It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

At Least 7 Dead, 12 Wounded in Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas

page: 70
62
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Dude, stop using my name and making up things I never said to try to prove your point. We all see right through you.



I use your name because you provide an excellent example. I've not made ANYTHING you said up, and as a matter of fact, I re-posted precisely what you said, in your own words, to prove the point earlier, the last time you made that charge.

If what you say is embarrassing, you might want to think before you speak.

By the way, are you ready to match credentials yet?




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

Ok, so maybe if you understand first what terrorism is..."premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." then you would understand that terrorism isn't patriotism as you defined.
Baby steps.


Where, precisely, did I define "terrorism" as "patriotism"? Is english not your first language? If not, then I can understand your confusion.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Ok.

Listen up

Knock off the personal attacks



If you cannot debate the subject matter without going after another poster, then simply do not post, because YOU are responsible for what your write, and it is likely to be YOU that picks up the consequences of it.

Civility and Decorum are required

I hope thats clear, and I suggest you all pay attention to it.

[edit on 15/11/09 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

Ok, so maybe if you understand first what terrorism is..."premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." then you would understand that terrorism isn't patriotism as you defined.
Baby steps.


Where, precisely, did I define "terrorism" as "patriotism"? Is english not your first language? If not, then I can understand your confusion.

What? Did your words get taken out of context? oh. No need to be nasty.

Your words: "to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure" allows for anarchy. And what is an accepted social structure? Is that like saying that we believe marijuana should be legalized becuase everyone does it so we can use violence? Or burkas are cool so we can set off an IED to make that point? See, by your defination you make it sound like terrorists are fighting for social freedom... and that's not a true defination according to our Department of Homeland Security and the well being of citizens of the US.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

What? Did your words get taken out of context? oh. No need to be nasty.


Nope. My words weren't taken out of context, they've apparently been assigned new definitions..



Your words: "to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure" allows for anarchy.


That particular "snippet" allows for nearly anything, anarchy included. I note also that truncating it like that even allows for voting.



And what is an accepted social structure? Is that like saying that we believe marijuana should be legalized becuase everyone does it so we can use violence? Or burkas are cool so we can set off an IED to make that point?


I don't believe I've condoned violent change at any point. As a matter of fact, I believe the general thrust of my posts is to avoid the violence being advocated and fostered by others.



See, by your defination you make it sound like terrorists are fighting for social freedom... and that's not a true defination according to our Department of Homeland Security and the well being of citizens of the US.


I don't believe that anything in that definition could be construed as "terrorism is fighting for social freedom". It's quite the opposite, in that terrorism pushes an agenda that generally stifles social freedom in favor of minority control, by means of fear. That's hardly MY idea of freedom of any sort. If you don't like that definition of terrorism, take it up with Webster. Ms, Napolitano may benefit from ownership of a dictionary as well.

With that said, it's also true that frequently one man's "terrorist" IS another man's "freedom fighter". It's all in your perspective. I've said that dozens of times before, and will likely take the notion to my grave with me. I derive that quaint notion from extensive experience on both sides of the fence, having walked among guerrillas and "terrorists" of one stripe or another, as well as having worked against them.

In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas were originally "terrorists". a few years later, they were the government, and the Contras were the "new" terrorists, formerly the government.

In Afghanistan during the Soviet War, the mujahideen were "freedom fighters" to the population, and "terrorists" to the Soviets and their puppet government.

In Rhodesia, the guerrillas were "terrorists" (government troopers even referred to them as "terrs") but a few years later, they were the government.

The same is true of nearly every little brushfire conflict that has occurred since WWII. Without an objective definition, it's just a matter of which side one identifies with.

Things are rarely as simplistic as you try to make them, and if you can't even attempt to see both sides of a conflict, you will never TRULY see even one side of it.

In that event, you are doomed to failure. as Sun Tzu wrote in the 6th century BC:


So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.


It's every bit as true today as it was 2600 years ago.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Attention:

Any further off-topic bantering and personal attacks will resultin post removals and/or Posting Bans.

Please keep it civil and within the Terms and Conditions.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
With that said, it's also true that frequently one man's "terrorist" IS another man's "freedom fighter". It's all in your perspective. I've said that dozens of times before, and will likely take the notion to my grave with me. I derive that quaint notion from extensive experience on both sides of the fence, having walked among guerrillas and "terrorists" of one stripe or another, as well as having worked against them.

