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

[Contessa_Sharra]

Appeasers? What a bloody stupid position to take. This was an individual act, the way you're banging on you'd think every second Muslim in the States was firing away at people. Yes it's tragic but put it into perspective. One man apparently went nutso. The reasons for him going nutso were apparently related to his religion and cultural identity and his imminent posting to a war zone in an Islamic country occupied by western forces. Appeasers? That's not appeasing, it's simply trying to understand what happened.

Read some of my other posts in the thread before you make the assumption. I have even stated here that there is a GIGANTIC difference between American Muslims and Islamofacists! American Muslims are just like every other group in American the VAST majority love their country and are hard working productive people (I have mentioned many times about the bravest person I know is an Iraqi American Shia Muslim, who enlisted in the Military right after the invasion of Iraq and has been their ever since! He is a True American, Patriot, Nationalist, Hero, who happens to be a secular American Muslim).

But then you have the Islamofacist! Ones, who many times have many other emotional or psychological like the scumbag in this story, are driven or develop a radical interpretation of Islam and that justifies them killing others (notice I didn't say Non-Musims, because the VAST majority of Islamofacist victims are MUSLIM)!

Knowing this distinction SHOULD NOT stop us (or have the media shelter us) from calling a spade a spade!

The concept of Lone Wolves started with random attacks by lone KKK and Skinhead members! We have no problem characterizing these attacks as white supremacy inspired attacks. Yet we do when its Islamofacist inspired attacks!

What exactly would a "secular Muslim" be?

Since to be Muslim is to be one who practices Islam, and since "Muslim" is not a "race"...

BTW, there are also no "secular" Christians... because Christians are not a "race" or ethic group, either...

Secularism

 

[Liability]

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

Still so far away.

In the first place, although you are attempting to attend to the matter of facts and citation (and links), you are failing massively at using them in a coherent syllogism.

It works like this. "I assert proposition X (it's really a conclusion). In support of that proposition or assertion, I cite these facts as dispositive (state facts 1, 2, 3, etc., as needed). I employ the following LOGIC to support my claim that these facts lead to the conclusion (state your logic in some form or another)."

You are, by contrast, stating some "facts" (putting aside that they are not true facts, but that's a matter best left to the actual debate if we can ever get it off the ground).

So, since you have yet to offer a syllogism, the discussion of your "facts" is premature. But, being a man of good will, I will offer you a preview all the same.

The UN Treaty does not outlaw war.

You have failed to establish that the actions undertaken by the U.S. is somehow a violation of the U.N. charter. You have made the claim, but you have not yet supported it.

Further, your understanding of the United States Constitution is also deficient. The Supremacy Clause does not make a Treaty the same as The Constitution. What it means is simply that a law made in pursuance of the Constitution (i.e., one that does not violate it) or a treaty made by and entered into by the United States is SUPREME as it relates to any STATE treaty. States can also enter into international treaties, by the way.

Thus, where the U.S. enters into a treaty with the U.N. (or with any other sovereign nation for that matter), even a violation of the treaty is not a violation of the Supremacy Clause. You are merely miscomprehending what the Supremacy Clause means.

I give you credit for getting a bit closer. But you are still WAY off target.

Let me give you yet another preview to assist your development of your debate position. IF the U.N charter meant what you seemingly think it means, then no nation would ever be entitled to engage in war. If you believe that this is what WE understood when WE (by the Senate ratification) entered into that treaty, then I suggest that you have some more fundamental reading to do before you stake your claim.

I hope this helps.

 

[CurveLight]

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

Still so far away.

In the first place, although you are attempting to attend to the matter of facts and citation (and links), you are failing massively at using them in a coherent syllogism.

It works like this. "I assert proposition X (it's really a conclusion). In support of that proposition or assertion, I cite these facts as dispositive (state facts 1, 2, 3, etc., as needed). I employ the following LOGIC to support my claim that these facts lead to the conclusion (state your logic in some form or another)."

You are, by contrast, stating some "facts" (putting aside that they are not true facts, but that's a matter best left to the actual debate if we can ever get it off the ground).

So, since you have yet to offer a syllogism, the discussion of your "facts" is premature. But, being a man of good will, I will offer you a preview all the same.

The UN Treaty does not outlaw war.

You have failed to establish that the actions undertaken by the U.S. is somehow a violation of the U.N. charter. You have made the claim, but you have not yet supported it.

Further, your understanding of the United States Constitution is also deficient. The Supremacy Clause does not make a Treaty the same as The Constitution. What it means is simply that a law made in pursuance of the Constitution (i.e., one that does not violate it) or a treaty made by and entered into by the United States is SUPREME as it relates to any STATE treaty. States can also enter into international treaties, by the way.

