Fort Hood's 9/11

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

[Peikko 1,575]

What I think is clear even now, is that he did not have any official ties with any known terrorist organization. I don't think it would take very long to discover such ties. Which leaves us with, he was working on a personal agenda. That personal agenda may have had a political motivation, or it may not have but without being part of an organization, it is not possible to really call this an act of terrorism.

I don't agree with Danno logic though - he's cleverly worded post is basically saying that muslims should have different rights to other citizens which is nothing to do with being 'too pc'.

Heres a couple definitions of a terrorist -

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Why are we getting so caught up in the semantics of all this, its obvious that it was more than him just snapping, his screwed up view of his beliefs had something to do with this, what he did was despicable and that should be the focus.

The definitions are important but yes, the act was despicable and nothing is going to change the fact that people died who need not have, and indeed should not have.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

It is important because there are people, and you are well aware of this, that want to use this act, and others like it to further their own political agenda, that is the one that suggests that only certain US citizens should enjoy all the available rights of US citizenship.

Protecting the rights of all US citizens is the duty of all US citizens.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Who said that?

It is important because there are people, and you are well aware of this, that want to use this act, and others like it to further their own political agenda, that is the one that suggests that only certain US citizens should enjoy all the available rights of US citizenship.

Protecting the rights of all US citizens is the duty of all US citizens.

Who said it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Who said that?

Have you been watching/reading the news lately?

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Who said that?

Have you been watching/reading the news lately?

Again I ask - who said it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Actually I did watch Fox News - and the bolded is what I was referring to.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Actually I did watch Fox News - and the bolded is what I was referring to.

Where's your references? Fox is promoting a backlash against muslims? Taking away their rights? Lets see it..

[_Simpson_ 250]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Actually I did watch Fox News - and the bolded is what I was referring to.

Oh you did, so your telling me there is hope for you. I have mentioned before on VJ that I watch very little fox nowadays but to write me off as "one of them" and not address the point I was making seems a little dishonest to me. I think way to many people are trying to be the great protector of Muslims, its silly, people get over it this isn't the stone age and there will be no backlash.

Edited November 10, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Why do you think some people want to call this man a terrorist without knowing the facts? Can we look forward to all shootings being described as being perpetrated by terrorists? Or is this appelet going to be reserved for some acts and not others? What are the criteria for this expansion of its use? That's the important question, the one that needs to be asked.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Oh you did, so your telling me there is hope for you. I have mentioned before on VJ that I watch very little fox nowadays but to write me off as "one of them" and not address the point I was making seems a little dishonest to me. I think way to many people are trying to be the great protector of Muslims, its silly, people get over it this isn't the stone age and there will be no backlash.

I hardly watch any TV. Let alone Fox News. I basically watch TV when I am sick or horribly bored which might happen once a month or so.

But Simpson, lets be honest. You and I are only saying that so we can bring ourselves back into the credited argument again. Whereas if they knew the truth, we'd have no credibility whatsoever. Lets keep it on the downlow. Don't want them libs to find out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Actually I did watch Fox News - and the bolded is what I was referring to.

Oh you did, so your telling me there is hope for you. I have mentioned before on VJ that I watch very little fox nowadays but to write me off as "one of them" and not address the point I was making seems a little dishonest to me. I think way to many people are trying to be the great protector of Muslims, its silly, people get over it this isn't the stone age and there will be no backlash.

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

regardless he fits the definition and like I said originally whats with all the semantics, its silly to be so concerned and upset with people wanting to use the word terrorist when talking about this guy. I think what drives this is to many people think there being all noble by protecting the Muslims from a backlash, well there was no backlash and there will be no backlash.

That is indeed what the TV commentators were saying last night (on Fox at least), and you seem to be trotting it out nicely as if you arrived at it independently.

A person can seem like a terrorist without actually being one.

It doesn't matter much of course, people are still dead. It only matters in the sense of how the debate is being framed. And given that people are using it to circulate opinions suggesting that muslim Americans shouldn't serve in the military or should otherwise not receive equivalent rights to other USCs seems to me to be pretty distasteful.

Ok.... I didn't watch fox last night and something tells me you probably didn't either but what exactly was it they were saying, that people were concerned with a backlash?

I have said nothing about how Muslims shouldn't serve in the military so that last paragraph doesn't really apply to me and I think most people who want to call him a terrorist aren't trying to use it as some sort of segue to saying Muslims shouldn't serve in the military.

Why do you think some people want to call this man a terrorist without knowing the facts? Can we look forward to all shootings being described as being perpetrated by terrorists? Or is this appelet going to be reserved for some acts and not others? What are the criteria for this expansion of its use? That's the important question, the one that needs to be asked.

I'd say the columbine boys were terrorists too. They were just Neo-Nazi's who shotup a bunch of kids. Yes also terrorists. They targeted blacks, and Christians and many others (because they were as such)

We know many many facts about this case MC. Perhaps not 100% but we know enough to make some conclusions.

There was a backlash after 9/11 - reflected in rising violent crime rates against arab/indian minorities.

So how does that equate to taking away their rights? Crime is crime.