- This topic has 1,215 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM #480396November 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM #479573
Anonymous
GuestHe’s a criminal, but not a terrorist.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
#1: He targeted the military, not civilians. If he was Al-Qaueda (and I suspect he was a just a wannabe), he would could be labeled a “spy” but not a terrorist.
#2: Although one could argue that his actions were “calculated … in order to to attain goals,” I think that’s a bit of a stretch. He really didn’t have a plan. In order to “intimidate” or “instill fear” one needs to have the capacity to commit more violence.
This guy just wanted to go out in a rage against those whom he believed tormented him. Pretty much the same as the VT shooter (I hope they both burn in hell.)
Now lets get on to executing him.
November 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM #479744GuestHe’s a criminal, but not a terrorist.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
#1: He targeted the military, not civilians. If he was Al-Qaueda (and I suspect he was a just a wannabe), he would could be labeled a “spy” but not a terrorist.
#2: Although one could argue that his actions were “calculated … in order to to attain goals,” I think that’s a bit of a stretch. He really didn’t have a plan. In order to “intimidate” or “instill fear” one needs to have the capacity to commit more violence.
This guy just wanted to go out in a rage against those whom he believed tormented him. Pretty much the same as the VT shooter (I hope they both burn in hell.)
Now lets get on to executing him.
November 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM #480105GuestHe’s a criminal, but not a terrorist.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
#1: He targeted the military, not civilians. If he was Al-Qaueda (and I suspect he was a just a wannabe), he would could be labeled a “spy” but not a terrorist.
#2: Although one could argue that his actions were “calculated … in order to to attain goals,” I think that’s a bit of a stretch. He really didn’t have a plan. In order to “intimidate” or “instill fear” one needs to have the capacity to commit more violence.
This guy just wanted to go out in a rage against those whom he believed tormented him. Pretty much the same as the VT shooter (I hope they both burn in hell.)
Now lets get on to executing him.
November 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM #480185GuestHe’s a criminal, but not a terrorist.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
#1: He targeted the military, not civilians. If he was Al-Qaueda (and I suspect he was a just a wannabe), he would could be labeled a “spy” but not a terrorist.
#2: Although one could argue that his actions were “calculated … in order to to attain goals,” I think that’s a bit of a stretch. He really didn’t have a plan. In order to “intimidate” or “instill fear” one needs to have the capacity to commit more violence.
This guy just wanted to go out in a rage against those whom he believed tormented him. Pretty much the same as the VT shooter (I hope they both burn in hell.)
Now lets get on to executing him.
November 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM #480405GuestHe’s a criminal, but not a terrorist.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
#1: He targeted the military, not civilians. If he was Al-Qaueda (and I suspect he was a just a wannabe), he would could be labeled a “spy” but not a terrorist.
#2: Although one could argue that his actions were “calculated … in order to to attain goals,” I think that’s a bit of a stretch. He really didn’t have a plan. In order to “intimidate” or “instill fear” one needs to have the capacity to commit more violence.
This guy just wanted to go out in a rage against those whom he believed tormented him. Pretty much the same as the VT shooter (I hope they both burn in hell.)
Now lets get on to executing him.
November 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM #479583garysears
ParticipantA few random thought about this event…
I find it totally believable that one man could shoot that many people on a military base. I work on one. No one is armed except for base police. Seriously, any serviceman could cause a similar amount of damage tomorrow, on any San Diego area military base. The base security is focused on external threats more than internal and once you have gained access to base (ID and vehicle pass) there is no special security or physical barrier stopping anyone from doing something similar.
On a base the size of Fort Hood it could take a long time for word to get to the police and for them to respond. All accounts have the shooting going on for 3-5 minutes at least. That is plenty of time to cause that many victims. You had people trapped in a crowded building with no ability to defend themselves. Combat trained or not, an unarmed person has no chance against a shooter except to flee.
I don’t see what the harm is in calling a spade a spade. I think the administration is hesitant to call this terrorism to try and distance itself from the previous administration where absolutely everything was all about the War on Terror. Even if this guy turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer and not an actual recruited cell member, there is no practical difference.
This will be a military trial since it occurred by a military member on a military installation. Word is the last military death sentence carried out was in 1961, despite numerous inmates on death row. I think he’ll get the sentence but we’ll have to see if it is ever carried out.
Finally, I wish people would give the second police officer, Mark Todd, some credit as well. The details aren’t clear in the MSM but it looks like he is the one who actually took the guy down and secured him. He likely saved the life of Sgt. Munley as well.
November 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM #479754ParticipantA few random thought about this event…
I find it totally believable that one man could shoot that many people on a military base. I work on one. No one is armed except for base police. Seriously, any serviceman could cause a similar amount of damage tomorrow, on any San Diego area military base. The base security is focused on external threats more than internal and once you have gained access to base (ID and vehicle pass) there is no special security or physical barrier stopping anyone from doing something similar.
On a base the size of Fort Hood it could take a long time for word to get to the police and for them to respond. All accounts have the shooting going on for 3-5 minutes at least. That is plenty of time to cause that many victims. You had people trapped in a crowded building with no ability to defend themselves. Combat trained or not, an unarmed person has no chance against a shooter except to flee.
I don’t see what the harm is in calling a spade a spade. I think the administration is hesitant to call this terrorism to try and distance itself from the previous administration where absolutely everything was all about the War on Terror. Even if this guy turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer and not an actual recruited cell member, there is no practical difference.