Thus, where the U.S. enters into a treaty with the U.N. (or with any other sovereign nation for that matter), even a violation of the treaty is not a violation of the Supremacy Clause. You are merely miscomprehending what the Supremacy Clause means.

I give you credit for getting a bit closer. But you are still WAY off target.

Let me give you yet another preview to assist your development of your debate position. IF the U.N charter meant what you seemingly think it means, then no nation would ever be entitled to engage in war. If you believe that this is what WE understood when WE (by the Senate ratification) entered into that treaty, then I suggest that you have some more fundamental reading to do before you stake your claim.

I hope this helps.

You need to provide links and citations to support these empty claims.

Btw, I never said the UN treaty outlawed War. After you practice what you preach about links and such we can move on to removing your strawmen.

 

[GHook93]

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

Yet one of his motivations was Jihad against America! Otherwise he would have (1) not blogged about suicide bombers being great soldiers, (2) Not wanted out of the military after 9/11, (3) Specifically targeted fellow military personnel and (4) Would not have yell Allahu Akbar as he killed military personnel.

It appears he survived, so hopeful we will be able to hear his twisted motivation!

 

[GHook93]

Appeasers? What a bloody stupid position to take. This was an individual act, the way you're banging on you'd think every second Muslim in the States was firing away at people. Yes it's tragic but put it into perspective. One man apparently went nutso. The reasons for him going nutso were apparently related to his religion and cultural identity and his imminent posting to a war zone in an Islamic country occupied by western forces. Appeasers? That's not appeasing, it's simply trying to understand what happened.

Read some of my other posts in the thread before you make the assumption. I have even stated here that there is a GIGANTIC difference between American Muslims and Islamofacists! American Muslims are just like every other group in American the VAST majority love their country and are hard working productive people (I have mentioned many times about the bravest person I know is an Iraqi American Shia Muslim, who enlisted in the Military right after the invasion of Iraq and has been their ever since! He is a True American, Patriot, Nationalist, Hero, who happens to be a secular American Muslim).

But then you have the Islamofacist! Ones, who many times have many other emotional or psychological like the scumbag in this story, are driven or develop a radical interpretation of Islam and that justifies them killing others (notice I didn't say Non-Musims, because the VAST majority of Islamofacist victims are MUSLIM)!

Knowing this distinction SHOULD NOT stop us (or have the media shelter us) from calling a spade a spade!

The concept of Lone Wolves started with random attacks by lone KKK and Skinhead members! We have no problem characterizing these attacks as white supremacy inspired attacks. Yet we do when its Islamofacist inspired attacks!

What exactly would a "secular Muslim" be?

Since to be Muslim is to be one who practices Islam, and since "Muslim" is not a "race"...

BTW, there are also no "secular" Christians... because Christians are not a "race" or ethic group, either...

Secularism

Secular meaning, he is not very religious, has no problem with other religions, cares more about country than religion, doesn't hate another specifically because their religion, is tolerant and above all believes in separation of Church/Mosque and State!

 

[del]

Read some of my other posts in the thread before you make the assumption. I have even stated here that there is a GIGANTIC difference between American Muslims and Islamofacists! American Muslims are just like every other group in American the VAST majority love their country and are hard working productive people (I have mentioned many times about the bravest person I know is an Iraqi American Shia Muslim, who enlisted in the Military right after the invasion of Iraq and has been their ever since! He is a True American, Patriot, Nationalist, Hero, who happens to be a secular American Muslim).

But then you have the Islamofacist! Ones, who many times have many other emotional or psychological like the scumbag in this story, are driven or develop a radical interpretation of Islam and that justifies them killing others (notice I didn't say Non-Musims, because the VAST majority of Islamofacist victims are MUSLIM)!

Knowing this distinction SHOULD NOT stop us (or have the media shelter us) from calling a spade a spade!

The concept of Lone Wolves started with random attacks by lone KKK and Skinhead members! We have no problem characterizing these attacks as white supremacy inspired attacks. Yet we do when its Islamofacist inspired attacks!

What exactly would a "secular Muslim" be?

Since to be Muslim is to be one who practices Islam, and since "Muslim" is not a "race"...

BTW, there are also no "secular" Christians... because Christians are not a "race" or ethic group, either...

Secularism

Secular meaning, he is not very religious, has no problem with other religions, cares more about country than religion, doesn't hate another specifically because their religion, is tolerant and above all believes in separation of Church/Mosque and State!

so pretty much the opposite of you, eh?

 

[Liability]

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.

* * * * Anyone who cares can see I clearly stated my position. * * * *

No. You did not.

You stated only that the UN Treaty says thus and so, but have completely FAILED to try to establish that those words have the meaning you ascribe to them.

You have not even attempted to demonstrate that any U.S. actions constitute a violation of the U.N. charter.

