That was pretty lame

[buckman]

JD you remind me alot of Barney Frank when you respond.
His reasons for killing the best women and men this country has,are the same reasons Bin Ladin has. Why do you fail to see that? Someone dropped the ball on this guy and maybe someday we will find out why. I still contend that trying not to offend muslums is part of it. You bring up his faith in one of your post as the reason not to jump to conclusions....case made made, Thanks

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

His reasons for killing the best women and men this country has,are the same reasons Bin Ladin has. Why do you fail to see that?

Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there.

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted.

There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there. actually..it is...he routinely expressed many of the same views

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted. we actually don't know that he "cracked" ... we know that he did this out of religeous fervor the evidence is awfully strong, but we do know that he has a much longer history of radical Islamist thought and beliefs and countless displays of his radical thoughts and beliefs based on what his peers are saying far more than evidence of a history of mental illness...but his peers are probably just basing their observations on their own bigoted negative stereotypes, right?


There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on? there is also a line between deluding yourself in order to remain PC and putting others in danger due to your failure to recognize and act upon the obvious....whose side are you on?

-spence

isn't it amazing what and who the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s find themselves defending while constantly claiming to be the "smartest" among us?

[scottw]

not terrorism, just identity theft that would have resulted in an unfortunate tragedy...

Can we call this one terrorism or will it be classified as identity theft? The Telegraph has the story:

The plan, which reportedly would have been the biggest attack on America since 9/11, was uncovered after Scotland Yard intercepted an email.

The force alerted the FBI, who launched an operation which led to airport shuttle bus driver Najibullah Zazi, 24, being charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

The Afghan is alleged to have been part of a group who used stolen credit cards to buy components for bombs including nail varnish remover.

The chemicals bought were similar to those used to make the 2005 London Tube and bus explosives which killed 52 people.

Zazi, from Denver, Colorado, is understood to have been given instructions by a senior member of al Qaeda in Pakistan over the internet.

US authorities allegedly found bomb-making instructions on his laptop and his fingerprints on batteries and measuring scales they seized.

A phone containing footage of New York's Grand Central Station, thought to have been made by him during a visit a week before his arrest, was also found along with explosive residue. Zazi was also said by informants to have attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

The alleged plot was unmasked after an email address that was being monitored as part of the abortive Operation Pathway was suddenly reactivated. [...]

The British discovery also came at just the right time - the US had threatened to sever intelligence links over the release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi.

I guess he was about to "crack" too...violence likely resulting

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

isn't it amazing what and who the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s find themselves defending while constantly claiming to be the "smartest" among us?

You're funny.

Speaking for myself, the only thing I'm defending here is objectivity. Religious ferver doesn't make one a terrorist, even if it's acted out with violence.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have more faith than the Jihadis

-spence

[Joe]

I think he was a terrorist - that's the profile that is the best fit.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

You're funny.

Speaking for myself, the only thing I'm defending here is objectivity. Religious ferver doesn't make one a terrorist, even if it's acted out with violence.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have more faith than the Jihadis

-spence

scottw has the mentality of "either you agree with what I say, or you're some crazy liberal idiot that hates America." The crazy thing for him is that nothing about this topic has anything to do with a person's political ideology. But, take away partisanship, and he doesn't know how to be critical of someone so he blindly falls back to the only thing he knows - "They must have this view because they're liberals".

The terrorist reference is only being made because he's Muslim. Even the federal investigators are stating they believe this was him acting alone and motivated by him being deployed soon. Weird, *motivated by him being deployed soon* doesn't sound like "motivated to incite fear or influence government" to me.

Now, I'm curious what other non-facts will be used to continue scottw and buckman's unsupportable argument.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Because the evidence to that conclusion is not yet there.

What we do (think we) know is that he was deeply conflicted at the idea of Muslims fighting other Muslims, he cracked, and the violence resulted.

There's a line between being PC and just making an assumption based on negative stereotypes. Guess which side you're on?

-spence

Your right Spence, the conclusion is not there yet. That is the same attitude that allowed this to happen. Plenty of warning signs, agreed?

I'm on the side of the obvious. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist. It just that most terrorist are Muslim.

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?

He certainly might have. If that is the driving motivation, and he was scheduled to head to Israel or Palestine, maybe it would have been the case.

It's a tragedy, period.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He certainly might have. If that is the driving motivation, and he was scheduled to head to Israel or Palestine, maybe it would have been the case.

It's a tragedy, period.

He wasn't going to the " front line" Brian. Stop making excuses.

Being PC and fair to everyone , not offending anyone and giving everyone ( except Bush) the benefit of the doubt is all fine and dandy on here, but in real life it gets people killed.

