Byrd Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Do you think the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terror or a horrific crime? Saw this poll at a national level, curious how "Locals" feel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayTheSavageFraser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 What is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byrd Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 What is the difference? Webster's version?-LOL Terrorism or "wow, that was a terrible thing"? Sleeper cells, terrorism etc..or I guess that person had a bad day. Over simplified but I hope you get my point. If not I can be direct-LMK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byrd Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 8 views and 2 votes-Hmmmm(sad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowpunk Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I have not been informed enough by the media yet to make a choice(scratch). I've been working a lot again so I haven't even heard any details other then it happened so i'm not going to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I vote horrific crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danik Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 it just shows that your not safe anywhere. But I am cool with it cause I am here only temporary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelhead77 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Horrific crime. The only ones who think it's terrorism are the Fox News (propaganda) junkies. IMHO, of course. The IRA are terrorists The PLO are terrorists The Red Brigade are terrorists This guy went "postal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byrd Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 I have not been informed enough by the media yet to make a choice(scratch). I've been working a lot again so I haven't even heard any details other then it happened so i'm not going to vote. I have not voted either-a surprise to some perhaps, but someone sent me a link that had it, and I was curios as to how our local demographics felt. I dont think we will get anything good from the media, they are just puppets. unfair and biased, or was that "Fair and Balanced" (laugh)(laugh) I just hope we dont waste to much time and money on putting him to death. Perhaps he can be rehabilitated(clap) pardon me while I step away from my keyboard and vomit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byrd Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 Horrific crime. The only ones who think it's terrorism are the Fox News (propaganda) junkies. IMHO, of course. The IRA are terrorists The PLO are terrorists The Red Brigade are terrorists This guy went "postal". Thats for sure! Sad that people are not allowed to carry concealed or just carry, it may have saved the taxpayers some money. I hope there is more to your list of "terrorists" 9/11 comes to mind-unless that was an inside job-(laugh) J/K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefnjunkie Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I agree we wont know what happened-its like the movie " A Few Good Men" honestly as a society we can not handle the truth-IMO I hope his death is slow and painful!! No virgins for that nut bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mister crabs Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I am sure he is regretting not dying in that shootout. I hope they give him some old school texas military justice. either send him to the gallows or death by firing squad. I do not believe it was a terrorist act. just a horrible crime by someone who "snapped". I dont buy his argument about believing that muslims should get a free pass in a conflict with others of the same religion. If you dont want to go to war then dont join the military. Plain and simple. They arent spending thousands of dollars training and making you a soldier so you can have a cush job stateside and reap some nice retirement benefits after 20 years. Too many people have gone into the military thinking its an easy way to make a living and then are upset when they have to go to war. I also think the minimum age to enter the service should be 21 because an 18 year old is not emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions in battle. I think we are in for some serious reprecussions when the soldiers who have fought this war return home en masse. too many will be haunted by thier experiences in the middle east and many will become sufferers of PTSD, Schizophrenia, and other phsychological disorders. I think acts of this nature where soldiers "snap" may happen more and more. I hope I am wrong but it doesnt look good. Sorry for somewhat off-topic rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 It doesn't matter to me what it is called. What I find disturbing is that this dude was on the radar for a year or more. Our hands are tied by polititions, lawyers, and idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byrd Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 It doesn't matter to me what it is called. What I find disturbing is that this dude was on the radar for a year or more. Our hands are tied by polititions, lawyers, and idiots. Agreed, fear of being called a racist/profiler are whatever the tag is ridiculous. PC has no place in the military, and few other places-IMHO Time to revaluate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 .....I also think the minimum age to enter the service should be 21 because an 18 year old is not emotionally mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions in battle. I think we are in for some serious reprecussions when the soldiers who have fought this war return home en masse. too many will be haunted by thier experiences in the middle east and many will become sufferers of PTSD' date=' Schizophrenia, and other phsychological disorders. I think acts of this nature where soldiers "snap" may happen more and more. I hope I am wrong but it doesnt look good. Sorry for somewhat off-topic rant.[/quote'] Each is welcome to their opinion I suppose. Have you served? I served betwen the age of 18 and 23. I knew many good men that were between 18 and 21 that I would much prefer to have at my back than the average person that is 21 or older. As for any disorders that occur I doubt it will be isolated to any particular age group. (Turning 21 doesn't magically make anyone any more stable than they were before then) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePremiumAquarium Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Time for evey law obiding citizen with good moral character to get their CHL's so that acts like this can be stopped asap.(enforcer) Not sure if anyone could carry in this particular case(on the job, in a military structure, etc.) but it would have been cool to have a story where the gunman was taken out a bit ealier in his rant. I don't know enough about the mass murderer to comment on the terror thing but I know he definatley needs to be disposed of(threaten) Maybe in some live fire military training?