If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Anthems and Protests ---
While we certainly understand the frustration by fans on all sides of the discussion, we have decided to keep the Broncos Country message boards separate from politics. Recent events have brought the NFL to the forefront of political debates, but due to the highly emotional and passionate discussion it tends to involve, we think it’s best to continue to keep politics and this forum separate. Yes, the forum is meant for discussion, but we’d like to keep that discussion to football as much as possible.
With everything going on in our country, it would be nice to keep our complaints and cheers purely related to football here. If you feel passionately, there are plenty of other outlets available to you to express your opinions. We know this isn’t the most popular decision, but we ask that you respect it.
Thank you for understanding.
--Broncos Country Message Board Staff
People, even when you say you don't want to get into politics, you're getting into politics.
Let's not get this thread closed down, okay?
Take it elsewhere, please.
I'd take it to the politics section of the board, but many of the people posting in this thread are unable to participate due to not having starter status.
Where would you suggest taking it?
Are we just not supposed to talk about these things? Pretend like they don't happen? I personally know people stationed at Ft. Hood. It's not that easy to just dismiss.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but so far the conversation has been civil, and reasonable.
Survivors of the rampage said the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is great!" in Arabic — before opening fire, according to Fort Hood base commander Lt. Gen. Robert Cone. Cone said officials had not yet confirmed that Hasan made the comment.
Federal law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author.
One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates a suicide bomber to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.
"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," the Internet posting reads. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."
I'd take it to the politics section of the board, but many of the people posting in this thread are unable to participate due to not having starter status.
Where would you suggest taking it?
Are we just not supposed to talk about these things? Pretend like they don't happen? I personally know people stationed at Ft. Hood. It's not that easy to just dismiss.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but so far the conversation has been civil, and reasonable.
I didn't say anyone was being uncivil or unreasonable. I said that there were posts in here that were possibly getting too political. That's against the CoC (and I didn't write it).
That's exactly why I said what I said, so that the thread wouldn't get closed, so that people could talk about it.
And, I guess I should have added or when I said 'Take it somewhere else.' Sorry I didn't.
Administrator
Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Lupus Awareness Month
"a semicolon is used when an author could've chosen to end their sentence, but chose not to. The author is you and the sentence is your life;"
So..that's collateral damage? How come? A family is sitting inside that house, having nothing to do with war or politics and they're blown away, and that's not an act of terror? Why, because the guy that drops the bomb is an american airman and he should and cannot be considered terrorist? Or an american private security firm makes a slaughter when they open fire randomly and kill dozen and they get away with murder? Listen, I've been in the army with my Romanian troops in Afghanistan and saw US soldiers having fun when they fired their weapons randomly on civillians in scattered villages and got away with nothing. If that is not an act of terrorism , than I don't know what it is...
Once again, I don't intend to get into politics, but to understand a problem, you need to get deep inside of the messy situation. Don't be bias and call an air strike victims collateral damage. They were human beings just those killed at Fort Hood. Wonder why a psychiatrist in the US Army decided to do what he did. Than look deep at the problem inside the system and politics used. Maybe than, things like this will not happen.
Than again, that's just me! I see the world from a different perspective! And to know, I'm sorry that people were killed. I saw enough death overseas. And is really sad that politics continues to make killings.
Well, I'm not going to get in depth here, because the thread will be closed, and I'll get an infraction. But, I don't think my comments were biased at all. On the contrary, contractors don't operate under the same legal RoE translations as U.S. Troops. The fact that they were American should not have any bearing on the situation under discussion. It's an isolated incident, without evidence.
When conducting a massive air campaign in an urban environment, there are going to be civilian casualties. It's not the pilots fault. The target is marked, and he confirms it. Once he's cleared hot, the laser guidance system simply does it's job. Unfortunately, this is a part of warfare. If you don't capitalize on opportunity, the engagement is prolonged. This further promotes collateral damage. RoE in air strikes is a difficult problem to solve, and there's not enough time or room in here to fully discuss it. Hopefully, the mods recognize that this convo is about military tactics and the effort to address negative aspects of the "collateral damage" issue.
On the topic at hand, there is evidence mounting that his religious beliefs played into the situation. It makes sense.
ter⋅ror⋅ist /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist]
–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Then by that definition, we have very few criminals in the US, and a great many terrorists.
Let's not argue semantics. The term "terrorist" has a particular meaning in our culture when opposed to "serial killer" or "mad man." While the dictionary has a very broad interpretation of the word, when we as a society use it, especially in the media, we're talking about a specific motive for violence and often, about a particular source group.
The word "terrorism" came up in this conversation very rapidly. It does not come up in conversations about other murders or large-scale tragedies though.
Before the media made it known that McNair's death was a murder suicide, people were talking about "a murderer. A mad man. An angry boyfriend. A gilted lover."
No one said "terrorist."
I'm very aware of what the dictionary says the word means. I'm also aware of what people intend it to mean when it's used. Trying to back out of that reality now by applying the broadest definition of the word possible is a neat linguistic trick, but ultimately it's not genuine.
I wonder why everytime when a muslim kills another american, he's labeled terrorist. I wonder if the 2 gunmen at Columbine high school were ever labeled terrorists! I guess not, they were not muslims... That's the sad thing, the way people are labeled only because of where they live and their origins!
At first there was talk of "terrorists" in that incident, but when it was discovered that they were two students that term quickly stopped coming up. Some continued to use it and probably for good reason, but others continued to use it because they had already called it an act of terrorism and were reluctant to back off that stance.
