Politcal Correctness (FBI/DOD could have stopped Fort Hood)

[GabonX]

You realize he's still alive right?

It's likely that he'll directly confirm what I've been saying here.

And yes, he's crazy. Being crazy is not totally incompatible with terrorist activity..

[Phatscotty]

You realize he's still alive right?

It's likely that he'll directly confirm what I've been saying here.

And yes, he's crazy. Being crazy is not totally incompatible with terrorist activity..

basically go hand in hand

[Phatscotty]

You realize he's still alive right?

It's likely that he'll directly confirm what I've been saying here.

And yes, he's crazy. Being crazy is not totally incompatible with terrorist activity..

basically go hand in hand. I mean seriously.....he is about to take an innocent life.....he knows how many bullets he has.....he looks around the room, wondering which one he's gonna pick first......He had it planned for at least 3 days.....3 days....he thinks "do I kill? do I not kill?" he sides with massacre. I would bet his religion was a huge factor in his decision to pull the trigger. is religious terrorism not considered terrorism?

[BigBallinStalin]

You realize he's still alive right?

It's likely that he'll directly confirm what I've been saying here.

And yes, he's crazy. Being crazy is not totally incompatible with terrorist activity..

Of course, it mostly depends on his motives--whatever they may be.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hassan may or may not have been tied to a larger organization. Regardless of this, his goal was to promote fear by means of violence. Terrorism is defined by the motivation of an action, not the number of people behind it.

By that strict definition, almost anyone can be called a terrorist. Hell, a football team could be called terroristic by that definition. The reality is that what he did was intended to cause harm, but not to cause terror of a nation. Thus, it is not terrorism.

In general, I don't think that the term applies to sports. The term relates to manipulation of a population or government.

My understanding of Hassan's actions is that his actions were carried out to send a message to the United States military about their involvement with the Islamic world.

If he wanted to send a more direct message, he could've written something down then went on the shooting spree.

Based on the limited information available to us, in my opinion he's just a crazy man.

soldier of Allah count? (SOA)

Depends on how he labels himself and his actions. Everything else so far has pointed not in the direction of terrorism (or at least was insufficient evidence to do so). All we can do is wait and see.

[Woodruff]

a massacre is an act of terror

Of course it is. But for something to be considered terroristic in a "danger to the nation" sense, the scope of it would have to either be or seem far larger than what is seen by an individual crazy man.

there is just the problem of a COUPLE parallels to the 9-11 hijackers beliefs, and you are so stuck on "it has to be larger, or conspiratorial" thats your opinion

It seems painfully obvious that it has to be a danger to the nation to be taken as "terroristic" in the sense of someone wanting to cause terror in the general public. I'm not sure why that's not obvious to you.

[Phatscotty]

a massacre is an act of terror

Of course it is. But for something to be considered terroristic in a "danger to the nation" sense, the scope of it would have to either be or seem far larger than what is seen by an individual crazy man.

there is just the problem of a COUPLE parallels to the 9-11 hijackers beliefs, and you are so stuck on "it has to be larger, or conspiratorial" thats your opinion

It seems painfully obvious that it has to be a danger to the nation to be taken as "terroristic" in the sense of someone wanting to cause terror in the general public. I'm not sure why that's not obvious to you.

would you mind mentioning the differences of the 9-11 hijackers and the fort Hood attacker?

[Woodruff]

a massacre is an act of terror

Of course it is. But for something to be considered terroristic in a "danger to the nation" sense, the scope of it would have to either be or seem far larger than what is seen by an individual crazy man.

there is just the problem of a COUPLE parallels to the 9-11 hijackers beliefs, and you are so stuck on "it has to be larger, or conspiratorial" thats your opinion

It seems painfully obvious that it has to be a danger to the nation to be taken as "terroristic" in the sense of someone wanting to cause terror in the general public. I'm not sure why that's not obvious to you.

would you mind mentioning the differences of the 9-11 hijackers and the fort Hood attacker?

That's not difficult...The Fort Hood attacker doesn't have the resources to cause serious damage to our country or its populace. As well, the 9/11 hijackers stated religious jihad against the United States. To my knowledge, the Fort Hood attacker has only yelled his God's name while attacking, which does not necessarily equate to the same thing.

