Stigmatize

[S.J.]

You're trying to shift the focus from your avoidance of acknowledging Islamic terrorism.

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

You know, I think there's a kernel of truth to your argument.

Hassan was a dissatisfied American Muslim who was then manipulated by extremist elements to act - and there is an argument to be made casting him as an agent of other interests, which would then qualify the shooting as terrorism.

It's an interesting argument, though. By that same reasoning, William Pierce could have been held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings.

You're speculating about that. How do you know he wasn't a sleeper (which makes more sense)?

 

[S.J.]

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I have no problem with "acknowledging Islamic terrorism", in fact I'm am personally a survivor of the worst instance of "Islamic terrorism" the US has ever suffered.

Are you still arguing for the Merriam-Webster definition of "terrorism"? If so, I don't think that the Ft. Hood shooting qualifies.

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

You know, I think there's a kernel of truth to your argument.

Hassan was a dissatisfied American Muslim who was then manipulated by extremist elements to act - and there is an argument to be made casting him as an agent of other interests, which would then qualify the shooting as terrorism.

It's an interesting argument, though. By that same reasoning, William Pierce could have been held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings.

You're speculating about that. How do you know he wasn't a sleeper (which makes more sense)?

No, that's speculation. There's literally zero evidence that suggests he was a "sleeper", whereas there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a "dissatisfied American Muslim".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

 

[Vigilante]

That is what the president is accusing many of you folks of. Stigmatizing Islam. One should note that in order to "stigmatize" a person or group you need to lie about them. So following that rule of thumb lets see how I do.

"When the Amish flew those planes into the World Trade Center"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Baptists killed all those people in France"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Quakers blew a hole in the USS Cole"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Mormons killed all those people in Brussels"....
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Catholics set off those bombs in Boston"...
Oh, that was muslins.

"When the Methodists killed all those people in Munich 72"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Pentecostal's killed all those people in San Bernardino"...
Oh, that was muslims.

"When the Pagans killed all those children at an Easter egg hunt"..
Oh, that was muslims

"When the Atheists killed all those people in Mosul"...
Oh, that was muslims.

In order to "stigmatize" a person OR group of people you HAVE to lie about them. So WHO is lying? Me OR the president of the United States?

Fury

 

[S.J.]

Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for confirming.

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

You know, I think there's a kernel of truth to your argument.

Hassan was a dissatisfied American Muslim who was then manipulated by extremist elements to act - and there is an argument to be made casting him as an agent of other interests, which would then qualify the shooting as terrorism.

It's an interesting argument, though. By that same reasoning, William Pierce could have been held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings.

You're speculating about that. How do you know he wasn't a sleeper (which makes more sense)?

No, that's speculation. There's literally zero evidence that suggests he was a "sleeper", whereas there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a "dissatisfied American Muslim".

No, yelling Allahu Akbar is the evidence he was a sleeper. That shoots a hole in your contention that he was some disgruntled employee or "dissatisfied American muslim". You're reaching on that one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Again, your definition:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Tell me, who was Hassan trying to "frighten"? What political goal was he trying to achieve?

The definition matters, no matter how emotionally attached to the word "terrorism" that you are.

The political goals of not only Hassan, but the other Islamic terrorists as well are many. Forcing Islam on others, forcing others (through intimidation) to act in their interests regarding the ME, pressuring our leaders to bow to their demands within our society. Hassan was merely part of an organized effort by Islamic leaders to use terror to achieve their goals. You know this, you're just too disingenuous to admit it because you're a water boy for Obama and the leftist agenda.

You know, I think there's a kernel of truth to your argument.

Hassan was a dissatisfied American Muslim who was then manipulated by extremist elements to act - and there is an argument to be made casting him as an agent of other interests, which would then qualify the shooting as terrorism.

It's an interesting argument, though. By that same reasoning, William Pierce could have been held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings.

You're speculating about that. How do you know he wasn't a sleeper (which makes more sense)?

No, that's speculation. There's literally zero evidence that suggests he was a "sleeper", whereas there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was a "dissatisfied American Muslim".

No, yelling Allahu Akbar is the evidence he was a sleeper. That shoots a hole in your contention that he was some disgruntled employee or "dissatisfied American muslim". You're reaching on that one.

