New shooting at Ft. Hood

christiefan915 said:
Thread pages would have been in the double digits already if the guy was a Muslim.
Click to expand...


That's the sad truth. When the last Ft. Hood shooting happened, all they needed to know was the guys name before they started screaming about the presidents failure to call it a terrorist attack.

It was their meme, but I think they don't get traction from it anymore after Benghazi, I guess they rode that prejudice for all it was worth to them.
 
Jarod said:
That's the sad truth. When the last Ft. Hood shooting happened, all they needed to know was the guys name before they started screaming about the presidents failure to call it a terrorist attack.

It was their meme, but I think they don't get traction from it anymore after Benghazi, I guess they rode that prejudice for all it was worth to them.
Click to expand...

a man with a muslim name shouting allahu akbar while shooting at random people should be considered an act of terrorism. calling it 'workplace violence' was designed to avoid a public reaction of 'Obama let a terrorist attack happen on our soil'. the workplace violence classification decimated the lefts opportunity to pin the domestic terrorism tag on gun nuts in the future.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
a man with a muslim name shouting allahu akbar while shooting at random people should be considered an act of terrorism. calling it 'workplace violence' was designed to avoid a public reaction of 'Obama let a terrorist attack happen on our soil'. the workplace violence classification decimated the lefts opportunity to pin the domestic terrorism tag on gun nuts in the future.
Click to expand...

A man with a Muslim name shouting Allah Akbar while shooting at random people should not be considered terrorism until and unless his motives are determined. If his motive was to terrorize, that is terrorism.

Additionally workplace violence can be an act of terrorism.
 
Jarod said:
A man with a Muslim name shouting Allah Akbar while shooting at random people should not be considered terrorism until and unless his motives are determined. If his motive was to terrorize, that is terrorism.
Click to expand...
zappa says that the simple act of carrying your 'hogleg' in the open is bullying, intimdating, and terrorizing so why wouldn't shooting and shouting allahu akbar be terrorism?

Jarod said:
Additionally workplace violence can be an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...
what's the distinction? what would make it terrorism?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
zappa says that the simple act of carrying your 'hogleg' in the open is bullying, intimdating, and terrorizing so why wouldn't shooting and shouting allahu akbar be terrorism?

what's the distinction? what would make it terrorism?
Click to expand...

The distinction is the motive. If your goal was to terrorize for a political purpose, that is terrorism. If you are just bat shit crazy, that's not terrorism. If you are angry at a person for not granting you vacation time, or for flicking you off, that's not terrorism... even if your name is Mohammed Saied. Even if you shout Allah Akbar when you do it.
 
Jarod said:
That's the sad truth. When the last Ft. Hood shooting happened, all they needed to know was the guys name before they started screaming about the presidents failure to call it a terrorist attack.

It was their meme, but I think they don't get traction from it anymore after Benghazi, I guess they rode that prejudice for all it was worth to them.
Click to expand...

Of course him standing up and yelling "Allahu Akbar", prior to opening fire, had nothing to do with anyone thinking it was a terrorist attack; HUH. :palm:
 
Jarod said:
A man with a Muslim name shouting Allah Akbar while shooting at random people should not be considered terrorism until and unless his motives are determined. If his motive was to terrorize, that is terrorism.

Additionally workplace violence can be an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

So you don't think his motive was to terrorize?

Once again Jarod, you have allowed yourself to post just want sounds good to you and has no basis in reality.
 
everyone who terrorizes is not necessarily a terrorist. The words have the same root, but the verb carries no political connotation like the noun does.

A pit bull can terrorize a neighborhood without being a terrorist.

US soldiers could inadvertently terrorize Iraqi women and children when they broke into their homes at night to search for insurgents without being terrorists.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So you don't think his motive was to terrorize?

Once again Jarod, you have allowed yourself to post just want sounds good to you and has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

I did not say what I think about his motive. You supplied that part.
 
To be a terrorist one must have use violence with the intent to cause fear for a political purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top