• 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!

Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

Terrorist or Not

  • Yes, A terrorist Attack

    Votes: 38 54.3%

  • no

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Total voters
    70
Blackdog said:
I am not Catholic. :lol:

Although you could nominate me for Forum Overlord of War?

Hell after all the time I spent as a cop and in the military I probably earned it.
Click to expand...


EpicDude86 said:
I nominate that we elevate Blackdog to the DP Pantheon as the Patron Saint of War.
Click to expand...


lol, I said the DP Pantheon.
 
Blackdog said:
This is a great thing.

Unfortunately war is hell, it is not nice and cozy. I am not trying to be condescending here so forgive my simple language. War is the last resort to a problem and it has horrible consequences that we MUST be willing to take or it is pointless.
Click to expand...

We agree with this - we know this better than a lot of people who debate these issues and have never been affected one way or another by any of it.

That's great. It is to bad allot of wifes and girlfriends don't realizr how important that is to a solder mile
Click to expand...

I fully understand all sides of the "wife" issue and admit it hasn't been easy but I refuse to be a twattle like others - I could go into a lot of crap about other wives and how they ultimately treat their deployed husbands - but I digress.

I am content to admit that my views differ strongly than my husbands and yours, and others - my reality is ALL based on the aftermath - I don't have combat experience, I am the wife and my husband's the one in the sh*t. So, naturally, my view is curved. This is actually a traditional women/war deal . . . I confess.

*edit*
I hear you sister. Being married to a GI can be a real challenge on the home front and I salute your efforts.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I hope that have a strong support - family or friend - it's essential and far too many soldiers get the shaft from the people who they're suppose to be able to depend on.

I think THAT is worthy of an investigation and a full report - everything published picks apart the soldiers and the military, not often do you hear someone criticize their wives and girlfriends, etc, but it happens all the time. Cheating, lying, backstabbing, failing to keep up the finances and other problems, these things are very common and really complicate the return-home yet is unspoken of.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
my reality is ALL based on the aftermath - I don't have combat experience
Click to expand...

I was shot at one time as a police officer, not a solider. I have no combat experience either. I do however have many friends and relatives much like you who have been in combat and they sound like your husband and myself.

I am grateful I never had to go although I would have without hesitation. During desert storm I was in the NG serving as a Stinger Missile gunner. They really did not need us so they left us behind. While I was in in the 80's absolutely nothing happened that involved the US Army armor corp.

So in the end I got lucky I guess.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think THAT is worthy of an investigation and a full report - everything published picks apart the soldiers and the military, not often do you hear someone criticize their wives and girlfriends, etc, but it happens all the time. Cheating, lying, backstabbing, failing to keep up the finances and other problems, these things are very common and really complicate the return-home yet is unspoken of.
Click to expand...

I really can't add to that. All I can say is you are soooo right.
 
Kali said:
But isn't mans law enough? Why do we really need religion? I think a lot of weak people need religion to use as a crutch. It gives em something to believe in and makes em feel important.

Has religion done more bad than good? Think about all the people who have been killed in the name of religion.
Click to expand...

Sorry Kali- I missed your post when I was reviewing this thread yesterday.:3oops:

Hmm, man's law. The major problem with man's law presiding over religion (imo) is that taking supreme power out of a concept and belief and placing it in a man, or group of men, is more dangerous than leaving religion as a concept for positive guidelines because it is not concrete and is not as subject to literally having power over men. Men in positions of power easily become dictators (see the atrocities of mass murders committed under the laws of men during just the 20th century with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al), and if belief is placed in the laws only of men, many more people will suffer. Keeping a concept that there may be a "higher power" which must be answered to gives people at least some sliver of hope that evil men will eventually get what they deserve, whether or not that is a realistic belief.



It's difficult for me to explain this because it is not a concrete thought, but has some components of imagination that I am unable to type on a keyboard.
 
I would call it more of a deranged hate crime. For those that think it was a terrorist attack, what should we do, bomb the base to root out the al Qaeda there? That has been our stategy in our "war on terror" to date.
 
Blackdog said:
I really can't add to that. All I can say is you are soooo right.
Click to expand...

You know - I went looking to see if there's statistics or official references to this part of the issue and there are none - yet I hear the issues all the time straight from the horses mouth (the twattlers, not my husband :lol:)

Makes me wonder just how deep this "failed support" problem goes and why it's never discussed in the media, etc.
 
I would call it an attack on American Soldiers, and you can figure the reason out and call your Politician later.
 
No, this was not a terrorist attack. Those that believe it was clearly do not understand what terrorism is. Some appear to be deliberately redefining the word to suit their position.

This was an act of mass murder committed by an incredibly unstable, radically religious American soldier who is a Muslim. Was religion involved? Yes, but that doesn't mean he was driven by his religion. It simply means it was a part of the makeup of the shooter. His mental/emotional state cannot be dismissed when we are defining this act and the motivations behind it. Was this act based solely on his duty to Islam? Not proven. Was this act carried out to coerce the populace or their government for some ideological or political gain? There is no evidence of that right now.