This will be a military trial since it occurred by a military member on a military installation. Word is the last military death sentence carried out was in 1961, despite numerous inmates on death row. I think he’ll get the sentence but we’ll have to see if it is ever carried out.
Finally, I wish people would give the second police officer, Mark Todd, some credit as well. The details aren’t clear in the MSM but it looks like he is the one who actually took the guy down and secured him. He likely saved the life of Sgt. Munley as well.
November 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM #480115ParticipantA few random thought about this event…
I find it totally believable that one man could shoot that many people on a military base. I work on one. No one is armed except for base police. Seriously, any serviceman could cause a similar amount of damage tomorrow, on any San Diego area military base. The base security is focused on external threats more than internal and once you have gained access to base (ID and vehicle pass) there is no special security or physical barrier stopping anyone from doing something similar.
On a base the size of Fort Hood it could take a long time for word to get to the police and for them to respond. All accounts have the shooting going on for 3-5 minutes at least. That is plenty of time to cause that many victims. You had people trapped in a crowded building with no ability to defend themselves. Combat trained or not, an unarmed person has no chance against a shooter except to flee.
I don’t see what the harm is in calling a spade a spade. I think the administration is hesitant to call this terrorism to try and distance itself from the previous administration where absolutely everything was all about the War on Terror. Even if this guy turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer and not an actual recruited cell member, there is no practical difference.
This will be a military trial since it occurred by a military member on a military installation. Word is the last military death sentence carried out was in 1961, despite numerous inmates on death row. I think he’ll get the sentence but we’ll have to see if it is ever carried out.
Finally, I wish people would give the second police officer, Mark Todd, some credit as well. The details aren’t clear in the MSM but it looks like he is the one who actually took the guy down and secured him. He likely saved the life of Sgt. Munley as well.
November 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM #480195ParticipantA few random thought about this event…
I find it totally believable that one man could shoot that many people on a military base. I work on one. No one is armed except for base police. Seriously, any serviceman could cause a similar amount of damage tomorrow, on any San Diego area military base. The base security is focused on external threats more than internal and once you have gained access to base (ID and vehicle pass) there is no special security or physical barrier stopping anyone from doing something similar.
On a base the size of Fort Hood it could take a long time for word to get to the police and for them to respond. All accounts have the shooting going on for 3-5 minutes at least. That is plenty of time to cause that many victims. You had people trapped in a crowded building with no ability to defend themselves. Combat trained or not, an unarmed person has no chance against a shooter except to flee.
I don’t see what the harm is in calling a spade a spade. I think the administration is hesitant to call this terrorism to try and distance itself from the previous administration where absolutely everything was all about the War on Terror. Even if this guy turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer and not an actual recruited cell member, there is no practical difference.
This will be a military trial since it occurred by a military member on a military installation. Word is the last military death sentence carried out was in 1961, despite numerous inmates on death row. I think he’ll get the sentence but we’ll have to see if it is ever carried out.
Finally, I wish people would give the second police officer, Mark Todd, some credit as well. The details aren’t clear in the MSM but it looks like he is the one who actually took the guy down and secured him. He likely saved the life of Sgt. Munley as well.
November 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM #480415ParticipantA few random thought about this event…
I find it totally believable that one man could shoot that many people on a military base. I work on one. No one is armed except for base police. Seriously, any serviceman could cause a similar amount of damage tomorrow, on any San Diego area military base. The base security is focused on external threats more than internal and once you have gained access to base (ID and vehicle pass) there is no special security or physical barrier stopping anyone from doing something similar.
On a base the size of Fort Hood it could take a long time for word to get to the police and for them to respond. All accounts have the shooting going on for 3-5 minutes at least. That is plenty of time to cause that many victims. You had people trapped in a crowded building with no ability to defend themselves. Combat trained or not, an unarmed person has no chance against a shooter except to flee.
I don’t see what the harm is in calling a spade a spade. I think the administration is hesitant to call this terrorism to try and distance itself from the previous administration where absolutely everything was all about the War on Terror. Even if this guy turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer and not an actual recruited cell member, there is no practical difference.
This will be a military trial since it occurred by a military member on a military installation. Word is the last military death sentence carried out was in 1961, despite numerous inmates on death row. I think he’ll get the sentence but we’ll have to see if it is ever carried out.
Finally, I wish people would give the second police officer, Mark Todd, some credit as well. The details aren’t clear in the MSM but it looks like he is the one who actually took the guy down and secured him. He likely saved the life of Sgt. Munley as well.
November 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM #479588Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.
Following from CNN (lest I’m perceived as having a bias from the Leftists on the board):
I also spoke with a former buddy of mine, who is still active RA and he indicates that there is a lot more being held back at present.
If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.
And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.
November 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM #479759ParticipantPri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.
Following from CNN (lest I’m perceived as having a bias from the Leftists on the board):
I also spoke with a former buddy of mine, who is still active RA and he indicates that there is a lot more being held back at present.
If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.
And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.
November 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM #480120ParticipantPri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.
Following from CNN (lest I’m perceived as having a bias from the Leftists on the board):
I also spoke with a former buddy of mine, who is still active RA and he indicates that there is a lot more being held back at present.
If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.
And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.
November 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM #480200ParticipantPri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.
Following from CNN (lest I’m perceived as having a bias from the Leftists on the board):
I also spoke with a former buddy of mine, who is still active RA and he indicates that there is a lot more being held back at present.
If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.
And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.