[Phatscotty]

a massacre is an act of terror

Of course it is. But for something to be considered terroristic in a "danger to the nation" sense, the scope of it would have to either be or seem far larger than what is seen by an individual crazy man.[/quote]
there is just the problem of a COUPLE parallels to the 9-11 hijackers beliefs, and you are so stuck on "it has to be larger, or conspiratorial" thats your opinion[/quote]

It seems painfully obvious that it has to be a danger to the nation to be taken as "terroristic" in the sense of someone wanting to cause terror in the general public. I'm not sure why that's not obvious to you.[/quote]
would you mind mentioning the differences of the 9-11 hijackers and the fort Hood attacker?[/quote]

That's not difficult...The Fort Hood attacker doesn't have the resources to cause serious damage to our country or its populace. As well, the 9/11 hijackers stated religious jihad against the United States. To my knowledge, the Fort Hood attacker has only yelled his God's name while attacking, which does not necessarily equate to the same thing.[/quote]
That is true if you only view # of deaths, or impact to the economy as the outcome. Either way, Political Correctness is responsible for the Army not looking into the red flags deeper. and I believe the massacre could and should have been prevented

[Baron Von PWN]

I am really astounded at you Barons bending over backwards for a terrorist that planned and followed through with a massacre. A strong society says "Off with your head, we don't tolerate massacres and we're making an example out of you" A pussy society says "Oh, what about his feelings? oh, but what kind of massacre was it?" makes me sick, and if it is you calling me an embarrassment, I will take that as a compliment

Did I call you an embarrassment? All I was doing was asking questions, I don't believe I've even stated a position yet.

Hmm " a pussy society" sounds fun

more seriously. A terrorist attack implies some sort of political motivation, usual some kind of bullshit demands, some kind of organisation. To my mind this guy is just a nutter with terrorist sympathies. He acted on his own and isn't part of a larger organisation. So really arguing whether its a terrorist act or not, is just semantics.

After him this story ends, one guy went crazy a bunch of people died. What you call it doesn't really matter, I just feel bad about those poor saps.

[Phatscotty]

I am really astounded at you Barons bending over backwards for a terrorist that planned and followed through with a massacre. A strong society says "Off with your head, we don't tolerate massacres and we're making an example out of you" A pussy society says "Oh, what about his feelings? oh, but what kind of massacre was it?" makes me sick, and if it is you calling me an embarrassment, I will take that as a compliment

Did I call you an embarrassment? All I was doing was asking questions, I don't believe I've even stated a position yet.

Hmm " a pussy society" sounds fun

more seriously. A terrorist attack implies some sort of political motivation, usual some kind of bullshit demands, some kind of organisation. To my mind this guy is just a nutter with terrorist sympathies. He acted on his own and isn't part of a larger organisation. So really arguing whether its a terrorist act or not, is just semantics.

After him this story ends, one guy went crazy a bunch of people died. What you call it doesn't really matter, I just feel bad about those poor saps.

Well I really can't wait to hear his side of the story. I have a hunch, just a small, tiny, hunch......that he will confirm what most of us are calling it. If that is going to be the case, we are gonna have to come back and look at WHY you would take these positions on using the word "terror"...

[Baron Von PWN]

If that is going to be the case, we are gonna have to come back and look at WHY you would take these positions on using the word "terror"...

What are you talking about?!

[Woodruff]

Either way, Political Correctness is responsible for the Army not looking into the red flags deeper. and I believe the massacre could and should have been prevented

That you believe the Army isn't looking into this with every fiber of their being just shows me that you don't know the military very well.

[Phatscotty]

Either way, Political Correctness is responsible for the Army not looking into the red flags deeper. and I believe the massacre could and should have been prevented

That you believe the Army isn't looking into this with every fiber of their being just shows me that you don't know the military very well.

you misunderstood. NOW they are, yes. but it seems the investigations that took place BEFORE the shootings....wait, you do know about those instances....right?

[Snorri1234]

That article, particularly the part which outlines the US view on terrorism, actually confirms what I've been saying.

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (The asterisk is important, as we shall see later.)

The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant* targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.

Hassan's actions fall under the category of Terrorism whether we're defining the term by the US state department standards, or the common standards of the English language.

Except that we know nothing about the intent.

[GabonX]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was. There is no great mystery to be solved

[spurgistan]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was. There is no great mystery to be solved

Correct. It's plainly obvious that the man was sick.

[Snorri1234]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was.

