The Jihad Made Me Do It
Looks like a Muslim cleric has ties to the Fort Hood Shooter and the Christmas bomber. And even the perpetrators of 9/11.
But Ft. Hood was not terrorism.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
You racist! Jihad is an inner struggle for personal betterment best achieved by causing airplanes to make unscheduled explosions.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
If the Ft. Hood shooter had been a soldier with a copy of the U.S. Constitution, then he would’ve been classified as a “domestic terrorist”
December 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Yeah, the government was quick (i.e. immediately) to condlude that the slaughter of 31 unarmed (disarmed) US soldiers by a Muslim yelling “Allah akbar!” on a domestic military base isn’t terrorism.
I think that O used the term “senseless violence” like it was some kind of post office shooting.
The government was similarly quick to conclude that the shooting of El Al employees at LAX by a Muslim wasn’t terrorism.
Amazing how the government quickly concluded that this act of Muslim domestic terrorism is, in fact, terrorism.
I somehow suspect that O believes the country will rally around its Commander in Chief if he has an act of deomestic terrorism to fight – kind of like GWB standing in the rubble of the WTCs with the bullhorn.
Sorry, O, but you ain’t GWB, who, for all of his many shortcomings, did a pretty fair job fighting the jihadists.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:26 am
It really depends on what your definition of “terrorism” is. Most people consider terrorism to be an attack against civilians, in which case the Fort Hood shooting was not an act of terrorism, being an attack on a military base against soldiers. On the other hand, if your definition of terrorism is “any violence committed by a Muslim,” then it was.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Well, I use the real definition which is something like violence used for political purposes or to coerce and intimidate. The target of the violence (civilian or military) is inconsequential. For instance, those that died on 9/11 were collateral damage. You and me were the real targets.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Well in that case, they missed.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Terrorism is the application of violence to a third party to get them to influence, out of fear, the leadership of the society to acquiesce to the demands of the terrorists.
By that definition, which is the correct one, most of the charges of terrorism we have levied in this country, are not. They are simple crimes. However, by that same definition, incidents that are obviously terrorism are not deemed so by the dummies in positions of responsibility. Yes, Uncle is correct. The Ft.Hood attack was terrorism.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Point of clarification. For instance, if someone threatens to kill someone else, he has not committed terrorism, (though we have many prosecutors abusing the statutes to gain convictions the easy way by using the scary T-word). He has committed a crime. But, if he threatens to kill others to make his target grant him what he desires, then he not only has committed a crime, but he has engaged in an act of terrorism if the threat and/or act is made known to the targets of the violence in order to get them to apply pressure to the real target to surrender to the demands.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Being made known to the targets of the violence is a required factor, otherwise it is just coercion.