The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Ya, because I made them up. Dude, you're ignorant if you refuse to look at the facts. You see, I can think for myself, you on the other hand need an opinion from an "expert" to think for you. Then please, demonstrate how this was a terrorist attack: I want to know what his motivation was, how it's the same as other terrorist motivations, and how you know it. I want to know what he expected the outcome to be, how it's the same as other terrorist outcomes, and how you know it. I want to know how this was pre-meditated, how it's the same as other terrorist pre-meditations, and how you know it. There's three simple questions that, based on the FACTS, you simply cannot answer to support your argument. (please provide links)
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Actually, you know what this is like me trying to dis-prove god. You tell me how the ACT had similarities to a terrorist attack, and you show me the evidence to prove it. It's been well established now that the content of the emails you're so hung up on had NOTHING to do with conspiring for an attack. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, i.e. a report or excerpts from the emails themselves, please, share. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1629498 I agree with that as well, that a very small percentage of muslims are extremists. However, this was clearly a case where we had a muslim, who sympathized with extremists, who was against the war, and sought guidance from other extremists who had mentored other terrorists who decided to go ape **** and kill off American military personel. Who sought guidance from other extremists. who sought guidance No one is suggesting that they PLOTTED an attack, but that this was RELIGOUSLY MOTIVATED. I must have said this on this thread at least a few times. Try to keep up
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Then please, demonstrate how this was a terrorist attack: I want to know what his motivation was, how it's the same as other terrorist motivations, and how you know it. I want to know what he expected the outcome to be, how it's the same as other terrorist outcomes, and how you know it. I want to know how this was pre-meditated, how it's the same as other terrorist pre-meditations, and how you know it. There's three simple questions that, based on the FACTS, you simply cannot answer to support your argument. (please provide links) you want me to provide a link to what he was thinking? ok, now thats just too !@#$ing funny
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1629498 I agree with that as well, that a very small percentage of muslims are extremists. However, this was clearly a case where we had a muslim, who sympathized with extremists, who was against the war, and sought guidance from other extremists who had mentored other terrorists who decided to go ape **** and kill off American military personel. Who sought guidance from other extremists. who sought guidance No one is suggesting that they PLOTTED an attack, but that this was RELIGOUSLY MOTIVATED. I must have said this on this thread at least a few times. Try to keep up Well, if you read what I wrote, I conceded long ago that this was a religiously motivated attack. Does that make it terrorism? NO!
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 you want me to provide a link to what he was thinking? ok, now thats just too !@#$ing funny Exactly, BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROOF. And again, the people who get paid to DETERMINE WHAT HE WAS THINKING believe this was more similar to Virginia Tech than to any kind of pre-meditated, politically or religiously motivated TERRORISM. Why is this so hard!?
erynthered Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1629498 I agree with that as well, that a very small percentage of muslims are extremists. However, this was clearly a case where we had a muslim, who sympathized with extremists, who was against the war, and sought guidance from other extremists who had mentored other terrorists who decided to go ape **** and kill off American military personel. Who sought guidance from other extremists. who sought guidance No one is suggesting that they PLOTTED an attack, but that this was RELIGOUSLY MOTIVATED. I must have said this on this thread at least a few times. Try to keep up He said this "We love death more than you love life."
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Well, if you read what I wrote, I conceded long ago that this was a religiously motivated attack. Does that make it terrorism? NO! Fine, you can call it a civilian case that was a religously motivated onslaught of military personel, who were set to be deployed to the middle east that he was vehemently against, who by chance and coincidence contacted Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists who had praised him for his attack just so that they could talk about the Koran and other stuff. I'll just call it Terrorism.
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 just to placate you, here you go: http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/06/jihad-a...robert-spencer/ Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.. I think he qualifies as an "expert", not that I needed an "expert" to tell you that the color blue is actually blue. Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored. On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense of suicide bombing (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original): There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best. Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to the effect of “Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military”; “Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors”; and even speaking favorably about people who “strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.” Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan. Fine, there's your stupid "expert" link you desperately wanted.
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 just to placate you, here you go: http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/06/jihad-a...robert-spencer/ Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.. I think he qualifies as an "expert", not that I needed an "expert" to tell you that the color blue is actually blue. Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored. On May 20, 2009, a man giving his name as “NidalHasan” posted this defense of suicide bombing (all spelling and grammar as it is in the original): There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best. Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to the effect of “Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military”; “Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors”; and even speaking favorably about people who “strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.” Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan. Fine, there's your stupid "expert" link you desperately wanted. No where does it say what his motivation was. No where. Why? Because nobody knows what it was! It was a "jihad" says your expert? Where is his evidence? Thanks too for Col. Terry Lee's nebulous, second hand recount of what he remembers Hasan saying. You also failed to demonstrate the attack was pre-meditated. NOR have you demonstrated that he intended to conjure the type of political/religious awareness terrorism is meant to spur. Did you even read the so-called "justification for suicide bombings?" It would appear you didn't. I'm not trying downplay the role of religion, I've made that abundantly clear. What I'm trying to do is UP-play all the other factors that made this happen. To say this was a Jihad and nothing else is categorically wrong. And even it was strictly a Jihad, then shame on our military for letting it slip through their fingers. In my opinion, Jihad, or no Jihad, they failed this guy just as the English teacher and the university's psychology services failed the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre. I guess then you'd have to agree with the point I've repeatedly made on this board: our military's track record of failure indicates to me that it's a COLOSSAL waste of our tax dollars.
