Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Fort Hood massacre

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:21:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
War is hard, even harder when the cause is not justified but anything more then a "what if".

I was in the army for 4 years, and was the medical personnel's that dealt with people going and coming.
There is no coming together for a cause that our own common sense cannot fathom, (as soldiers).
Ignorant people will try to down play this by saying that he was Muslim, that he was crazy, and that he was not an American.
But he was an American, he was a Major in the United States Army, and he was a psychiatrist that dealt with everyone coming back for theater, hurt by everything going on over there.

And if you do not know, a Major in the Army is a guy who has got it all together. To get that position in the army is extremely hard and only for the strong-minded.

You may never understand what really happened, you might brush it off as a crazy person being crazy, you may never realize the pain that comes from this, but I do.

I am sorry for him, for our troops, for his family, and for the family of all of the victims.
It is a sad day that our country, no, our president, will never really realize the truth of what is going on in the Military.

Pull our troops out!
Stop the nonsense!
Admit we were wrong, and correct!
Pull our troops out!!!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:01:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 9:21:30 AM, comoncents wrote:
War is hard, even harder when the cause is not justified but anything more then a "what if".

I was in the army for 4 years, and was the medical personnel's that dealt with people going and coming.
There is no coming together for a cause that our own common sense cannot fathom, (as soldiers).
Ignorant people will try to down play this by saying that he was Muslim, that he was crazy, and that he was not an American.
But he was an American, he was a Major in the United States Army, and he was a psychiatrist that dealt with everyone coming back for theater, hurt by everything going on over there.

And if you do not know, a Major in the Army is a guy who has got it all together. To get that position in the army is extremely hard and only for the strong-minded.

You may never understand what really happened, you might brush it off as a crazy person being crazy, you may never realize the pain that comes from this, but I do.

I am sorry for him, for our troops, for his family, and for the family of all of the victims.
It is a sad day that our country, no, our president, will never really realize the truth of what is going on in the Military.

Pull our troops out!
Stop the nonsense!
Admit we were wrong, and correct!
Pull our troops out!!!

Commoncents, I have to disagree.
Regardless of whether or not you, I, he, or muslims think that we ought to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing random people is not a solution.
Perhaps he could have gotten a discharge.
Perhaps he could have made a big stink in the media.
Perhaps he could even tried have led some kind of revolution to oust those wrongdoers at the top.
All of these actions would have been more justifiable than just shooting random people.
Yes he shot military people. Essentially in the back. When they trusted him.
The fact that they're military doesn't mean they're free game, they deserve rights just as do any others.
In fact if he may very well have been able to talk to those he killed, and get them to understand and support his point of view.

I too feel bad for him, being a psychiatrist in that field cannot be an easy thing to do. Being a Muslim who objects to the current conflict, while serving in the armed forces cannot be an easy thing to do. Serving in the forces is in itself an easy thing to do.
Killing random people is and it serves no purpose whatsoever.
I think they ought to hang him.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:05:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:01:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/6/2009 9:21:30 AM, comoncents wrote:
War is hard, even harder when the cause is not justified but anything more then a "what if".

I was in the army for 4 years, and was the medical personnel's that dealt with people going and coming.
There is no coming together for a cause that our own common sense cannot fathom, (as soldiers).
Ignorant people will try to down play this by saying that he was Muslim, that he was crazy, and that he was not an American.
But he was an American, he was a Major in the United States Army, and he was a psychiatrist that dealt with everyone coming back for theater, hurt by everything going on over there.

And if you do not know, a Major in the Army is a guy who has got it all together. To get that position in the army is extremely hard and only for the strong-minded.

You may never understand what really happened, you might brush it off as a crazy person being crazy, you may never realize the pain that comes from this, but I do.

I am sorry for him, for our troops, for his family, and for the family of all of the victims.
It is a sad day that our country, no, our president, will never really realize the truth of what is going on in the Military.

Pull our troops out!
Stop the nonsense!
Admit we were wrong, and correct!
Pull our troops out!!!



Commoncents, I have to disagree.
Regardless of whether or not you, I, he, or muslims think that we ought to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing random people is not a solution.
Perhaps he could have gotten a discharge.
Perhaps he could have made a big stink in the media.
Perhaps he could even tried have led some kind of revolution to oust those wrongdoers at the top.
All of these actions would have been more justifiable than just shooting random people.
Yes he shot military people. Essentially in the back. When they trusted him.
The fact that they're military doesn't mean they're free game, they deserve rights just as do any others.
In fact if he may very well have been able to talk to those he killed, and get them to understand and support his point of view.