We did hear the term in relation to Columbine though, and we heard it a lot at first but with less and less frequency as we discovered the shooters were two white students.
What people should do at that military base once they move on with this tragedy is to find out why a major in the US Army acted like this and try to prevent it for happening in the future. That's what I think is the right thing to do. Move on and prevent further incidents by looking for the reasons behind a cruel tragedy.
He's yelling allah ackbar and handing out copies of the Koran. He was being investigated by the FBI for blogs on suicide bombings. He was Muslim.
I could care less if it offends anyones delicate sensibilities. He's a terrorist and will be put to death accordingly.
Praise Allah.
I don't condone your "praise Allah" or beginning portion, but there is nothing wrong with the bold sentences.
There is no internationally (by this I refer to the United Nations) accepted definition for terrorism. Grant it, the United States has compounded this matter with liberal, domestic interpretations of terrorism. The DC Sniper was allowed to be tried under the post 9/11 terrorism laws. But, interestingly, a key contributor to this obscurity, are Muslim countries. Muslim countries do not accept the attempts to properly identify acts of terrorism, because their war fighting/resistance tactics are largely classified as terrorism under these definitions.
What it all comes down to for me, is deliberately and directly manipulating non combatants to create tactical advantage and/or political/religious influence. Of course, terrorism is a loose term. I think it's best that we concentrate on the existing national laws and internationally accepted laws of war.
Nice partisan jab. Not real great for progress or reason, but absolutely slick on the "adults behaving like children" front. Kudos.
The simple presence of the word "terrorist" in this thread has led to this completely political, and completely off-topic post consisting of critiques (or insults) on other people's political affiliations, a discussion of how other countries (Muslim countries in particular) carry out war, and a discussion about military tactics.
While in completely poor taste and it being nothing but a hate-filled slam on Democrats, it also serves to exemplify exactly why this shooter isn't a terrorist. This shooting has nothing to do with any of the things discussed in Spice 1's post, yet that's the discussion that opens when the word "terrorist" is used showing the exact reasons why this person is not one.
He's a US soldier and a Major at that. Not a newbie and not a flake. He cracked up. Nothing less, nothing more. If his name was Bert, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Those that want to have it now... Really have no business in the discussions. They won't be part of any progress made anyway; either for our soliders (like the one at Ft. Hood) and our society, or for the efforts to prevent future cultural clashes among societies.
We should be talking about what it was that made him go nuts, and why this continues to happen at a place like Fort Hood.
Nice partisan jab. Not real great for progress or reason, but absolutely slick on the "adults behaving like children" front. Kudos.
The simple presence of the word "terrorist" in this thread has led to this completely political, and completely off-topic post consisting of critiques (or insults) on other people's political affiliations, a discussion of how other countries (Muslim countries in particular) carry out war, and a discussion about military tactics.
While in completely poor taste and it being nothing but a hate-filled slam on Democrats, it also serves to exemplify exactly why this shooter isn't a terrorist. This shooting has nothing to do with any of the things discussed in Spice 1's post, yet that's the discussion that opens when the word "terrorist" is used showing the exact reasons why this person is not one.
He's a US soldier and a Major at that. Not a newbie and not a flake. He cracked up. Nothing less, nothing more. If his name was Bert, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Those that want to have it now... Really have no business in the discussions. They won't be part of any progress made anyway; either for our soldiers (like the one at Ft. Hood) and our society, or for the efforts to prevent future cultural clashes among societies.
We should be talking about what it was that made him go nuts, and why this continues to happen at a place like Fort Hood.
Instead, we're talking about Jihad.
"Nidal Malik Hasan."
"Terrorist."
It's funny, what's in a name.
I'm not sure what aspects of your post are directed towards me, but I'll try to respond coherently. When discussing the misuse of a term like "terrorism", it's important to understand how it is universally interpreted and debated. It was not my intention to be "hate-filled", in "poor taste", overly political, or distract from the topic at hand. I tend to ramble on from time to time. I was simply trying to explain something relevant to the topic, which it is. This individual was military personnel deploying to Iraq. Military references to the speculation that this was/was not an act of terrorism are appropriate.
As far as attempting to understand the individual, that's ominous to say the least. He picked up Major pretty fast, so it's safe to say that he was very proficient in his duties. This may have distracted from some of his, if any, indicators that he was so conflicted. I know that, before he reported, he had given away many of his possessions to neighbors. This is hard to interpret as suicidal, because he was deploying to Iraq.
EDIT: Furthermore, my post was not intended to prove this man to be a terrorist/Jihadist.
im sure him being a muslim has a LOT to do with people labeling him a terrorist, but in response to the columbine argument i believe that it was horrible and tragic but not a crime against the US more so the high school / students/ teachers there. this along with the oklahoma bombings were terrorist acts whether american muslim black mexican or whatever agains the US
they were crimes agains the US, idk maybe people dont agree with me here but i think that is a significant part that should be used in a terrorist definition
much like McNair, not that it want a serious crime but it was a crime between 2 lovers and not really much else, no intent on hurting people for the sake of making a statement to the United States based on beliefs or religion whatever they may be but for the sake of this thread i will not go into.
i think the best example here though simple is that while not all crimes are terrorism all terroristic acts are crimes, just like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares lol . . . back to kindergarten there
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News. It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan tried to make contact with people linked to al Qaeda.It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.
In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).
Hoekstra said he is "absolutely furious" that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan's attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.
"This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies—not the CIA—have the lead," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. " Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect."
Tweet
when I said 'Take it somewhere else.' Sorry I didn't.
Comment