Finding out Fort Hood killer is an arab terrorist

Did you read the latest news about this guy Hasan? He is a total al-qeada supporter. They should wait until he gets better, and then torture the SOB.

is this 100% official or media speculation?

Whether or not he's proven to be a card-carrying member of Al Queida, his murderous rampage was an act of terrorism--fully in synch with, and motivated by, the goals of Al Queida and other Islamic terrorist organizations: to destroy American lives.

I take it you read this from the New York Post.

So far there is no indication that he has any ties to any terror network.

Just someone who went gun-happy psycho like a post office worker (with the ethnic/religious stuff a red herring) or he acted as a psycho terrorist on his own dime and time.

I think its the latter.



Yes, just like the Viet Cong, Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans all did to our guys.

We're a civilized government, or would like to think we are compared to those regimes.

EDIT - Baiting for Mr. Capo, Baiting for Mr. Capo, please come to the front desk...

Now TB, of all Board members, you are the one I credit with the most caution when posting. The only info we have available comes to us through the media filter. We ought to wait for more definitive information.

I agree with you Turnball. The total left are trying to say this guy was sick, which I think is bull shit. The guy was a damn doctor for crying out loud. Do you know how smart you gotta be to get your doctoral degree? So, this punk is not loco in the head, he is a terrorist that had a temper tantrum.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2...olitical-lenses

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/FtHoodshooting/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-slipped-cracks/story?id=9039742

http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/hood-killer-terrorist-t3521.html

First of all, he can't be an Arab anything. He was born in the United States, which makes him American. He was Muslim, but he was not Arab. And was he a Muslim extremist? Only time will tell.

Also, what makes you think that, just because he was smart, he wasn't "sick"? And he had a medical degree, he didn't have a doctorate, to my knowledge, although it's not out of the question that he might have had both. And he had a TEMPER TANTRUM??? He slaughtered innocent people because he was having a BAD DAY??

Oh, and please, Rush Limbaugh cited as a source?? Really??

He is an Islamic terrorist just like McVeigh was a Christian terrorist, and he will meet the same fate.

So you're saying that a doctor can't go.....nuts? BTW, are you able to make Dr. Hannibal Lecter's appointment next week? He's so anxious to have lunch with you.

The right is spinning this as a Al Qaeda sleeper agent, that all Muslims in the military want to blow everyone up* and can't be trusted at all. The left is spinning that this is everything but a religious nutjob this side of those abortion shooters/bombers.

I have no ideological investment.

*=A recent result of that paranoia: A guy in full garb and didn't speak English got the shit beaten out of him by a soldier over in Illinois because the soldier thought the foreigner was a terrorist.

He was revealed to be a Greek Orthodox priest who was lost.

More likely he's so anxious to have you for lunch.

Ralph Peters wrote this for the Post the other day (seeing as Ronnie mentioned the Post). Now the Post is normally a righty, apologist tabloid, but I have to admit, I enjoyed this article and thought it mad a lot of sense.

Fort Hood's 9/11

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn’t killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There’ll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn’t dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he’ll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We’ve already heard from the terrorist’s family that "he’s a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she’s becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we’re assured that "Islam’s a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration’s non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

I appreciate your post, Olivant.

Hasan worshipped with a pro-Queida imam at a Virginia mosque; corresponded via e-mail with that imam after he moved to Yemen; visited radical Islmaic websites; posted praise for suicide bombers; openly spoke about how the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was a war on Islam; paraded in fundamentalist Islamic garb prior to the attack, and shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting. That doesn't leave me with a lot of doubt about his motives.

I agree with that article 100%. IMHO that bastard needs to be shot in the head 13 times.

Why 13?

It was well written and informative. I'm a New York City Democrat, and even I can see that.

14 would be excessive.

Actually, I believe Mig was alluding to the 13 victims of the attack.

I thought the article went overboard in three areas, first the gratuitous reference to "Obamaland" was a cheap shot. Second it presupposed that this terrorist would get a trial in a United States District Court. As an Army Officer he is going to be facing a court martial, where the rules are very different. Casting him as a victim is not going to fly. I believe the penalty remains hanging. Third it is not a surprise that his family would call him a "good American." Its his family for heaven's sake, leave them out of it.