There are still too many unknowns. But terrorism? No, not in my opinion.
 
I equate ths attack much like I would some looney postal worker goin' off at the workplace.

Although, dressed in full islamic garb shouting "Allah Hairball!!" one might intrepret it as a terrorist attack. At best, it's a copy-cat terrorist attack.

But who can deny terror was struck into the hearts of those who were there as well as their loved ones?

This is a good question. What actually defines terrorist?
 
Lerxst said:
Some appear to be deliberately redefining the word to suit their position.
Click to expand...

Yeah, There's a lot of that going around these days. And until we know for sure that THIS PARTICULAR ACT was part of a scheme to FURTHER AN AGENDA by implementing some form of TERROR then it technically doesn't qualify.
 
Captain America said:
I equate ths attack much like I would some looney postal worker goin' off at the workplace.

Although, dressed in full islamic garb shouting "Allah Hairball!!" one might intrepret it as a terrorist attack. At best, it's a copy-cat terrorist attack.

But who can deny terror was struck into the hearts of those who were there as well as their loved ones?

This is a good question. What actually defines terrorist?
Click to expand...

Google it, there are countless general definitions that are the accepted norm, and plenty of actual legal definitions for the purpose of litigation against those who would perpetrate terrorist acts. In general you will find that terrorism is defined as any act for furthering an agenda, by person or State, upon citizens using methods to instill fear or terror in them. Now you can argue whether you can perform an act of terrorism on combatants as well but that's part of the line that blurs.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I would call it an attack on American Soldiers, and you can figure the reason out and call your Politician later.
Click to expand...

What do you expect a politician to do about it? Do politicians normally deal with criminals?
 
Catawba said:
What do you expect a politician to do about it? Do politicians normally deal with criminals?
Click to expand...

First of all, yeah, they create the laws that deem them as such.

Didn't have your decoder ring ready? Well no matte here comes the secret message! :lol:

Make a decision on this incident. If you think it was a terrorist act or an event that could have been prevented, Call your legislator regarding legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening next time. I can't be a good citizen for you. ;)
 
EpicDude86 said:
First of all, yeah, they create the laws that deem them as such.

Didn't have your decoder ring ready? Well no matte here comes the secret message! :lol:

Make a decision on this incident. If you think it was a terrorist act or an event that could have been prevented, Call your legislator regarding legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening next time. I can't be a good citizen for you. ;)
Click to expand...


I hate to be the one to break the news, but what he did is already against the law.
 
Catawba said:
I hate to be the one to break the news, but what he did is already against the law.
Click to expand...

EpicDude86 said:
regarding legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening next time
Click to expand...

This is what I meant, but if you feel like nit picking that's great. It was also a suggestion, so if you think this situation was handled relatively well, then don't call your legislator. I'm just trying to offer solutions that we can all take part in.
 
EpicDude86 said:
This is what I meant, but if you feel like nit picking that's great. It was also a suggestion, so if you think this situation was handled relatively well, then don't call your legislator. I'm just trying to offer solutions that we can all take part in.
Click to expand...

Not nit picking, genuinely interested in what you think legislators can do to prevent someone from going off and committing mass murder. We had a similar thing happen at Virginia Tech, a nearby college.

Gun control???
 
Catawba said:
Not nit picking, genuinely interested in what you think legislators can do to prevent someone from going off and committing mass murder. We had a similar thing happen at Virginia Tech, a nearby college.

Gun control???
Click to expand...

Would you blame VT on lax Gun control? I hope not.


How about government bureaucrats not doing their damn job and monitoring Cho like they were supposed to...Which...sounds a little familiar in this case.
 
EpicDude86 said:
How about government bureaucrats not doing their damn job and monitoring Cho like they were supposed to...Which...sounds a little familiar in this case.
Click to expand...

Both got their guns without proper background checks. Is that what you mean about government bureaucrats not doing their damn job?
 
Catawba said:
Both got their guns without proper background checks. Is that what you mean about government bureaucrats not doing their damn job?
Click to expand...

The FBI and Army were tracking Hasan's radical behavior. But because they were afraid to report him in fear of being punished for discrimination, they did not and now lots of Soldiers are dead.
 
Catawba said:
I hate to be the one to break the news, but what he did is already against the law.
Click to expand...

So then I assume you are ideologically opposed to "Hate Crimes", right?
 
Catawba said:
Both got their guns without proper background checks. Is that what you mean about government bureaucrats not doing their damn job?
Click to expand...

I mean they both raised a number of red flags and we're either unmonitored as Cho was (He had court appointed therapy or some **** that he didn't go to on more than one occasion) and this Hasan guy was clearly raising red flags all over the place for being off his rocker.

And they both got their guns without proper background checks? I find it hard to believe that a Soldier in the Army would not pass a background check. As for Cho...where did his guns come from again?

On Cho:

"Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony."

"Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia."

No dubious means here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom