Idiot super-liberal Matthews officially became certifiable

[The Big Cat]

For the millionth time, this terrorist was NEVER in a war zone until the one he CREATED when he shot up over forty unarmed people on a military base and killing 13 of them. The only knee-jerking going on is on the side of the bleeding heart liberals who care much more about Muslim backlash than they do about the reasons why 13 people died at the hands of a home-grown terrorist.

 

As for your comparison, it's a nonstarter. Those ex-soldier killers were murderers, this guy is a terrorist. Apples, oranges. Let's stop with this foolish nonsense already. Politically correct thought processes like this are the reason why this guy was able to have the opportunity to carry out the mass killings.

 

Call it what you want. It's clearly an act against Americans by a Muslim motivated by the same hatred that motivated those involved in 9/11. His statements and acts point squarely to that.

 

Exactly, like you said, call it what you want, but it was definitely motivated by some sort of sympathy for islamists.

 

Precisely.

 

Look, fellas. I don't mean to bring my liberal facts into this but here goes:

 

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lieberman is leaning towards calling it "terrorism," but thinks it's too early to say for certain. He'd rather the Army and FBI go through with their investigations, and he's called for a probe by the Senate Committee on Home Land Security and Government Affairs (which he chairs). Once all the facts are in, he'll determine whether or not it was a "terrorist act."

 

Michael Weiner, forensic psychiatrist with experience examining mass shooters says the shooting had elements common to both ideological and workplace mass shootings. Weiner believes Akhbar's ideaology trumped his loyalty to his Hippocratic oath, but also says it's essential to identify where the shooting started and what the trigger point was.

 

Carl Tobias, an analyst of terror investigations says the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism, but was more reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooting.

 

Brian Levin, who works at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism says the attack was a perfect storm of mental distress, alienation, and religious extremism. He compared the possible role of religion to the abortion beliefs of Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

 

Those who have steadfastly declared the act an act of terrorism are:

 

Former US Attorney Gerneal Michael Muckasey

 

Michael Scheuer, retired former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Issue Station

 

Walid Phares, a Fox News contributor

 

Retired General Barry McCaffrey

 

I don't mean to be snarky. I figured I'd do some leg work for your side of the argument, I just find it ironic that those who (in a short search) I was able to identify as terrorist-hardliners are all pro-military types. Not that such a Jingoistic (there it is for you again, Murra) mentality is surprising from those with their backs up for one of their own, it's more to do with the fact that by identifying this as terrorism concedes the military's failure to recognize terrorism growing directly under their noses. Not to mention a brand of terrorism sold to the American people as our military opponent for the past eight years. If this guy's a terrorist, then the point goes to the terrorists, this is then an American defeat.

 

Personally, I think it was a bit more complicated than "death to America."

[Nanker]

Anti Muslim Backlash?

Ummm, not exactly.

 

The left can't get over the fact that their very own sainted FDR put all those Japanese Americans in internment camps at the start of WWII.

 

Will somebody in the muslim world please step up to the plate and condemn these selfish acts of death-worshiping fiends? That could be a start to believing that Islam is a peaceful religion. I remain as yet unconvinced. I'm callous enough to believe that Muslims are being victimized in this country only to the extent that they don't distance themselves from heinous and barbaric acts such as this and the 9/11 attacks. These words come to you from the Holy City of Princeton.

[RkFast]

You guys really are a bunch of douchebags.

[GG]

Look, fellas. I don't mean to bring my liberal facts into this but here goes:

 

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lieberman is leaning towards calling it "terrorism," but thinks it's too early to say for certain. He'd rather the Army and FBI go through with their investigations, and he's called for a probe by the Senate Committee on Home Land Security and Government Affairs (which he chairs). Once all the facts are in, he'll determine whether or not it was a "terrorist act."

 

Michael Weiner, forensic psychiatrist with experience examining mass shooters says the shooting had elements common to both ideological and workplace mass shootings. Weiner believes Akhbar's ideaology trumped his loyalty to his Hippocratic oath, but also says it's essential to identify where the shooting started and what the trigger point was.