What I do not understand is how so many people missed him for what he was.
While we all have to take our shoes off at airports, here was a guy inside the army e mailing some crazy imam in the middle east, posting all kinds of stuff, and claiming Muslims should not be sent to fight in the Middle East.

BTW according to that "logic" would Catholics and Lutherans have been given
exemptions to fight Italians and Germans in WWII?

That is what I meant.

The bastard is being charged with 13 counts of murder.
Story

Why waste tax payers time and money. Just shoot him in the head 13 times.

Some of the philistinism on display here is absolutely outrageous. The third sentence of the entire thread is fucking heinous. Its author is positively backward.

It's a tragic incident, for sure, and a lot of people are no doubt suffering right now because of it. But that doesn't mean there's a whole lot of frankly vacuous emotionalism, sensationalism and politically and morally repugnant responses to this incident. It's a sociological crisis and it exposes all kinds of logical fallacies and contradictions in people's thinking.

This is no worse than the many extrajudicial killings occurring far more frequently in the Middle East; and I think it's very sad that many will be taken in by the veils of falsity that allow such hypocrisies to happen.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you bloodthirsty, arrogant, fiction-loving [BadWord] flaps.

No I'm not ashamed. I'll even say it again. SHOOT THE FUCKING BASTARD IN THE HEAD 13 TIMES!!!!!

Don't sugarcoat it, Mig. Say what's on your mind .

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I almost responded civilly to this, but thought better of it. I wonder why I'm here at all. (And don't think of some witty AppleOnYa-ism in reply to that.)

Out of moderate ostrich liberalism comes the kind of extreme inhumane backwardness that Mig and others have displayed time and time again on this board. I miss Plawrence.

"...vacuous emotionalism, sensationalism and politically and morally repugnant response..."

When there's a response to this that doesn't fit into that quote, I'll feel surrounded by enough humans to start posting again. Until then, enjoy bathing in your bloodthirsty, arrogant, fiction-loving philistinism.

I agree and love you Mig.........

According to your logic, wouldn't that be a waste of 12 taxpayer financed bullets?

First- You have Black African Muslims, Black American Muslims, Arab Muslims and Arab American Muslims. Hasan sure don't look like a brotha to me.

Second- From what I've read is Hasan did have his double d.

Also, my grandfather once said "you can't be a more prouder American than a Sicilian one," which I agree with. So, It surprises me as a fellow Sicilian that you would have sympathy for this bastard. You're even trying to make excuses for his evil behavior. Also a babe to me is a woman that is not just beautiful on the in, but has a beautiful personality as well.

Hasan had a temper tantrum because he hates Americans, and wanted to kill some and did so. He's an evil piece of crap, not a nice person.

Third- Rush is right!!!!!!!!!!

Babe makes some good points that illustrate why lynch mobs were so prevalent (apparently) in the old west. Hasan was born in Virginia of what we believe at this point to be middle-eastern descent and his family is from Jordan. Now, middle eastern descent subsumes alot of different ethnicities which alot of Americans fail to acknowlege (like the difference between a Napolitan and a Sicilian). His communications with other middle-easterners has not yet been publicized, but only paraphrased. As I posted above, all of our information is coming to us through the filter of the media. I'd rather wait until the evidence against him is made public before I draw any conclusions about motivations.

And a note to Capo: "sociological crises"? Madonne! No, murder. That doesn't seem in doubt at this point.

No it's not a waste of taxpayer money when you are getting rid of a piece of shit terrorist scum. Plus it's a hell of alot cheaper.

Ronnie,

So, you like to watch movies??

If you don't like the sentiments of those who are appalled by what has taken place, then by all means post you objections to them. Post your views. By all means give your opinion.

But please don't take a shot at these boards by making such a general statement like the one above. No one has forced you to stay.

The Peters article was atypically thoughtful... for a quick minute.

The issue of whether or not this man is called a terrorist is besides the point except to people who want to make political hay out of it. The disturbing powerpoint presentation that he did which I posted in another thread should have been enough (IMO) to get him removed from duty or something but I am not familiar with protocols in the armed forces. Many people that do things like this give off signs. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Just like George Sodini or that nut that tried to shootup the Holocaust Museum , Hasan was giving off signs of disturbance.

The larger question is what do we do about people that appear to be setting off alarms but until the point that they crack haven't done anything illegal.