I too feel bad for him, being a psychiatrist in that field cannot be an easy thing to do. Being a Muslim who objects to the current conflict, while serving in the armed forces cannot be an easy thing to do. Serving in the forces is in itself *NOT* an easy thing to do.
Killing random people is and it serves no purpose whatsoever.
I think they ought to hang him.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:06:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Correction:
"Serving in the forces is in itself *NOT*an easy thing to do."
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:16:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

Commoncents, I have to disagree.
Regardless of whether or not you, I, he, or muslims think that we ought to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing random people is not a solution.

Whoooow, i do not condone that at all... At All!

Perhaps he could have gotten a discharge.

He could not be discharged, or it would have been extremely difficult

Perhaps he could have made a big stink in the media.

He would have gotten in a lot of trouble , and possible jail time.

Perhaps he could even tried have led some kind of revolution to oust those wrongdoers at the top.

I agree!

All of these actions would have been more justifiable than just shooting random people.

I agree!

Yes he shot military people. Essentially in the back. When they trusted him.
The fact that they're military doesn't mean they're free game, they deserve rights just as do any others.
In fact if he may very well have been able to talk to those he killed, and get them to understand and support his point of view.


OK.

I too feel bad for him, being a psychiatrist in that field cannot be an easy thing to do. Being a Muslim who objects to the current conflict, while serving in the armed forces cannot be an easy thing to do. Serving in the forces is in itself an easy thing to do.
Killing random people is and it serves no purpose whatsoever.
I think they ought to hang him.

I think for sure he should get the death penalty but i am looking at it from a deeper point of view then most.
I think what he did was extremely wrong, and he should die for it.
But his story brings truth to how our soldiers feel about a war that makes not sense other then the "What if" factor.

This deeply saddens me... the whole thing.

Soldiers going to war for useless causes.
Soldiers dying here, there.
Soldiers unable to be heard.
Soldiers honored in the public eye, then stabbed in the back by the very government we are sworn to protect.

How easy it is for a president to just pull the trigger, having the ability to sleep sound the very night they pulled that trigger.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:17:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:06:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Correction:
"Serving in the forces is in itself *NOT*an easy thing to do."

I know, i have done it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:37:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree that the realities of war are taken way too lightly, and that these current conflicts are rather hard to justify considering those realities.

Now as to whether or not Iraq was ever pressing before: no
Aghanistan after 9.11: a little
Iraq now: a little

It isn't in our Natnl. interest, and is dangerous, to have such very unstable countries around. It is in our interest to have them be stable.

It is not in our interest to send our people over there to kill and be killed, and to harm their well being. And this should be taken most seriously when weighing what we ought to do.

I would rather we didn't have such a big standing army, to tempt such big scale international efforts. If instead State Militia's were the main body of forces who could be directed by the Pres. in times of great national need, I think it would be considerably harder to so easily commit troops to non-pressing conflicts.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 10:09:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
pulling out the troops and stopping support is exactly what phucked us over in the first place.

Charlie Wilson's War enough said
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 12:03:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/14/2009 10:09:35 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
pulling out the troops and stopping support is exactly what phucked us over in the first place.

Charlie Wilson's War enough said

So what? Sending more troops hasn't always worked and hasn't always been necessary.

-- In the Revolutionary War, Washington asked Congress to increase the size of his army. Instead, he had to rely on the states which raised far fewer than the 88 battalions promised. Washington still won.

-- In the War of 1812, generals were hesitant to attack the British in Canada without an influx of troops. More were OK'd, but it ended in a draw.

-- During the Civil War, after General McClellan kept asking for more troops, Lincoln fired him (and still won).

-- Similarly, during the Korean War, General MacArthur kept asking for more troops. He was fired, and the war ended in a stalemate.

-- In Vietnam, president Johnson let General Westmoreland raise troop levels from 184,000 to over 500,000. We all know how the Vietnam war ended, so yeah.
President of DDO
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 10:30:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It enrages me to no extent to hear people calling this a terrorist attack. It makes my blood boil to the point of aneurysm when the talking heads suggest background checks for all Muslims serving in the military.

Let me first point out that while serving, Nidal Milk Hasan was actually targeted -because- of his religion by other servicemen. Because of this, and because of his war weariness, he filed to get a discharge, which he did not receive. He gave a presentation that included the idea that the army "should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as "Conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

This shooting was an unintentional failing of an army stretched to the brink. To some extent, it was religiously motivated insofar as an American solider may have been disenchanted by attacking churches in North Vietnam. There's something unsettling about having to attack, or to be complacent in attacking your own religion. Furthermore, Islam advocates, above all else, a kinship between brothers of the faith.

