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.
And the amount of terrorism against US targets increased significantly under Bush.
Only because of the impotence of Clinton in confronting islamic terrorists ('93 CIA shootings, WTC1, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, and the Cole attack).
Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.Link
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.
Stop right there. The "death penalty" is not "murder". It is just punishment for the crime of murder (the shedding of innocent blood), and is prescribed by God as punishment for murder.
He should be executed. For the crime of murder, and for treason.
Using your reasoning, we would have to call Columbine terrorism as well.
I think we still don't have enough facts to make a determination of this as terrorism or not. It's possible that this was politically motivated, but possible as well that it wasn't politically motivated. We just don't know enough to determine that.
Huh??? What more do you need? Are you in denial?
He was a Jihadist. He had been in contact with terrorists. He had made anti-Ameican statements to others, and had posted anti-American statements on the Internet.
Only because of the impotence of Clinton in confronting islamic terrorists ('93 CIA shootings, WTC1, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, and the Cole attack).
Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.Link
You're seriously brainwashed. The increase in terrorism against US targets under Bush was due almost 100% to our invasion of Iraq. That had nothing to do with Clinton.
I thought I was comparing the use of a rapid firing gun with explosives but it seems that you didn't catch the point. We don't fail to call use of explosives to kill innocents terrorism but most people are trying to make using the method Hasan used something else. It is the choice of terror inducing weapon that I was talking about. His punishment for the 13 accused premeditated murders is secondary when talking about his choice of weapon.
Well Roy he walked into a gun store and legally bought that rapid fire gun. Is it your opinion that these rapid fire guns should be banned as terrorists weapons.
He was a Jihadist. He had been in contact with terrorists. He had made anti-Ameican statements to others, and had posted anti-American statements on the Internet.
He was a terroist.
Sorry, but terrorism has more requirements. First, it is generally taken against civilian targets. Second, it has to have political motivations and the intent to instill fear and cause a resultant change in behavior.
This attack has every indication of a single individual angry about the war and not wanting to serve, and motivated by extremist religious views. He went crazy and acted out.
Here's why the question of whether he was a part of a larger terrorist organization's scheme is irrelevant to me. Because there is no way of definitively quantifying what a "group" is. A group or organization could be three people sitting around cooking up some grand scheme based on their own little unique brotherhood OR it could be every single person of an entire nation who have coalesced to act with malice.. So whether he was a part of a larger known organization is irrelevant, because there is no real way to reasonably quantify the definition of a group or organization.
Also lets not forget, the act DID TARGET AND STRIKE A CIVILIAN (the female police officer who acted as a heroine)...and wounded her...so if anything, EVERY indication shows that this was an act of terrorism.
Using your reasoning, we would have to call Columbine terrorism as well.
I think we still don't have enough facts to make a determination of this as terrorism or not. It's possible that this was politically motivated, but possible as well that it wasn't politically motivated. We just don't know enough to determine that.
good grief!!
we have enough facts, can't bing yourself to say it, don't worry there are plenty of us who can.
Columbine, as horrific as it was, was not a terror attack although terror was produced, this guy is a tradior and worse
Of course it was terrorism. When you have the shooter shouting the same thing the 9/11 hijackers uttered as they plowed into the Tower, the Pentagon and the ground - yeah, terrorism.
I can't for the life of me understand, after all this guy has said and done, that anyone can consider it anything else.
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.
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.