You patently screwed up your attempted claim that going into Iraq was in ANY way a violation of the supremacy clause of our Constitution (for reasons I patiently and accurately explained for your benefit). Indeed, that is an utterly mindless claim by you.

And none of anything you have posted bears in ANY way on your previous contention relative to the incident at Fort Hood.

YOU remain an abject failure.

 

[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

Yet one of his motivations was Jihad against America! Otherwise he would have (1) not blogged about suicide bombers being great soldiers, (2) Not wanted out of the military after 9/11, (3) Specifically targeted fellow military personnel and (4) Would not have yell Allahu Akbar as he killed military personnel.

It appears he survived, so hopeful we will be able to hear his twisted motivation!

Right now we will have to wait and see. They have confiscated his computer which should provide more clues. Don't know what Hassan will say, he may just lawyer up

Yelling Allah Akbar is more along the lines of a Christian yelling Amen!
They say it dozens of times a day and does not necessarilly mean it is religiously motivated. It may have just been his acknowledgement that he was about to die.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Read some of my other posts in the thread before you make the assumption. I have even stated here that there is a GIGANTIC difference between American Muslims and Islamofacists! American Muslims are just like every other group in American the VAST majority love their country and are hard working productive people (I have mentioned many times about the bravest person I know is an Iraqi American Shia Muslim, who enlisted in the Military right after the invasion of Iraq and has been their ever since! He is a True American, Patriot, Nationalist, Hero, who happens to be a secular American Muslim).

But then you have the Islamofacist! Ones, who many times have many other emotional or psychological like the scumbag in this story, are driven or develop a radical interpretation of Islam and that justifies them killing others (notice I didn't say Non-Musims, because the VAST majority of Islamofacist victims are MUSLIM)!

Knowing this distinction SHOULD NOT stop us (or have the media shelter us) from calling a spade a spade!

The concept of Lone Wolves started with random attacks by lone KKK and Skinhead members! We have no problem characterizing these attacks as white supremacy inspired attacks. Yet we do when its Islamofacist inspired attacks!

What exactly would a "secular Muslim" be?

Since to be Muslim is to be one who practices Islam, and since "Muslim" is not a "race"...

BTW, there are also no "secular" Christians... because Christians are not a "race" or ethic group, either...

Secularism

Secular meaning, he is not very religious, has no problem with other religions, cares more about country than religion, doesn't hate another specifically because their religion, is tolerant and above all believes in separation of Church/Mosque and State!

You really should read the definition of Secularism, as "not very' doesn't really qualify.....

And it is at times like these all need to be completely specific and concise.

 

[Liability]

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

Yet one of his motivations was Jihad against America! Otherwise he would have (1) not blogged about suicide bombers being great soldiers, (2) Not wanted out of the military after 9/11, (3) Specifically targeted fellow military personnel and (4) Would not have yell Allahu Akbar as he killed military personnel.

It appears he survived, so hopeful we will be able to hear his twisted motivation!

Right now we will have to wait and see. They have confiscated his computer which should provide more clues. Don't know what Hassan will say, he may just lawyer up

Yelling Allah Akbar is more along the lines of a Christian yelling Amen!
They say it dozens of times a day and does not necessarilly mean it is religiously motivated. It may have just been his acknowledgement that he was about to die.

Come off it, leftwingnuter. Yelling "allah akbar" under those circumstances has a meaning it is silly to try to deny.

Good grief. You make yourself seem quite silly arguing such a silly position.

Is it possible that Hassan was nothing but a fucking nutbar and that his actions had nothing to do with Islamist fanatacism? Yes. But under all of the circumstances, including the phrase he yelled out just before the shooting, it is not all that terribly likely.

 

[concept]

This PC crap is going to get allot of people killed.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

* * * * Anyone who cares can see I clearly stated my position. * * * *

No. You did not.

You stated only that the UN Treaty says thus and so, but have completely FAILED to try to establish that those words have the meaning you ascribe to them.

You have not even attempted to demonstrate that any U.S. actions constitute a violation of the U.N. charter.

You patently screwed up your attempted claim that going into Iraq was in ANY way a violation of the supremacy clause of our Constitution (for reasons I patiently and accurately explained for your benefit). Indeed, that is an utterly mindless claim by you.

And none of anything you have posted bears in ANY way on your previous contention relative to the incident at Fort Hood.

YOU remain an abject failure.

Oh boy. I made my position regarding the invitation to debate Ft Hood clear in post 754:


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.


You've danced enough and have proven to be what I suspected. Have fun.

 

[CurveLight]

Yet one of his motivations was Jihad against America! Otherwise he would have (1) not blogged about suicide bombers being great soldiers, (2) Not wanted out of the military after 9/11, (3) Specifically targeted fellow military personnel and (4) Would not have yell Allahu Akbar as he killed military personnel.

