Fort Hood Shooter is a Terrorist

[Lobo Viejo]

Crackers wrote:

<quoted text>
Naw, I guess it don't matter. Either way, it takes a big set of cajones to walk up on a shooter, huh? I remember being scared shitless in Vietnam and I thought I was a tough dude when I arrived there.

Cops approach shooters, while everyone else is running away. Firefighters run into burning buildings when everyone else is trying to get out. These brave souls put their own lives on the line to protect the rest of us. Each one of them is a hero.

[Crackers]

The shooting tragedy at Fort Hood points to a much larger problem of combat stress and overdeployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. After many years of lengthy war zone rotations, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse.

This year, 117 active-duty Army soldiers were reported to have committed suicide, with 81 of those cases confirmed -- up from 103 suicides during the same period last year. Ten suicides have been reported at Fort Hood this year; more than 75 of its personnel have committed suicide since 2003.

An estimated 30 percent of those returning from combat suffer mental health symptoms such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. Such problems grow worse with repeated deployments and the constant exposure to danger and the sights, smells and emotions of seeing others killed or wounded.

[fmer-505-1951]

Bluntly Spoken wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe we should require every person from age 18-21 to serve in the military, if they have a sever handicap such as blindness, full deafness or are crippled exclude them unless they want to serve at a desk job or something they can do.
All others should be required to join one branch of the military and serve, no exception and this means both sexes.
There are countries that require all to serve, why should we not also?
The no exception rule would apply to all, just because one parent is in politics or some other high ranking political or military office would not be reason to exclude them.
The draft would only pull in a given number, not all able bodied people of both sexes.
That is what should be law here but unfortunately our great leaders cannot see that and change the law to require it.

I disagree with you on that BS. Not everyone is meant to serve in the military, whether able bodied or not. While there are others who make a decision to join and some make the military a career. It is wrong to choose someone's life decisions. Would you like someone to tell you what career path you should have chosen? I know many disabled people who also have mental challenges. How would these individuals be able to benefit in service? Not every person is meant to join the Armed Forces, it is not realistic.

[WildBurp]

dpb wrote:

"Here’s your sign..." The military, while fighting an illegal war, "created" this so-called "terrorist" in their own image and reaped the results of training killing machines.

"Here's YOUR sign..." Spouting off radical statements without facts. All you are doing is talking out your @$$ and who gave you the right and freedom? All of us who are now serving or have served in the armed forces guaranteed your right to freedom of speech without persecution.

I have spent 8yrs in the USAF and have been overseas and have seen other nations and how those nations govern their people. We may not have the best system around but it is as close to perfect than what others are doing.

So, why don't you just dig a deeper hole and put your whole body into it instead of your head. Instead of spreading you hate filled fertilizer on the posts, you can do better 6ft under.

[Lobo Viejo]

Crackers wrote:

The shooting tragedy at Fort Hood points to a much larger problem of combat stress and overdeployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. After many years of lengthy war zone rotations, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse.
This year, 117 active-duty Army soldiers were reported to have committed suicide, with 81 of those cases confirmed -- up from 103 suicides during the same period last year. Ten suicides have been reported at Fort Hood this year; more than 75 of its personnel have committed suicide since 2003.
An estimated 30 percent of those returning from combat suffer mental health symptoms such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. Such problems grow worse with repeated deployments and the constant exposure to danger and the sights, smells and emotions of seeing others killed or wounded.

I would have thought that, by 2010, the human race could have found a better way of resolving conflicts than by sending our young people off to kill the young people of the other side. What a barbaric and foolish species we are.

[WildBurp]

Lobo Viejo wrote:

<quoted text>
Does this really matter? They are both heros in my book. Just too bad that one of their shots was not fatal to Hasan.

No, for once they should do every thing in their power to bring the scum back to full health. I want answers to his thinking. HE can't prove insanity as he knew full well what he was doing for the greater good (BS) of his Allah. I want to see him convicted and tied to a post without a cloth across his eyes as he should see every bullet coming at him as his victims never had the chance. The firing squad should hit him with the exact number of bullets he used to kill and wound his victims.

[WildBurp]

Lobo Viejo wrote:

<quoted text>
I would have thought that, by 2010, the human race could have found a better way of resolving conflicts than by sending our young people off to kill the young people of the other side. What a barbaric and foolish species we are.

