tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post4136333236228416627..comments2023-07-25T05:54:36.811-07:00Comments on thaxis: Maj. Nidal Malik HasanUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-75072332546026278882009-11-20T04:57:32.751-08:002009-11-20T04:57:32.751-08:00I'm just pointing to the definition of terrori...I'm just pointing to the definition of terrorism, while the concept is notoriously vague, most every definition requires that it be perpetrated on non-combatants, that's crucial to the terror part. So of course the status of the massacre does matter in determining whether or not it's terrorism.mijopohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113114446433726232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-28525362230432488412009-11-19T20:47:58.625-08:002009-11-19T20:47:58.625-08:00Mijipool, I don't understand your comment. I&...Mijipool, I don't understand your comment. I'm saying just that Timothy McVeigh was universally called a "Terrorist" rather than a lone freak. But it seems that he was a lone freak. And on the issue of civilians, that's the ultimate red herring, since Hasan "Jihad!" dude let loose on a a ceremony where civilian people were also killed. Are we scoring thins based on counting who was civilian or military, the status of those that were massacred? I really hope that's not your argument. The point is rather whether the massacre was designed and planned and intended for some political end, as McVeigh's was, and as he was suitable labelled. Same too, it seems, with this Hasan fellow-- it's not the issue of whether he was "troubled", you twits, but rather why and under what banner he did it.Erik J. Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00992991998553823280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-8292720632049479552009-11-14T12:33:02.363-08:002009-11-14T12:33:02.363-08:00I don't understand this post.
Those comments ...I don't understand this post.<br /><br />Those comments about McVeigh may be true, but by my understanding a necessary condition for something to be an act of terrorism is that it be carried out on a civilian population. I think that's the basic question on which whether or not the Ft. Hood attacks constitutes terrorism and whether or not these attributes of mcveight also apply to the FH killer is largely beside the point. Even Jonah Goldberg, no bleeding hear liberal there, argues this: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRjMWY5MGNiMzQyNzM3Zjg0ZmJjYzA4NTMxYjEzYjg=. <br /><br />And with this, "but simply a psychotic, sexually frustrated, lonely ex-military guy who just needed the right treatment, if only we could have recognized the symptoms early enough" are you trying to say people are trying to absolve the Ft. Hood killer of blame? (who is doing this, can you point to some examples?)<br /><br />"Hasan is on his way to being treated like an effect of so many causes outside of himself." These are my choices? Either categorize Hasan as a terrorist or do this?<br /><br />I have the impression that you're leaning on a straw men and false dilemmas but I may be misunderstanding the argument.mijopohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113114446433726232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4981739266034213538.post-66484609751243326982009-11-11T22:49:49.623-08:002009-11-11T22:49:49.623-08:00MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Has...MASH message for Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan:<br /><br />Mr. Hasan,<br /><br />May you be swiftly executed, may you rot in Hell for eternity, and may your family be ashamed of you for as long as they shall live.<br /><br />With utmost contempt,<br /><br />Muslims Against Sharia<br /><br /><a href="http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood.html" rel="nofollow">http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood.html</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com