Oh I know. Hence why I said what I said. It was rhetorical. I know why I come on here; because I'm not working, or reading and writing, and I'm on the Internet, on a board I've frequented since 2002, and have frequented because it's been a large part of my own life. You can get to this site by Googling "The Godfather", one of the most loved and widely acclaimed products of the most popular art forms. That in itself makes it culturally significant. Add to the fact that it's predominantly American, predominantly right-wing, predominantly Christian, and I'm an outsider. But hey, once in a while you get a debate-worthy topic (i.e., something not about 'the weather' or 'random post' or 'news from our neck of the woods'), a topic that is, well, topical, and culturally significant, and that's what makes this an interesting board to be part of. "I wonder why I'm here at all" could have easily been reduced to the more popular alternative: " ". But why am I making an effort to articulate an opinion in response to such - sorry to repeat myself - casual displays of absolute philistinism? Well, the answer to that is, I'm not. I can type all the cogent responses I want, but I get the strange feeling it'd be ineffective or unheard. And SC's already said recently that he "can't help [me] there".

Finally, a note to Olivant: an individual incident of murder - or thirteen counts of it - isn't necessarily a 'sociological crisis', but I fear you've misunderstood. The majority of responses to such an incident may be indicative of a wider 'sociological crisis'.

There is little doubt he will be found guilty by a court martial and will hang. Mig, certainly someone of your intelligence knows that what makes this country great is rule of law, and what brings it down is the absence of rule of law (See, e.g. Bush-Cheney).

If executing him would restore the lives of the 13 victims, I would be in favor of putting him to death.

How many people who were guilty as sin got off on a technicality just to get out and commit crime again? Yes America is a great country and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

If wishing made it happen.

Alleged Ft. Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan paralyzed and may never walk again, lawyer says

NY Daily News

The accussed Fort Hood gunman is paralyzed and likely will never be able walk again, his lawyer said Friday.

Attorney John Galligan said Maj. Nidal Hasan's medical condition remains "extremely serious" and "it appears he won't be able to walk in the future."

Galligan, a retired Army colonel, met Thursday with the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at the sprawling Texas army post on Nov. 5. Galligan said Hasan was coherent in the early stages of the meeting but began to fade toward the end of their hour-long session in the hospital intensive care unit where the accused gunman is recouperating from gunshot wounds.

Hasan, charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder, could face the death penalty if convicted in a military court martial.

Twenty-nine people were injured in the rampage.

"He understands who I am," Galligan said.

But as the meeting progressed the lawyer said "I could tell I was kind of pushing him in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me."

Galligan complained that Hasan was charged in the hospital without his lawyers present, Galligan said.

"What I find disturbing is that my client is in ICU, and he's 150 miles south of his defense counsel, and he's being served with the charges," he told The Associated Press.

"Given his status as a patient, I'm troubled by this procedure and that I'm not there. I'm in the dark, and that shouldn't be the case. I am mad."

Hasan could face additional charges. The military had not decided whether to prosecute him for the death of the unborn child of one of the murdered soldiers, officials told The Associated Press.

The Army has said they believe Hasan acted alone. Faced with reports that the FBI knew Hasan had been in contact with a radical Islamic imam in Yemen and that he may have attempted to convert U.S. soldiers to Islam, President Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence related to the troubled Army shrink be preserved and reviewed.

The first results are due Nov. 30. Members of Congress are also pressing for a full investigation into why Hasan was not detected and stopped. A Senate hearing is scheduled for next week.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew of 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

Months before the shootings, doctors and staff overseeing Hasan's training at Walter Reed Medical Center characterized him as lazy and a mediocre student who often was belligent with classmates in his strong religious views. Some questioned Hasan's sympathies and whether he would be more aligned with Muslims fighting U.S. troops.

There also was some concern about whether he should continue to serve in the military. But they saw no signs of mental problems or risk factors that would predict violent behavior, officials said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...l#ixzz0WiJDaVRD

I think that "people who were guilty as sin got off on a technicality" is one of the most overused phrases in the English language. The basis for it is anecdotal at best. "guilty as sin". How is that concluded without a thorough vetting of the criminal justice process?

How many Board members would be willing to sign and abide by the following statement: " If I am ever subject to the criminal justice process whether federal or state, I waive all federal and state Constitutional rights (4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th US Constitutional amendment, at a minimum)?

