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.
You're seriously brainwashed. The increase in terrorism against US targets under Bush was due almost 100% to our invasion of Iraq.
Then please explain away the reasons for the '93 CIA shootings, WTC1, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, and the Cole attack. Those were somehow Bush's fault too, I suppose.
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.
By definition of a few, combining his religion and the crime would automatically make this a case of terrorism. Now if he were a Christian, it would be more about "having lost his mind and needed psychological help", not a case of "terrorism".
Someone in the army losing mind and killing fellow soldiers is not unprecedented. We need to look farther into the root cause of this incident, not call it terrorism and call it a day.
If the debate in this topic should make at least a little sense, then someone needs clearly state the definition of terrorism.
I found a several definitions. They don't differ much, but they differ some.
Secondly:
Does it really matter how we label Hasan now, after the tragedy already took place?
How does it matter now, if we call him a terrorist, or psycho, or religious extremist, or this, or that?
Wouldn't be more productive to talk about what should be done, so event of this kind wouldn't be repeted in the future?
Third:
I was prone to understand Hasan's act, since he was going to face a military involvement against people of his religion.
However, I think, Hasan had a better options than what he has done. He should have contacted appropriate military authorities and tell them straight, that he can't serve this country, since that would involve fighting people of his religion. He would have faced a certain consequencies for refusing to go to Afganistan, but this would be the proper option.
He obviously decided for something very wrong. I no longer try to understand his acting. Taking people's lives is too bad. Especially if those people had nothing to do with his problem.
By definition of a few, combining his religion and the crime would automatically make this a case of terrorism. Now if he were a Christian, it would be more about "having lost his mind and needed psychological help", not a case of "terrorism".
Someone in the army losing mind and killing fellow soldiers is not unprecedented. We need to look farther into the root cause of this incident, not call it terrorism and call it a day.
Honestly... with all the actions and comments he displayed, you really cannot see he became a Muslim radical?
Now does this mean all muslims are terrorists, of course not.
My opinion is that he turned extremist somewhere along the way based on what I've read so far about his past and current dealings.
I think what he did was a terrorist act.
Honestly... with all the actions and comments he displayed, you really cannot see he became a Muslim radical?
Now does this mean all muslims are terrorists, of course not.
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?
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?
If Hasan wasn't a muslim, I believe, he wouldn't have done what he has done.
The point of terrorism is to provoke and create fear and are done for ideological reasons.
The act of terror though is usually done to non-soldiers to create fear among the populace.
In this case it was soldiers, but they were on American soil, unarmed and these particular people were not "at war" yet.
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?
I wish I could see your point of view, but standing on my head makes me dizzy.
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.