 

Carl Tobias, an analyst of terror investigations says the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism, but was more reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooting.

 

Brian Levin, who works at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism says the attack was a perfect storm of mental distress, alienation, and religious extremism. He compared the possible role of religion to the abortion beliefs of Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

 

Those who have steadfastly declared the act an act of terrorism are:

 

Former US Attorney Gerneal Michael Muckasey

 

Michael Scheuer, retired former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Issue Station

 

Walid Phares, a Fox News contributor

 

Retired General Barry McCaffrey

 

I don't mean to be snarky. I figured I'd do some leg work for your side of the argument, I just find it ironic that those who (in a short search) I was able to identify as terrorist-hardliners are all pro-military types. Not that such a Jingoistic (there it is for you again, Murra) mentality is surprising from those with their backs up for one of their own, it's more to do with the fact that by identifying this as terrorism concedes the military's failure to recognize terrorism growing directly under their noses. Not to mention a brand of terrorism sold to the American people as our military opponent for the past eight years. If this guy's a terrorist, then the point goes to the terrorists, this is then an American defeat.

 

Personally, I think it was a bit more complicated than "death to America."

 

Nice of you to dismiss the military types' opinion, but carefully parse the words of the others.

 

Here's something to chew on - "terrorism" is hardly a defined term, but in generalities, it is the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome. What you haven't touched on is whether Hasan was conducting his personal Jihad and whether that is an act of terror. Considering that Islamist extremists disproportionately use terrorist tactics to wage their Jihad against Western influences, please tell me how Hasan's actions were not his Jihad?

[Magox]

Let's be real here, it was motivated because of the war against Islam.

 

The fact that he contacted Al Qaeda and emailed Anwar al-Awlaki 10-20 times over the past two years, who is an islamist extremist who is known for helping mentor and recruit Al Qaeda members is more than telling.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...h-911-imam.html

 

 

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood gunman, had been in recent contact with a radical imam said to have been a "spiritual adviser" to two of the September 11 hijackers.

 

 

The communications, believed to be emails, between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, who is in Yemen, were sent over the last two years and had been intercepted by US intelligence agencies.

 

They were investigated but it was decided that they did not require following up. The disclosure will open US authorities to criticism that they failed to recognise warning signs about Hasan, and fuel fears that he was in contact with other extremists abroad prior to the shootings.

 

Al-Awlaki was an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia where his services were attended by hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

 

During the same period his services were also attended by Hasan, whose mother's funeral was held at the mosque in May, 2001.

 

In a posting on his website on Monday, headed "Nidal Hasan Did The Right Thing", Al-Awlaki said Hasan had carried out a "heroic and virtuous" act and the only way a Muslim could justify serving in the US Army was to "follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan".

 

He said: "Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." The US Department of Homeland Security has described Al-Awlaki as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader" to the two hijackers. He is also mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report as knowing them. He is not accused of knowing they were terrorists.

 

Ya, ok, this wasn't religously motivated.

 

He was a !@#$ing terrorist, period

[Magox]

Look, fellas. I don't mean to bring my liberal facts into this but here goes:

 

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lieberman is leaning towards calling it "terrorism," but thinks it's too early to say for certain. He'd rather the Army and FBI go through with their investigations, and he's called for a probe by the Senate Committee on Home Land Security and Government Affairs (which he chairs). Once all the facts are in, he'll determine whether or not it was a "terrorist act."

 

Michael Weiner, forensic psychiatrist with experience examining mass shooters says the shooting had elements common to both ideological and workplace mass shootings. Weiner believes Akhbar's ideaology trumped his loyalty to his Hippocratic oath, but also says it's essential to identify where the shooting started and what the trigger point was.

 

Carl Tobias, an analyst of terror investigations says the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism, but was more reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooting.

