. It is somewhat questioning publically, but only after being asked publically by those who oversee the military, for an assesment. A Major has no place in that discussion, much less just showing up to a function and doing so without permission.

He was also a former officer, not serving on active duty, nor wearing a uniform, when he made those comments. A former major, not currently serving on active, nor reserve status, wearing civilian clothes can say those things, too.
 
Go to a mosque. See if they let you past the foryer.


I know for a fact that they allow non-muslims to enter the Mosque in Jerusalem.

Don't state things you cannot back up.
 
Back
Top Bottom