Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The man said the magic words for Muslims just before he started shooting. I think that the recent growth of all the secularity in this country has leant a lot to what has happened from what you say. Is there a chance that we have to accept Muslim thinking because they refuse to acclimate in our nation? I think not and today I read a speech made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch legislator, that wouldn't go over big in Europe because they are still controlled by their wild PC thoughts. He was talking about how long it will be before Islam has taken over all of western Europe and how those nations have very little time to stop it. They move in and live in their own parts of cities and want to rule in those sections without help from the national governments.
I am saying that first Muslims refused to acclimate in Europe and now in the US and now we have a lot of people from Mexico that refuse to acclimate. Now those Mexicans are largely Catholic so we can expect them to join us in that religious crap. If Muslims don't like the way we live with our religion they do have other places to live if they can get there.
I will say that the Muslims we call moderates aren't very moderate or they would rat on the extremists that live among them and they don't do that.
Moderates stay in the center of the herd. Extremists cruise the periphery.
Moderates are risk averse. They won't even make eye contact with a border collie.
It is about time we let go of our fascination with religion, and focused on what creates these situations. Let me ask you this: if Hasan weren't a Muslim, would you be still trying to make a point that this was an act of terrorism? Why?
Certainly. It's the acts he committed that deems it as terrorism not the religion.
I wondered about that question for some days and finally saw a man say the whole thing different than the MSM and our government has been saying it.
If the man had strapped explosives on his body or stuffed his car with explosives and detonated them in places where he could kill 13 and wound all those he got would we call that terrorism? Certainly we would and in this case we have to call what he did terrorism. The only real difference is in the selection of the killing weapon. Hasan selected the hand gun probably because he didn't really want to go see his god with his 72 virgins.
Now do we kill him in retaliation thereby making him a martyr and receptor of the virgins or make him survive with his deed the rest of his life and then slap the death sentence on him after 25 years of prison? I wonder how many of the survivors of the dead in that massacre would volunteer to serve in the firing squad he deserves.
roy, do you think that all lunatics are terrorists?
IMO, it could be said that all terrorists are lunatics, however...........just being a mentally ill lunatic does not necessarily give one the capacity to be a terrorist.
The guy was clearly a jihadist. He, therefore, was a terrorist who committed an act of terror.
Please explain to us, and give supporting evidence, that he was indeed a jihadist. It seems that even the charging documents today did not indicate he was a jihadist, rather he was charged with pre-meditated murder.
If the government considered him a jihadist, he would have been charged in federal court as a terrorist and would be prosecuted by federal prosecutors.
Do ANY of you understand those differences? Seems to me that the government is not sure that the shooter was a terrorist, but they are absolutely sure that he should be and was charged with pre-meditated murder.
Why is the Left, the apologists and the sympathizers so intent on denying reality?
Sanrene, do you have multiple e-mail accounts? I wonder how many people posting on CD might have multiple email accounts. I have an artist friend who does fine art photography and she has multiple email accounts. She is definitely not a terrorist.
Would you care to explain in your own words what is so crystal clear to you?
Why is the Right, the zealots and first-to-jump-on-the-country-is-going-to-hell folks, so insistent that they know something which the government, and investigators, don't even know at this point?
Do ANY of you understand those differences? Seems to me that the government is not sure that the shooter was a terrorist, but they are absolutely sure that he should be and was charged with pre-meditated murder.
Do you think for one minute that our government will admit that they allowed a "terrorist" to infiltrate the US Military and they stood by and did nothing ? They monitored him but did nothing ?
Just think what that would do to the credibility of this administration for the "War on Terror". No, our government will NEVER declare this guy a terrorist. "Stress" is what it was.
Again I ask..don't you now wonder how many other "questionable" people they are monitoring ? Do you think all this new data coming out makes any of our soldiers feel more secure ?
This incident should be setting off red flags all over the place.
The 9/11 guys were "monitored" and nothing was done.
This guy was being "monitered" and nothing was done.
When will they start "doing something" based on this monitoring ?
The evidence is mounting that this was not a "stress related incident".
And every government agency is tripping over their feet to point to the next government agency for "who is at fault".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.