 

Brian Levin, who works at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism says the attack was a perfect storm of mental distress, alienation, and religious extremism. He compared the possible role of religion to the abortion beliefs of Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

 

Those who have steadfastly declared the act an act of terrorism are:

 

Former US Attorney Gerneal Michael Muckasey

 

Michael Scheuer, retired former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Issue Station

 

Walid Phares, a Fox News contributor

 

Retired General Barry McCaffrey

 

I don't mean to be snarky. I figured I'd do some leg work for your side of the argument, I just find it ironic that those who (in a short search) I was able to identify as terrorist-hardliners are all pro-military types. Not that such a Jingoistic (there it is for you again, Murra) mentality is surprising from those with their backs up for one of their own, it's more to do with the fact that by identifying this as terrorism concedes the military's failure to recognize terrorism growing directly under their noses. Not to mention a brand of terrorism sold to the American people as our military opponent for the past eight years. If this guy's a terrorist, then the point goes to the terrorists, this is then an American defeat.

 

Personally, I think it was a bit more complicated than "death to America."

"liberal facts"???

 

no, try liberal OPINIONS

[VABills]

Yje Admin will not cal lthis terrorism nor the shoting of the recruiting station earlier this year, because they will have to admit it was the first terrorist attack to be successful on US soil since 9-11.

[Magox]

Yje Admin will not cal lthis terrorism nor the shoting of the recruiting station earlier this year, because they will have to admit it was the first terrorist attack to be successful on US soil since 9-11.

That is a very insightful opinion that you have there, that I never considered. Interesting

[IDBillzFan]

That is a very insightful opinion that you have there, that I never considered. Interesting

I agree. The right goes on about how Bush kept the US safe from another terrorist attack, Obama comes in with the hopey-changey-Sally Fields ("They like us. They really like us!") approach to foreign policy, and a year in he as a terror attack on US soil.

 

That's just the kind of rationale that makes the heads of people like Tingles and Olbermann implode in Muppet fashion.

[1billsfan]

Yje Admin will not cal lthis terrorism nor the shoting of the recruiting station earlier this year, because they will have to admit it was the first terrorist attack to be successful on US soil since 9-11.

 

I think you're right. Playing politically motivated word dodging games doesn't exactly instill a sense of confidence in the American people that he can get the job done of protecting the nation. Which leads to the question, how can you solve or correct a problem that you refuse to even acknowledge? How many more of these domestic "inside job" terrorist attacks are going to happen before an honest assessment will occur?

[Chef Jim]

I agree. The right goes on about how Bush kept the US safe from another terrorist attack, Obama comes in with the hopey-changey-Sally Fields ("They like us. They really like us!") approach to foreign policy, and a year in he as a terror attack on US soil.

 

That's just the kind of rationale that makes the heads of people like Tingles and Olbermann implode in Muppet fashion.

 

The public ain't buying it.

[IDBillzFan]

The public ain't buying it.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this government could give two schitts about what American's want.

[Chef Jim]

Look, fellas. I don't mean to bring my liberal facts into this but here goes:

 

Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lieberman is leaning towards calling it "terrorism," but thinks it's too early to say for certain. He'd rather the Army and FBI go through with their investigations, and he's called for a probe by the Senate Committee on Home Land Security and Government Affairs (which he chairs). Once all the facts are in, he'll determine whether or not it was a "terrorist act."

 

Michael Weiner, forensic psychiatrist with experience examining mass shooters says the shooting had elements common to both ideological and workplace mass shootings. Weiner believes Akhbar's ideaology trumped his loyalty to his Hippocratic oath, but also says it's essential to identify where the shooting started and what the trigger point was.

 

Carl Tobias, an analyst of terror investigations says the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism, but was more reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooting.

 

Brian Levin, who works at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism says the attack was a perfect storm of mental distress, alienation, and religious extremism. He compared the possible role of religion to the abortion beliefs of Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

 

Those who have steadfastly declared the act an act of terrorism are:

 

Former US Attorney Gerneal Michael Muckasey

 

Michael Scheuer, retired former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Issue Station

 

Walid Phares, a Fox News contributor

 

Retired General Barry McCaffrey

 

I don't mean to be snarky. I figured I'd do some leg work for your side of the argument, I just find it ironic that those who (in a short search) I was able to identify as terrorist-hardliners are all pro-military types. Not that such a Jingoistic (there it is for you again, Murra) mentality is surprising from those with their backs up for one of their own, it's more to do with the fact that by identifying this as terrorism concedes the military's failure to recognize terrorism growing directly under their noses. Not to mention a brand of terrorism sold to the American people as our military opponent for the past eight years. If this guy's a terrorist, then the point goes to the terrorists, this is then an American defeat.

