Breaking: Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas ... 7 confirmed dead

[AllieBaba]

And they are targeted with even more regularity than we are. As I said, moderate muslims are hated by the Islamofascists even more than Americans are. So ultimately, they're on our side.

 

[Liability]

Again. I agree. Fucking idiotic. Tell guys who have ptsd from having their units blown up by Muslim lunatics that they're getting counseling from a Muslim fanatic.

I can't believe one of them didn't go berserck and kill the bastard. Then of course, the Army would come under fire for unfairly targeting Muslims.

Are you aware not everyone in iraq and afghanistan are muslims?

Are you high?

Of what relevance is that inconsequential little factoid?

Are you suggesting that there are non-Muslims who are engaged in the activities that are blowing up our military units?

You just make your shit up on the fly, assmonkey.

Try backing up some of your shit for a refreshing change of pace.

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

 

[CurveLight]

Yukon tries so hard -- soooooo ploddingly and obviously -- to be an antagonistic jism-sucking douchebag.

There is no need to try so hard, Joke-on. Nobody takes you seriously. You're just a pathetic little asswipe fucktard; and that's all you will ever be.

You seriously embarrass yourself and all other Conservatives with this garbage.

Lightweight:

It's funny when you attempt to state your opinion as though it carried any weight.

The truth, though, is that you are just a pompous gasbag and your opinion is actually of no value to me --or to almost anyone else.

If and when you manage to stick to a point of any interest to an actual conversation, send up a flare.

Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself again. No. Seriously!

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

Nobody's opinion has any value through your lens. This is why the best you can do is call people names. You're like the white dude from Office Space sitting in a little 4 banger listening to rap until you look around and realize you don't have the courage to be yourself. Instead, you use a message board as compensation for all you lack and this is most apparent in your usertitle. Honest role models do not use self proclamations. They don't have time because they are too busy doing what you pretend to be.

 

[GHook93]

Again. I agree. Fucking idiotic. Tell guys who have ptsd from having their units blown up by Muslim lunatics that they're getting counseling from a Muslim fanatic.

I can't believe one of them didn't go berserck and kill the bastard. Then of course, the Army would come under fire for unfairly targeting Muslims.

Are you aware not everyone in iraq and afghanistan are muslims?

Oh boy! Afghanistan is about 99% Muslim and Iraq is 97% (the Christians hiding in Kurdistan)!

Demography of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demographics of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CurveLight]

Yukon tries so hard -- soooooo ploddingly and obviously -- to be an antagonistic jism-sucking douchebag.

There is no need to try so hard, Joke-on. Nobody takes you seriously. You're just a pathetic little asswipe fucktard; and that's all you will ever be.

You seriously embarrass yourself and all other Conservatives with this garbage.

Lightweight:

It's funny when you attempt to state your opinion as though it carried any weight.

The truth, though, is that you are just a pompous gasbag and your opinion is actually of no value to me --or to almost anyone else.

If and when you manage to stick to a point of any interest to an actual conversation, send up a flare.

Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself again. No. Seriously!

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

Nobody's opinion has any value through your lens. This is why the best you can do is call people names. You're like the white dude from Office Space sitting in a little 4 banger listening to rap until you look around and realize you don't have the courage to be yourself. Instead, you use a message board as compensation for all you lack and this is most apparent in your usertitle. Honest role models do not use self proclamations. They don't have time because they are too busy doing what you pretend to be.

 

[Liability]

You seriously embarrass yourself and all other Conservatives with this garbage.

Lightweight:

It's funny when you attempt to state your opinion as though it carried any weight.

The truth, though, is that you are just a pompous gasbag and your opinion is actually of no value to me --or to almost anyone else.

If and when you manage to stick to a point of any interest to an actual conversation, send up a flare.

Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself again. No. Seriously!

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

Nobody's opinion has any value through your lens. This is why the best you can do is call people names. You're like the white dude from Office Space sitting in a little 4 banger listening to rap until you look around and realize you don't have the courage to be yourself. Instead, you use a message board as compensation for all you lack and this is most apparent in your usertitle. Honest role models do not use self proclamations. They don't have time because they are too busy doing what you pretend to be.

How about that? You are wrong yet again! At least you have consistency on your side.

I value the opinions of many people, even some of those with whom I find I am in the greatest ultimate disagreement. That stems from having an open mind. You ought to try it someday!

Word!

The reason I find no value in your spew is that you tend to speak in broad and unsupported generalizations. You are indifferent to backing up your proclamations of mere opinion with anything even remotely resembling a "fact." Facts are cool. They are another kind of thing you might want to consider investigating the use of someday!

