If you don't like the sentiments of those who are appalled by what has taken place, then by all means post you objections to them. Post your views. By all means give your opinion.

But please don't take a shot at these boards by making such a general statement like the one above. No one has forced you to stay.

The Peters article was atypically thoughtful... for a quick minute.

The issue of whether or not this man is called a terrorist is besides the point except to people who want to make political hay out of it. The disturbing powerpoint presentation that he did which I posted in another thread should have been enough (IMO) to get him removed from duty or something but I am not familiar with protocols in the armed forces. Many people that do things like this give off signs. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Just like George Sodini or that nut that tried to shootup the Holocaust Museum , Hasan was giving off signs of disturbance.

The larger question is what do we do about people that appear to be setting off alarms but until the point that they crack haven't done anything illegal.

Oh I know. Hence why I said what I said. It was rhetorical. I know why I come on here; because I'm not working, or reading and writing, and I'm on the Internet, on a board I've frequented since 2002, and have frequented because it's been a large part of my own life. You can get to this site by Googling "The Godfather", one of the most loved and widely acclaimed products of the most popular art forms. That in itself makes it culturally significant. Add to the fact that it's predominantly American, predominantly right-wing, predominantly Christian, and I'm an outsider. But hey, once in a while you get a debate-worthy topic (i.e., something not about 'the weather' or 'random post' or 'news from our neck of the woods'), a topic that is, well, topical, and culturally significant, and that's what makes this an interesting board to be part of. "I wonder why I'm here at all" could have easily been reduced to the more popular alternative: " ". But why am I making an effort to articulate an opinion in response to such - sorry to repeat myself - casual displays of absolute philistinism? Well, the answer to that is, I'm not. I can type all the cogent responses I want, but I get the strange feeling it'd be ineffective or unheard. And SC's already said recently that he "can't help [me] there".

Finally, a note to Olivant: an individual incident of murder - or thirteen counts of it - isn't necessarily a 'sociological crisis', but I fear you've misunderstood. The majority of responses to such an incident may be indicative of a wider 'sociological crisis'.

There is little doubt he will be found guilty by a court martial and will hang. Mig, certainly someone of your intelligence knows that what makes this country great is rule of law, and what brings it down is the absence of rule of law (See, e.g. Bush-Cheney).

If executing him would restore the lives of the 13 victims, I would be in favor of putting him to death.

How many people who were guilty as sin got off on a technicality just to get out and commit crime again? Yes America is a great country and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

If wishing made it happen.

Alleged Ft. Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan paralyzed and may never walk again, lawyer says

NY Daily News

The accussed Fort Hood gunman is paralyzed and likely will never be able walk again, his lawyer said Friday.

Attorney John Galligan said Maj. Nidal Hasan's medical condition remains "extremely serious" and "it appears he won't be able to walk in the future."

Galligan, a retired Army colonel, met Thursday with the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at the sprawling Texas army post on Nov. 5. Galligan said Hasan was coherent in the early stages of the meeting but began to fade toward the end of their hour-long session in the hospital intensive care unit where the accused gunman is recouperating from gunshot wounds.

Hasan, charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder, could face the death penalty if convicted in a military court martial.

Twenty-nine people were injured in the rampage.

"He understands who I am," Galligan said.

But as the meeting progressed the lawyer said "I could tell I was kind of pushing him in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me."

Galligan complained that Hasan was charged in the hospital without his lawyers present, Galligan said.

"What I find disturbing is that my client is in ICU, and he's 150 miles south of his defense counsel, and he's being served with the charges," he told The Associated Press.

"Given his status as a patient, I'm troubled by this procedure and that I'm not there. I'm in the dark, and that shouldn't be the case. I am mad."

Hasan could face additional charges. The military had not decided whether to prosecute him for the death of the unborn child of one of the murdered soldiers, officials told The Associated Press.