 

Personally, I think it was a bit more complicated than "death to America."

 

Oh I imagine the military recognized it but were afraid to be accused of profiling and therefore decided not to do anything about it. I could just hear you wailing had they drummed him out earlier this year. Because the leadership of this country has become so !@#$ing afraid to offend anyone things like this happen and I imagine they will begin to happen more often. This is an act of terrorism, which I think you're saying (it's hard to tell sometimes), but an act of terrorism by a radical Muslim not an Asian guy at a college campus (which you incoherently linked to). Now let me ask you two questions 1. Are we at war? 2. Who are we at war with? Your second answer should be interesting.

[Chef Jim]

Not sure if you've noticed, but this government could give two schitts about what American's want.

 

You are correct but if you noticed that was 60% of likely voters not 60% of people who think John should be voted off the island.

[1billsfan]

Not sure if you've noticed, but this government could give two schitts about what American's want.

 

Which was the BIGGEST rant against the Bush administration. Meet the new boss...

[/dev/null]

Which was the BIGGEST rant against the Bush administration. Meet the new boss...

Change we can believe in

 

The King is dead. Long live the King

[The Big Cat]

Nice of you to dismiss the military types' opinion, but carefully parse the words of the others.

 

Here's something to chew on - "terrorism" is hardly a defined term, but in generalities, it is the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome. What you haven't touched on is whether Hasan was conducting his personal Jihad and whether that is an act of terror. Considering that Islamist extremists disproportionately use terrorist tactics to wage their Jihad against Western influences, please tell me how Hasan's actions were not his Jihad?

 

Because all of the experts see his actions as a combination of his religious influences swirled with his some serious mental issues, mainly the type of isolation and alienation that leads angsty teens to start shooting up their classmates.

 

The guy was in the military for TWENTY YEARS, that says to me that he just sort of snapped one day, as opposed to whatever it is other folks think he was doing, i.e. planting himself as a mole, waiting for the right time to strike.

Let's be real here, it was motivated because of the war against Islam.

 

The fact that he contacted Al Qaeda and emailed Anwar al-Awlaki 10-20 times over the past two years, who is an islamist extremist who is known for helping mentor and recruit Al Qaeda members is more than telling.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...h-911-imam.html

 

 

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood gunman, had been in recent contact with a radical imam said to have been a "spiritual adviser" to two of the September 11 hijackers.

 

 

The communications, believed to be emails, between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, who is in Yemen, were sent over the last two years and had been intercepted by US intelligence agencies.

 

They were investigated but it was decided that they did not require following up. The disclosure will open US authorities to criticism that they failed to recognise warning signs about Hasan, and fuel fears that he was in contact with other extremists abroad prior to the shootings.

 

Al-Awlaki was an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia where his services were attended by hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

 

During the same period his services were also attended by Hasan, whose mother's funeral was held at the mosque in May, 2001.

 

In a posting on his website on Monday, headed "Nidal Hasan Did The Right Thing", Al-Awlaki said Hasan had carried out a "heroic and virtuous" act and the only way a Muslim could justify serving in the US Army was to "follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan".

 

He said: "Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." The US Department of Homeland Security has described Al-Awlaki as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader" to the two hijackers. He is also mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report as knowing them. He is not accused of knowing they were terrorists.

 

Ya, ok, this wasn't religously motivated.

 

He was a !@#$ing terrorist, period

 

When was the last time members of al-Qaeda abroad didn't celebrate the death of Americans? They consider any act of violence aganist the west a "heroic virtue," that says nothing of Hasan's intentions.