Do you think his 72 virgins will still want him?

There is nothing in the Koran about 72 virgins.

I don't know if it does or not. I never read it.

Its one of those things where the "devout" bastardize a religious book to their political purpose, since who wants to actually bother and read* in today's times....

Which is why such whackjobs flip-flop between "literal" and "metaphorical."

*=Fun fact: About half of the American population don't read. I'm tempted to make a political joke but nah...

As mentioned there is nothing in the Qu'ran about 72 virgins awaiting for those who die. There are strongly physical descriptions of paradise which are nonetheless considered to be allegorical.

In one of the Hadiths, not the Qu'ran, there is the statement that the smallest reward for believers is 72 wives. This Hadith does not say that someone committing murder or suicide qualifies for any reward. This particular Hadith is not considered to be impeccable. There are other Hadiths and places in the Qu'ran where suicide and murder are strongly condemned.

That article that PB posted is dead on. The lowlife is a terrorist plain & simple.


But hey folks remember islam is a religion of peace

What defines a terrorist and how does Hasan comport with that definition?Is George Hennard a terrorist? He murdered 21 people. How about James Adkisson? He murdered two people at a church. How about Joseph Pallipurath? He murdered three people at a New Jersey church? Do these people's actions comport with your definition of terrorism? For that matter, when the Mafia murders someone to keep them from testifying or to otherwise intimidate them, is that terrorism?

Good question, Olivant. To many it seems any Muslim who commits murder is a "terrorist."

Terrorism is a tactic employed by various organizations and nations to terrorize others to bend to their will. Is Waterboarding and torture carried on by the U.S. terrorism? Many Americans would say not,but it is a tactic necessary to stop terrorism. Tell that to an innocent person who was rounded up and put in Guantanamo and waterboarded.

President Obama is right to refuse to refer to the "War on Terror," because Terrorism has been with us always. Protestants and Catholics terrorized each other forever in Europe. Zionists who blew up the King David Hotel were "terrorists." I am sure George III considered American Revolutionaries "terrorits." In other words "terrorism" is not something against you declare "war," it is something that must be dealt with by taking preventative meaures and by making it not pay. This does not get accomplished by invading foreign countries and by jingoism. It gets done by diligent work and by good intelligence (notably absent before 9/11 and notably absent on this Fort Hood killer who should have been suspected and removed from his position some time ago).

Personally I am glad to see the 9/11 ploters being put on trial in New York, which was the scene of the atrocities of 9/11. I have more faith in the rule of law than I do in wily nily applications of "force" in the name of democracy.

And BTW, people who have never read the Qu'ran ought not to be quoting it.

Jesus (or should I say Mohammad?), some sensible comments have finally been put forth in this thread!

Backward sweeping religiously loaded sentiment, to which I eagerly await Don Cardi's response. Since "redneck" is adopted as a term of affection these days, I don't know what to say other than "thick as fucking pig shit".

Ah, such fine sarcastic wisdom from Iceman, as ever. If this is in some way meant to suggest that Islam is a "religion of war", I note that it's no more so than any other religion. Any monotheistic religion is inherently exclusive; a "belief in God", by its very nature, amounts to the "belief in my God over your God". No religion is a religion of peace. The whole concept is absurd. I also point out that your President, and the ones before him, are inaugurated in the presence of a bible; imperialist bourgeouis jingoism ties in very neatly with The Church, which is another instrument used by the state to exploit one class by another class.

Terrorism is an individual anarchic political act; its anarchy and its individualism is why it's very ineffective at making direct political progress. The opposite to a terrorist is a revolutionary.

It is no more morally justified than terrorism, certainly not. And all the secret torture in the world does not prevent terrorism, or deter terrorists. It's equally ineffective.

We ought to all agree that the "War on Terror" is at the moment very ineffective. Its phrasing alone is vague and vacuous. Its a bourgeous quip to veil the real, concrete root causes of terrorism. Why does terrorism exist? Against what are "these terrorists" opposed? It isn't enough to say that religion alone is the reason why terrorism exists. And it's equally glib to say "terrorists are opposed to Freedom", because that's a meaningless buzz-phrase that allows the state and those who hold it in reverence to mask an imperialist bourgeois war "in the name of freedom", or "in the name of democracy", which is a gross injustice because America remains a bourgeois democracy, opposed to universal suffrage and the equality of human beings. It's a joke.