Maybe your attitude will change when you hear that it was Bush's administration that appears to have dropped the ball on this guy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Your right Spence, the conclusion is not there yet. That is the same attitude that allowed this to happen. Plenty of warning signs, agreed?

You can't live in a culture of paranoia. The military is a high amplitude environment and as such monitors their people differently than most business would. Certainly he looks to have displayed warning signs that should have impacted his deployment orders.

I'm on the side of the obvious. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist. It just that most terrorist are Muslim.

That might be true at the moment, but I'd also add that the vast majority of Muslim terrorism kills other Muslims. In the end, people do what they do, it doesn't matter what their religion.

Would you agree that the Major "wouldn't have cracked" had he been a Jew?

No, I wouldn't.

-spence

[Joe]

For an officer to be openly critical of the disposition of servicemen within earshot of other miltary personal is very odd.
The military is still in dire need people that can interpret middle-eastern languages - so it could be that they are being very careful with respect to retention, but I don't think that was the case here, where we have an officer behind the act.
I think the measures the military has in place now (to identify potential threats within its ranks) is geared for enlisted men or junior officers returning from combat. I think they were blindsided because this guy was a major and an officer who had served stateside.

[Bocephus]

bottom line is a president should have more tact, and more COMMON SENSE, than to give a "Shout-out" at a moment like that. And how about if he just said he wanted to recognize someone, not give them a shout out like he was a DJ or something. It really does say something about his character, he is thinking more about himself than the country.

[fishbones]

I'm just going to throw this out there for you guys to think about. I'm not saying whether I think it was a terrorist act or not.

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.

As RIROCKHOUND wrote, it's a tragedy either way.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I'm just going to throw this out there for you guys to think about. I'm not saying whether I think it was a terrorist act or not.

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.

As RIROCKHOUND wrote, it's a tragedy either way.

He's being tried in a military court.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by buckman

He's being tried in a military court.

Right. Not sure what you mean, though. The military tries cases of military criminals. There's still an investigation and attorneys involved. You don't want evidence being leaked that could give a defense attorney a reason for a mistrial.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Does anyone think that if it was being investigated as an act of terrorism, the investigators would want that to be made public? Or, do you think they want to keep everything under wraps as they build a case against the guy? Also consider that Hasan is alive and will have an attorney to defend him in the criminal case.

The investigation should seek to determine the motive as it would in any criminal case involving such a terrible crime. If there is credible evidence of terrorism then it shouldn't be hidden, but that's a conclusion for a judge based on law.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

The investigation should seek to determine the motive as it would in any criminal case involving such a terrible crime. If there is credible evidence of terrorism then it shouldn't be hidden, but that's a conclusion for a judge based on law.

-spence

In any criminal investigation, the prosecution should play thngs close to the vest. Leaking information can damage a case. My supposition is that the Army investigators may know a lot more than they are letting on at this point. They would not come out right off the bat when things are still fresh and emotions are high and label it as terrorism even if they think it may be.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by fishbones

In any criminal investigation, the prosecution should play thngs close to the vest. Leaking information can damage a case. My supposition is that the Army investigators may know a lot more than they are letting on at this point. They would not come out right off the bat when things are still fresh and emotions are high and label it as terrorism even if they think it may be.

I would agree, there maybe a lot more tied to this incident that they are looking into which could disrupt other plots if it truly is terrorism.
But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.

I'll bet you nearly wet yourself typing that.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I would agree, there maybe a lot more tied to this incident that they are looking into which could disrupt other plots if it truly is terrorism.
But if they find it is terrorism in the end, it will be the first domestic terrorism since 9/11 and under Obama's watch.

Spence, this was the original post, what Fact??? are you questioning.

Unless there has been another terrorist attack i don't now about since 9/11
then "if they find it is terrorism in the end" the fact is it will be under Obama's watch.

If you are looking for facts pointing to terrorism, a few I remember, he had
e-mailed the al qaeda recruiter in Yemen, he went to the same Florida Mosque
that the 9/11 terrorists attended, he had SOA (soldier of Allah)under his name on his professional card,
and was charged with premeditated murder as he bought the guns he used shortly before the attack.
I go along with Fishbone's post and the possible reasons why he may not have been charged as a terrorist so far,
but if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck it's a duck.

[RIJIMMY]

"cracking" to me is getting fed up and walking off a job.
This was planned and calculated and most importantly TARGETED. He went after military people. He knew what he was doing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

"cracking" to me is getting fed up and walking off a job.
This was planned and calculated and most importantly TARGETED. He went after military people. He knew what he was doing.

How many people crack and shoot up their workplace? For all you know this was no different.

You are aware he worked for the US Army don't you?

-spence