fort hood shooting

[sgreger1]

Which section 8 do you refer to?


It just seems like every agency involveed in this dropped the ball.

I mean the corroner comes and pronounces him dead on the scene at 1:30 something, then 6 hours later they announce actually he went to the hospital and is fine. Then he wakes up, still no statement.

And the guy is from Virginia tech which has had a host of occurences like this with their students, so much that the government launched a probe into what is going on over there.


I dunno but this guy better have one helluva story once he starts talking lol.

[Skimo]

Him having a brandished weapon on post is already a felony, there are no guns in lockers.

His lawyer is still trying to claim he can't get a fair trial and is using that to his advantage.

The point is, he was seen shooting multiple soldiers, then swat showed up, he shot 4 of them, then this off duty police officer shot him and they took him to the hospital. Also, his superiors confirmed it was him.

There is no mistake that it was him. On top of that, he had been talking about how much he hated US soldiers who fought muslims for a long time.

What weapon? Maybe it was a gun shaped lighter.

Someone was seen shooting soldiers. Probably someone wearing BDUs. Last time I was on base, a lot of people wore BDUs. They all look the same to me.

There's a reason our legal system was setup the way it was. **** health care, socialism, and any other petty problem that might be going on now. If our judicial system is allowed to be degraded, the government spying on citizens, and high taxes will be the good old days.

To those of us who wear/have worn BDUs ABUs and DCUs, it's easy to identify. You weren't there to be confused whether it was a man or woman, enlisted or officer, thankfully.

I hope he meets the wall soon.

[sgreger1]

More evidence that this was terrorism out today:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-...ory?id=9130339

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

Major Hasan also wrote, "My strength is my financial capabilities."

Federal investigators have found that Hasan donated $20,000 to $30,000 a year to overseas Islamic "charities." As an Army major, his yearly salary, including housing and food allowances, was approximately $92,000. A number of Islamic charities have been identified by U.S. authorities as conduits to terror groups.

I dunno, to those defending him I gotta say this is sounding more and more like a terrorist attack. I think they are just waiting to be absolutely sure since having a terrorist attack under Obama's watch will become ammo for the opposition.

[lxskllr]

To those of us who wear/have worn BDUs ABUs and DCUs, it's easy to identify. You weren't there to be confused whether it was a man or woman, enlisted or officer, thankfully.

I've worn BDUs for over 20 years. You?

[Judge Faust]

Terrorism is any act that would cause terror (also known as fear).

Terrorism is an umbrella for actions taken to intimidate (outside of warfare and other legally sanctioned operations et cetera.)

Most likely he's a terrorist, I'll let his judges decide.

That is a popular but completely ridiculous definition of "terrorism." Terrorism means spreading fear? Really? Well then...

This means that a guy that jumps out at you and yells "Boo!" is a terrorist, right? And the guy that kills you and a bunch of other people with no subjective intention of causing fear is never a terrorist?

This seems incorrect, somehow.

Oh, and your "legal" exception would completely eliminate activities that the Empire likes to call "state-sanctioned terrorism."

My take on it is that "terrorism" is one of those meaningless words (such as "dictator," "tyranny," "evil," etc.). It means nothing at all - but it sounds ominous, and it's a great catch-all term to call your enemies. Basically, it's nothing but mindless propaganda...

[sgreger1]

Terrorism is any act that would cause terror (also known as fear).

Terrorism is an umbrella for actions taken to intimidate (outside of warfare and other legally sanctioned operations et cetera.)

Most likely he's a terrorist, I'll let his judges decide.

That is a popular but completely ridiculous definition of "terrorism." Terrorism means spreading fear? Really? Well then...

This means that a guy that jumps out at you and yells "Boo!" is a terrorist, right? And the guy that kills you and a bunch of other people with no subjective intention of causing fear is never a terrorist?

This seems incorrect, somehow.

Oh, and your "legal" exception would completely eliminate activities that the Empire likes to call "state-sanctioned terrorism."

My take on it is that "terrorism" is one of those meaningless words (such as "dictator," "tyranny," "evil," etc.). It means nothing at all - but it sounds ominous, and it's a great catch-all term to call your enemies. Basically, it's nothing but mindless propaganda...

Surprisingly your half right on this one. If you read the previous pages you'd see that we all agreed that terrorism is a blanket term that can be used against anyone because it has such a loose definition.

However, there are "dictators" and there is "tyranny", they are words that describe something that is very real.

[tom502]

I think if there is no question this is the guy, and there doesn't seem to be. He should have been in a firing squad a week ago or more.

[Judge Faust]

However, there are "dictators" and there is "tyranny", they are words that describe something that is very real.

Really? Huh...

Here is my challenge to you, then: pick one of those words, and then define them in your own words (no Princeton, Wikipedia, or any other extraneous help, if you please). If I am unable to logically tear your definition apart within 5 minutes of reading it, you win. Both of us abide by the honor system (= you do not refer to 3rd party definitions, I take no more than 5 minutes to tear holes the size of China in your definition).

[Skimo]

6 years, been around them my whole life.

Edit, re-read your post.

"That's a mistrial waiting to happen. If it's all over the news that he shot people, how can he get a fair trial? The jury's decision should only take into account what was heard in court.

Someone, most likely wearing BDUs(as do most people in the military) shot a bunch of fellow soldiers. They caught someone they /think/ committed the crime. It's up to the prosecutor to prove that in court. All soldiers look the same. He could have been in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Maybe he got a weapon out of the locker, and was coming to help. The real killer could still be out there."

I inferred that was your stance.

[Snusophile]

Terrorism: any criminal acts that involve violence or are dangerous to human life and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

SF-86

[sgreger1]

However, there are "dictators" and there is "tyranny", they are words that describe something that is very real.

Really? Huh...

Here is my challenge to you, then: pick one of those words, and then define them in your own words (no Princeton, Wikipedia, or any other extraneous help, if you please). If I am unable to logically tear your definition apart within 5 minutes of reading it, you win. Both of us abide by the honor system (= you do not refer to 3rd party definitions, I take no more than 5 minutes to tear holes the size of China in your definition).

Very well:

Dictator: When 1 person controlls the entire country, usually through force, and has absolute power. They command from the top down and they are the final word on everything. A dictator tends to rule by force and often by oppressing their citizens. Examples of this would be someone like N Korea's Kim Jong Il, Sadam Hussein etc.

Tyranny:

This is the use of absolute power. it is similar to dictator, but the dictator is the one imposing tyranny on the people he rules over. Tyranny is when a person or group uses absolute power to rule/oppress the people it controlls. Tyranny is generally an oppression of a people by some type of leader(s) that is enforced their control by fear and military or some other type of force.


Crappy definitions I know, but it is how I personaly define these things. I could be wrong. I am not sure how you can say there is no such thing as tyranny, yet you make the claim that the US is imposing tyranny on the middle east. Also, I think you would have to admit that there is a such thing as dictators. Not sure where you're coming from with this one.

[sgreger1]

Terrorism: any criminal acts that involve violence or are dangerous to human life and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

SF-86

This is what I mean by it being a blanket statement. Lets say the law recognized this as the sole definition of terrorism. A pro-life advocate blowing up an abortion clinic, or PETA blowing up an animal testing lab is terroism. What the muslimsa did on 9-11 was terrorism. If the citizens get fed up with an oppressive government and want to restore freedom and democracy, and take up arms against the government, it's terrorism. If an oppresive king gets out of line and you go find him and cut his head off, restoring peace, it is terrorism.

It is a word ment to protect the government, as in anything you do to try and change government for better/worse is terrorism.