Nowhere in this "War on Terror" is any rational thought given to the complex political ideologies surrounding such acts of terrorism. It's an irrational and self-justified hatred of "the Other", objectively manifesting itself in racism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim stereotyping in the news, in wide social circles of right-wing ignorance, on this very board even.

Richard Dawkins argues that any "War on Terror" in the context of today's political climate should be a "War on Religion". Relegating religion may indeed qualm or destroy all the religious terrorism happening in the world, but therein lies the problem: how might one "destroy" religion - especially when those declaring said war have been inaugurated "in the name of God"? If religion is an autonomous cultural phenomenon, and a large part of moderate bourgeois liberalism - why the Church is an instrument in the bourgeois state's armament against real equality - we'd be better to reorganize the economic structure of the country, so that the void in people's lives that leads them to religion is in a better state to disappear.

Forward to the revolution, then!

How much of the Qur'an need I read before I'm allowed to quote it?

You say "read the Qur'an" but many people who say they've read it and even studied it, havent read even half of it. They've read/studied certain parts of it.

Same thing with the Bible. How many people have read the Bible here? have you read it all? most of it? some parts? do you think you're allowed to quote it?

I'm just trying to understand how much of a holy book one must read before s/he's allowed to quote it.

MountainOutOfMolehill Trivialisationism, no?

Anyone who's read the Bible in full ought not to take a word of it seriously.

Perhaps you've missed my many many posts over the years Capo. Or maybe you just chose to ignore them. I have always been pretty even keeled as far as one's religious beliefs go no matter what religion it may be or have been. If you go back and re-read some of my posts over the years you will find that I haven't knocked the Muslim religion itself. When talking about terrorism I have made reference to those who are terrorists as religious extremists. And if the discussion was specifically about those terrorists who CLAIMED to be believers in the muslim faith, I did not generalize the Muslim religion as a whole in those specific discussion as being a bad or hypocritic religion, but once again addressed them as Islamic Extremeists.

There are extremists in every and all religions, not just in one specific one.

As for Mignon's remark about the 72 Virgins, well I believe that she makes a statement like that generalizing Islamic Extremists because it was the extrmisits who claimed to be Islamic that said that there were 72 virgins awaiting them in the garden of Allah after they carried out the will of Allah by murdering and terrorizing those who did NOT adhere to their extremist beliefs.

I believe that Mignon was making a generalized statement based on statements and claims made by Islamic Terrorists extremeists. You on the other hand made a reply to her earlier remark and took a general shot at Christianity as a whole.

No, I've already explained why my reply to her earlier remark was not a general shot at Christianity as a whole.

Why did you capitalise "claimed"? Are you suggesting that these terrorists are not Muslim, that they only claim to be? That might be fair, but then you couldn't call them "Muslim extremists".

Yes, and "out of moderate ostrich liberalism comes extreme inhumane backwardness". Extremist religious views are as valid interpretations as moderate religious views; that the interpretation can be taken so far is telling of the self-serving selectivity allowed if not outright encouraged by religious scripture. It just wasn't very well thought-out at all, really, even as far as fiction goes. If scripture serves literal evidence of the world, as some claim, it's a mode of falsification; if it's meant to be taken allegorically, then why is it so self-contradictory at every page? Here it says one thing, here another thing; its allegorical morals are suspect at best.

The reason why extremists are so abhorred by moderate believers is that their views are both formed from the same open-ended scripture.

That's about as specific I can get about 'Christianity as a whole', at least without making my post considerably longer. And you'll be quick to note that everything I just said may also be applied to 'Islam as a whole'.

Otherwise: "thick as fucking pig shit".

No Capo. I'm trying to understand what DT means - if he means someone who never opened the book or someone who haven't read it all.

It interests me because it's part of a bigger discussion, of whether partial absorption of books is enough for an argument.

I've studied literature in the past, and many times we were asked to read certain parts of poems and books and then discuss it in class. I always found myself unable to do so unless I read the entire piece. I told the prof that I think it's wrong, he replied that there's simply no time and the alternative would result in studying very few pieces.

There's a lot you can find in a molehill; and possibly nothing in a mountain.

Fair do. I'd say it's a different discussion, not a bigger one, but that in itself is another impertinent mountain.