It appears he survived, so hopeful we will be able to hear his twisted motivation!

Right now we will have to wait and see. They have confiscated his computer which should provide more clues. Don't know what Hassan will say, he may just lawyer up

Yelling Allah Akbar is more along the lines of a Christian yelling Amen!
They say it dozens of times a day and does not necessarilly mean it is religiously motivated. It may have just been his acknowledgement that he was about to die.

Come off it, leftwingnuter. Yelling "allah akbar" under those circumstances has a meaning it is silly to try to deny.

Good grief. You make yourself seem quite silly arguing such a silly position.

Is it possible that Hassan was nothing but a fucking nutbar and that his actions had nothing to do with Islamist fanatacism? Yes. But under all of the circumstances, including the phrase he yelled out just before the shooting, it is not all that terribly likely.

Fucking clueless commentaries like this quickly turn to facts in the minds of those who have already arrived at their conclusions but don't have the balls to publicly state them.

 

[Kalam]

"most everybody" ????

Why don't you simply answer the question directly?

(Please provide scripture to proves unequivocally non muslims are innocent)

I too would like to read it, as there always seems to be gray areas, depending on which Muslim is doing the sharing.

Thanks.

Mike

Well, I've probably spent more time answering that question directly than I have participating in any other thread here.

You could read the discussion between Mr. Fitnah and I that begins on page 11 of that thread and continues to page 78. Alternatively, you could read a short list of Qur'anic passages that I put together in a separate discussion.

I didn't ask you for your personal history.

I ask you for a direct answer.

So thanks for the reply and I understand the your reason for avoidance.

Mike

I'm not going to spend my time typing a personalized response to you when you're perfectly capable of reading pages upon pages of what I've already written on the subject. I'm sorry if you were under the mistaken impression that I care about what you think.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet one of his motivations was Jihad against America! Otherwise he would have (1) not blogged about suicide bombers being great soldiers, (2) Not wanted out of the military after 9/11, (3) Specifically targeted fellow military personnel and (4) Would not have yell Allahu Akbar as he killed military personnel.

It appears he survived, so hopeful we will be able to hear his twisted motivation!

Right now we will have to wait and see. They have confiscated his computer which should provide more clues. Don't know what Hassan will say, he may just lawyer up

Yelling Allah Akbar is more along the lines of a Christian yelling Amen!
They say it dozens of times a day and does not necessarilly mean it is religiously motivated. It may have just been his acknowledgement that he was about to die.

Come off it, leftwingnuter. Yelling "allah akbar" under those circumstances has a meaning it is silly to try to deny.

Good grief. You make yourself seem quite silly arguing such a silly position.

Is it possible that Hassan was nothing but a fucking nutbar and that his actions had nothing to do with Islamist fanatacism? Yes. But under all of the circumstances, including the phrase he yelled out just before the shooting, it is not all that terribly likely.

Buddy..

We just don't know yet. Like I said we will know more shortly. "Allah Akbar" could just be a scream that someone going to meet his maker would make.

 

[franko]

You can bet that the Right will try and turn this man who was clearly suffering from some kind of psychosis, into some flaming Islamic terrorist. And all based on his name. Just as many have tried to claim that President Obama is a Muslim and a danger to the country because of his name and his tolerance for and support of the Muslim people.

Their day is almost over and their fake sense of "Amerika!" will finally be behind us, at last.

This guy is just a very sick man. It happens. WWhat is a shame is that they give these people GUNS. Then they want to blame those who use them, for having used them to do exactly what they were designed to do.

Listen I would disarm the US Military just based on the redneck factor alone, which is mostly a joke, but hoenstly, these people are often very emotionally torn up and to arm then with high powered guns and just insane.

Ft Hood and all those soldiers didnt' do a thing to stop 911. They don't need those guns, disarm them and save everyone a lot of trouble. They killed a million Iraqis who didn't do a damn thing to the US and now after 8 years they want to send in more of them into Afghanitan to kill more innocent people.

I'm telling you, when you take kids, arm them and send them to kill other kids who didn't do anything except try and defend themselves, theyre going to go crazy a fair percentage of the time.

 

[Kalam]

Kalem is white. Kalem is a moslem not.

You are an idiot.

 

[Sunni Man]

Kalem is white. Kalem is a moslem not.

You are an idiot.

He is also a racist

 

[Kalam]

Kalem is white. Kalem is a moslem not.

You are an idiot.

He is also a racist

The two things usually go hand-in-hand.

 

[Sunni Man]

Secular meaning, he is not very religious, has no problem with other religions, cares more about country than religion, doesn't hate another specifically because their religion, is tolerant and above all believes in separation of Church/Mosque and State!

In other words, he is not a muslim

and has NO problem killing his own people.

Yea, he is a cool guy