The Fort Hood terrorist

1. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

   His trial is finally starting;  they're picking the jury. 
   This one is of huge interest to me.
   I can't imagine any feasible defense he can put forth, yet he's trying, and the stupid legal system is gonna give him free rein to be his own "lawyer".     I would think that would cut off his chances of pleading insanity.    So I hear that his "defense" is to say that he was forced to be in the American military among enemy combatants who were killing his fellow Muslims.    What??!!    Surely Americans aren't stupid enough to let him get by with that crap.
   
   
   
   http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/04/ … urde-74536

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mighty Momposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      A very interesting case on many grounds.
      Notice there is no media attention on it.
      But seemingly 24/7 on George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin's trial.

      replyreport
2. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   I think letting him defend himself is just a guarantee that there will be endless appeals. 
   
   The possibility of him using this as a way to harass witness/survivors disgusts me.

   replyreport
3. 90

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   He just ain't a bright guy, is he?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      People guided by ideology don't think.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I also think that while he may not be insane as the law defines it (he is not moronic or delusional), he is probably not sane as most people think of it.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You mean maybe having a false sense of reality, or being unable to reconcile his loyalty as a Muslim with his commitment to the American military?
            I dunno if that's really a form of insanity;  rather a lack of understanding or a character flaw............

            replyreport
            1. 90

               Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Much like the Muslim theocrats who put their loyalty in an invisible man over their loyalty to their country, trying to turn it into a religion-based system that the founding fathers were extremely obviously fighting against.
               
               That goes for you Christian theocrats, too.

               replyreport
            2. 83

               psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               In that he thought blowing away people he cared for as a mental health professional was in  any way conscionable. Even without bringing in the other elements, as a psychologist I find that unfathomable.

               replyreport
4. 55

   celafoeposted 9 years ago

   odumbo is  protecting his mus-slime brother.     it should have bee a military trial and he would be executed by now but his brother, adolph,barry, osama, barak and what ever else , hussain , sotoero , obama etc is protecting him from our legal system, they  both need to be charged, convicted and executed according to the laws of our land.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Obama is protecting him.
      First, he made sure the terrorist's action was called "workplace violence" instead of terrorism, or even murder and labeling him what he is----- a traitor to America!
      Then,  we learn that he has been on paid leave all this time, making a nice salary while he delays going to trial to face the families of the soldiers he killed and maimed.
      
      Obama is a putz, yes,  and he is traitorous.  The Fort Hood killer should've been remanded to the military and had to face a military tribunal.   Obama----he should be impeached or arrested by citizens' arrest.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Obama said he was a terrorist.  The wounded could not get purple hearts because this medal has never been available to people wounded on home soil, ever.  Obama has nothing to do with that.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            no obummer did not, He is the one that had it called "workplace violence", a term that is not in the laws for the military.    why dont you go somewhere else with your lies obummer troll.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Wow. I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I read something this stupid.
               
               

               replyreport
            2. 78

               Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Quoted from Fox News:
               
               "A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background Friday to a group of reporters, characterized the Fort Hood shooting as "an act of terrorism," the first time an administration official has used that term in describing the massacre."
               
               Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 … z2YkcSb5Eg

               replyreport
            3. 83

               psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You are wrong.  His statements are on the record.
               
               p.s. I did not vote for Obama and am not a Democrat

               replyreport
         2. 55

            celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            that is not true odumbo  made them do the civil trial when law requires a military trial under the UCNJ.   and they can give the PH if the commander wants to   typical demoncrat lies

            replyreport
            1. 55

               celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               ucmj

               replyreport
   2. 50

      Lie Detectorposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is a military trial.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks.   I had the impression it wouldn't be a military trial.
         But it seems you're right.   
         Here's some interesting info about military trials.
         