(naughty) In all seriousness though there really isn't a place for him or any other unjustified killers on our soil, in our prison cells, or our padded rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralreefer Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If he had an agenda bigger than himself...if he was trying to influence people's thinking...if he was supporting a position...then it was TERRORISM... This was a mini-9-11....TERRORISM... I personally don't have an agenda against Muslims...however, we can be as politically correct as we want to be, 9-11 changed the future of the world as it purposefully brought us into the Muslim vs. Judeo-Christian conflict... 100 years from now, THE only real world conflict will be this...and it will be called openly that...we are now included forever in the Jew/Muslim battle... I don't like this a bit... DrMerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 So would we be asking this same question and having this poll if he was white? Just curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-3 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 So would we be asking this same question and having this poll if he was white? Just curious! So true Matt. How many mass killings have there been in the US over the last couple years. Have we ever questioned their religion? The point I think we are missing here is that he needs to be executed, plain and simple. No questions asked just take him out back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePremiumAquarium Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 So true Matt. How many mass killings have there been in the US over the last couple years. Have we ever questioned their religion? The point I think we are missing here is that he needs to be executed, plain and simple. No questions asked just take him out back. That is what I am talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonH Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 So true Matt. How many mass killings have there been in the US over the last couple years. Have we ever questioned their religion? The point I think we are missing here is that he needs to be executed, plain and simple. No questions asked just take him out back. I have to disagree with you on that point. The Oklahoma bombing was clearly labeled as terrorism - domestic terrorism. It wasn't associated with race or religion, because that was not the motivation of the attacker. But it was clearly terrorism, and we had the courage to call it such. The original WTC bombing, the Cole, the African Embassy (whoops, can't remember which country), Sept 11 - these were terrorist attacks. In this case, they were motivated by religion. And it is fair to label it as such. The fear of calling a spade a spade is exactly what prevented the military from dealing with this known ticking time-bomb. Fear of being accused of racism or religious discrimination. And 13 people are dead. Hollow consolation for their families that no one was offended. I honestly am not sure if this was "terrorism" or a single nut job. He was clearly motivated by his religious beliefs. He was affiliated with terrorists overseas. Those things point towards terrorism. However, this was not an organized group with an agenda to push. The fact that this individual was motivated by religion does not necessarily make his actions terrorism, in my opinion. Mass murder or terrorism - I'm honestly not sure. I hope that many members of the military command who overlooked this person's irrational behavior are held to account - either criminally or civilly. This was avoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralreefer Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Terrorism has nothing to do with whether you are part of an organized group or an individual...color of your skin or your religion... It is to get attention for your cause and because you believe it is your calling to engage the enemy... Timothy McVey was white...he was a terrorist...his enemy was the government...attacking was his calling...he killed innocent people to make his point...why is this nut job in Texas any different? DrMerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelhead77 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The only speculation you hear about this being a Muslim "affiliated with terrorists overseas" and thus committing a "terrorist" attack is from the wingnuts at Fox News. Terrorism is about fanatics (regardless of religion) trying to instill "terror" in a population. That's what "terrorism" is. Labeling every crime by someone different than you "terrorism" just demeans the term. There have been plenty of "Christian" "terrorists" in the history of the world. The Protestant/Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland spawned plenty of "terrorists". The KKK proclaimed itself to be a Christian organization, the guy that just killed Dr. Tiller was a "Christian". Eric Rudolf bombed abortion clinics in the name of Christ. And lets not even talk about the Crusades. Religious "Christianity" has probably been responsible for more deaths than all the wars in the history of the world combined. Why were we not talking about the guy that shot up the Holocaust Museum in D.C. a few months ago? That was probably more of a "terrorist" attack than the Ft. Hood shootings was. I think some other posters have it right, if this guy was named Walter Smith, we would not be having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 "Terror"ism is just what the word broken down means. It is an act of creating terror. Nothing in the definition says it needs to be a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonH Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The only speculation you hear about this being a Muslim "affiliated with terrorists overseas" and thus committing a "terrorist" attack is from the wingnuts at Fox News. Actually, that's not at all true. The military spokespeople and govt sources have confirmed that this individual has had email correspondence with known terrorists. You appear to be so biased that you reject anything that Fox says, just because they have said it. Fortunately, we have the completely neutral and un-biased folks over at MSNBC to inform us: "Separately, another U.S. official said the person Hasan was communicating with was Anwar al-Awlaki" People keep setting up straw-men arguments that we wouldn't be asking the question is this were a white person with a Christian name. But that has been proven untrue many times over. As I mentioned earlier, The Oklahoma bombing was called terrorism. The uni-bomber was called a terrorist. I agree that people are quicker, in a post Sept 11 environment to question a terrorist connection when there is a muslin connection. But let's at least be intellectually honest about other actions - committed by white christians - being attributed to terrorism. As I have mentioned, I'm not sure whether this was terrorism or something more akin to a hate-crime, similar to the attack at the Holocaust museum. The facts remains that the underlying motivation was religious - as made clear by Hasan's own writings (and powerpoint presentations). The fact remains that this person was in contact with known terrorists overseas. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on how to label it - except apparently for those evil bastards over at Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts