jasonk282
Banned
No because he disgraced the uniform that I wore proudly for 10 years.
So Tranny, what about Jason Rodrigues in Orlando is he a terrorist also?
Seven shot dead at US army base
- Thread starter minidog
- Start date
No because he disgraced the uniform that I wore proudly for 10 years.
So Tranny, what about Jason Rodrigues in Orlando is he a terrorist also?
Umm, saying that he is a terrorist is the same as me being a prejudiced hypocrite.:1orglaugh
jasonk282
Banned
No I asked is Jason Rodrigous a terrorist becasue he also shot and killed people? Not just a disgruntly worked with poor performance reviews like the media is reporting, hey that sounds like a certian Army major.
Wow, alright....
You can pick out passages of a similar magnitude to that in the Bible and in the Torah. They're all based on the same myths, so why are those of the muslim faith any different. Is it just because those who adhere to that particular belief are usually of a different race to you?
It speaks volumes of nothing. Who knows what mental state this person was in at the time of this attack and until he makes the claim that he was doing this "for Islam" you really can't make that assertion because you have no evidence to back it up. But you have because you have an obvious prejudice.
I haven't heard of any Christians or Jews blowing themselves up or going on a shooting rampage lately. This asshole had never been deployed or seen combat. He must have the first case of prePTSD ever recorded. He was giving his belongings and korans away. It is reported that he was yelling allah ackbar while killing. He has made comments condoning and supporting terrorist activities. He was against the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. In law enforcement this is called a clue. He went on his own personal path to martyrdom, but unfortunately won't be fucking his 72 virgins anytime soon.
RIP to the slain, prayers for the wounded. Hopefully he will be tried for treason and swiftly executed.
You have to be careful here because if you state the obvious, that this man was a terrorist, you might as well come out and say you hate all Muslims. In my case, making me a prejudiced "hypocrite" as someone labeled me. 
Furthermore, being against a particular religion is not the same as racism. Disagreeing with Islam is not the same as hating Muslims, anymore than disagreeing with Christianity is the same as hating white people. So lighten up people!!!
In all Abrahamic religions there are fundamentalists, which I definitely object to since they can't respect other people's freedoms and privacy. If that makes me a hypocrite, :dunno:. What I think would be utter hypocrisy is for me to support a belief system that still supports the beheading of people who haven't hurt anyone, merely because they don't practice my religion.
Are there more tolerant views on every religion, definitely. I'm sure if Christian fundamentalists had their way, they could be just as evil as the Taliban.
Furthermore, being against a particular religion is not the same as racism. Disagreeing with Islam is not the same as hating Muslims, anymore than disagreeing with Christianity is the same as hating white people. So lighten up people!!!
In all Abrahamic religions there are fundamentalists, which I definitely object to since they can't respect other people's freedoms and privacy. If that makes me a hypocrite, :dunno:. What I think would be utter hypocrisy is for me to support a belief system that still supports the beheading of people who haven't hurt anyone, merely because they don't practice my religion.
Are there more tolerant views on every religion, definitely. I'm sure if Christian fundamentalists had their way, they could be just as evil as the Taliban.
Key word.
But this wasn't really my point and I think if you read the post I responded to that should come across. All I was doing was pointing out the fact that similar passages were in either of the other two main religious texts. Now of course I'm not sticking up for religious fundamentalists - especially those who feel the need to murder people because of what their faith says. But when a person says that all persons who adhere to the muslim faith shouldn't be allowed in the western world, I feel there's a certain sense of tarring all with the same brush and I called him on it.
I was also trying to point that equating this entire conflict down to it being nothing more than a religious argument is far too simplistic an explanation when the history of the region is taken into account.
Of course there still are faith based murders throughout the world and that doesn't just include muslims. But as I say, this wasn't my point.
At the time in which the post was written the information that he was shouting and trying to martyr himself wasn't available. So it's easy to see why these speculations - both mine and others - were made.
they still carry out this in Arab land today. seriously, how barbaric could a religion be? the fact that people could even muster the phrase that Christianity is even remotely as barbaric as Islam still baffles me. I love it when people take Bush and how his Christianity has led to the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands, as if it's really even pertanant. yeah, he was a "Christian" of some sorts, but his preemptive on Iraq was based on intelligence and some seriously devious motives that we will probably never find out about. I don't know, I just don't think a person can equate the two. but for sure the sooner we get off of "holy land" the world will be a better and safer place.
I didn't compare the two...I said if Christian fundamentalists had their way. Thankfully, were are supposed to live under a low power distance "secular" government.
Islam is an Abrahamic religion, just like Christianity and Judaism. Christians have been just as guilty IN THE PAST of atrocious crimes in the name of Christianity as some Islamics are in the present.
I was just out at Fort Hood today for a doctor appointment the place is crawling with News media, Feds, FBI, Army CID, Police Federal & State & Local. Soldiers armed all over the Post.
But, Islam is a religion of peace, right? Isn't that what people keep saying over and over?
It's not, and here's why...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/resolving_the_cognitive_disson.html
It's not, and here's why...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/resolving_the_cognitive_disson.html
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Considering there are tons of Islamic people who are decent, hard working people that would never consider doing anything like this, I find that article hard to believe. There is a difference between Islam and Radical Islam.
Member 1098
Closed Account
This is so sad
Facetious
Moderated
It is often asked why the good Islamic people don't seem to speak out against the bad or radicalized Islamic elements / people (?) -
The likely answer is because of the fear of retaliation from their radicalized brethren, of course.
