Ft. Hood Attack Publicly Called “Terrorism”

liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com...


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has become the first Obama Administration official to publicly describe last year's deadly shootings at Ft. Hood, Tex., as a terrorist act, according to a search of news clips and transcripts.

"Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning. "There is violent Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, [and] that is indeed a major focus of this department and its efforts."

In the months since an Army psychiatrist -- who had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen -- opened fired inside the Army base, many on Capitol Hill have urged administration officials to publicly identify the attack as terrorism.

Well I think it is about time, To call it for what it is... Just like Joe Stack should also be labeled a terrorist... This guy Hassan Character purposely attacked Un-armed people for his God and Religion.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


About time! Get ready for the media talking the shooter as an al-queda member non stop. Is the shooter getting Life or Death?

I just noticed your Sig Line. What happened to Dooper? I loved that guy!

Now, to be on topic, It doesn't surprise me she was first, she was first to call just about all of us terrorists!! If you love the Constitution, or God, or your Guns, or your military, then you are a terrorist.

In the case of Ft. Hood, she may be correct, but according to her, he was a terrorist as soon as he joined the military and a church and bought a gun.

American's love Key words.

Do something wrong , you are a Terrorist

Do something right, you are a Hero.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I just noticed your Sig Line. What happened to Dooper? I loved that guy!

Were not suppose to talk about it or him......Shhhhhh.


Now as far as the topic I wonder if someone else in the Adminstration will come out and say he isnt... You know they have a habbit of doing that.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]

"Domestic Terrorism" is Napolitano's new pet project/Homeland Security focus...
Seriously, she scares me.

As for the Ft. Hood shooter - in his case, I hope he gets what is deserved.




[edit on 24-2-2010 by LadySkadi]

I agree that is is about dam time! He was a terrorist from the day he pulled the trigger. Does this mean that our government is backing down a little from the "Politically Correctness" policy they have endorsed? I doubt it.

This must have been a slip of the tongue.......

reply to post by Sean48


What would you call him Sean?

I can understand your point there some called Stack a hero for flying a plane into a building for of Innocent IRSS workers. Or this Nutcase who turns his gun on his own troops.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


What would you call him Sean?

I can understand your point there some called Stack a hero for flying a plane into a building for of Innocent IRSS workers. Or this Nutcase who turns his gun on his own troops.

There have been Guys going nuts and shooting co-workers for decades now.

Back in the day , they would say he went Postal.

If this guy (Fort Hood) had been Italian American. Would they still call it

Terrorism ?

reply to post by Sean48


I agree on that. Terrorism or not he still killed people. I might believe in survival of the fittest, but some do deserve to be locked away or worse.

reply to post by Sean48



Yes I would still call it Terrorism... I think Joe Stack is a Terrorist, Tim McVeigh, and Terry Nicols; They are all terrorist....

Now as far as the going postal thing, going in and shooting co-workers because your stressed is one thing, But he had ties to a radical Iman, who wants nothing more than to see the America fall... I think they finally made the right call.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Now as far as the going postal thing, going in and shooting co-workers because your stressed is one thing, But he had ties to a radical Iman, who wants nothing more than to see the America fall...

You say Joe Stack and Tim McVeigh are terrorists. What ties did they had to “a radical Iman”? You say Hasan killed people “for his God and Religion,” did Stack and McVeigh do it for their gods and religion?

The point I'm getting at is that what determines whether a person commits an act of terrorism or not isn't their religion, background or ethnicity, it's the act itself. Yet the argument you've been using regarding the Ft. Hood shooter is that he is muslim.

Originally posted by converge

You say Joe Stack and Tim McVeigh are terrorists. What ties did they had to “a radical Iman”? You say Hasan killed people “for his God and Religion,” did Stack and McVeigh do it for their gods and religion?

The point I'm getting at is that what determines whether a person commits an act of terrorism or not isn't their religion, background or ethnicity, it's the act itself. Yet the argument you've been using regarding the Ft. Hood shooter is that he is muslim.