We, as a people, have had thousands if not millions of years to find a better way. However if one is going to use force as a way to threaten or discourage a group of people, you respond in kind. Sad, yes. However, that is a fact of life. You can't have the Utopian ideas without the capacity to protect the concept.

[WildBurp]

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove that it historically happened. And no, your "Bible" isn't a historical document, so you will need to come up with something a tad better than that.

Man, you are as hateful as J1 is Bible thumping. And, yeah, the Bible is a historical document. It has documentation in it describing all acts the Israelis experienced, good and bad, throughout their history. Why don't you find the historical documents from the opposing countries that were either under Israel governance or were the rulers of the Israelis.

Time to put up or shut up.

[Lobo Viejo]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
No, for once they should do every thing in their power to bring the scum back to full health. I want answers to his thinking. HE can't prove insanity as he knew full well what he was doing for the greater good (BS) of his Allah. I want to see him convicted and tied to a post without a cloth across his eyes as he should see every bullet coming at him as his victims never had the chance. The firing squad should hit him with the exact number of bullets he used to kill and wound his victims.

Since he is Muslim, an Islamic form of capital punishment is in order. Beheading is too fast and painless. Tie his hands behind his back, bury him up to his chest, and let the families of the people he killed stone him to death with rocks no larger than a baseball.

[Daniel in Hobbs]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
Man, you are as hateful as J1 is Bible thumping. And, yeah, the Bible is a historical document. It has documentation in it describing all acts the Israelis experienced, good and bad, throughout their history. Why don't you find the historical documents from the opposing countries that were either under Israel governance or were the rulers of the Israelis.
Time to put up or shut up.

Historical?..really?..hahahaha hahahaha...hysterical maybe...

[WildBurp]

Daniel in Hobbs wrote:

<quoted text>
Historical?..really?..hahahaha hahahaha...hysterical maybe...

Yeah, Danny, Historical. Another book to check out is 'Valley of the Kings'. I believe that is the name. Might have to check with Joseph1 on it.

[Daniel in Hobbs]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, Danny, Historical. Another book to check out is 'Valley of the Kings'. I believe that is the name. Might have to check with Joseph1 on it.

sorry amigo....the bible, and the jewish version are hardly historical documents...they are "stories"..unless you truly believe in burning bushes speaking, who was that Abraham?... being told by god to kill his son to prove his faith..I mean c'mon man....that is just as ridiculous as Xenu and the scientologists...oh yeah..and bread (mana) falling from the sky every morning for breakfast?..hahahaha...c'mon.. ..

[Silk_the_Absent1]

http://tinyurl.com/ydae2ow

That's historical? Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

[WildBurp]

Daniel in Hobbs wrote:

<quoted text>
sorry amigo....the bible, and the jewish version are hardly historical documents...they are "stories"..unless you truly believe in burning bushes speaking, who was that Abraham?... being told by god to kill his son to prove his faith..I mean c'mon man....that is just as ridiculous as Xenu and the scientologists...oh yeah..and bread (mana) falling from the sky every morning for breakfast?..hahahaha...c'mon.. ..

Danny, your are the ignorant one here. If you go into the other religions of this world that have God or Allah as their faith decrees, you will see that the first 5 books of each religious sect are the same. Some spelling differences but essentially the same.

Try thinking about these following statements from a philosopher a couple of centuries back.
1) If I don't believe in God and He does exist, I for sure will go to hell.
2) If I believe in God and HE doesn't exist, I will be a better person for all around me.
3) If I believe in God and He does exist, surely I shall be saved.

Now I don't know about you but I think I'll err on the side of caution. Even if God is made up and the Bible is made to scare us like children with the Boogyman, isn't there good morale ethics being said that one can follow for a happier well-being?

