The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla

Damocles said:
Sometimes there are "lone wolfs", however in only one religion that we know of today are we attacked consistently by people who are urged to do so for heavenly rewards. This particular act was a continuation of that principle. To say otherwise simply rejects relevant information in favor of what you want to believe.
Click to expand...


I'm not rejecting relevant information in favor of what I want to believe. Rather, I'm not making assumptions based on information I do not have.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not rejecting relevant information in favor of what I want to believe. Rather, I'm not making assumptions based on information I do not have.
Click to expand...
Which portion of my statement is based on information I do not have? The truth is there is no part of my statement that is based on information that I do not have.

You are again just ignoring the information you have because you don't want to see where it leads. You have a conclusion you really want to reach and the information you have isn't leading you in that direction so you just keep saying, "We don't have enough information."
 
Jarod said:
So even if it was "terrorism" and not the act of a delusional individual... how does it make a difference? Why would it matter? How should we react differently?

So if a delusional individual tries uncessfully to contact Al Queda and coordinate an attack with them, then goes and shoots a bunch of people, how is that more terrorism than crazy? And in the end why does it matter what label you put on it?
Click to expand...
Again, being delusional wouldn't change that it was, at the very least, a Jihadist guerrilla attack.

(Thanks lostsoul, guerrilla attack is a better description than terrorist attack.)
 
Damocles said:
Again, being delusional wouldn't change that it was, at the very least, a Jihadist guerrilla attack.

(Thanks lostsoul, guerrilla attack is a better description than terrorist attack.)
Click to expand...

So why does it matter what we call it, would we/should we react differently?
 
Damocles said:
Which portion of my statement is based on information I do not have? The truth is there is no part of my statement that is based on information that I do not have.

You are again just ignoring the information you have because you don't want to see where it leads. You have a conclusion you really want to reach and the information you have isn't leading you in that direction so you just keep saying, "We don't have enough information."
Click to expand...


It really doesn't matter to me whether the attack is classified as "terrorism" or not. I don't really care where the information leads and it very well may lead to the conclusion that this is a terrorist act. At this point, though, we know little to nothing about the motivation for the attack and that is the crucial information necessary to determine whether it was a terrorist act.

The assumption that you have made concerns the perpetrator's motivation, ascribing it to his quest for martyrdom, in so many words, in continuation of the goals of jihadis and Al Qaeda. That's a leap I'm not willing to make at this point.
 
I really would like to see the homosexual love poem Dixie wrote about GWB again!
 
Dixie said:
I am not making that generalization, and I disagree with it because it is a generalization. Let's just get out in the open that radical Muslims are at war with us, and when a radical Muslim attacks and kills innocent Americans, it is indeed an act of war against us. There is no need to sugar coat it, or to avoid the obvious... it's an 800 lb gorilla in the room, let's not be afraid to acknowledge him.

To be honest, I firmly believe the restraints on mentioning his name, admitting this was a terrorist attack, and facing the 800 lb gorilla, is a direct reflection of this administration and their politically correct attempt to deflect any possible criticism directed at them. Let's not mention he is Muslim and this was a terror attack, it might make Obama look bad... like he wasn't on the ball... asleep at the switch.... you know, all the shit you threw at GWB after 9/11. Problem is, America ain't stupid! We know terrorism when we see it, don't piss up our leg and tell us it's raining.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll play, the act by an American Major was an act of war against the US? So WHO declared war on us? What organization or government was he working for? Give us the S2 you obviously have access to that none of us do? What this guy a wacked out moslem? You bet. He thought that Moslems in the Military should be able to claim concientious objector status in any war that involved other Moslems. That is nuts, just as nuts as catholics or Protestants making the claim anytime we go to war against a nation where there are christians. That being said, you have ZERO evidence that this guy was an agent of anyone. He was a kook that didn't want to carry out his orders. He snapped and killed people. You are right, people would say all this stupid shit about a white guy that voted republican and listened to Rush, and it would sound as stupid as you do now.
 
Jarod said:
So why does it matter what we call it, would we/should we react differently?
Click to expand...
I like accuracy, and to stand in the middle of reality. Was this the actions of a Jihadist? IMO it is.