Ok, maybe we are getting somewhere.
In the eyes of Islam jihad is freedom fighting as suggested.
But in the eyes of the US Department of Homeland Security it is not.
If you are an American terrorism is "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."
Therefore, Americans must support our definition.

It's quite dangerous that we have Military personnel who are still on the fence about this. With apologists supporting strategically placed muslims in the US military there is more support for attacks like the one in Ft Hood. And it boils down to anti-Americanism.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
At this point we still shouldn't be looking at to the motive of the shooter, it should be clear. Instead we should be looking at how to avoid future attacks and warning signs. There are those who would deflect this progress.

Another example that is important:
www.telegraphindia.com...
This about the Mumbai attack, the planning and cooperation from other muslims and sympathizers and apologists...
"The source said Headley, a Pakistani-born US national, and his associate Tahawwur Hussain Rana stayed in Hotel Outram, a seedy motel in Mumbai’s Fort area, for about a fortnight in July 2008.

Born Daood Gilani, Headley, who changed his name and passport in 2006, posed as a Jewish American during his Mumbai stay. A source close to Rahul too confirmed that Headley had claimed to be a Jew.

“It is a mystery how he got into that building (Nariman House) just posing as a Jew. We are probing if he had anybody helping him locally. The FBI seized a book called How to Pray Like a Jew from him at the time of his arrest in Chicago. He had prepared himself thoroughly to pose as a Jew,” the officer said."

These guys aren't just some nutjob. They are usually engineers, sometimes doctors, well educated and quite organized. They will accomplish their missions with careful planning and dry runs.
It's important to notice this behavior, especially when guys like Ft Hood shooter slip through the cracks of "racism fear" that has been established by incidents like the flying imams and others.

Do not be afraid to speak out. If you are suspicious you are not a racist. The FBI will take calls about suspicion, do not hesitate. They will not call you a racist. Together we cn prevent furture attacks. It is too late after-the-fact.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
At this point we still shouldn't be looking at to the motive of the shooter, it should be clear. Instead we should be looking at how to avoid future attacks and warning signs. There are those who would deflect this progress.

Another example that is important:
www.telegraphindia.com...
This about the Mumbai attack, the planning and cooperation from other muslims and sympathizers and apologists...
"The source said Headley, a Pakistani-born US national, and his associate Tahawwur Hussain Rana stayed in Hotel Outram, a seedy motel in Mumbai’s Fort area, for about a fortnight in July 2008.

Born Daood Gilani, Headley, who changed his name and passport in 2006, posed as a Jewish American during his Mumbai stay. A source close to Rahul too confirmed that Headley had claimed to be a Jew.

“It is a mystery how he got into that building (Nariman House) just posing as a Jew. We are probing if he had anybody helping him locally. The FBI seized a book called How to Pray Like a Jew from him at the time of his arrest in Chicago. He had prepared himself thoroughly to pose as a Jew,” the officer said."

These guys aren't just some nutjob. They are usually engineers, sometimes doctors, well educated and quite organized. They will accomplish their missions with careful planning and dry runs.
It's important to notice this behavior, especially when guys like Ft Hood shooter slip through the cracks of "racism fear" that has been established by incidents like the flying imams and others.

Do not be afraid to speak out. If you are suspicious you are not a racist. The FBI will take calls about suspicion, do not hesitate. They will not call you a racist. Together we cn prevent furture attacks. It is too late after-the-fact.




All this load, to say the Major was disguised as a Jew?
I don't get it. What is the point here?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Another example of things to look for:
""Dennis Lormel, a former FBI special agent who directed the agency's efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing, said investigators would take note of the large amount of disposable income Hasan apparently had. He made more than $90,000 a year, had no wife or dependents, and paid about $300 a month for a tiny apartment. "
www.dallasnews.com...

Muslims will thith just as other religions but the difference is that alot of money in Islam goes for buying weapons and preparing for violent jihad. But what stands out in this for me is that this money being made in the US is being filtered to another country which continues to drain our economy, another practice of jihad against the West. Kill our economy with oil dependence, the high cost of defense, ask for more money in foreign aid, and take it wherever they can. Hamas was caught buying cigarettes in NC and selling them in NY and producing millions in profits that were used for weapons. This slow trickle of money out of the US to fund terrorism is another red flag we need to look for.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 
The point, Donny, is that muslims will disguise themselves as something else to finish their mission. Just like the Ft Hood shooter, the Mumbai cell carried out the same MO.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 
The point, Donny, is that muslims will disguise themselves as something else to finish their mission. Just like the Ft Hood shooter, the Mumbai cell carried out the same MO.