Regards,

Your newest bestest buddy,

Liability

 

[CurveLight]

Again. I agree. Fucking idiotic. Tell guys who have ptsd from having their units blown up by Muslim lunatics that they're getting counseling from a Muslim fanatic.

I can't believe one of them didn't go berserck and kill the bastard. Then of course, the Army would come under fire for unfairly targeting Muslims.

Are you aware not everyone in iraq and afghanistan are muslims?

Are you high?

Of what relevance is that inconsequential little factoid?

Are you suggesting that there are non-Muslims who are engaged in the activities that are blowing up our military units?

You just make your shit up on the fly, assmonkey.

Try backing up some of your shit for a refreshing change of pace.

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

That's odd. Didn't you just get done saying my opinion is irrelevant? Now you care?

It's kind of silly to blame Islam for people retaliating against a foreign military occupation. I'm guessing that is an alien concept because you probably believe America has the inherent right to invade and occupy any nation our government chooses.

 

[CurveLight]

Lightweight:

It's funny when you attempt to state your opinion as though it carried any weight.

The truth, though, is that you are just a pompous gasbag and your opinion is actually of no value to me --or to almost anyone else.

If and when you manage to stick to a point of any interest to an actual conversation, send up a flare.

Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself again. No. Seriously!

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

Nobody's opinion has any value through your lens. This is why the best you can do is call people names. You're like the white dude from Office Space sitting in a little 4 banger listening to rap until you look around and realize you don't have the courage to be yourself. Instead, you use a message board as compensation for all you lack and this is most apparent in your usertitle. Honest role models do not use self proclamations. They don't have time because they are too busy doing what you pretend to be.

How about that? You are wrong yet again! At least you have consistency on your side.

I value the opinions of many people, even some of those with whom I find I am in the greatest ultimate disagreement. That stems from having an open mind. You ought to try it someday!

Word!

The reason I find no value in your spew is that you tend to speak in broad and unsupported generalizations. You are indifferent to backing up your proclamations of mere opinion with anything even remotely resembling a "fact." Facts are cool. They are another kind of thing you might want to consider investigating the use of someday!

Regards,

Your newest bestest buddy,

Liability

By all means, let's have a one on one debate about what happened at Ft. Hood. That is or course if your Majesty can find the charity to school someone like me.

 

[Liability]

Are you aware not everyone in iraq and afghanistan are muslims?

Are you high?

Of what relevance is that inconsequential little factoid?

Are you suggesting that there are non-Muslims who are engaged in the activities that are blowing up our military units?

You just make your shit up on the fly, assmonkey.

Try backing up some of your shit for a refreshing change of pace.

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

That's odd. Didn't you just get done saying my opinion is irrelevant? Now you care?

It's kind of silly to blame Islam for people retaliating against a foreign military occupation. I'm guessing that is an alien concept because you probably believe America has the inherent right to invade and occupy any nation our government chooses.

Your ongoing confusion and lack of basic comprehension skills are showing -- and amusing. Your mere unsupported opinions ARE irrelevant. To whatever marginal extent you think your mere opinions might be of any value, however, they will remain useless when (as is always the case with you so far) you steadfastly fail to support them with actual facts.

Your last paragraph is meaningless inasmuch as (obviously) it is disconnected from your prior spew and -- even standing alone -- unsupported by facts.

You are a true joke.

Feel free to keep trying, though.

By the way, any country, including ours, DOES have a right to invade any other country harboring scum who attack it.

The other countries which get invaded of course have a right -- if they are so inclined -- to object and try to repel such invasions or incursions. This is rather basic stuff in international law. But their objections do not negate our right to go after the filth that are targetting and attacking us.

If, unimaginably, WE elected to harbor some filthy scum who had attacked Canada, for example, and if WE proceeded to refuse or fail do anything about the filth hiding in our land, Candada would have a right to do something about it. Whether they COULD is another matter entirely.

Like other facets of reality, this will sail over your pinhead at mach speed, no doubt. That's ok. I don't actually care how ignorant or stupid you are.

 

[Liability]

* * * *


By all means, let's have a one on one debate about what happened at Ft. Hood. That is or course if your Majesty can find the charity to school someone like me.

Put your feeble efforts at sarcasm aside. You'll look less foolish that way.

If you wish to engage in some "debate" of some kind, the framework isn't all that difficult.

Make an assertion. Try to use actual facts and a logical syllogism to support your contention or position. If I disagree with you on it, then I will be more than pleased to address either your alleged "facts," your alleged "logic," or the conclusion as it stems, supposedly, from the facts or logic.