If so, then it is part of something larger and something we need to pay closer attention to.
 
Damocles said:
I like accuracy, and to stand in the middle of reality. Was this the actions of a Jihadist? If so, then it is part of something larger and something we need to pay attention to.
Click to expand...

We need to pay attention to it anyway. Mentally unstable people should not be in the military. Jihadists should not be in the military. Direct followers of David Koresh should not be in the military.
 
Damocles said:
I like accuracy, and to stand in the middle of reality. Was this the actions of a Jihadist? IMO it is.

If so, then it is part of something larger and something we need to pay attention to.
Click to expand...

What specifically do you recommend? What should we pay attention to, and what specifically would we do differently if we can all conclude that he is a "Jihadist"?
 
Damocles said:
I like accuracy, and to stand in the middle of reality. Was this the actions of a Jihadist? If so, then it is part of something larger and something we need to pay attention to.
Click to expand...


You seem to have already answered the question in your mind. I tend to side with Soc on this one based on the available information. He's a whack job that didn't want to carry out his orders, probably for religious reasons, and snapped. That doesn't make him a Jihadi and it doesn't make it a terrorist act.
 
DIXIE: This past week, I have seen these boards and the mainstream news, constantly trying to downplay the incident at Ft. Hood.

We were told, almost immediately, this was not an act of terrorism.

We have been lectured for a week about how this doesn't reflect on the Islamic religion or all Muslims.

TV journalists were initially hesitant to even mention Maj. Hussan's name, because "it could be problematic", one anchor said.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty comprehensive. For real, you spend this much time watching TV and reading internet crap?

Or, are you just repeating what hannity and beck said on their shows?

It seems we are now walking around on eggshells, trying to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Pretending Hussan's religious background and ties to radical Islamic beliefs had nothing to do with what he did, and persecuting anyone who dares to acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla. The man was screaming "allah akbar" as he murdered US soldiers in cold blood. If that isn't terrorism, we need to sit down and have a fundamental debate over what constitutes terrorism, because apparently, some people just don't get it.

Now, if Maj. Hussan were listening to Rush, and looked like Tim McVeigh, I am certain the left would already have him convicted of domestic terrorism, and would be pushing to have right-wing talk radio banned, to protect us from future terror attacks like this. If Bush had waffled around on his war strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and something like this happened on his watch, the left would certainly blame him, and immediately debunk the claims of how Bush had kept us safe for 8 years.

It must take a lot of effort to continue to ignore the gorilla.
Click to expand...

I’m not jumping to any conclusions. Which is why I wasn’t fooled into supporting the Iraq fiasco like you were. I’m not aware that any investigations are complete, or that any factual and corroborated facts have been provided to the media by law enforcement authorities.

Is it possible he was linked to al qaeda. Yeah, it’s possible. I don’t know anything for sure about this dude yet, except he’s a total whack job.

Here’s the deal Dixie: My rule is that I don’t generally accept the opinions or judgments of anyone who voted for Bush twice and supported the Iraq War. They seem to be wrong 99% of the time. I think your judgment is impaired (Iraq-WMD), I think you’re a hyper partisan republican bush apologist (“I Love Bush!” – Dixie, fp.com 2005, ), you don’t seem that informed (1/3), and you seem to have a problem telling the truth (“I am non-religious, technically I’m an atheist” – Dixie jpp.com 2009).

So my rule of thumb is to take with a grain of salt any of your contentions, and more broadly I consider your overall judgment severely impaired.