Your definition of terrorism - since there is no agreed definition of that term, I'm curious to know why you use the word "individual". Can it refer to 'anarchic political act' carried out by groups or organizations, rather than individuals? what about governments?

You always hear the term "terrorist organizations" - do you think this term should not be used since terrorism is the act of individuals? if some of these organizations are targeting innocent civilians, what would be your definition of these organizations?

Look, it's pretty simple. Mig's statement about 72 virgins was probably intended to be facetious. However, I figured that there were Board members who would read it and think that the Koran actually says that. I posted to correct such a thought. On the other hand, if she considered that she was stating fact, then I would expect that she had read that part of the Koran which presents that staement in context. It would be so onerous for we Board members to footnote our posts. So, we don't. Board members are thus free to accept a post's content as fact, not fact, opinion, etc. Many of us post "facts" about the inner workings of the Mafia although none of us (as far as I know) is or ever was a member of it. But, hopefully, those posts are based on something more than just a film or two.

Terrorism? Don't we first have to know intent? If Hasan murdered people in order to convey this message: "There's nowhere you Americans can go (even on an Army base) that is safe for you", then, yes, he committed terrorism. In the absence of same, it's not terrorism.

Also bad news for the torture fans. Hasan is apparently paralyzed.

Better than prison!

By 'individual' I mean non-societal, 'non-mass'; terrorism has very little social sway, contrary to what the media wants us to feel (OMG Us vs. Them Hysteria). Terrorism has very little political sway because it has very little social sway. Terrorism is inherently an underground activity.

Sure, there are 'terrorist organizations', but their political activity is of an individualistic form. Terrorism, and acts of terrorism, will never overhaul an advanced capitalist country like America.

2-day timeout for Capo who seems to still like making personal attacks against other members. Odd how someone so ostensibly intelligent cannot learn one simple little rule.

"but their political activity is of an individualistic form".

What political activity is not of individualistic form?

Of course you don't have to be middle eastern to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was Irish-American and he murdered all those people in Oklahoma. So, for sure you don't have to be arab. We've had terrorists of all different kinds of races. However, there's a lot of terrorists groups in the arab world, and they hate us Americans due to the fact we support Israel, and gave Israel back to the Jewish People many years ago. Anybody who isn't of their religion is considered an infidel and must be killed. That's the way these arab extremists think.

I was making a joke that's all. So people chill out!!

You may not agree with Capo's views on a great many issues; indeed, I often disagree myself.

Nonetheless, few other members have his courage in swimming against the tide of opinion. This sometimes means expressing oneself in forceful terms.

Perhaps people should follow their own advice.
What's the phrase?

If you don't like certain topics or particular members, please ignore them.

I'm not sure how suspending someone for two days is compatible with that.

As I've promised not to involve myself in any political threads, I won't comment further.

I wouldn't get involved too much.

When it comes to political beliefs some people just don't know how to agree to disagree, and they want to fight instead. Like what capo was doing.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone / "swimming against the tide" / expressing oneself in "forceful terms" vs personally attacking someone / insulting people / calling them names. A HUGE difference.

I agree Geoff..

I believe the reason arab extremists hate Israel (and It's American suporters) is 'cause we represent freedom, democracy, oppenness, freedom of speach, freedom of religion and womens rights. And these are things that they don't believe in at all. Even if America abandoned Israel these haters would still not stop hating us because we're a free society. Sometimes I wish we were not as free as we are because these haters have a real easy chance on moving here and getting a pilots licence like the 9-11 attacker mohamed atta got before he did what he did. Now we found out that Hasan was hooked up with a terrorist group. Why didn't they kick him out when they first found out about his arab supremacist beliefs before? Well, I think because he was arab. Political correctness is for sure what killed those soldiers in Ft Hood because if he was white he would've got a dishonorable discharge a long time ago.

I'm not sure that we can say "political correctness" is what killed those soldiers or that if Hasan were white he would have been treated differently.

Most of the Middle Eastern people I know consider themselves "white" anyway but that aside the Armed Forces aren't really getting rid of people unless they really, really have to do so. They need every man/woman they have. Moral waivers have increased because of the need for manpower.

Also there is a small but apparently growing number of white supremacist/separatist soldiers in the military, some of whom are rather open about their beliefs. Evidently it takes bad actions, not just bad thoughts to get kicked out. So that may explain why Hasan wasn't treated more harshly.

