Saturday, November 14, 2009
Terrorist or not a terrorist?
I am so disappointed in President Obama and the main stream media. Nidal Malik Hasan, killed 13 of his fellow soldiers in cold blood, and our President has yet to admit that he was a terrorist. I believe "political correctness" played a huge part in this tragedy, as it was a well thought out attack, and our government officials were well aware of his feelings towards America. It is my feeling , that Obama just can't face the fact that our first terrorist attack, since 911, has occurred under his watch. I pray to God that it isn't a sign of things to come, as I believe Obama is making a mockery of America to foreign nations. There isn't a human being on this earth drawing a free breath without the help of the US military.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Peg, I totally agree with you, I think political correctness played a huge part of this awful tragedy. But as you know some of Obama's best friends are terrorist or former terrorist, if there is such a thing. It's going to take years to straighten out what this devil is doing to our county! Sara 2012....smile
ReplyDeletePeople can laugh at Sara Palin all they want. She is an honest woman with a true sense of what is going on in the "real world". The Democrats are so afraid of her, that all they know to do is trash her every chance they get. Her book won't be out for 2 weeks yet and it has already been on the best seller list for 2 weeks...that tells you a lot in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWe love Sara in our house!
ReplyDeleteIf Sara runs for office in 2012, she hs 4 votes from my home!
ReplyDeleteI think we will all be pleasantly surprised...we haven't heard the last of her.
ReplyDeletethe first terrorist attack under Obama's watch was the murder of Dr. Tiller by domestic terrorist Scott Rhoder. The ft hood shootings have no clearly been established as terrorism just yet. the rush to call it a terrorist attack, or the tendency on some to redifine terrorism as "an act of violence commited by those who are vaguely middle eastern" is disturbing and unamerican.
ReplyDeleteThere was nothing vague about the attack by Nidal Malik Hasan. He was practically begging them to question him. He was blatantly trying to convert his patients to Islam, and his own peers were questioning his motives. He even had business cards with SOA (Soldier of Allah) on them. They only reason "they" have not clearly established it a terrorist attack is because our own President is sitting on the fence on the issue. Why is that? And just what does Dr. Tiller have to do with this? That was murder plain and simple. Nidal Malik Hasan was not hiding who he was...why are you?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Peggy. That animal at Fort Hood should be called what he is and treated like what he is, a rabid dog. "Terrorist or not a terrorist". It's obvious to someone who is intellectually honest. Plain as the nose on our faces. I can't wait to hear all the excuses made for this waste of space.
ReplyDeletethe murder of Dr. Tiller is terrorism because it fits the definition:
ReplyDeleteter·ror·ism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Scott Rhoder murdered Dr. Tiller in a very public and cowardly way inorder to promote the agenda of extreme anti abortionists through fear..or terror...of violence. Scott Rhoder's attack on Dr. Tiller would be the first terrorist attack, that we know of, during the Obama administration. Given that the domestic terrorist Scott Rhoder is in custody, the administration responded well.
thus far, there are hints and allegations, but no concrete evidence that Major Hasan was more than an angry person with impusle control issues. he too, however, was captured and is in custody regardless.
whether hasan turns out to be a terrorist or not, the current administration's dealing with terrorists appears to be an improvement as the last administration seemed content to allow terror suspects, like usama bin laden, to roam the world freely.
"Nidal Malik Hasan was not hiding who he was...why are you?"
ReplyDeletewhat he was does not, as of yet, appear to be a terrorist....more a lone nutter who, upon being frustrated by the failure of the military to release him from service, had a lapse in formal thinking and went on a shooting spree.
I am not hiding who I am, I am Douglas Speak from facebook. you posted a link to this in a poll thread with the invitation to come talk about politics, so I clicked on it and came to talk about politics.
Under your definition, just about anyone that commits murder is a terrorist. There are over 100 definitions of terrorism, and at least 6 different categories.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the Obama Administration is dealing with anything, they just want it swept under the rug, so they don't look bad.
I read an article that pretty sums up how I feel about the whole thing.
http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/no-more-doubletalk/2009/nov/16/hood/
Why did he enlist if he didn't want to go to war for our country? I don't understand that at all. I wish the Defense Dept. would have done more than release him... and I still believe that they were trying to be "politically correct" in the way they handled the warning signs.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome on my blog anytime, I enjoy a good solid debate. Thanks.