As for “walking on egg shells”? I don’t remember the media making a huge deal of Timothy McVeigh’s or Eric Rudolph’s’ ties to Christian extremist groups. I don’t think this Fort Hood dude’s religion is either that big of a deal, or that newsworthy. He’s a criminal, first and foremost. Just like Bin Laden is a criminal and mass murderer. His religion, or Eric Rudolph’s religion is secondary. In fact, it’s barely news worthy. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims on this planet are law abiding citizens. The fact that a few criminals excuse their own crimes by using religious justifications is a sign of their insanity. It’s not a sign of their religion.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, he's off target as usual. Dixie doesn't listen to alternative news media unless it's capsulized by the denizens of ABC Talk Radio or in the WND. Had he done such, he would would have noticed that they were one step ahead of the MSM in getting the details. Hasan was conflicted about his faith to the point were he was being reported on by his fellow officers in 2007. Essentially, the system that should have tagged and removed this guy from active duty failed. Hasan had made numerous statements regarding his reluctance to go to Iraq, and had even had legal representation on that issue. All the evidence indicates that this guy had more personal issues than allegiance to a cause.
Click to expand...

lostsoul said:
So explain this to me...The President's first reaction to the Henry Gates' arrest was, "I don't know all the facts." and then, "the Cambridge police acted stupidly..."

If you're really interested in an explanation, here it is:

(1) We're talking about two totally different and separate issues, with an incredible difference in the degree of severity. One deals with multiple murders coupled with national security...the other was essentially a possible local break in/domestic disturbance.
(2) Go back, check the chronology of all of what the President said on Gates. Then you can start a thread rehashing that situation....but it's already been done here. Just do a search on that name.

His first reaction to the shooting at Ft. Hood was, "We don't yet know all the details at this moment." and then "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we know all the facts,"

Which was a just an prudent reaction. Are you advocating for the opposite?

In both instances, the President readily admits that all of the facts are not known. In the case of his friend, Professor Gates, he afforded himself the luxury of jumping to a conclusion, but in the case of our friends at Ft. Hood, we are not to be allowed the same luxury. Why?

See above answers.

Just curious...
Click to expand...

See above answers.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, he's off target as usual. Dixie doesn't listen to alternative news media unless it's capsulized by the denizens of ABC Talk Radio or in the WND. Had he done such, he would would have noticed that they were one step ahead of the MSM in getting the details. Hasan was conflicted about his faith to the point were he was being reported on by his fellow officers in 2007. Essentially, the system that should have tagged and removed this guy from active duty failed. Hasan had made numerous statements regarding his reluctance to go to Iraq, and had even had legal representation on that issue. All the evidence indicates that this guy had more personal issues than allegiance to a cause.
Click to expand...


DonQuixote said:
he broke over the though of u s of a muslims killing other muslims

yet, he overlooked the number of muslims killing other muslims around the world in terrorist acts
Click to expand...

According to what's been released so far....he was cranking for a long time about belonging to an army and country that he felt was waging an unfair war against muslims. He didn't want to be part of that system...yet he joined up and excelled in that system. Clearly, the man was conflicted, and his peers reported on this...but the system let him slide.
 
Damocles said:
If they admit it is terrorism, they have to admit it happened on Obama's "watch" and people will expect him to actually do something about it.
Click to expand...

Not quite, because complaints by Hasan's loyalty and personal conflict have been logged since 2007. So if the neocons are trying to blame Obama for this, they are sorely mistaken. Hell, some neocon asshole already stated that Hasan snapped because of the stress caused by Obama's "indecisiveness" regarding further troop deployment. They're just desparate to bring the man down.
 
Socrtease said:
Ok, I'll play, the act by an American Major was an act of war against the US? So WHO declared war on us? What organization or government was he working for? Give us the S2 you obviously have access to that none of us do? What this guy a wacked out moslem? You bet. He thought that Moslems in the Military should be able to claim concientious objector status in any war that involved other Moslems. That is nuts, just as nuts as catholics or Protestants making the claim anytime we go to war against a nation where there are christians. That being said, you have ZERO evidence that this guy was an agent of anyone. He was a kook that didn't want to carry out his orders. He snapped and killed people. You are right, people would say all this stupid shit about a white guy that voted republican and listened to Rush, and it would sound as stupid as you do now.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, he's off target as usual.
Click to expand...

actually, even I have to agree with Dixie on this one....at least the part below:

Now, if Maj. Hussan were listening to Rush, and looked like Tim McVeigh, I am certain the left would already have him convicted of domestic terrorism, and would be pushing to have right-wing talk radio banned, to protect us from future terror attacks like this.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top