Ft. Hood Victims to get Purple Hearts

[SkywardET]

It wasn't an incident of terrorism. It was an incident of a disturbed service member, that the press said "Hey, army + officer + psychological + kill only gives us a week to profit off of this. I know, add the words terror and muslim to it, we can run that shit for a month."

"Journalists" need to eat, too.

Though all kinds of questions arise. What, exactly, would a service member need to do to become "the enemy" or side with "the enemy" if this case does not count? What about the average American, Iraqi, Afghan, or Pakistani?

 

[Picaroon]

It wasn't an incident of terrorism. It was an incident of a disturbed service member, that the press said "Hey, army + officer + psychological + kill only gives us a week to profit off of this. I know, add the words terror and muslim to it, we can run that shit for a month."

Are you saying that none of the below is true?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574546,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575892,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-...l-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/who-knew-hasans-radical-contacts/

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It wasn't an incident of terrorism.

We don't know that yet.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

It wasn't an incident of terrorism.

Everyone seems to get all bent out of shape when people speculate that it was terrorism (why is beyond me). Lets play by the same rules and not speculate the contrary. Besides, it will probably save you eating your words when the final investigation findings come to light.

 

[Brett327]

Everyone seems to get all bent out of shape when people speculate that it was terrorism (why is beyond me). Lets play by the same rules and not speculate the contrary. Besides, it will probably save you eating your words when the final investigation findings come to light.

Fair enough, but invoking Occam's Razor, I'm going with simple criminal activity until proven otherwise.

Brett

 

[Picaroon]

Fair enough, but invoking Occam's Razor, I'm going with simple criminal activity until proven otherwise.

Brett

I'm just not sure what exactly you guys are requiring for "proof." I know you've seen all the radical Islamic nonsense he was involved in. There's a small portion of it a few posts up in my last post in this thread.

I can understand skepticism when it first happened, but now the cards are down for everyone to see.

If we're going to argue whether he was a crazed gunman or a dedicated Muslim terrorist, I guess my question for you is, given his known ideologies and activities before the shooting, what's the difference?

 

[Brett327]

I'm just not sure what exactly you guys are requiring for "proof." I know you've seen all the radical Islamic nonsense he was involved in. There's a small portion of it a few posts up in my last post in this thread.

I can understand skepticism when it first happened, but now the cards are down for everyone to see.

If we're going to argue whether he was a crazed gunman or a dedicated Muslim terrorist, I guess my question for you is, given his known ideologies and activities before the shooting, what's the difference?

I'm not going down this rabbit hole again, but none of us know shit. The truth will come out after the investigation & trial are complete. Until then EVERYTHING in the public domain is speculation - period.

Brett

 

[Bevo16]

You mean that speaking in absolutes does not make our opinions fact?

Dammit.

 

[Brett327]

You mean that speaking in absolutes does not make our opinions fact?

Dammit.

That's kind of the point. Everyone posting here has an opinion on the issue. The totality of the facts remain to be seen. Until then, opinions they shall remain.

Brett

 

[Bevo16]

Brett,

That, and people have different definitions for the things we are arguing about. If someone assumes that we are in a global war against Muslim fanatics, and any Muslim fanatic who kills US servicemen is a terrorist (regardless of who their current employer is), then it's pretty safe to say that this was a terrorist attack.

If you define "terrorist" as someone who has been to a training camp, studied in a madrassa, and sworn an oath to al qaeda, etc, then this guy does not qualify.

My only real point is that I think we are often having definitional arguments while fooling ourselves into thinking that we are debating substance.

 

[mmx1]

And trying to prematurely legislate one interpretation of the killings by using awards for the deceased is a pretty low way of making a political point.

 

[Brett327]

Brett,

That, and people have different definitions for the things we are arguing about. If someone assumes that we are in a global war against Muslim fanatics, and any Muslim fanatic who kills US servicemen is a terrorist (regardless of who their current employer is), then it's pretty safe to say that this was a terrorist attack.

If you define "terrorist" as someone who has been to a training camp, studied in a madrassa, and sworn an oath to al qaeda, etc, then this guy does not qualify.

My only real point is that I think we are often having definitional arguments while fooling ourselves into thinking that we are debating substance.

The question of definitions is a secondary one when nobody here really knows the fact pattern of the incident. Would it be sufficient for a jurror in the case to hear zero tesimony at the trial and rely only on what they heard in the media? Of course not, so why do we expect to do the same here? That's a game we can play after the facts are known and released.

Brett