How is his statement "God is Great" evidence that he was a "sleeper"?

 

[S.J.]

Also my definition from the same link:
Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's even harder to fit Hassan into.

What was "systematic" about Hassan's actions? Who was he trying to "coerce", and into what?

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

 

[eagle1462010]

Army finally gives Ft. Hood victims their full entitlements

The Fort Hood shooting victims were denied automatic entitlement to the Purple Heart. It took an act of Congress to address this injustice, allowing them to receive their medals on April 10.

The reason it took six years for the entitlement to be recognized stemmed from the Obama administration’s insistence the Fort Hood shooting not be attributed to terrorist activity, but to “workplace violence.”

This was done purely for political purposes to avoid the obvious link being made that the attacker was motivated by his Islamic extremist beliefs. Obama, having repeatedly assured us Islam—by definition—is a peaceful religion, reasoned one conducting such a violent attack cannot be Muslim. Thus, it was not Islamic ideology but a hostile workplace that led to the attack.

Legislative action taken by Republican lawmakers corrected this wrong by adding language to the 2015 defense budget (National Defense Authorization Act) mandating their entitlement to the Purple Heart.

But even after the April 10 medal presentation, the victims were still being denied the benefits flowing from that award and to which all other Purple Heart recipients had been entitled.



6 years to get the entitlements normal to casualties of War.

 

[S.J.]

Hassan did not act on his own behalf, for his own objectives, he is one person in a very large network working on behalf of their objectives. He's a tool, like you.

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

If not "workplace violence", what UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Major Hassan? Or should he have been charged in a regular criminal court?

You came pretty close.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How do you know what the "objectives" were, and whether or not they were Hassan's?

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

If not "workplace violence", what UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Major Hassan? Or should he have been charged in a regular criminal court?

You came pretty close.

No, I didn't. Learn to understand context.

I'm happy to offer the same questions to you that I asked above:

What UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Hassan? Or should he have been tried in regular criminal courts?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Army finally gives Ft. Hood victims their full entitlements

The Fort Hood shooting victims were denied automatic entitlement to the Purple Heart. It took an act of Congress to address this injustice, allowing them to receive their medals on April 10.

The reason it took six years for the entitlement to be recognized stemmed from the Obama administration’s insistence the Fort Hood shooting not be attributed to terrorist activity, but to “workplace violence.”

This was done purely for political purposes to avoid the obvious link being made that the attacker was motivated by his Islamic extremist beliefs. Obama, having repeatedly assured us Islam—by definition—is a peaceful religion, reasoned one conducting such a violent attack cannot be Muslim. Thus, it was not Islamic ideology but a hostile workplace that led to the attack.

Legislative action taken by Republican lawmakers corrected this wrong by adding language to the 2015 defense budget (National Defense Authorization Act) mandating their entitlement to the Purple Heart.

But even after the April 10 medal presentation, the victims were still being denied the benefits flowing from that award and to which all other Purple Heart recipients had been entitled.



6 years to get the entitlements normal to casualties of War.

Sorry, a random right-wing blog post doesn't change reality.

There is no such thing as a "terrorism" charge in the UCMJ, and even if there was one, it wouldn't entitle victims to automatically receive a Purple Heart.

 

[eagle1462010]

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

Watch the video and read the transcript............from the lawyer who represented Hassan for 5 years.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

Watch the video and read the transcript............from the lawyer who represented Hassan for 5 years.

Yeah, it wasn't "workplace violence", because there is no such thing in the UCMJ. We've been over this already.

Hassan's lawyer isn't agreeing with you, he's agreeing with me.

 

[S.J.]

Hassan's objective was to kill as many people as he could in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter if it was his idea or some other muslim's idea, he was doing it on behalf of Islam. Yelling Allahu Akbar sort of told us that.

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

If not "workplace violence", what UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Major Hassan? Or should he have been charged in a regular criminal court?

You came pretty close.

No, I didn't. Learn to understand context.

I'm happy to offer the same questions to you that I asked above:

What UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Hassan? Or should he have been tried in regular criminal courts?

If all you're gonna do is dance around, split hairs, and argue over technicalities and meanings of words, I have better things to do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, you think that you have a complete understanding about his "objectives" just because he said "God is Great"?

