He is a misguided indivdual who sought to do as much damage as he could in this act of terrorism. Just as the homicide bombers in the Middle East.

 

I'm asking if he has made statements that showed, as you said, that he wanted to take down our country. I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm just saying I haven't read about them.

 

If he hasn't how do we know he's not just a nutjob like an abortion clinic bomber?

People need to realize that we as a country are at war with radical islam, not Iraq or Afganistan but a hate religion that purpose is to destroy all who don't agree with them and that includes the USA. This coward was a terrorist and the sooner our leaders realize who the ememy is and admits it the better off we will be.

 

When he gets back to health we need to send him to Gitmo. Oh wait its been shut down. Therefore, I say shot him in the head.

Did the recently passed 'hate crimes' bill protect Christians, Jews and other 'infidels'?

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by Bluegrasscard
Christians plural

People need to realize that we as a country are at war with radical islam, not Iraq or Afganistan but a hate religion that purpose is to destroy all who don't agree with them and that includes the USA. This coward was a terrorist and the sooner our leaders realize who the ememy is and admits it the better off we will be.

 

When he gets back to health we need to send him to Gitmo. Oh wait its been shut down. Therefore, I say shot him in the head.

 

This kind of rhetoric is exactly what fuels the hate.

People need to realize that we as a country are at war with radical islam, not Iraq or Afganistan but a hate religion that purpose is to destroy all who don't agree with them and that includes the USA. This coward was a terrorist and the sooner our leaders realize who the ememy is and admits it the better off we will be.

 

When he gets back to health we need to send him to Gitmo. Oh wait its been shut down. Therefore, I say shot him in the head.

 

How do you fight an idea (radical Islam)? By offering a better idea. You are correct in that we are fighting a segment of a religion, but not the whole religion.

How do you fight an idea (radical Islam)? By offering a better idea. You are correct in that we are fighting a segment of a religion, but not the whole religion.

 

 

Well there is always the alternative of eliminating those who cling to that idea down to the last person.

Being forced to watch "Where the Wild Things Are."

Well there is always the alternative of eliminating those who cling to that idea down to the last person.

 

But don't you end up raising a new group that gets "the idea" because of the way we handle it?

How do you fight an idea (radical Islam)? By offering a better idea. You are correct in that we are fighting a segment of a religion, but not the whole religion.

Nothing short of "kill the infidels" is a better idea to them. The Wahhabis, since they are the worst and most violent, want you dead, they don't care about what you have to offer. They are an extreme, hateful, intolerant sect. You can't reach people like this.

But don't you end up raising a new group that gets "the idea" because of the way we handle it?

 

 

Well it depends.

 

Even so, economic interdependence and prosperity is the only way to whittle down the supply of men outside of a genocidal campaign.

Do any of the following fall under "terrorism?"

 

Martin Luther King Jr assassination

Bobby Kennedy assassination

JFK assassination

Abortion clinic bombing and killing of a security guard

Bombing of a synagogue.

 

Had the Ft Hood shooter been a Catholic would it be terrorism?

 

I would say yes to the bolded because they're often times done in the name of religion or a belief, I'd say they fall under domestic terrorism.

 

As for the Ft Hood scenario you laid out I would say YES it was a terrorist act if the Catholic screamed out "in the name of the catholic church" and then started shooting, and had links to radical christian ties or was believed to have beliefs that the war or troops were wrong in the eyes of the church. I think the better example would be a neo nazi background or someone believed to be tied with the aryan brotherhood or something like that. Regardless its still terrorism, but domestic terrorism, in my eyes any type of terrorism is bad......

I don't recall the media/taking heads spending so much time labeling it as "terrorism" when the clinic in Birmingham (I think) was blown up. Why? Is it because the guy was a Christian? Is it because it was in the name of "right to life?" Is it because he wasn't Islam?

 

I guess that's my real point in posing the question. We all agree that the taking of life is the taking of life no matter how we label it. I'm just curious why so many are now rushing to call THIS act terrorism when so many others weren't even considered to be anything other than a nutjob.

 

Come on now Clyde that's just obvious, a large number if not the majority of folks watching these news networks are in fact christians or respect the religion, do you really want to alienate your audience like that? I'll go ahead and answer for you, NO. Thats why it was never spun that way, and the exact same reason it's being spun the way it is this time.

I think it's best for him to leave that decision up to the responsible agency. Why would he say differently than the FBI?

 

Could the FBI not be calling it an act of terrorism to cover their ineptitude in the handling the knowledge of Major Hasan's communications with a jihadist imam, and sending most of his government salary to terrorists in Pakistan?? :ohbrother:

Could the FBI not be calling it an act of terrorism to cover their ineptitude in the handling the knowledge of Major Hasan's communications with a jihadist imam, and sending most of his government salary to terrorists in Pakistan?? :ohbrother:

I doubt it, since it hasn't really been covered up if you know about it.

This kind of rhetoric is exactly what fuels the hate.

 

Your right it's our fault.