What is really at stake in the debate about whether Maj. Hasan was a terrorist or not?

G

Gadfly

New member
I am a liberal. I believe he acted as a terrorist. I'm not sure of his EXACT motives, and these are being investigated. Naturally it's important to know whether he collaborated with anyone else or acted under someone else's direct inspiration. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But he's still a terrorist.

But why do I see question after question trying to prove that he was a terrorist, as if that issue is in doubt? Who is saying that he was NOT a terrorist? He committed an act of terror, with the intention to terrorize. That makes him a terrorist.

Who is saying that Maj. Hasan was NOT a terrorist, such as to inspire hundreds of conservative questioners to make desperate arguments that he was? What's at stake?
Holy Cow!--All the Christians you mention were ALSO terrorists.
 
When you kill and terrorize a bunch of people you are a terrorist. It doesn't matter if you act alone, or on orders from a terrorist organization. Either way, he has betrayed mankind because he was a little sensitive.

I'm starting to think women are better than men. Women get sensitive and hurt, they cry. Men get sensitive and hurt, they kill innocent people. Maybe it's the estrogen in soy milk, who knows.
 
Victory in Afghanistan depends on training Muslims, working with Muslim allies, winning the hearts and minds of a Muslim population, and turning the Muslim enemy over to our side, while in a country with a Muslim government.

However, the Republicans have been denouncing, insulting, and calling for the execution of all Muslims for the last two or three days, while at the same time insisting that we send 40,000 more troops to an area where they will be outnumbered about 100,000 to one.

I think that in the last few days, the Republicans have done quite enough damage to US/Muslim relations.

They may well have done so much damage that our troops in Afghanistan will no longer be welcome, let alone safe.

Republicans are working HARD to turn Hasan into a martyr, giving Al Qaeda and the Taliban just what they need to turn our allies against our troops with their petty bigotry.
 
Nobody really questions whether or not he was a terrorist; the false "debate" is just a means of disparaging others. Its no different than going around saying "support our troops". Does anyone NOT support our troops? No, but what that really means is "support the war". And where are the Republicans who supported our going to war with Iraq now, anyway? Pretending they never supported it.

In short, its a GOP tactic of painting liberals as "soft on terror", when it was actually GOP policies that diverted attention from the War on terror to instead pursue Bush's hobby war with Iraq.

Edit: Red corn: the fact that he is Muslim is irrelevant in evaluating whether or not he's a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, domestic white guy that was...
 
A terrorist commits the crime with a larger goal to accomplish. They are willing to give up their lives to further their religious agenda. Right now, it appears that Hassan is just a low-life insane animal.
While all terrorists are also low-life insane animals, not all low-life insane animals are terrorists.
 
He's not a terrorist, he's a mass murder. There are no ideological or political motives behind his episode, only hate and anger.

Edit: And for Tom Slick, the guy who grenaded the tent in Kuwait (not Iraq) was also a Muslim.
 
I am a Liberal and I disagree...I have seen grown men under tremendous stress do unthinkable things, and let us not forget the Sgt. In Iraq who threw a grenade into an occupied tent...good Christian boy.
 
Some are too politically correct. The feel if they acknowledge it as terrorist then that would mean Muslims are terrorists. But I think most people are smart enough to know this guy does not represent all Muslims.


But I also some peolpe just have a different definition. Although his intent is clearly terroristic, some might not want to label it a terrorist attack' if there aren't any connections to terrorist organizations. I don't think the intent is to water down the tragedy but to distinguish this situation from the systematic terrorist attacks the likes of Al Qeida supports.
 
It matters because if people are too quick to label him a terrorist then they'll stop investigating the alternative explanation....that he went postal because of conditions the Army could and should avoid for other soldiers. If it turns out he has terrorist ties that will come out in due time BUT we should all give the FBI and Army have a chance to complete their investigations before jumping to conclusions. The Army is also afraid of a backlash to their many Muslim soldiers, who are very much needed in the war effort.

There is a huge difference if a person is terrorist or a lone shooter/mass murderer...not to the dead, of course. But we don't call the Columbine killer a terrorist do we? Or Timothy McVeigh. Labels matter if we are going to prevent future events like this.
 
I guess it depends on your definition of terrorism is.

It's too scary to think that a person in such a position in the Army could be lurking about, unnoticed.
 
Well, right off, in the beginning the FBI said that they were ruling out terrorism. I wondered at the time why? What police force or investigative service rules anything out right from the start?
Obama said when learning that the shooter was a Muslim "let's not jump to conclusions". ( I guess it was okay when his friend was arrested up in Mass to jump to conclusions when stating that the police acted stupidly.)

The debate is because he was Muslim, and those in power right now would prefer if you didn't think that the Muslim world was a threat (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban, alQueda, Saudi funded Muslim schools teaching jihad, CAIR funding of terrorists, etc.)

If he was just a soldier that had Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (who just also happened to be a Muslim) then we could wrap this up in a nice little package and be done with it. Nothing to connect it to other issues in the world, just a single person who snapped, blame the Army for not noticing. EXCEPT, that the good major was never in battle, there for PTSS (or battle fatigue) doesn't apply. Now they will roll out Secondary PTSS, he was a psychiatrist and listened to everyone's problems and became traumatized. And they will expect you to buy it, because the truth is that when George Bush said it is better to fight them over there than here, the liberal media went into a frenzy.

Well, now we're fighting them here.

This isn't the first, only the first successful attack since 9/11. Didn't the police in Dallas arrest a guy who wanted to blow up a building? And a guy arrested in NY, and in DC.

They're here, its starting, and we are ill prepared. First step in becoming prepared is to recognize that there is a problem.
 
So if a person goes on a killing spree in the name of their religion, then they are terrorist? Why does this only seem to apply to non-Christians?

Scott Roeder anyone? Eric Rudolph? How about Tim McVeigh?

I have no problem labeling this guy a terrorist instead of a spree killing but at least, do apply the label fairly.

If he's a terrorist, then so are the Christians (and all others who kill for a religion) a terrorist
 
its stupid isnt it.

its the whole Obamas reaction debate...
the MSM not covering that he was muslim etc.


anyone who kills 13 people in public after attempting to contact Al-Qaeda - is a terrorist in my book
 
What make him a terrorist to you, his action or the fact that he is Muslim. If a white man had done the exact thing, would you say he is a terrorist. Think about it. If you still disagree, than you're no liberal. Because profiling is not liberal.

Let the Military find out exactly what was the cause, and let them determine whether this is a man who lost it, or a terrorist.
 
What make him a terrorist to you, his action or the fact that he is Muslim. If a white man had done the exact thing, would you say he is a terrorist. Think about it. If you still disagree, than you're no liberal. Because profiling is not liberal.

Let the Military find out exactly what was the cause, and let them determine whether this is a man who lost it, or a terrorist.
 
Nothing at stake really. I agree. Speaking as a conservative his actions were clearly terroristic (that a real word?) and motivated by radical Muslim ideology.

There is no debate about it.
 
Of course he was (is) a terrorist -- it's a non-issue. The real issue is why the US military favors anti-American Islamic heterosexuals over gay patriots. Makes zero sense.
 
Back
Top