Oh you mean like Israeli Commandos that dressed up as women to assassinate alleged and suspected members of Black September in Beirut during the heart of the Lebanese Civil War?

Who did you say again will disguise themselves to appear as anyone to carry out their mission?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
Muslims will thith just as other religions but the difference is that alot of money in Islam goes for buying weapons and preparing for violent jihad. But what stands out in this for me is that this money being made in the US is being filtered to another country which continues to drain our economy, another practice of jihad against the West. Kill our economy with oil dependence, the high cost of defense, ask for more money in foreign aid, and take it wherever they can. Hamas was caught buying cigarettes in NC and selling them in NY and producing millions in profits that were used for weapons. This slow trickle of money out of the US to fund terrorism is another red flag we need to look for.


No wonder we had to face the recent recession.And all along we thought it was the NWO.

Have to admit though major nadal did earn a handsome salary.He should have married a pretty girl and settled down instead of wasting it on strip clubs.

Than again isn't a practising muslim suppose to stay away from strip clubs?

Sounds like he wasn't a very good one.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by merkava
 


At one time there were alot of Iranian students attending US Military Schools at various bases in the United States. These students..many of them lived a dual life. They kept the strictness of Islam daily, when in school and in their uniforms, but at night they changed into a different costume, after jumping into a phone booth, and then came out of the booth refreshed with whitners and brightners. A totally different person.

They were forbidden to have a car..but many pooled thier moneys and bought one. THey went out drinking and chasing American Women to ease thier Oil Shortage.

If they were caught they would face thier commanders and be sent back to Iran and face jail time for dishonoring the Shah who had paid in cash and in advance for thier training.

But all this strictness did not stop many of them. The call of the wild was to strong.

Mind you...now..not all participated in this conduct but it was known that it went on.

It is the same in Europe...in the daytime many of these Muslims gang up on European women, following them down the streets, calling them foul names,spitting on them.....but after dark when they cannot be seen...they go into them bearing moneys and gifts.

Mind you now ..the Muslims are not the only ones like this...but it is an interesting contrast in the observation of Wildlife in its Natural Habitat.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 15-11-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
With that said, it's also true that frequently one man's "terrorist" IS another man's "freedom fighter". It's all in your perspective. I've said that dozens of times before, and will likely take the notion to my grave with me. I derive that quaint notion from extensive experience on both sides of the fence, having walked among guerrillas and "terrorists" of one stripe or another, as well as having worked against them.

Ok, maybe we are getting somewhere.
In the eyes of Islam jihad is freedom fighting as suggested.
But in the eyes of the US Department of Homeland Security it is not.
If you are an American terrorism is "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."
Therefore, Americans must support our definition.


As an American, I have that pesky "Freedom of Speech" thing going on, ESPECIALLY as regards the government. A Freedom of Speech implies a freedom of thought (how can one speak freely if one can't THINK freely?), So I am not bound to accept ANY Homeland Security manufactured definition of anything. I didn't accept the "you are with us or you are against us" drivel from Bush, and neither will I accept it from anyone else.

The Department of Homeland Security has demonstrated a decided aversion to actually securing the US. They consistently work against securing the borders, and are prone to seeing monsters in the closet where there are none, as in the spurious Fusion Center reports targeting American Citizens as terrorists, while leaving the true dangers unattended to.

I would take anything at all coming from Chertoff, Napolitano, or any other DHS bureaucrat with a very large chunk of salt. DHS is there just to be "there", and has no serious function other than to curtail the liberties of US citizens. Other departments of the US government, most notably (but not limited to) the FBI and CIA actually do all the heavy lifting of "fighting terrorism" in the US. That sucks, too because CIA isn't even supposed to be active inside our borders. Some one HAS to, though, and DHS isn't up to it. I have my doubts that most DHS bureaucrats would know a terrorist if they were beheaded by one.

Even though all the foregoing is so, I still have to observe that there is nothing in that alleged DHS definition of terrorism that's inconsistent with the more commonly accepted one. It appears to leave out the framework of a definition while supplying government-sponsored details of one. The definition I gave, by way of contrast, supplies a framework, but leaves details open, which is just as much a fault. That's why "guerrillas" have been able to be classified as "terrorists", when in fact the two are very distinct, with little blurring of the lines.