If you say something with which I agree, however, there is not much reason to "debate" it.

See how this works? Good.

Now then; what is it about the incident at Fort Hood you want to "debate?"

 

[Contumacious]

It is truly a shame that those GI's died in Fort Hood.


But it is also a shame that Palestinians have been slaughtered since 1925. The US has been financing their genocide since 1947.

It is also a shame that Iraqis have been murdered and terrorized since 1990.

It is also a shame that Afghans and Pakistanis are been bombarded by US Drones and slaughtered in the process.

Hence , it is a shame that the US' Foreign Policy creates an avenger every second.

.

 

[CurveLight]

Are you high?

Of what relevance is that inconsequential little factoid?

Are you suggesting that there are non-Muslims who are engaged in the activities that are blowing up our military units?

You just make your shit up on the fly, assmonkey.

Try backing up some of your shit for a refreshing change of pace.

Regards,

your pal,

Liability

That's odd. Didn't you just get done saying my opinion is irrelevant? Now you care?

It's kind of silly to blame Islam for people retaliating against a foreign military occupation. I'm guessing that is an alien concept because you probably believe America has the inherent right to invade and occupy any nation our government chooses.

Your ongoing confusion and lack of basic comprehension skills are showing -- and amusing. Your mere unsupported opinions ARE irrelevant. To whatever marginal extent you think your mere opinions might be of any value, however, they will remain useless when (as is always the case with you so far) you steadfastly fail to support them with actual facts.

Your last paragraph is meaningless inasmuch as (obviously) it is disconnected from your prior spew and -- even standing alone -- unsupported by facts.

You are a true joke.

Feel free to keep trying, though.

By the way, any country, including ours, DOES have a right to invade any other country harboring scum who attack it.

The other countries which get invaded of course have a right -- if they are so inclined -- to object and try to repel such invasions or incursions. This is rather basic stuff in international law. But their objections do not negate our right to go after the filth that are targetting and attacking us.

If, unimaginably, WE elected to harbor some filthy scum who had attacked Canada, for example, and if WE proceeded to refuse or fail do anything about the filth hiding in our land, Candada would have a right to do something about it. Whether they COULD is another matter entirely.

Like other facets of reality, this will sail over your pinhead at mach speed, no doubt. That's ok. I don't actually care how ignorant or stupid you are.

The iraq invasion violated our treaty with the UNSC and as such our own Constitution. Specifically Article 6.

You complain about broad assertions then repeat the "harboring scum" line? ROTFL!

 

[Liability]

That's odd. Didn't you just get done saying my opinion is irrelevant? Now you care?

It's kind of silly to blame Islam for people retaliating against a foreign military occupation. I'm guessing that is an alien concept because you probably believe America has the inherent right to invade and occupy any nation our government chooses.

Your ongoing confusion and lack of basic comprehension skills are showing -- and amusing. Your mere unsupported opinions ARE irrelevant. To whatever marginal extent you think your mere opinions might be of any value, however, they will remain useless when (as is always the case with you so far) you steadfastly fail to support them with actual facts.

Your last paragraph is meaningless inasmuch as (obviously) it is disconnected from your prior spew and -- even standing alone -- unsupported by facts.

You are a true joke.

Feel free to keep trying, though.

By the way, any country, including ours, DOES have a right to invade any other country harboring scum who attack it.

The other countries which get invaded of course have a right -- if they are so inclined -- to object and try to repel such invasions or incursions. This is rather basic stuff in international law. But their objections do not negate our right to go after the filth that are targetting and attacking us.

If, unimaginably, WE elected to harbor some filthy scum who had attacked Canada, for example, and if WE proceeded to refuse or fail do anything about the filth hiding in our land, Candada would have a right to do something about it. Whether they COULD is another matter entirely.

Like other facets of reality, this will sail over your pinhead at mach speed, no doubt. That's ok. I don't actually care how ignorant or stupid you are.

The iraq invasion violated our treaty with the UNSC and as such our own Constitution. Specifically Article 6.

You complain about broad assertions then repeat the "harboring scum" line? ROTFL!

Nope. You are not there yet.

Please be specific. Provide citations and links.

You CLAIM that our invasion in Iraq somehow allegedly violated a UN treaty. Habing made that alleged FACTUAL assertion, you carry the burden of backing it up. Support your contention.