The Army has said they believe Hasan acted alone. Faced with reports that the FBI knew Hasan had been in contact with a radical Islamic imam in Yemen and that he may have attempted to convert U.S. soldiers to Islam, President Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence related to the troubled Army shrink be preserved and reviewed.

The first results are due Nov. 30. Members of Congress are also pressing for a full investigation into why Hasan was not detected and stopped. A Senate hearing is scheduled for next week.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew of 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

Months before the shootings, doctors and staff overseeing Hasan's training at Walter Reed Medical Center characterized him as lazy and a mediocre student who often was belligent with classmates in his strong religious views. Some questioned Hasan's sympathies and whether he would be more aligned with Muslims fighting U.S. troops.

There also was some concern about whether he should continue to serve in the military. But they saw no signs of mental problems or risk factors that would predict violent behavior, officials said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...l#ixzz0WiJDaVRD

I think that "people who were guilty as sin got off on a technicality" is one of the most overused phrases in the English language. The basis for it is anecdotal at best. "guilty as sin". How is that concluded without a thorough vetting of the criminal justice process?

How many Board members would be willing to sign and abide by the following statement: " If I am ever subject to the criminal justice process whether federal or state, I waive all federal and state Constitutional rights (4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th US Constitutional amendment, at a minimum)?

Do you think his 72 virgins will still want him?

There is nothing in the Koran about 72 virgins.

I don't know if it does or not. I never read it.

Its one of those things where the "devout" bastardize a religious book to their political purpose, since who wants to actually bother and read* in today's times....

Which is why such whackjobs flip-flop between "literal" and "metaphorical."

*=Fun fact: About half of the American population don't read. I'm tempted to make a political joke but nah...

As mentioned there is nothing in the Qu'ran about 72 virgins awaiting for those who die. There are strongly physical descriptions of paradise which are nonetheless considered to be allegorical.

In one of the Hadiths, not the Qu'ran, there is the statement that the smallest reward for believers is 72 wives. This Hadith does not say that someone committing murder or suicide qualifies for any reward. This particular Hadith is not considered to be impeccable. There are other Hadiths and places in the Qu'ran where suicide and murder are strongly condemned.

That article that PB posted is dead on. The lowlife is a terrorist plain & simple.


But hey folks remember islam is a religion of peace

What defines a terrorist and how does Hasan comport with that definition?Is George Hennard a terrorist? He murdered 21 people. How about James Adkisson? He murdered two people at a church. How about Joseph Pallipurath? He murdered three people at a New Jersey church? Do these people's actions comport with your definition of terrorism? For that matter, when the Mafia murders someone to keep them from testifying or to otherwise intimidate them, is that terrorism?

Good question, Olivant. To many it seems any Muslim who commits murder is a "terrorist."

Terrorism is a tactic employed by various organizations and nations to terrorize others to bend to their will. Is Waterboarding and torture carried on by the U.S. terrorism? Many Americans would say not,but it is a tactic necessary to stop terrorism. Tell that to an innocent person who was rounded up and put in Guantanamo and waterboarded.

President Obama is right to refuse to refer to the "War on Terror," because Terrorism has been with us always. Protestants and Catholics terrorized each other forever in Europe. Zionists who blew up the King David Hotel were "terrorists." I am sure George III considered American Revolutionaries "terrorits." In other words "terrorism" is not something against you declare "war," it is something that must be dealt with by taking preventative meaures and by making it not pay. This does not get accomplished by invading foreign countries and by jingoism. It gets done by diligent work and by good intelligence (notably absent before 9/11 and notably absent on this Fort Hood killer who should have been suspected and removed from his position some time ago).

Personally I am glad to see the 9/11 ploters being put on trial in New York, which was the scene of the atrocities of 9/11. I have more faith in the rule of law than I do in wily nily applications of "force" in the name of democracy.

And BTW, people who have never read the Qu'ran ought not to be quoting it.

Jesus (or should I say Mohammad?), some sensible comments have finally been put forth in this thread!

Backward sweeping religiously loaded sentiment, to which I eagerly await Don Cardi's response. Since "redneck" is adopted as a term of affection these days, I don't know what to say other than "thick as fucking pig shit".

Ah, such fine sarcastic wisdom from Iceman, as ever. If this is in some way meant to suggest that Islam is a "religion of war", I note that it's no more so than any other religion. Any monotheistic religion is inherently exclusive; a "belief in God", by its very nature, amounts to the "belief in my God over your God". No religion is a religion of peace. The whole concept is absurd. I also point out that your President, and the ones before him, are inaugurated in the presence of a bible; imperialist bourgeouis jingoism ties in very neatly with The Church, which is another instrument used by the state to exploit one class by another class.

Terrorism is an individual anarchic political act; its anarchy and its individualism is why it's very ineffective at making direct political progress. The opposite to a terrorist is a revolutionary.

It is no more morally justified than terrorism, certainly not. And all the secret torture in the world does not prevent terrorism, or deter terrorists. It's equally ineffective.

We ought to all agree that the "War on Terror" is at the moment very ineffective. Its phrasing alone is vague and vacuous. Its a bourgeous quip to veil the real, concrete root causes of terrorism. Why does terrorism exist? Against what are "these terrorists" opposed? It isn't enough to say that religion alone is the reason why terrorism exists. And it's equally glib to say "terrorists are opposed to Freedom", because that's a meaningless buzz-phrase that allows the state and those who hold it in reverence to mask an imperialist bourgeois war "in the name of freedom", or "in the name of democracy", which is a gross injustice because America remains a bourgeois democracy, opposed to universal suffrage and the equality of human beings. It's a joke.

Nowhere in this "War on Terror" is any rational thought given to the complex political ideologies surrounding such acts of terrorism. It's an irrational and self-justified hatred of "the Other", objectively manifesting itself in racism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim stereotyping in the news, in wide social circles of right-wing ignorance, on this very board even.

Richard Dawkins argues that any "War on Terror" in the context of today's political climate should be a "War on Religion". Relegating religion may indeed qualm or destroy all the religious terrorism happening in the world, but therein lies the problem: how might one "destroy" religion - especially when those declaring said war have been inaugurated "in the name of God"? If religion is an autonomous cultural phenomenon, and a large part of moderate bourgeois liberalism - why the Church is an instrument in the bourgeois state's armament against real equality - we'd be better to reorganize the economic structure of the country, so that the void in people's lives that leads them to religion is in a better state to disappear.

Forward to the revolution, then!

How much of the Qur'an need I read before I'm allowed to quote it?

You say "read the Qur'an" but many people who say they've read it and even studied it, havent read even half of it. They've read/studied certain parts of it.

Same thing with the Bible. How many people have read the Bible here? have you read it all? most of it? some parts? do you think you're allowed to quote it?

I'm just trying to understand how much of a holy book one must read before s/he's allowed to quote it.

MountainOutOfMolehill Trivialisationism, no?

Anyone who's read the Bible in full ought not to take a word of it seriously.

Perhaps you've missed my many many posts over the years Capo. Or maybe you just chose to ignore them. I have always been pretty even keeled as far as one's religious beliefs go no matter what religion it may be or have been. If you go back and re-read some of my posts over the years you will find that I haven't knocked the Muslim religion itself. When talking about terrorism I have made reference to those who are terrorists as religious extremists. And if the discussion was specifically about those terrorists who CLAIMED to be believers in the muslim faith, I did not generalize the Muslim religion as a whole in those specific discussion as being a bad or hypocritic religion, but once again addressed them as Islamic Extremeists.

There are extremists in every and all religions, not just in one specific one.

As for Mignon's remark about the 72 Virgins, well I believe that she makes a statement like that generalizing Islamic Extremists because it was the extrmisits who claimed to be Islamic that said that there were 72 virgins awaiting them in the garden of Allah after they carried out the will of Allah by murdering and terrorizing those who did NOT adhere to their extremist beliefs.