It's quite dangerous that we have Military personnel who are still on the fence about this. With apologists supporting strategically placed muslims in the US military there is more support for attacks like the one in Ft Hood. And it boils down to anti-Americanism.


Military personnel think the way they do because they SEE the things they do. They're out on the sharp end, where they actually have to interact with people of all stripes. It gives them a perspective on reality that no sheltered person will EVER be able to attain without going out and getting into the interactions themselves.

One thing I learned a long time ago by going out to the sharp end myself is that "foreigners" have a funny way of seeing things primarily because they have to LIVE in it. Same goes for our soldiers in the War on Terror, be they military or not.

As an "apologist", supporting Freedom of Religion from persecution, I refer you to that troublesome document called the "Constitution". If you don't like it, change it, but NEVER ignore it, as tends to come across with statements like "strategically placed muslims in the US military". Those same military personnel you appear to so disdain have sworn an oath to uphold and defend it from all comers, and most take that charge pretty seriously.

If that "boils down to anti-Americanism" I humbly suggest changing the Oath to reflect the "neo-American" values espoused.

To DHS, if you're listening (and I bet you are), I suggest getting down to the business of hunting terrorists, and leave the witch-hunts to Pilgrims and Puritans. There are no monsters in the closet, and the monsters under the bed will get you while you're thrashing around in the closet with a stick looking for them. Oh, and the monsters under the bed are laughing at how they've been able to misdirect the fearful people poking around in the closet, while they go on their merry way unmolested.

Mr Hassan accomplished his goal, and so will others if you're tied up with persecuting innocents, in blatant violation of the US Constitution, instead of paying attention to the truly dangerous.

I've got a pretty clear picture of who and what DHS views as a "threat", and I KNOW, from cold hard experience of seeing people needlessly die, that if they continue in that vein, they'll never see it coming, because they don't know where to look and consequently try to look EVERYWHERE at once. They miss important details like that, details that get folks killed permanently dead.

It all comes from a fear borne of a misunderstanding of what constitutes a real threat.



[edit on 2009/11/15 by nenothtu]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by merkava

Have to admit though major nadal did earn a handsome salary.He should have married a pretty girl and settled down instead of wasting it on strip clubs.

Than again isn't a practising muslim suppose to stay away from strip clubs?

Sounds like he wasn't a very good one.


It has also come to light that he was treated for alcoholism. Another big, fat, no-no for practicing muslims.

Naw, he wasn't much of one at all.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 
The point, Donny, is that muslims will disguise themselves as something else to finish their mission. Just like the Ft Hood shooter, the Mumbai cell carried out the same MO.


This is a blatent lie. He had no disguise.
He let everyone know he was a Muslim and objected to going to Afganistan. No comparison at all.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by merkava


It has also come to light that he was treated for alcoholism. Another big, fat, no-no for practicing muslims.

Naw, he wasn't much of one at all.


Alcohol? strip clubs.....damnnn this guy was lucky he wasn't in Saudi or taliban territory.They would have stoned him alive in local town square or football pitch.

Just goes to show this guy was nuts and him ending up in afghanistan without the alcohol or strippers could have been another factor stopping him from going there.


I am tryna figure out why did he decide to become a good muslim within the time frame of him going shooting.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
"Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]."Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of "defensive Jihad" which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, "Allah forbids you...from dealing kindly and justly" with those who fight Muslims." [Slide 40]
www.washingtonpost.com...

I think I mentioned all this a week ago, but here you have it from the Ft Hood shooters presentation.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by merkava

Just goes to show this guy was nuts and him ending up in afghanistan without the alcohol or strippers could have been another factor stopping him from going there.



'Twould be enough to drive ME over the edge! What IS life without alcohol and strippers?




I am tryna figure out why did he decide to become a good muslim within the time frame of him going shooting.


Guilty conscience from indulging in the above, causing "over-correction" while trying to regain his course, perhaps?

Hanging out with a bad crowd?

Entertaining the prospect of being forced to see how the "other half" actually has to LIVE in Afghanistan? Gotta be a killer for an American muslim to see the "brethren" having to live in those conditions, eh? Americans in general just aren't cut out for living conditions as found in Afghanistan, and Afghans are very well adapted to it. Culture shock.

Just went bonkers?

Or perhaps a closet jihadist all his life, and "had" to indulge in vices to keep up appearances? It would be just AWFUL, it's a dirty job, but I suppose SOME jihadist has to do it!



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join