[nithhysfusy]

A couple of things have been on my mind recently. For starters, why do we have memorial threads for the dead at Fort Hood, but not for all the other soldiers who die every day in combat?

The kind of people who make these threads have agendas. The dead in Fort Hood are victims of terrorism -- particularly of those damned Arabs at home. They need to sensationalize the deaths to drum up fear and uncertainty on the homefront to justify the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.

The dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan represent military failure. Something to be forgotten, not remembered or memorialized.

[DebtDetox]

If it's not a damned eh-rab doing the shooting, we don't wanna hear of it.

[welihiedginly]

This from the poster with an avatar of dick-kim-possible

[Vezazvqw]

Second, assuming this Hasan fellow was in fact motivated by sympathy for/collusion with extremists, does the Fort Hood attack qualify as terrorism, or any other kind of despicable/"cowardly" act (as I've heard people call it IRL)? Tragic, yes, but think about it: if U.S. troops had managed to infiltrate a Taliban base in Afghanistan and blown it to smithereens (I'm assuming our troops wouldn't just go on a rampage like Hasan did), we'd all be saying something along the lines of "****in' A!" The fact that it was a sneak attack would be irrelevant; this is war. If you catch the enemy in a place where he isn't expecting to be attacked, so much the better for you, so much the worse for him. Assuming you only target soldiers, that is

Why even ask the question? Nobody here but Ben would seriously argue with you on this...

[Rellshare]

A couple of things have been on my mind recently. For starters, why do we have memorial threads for the dead at Fort Hood, but not for all the other soldiers who die every day in combat? Given how Poly has responded to the memorial thread for the Ft. Hood, you are surprised that there haven't been memorials previous? I have counted 1, and only 1 actual appropriate response.

If folks desire a memorial thread, or wish to do so, I personally will encourage them. I was asking the question myself lately, why is this the first time.

I would love to see another poster take it on, but if no one wants to, and there is demand for it I would be happy to do one for each. Perhaps it would go a long way to mitigate the unwarranted hostility. Of course, I would like to see it done as I've done it, with respect to the soldiers and to honour them.

I fear that the threads would simply degenerate, by those who want to put their own two cents in.

Why Fort Hood? For me it was because of the where, but also because of the scope. I don't believe there's been an attack on an american military installation resulting in the death of 13 soldiers since 9-11, and before that, since Pearl Harbour.

Second, assuming this Hasan fellow was in fact motivated by sympathy for/collusion with extremists, does the Fort Hood attack qualify as terrorism, or any other kind of despicable/"cowardly" act (as I've heard people call it IRL)? It is cowardly, because the Jihadi knew full well that he was shooting unarmed soldiers, most of whom were not prepared for combat. He fired armour piercing bullets of a calibre designed to penetrate armour, he carried extra clips to increase the body count. Where is the honour in that? If he sincerely wished to test his mettle, there are hundreds of different ways to do so on base without killing your fellow servicemembers.

Tragic, yes, but think about it: if U.S. troops had managed to infiltrate a Taliban base in Afghanistan and blown it to smithereens (I'm assuming our troops wouldn't just go on a rampage like Hasan did), we'd all be saying something along the lines of "****in' A!" Elok, I dearly hope you aren't saying that you believe it to be a good thing. This man was a doctor. All his schooling has been paid for by the American taxpayer, who had amounts, of likely several million dollars invested in this man. He took on the uniform of an american soldier, and professed that he would serve in defense of the United States. Perhaps one day some time ago he truly believed in this, but perhaps he never did, I do not know. All I know is that good men and women are dead today, because of his decision to massacre them.

The fact that it was a sneak attack would be irrelevant; this is war. If you catch the enemy in a place where he isn't expecting to be attacked, so much the better for you, so much the worse for him. Assuming you only target soldiers, that is--but even that is debatable. We still argue about Dresden and Hiroshima. I don't know current international standards on terrorism or war crimes. What say you? My thoughts are that you hang traitors. This man is no different than Benedict Arnold, except the fact that Benedict Arnold was a true and faithful servant of the republic for many years. I expect that anyone worthy of the name 'American' will agree, if not in the method, but in the concept.

And yes, you are right. I expect that the enemies of America both within and without will cheer this act on, perhaps with divine retribution. Again, I dearly hope you are not one of these, Elok.

[DJElizardo]

For starters, why do we have memorial threads for the dead at Fort Hood, but not for all the other soldiers who die every day in combat?

The poster community here is too immature and spiteful for such.

[kvitacencia]

The poster community here is too immature and spiteful for such.

More accurately, the server wouldn't be able to handle the load.

I don't see those threads at CFC either, so...

[Dastyh]

Less Simon Cowell, more Paula Abdul please.

[Kinds Of Pain Meds]

Just for the record, Simon Cowell has never rated a performance 3/10 on any season of American Idol. He's rated performances 9/10, 5/10, and 0/10, but not 3/10.