Jason, The excuses for his behavior are countless. I knew the Obama Administration wouldn't want to won up to an act of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope I am not being accused of excusing his, or anyone else's behavior as such an accusation is not warranted from what I have posted. the man appears to have murdered people, is in custody, and will face trial. how is this a failure of the administration exactly?
ReplyDelete"I would have done more than release him?"
because someone does not want to fight in a current military campaign you would want to do "more"? what "more" would you do and why?
let's look at the issue at hand for a moment: there is this attempt to paint this as somehow a failure on the part of the administration. how, exactly? a fellow did bad things, was captured, and will stand trial for his misdeeds. that is problem solved. the matter has been handled. what exactly is this failing? the only possible failing I see is the military's failure to grant him a discharge when he requested it.
not seeing the problem here, bad things have occured, some are terrorism, some might be or might not...regardless, the suspects are detained and will face justice.
ReplyDeletenot seeing cause for complaint here.....
My complaint is still the same argument. I believe the attack could have been avoided completely. I still say it was "political correctness" that killed our soldiers. He was showing proof of his intentions for many months, and Federal Investigators said, "we would have been crucified" had we pushed the investigation any further. Why? They knew of his terroristic threats, and their hands were tied because he was a Muslim. My point of view is pretty much how the below article sees it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-8642-LA-National-Security-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Ft-Hood-was-a-terrorist-act-period
this particular "attack" could have been avoided by granting major hasan the discharge he sought. the military appears to have dropped the ball. socalled political correctness is not really a factor. had major hasan been released from the military, he would not have been in the military inorder to engage in the shooting.
ReplyDeleteWhy did he enlist if he wasn't willing to go to war for America? I wonder if it was his plan all along, so he would have the opportunity to do what he did. I agree that the military dropped the ball...they should have done a better job investigating him after his rants. At this point, they are investigating the investigators. I am sure their are a lot of people that want to get released after they enlist.
ReplyDeleteso you argue that he enlisted 2003 knowing that he would petition for discharge in 2009 and be refused, so that he would have the "opportunity" to shoot 13 people.....?
ReplyDeletenot much of a plan there. sounds more like someone who suffered a breakdown.
to random shoot thirteen people, even on a military base, is not all that difficult to do...doesn't require massive planning and years to pull off...moreover, this talk of "political correctness" being somehow to blame....
ReplyDeletepolitical correctness is a term adopted by the republicans in the 80s as a smear against the democrats...it is not an actually policy of some sort that exists.
basically, then, this argument comes down to "a political smear tactic from the 80s led to a man joining the military in 2003 inorder to shoot thirteen people in 2009..."
You've confused terrorism with a religiously motivated crime. There is a difference. If you look at teenagers who supposedly practiced satanism who've gone on killing sprees, they have the same exact levels of planning and implimentation as this man, and motivation was still religiously based, yet we don't call them terrorists. Hasan suffered conflict between duty and religion, but there is no direct evidence to support the notion of him being anything other than a confused and angry man who snapped and killed a whole lot of people. Just because his motivation was based on his religion- Islam- does not make him a terrorist, by definition.
ReplyDeletehow come moonlitesonata over here gets to have a pic? this is somesort of liberal flimflammery, obviously. I blame obama!
ReplyDeletewhere's my pic!
According to Scotts definition of a terrorist Hasan was one. Hasan should have never enlisted....period. What were his motives for that? Our President may never acknowledge him as a terrorist, but that doesn't mean he wasn't one. Who's going to make that determination when they are investigating the investigators? The term "political correctness", is a well know term...and it has gotten out of hand.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
according to the definition I posted from the american heritage dictionary? oh do tell! how exactly does major hasan fit into that definition?
ReplyDeleteWe know that he sent emails to Anwar al Awiiaki, an al Qaeda enthusiast who had strong ties to three 9/11 hijackers. Why?
ReplyDelete* S: (n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)
WordNet home page
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.
Scott...I never meant that I condoned the murder of Dr. Tiller. I just look at that as a person (nut case) that was deeply against abortion. It was murder. The person that killed him, looked at HIM as the murderer.
ReplyDelete