[JosephOne]

Question: "How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, etc.?"
Answer: The question of which (if any) religious text is the true word of God is of utmost importance. To avoid circular reasoning, the first question we must ask is: how would we know if God communicated in the first place? Well, God would have to communicate in a manner that people could understand, but that also means that people could make up their own messages and simply claim that they came from God. So, it seems reasonable to think that if God wanted to authenticate His communication He would have to verify it in a manner that could not be duplicated by mere humans - in other words, by miracles. This narrows the field considerably.
Beyond the evidence for the Bible's correctness (manuscript evidence) and its historicity (archeological evidence), the most important evidence is that of its inspiration. The real determination of the Bible's claim to absolute inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God uses miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises that the land of Israel was to be for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene (a time span of over 1,000 years!) with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies.
In Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he encountered a group of people holed up in a tower on an island off the coast near there. He could not cross the sea, so he could not fight those in the tower. Rather than wait them out, the proud conqueror had his army throw stones into the sea to build a land bridge to the tower. It worked. His army crossed the sea and overthrew the occupants of the stronghold. But where did he get so much stone? The rocks that were used for the land bridge were the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre ... its stones cast into the sea!
There are so many prophecies concerning Christ (over 270!) that it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even 16 of these are 1 in 10^45. How many is that? For comparison, there are less than 10^28 atoms in the entire universe! And Jesus, who affirmed the Bible as the Word of God, proved His reliability and deity by His resurrection (an historical fact not easily ignored).

[JosephOne]

Now consider the Quran - its author, Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message (even when he was asked to by his followers - Sura 17:91-95; 29:47-51). Only in much later tradition (the Hadith) do any alleged miracles even show up and these are all quite fanciful (like Muhammad cutting the moon in half) and have zero reliable testimony to back them up. Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors. Muslims believe the Bible is inspired but with some errors from editing (Sura 2:136 as well as Suras 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25). The question they cannot adequately answer is: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward. Even if Christianity were false, the Quran still has an insurmountable problem because it makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, the Quran teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Sura 5:73-75, 116), and the Quran also teaches that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to have a son (Suras 2:116; 6:100-101; 10:68; 16:57; 19:35; 23:91; 37:149-151; 43:16-19). If the Quran is really from God, then it should at least be able to accurately report what Christians believe.

[Daniel in Hobbs]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
Danny, your are the ignorant one here. If you go into the other religions of this world that have God or Allah as their faith decrees, you will see that the first 5 books of each religious sect are the same. Some spelling differences but essentially the same.
Try thinking about these following statements from a philosopher a couple of centuries back.
1) If I don't believe in God and He does exist, I for sure will go to hell.
2) If I believe in God and HE doesn't exist, I will be a better person for all around me.
3) If I believe in God and He does exist, surely I shall be saved.
Now I don't know about you but I think I'll err on the side of caution. Even if God is made up and the Bible is made to scare us like children with the Boogyman, isn't there good morale ethics being said that one can follow for a happier well-being?

Having faith in God, and believing the bible as a true source of facts, are two different things...the bible was constructed by men..not god..

[WildBurp]

Daniel in Hobbs wrote:

<quoted text>
Having faith in God, and believing the bible as a true source of facts, are two different things...the bible was constructed by men..not god..

Good Lord, man. Of course it was written by man. The words that God wrote were on tablets of stone. Moses broke the first two and God re-wrote them the second time around. Other than that, man had to write down on paper. In the New Testament when John described what he saw in his visions, you think he was under the influence of some damned good mushrooms?

Man, you are making me justify the Bible as a historical source of information and I almost certainly have to be sounding like Joseph1. I can only tell you what I believe. I believe the Book as a true source, and possibly some distorted documents over time, of the intent of what our Supreme Maker was trying to do by lending a hand and leading His people through trials and tribulations. I believe that there were other books from other authors that were neglected to be put into the finished product due to volume and contradicting beliefs over who said what, where, and when.

Wars have erupted over the contents and separate views of the translations of what someone said as one side took the same phrase and saw it differently from the person who wrote it or the next one to read it. That's saying a lot for a book that you and others scoff at.

Jesus told Thomas that he believed in the Resurrection of Him because he had seen Him. He also said that others who believed in Him but have not seen Him were blessed.

Nonetheless, this Hassan character must pay dearly for his crimes against the US. Give to God what is His and give to the government what is theirs.

So, you know where I stand.

[CornDaddy]

Well, so much for this thread.

[JosephOne]

You know in light of the shooting. How should this man be tried? In a terrorist tribunal or in federal court?

Should he be charged with treason and war crimes? Or just murder?