It makes a difference to the victims. Compensation to them is different under workplace violence than act of terrorism.
:agree: How is equating what happened at Fort Hood even remotely similar to Normandy Beach? That spin has got to be the oddest comment we're likely to see today. Were our military personnel yelling "Allah Akbar" as they started shooting people? :bs:
Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:
He cant be called an enemy combatant, he is one of us, no matter how much we hate it. To be an enemy combatant he would have had to steal the uniform or lie to get in to trick the military with the intent of causing harm. Unfortunately the uniform has been his for years. I dont know, just guessing but a Major probably has 15+ years so it was years in the making. I also, from what I had read, believe he was radicalized at some later point, so he might have enlisted and sworn in with good intentions.
Yeah they are ... and WWII as terrorist attack is not one.I was not defending Obama or anyone, just stating the facts. That is why you have to come up with the ad hominem. Try harder.Facts are not liberal or conservative, they are simply facts.
Hi Pol.
Sometimes Obama supporters just repeat silly things they heard, sometimes they say troll-like things to occupy your time, sometimes they're just fanboys and that's that, & sometimes they actually might believe the things they say ... I worry about that last group the most.
Hi Pol.
Sometimes Obama supporters just repeat silly things they heard, sometimes they say troll-like things to occupy your time, sometimes they're just fanboys and that's that, & sometimes they actually might believe the things they say ... I worry about that last group the most.
More high quality content. I am truly impressed.
that is exactly why I said I think it might be changed after the courts martial. Right now it is for sure workplace violence. I am all for the injured people getting purple hearts, etc. and hope they do. The right in its mindless war on political correctness and calling everything terrorism just refuses to think about anything. A half decent defense attorney, and yes defendants really do have rights with a general courts-martial, could possibly attempt to use the military's prejudice of calling it terrorism as some form of defense. I am not an attorney but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express once. Right now the inarguably correct term is workplace violence.
Once this nut is convicted, I doubt that there is any chance that the label will be changed. The label is there because it fits the agenda. Barry wants people to believe that he has the terror situation under control. But unless you consider all of Ft Hood his workplace, and all army personnel his coworkers, workplace violence is a stretch. I question whether the army even has a workplace violence category.
I think about lots of things, unlike your generalization, and when someone shoots random people while shouting religious slogans, I'm going with terrorism.
that is exactly why I said I think it might be changed after the courts martial. Right now it is for sure workplace violence. I am all for the injured people getting purple hearts, etc. and hope they do. The right in its mindless war on political correctness and calling everything terrorism just refuses to think about anything. A half decent defense attorney, and yes defendants really do have rights with a general courts-martial, could possibly attempt to use the military's prejudice of calling it terrorism as some form of defense. I am not an attorney but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express once. Right now the inarguably correct term is workplace violence.
Have we really stepped back and considered why there even is such a criminal designation as "Terrorist Act"? We have laws that cover what this jamoke did without having to label it terrorist, workplace violence or anything else. Do we abridge someone's rights when something is classified "Terrorist Act"? Or does roadkill by any other smell better or worse?
Really, it's something we should think about. Many of us don't like the "hate crime" designation. Why should it matter to the survivors if it's workplace violence or terrorism? Why should their compensation be different?
That's probably the upshot of the question -- it's premeditated murder. Why should it matter (except to the soldiers wounded). And why should their compensation be different? The military will no doubt determine and prove his motives at trial.
PS: It's always been my understanding that the Purple Heart has been horribly cheapened by awarding it to soldiers who hurt their backs lifting a package. Has that changed?
Lets see, he is an Army Major, on an Army post, shooting Army personnel. Of course it is not work place violence, it is just Obama making the Army use politically correct terms to fit the agenda. At some point (long ago) this right wing anti PC stuff went crazy. The Army used an exactly correct term.
It's just that this is a legal challenge. Yes, this was "workplace violence," but it was also treason and a terrorist act inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fine. I am sure you are exactly right, except for the allegation of treason is terribly difficult to prove and I am not sure he was even charged with that. I am anti death penalty but secretly I wont be too mad if the Major gets it. I dont think any thinking person will think a bit differently about this incident wehter you call it terrorism or workplace violence or whatever. I dont think it has a damn thing to do with any supposed agenda, it just give the right wing noise machine more noise.
IMO, Not really.....for a crime there is a motive, the purpose. Here we have nothing but the Purpose of the Major and his Own actions and attempts to contact AQ and al Awlaki. While his motive was to go out like a martyr all in the Good name of AQ and their alleged version of Islam.
Fine. I am sure you are exactly right, except for the allegation of treason is terribly difficult to prove and I am not sure he was even charged with that. I am anti death penalty but secretly I wont be too mad if the Major gets it. I dont think any thinking person will think a bit differently about this incident wehter you call it terrorism or workplace violence or whatever. I dont think it has a damn thing to do with any supposed agenda, it just give the right wing noise machine more noise.
I can't understand being opposed to the death penalty but being secretly glad. (I do oppose the death penalty.)
Trying to reduce Hasan's crimes to grist for the "right wing's" mill does a disservice to us all, though.
Are you saying it would not be hard to prove terrorism?
Link please?
Yeah, okay.....here ya go NB.
What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?
The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~
HowStuffWorks "What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?"
Alright RA.....like in the other thread we were in. What about this part of the FBI definition?
The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~
According to the FBI.....ANY segment of the government and or civilian population. So why shouldn't the grounds be Pressed for the issue to be declared an act of terrorism.
Yeah, okay.....here ya go NB.
What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?
The FBI borrows the Code of Federal Regulations definition that defines terrorism this way: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" [source: Department of Justice].....snip~
HowStuffWorks "What's the difference between mass murder and terrorism?"
Because he attacked soldiers on a military base.
It is a military target on a military base occupied by soldiers, therefore it is not terrorism.So if a Muslim radical, Christian radical or atheist radical walked on MCB 29 Palms and detonated a body bomb and yelled God is Great, or My gal is Madalyn Murray O'Hair and killed a number of Marines in a Chapel service you would classify it as?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?