I believe that Mignon was making a generalized statement based on statements and claims made by Islamic Terrorists extremeists. You on the other hand made a reply to her earlier remark and took a general shot at Christianity as a whole.

No, I've already explained why my reply to her earlier remark was not a general shot at Christianity as a whole.

Why did you capitalise "claimed"? Are you suggesting that these terrorists are not Muslim, that they only claim to be? That might be fair, but then you couldn't call them "Muslim extremists".

Yes, and "out of moderate ostrich liberalism comes extreme inhumane backwardness". Extremist religious views are as valid interpretations as moderate religious views; that the interpretation can be taken so far is telling of the self-serving selectivity allowed if not outright encouraged by religious scripture. It just wasn't very well thought-out at all, really, even as far as fiction goes. If scripture serves literal evidence of the world, as some claim, it's a mode of falsification; if it's meant to be taken allegorically, then why is it so self-contradictory at every page? Here it says one thing, here another thing; its allegorical morals are suspect at best.

The reason why extremists are so abhorred by moderate believers is that their views are both formed from the same open-ended scripture.

That's about as specific I can get about 'Christianity as a whole', at least without making my post considerably longer. And you'll be quick to note that everything I just said may also be applied to 'Islam as a whole'.

Otherwise: "thick as fucking pig shit".

No Capo. I'm trying to understand what DT means - if he means someone who never opened the book or someone who haven't read it all.

It interests me because it's part of a bigger discussion, of whether partial absorption of books is enough for an argument.

I've studied literature in the past, and many times we were asked to read certain parts of poems and books and then discuss it in class. I always found myself unable to do so unless I read the entire piece. I told the prof that I think it's wrong, he replied that there's simply no time and the alternative would result in studying very few pieces.

There's a lot you can find in a molehill; and possibly nothing in a mountain.

Fair do. I'd say it's a different discussion, not a bigger one, but that in itself is another impertinent mountain.

Your definition of terrorism - since there is no agreed definition of that term, I'm curious to know why you use the word "individual". Can it refer to 'anarchic political act' carried out by groups or organizations, rather than individuals? what about governments?

You always hear the term "terrorist organizations" - do you think this term should not be used since terrorism is the act of individuals? if some of these organizations are targeting innocent civilians, what would be your definition of these organizations?

Look, it's pretty simple. Mig's statement about 72 virgins was probably intended to be facetious. However, I figured that there were Board members who would read it and think that the Koran actually says that. I posted to correct such a thought. On the other hand, if she considered that she was stating fact, then I would expect that she had read that part of the Koran which presents that staement in context. It would be so onerous for we Board members to footnote our posts. So, we don't. Board members are thus free to accept a post's content as fact, not fact, opinion, etc. Many of us post "facts" about the inner workings of the Mafia although none of us (as far as I know) is or ever was a member of it. But, hopefully, those posts are based on something more than just a film or two.

Terrorism? Don't we first have to know intent? If Hasan murdered people in order to convey this message: "There's nowhere you Americans can go (even on an Army base) that is safe for you", then, yes, he committed terrorism. In the absence of same, it's not terrorism.

Also bad news for the torture fans. Hasan is apparently paralyzed.

Better than prison!

By 'individual' I mean non-societal, 'non-mass'; terrorism has very little social sway, contrary to what the media wants us to feel (OMG Us vs. Them Hysteria). Terrorism has very little political sway because it has very little social sway. Terrorism is inherently an underground activity.

Sure, there are 'terrorist organizations', but their political activity is of an individualistic form. Terrorism, and acts of terrorism, will never overhaul an advanced capitalist country like America.

2-day timeout for Capo who seems to still like making personal attacks against other members. Odd how someone so ostensibly intelligent cannot learn one simple little rule.

"but their political activity is of an individualistic form".

What political activity is not of individualistic form?