If we take the circumstantial evidence then the conclusion would be that it was not terrorism, just like workplace shootings are not terrorism.

[Phatscotty]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was.

If we take the circumstantial evidence then the conclusion would be that it was not terrorism, just like workplace shootings are not terrorism.

F.B.I. official Line

Major Hasan came to the attention of the FBI in December 2008 as part of an unrelated investigation being conducted by one of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). JTTFs are FBI-led, multi-agency teams made up of FBI agents, other federal investigators, including those from the Department of Defense, and state and local law enforcement officers. Such task forces are designed to bring investigators and analysts into a collaborative, information-sharing environment in order to maximize the collective impact of the respective agencies.

So, lets heap this on top of the overwhelming evidence. He was being investigated, before the shooting, by the joint terrorism tak forces?

pull you head out of the sand. for your own good mate, we are all brothers in the end

[Snorri1234]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was.

If we take the circumstantial evidence then the conclusion would be that it was not terrorism, just like workplace shootings are not terrorism.

F.B.I. official Line

Major Hasan came to the attention of the FBI in December 2008 as part of an unrelated investigation being conducted by one of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). JTTFs are FBI-led, multi-agency teams made up of FBI agents, other federal investigators, including those from the Department of Defense, and state and local law enforcement officers. Such task forces are designed to bring investigators and analysts into a collaborative, information-sharing environment in order to maximize the collective impact of the respective agencies.

So, lets heap this on top of the overwhelming evidence. He was being investigated, before the shooting, by the joint terrorism tak forces?

pull you head out of the sand. for your own good mate, we are all brothers in the end

And they didn't do anything?


So I guess he must not have been a terrorist then....


Seriously, what kind of fucking evidence is that?

[Phatscotty]

Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand and is familiar with the abundance of information available on Hassan knows what his intent was.

If we take the circumstantial evidence then the conclusion would be that it was not terrorism, just like workplace shootings are not terrorism.

F.B.I. official Line

Major Hasan came to the attention of the FBI in December 2008 as part of an unrelated investigation being conducted by one of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). JTTFs are FBI-led, multi-agency teams made up of FBI agents, other federal investigators, including those from the Department of Defense, and state and local law enforcement officers. Such task forces are designed to bring investigators and analysts into a collaborative, information-sharing environment in order to maximize the collective impact of the respective agencies.

So, lets heap this on top of the overwhelming evidence. He was being investigated, before the shooting, by the joint terrorism tak forces?

pull you head out of the sand. for your own good mate, we are all brothers in the end

And they didn't do anything?


So I guess he must not have been a terrorist then....


Seriously, what kind of fucking evidence is that?

it is evidence, that the person you hold up on a pedistal, the person you come running to defend and how he wasnt a terrorist............

..........was under investigation by the FBI terror task force.

[Snorri1234]

it is evidence, that the person you hold up on a pedistal, the person you come running to defend and how he wasnt a terrorist............

..........was under investigation by the FBI terror task force.

And he wasn't arrested. Obviously not a terrorist then?

[Phatscotty]

it is evidence, that the person you hold up on a pedistal, the person you come running to defend and how he wasnt a terrorist............

..........was under investigation by the FBI terror task force.

And he wasn't arrested. Obviously not a terrorist then?

Dont you have to do something before you get arrested? ARe you seriously arguing the position "well, he didnt get arrested BEFORE the massacre, so obvisouly he wasnt a terrorist?" get a brain cell dude holy shit

[Snorri1234]

it is evidence, that the person you hold up on a pedistal, the person you come running to defend and how he wasnt a terrorist............

..........was under investigation by the FBI terror task force.

And he wasn't arrested. Obviously not a terrorist then?

Dont you have to do something before you get arrested? ARe you seriously arguing the position "well, he didnt get arrested BEFORE the massacre, so obvisouly he wasnt a terrorist?" get a brain cell dude holy shit

No I'm saying that being investigated IS NOT FUCKING PROOF! You're saying that since he was investigated he must've been a terrorist, but if he was one then he would've been arrested. Because, and this might be news to you, you can actually arrest people without them needing to have done something. You don't have to have done something. If I say I'm going to blow up a school tomorrow they can arrest me. It's fucking easy.


So if he was investigated and not arrested they obviously couldn't find enough evidence that he was a terrorist. So therefore there isn't enough evidence to say he is a terrorist.

[PoleDancer]

.