[Aleksis]

Why not just call him a terrorist, Sloww? We all already know you're a racist.

[GWRIeEQp]

It leaves us at me being an idiot and you being a racist. The fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own makes me think you might be an idiot, as well.

[pitoufsd]

I thought this thread was finally going to be about the clitoris.

SP

[gugamotina]

Not for Hasan, obviously.

[JackTimQSR]

The question is asking "why", which is to ask about the posters here, which is to give personal answers.

If you don't like it, don't read the thread, mister.

[evalayCap]

Perhaps you should go to sleep and let me take over here. I'll keep the kiddos in line.

[eCw56dzY]

WATCH YOURSELF, Wiglaf.

[DioraMoostebeers]

Second, assuming this Hasan fellow was in fact motivated by sympathy for/collusion with extremists, does the Fort Hood attack qualify as terrorism, or any other kind of despicable/"cowardly" act (as I've heard people call it IRL)? Tragic, yes, but think about it: if U.S. troops had managed to infiltrate a Taliban base in Afghanistan and blown it to smithereens (I'm assuming our troops wouldn't just go on a rampage like Hasan did), we'd all be saying something along the lines of "****in' A!" The fact that it was a sneak attack would be irrelevant; this is war. If you catch the enemy in a place where he isn't expecting to be attacked, so much the better for you, so much the worse for him. Assuming you only target soldiers, that is--but even that is debatable. We still argue about Dresden and Hiroshima. I don't know current international standards on terrorism or war crimes. What say you?

A bit tricky here. Traditionally war is normally conducted between regular armies of souvereign states. Of course you have civil wars, guerilla wars/whatever else, but the entire intl system is primarily geared towards state-state thingies.

The Hasan guy didn't act in a way a member of a regular enemy army would in open battle. Prior to his action, he was not openly ID-able as member of a hostile faction. I didn't read that much about him, so I'm not sure if there is any evidence saying he had ties with AQ/Taliban, or just acted alone because of some reason we don't know yet. So can his actions be part of an act of warfare or is it something else?

As for the example of US troops infiltrating some Taliban base - in classic warfare according to the Geneva converion they could lose their status as lawful combattants (depending on the exact way they did stuff). The SS guys running around in US uniforms behind US lines during the Battle of the Bulge experienced exactly that.

But this is not classic warfare, and the Taliban/AQ don't care about these rules anyway, and without reciprocity the entire system of "rules of warfare" doesn't really work. Long story short, what this shows is mainly that classic views of war and the rules in intl relations developed for warfare between states esp. during the late 19th/early 20th century are limited and don't really go well with the kind of warfare we see now since some years, esp. in Afghanistan, but also in other places (for example during the US presence in Somalia).

Overall, I'd classify his actions as 'terrorist' or generally 'criminal' because he was a private US citizen and didn't come out with some "Hey, this sucks, I'm going to join the Taliban" stuff that provided clarification about his status. Sure, maybe not the most realistic thing, but if any private guy who is as citizen of your own country usually not supposed to be counted under "enemies" can start or join wars at his whim it gets even more confusing.

[WordofViagra]

It leaves us at me being an idiot and you being a racist. The fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own makes me think you might be an idiot, as well.

Can I be a racist?

I'm a true bigot!

Seriously, I always lock my car doors when I see black people walking nearby.

[joanbertis]

intelligence source speaking to the Northeast Intelligence Network

LOL.

I like how Ben jumps down the throat of anyone who cites wikipedia (which itself is cited heavily), but he posts gems like this.

FWIW, this is exactly the point I was making. The site he quoted is exactly the type of people I'm describing. If you go to their 'About Us' section they're still raving about 9/11. They're all about PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES FROM THE TERRIRSTS.

They jump on **** like this and exploit the hell out of it to serve their own agendas. Ben included.

[xtrupoke]

I like how Ben jumps down the throat of anyone who cites wikipedia (which itself is cited heavily), but he posts gems like this. I have no problem with wikipedia, as a source of citations.

I have a problem with 'wikipedia' as a source in and of itself. Every time you have used it, all you do is quote the wikipedia article. That's totally useless to me. I can edit the article Asher, and don't forget that. Why not take the extra step and simply quote the actual citation?

FWIW, this is exactly the point I was making. The site he quoted is exactly the type of people I'm describing. If you go to their 'About Us' section they're still raving about 9/11. They're all about PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES FROM THE TERRIRSTS. WTF is your malfunction? Do you seriously contest anything in the article? It's being reported in the Canada Free Press, which is where I came across this article in the first place. Unlike you, I decided to quote the actual source rather than the CFP.

I think it's pretty clear here. This is an instance of "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome". It appears that the man had serious AQ ties, which was what was speculated earlier.