That's not to say that what he did was right. What he did was reprehensible and disgusting. At the same time, the man was obviously not in his right mind. He saw the army as the enemy; the force that killed thousands of his brothers in the faith (I, of course, am speaking only of civilians) and the force that would not let him leave, forcing him to watch the byproducts of war.

This event is a tragedy and should be seen as a learning tool for dealing with religious sensitivity and post traumatic stress disorder. To call it anything else is disingenuous and disgusting.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 11:43:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 10:30:42 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
It enrages me to no extent to hear people calling this a terrorist attack. It makes my blood boil to the point of aneurysm when the talking heads suggest background checks for all Muslims serving in the military.

Let me first point out that while serving, Nidal Milk Hasan was actually targeted -because- of his religion by other servicemen. Because of this, and because of his war weariness, he filed to get a discharge, which he did not receive. He gave a presentation that included the idea that the army "should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as "Conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

This shooting was an unintentional failing of an army stretched to the brink. To some extent, it was religiously motivated insofar as an American solider may have been disenchanted by attacking churches in North Vietnam. There's something unsettling about having to attack, or to be complacent in attacking your own religion. Furthermore, Islam advocates, above all else, a kinship between brothers of the faith.


That's not to say that what he did was right. What he did was reprehensible and disgusting. At the same time, the man was obviously not in his right mind. He saw the army as the enemy; the force that killed thousands of his brothers in the faith (I, of course, am speaking only of civilians) and the force that would not let him leave, forcing him to watch the byproducts of war.

This event is a tragedy and should be seen as a learning tool for dealing with religious sensitivity and post traumatic stress disorder. To call it anything else is disingenuous and disgusting.

Terrorism is inhumane violence perpetrated to affect political decisions. It would seem that this case fits the bill. If he didn't wish to be a martyr for his cause he could have just shot himself. I think it's fairly clear he wanted his cause to gain political respect\acknowledgement through carrying out such horrible and violent acts.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 11:50:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 12:03:11 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/14/2009 10:09:35 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
pulling out the troops and stopping support is exactly what phucked us over in the first place.

Charlie Wilson's War enough said

So what? Sending more troops hasn't always worked and hasn't always been necessary.

-- In the Revolutionary War, Washington asked Congress to increase the size of his army. Instead, he had to rely on the states which raised far fewer than the 88 battalions promised. Washington still won.

-- In the War of 1812, generals were hesitant to attack the British in Canada without an influx of troops. More were OK'd, but it ended in a draw.

-- During the Civil War, after General McClellan kept asking for more troops, Lincoln fired him (and still won).

-- Similarly, during the Korean War, General MacArthur kept asking for more troops. He was fired, and the war ended in a stalemate.

-- In Vietnam, president Johnson let General Westmoreland raise troop levels from 184,000 to over 500,000. We all know how the Vietnam war ended, so yeah.

Different wars, different context:

War of Independence - Largely a Guerilla war where a large army was not needed. The fact the British couldn't maintain military control of captured areas was a huge factor as well as the 2 month sea voyage to Britain.

War of 1812 - America raised a considerable militia for the war nd began a gradual increase after the war

Civil War - Again, Lincoln had to increase the army size.

World War 1 - America had to get millions of troops and implemented a draft.They go such a vast number of troops that Germany was doomed.

World War 2 - It was the increase of the army that allowed America to fight on two fronts.

Vietnam - Basically the American revolutionary war in reverse.

The problem with modern Warfare is that the advance in technology has left some gaps which are still penetrable by under trained local militias. An American soldier doesn't have the right equipment to fend off an Ak-47, one of the cheapest weapons in existence. Modern bomb strikes still need to target only the enemy and not civilians.

The main problem is that Western nations can't conjure up enough troops to gain a foothold in an area. In a conventional war like the First Persian gulf war, civilians don't really have to be worried about, but in the guerilla warfare that is Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy can slip in and out of anywhere, and because America are so desperate to allow them to maintain a democracy without their presence ASAP, the army is easily penetrable as well as the fact the enemy could be anywhere.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 1:27:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 11:43:09 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Terrorism is inhumane violence perpetrated to affect political decisions. It would seem that this case fits the bill. If he didn't wish to be a martyr for his cause he could have just shot himself. I think it's fairly clear he wanted his cause to gain political respect\acknowledgement through carrying out such horrible and violent acts.