The "good" muslim, for our intents and purposes, values life here on earth in the here and now, the "bad" or radicalized muslims are eager to get into the next.... realm, world, life, 72 vaginas .... whatever :dunno:
The Firearm used in the seige was said to be the "controversial" FN Five SeveN 5.7 x 28 mm. Magazine capacity is 20 rounds, projectile (civilian) 40 grain @ 1,7oo feet per sec. The sidearm features 30 % less recoil when compared to a 9mm Luger /Parabellum of comparable size.
Aditional Info:
http://www.fnherstal.com/typo3temp/pics/42198b8001.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3255896831_5535e3d0e0.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBtvpkqYB4E
The likely answer is because of the fear of retaliation from their radicalized brethren, of course.
The "good" muslim, for our intents and purposes, values life here on earth in the here and now, the "bad" or radicalized muslims are eager to get into the next.... realm, world, life, 72 vaginas .... whatever :dunno:
The Firearm used in the seige was said to be the "controversial" FN Five SeveN 5.7 x 28 mm. Magazine capacity is 20 rounds, projectile (civilian) 40 grain @ 1,7oo feet per sec. The sidearm features 30 % less recoil when compared to a 9mm Luger /Parabellum of comparable size.
Aditional Info:
http://www.fnherstal.com/typo3temp/pics/42198b8001.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3255896831_5535e3d0e0.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBtvpkqYB4E
jasonk282
Banned
You have to be careful here because if you state the obvious, that this man was a terrorist, You Might as well come out and say you hate all Muslims. In my case, making me a prejudiced "hypocrite" as someone labeled me.
Furthermore, being against a particular religion is not the same as racism. Disagreeing with Islam is not the same as hating Muslims, anymore than disagreeing with Christianity is the same as hating white people. So lighten up people!!!
In all Abrahamic religions there are fundamentalists, which I definitely object to since they can't respect other people's freedoms and privacy. If that makes me a hypocrite, :dunno:. What I think would be utter hypocrisy is for me to support a belief system that still supports the beheading of people who haven't hurt anyone, merely because they don't practice my religion.
Are there more tolerant views on every religion, definitely. I'm sure if Christian fundamentalists had their way, they could be just as evil as the Taliban.
There are ZERO Reports about him being a terrorist, Just because you think so does not make it true.
Let's look at the facts
He sucked at his job
he did not want to be deployed
He is Muslim
He shot and killed 13 people
Those my dear are the facts, so I will ask you again
"Is Jason Rodrigous also a terrorist?" You can keep ducking the question if you like.
Let's look at his facts
He sucked at his job
he was bitter about being fired
He shot an killed 1 and wounded several others.
Too scared to recognize terrorism
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that.
Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist.
He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums. He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself. The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism.
It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure.
Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone? Those who claim that such an investigation would be some form of discriminatory profiling are simply wrong. It is not profiling to investigate someone based on probable cause. The fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim would not be reason enough to open an investigation. However, a Muslim in uniform openly discussing violence against the United States and posting his views on suicide attacks to jihadist forums should at least get a second look.
Those who want to explain this away as the result of stress, workplace violence or the "stretched force" are willfully blind. Condemned Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, scheduled for execution this week for his role in killing 10 people and wounding three in October 2002, petitioned for clemency on the basis that he suffers from severe mental illness and Gulf war syndrome. Surely someone who hunts down and murders strangers is not in his right mind, but the primary motive in both Muhammad's case and Maj. Hasan's was jihadism.
The refreshing candor of someone like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the shooter in the June attack on the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., is rare. Reportedly, he said he was a practicing Muslim angry with the U.S. military for its crimes against Muslims and would have shot more than the two soldiers he killed if more had been available. This incident also was called "not terrorism."
The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact. The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/08/too-scared-to-recognize-terrorism/
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that.
Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist.
He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums. He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself. The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism.
It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure.
Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone? Those who claim that such an investigation would be some form of discriminatory profiling are simply wrong. It is not profiling to investigate someone based on probable cause. The fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim would not be reason enough to open an investigation. However, a Muslim in uniform openly discussing violence against the United States and posting his views on suicide attacks to jihadist forums should at least get a second look.
Those who want to explain this away as the result of stress, workplace violence or the "stretched force" are willfully blind. Condemned Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, scheduled for execution this week for his role in killing 10 people and wounding three in October 2002, petitioned for clemency on the basis that he suffers from severe mental illness and Gulf war syndrome. Surely someone who hunts down and murders strangers is not in his right mind, but the primary motive in both Muhammad's case and Maj. Hasan's was jihadism.
The refreshing candor of someone like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the shooter in the June attack on the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., is rare. Reportedly, he said he was a practicing Muslim angry with the U.S. military for its crimes against Muslims and would have shot more than the two soldiers he killed if more had been available. This incident also was called "not terrorism."
The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact. The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/08/too-scared-to-recognize-terrorism/
jasonk282
Banned
Why not oh IDK wat until they are true.
What has the major said about being a terrorist? I rather hear it straight from his mouth than a bunch of ALEDGED internet posting and witness that has yet to be on camera or ID'ed.
I said he MIGHT be but lets get all the facts together first. Not something he ALEDGED wrote or said.
So If I go on a murderous rampage and should "God is great" Jesus Saves I am a terrorist? Or does it only have to be in Arbaic
I'm afraid that if you go do that in a predominantly Muslim country, yeah you would be called a terrorist, because that's exactly what you would be!! Or are you suggesting that terrorists are just normal, mentally stable people, that just have what they think is a valid reason to kill other people and themselves?
Your kind of thinking that somehow because we call a man that kills American soldiers a terrorist, is somehow being prejudiced against Muslims is ludicrous.
Similar threads
