• 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
EpicDude86 said:
Keep. Tabs. On. Red. Flags.

at least with Hasan they had evidence to believe. Just because someone purchases a gun legitimately doesn't automatically mean they intend to do something crazy.

Of what use are "red flags", or "evidence" if they are not utilized to protect the public? They should made available for access in background checks for gun purchases.

also we're having this conversation in two threads, are we not?
Click to expand...

You are very perceptive.;)
 
Catawba said:
You are very perceptive.;)
Click to expand...

Forgive me - but background gunchecks wouldn't have stopped the Columbine massacre . . .among many others tragic things.

If someone is intent on shooting up a joint - they're going to land their hands on a weapon.

On a military base it's easier than you think. . .so, it's far more ideal to monitor your people.
 
Catawba said:
You are very perceptive.;)
Click to expand...

Alright then, I'll go down that road: When did he buy the guns he used in the attack? Was it before or after the "red flags"? and would they even show up if they were just "speculations"?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Forgive me - but background gunchecks wouldn't have stopped the Columbine massacre . . .among many others tragic things.

If someone is intent on shooting up a joint - they're going to land their hands on a weapon.

On a military base it's easier than you think. . .so, it's far more ideal to monitor your people.
Click to expand...

Of what value is monitoring if that info is not put to use to protect the public?

Reducing the access of guns to the mentally disturbed would help accomplish that through more thorough background checks for gun purchases. Until then people should not be surprised at the shooting sprees that occur. That was the findings after the VT shootings and I am confidant that will be the findings from the Fort Hood shootings.

What harm do you see from more thorough background checks?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Alright then, I'll go down that road: When did he buy the guns he used in the attack? Was it before or after the "red flags"? and would they even show up if they were just "speculations"?
Click to expand...

That was the finding after the VT shootings. After the Fort Hood investigation is completed we will know if it was a factor there as well.

Why are you so opposed to thorough background checks for gun purchases? What's the downside???
 
Catawba said:
Of what value is monitoring if that info is not put to use to protect the public?

Reducing the access of guns to the mentally disturbed would help accomplish that through more thorough background checks for gun purchases. Until then people should not be surprised at the shooting sprees that occur. That was the findings after the VT shootings and I am confidant that will be the findings from the Fort Hood shootings.

What harm do you see from more thorough background checks?
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously the current regulations aren't rigid enough - I agree with that.
But strict regulations aren't going to keep things from happening in some situations. I don't feel that regulations would have affected Hassan at all. If he was willing to kill that many people and take bullets for his cause I'm sure he' d be just as likely to be a suicide bomber, too.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes, obviously the current regulations aren't rigid enough - I agree with that.
But strict regulations aren't going to keep things from happening in some situations. I don't feel that regulations would have affected Hassan at all. If he was willing to kill that many people and take bullets for his cause I'm sure he' d be just as likely to be a suicide bomber, too.
Click to expand...

So your solution to prevent similar shooting sprees is.......what?
 
Catawba said:
So your solution to prevent similar shooting sprees is.......what?
Click to expand...

In particular to Hasan - When they first had evidence to investigate him - they should have followed through with that thoroughly and they should have removed him from his current possition IN the military.

There were obvious signs that he wasn't squared away - and they ignored them. It's fact, now, undeniable. They favored being PC over being safe.

They have the means in place to examine soldiers - that, actually, was Hasan's job. He was the psychologist and he examined soldiers and cleared them for duty.
There are countless programs and measures in place to monitor soldiers who fall under the higher-ranking commands.
Likewise - there should be extra measures in place for those who *are* higher-ranking in command.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
In particular to Hasan - When they first had evidence to investigate him - they should have followed through with that thoroughly and they should have removed him from his current possition IN the military.

There were obvious signs that he wasn't squared away - and they ignored them. It's fact, now, undeniable. They favored being PC over being safe.

They have the means in place to examine soldiers - that, actually, was Hasan's job. He was the psychologist and he examined soldiers and cleared them for duty.
There are countless programs and measures in place to monitor soldiers who fall under the higher-ranking commands.
Likewise - there should be extra measures in place for those who *are* higher-ranking in command.
Click to expand...

Yes it appears the military has some problems in their chain of command it needs to address for mentally deranged in their ranks, and any info gathered should be be accessible for background checks to purchase guns.
 
Catawba said:
Yes it appears the military has some problems in their chain of command it needs to address for mentally deranged in their ranks, and any info gathered should be be accessible for background checks to purchase guns.
Click to expand...

Only, opponents would argue that such things violate a right to privacy and that having such things still wouldn't keep weapons out of the hands of the deranged.

It might bar a few people, but not most. In Hasan's case there were extensive known warning signs that were intentionally ignored. If a person cannot qualify for a weapon then they, surely, wouldn't qualify to posses one in a military environment, either.
All in all - to avoid this situation, they should have just outed him in the beginning. Of course, then he'd be a risk to society at large and not just the military so, in that regard, there was nothing they could have done at all.

However, for regular people there's no "mental-evaluation intervention." - Most people are never psychologically examined.

Idealy - it sounds great. Logisticly, it's impossible to impliment.
 
RightinNYC said:
Here's the actual study, for those who would rather see the facts as opposed to the spin.

Findings:

*Al Qaida's approval rating among American muslims is a whopping 5%.

*"Overall, 8% of Muslim Americans say suicide bombings against civilian targets tactics are often (1%) or sometimes (7%) justified in the defense of Islam."

*78% say suicide bombings are never justified.