I would love to see the proof that he had any intention of influencing political decisions. This was a fit of personal frustration and possibly retribution against those he saw as his enemies. So no, it's not clear that he wanted political acknowledgment and there's no proof otherwise.

He is no more a terrorist than the Columbine shooters.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 1:36:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 1:27:03 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I would love to see the proof that he had any intention of influencing political decisions. This was a fit of personal frustration and possibly retribution against those he saw as his enemies. So no, it's not clear that he wanted political acknowledgment and there's no proof otherwise.

He is no more a terrorist than the Columbine shooters.

Well, Hasan was screaimg "Allah Akbar" and repeatedly made his discontent know of American presence in the Middle East. So, I think it's safe to assume his act was religously and politically motivated - and was indeed a domestic terrorist attack.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 1:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 1:36:08 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, Hasan was screaimg "Allah Akbar" and repeatedly made his discontent know of American presence in the Middle East. So, I think it's safe to assume his act was religously and politically motivated - and was indeed a domestic terrorist attack.

I'm not so sure. There is a line between conscious, pre-meditated terrorism, and the kind of psychotic break that Hasan is thought to have had. Is it proper to call a break an act of terrorism, when it was influenced more by mental instability, than any politically or religiously motivated desires?
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 6:37:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Volkov is right ,I agree with volkov.. Despite how hatefull islam is,we should respect the people like hasan..! He was disrespected and was discriminated against ..which made him angry plus he was mantelly distroyed by his job..! This job is a job hurting mantally.!!hasan isn't the first victim of this job..! additionaly is islam also very mantlly challanging,but we can't single out islam when we have all the above excuses..! Not that I am a lover of islam...
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 8:10:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I saw it reported today that he did ask the blessing of an imam from some foreign country for exactly this purpose. We'll see in the next few weeks just how premeditated it was.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 8:23:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 6:37:45 PM, banker wrote:
Volkov is right ,I agree with volkov.. Despite how hatefull islam is,we should respect the people like hasan..! He was disrespected and was discriminated against ..which made him angry plus he was mantelly distroyed by his job..! This job is a job hurting mantally.!!hasan isn't the first victim of this job..! additionaly is islam also very mantlly challanging,but we can't single out islam when we have all the above excuses..! Not that I am a lover of islam...

We do not rescpect killers like Hasan. He killed innocent people.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 10:05:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 8:10:25 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I saw it reported today that he did ask the blessing of an imam from some foreign country for exactly this purpose. We'll see in the next few weeks just how premeditated it was.

I thought the imam was from the US, and that he was domestic?
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 11:48:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 1:36:08 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/16/2009 1:27:03 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I would love to see the proof that he had any intention of influencing political decisions. This was a fit of personal frustration and possibly retribution against those he saw as his enemies. So no, it's not clear that he wanted political acknowledgment and there's no proof otherwise.

He is no more a terrorist than the Columbine shooters.

Well, Hasan was screaimg "Allah Akbar" and repeatedly made his discontent know of American presence in the Middle East. So, I think it's safe to assume his act was religously and politically motivated - and was indeed a domestic terrorist attack.

No, there were uncorroborated reports that he may have been screaming Allah Akbar. Even so, if a Christian walked into a church, screaming "OH MY GOD" and shot everyone, would that be religious extremism?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 11:52:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 11:48:12 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

No, there were uncorroborated reports that he may have been screaming Allah Akbar. Even so, if a Christian walked into a church, screaming "OH MY GOD" and shot everyone, would that be religious extremism?

Yes.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:03:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 10:05:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/16/2009 8:10:25 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I saw it reported today that he did ask the blessing of an imam from some foreign country for exactly this purpose. We'll see in the next few weeks just how premeditated it was.

I thought the imam was from the US, and that he was domestic?

No, the imam was born in the US, but moved to Yemen in 2002. See: http://www.nydailynews.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:06:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 11:48:12 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
No, there were uncorroborated reports that he may have been screaming Allah Akbar.

That all witnesses said he did...

Even so, if a Christian walked into a church, screaming "OH MY GOD" and shot everyone, would that be religious extremism?

Ehh, "OH MY GOD" would be a peculiar statement. But yes, if a Christian went into a church and started shooting in the name of God, then it is clearly would be religous extremism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:28:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 12:06:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/17/2009 11:48:12 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
No, there were uncorroborated reports that he may have been screaming Allah Akbar.

That all witnesses said he did...

Nags, do you have audio or visual proof? After all, that's the evidence that's important, isn't it?
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:34:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 12:28:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Nags, do you have audio or visual proof? After all, that's the evidence that's important, isn't it?

No. When numerous people who have nothing to gain by lying say the same exact thing to seperate news sources, then I think it is fair to say they are telling the truth. When one Pakistani official makes up a Bush quote, who has everything to gain, and tells it to one news source who, then it is fair to say that he is probably lying. Nice try though. :P
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:45:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 12:34:04 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/17/2009 12:28:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Nags, do you have audio or visual proof? After all, that's the evidence that's important, isn't it?

No. When numerous people who have nothing to gain by lying say the same exact thing to seperate news sources, then I think it is fair to say they are telling the truth. When one Pakistani official makes up a Bush quote, who has everything to gain, and tells it to one news source who, then it is fair to say that he is probably lying. Nice try though. :P

Lol - everything to gain? Please tell me what the Pakistanis who cited the quote have gained by "making that up." Answer - absolutely nothing. Not to mention that there were multiple witnesses in both situations; this is just another double standard that you can't defend. Oh wellz.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:51:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 8:23:30 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/16/2009 6:37:45 PM, banker wrote:
Volkov is right ,I agree with volkov.. Despite how hatefull islam is,we should respect the people like hasan..! He was disrespected and was discriminated against ..which made him angry plus he was mantelly distroyed by his job..! This job is a job hurting mantally.!!hasan isn't the first victim of this job..! additionaly is islam also very mantlly challanging,but we can't single out islam when we have all the above excuses..! Not that I am a lover of islam...

We do not rescpect killers like Hasan. He killed innocent people.

So do the troops in the Middle East every single day.

Anyway, what he did was disturbing, disgusting and unwarranted. Of course it is nowhere near of the same caliber as our soldiers fighting over seas. However, one huge cultural and perhaps political ignorance is that people don't realize terrorists (in this case, we'll operate under the perhaps misguided assumption that Hasan was a terrorist) believe that they are doing the right thing just as our American troops believe that they're doing the right thing. People here think they're doing God's work or even humane work by "bringing freedom" to the region; meanwhile, absolutely no freedom has been established... but that's besides the point. The point is that these terrorists are brain washed to think that they are really doing what's right. That's what faith does to people. If people really believe they're doing God's work or the right work by killing who they see as enemies, I don't see how that's any different than what our troops do. Our troops follow commands the same way terrorists do. They are well intentioned. Misguided, but well intentioned. And sick, very sick.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 12:57:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 12:45:19 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Lol - everything to gain? Please tell me what the Pakistanis who cited the quote have gained by "making that up." Answer - absolutely nothing. Not to mention that there were multiple witnesses in both situations; this is just another double standard that you can't defend. Oh wellz.

*correction - Palestinian not Pakistani. I have been saying this wrong for quite a bit.

Aah, yes. A Muslim Palestinian has nothing to gain by embarassing the most hated man of Muslims around the world - and I'm sure even more hated amongst the Palestinians for supporting Israel. And what do you mean by multiple witnesses - it was one guy in one interview.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 1:30:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 12:57:51 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/17/2009 12:45:19 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Lol - everything to gain? Please tell me what the Pakistanis who cited the quote have gained by "making that up." Answer - absolutely nothing. Not to mention that there were multiple witnesses in both situations; this is just another double standard that you can't defend. Oh wellz.

*correction - Palestinian not Pakistani. I have been saying this wrong for quite a bit.

Aah, yes. A Muslim Palestinian has nothing to gain by embarassing the most hated man of Muslims around the world - and I'm sure even more hated amongst the Palestinians for supporting Israel. And what do you mean by multiple witnesses - it was one guy in one interview.

That is false. The comments were made at a meeting with several top Palestinian officials including the Prime Minster. Since Bush doesn't speak Arabic and Abas doesn't speak English, there were not one but numerous translators present. So, your allegation that the PM made this up because he didn't like Bush is completely irrelevant, as the multiple translators present were not the PM and did not have an incentive to target Bush. Nobody gained anything by making that quote up. Obviously there were going to be translators from both sides there to ensure fair-play; this is common sense.

Now, the comment Bush allegedly made was, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." So, the Washington Post had its translators check it out and they found that the real translation was, "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him." The Post noted this was "substantially different."

The best explanation, I think, is what many others believe as well: The president was trying to "level" with the people in the Middle East to gain some political and social clout; in other words, he probably said it but didn't mean it. Still, it's not a good message to send.
President of DDO