topic wrote:Gman,
We are talking about this incident and none other. What you are doing again and again is bringing a connection that could or could not be there.
Nonetheless we have to look at all factors and all relevant cases.
topic wrote:In your view (as i can only percieve by these posts), any aggresive act by a Muslim MUST BE a jihad.
No.. What I'm saying here is that the ideology is jihadist in nature. Not the people, it's the religion when practiced to it's fullest.
topic wrote:The findings in the other 2 incidents brought EMPERICAL EVIDENCE that it was a jihad, so for me, through reading this evidence i know it was a jihad - so on those two points we agree.
Ok...
topic wrote:On this incident we will not know the truth for at least a month if not longer.If and again i say 'IF' THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS IT WAS DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF JIHADIST INTENT, then i will agree it was a jihadist attack, but at this stage there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that this is the primary cause.There is clearly conflicting information on this guy,and what brought him to the act he did, this does not in anyway excuse what he did,but it again may lead to findings that on the surface may not be the root cause.
Well let's look at the evidence we have so far.
1. Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.
2. He sold all his possessions before the attack.
3. When going on the internet, he always used his neighbors computer, never his own. Also while he was on the internet, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades in the cause of Allah.
4. He once told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut.
5. He once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
6. He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.
7. One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base."
8. Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar," Arabic for "God is Greatest" just before the shooting in which 13 people were killed and 30 wounded.
9. His act mimics other terrorists such as Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar or Najibullah Zazi that were also jihadists.
10. His actions fall in line with the Koran's teaching for salvation or paradise.
I don't know but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Although not all the evidence is in, I believe we have probably a 90% certainty here.
topic wrote:We could look at the incident from a psychological perspective but for some reason, you and it now appears others also, will not accept or even permit an investigation from this view point. In your view, your findings would be so narrow that it would not be of any value in STOPPING AN ACT OF SUCH ABHORENT VIOLENCE from happening again.
I'm not denying that something psychological happened here. But given that this guy was a psychologist makes me wonder. Also who said that I wanted to stop the investigation? I never said that..
topic wrote:Yet none-the-less it is a frailty.
No it is not frailty.. Now it seems you want to stop the investigation. It's probably the fact that he was being deported to the war that perpetuated the issue even more. Much like adding fire to gasoline.
topic wrote:I do not know what intent you have in stating this?If in the inquisitive i have already answered at the top of this post.If you are however trying to show your awareness is greater than mine, please do not belittle yourself nor me. Are we not having a discourse on a situation and trying to listen, hear, absorb one anothers views? Or is it simply in your eyes, you are right, i am wrong and anything i say has no insight or value?To do so would bring disappointment.
First off, I simply added the topic/video with no real opinion of mine. Second, you called it (my post) a erroneous accusation and an uneducated opinion. So, if you want to debate this more I'd me more than happy to.
topic wrote:In fact i was not doing this but merely questioning Gman as to why this video had more value than any other at this point in time and why it had to be motivated through the only act he clearly believes - jihadist.
Oh, like this is something I came up with? What about Lieberman and other congressmen that think this way too?
topic wrote:Gman if you wish to continue this discourse i have no problem with it, but it must head in a direction. So far all that is being said is the same thing over and over again - the dog chasing its tail, one could say
peace
Fine by me... Again I'm not saying that this is "the" complete answer to the question. Although I would say that it is probably the most plausible. Besides, give it a few weeks and it will probably be forgotten just like the others. Until it happens again and then we will say, why did this happen? Just like the dog chasing his tail. Yes...