Salon Article

I do think that Hasan's powerpoint presentation and alleged contacts with Anwar al Awlaki should have raised some alarm bells but hindsight is 20/20. Someone who knew about these contacts decided that they didn't warrant further action.

Contacts

Opinions!!

This is one of the things that makes our country so great.

This is America. We have rights here. And insuring that a nut job extremist like Hasan or McVeigh enjoys his rights means that I get to enjoy mine. Yes, they're sick and twisted and maybe even evil people, but that doesn't change the fact that we offer ALL citizens the same rights.

As for the anti-Muslim talk here, I'm saddened to read it. What if all Muslims judged Christianity by the KKK?? That is extremism and promotes "white Christianity". It's loathsome, but every time you think about extremism, remember that every religion can be perverted to fit a psychotic's twisted logic.

Thank you for not trying to smash me with your opinion this time. I actually agree on the fact that we shouldn't judge middle easterns that aren't terrorists. I wouldn't like it either if they judged Chrisianity by the klan or Aryan Brotherhood. After 9-11 I tried not to have that much anger for arabs, but then I found out about the muslim churches that were supporting al-qaeda, and then there was the man that killed his daughter infront of the mother because she was becoming too Americanized. Now It's this killer Hasan. I'm trying hard to be open minded, but It's honestly really hard not to say the hell with them all. I'm really doing my best not to think this way, though. We just gotta keep the faith.

By the way the kkk hate Italian Americans as well..

A friend sent me a link once that had David Duke trash talking us Italians.

Again, you're making a blanket statement about a group based on what you heard David Duke say once. That doesn't mean that the KKK loves Italian-Americans. It means that you shouldn't base your opinion on what you once heard someone say. And the KKK hates. It doesn't matter who, they just hate.

As for me bashing your opinion, I simply pointed out the errors in your original statement. You called the man an Arab. He was born in the US, so he's not an "Arab". You said that he couldn't be crazy because he was intelligent. You make blanket statements that can be considered racist and they are offensive.

This statement is not without merit. I just wouldn't make the blanket statement that "if he was white."

What I'd say is this: If he were Christian or Jewish (white or black), spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric, I think the army would have moved a lot faster in removing him from active duty. We practically strip search 80 year old white women at airports, for fear of being labeled "profilers" of Middle Eastern looking people. Yet we're so afraid of offending the Arab/Arab-American/Muslim community, that this psycho went largely unnoticed.

Bottom line: If Hasan were a Jew or a Christian spewing anti-Muslim propoganda, he never would have been allowed to remain in the Armed Forces. Judeo-Christian bashing has become the last acceptable form of prejudice in America, and we're paying the price for it. A very steep price.

Was this asked in seriousness?

A proletarian revolution isn't individualistic. For there to even be one there has to be a strong social aversion to the ruling elite, before anything else; consciousness of class antagonism follows, putting into concrete terms why the economic structure of the bourgeois nation is inherently at odds with many people's interests.

Social democracy isn't individualistic. Bourgeois reformism isn't individualistic.

Political individualism is a self-muting dead-end; "not endorsing the meat industry by becoming a vegetarian on political grounds" is an individualistic self-muting dead-end. Acts of terrorism are also individualistic self-muting dead-ends.

As for my two-day purge, I'm not really sure what it was meant to do. Perhaps my "thick as fucking pig shit"* comment was peripheral to the other points I was making; perhaps it was the point, and I knew no other way of getting it across. I'll work on that.

But I do note the lack of moral outrage expressed publicly at my choice of language, though. Why must words of support/disgust/outrage be private?

Perhaps the board should be self-governing, with its members in charge of what happens to whom and why...?

* It was for these words that I was purged. I thought I should probably point that out, in case anyone was wondering why; odd that the reason for my 'punishment' was worded so vaguely.

Further thoughts...

Where's the urgency in agreeing to disagree? What does that even mean?

I don't want to fight, I want to argue; not for the sake of argument, but because I don't believe two differing opinions amount to the same weight in truth.

You say "opinions" make your country so great. But anyone can have an opinion in any other country in the world. By your logic, your country is no greater than mine. But I won't give this any further thought, because it's a meaningless buzz-phrase of pissing-contest patriotism, and sadly typed a lot on this board.