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

If not "workplace violence", what UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Major Hassan? Or should he have been charged in a regular criminal court?

You came pretty close.

No, I didn't. Learn to understand context.

I'm happy to offer the same questions to you that I asked above:

What UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Hassan? Or should he have been tried in regular criminal courts?

If all you're gonna do is dance around, split hairs, and argue over technicalities and meanings of words, I have better things to do.

If you can't define your terms, that's not my problem. I prefer to understand the meanings of the words that I use, rather than just feel the feelings they induce.

But don't let me keep you from your "important business". I couldn't give less of a shit whether or not you respond to my posts.

 

[eagle1462010]

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

Watch the video and read the transcript............from the lawyer who represented Hassan for 5 years.

Yeah, it wasn't "workplace violence", because there is no such thing in the UCMJ. We've been over this already.

Hassan's lawyer isn't agreeing with you, he's agreeing with me.

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

KELLY: Not terrorism.


GALLIGAN: No. They could have elected to proceed along that line, but the government chose not to.

Although, during the course of the trial, a lot of the evidence that they presented seemed to suggest, or they wanted the jury to believe that there was a terrorist base to that.

KELLY: You've met with him repeatedly. You've represented him. You've been with this case from the beginning.

GALLIGAN: Correct.

He's a 30 year man.........with 35 years with the UCMJ..........and the attorney for Hassan up to the trial...................

He stated they could have charged him outside the UCMJ under terror attacks................the results would have been the same........and the Victims wouldn't have had to wait 6 years to get benefits from the attack.................or it could have been settled by an EO..........that didn't happen. The victims were forced to go to court against the DOD, and it finally took Congressional action to right the wrongs done to them by the administrations path to trying Hassan.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

Watch the video and read the transcript............from the lawyer who represented Hassan for 5 years.

Yeah, it wasn't "workplace violence", because there is no such thing in the UCMJ. We've been over this already.

Hassan's lawyer isn't agreeing with you, he's agreeing with me.

Exclusive: Fort Hood shooter's attorney says crime was not 'workplace violence'

KELLY: Not terrorism.


GALLIGAN: No. They could have elected to proceed along that line, but the government chose not to.

Although, during the course of the trial, a lot of the evidence that they presented seemed to suggest, or they wanted the jury to believe that there was a terrorist base to that.

KELLY: You've met with him repeatedly. You've represented him. You've been with this case from the beginning.

GALLIGAN: Correct.

He's a 30 year man.........with 35 years with the UCMJ..........and the attorney for Hassan up to the trial...................

He stated they could have charged him outside the UCMJ under terror attacks................the results would have been the same........and the Victims wouldn't have had to wait 6 years to get benefits from the attack.................or it could have been settled by an EO..........that didn't happen. The victims were forced to go to court against the DOD, and it finally took Congressional action to right the wrongs done to them by the administrations path to trying Hassan.

Yeah, they could have tried him in a regular criminal court for terrorism. Is that what you would have preferred?

I'm fairly sure I remember a whole lot of yammering from the right about how he should be tried in a military tribunal.

 

[S.J.]

I obviously have a much better understanding of his objectives than you do. You're using some ridiculous rationalizing on his behalf. He acted like every muslim terrorist all over the world and you're trying to call it workplace violence like he was a postal worker or something.

I have not called it "workplace violence", only rightwingers claim that.

He was charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder, not "workplace violence".

If not "workplace violence", what UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Major Hassan? Or should he have been charged in a regular criminal court?

You came pretty close.

No, I didn't. Learn to understand context.

I'm happy to offer the same questions to you that I asked above:

What UCMJ charges do you believe should have been brought against Hassan? Or should he have been tried in regular criminal courts?

If all you're gonna do is dance around, split hairs, and argue over technicalities and meanings of words, I have better things to do.

If you can't define your terms, that's not my problem. I prefer to understand the meanings of the words that I use, rather than just feel the feelings they induce.

But don't let me keep you from your "important business". I couldn't give less of a shit whether or not you respond to my posts.

Looks like I was right the first time after all.

You're arguing with somebody who will say anything to avoid criticizing Obama (or muslim terrorists).