 

What DOES say something about his intentions are the emails that went bck and forth, emails you believe contained deliberations over how the attack should be done, why the attack should be done, etc. I'm assuming all this, you'll have to cue me in as to why you think the emails were important, AND THE AUTHORITIES READING THEM DID NOT: "

The communications, believed to be emails, between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, who is in Yemen, were sent over the last two years and had been intercepted by US intelligence agencies. They were investigated but it was decided that they did not require following up"

 

It does go on to say that there's concern over him being in touch them in the first place, but evidently the content of those correspondences does "not require following up."

 

"liberal facts"???

 

no, try liberal OPINIONS

 

So if I have the world's preeminent plumber comes to look at my toilet, his expertise is little more than a biased opinion? Okay, if THAT'S how we're going to treat knowledge, then this debate isn't worth having.

 

Yje Admin will not cal lthis terrorism nor the shoting of the recruiting station earlier this year, because they will have to admit it was the first terrorist attack to be successful on US soil since 9-11.

 

The only reason I'd be clawing to dodge the language in order to save the President's record on terrorism would be if I had any desire for him to be re-elected. I don't. I've decided, thanks to some of the wisdom here (believe it or not) that I'll never vote again for a major party candidate. Unless they're non-interventionists AND THAT AINT HAPPENIN. Let's move on.

 

Oh I imagine the military recognized it but were afraid to be accused of profiling and therefore decided not to do anything about it. I could just hear you wailing had they drummed him out earlier this year. Because the leadership of this country has become so !@#$ing afraid to offend anyone things like this happen and I imagine they will begin to happen more often. This is an act of terrorism, which I think you're saying (it's hard to tell sometimes), but an act of terrorism by a radical Muslim not an Asian guy at a college campus (which you incoherently linked to). Now let me ask you two questions 1. Are we at war? 2. Who are we at war with? Your second answer should be interesting.

 

This is all speculation on your part. Also, these so-called dastardly correspondences had been going on for TWO YEARS , before AND AFTER our leadership was too afraid to offend anyone.

 

And no, for like the 100th time (yet I'm the stupid one) I DON'T THINK THIS WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM, AT LEAST NOT HOW YOU'RE BRANDING IT. I think this is the equivalent to school shootings, and people who get paid to study this stuff agree. But to answer your questions:

 

1. Sort of not really.

 

2. We're in Congress-approved military conflicts in Afghanistan (where al-Qaeda is our chief enemy.) and Iraq.

 

*****I don't think this was terrorism, because more often than not terrorism is meant to poke the underbelly of a specific state or government. Saying that he talked with al-Quaeda and was an Islamist Extremist does nothing to verify the aforementioned intentions. Sure, his friends and his religion fill in some gaps, but everybody who actually knows something about this (you know, I've provided links for all the things you say I'm wrong about) says it's a lot more complicated than "death to America." <---May be you'll understand this sentence now that I've typed it twice.

[3rdnlng]

Anti Muslim Backlash?

Ummm, not exactly.

 

The left can't get over the fact that their very own sainted FDR put all those Japanese Americans in internment camps at the start of WWII.

 

Will somebody in the muslim world please step up to the plate and condemn these selfish acts of death-worshiping fiends? That could be a start to believing that Islam is a peaceful religion. I remain as yet unconvinced. I'm callous enough to believe that Muslims are being victimized in this country only to the extent that they don't distance themselves from heinous and barbaric acts such as this and the 9/11 attacks. These words come to you from the Holy City of Princeton.

 

 

Yes, this is the problem. No outcry from the mainstream muslims. When they start to condemn these actions, and better yet inform the authorities ahead of time regarding potential jihadists, then I personally will accept that Islam is a "religion of peace". Until then I propose that our military adopts the "General Pershing Philosophy" and dip all of our ammunition in pigs blood.

[DC Tom]

Yes, this is the problem. No outcry from the mainstream muslims. When they start to condemn these actions, and better yet inform the authorities ahead of time regarding potential jihadists, then I personally will accept that Islam is a "religion of peace". Until then I propose that our military adopts the "General Pershing Philosophy" and dip all of our ammunition in pigs blood.

 

How many of you could actually identify a "mainstream Muslim" to begin with?

[The Big Cat]

How many of you could actually identify a "mainstream Muslim" to begin with?

 

Are you suggesting the Muslims need their own Jesse Jackson right about now?