YOU make the CLAIM that our invasion in Iraq somehowe violated our own Constitution. But again, you FAIL to back it up. Please attend to that immediately. How does the invasion in Iraq violate Article 6 of the Constitution? Don't just state your mere opinion that it does, this time. Back it up.

And I was under the impression that you somehow wished to engage in a debate about Ft. Hood. But when invited to go ahead and do so, you instead make two random and unsupported premises (involving no syllogism whatsoever, by the way) about another topic entirely.

You are not doing much to dispel the things I observed about you.

Feel free to try again.

Try for coherence this time.

 

[CurveLight]

* * * *


By all means, let's have a one on one debate about what happened at Ft. Hood. That is or course if your Majesty can find the charity to school someone like me.

Put your feeble efforts at sarcasm aside. You'll look less foolish that way.

If you wish to engage in some "debate" of some kind, the framework isn't all that difficult.

Make an assertion. Try to use actual facts and a logical syllogism to support your contention or position. If I disagree with you on it, then I will be more than pleased to address either your alleged "facts," your alleged "logic," or the conclusion as it stems, supposedly, from the facts or logic.

If you say something with which I agree, however, there is not much reason to "debate" it.

See how this works? Good.

Now then; what is it about the incident at Fort Hood you want to "debate?"

To purpose is to reveal the depths of hypocrisy found in the camps that claim to be Patriotic, Conservative, and Supporters of our Troops who have or still do support our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will even give you all of the assumptions necessary to give your position the strongest possible base. You want to say hasan did it because of Islam? Fine. You have the freedom to make any assumptions you see as beneficial to your case.

 

[Kingpin]

This terrible news has ditsturbed me very greatly.

 

[Liability]

* * * *


By all means, let's have a one on one debate about what happened at Ft. Hood. That is or course if your Majesty can find the charity to school someone like me.

Put your feeble efforts at sarcasm aside. You'll look less foolish that way.

If you wish to engage in some "debate" of some kind, the framework isn't all that difficult.

Make an assertion. Try to use actual facts and a logical syllogism to support your contention or position. If I disagree with you on it, then I will be more than pleased to address either your alleged "facts," your alleged "logic," or the conclusion as it stems, supposedly, from the facts or logic.

If you say something with which I agree, however, there is not much reason to "debate" it.

See how this works? Good.

Now then; what is it about the incident at Fort Hood you want to "debate?"

To purpose is to reveal the depths of hypocrisy found in the camps that claim to be Patriotic, Conservative, and Supporters of our Troops who have or still do support our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will even give you all of the assumptions necessary to give your position the strongest possible base. You want to say hasan did it because of Islam? Fine. You have the freedom to make any assumptions you see as beneficial to your case.

I don't care what your shallow-minded "purpose" might be.

I asked you to formulate a syllogism by use of facts and logic.

So far, you remain a complete FAIL.

Try again.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Your US Army really is pathetic when it comes to security. What kind of Mickey Mouse organization allows screwball converts to Islam provide mental help to veternas of a war where Muslis are being killed? This nut job even had a website calling for Jihad against America.

Pathetic and disgusting is the security in America. No wonder you people are laughed at all over the world. I guess when you here the word Jihad you think it's a B-Ball Team maybe ?

Allah Akbar ! Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards Muslims !


p.s Is the KKK active on US Military bases ?

Why not get your FACTS straight??????????????????????

This person was born and raised Muslim in Virginia, he was not a convert.

Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim

By David Neiwert Thursday Nov 05, 2009 6:00pm


Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim | Crooks and Liars


No sooner was the identity of the Fort Hood shooter released -- a man with the Arab name Nadal Malik Hasan -- than the wingnuts sprang into predictable action: Of course he was a jihadi embarking on a murderous terrorism spree!


Pam "Atlas Barks" Geller immediately proclaimed it "an obvious act terrorism" and ran big all all caps heads declaring: "IT'S THE JIHAD STUPID." Elsewhere in the right blogosphere, people like the folks at HotAir jumped all over the "news" that Hasan was a convert to Islam.


Then Shepard Smith interviewed Hasan's cousin, and we found out that this was all so much tripe:


-- Hasan was American born and educated, but raised Muslim. He was not a convert.


-- He had never previously been deployed to Iraq or anywhere overseas, for that matter. So much for the theories he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.


-- He was regularly abused by his colleagues in the military for being Muslim -- called a "raghead" and other such terms -- and had been seeking to get out of the military because the environment had become so hostile.


Another interview, on just before this one, that Smith had with a former colleague of Hasan's indicated that Hasan was prone to making outrageous remarks about Muslims "defending themselves," particularly in reference to last summer's shooting of two military recruiters in Arkansas by a Muslim convert.