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 No where does it say what his motivation was. No where. Why? Because nobody knows what it was! It was a "jihad" says your expert? Where is his evidence? Thanks too for Col. Terry Lee's nebulous, second hand recount of what he remembers Hasan saying. You also failed to demonstrate the attack was pre-meditated. NOR have you demonstrated that he intended to conjure the type of political/religious awareness terrorism is meant to spur. Did you even read the so-called "justification for suicide bombings?" It would appear you didn't. I'm not trying downplay the role of religion, I've made that abundantly clear. What I'm trying to do is UP-play all the other factors that made this happen. To say this was a Jihad and nothing else is categorically wrong. And even it was strictly a Jihad, then shame on our military for letting it slip through their fingers. In my opinion, Jihad, or no Jihad, they failed this guy just as the English teacher and the university's psychology services failed the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre. I guess then you'd have to agree with the point I've repeatedly made on this board: our military's track record of failure indicates to me that it's a COLOSSAL waste of our tax dollars. And what factors are those? They failed him? Ohhh that poor, poor man. What a !@#$ing weenie.
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 And what factors are those? They failed him? Ohhh that poor, poor man. What a !@#$ing weenie. They failed to identify his psychology detachment and respond to it effectively. EDIT: Again, his so-believed smoking-gun emails took place over two years. Let that one slip: FAIL. Reports show he was increasingly alienated by the war efforts on top of having to deal with the most stressing issues experienced by soldiers. Failing to recognize his growing instability: FAIL
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 They failed to identify his psychology detachment and respond to it effectively. EDIT: Again, his so-believed smoking-gun emails took place over two years. Let that one slip: FAIL. Reports show he was increasingly alienated by the war efforts on top of having to deal with the most stressing issues experienced by soldiers. Failing to recognize his growing instability: FAIL What psychological detacthment is that? Oh so you're his personal analyst. See I guess you can make **** up too. Seeing those emails took place over two years shows this was not someone who just happened to snap. I can't believe your defending this !@#$stick. And don't tell me you're not because you're sure showing some sympathy towards him and blaming others for this event.
The Big Cat Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 What psychological detacthment is that? Oh so you're his personal analyst. See I guess you can make **** up too. Seeing those emails took place over two years shows this was not someone who just happened to snap. I can't believe your defending this !@#$stick. And don't tell me you're not because you're sure showing some sympathy towards him and blaming others for this event. Yet there's nothing in the content of those emails to suggest he was plotting anything (which is why I refer to them as so-called smoking-gun). C'mon. Are you really so !@#$ing dense to purport me defending this assclown? Seriously?
3rdnlng Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 No where does it say what his motivation was. No where. Why? Because nobody knows what it was! It was a "jihad" says your expert? Where is his evidence? Thanks too for Col. Terry Lee's nebulous, second hand recount of what he remembers Hasan saying. You also failed to demonstrate the attack was pre-meditated. NOR have you demonstrated that he intended to conjure the type of political/religious awareness terrorism is meant to spur. Did you even read the so-called "justification for suicide bombings?" It would appear you didn't. I'm not trying downplay the role of religion, I've made that abundantly clear. What I'm trying to do is UP-play all the other factors that made this happen. To say this was a Jihad and nothing else is categorically wrong. And even it was strictly a Jihad, then shame on our military for letting it slip through their fingers. In my opinion, Jihad, or no Jihad, they failed this guy just as the English teacher and the university's psychology services failed the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre. I guess then you'd have to agree with the point I've repeatedly made on this board: our military's track record of failure indicates to me that it's a COLOSSAL waste of our tax dollars. Do you think that purchasing the gun a month ahead of time might make this premeditated? Do you think that yelling out "God is Great" in Arabic as he began shooting people might somehow connect the killings to his religion that promotes jihad? Having a military is a colossal waste of our tax dollars? If we didn't have a military I can assure you that you would be paying your taxes in yen or rubles.
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Yet there's nothing in the content of those emails to suggest he was plotting anything (which is why I refer to them as so-called smoking-gun). C'mon. Are you really so !@#$ing dense to purport me defending this assclown? Seriously? Then why are you spending so much energy on placing blame elswhere than squarely on his shoulders? And a lot of that blame is just conjecture on your part. That's pretty !@#$ing pathetic.
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Then why are you spending so much energy on placing blame elswhere than squarely on his shoulders? And a lot of that blame is just conjecture on your part. That's pretty !@#$ing pathetic. because he trying to defend the liberal talking points. it's obvious
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Do you think that purchasing the gun a month ahead of time might make this premeditated? Do you think that yelling out "God is Great" in Arabic as he began shooting people might somehow connect the killings to his religion that promotes jihad? Having a military is a colossal waste of our tax dollars? If we didn't have a military I can assure you that you would be paying your taxes in yen or rubles. no, you're missing the point, he was emailing Al Qaeda and the extremist Islamic Imam to talk about how he could achieve in being a better muslim. and yes, there is absolutely no connection between this, and his actions. none
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 no, you're missing the point, he was emailing Al Qaeda and the extremist Islamic Imam to talk about how he could achieve in being a better muslim. and yes, there is absolutely no connection between this, and his actions. none Actually he was after that curried goat recipe that had been going around.
GG Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Actually he was after that curried goat recipe that had been going around. Hey, don't drag Hindus into this discussion.
Magox Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 Here's my impersonation of Big Cat, but in response to his "experts" links: 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. No where does it prove what his motivation was. No where. Why? Because everybody else knows what it is! It wasn't "terrorism" says your expert? Where is his evidence? Thanks too for Carl Tobias for his nebulous, third hand recount of Hasans actions. You also failed to demonstrate the attack wasn't pre-meditated. NOR haven't you demonstrated that he intended to conjure the type of political/religious awareness terrorism is meant to spur. Man, that was fun
Recommended Posts