Umm yea and in case you are confused as to what terrorism is it is this.
www.google.com...:terrorism&ei=v52FS-SCKcTZlAfw4LjfAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE< br />
You dont have to be some Arab to cornor the Market on Terrorism, Ask the IRA. Or back in the 50s ask the Blacks and KKK.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Umm yea and in case you are confused as to what terrorism is it is this.

I'm not confused, thank you for your concern. I wasn't claiming that Stack or McVeigh weren't terrorists, I was using what you've said about them and Hasan to point out that what's common between them is the nature of the acts they carried out.

I would disagree about Stack and McVeigh. They are not terrorists.

The DC Sniper was a terrorist, and the Airline Hijackers were terrorists. Their intention was to strike "terror" in the heart of their targets that would outlive their single act. They wanted to change a lifestyle, they wanted to affect the way the witnesses of their act live.

McVeigh was just a criminal. He did a lot of property damage, he attacked innocent people, he had an agenda, but in order to call him a Terrorist, you would have to define all mass murderers and all organized crime syndicates as terrorism.

Definitions of terrorism on the Web:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorism

Terrorist have the agenda of creating TERROR for a specific political or religious agenda.

McVeigh attacked a Federal Building. He wasn't trying to stop OKC residents from going to work, or trying to change their lifestyle. He was waging a one man war against the Federal Government.

Stack did a similar thing to the IRS. He wasn't threatening anybody, or trying to frighten anybody, or trying to create any terror. He was simply trying to attack a specific branch of government that he believed was out to get him.

These two are just run of the mill criminals with highly publicized cases.

On the other hand we have the DC Sniper. His entire goal was to prove that he could do whatever the dumba** police announced that he couldn't do. He was out to prove that nobody was safe. He made people afraid to pump gas, or walk to school. He began to impact the day to day activities of normal people. He was successful as a "terror"ist, but he was treated as a simple criminal?

I read about this guy - if I remember correctly, he was a non-radical Muslim at first, but after some time being an army psychiatrist he learned of all the horrible things his patients had done to innocent people and he got fed up. It's like he got post-traumatic stress disorder through finding out all the evils of others disorders. So he started to get deeper into Islam and eventually got caught up with the radicals. What he did was evil and horrible, but I understand why he started to lose his mind. Same with Joe Stack, he lost his mind due to all the madness surrounding him. I really don't blame these people for what they did, sure it was wrong and I hate to see anyone die or get hurt, but you have to realize where it all starts. If the government wants to call these acts terrorism, that's all good and dandy but if they want to do something about it they should look at where it all started. In both cases it started with their own greed. If the government stopped chasing their own greed we would have less, if not none, of these kinds of problems.

Everyone wants to blame other people for their own problems when they should really be looking at what role they played in all this.



Bella Mente

reply to post by getreadyalready
You make a fair point, but I think this is where the whole thing becomes difficult to define.

You write that “terrorist have the agenda of creating TERROR for a specific political or religious agenda,” and say that Stack, for instance, wasn't trying to terrorize anybody. I agree with you. His motives, however, were political. The letter he wrote before carrying out his attack were political and ideological statements.

I'm on the fence about Joe Stack too and his attacks, on how to classify them, but if you qualify terrorism as actions to intentionally terrorize people, then does Hasan's Ft. Hood shooting qualify as such? He wasn't trying to “prevent people from going to work” like you say regarding McVeigh, and was Hasan intentionally trying to frighten people or were these the actions of a guy who disagreed with the Government's policies, snapped and killed people?

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


What would you call him Sean?

I can understand your point there some called Stack a hero for flying a plane into a building for of Innocent IRSS workers. Or this Nutcase who turns his gun on his own troops.

There have been Guys going nuts and shooting co-workers for decades now.

Back in the day , they would say he went Postal.

If this guy (Fort Hood) had been Italian American. Would they still call it

Terrorism ?

They damn well should. Any act of violence that is politically or religiously motivated (including anti-political and anti-religion)should be labeled "terrorism".

We know that this guy was of middle-eastern descent and seeing his countrymen slaughtered led him to hate his comrades in arms. I don't think that qualifies him as a "Muslim" terrorist, but yelling "Allah Akbar" as he was gunning people down didn't help that cause.