*"Seven percent of Muslims overall say that the [9/11] attacks were the result of a conspiracy involving the United States government or the Bush
administration. Very small proportions hold others responsible, including individuals other than Muslims (1%),[or] Israel or Jewish interests (1%)" [ed note: That's a lower incidence of Trutherhood than for all Americans]

*Most Muslims in the U.S. express optimism that a balanced solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict can be found. Indeed, 61% of Muslim Americans say that “a way can be found for Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people can be taken care of,” compared with 16% who say that the rights and needs of Palestinians cannot be taken care of as long as Israel exists. In this regard, the opinions of U.S. Muslims closely resemble those expressed by the U.S. public as a whole [of which 67% say they can exist together while 15% say they cannot].

*"A large majority of Muslim Americans believe that hard work pays off in this society. Fully 71% agree that most people who want to get ahead in the United States can make it if they are willing to work hard."

*"The survey shows that although many Muslims are relative newcomers to the U.S., they are highly assimilated into American society. On balance, they believe that Muslims coming to the U.S. should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society."
Click to expand...

There is a problem with your poll/survey of muslims. In order to accept the result of said poll we must first examine Islam and the doctrine of deceit. I am posting a link to study of Islam as it relates to this subject. It covers Islamic Political Doctrine, Duality (contrdictions in the early Qur'an written in Mecca and the later Qur'an written in Medina and why they are both right). Dualistic Systems, and Deception and Deceit.

Please take the time to read it. I promise it will help you and others to have a better understanding of Islam.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/60241-doctrine-deceit.html#post1058366134

When deception advances Islam, the deception is not a sin.

Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, "Who will kill Ka'b, the enemy of Allah and Moham-med?"
Bin Maslama rose and responded, "O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?"
Mohammed answered, "Yes."
Bin Maslama then said, "Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed."
Mohammed replied, "You may speak falsely to him."
 
Last edited:
If Fort Hood was a terrorist attack then every mass shooting in the US is a terrorist attack.
 
PeteEU said:
If Fort Hood was a terrorist attack then every mass shooting in the US is a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Definition of Terrorism Terrorism Definition | Definition of Terrorism at Dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Do you believe Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist? He had one cohart Terry Nichols and no ties to any terrorist organization. He was however considered to be a terrorist by the federal government of the USA. The Above definition describes Tim McVeigh and in my opinion and the opinion of the majority of American people Nidal Hasan also fits the definition of a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
That was the finding after the VT shootings. After the Fort Hood investigation is completed we will know if it was a factor there as well.

Why are you so opposed to thorough background checks for gun purchases? What's the downside???
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act]Wikipedia[/ame]

We already have background checks and waiting periods.
 
PeteEU said:
If Fort Hood was a terrorist attack then every mass shooting in the US is a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Really? Really? I don't believe I can facepalm hard enough, sir.

Go back to cutting your steak with spoons, Euro.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Only, opponents would argue that such things violate a right to privacy and that having such things still wouldn't keep weapons out of the hands of the deranged.

It might bar a few people, but not most. In Hasan's case there were extensive known warning signs that were intentionally ignored. If a person cannot qualify for a weapon then they, surely, wouldn't qualify to posses one in a military environment, either.
All in all - to avoid this situation, they should have just outed him in the beginning. Of course, then he'd be a risk to society at large and not just the military so, in that regard, there was nothing they could have done at all.

However, for regular people there's no "mental-evaluation intervention." - Most people are never psychologically examined.

Idealy - it sounds great. Logisticly, it's impossible to impliment.
Click to expand...


Then the shooting sprees where the mentally deranged like Hassan and Cho can legally buy guns will continue.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Wikipedia

We already have background checks and waiting periods.
Click to expand...

The shooting sprees where the mentally deranged can legally purchase guns would indicated the are not thorough enough.
 
Catawba said:
Then the shooting sprees where the mentally deranged like Hassan and Cho can legally buy guns will continue.
Click to expand...

Yes, they will.

We always have had deranged people killing innocent people indiscriminately. . . it's a tragic fact of life.

But that doesn't mean we should STOP trying to dissuade, intervene, and prevent such things from happening - it just means we'll always be dealing wit hit.
 
Catawba said:
The shooting sprees where the mentally deranged can legally purchase guns would indicated the are not thorough enough.
Click to expand...

Then it's not the fault of the gun laws, it's the fault of those in charge of finding these wackjobs and apprehending them. If you don't like the gun laws you can always go to GB.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Then it's not the fault of the gun laws, it's the fault of those in charge of finding these wackjobs and apprehending them. If you don't like the gun laws you can always go to GB.
Click to expand...

In the meantime just provide the whackjobs with guns.......hell of a plan!:shock:
 
Catawba said:
In the meantime just provide the whackjobs with guns.......hell of a plan!:shock:
Click to expand...

Well go to Great Britain and ask them how they like not having guns. Then compare the two. You may find that it's a much nicer place for you, and you can stay there til we fix the gun laws here.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Well go to Great Britain and ask them how they like not having guns. Then compare the two. You may find that it's a much nicer place for you, and you can stay there til we fix the gun laws here.
Click to expand...


Oh by all means the shooting sprees at VT, Fort Hood and the others have been just lovely! :shock:
 
after Hungerford, and the changes in the gun laws here, I had no problem in handing in my weapons, I accepted the gun ban as part of my duty to help protect society here.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Well go to Great Britain and ask them how they like not having guns. Then compare the two. You may find that it's a much nicer place for you, and you can stay there til we fix the gun laws here.
Click to expand...
Cat would be most welcome here, we have always welcomed civilized people to GREAT Britain, just like the welcome we gave to your wonderful President Obama:)
 
B L Zeebub said:
after Hungerford, and the changes in the gun laws here, I had no problem in handing in my weapons, I accepted the gun ban as part of my duty to help protect society here.
Click to expand...


I think it is that some here are opposed to any kind of restrictions on gun ownership because they feel if the whackjobs are denied to purchase guns, they may be considered whackjobs. That is the only apparent reason I can see to object to more thorough background checks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom