[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?
Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]
Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.
Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.
But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]
Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.
No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.[/quote]
No Allan, I was referring to your original conviction of terrorism.
I understand you want him be convicted of being a foreign agent and enemy of the state and the more I look at it, I am sure that can be achieved in some way.
Was it a religion the drove him to do what he did or extreme psychological duress like John Russell a few months ago? This is the line the surveyor so wants everybody to understand. That it was his muslim-ness. And muslim-ness should be on trial. We start to go into orwellian thought control with this sort of BS, it’s just like mccarthyism, what was he thinking. When did he switch to the other side. Nonsense.
Terrorism has been legally finagled away from it’s original meaning over the bush years to include a myriad of things. Now it’s pretty much anybody that is thinking radical things. But, I digress
Considering, he was doing, what mental health professionals recommend you do during times of extreme stress, which is reach out for help, the whole thing starts to stink.
Now follow my logic here. I’ll concede what ever conviction you want, this guy was way too obvious. He was a stark raving lunatic, now that I see all the data coming in.
Which leads to the spooks. What exactly did they know?
Just another keystone cop incident with great PR appeal, I guess.
So far, according to reports, this guy was:
Asking to get our continuously
Giving presentations on why he could become dangerous and should be let out.
Making crazy muslim religious gestures for YEARS to everybody around him
Was followed for 6 months by the CIA
-Did they not notice ANY of this behavior?
-Did they not look at his record?
Contacting known extremists
And from all this the concluded, that he was not a danger. It’s almost laughable.
People think about this
He gave fucking reports that being a muslim was incompatible with being in the military and would lead to violence. The report is on the net, it is interesting.
This was in his record.
Do we really think the CIA did not know this OR LOOK AT HIS RECORD.
So follow this, the CIA looks at his record and it says being a muslim in the armed services will lead to violence and I need to get out because I am about to snap, which is pretty much the summation of the report. And they conclude “Oh, this guy is fine, no danger here????? ” are you kidding me?
They let it happen people! This was a allowed to happen for troop rallying purposes. Yes, he slowly lost his mind and switched sides to radical islam AND HE WAS WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING WAY!!
What is more evil, Allan. Just presume I could have a point. Is it the religion or the people the use it for political purposes and allow their own people to die to prove a point.
The whole thing is bullshit. Just like everything else.
It’s managed and provoked people, for emotional and imperial goals.[/quote]
I actually don’t have response to arraya here.
I just wanted to do the super-long-quote-thing.
@allan :
regarding the earlier post:
Sorry, I really just figured your name sounded Jewish (thought in retrospect I suppose it could be Austrian).
And I don’t mean to be a dick about the military thing.
While I see myself as agnostic now, the whole charity and mercy thing always seemed at odds to me with taking life.
And, like I said, I simultaneously greatly appreciate what said killers do for my quality of life.
Regarding the bloody history of Muslim conquest:
I agree that armed violence was a salient feature in the establishing days of Muslim imperialism. I also agree that it is a salient feature of current nominally Muslim resistance movements.
I do actually read history (liberal or not) and watch the news.
My disagreement with surveyor’s post was not about either of those. It was specifically about the assertion that the religion itself had in its primary text armed violence as a salient feature.
Again, it is not one of the 5 principles.
I am aware of wahabist madrasas that teach boys to memorize prayers and join operations in the service of religiously-couched violence. This is not in dispute.
However, this is all a part of interpretation in the service of political aims. Imperialism is by definition political as are resistance movements.
However, in fairness to you (and surveyor) those political agendas became part of the Islamic landscape very early on.
It is worthy of note that the 2 periods of violence referenced in anti-muslim bigotry are always during A: empire-building in the ancient era or B: resistance in the modern era.
As far as taxes upon other Abrahmists, when viewed in context its not so bad. Taxes are better than torture, extermination, or forced baptisms (like the Christians did).