I'd argue that the lack of rigour given to people's opinions, including their own opinions, the bending-over-backward liberalism that smugly declares that everyone is anyone and therefore all of it is the truth, shows a distinct intellectual crisis, and by extension causes my concern for your "great country".

I am not sure what "political correctness" really is other than a buzz word used mostly by the right to criticize tolerance and to further their intolerance of others.

It was not "political correctness" that allowed this scumbag to remain an Army Major, it was pure sloppiness. Nobody in the military should be allowed to get away with what he did, and that he was not caught is more a testament to bad oversight than anything else.

Okay, that's fair. But would this "oversight" have occurred if he were a Jewish or Christian psychiatrist spewing anti-Muslim hate?

I don't think so.

That's Muslim, PB, and it should, just as a Christian spewing hatred of Jews, a white of blacks, etc.

While I may not entirely agree, I have to say - Damn, I'd kill for the ability to write like that. Concise, but packed with a punch.

Yeah some Marxists can indeed write rather well.

A typo, Professor .

Thanks. Much appreciated.

I think it was more PC than being sloppiness.

Don't forget that Lee Harvey oswald was a professed Marxist, and spoke Russian when he could, and addressed fellow soldiers as "comrade" while he was a Marine and during the 50s. Not only was his behavior tolerated during one of the most virulent anti-Communist decades in this Nation's history, but he received a hardship discharge. So, it is not hard to believe that Hasan's behavior was tolerated.

[quote=Sicilian Babe]Again, you're making a blanket statement about a group based on what you heard David Duke say once.

Who the hell would deffend the kkk even if I used a blanket statement against them?

You called the man an Arab.

I didn't call the guy anything. I wrote.

You shouldn't make

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

He was born in the US, so he's not an "Arab".

So, if you're born here and your parents are from Sicily your not a Sicilian? Some Major Contradicting going on.

I don't believe you're a fellow Sicilian any way, and I think you need a boyfriend bad. Don't quote me girl I ain't wrote nothin' yet.

You are incapable of writing a complete sentence and you make little to no sense. If you are actually as ignorant and narrow-minded as you appear to be in your posts, then you're right. We are not "fellow" anything.

As for, "I didn't call the guy anything", look at the title of your own thread - Finding out Fort Hood killer is an arab terrorist.

I can personally vouch for the lady's Sicilian heritage.

She's married to a truly wonderful guy, but if she wasn't, I guarantee you she'd have no trouble at all getting a long line of boyfriends.

You owe the lady an apology.

You know, these people may be in the minority, BUT this is the kind of story that scares me. This woman called the Port Huron newspaper telling them she would take a gun to the newspaper and "do what they did at Fort Hood," after they criticized the Michigan Rep. All it ever takes is one wacko, and it seems this year they are coming out in droves.


She was upset about an editorial in Thursday's paper," the Web site reported, adding, "The editorial criticized U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township, for participating in a Nov. 5 Capitol rally. Police said the call was made about 11:40 a.m. Thursday."

http://www.eandppub.com/2009/11/port-hur...-newspaper.html


TIS

?????

What part of that don't you understand?

More like due process than PC or sloppiness.

Remember that?

SB- I'm sorry for calling you out like that. It's just that it makes me feel sad that so many Italians don't stick togather like many other cultures do. It's something that hits home with me. Another thing that hits home is putting down the way I write. I'm one of many people who have to use spell check because my spelling and even my grammar is really bad. I personally never point out others weeknesses because that would be extremely rude and disrespectful of me. And it is a real hurttful thing to do. That would be like me walking up to an overweight person and calling them fat to their face. It's just really bad. There was other stuff you wrote towards me in the past that weren't very kind. Two wrongs don't make a right i know that, but i was angry earlier. And again I'm truly sorry. We all have things we need to work on.

DiMaggio, while I appreciate that you actually used the words "I'm sorry", you don't apologize to someone by calling them hurtful and bad. I do, however, appreciate the effort.

I pointed out things that you said that were incorrect. I didn't make any statements about your writing, spelling or anything else until YOU made it personal.

I acknowledge my Sicilian heritage proudly, and I don't see how anything I said revealed that I was pretending to be Sicilian or Italian or unmarried or lonely or in need of sex, or any of the other things that you claimed. However, you are who you are, and I'm pretty sure that we will have to agree to disagree in the future.