There are also reports that he had recently been the victim of a hate crime: His car was vandalized, with the word "Allah" scratched into the paint, and he was reportedly extremely upset by it.


It's obviously a complicated story. We'd all be well advised to reserve the speculation to actual hard facts about the case as they emerge. But it certainly appears this is much a matter of Columbine-like backlash to bullying as it is anything ideological.

And no, it's not the Jihad, stupid.

____________________________________________________​

As for websites, there are plenty of fundi-nut Christians with websites calling for war on MAINSTREAM Americans.

Some "Christian" shrinks also "try to convert" or talk religion?

Separating religion and state is a GOOD THING!

 

[rightwinger]

Hasan was a misfit who happens to be a Muslim

He didn't fit well in the Army, he was receiving poor performance ratings, he lost his dream job at Walter Reed in MD and was sent to Ft Hood in Texas and was about to be shipped to Afghanistan.

The crackpot went off the deep end and took his fellow soldiers with him.
Too bad he wasn't killed

 

[CurveLight]

Your ongoing confusion and lack of basic comprehension skills are showing -- and amusing. Your mere unsupported opinions ARE irrelevant. To whatever marginal extent you think your mere opinions might be of any value, however, they will remain useless when (as is always the case with you so far) you steadfastly fail to support them with actual facts.

Your last paragraph is meaningless inasmuch as (obviously) it is disconnected from your prior spew and -- even standing alone -- unsupported by facts.

You are a true joke.

Feel free to keep trying, though.

By the way, any country, including ours, DOES have a right to invade any other country harboring scum who attack it.

The other countries which get invaded of course have a right -- if they are so inclined -- to object and try to repel such invasions or incursions. This is rather basic stuff in international law. But their objections do not negate our right to go after the filth that are targetting and attacking us.

If, unimaginably, WE elected to harbor some filthy scum who had attacked Canada, for example, and if WE proceeded to refuse or fail do anything about the filth hiding in our land, Candada would have a right to do something about it. Whether they COULD is another matter entirely.

Like other facets of reality, this will sail over your pinhead at mach speed, no doubt. That's ok. I don't actually care how ignorant or stupid you are.

The iraq invasion violated our treaty with the UNSC and as such our own Constitution. Specifically Article 6.

You complain about broad assertions then repeat the "harboring scum" line? ROTFL!

Nope. You are not there yet.

Please be specific. Provide citations and links.

You CLAIM that our invasion in Iraq somehow allegedly violated a UN treaty. Habing made that alleged FACTUAL assertion, you carry the burden of backing it up. Support your contention.

YOU make the CLAIM that our invasion in Iraq somehowe violated our own Constitution. But again, you FAIL to back it up. Please attend to that immediately. How does the invasion in Iraq violate Article 6 of the Constitution? Don't just state your mere opinion that it does, this time. Back it up.

And I was under the impression that you somehow wished to engage in a debate about Ft. Hood. But when invited to go ahead and do so, you instead make two random and unsupported premises (involving no syllogism whatsoever, by the way) about another topic entirely.

You are not doing much to dispel the things I observed about you.

Feel free to try again.

Try for coherence this time.

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”


Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.

Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force.
Charter of the United Nations


Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the “supreme law of the land.” The article reads:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
LII: Constitution

 

[CurveLight]

Put your feeble efforts at sarcasm aside. You'll look less foolish that way.

If you wish to engage in some "debate" of some kind, the framework isn't all that difficult.

Make an assertion. Try to use actual facts and a logical syllogism to support your contention or position. If I disagree with you on it, then I will be more than pleased to address either your alleged "facts," your alleged "logic," or the conclusion as it stems, supposedly, from the facts or logic.

If you say something with which I agree, however, there is not much reason to "debate" it.

See how this works? Good.

Now then; what is it about the incident at Fort Hood you want to "debate?"

To purpose is to reveal the depths of hypocrisy found in the camps that claim to be Patriotic, Conservative, and Supporters of our Troops who have or still do support our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will even give you all of the assumptions necessary to give your position the strongest possible base. You want to say hasan did it because of Islam? Fine. You have the freedom to make any assumptions you see as beneficial to your case.

I don't care what your shallow-minded "purpose" might be.

I asked you to formulate a syllogism by use of facts and logic.

So far, you remain a complete FAIL.

Try again.

If you wish to not debate then by all means simply say no. Anyone who cares can see I clearly stated my position. You will either accept the debate offer or continue on your glorious path of name calling. Everyone is impressed with that.