         
         
         http://www.policymic.com/articles/53259 … vilian-one

         replyreport
5. 68

   Angela Blairposted 9 years ago

   I live 30 miles from Fort Hood. I cannot begin to tell you how angry the troops are over this whole thing and the way it's been handled. This piece of scum has been treated like royalty for killing 13 and injuring over 30 more -- he's allowed to wear his beard and do as he damned well pleases on most things. The American public has paid all his hospital bills ( which are astronomical) and paid for everything it's taken to keep him comfortable while he awaits trial -- which has been postponed again and again. His representation of himself smells to high heaven to me -- just another way to get around the American legal system and string this thing out. The whole situation has been a travesty of American justice and prudent thinking on the part of our "government." If the man had been an American citizen this whole thing would have been resolved long ago. It appears to me our country has spent a bunch of money on a terrorist in the name of "protecting his rights" and appearing in a favorable light to other countries. Wonder how this would have been handled in Russia?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yep;  it's terrible.   Should be a major major topic in the News.
      I wonder.....and do you know?---if this trial will be televised like the Zimmerman trial?   Do they televise military trials?   maybe on C-Span at least or what?

      replyreport
6. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   The thing about America is that you are not guilty until the jury says so and even prisoners have some human rights.  I do not consider this a flaw.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ok <personal attack snipped>.    the good thing is when the scum take over people like you --<personal attack snipped>- are the first to go.   He has NO rights he is a terrorist musslime and is getting special treatment because he is a mus slime brother of barry, adolph, sotoero, b, bin obama or whatever his name is

      replyreport
      1. 83

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You believe in torturing and even killing people who fit into certain unworthy categories, and disrespecting people just because they disagree with you.
         
         This differs from the terrorists by only a fairly slim margin, and from the teachings of Jesus by a rather broad one.

         replyreport
7. 83

   Wayne Brownposted 9 years ago

   The Obama Administration claims the man is not a terrorist and his actions were a function of "workplace violence".  I suspect this will give the entire trial a totally different slant in that the judge will likely not allow any evidence in the case which makes a terrorist tie with the accused.  He will essentially stand trial for murder and the terrorist ties will be ignored and buried.  Certainly we can file this under "Workplace Violence" but we can also justify filing it under "Workplace Terrorism".  The Obama Administration wants ot avoid the appearance of any ties to Islam in this case and wants the prosecution to ignore the Islam decrees made by the defendant as he carried out his slaughter.  While trying him for murder may play to the subject of punishment, it totally ignores the potential source of the problem and the possibility of it happening again for the same or similar reasons.  The priority in this case is Islamic appeasement and not the prosecution of a terrorist act.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This still isn't true.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think you're right.
      I'm wondering how far in-depth this case will go.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

   And yeah, according to this article----------
   
   
   http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fort-h … t-martial/
   
   
   ...he is not being tried for terrorism,  he's being charged with premeditated attempted murder and premeditated murder.
   
   What the heck?!    Why can't they charge him with terrorism?   Or, if they're gonna consider him still an American,  why not charge him with treason, etc..........?
   Seems to me he's being allowed to slip through a crack in the legal system here............

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Why can't they charge him with terrorism?
      
      Honestly Brenda, do you never think?
      
      Try him as terrorist and give him almost unlimited scope  to publish his beliefs and have every other terrorist in the world rooting for him.
      When he is found guilty, make a martyr of him, radicalise many would be terrorists.and drive to further acts of terror.
      
      Or, try him as a murderer plain and simple. Give his fellow terrorists nothing to "celebrate" and indeed  turn them away - who wants to be associated with a plain murderer?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         So.....in other words, let him "scare" us into labeling his actions something other than what they were.    Cater to the fear that "other terrorists" will be emboldened.   Have him put US on the defensive again. 
         
         Honestly,  I would think that labeling him as a terrorist would be a warning to those "other terrorists".    What's happening now is that those people are aware that America's military still has to play by the rules of legal justice while they do not,  so nothing's changed except perhaps emboldening them by NOT labeling it terrorism.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You may have noticed that I have absolutely no regard for Margaret Thatcher.
            One thing she did say that had my 100% agreement was that we should deprive terrorists of the oxygen of publicity.
            
            You obviously disagree with that and think they should have maximum publicity!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Why don't YOU think, John?
               
               What "publicity" did the Fort Hood killer get before he went and killed all those  "fellow soldiers" of his?
               Eh?
               
               So it's apparent that it isn't publicity that causes terrorism.    It's NOT speaking against it that emboldens them;  and they're already determined to commit those acts anyway.
               
               Who the hay cares if Hasan gets publicity now?    He should get all kinds of BAD publicity!    I think they should've shown his trial on C-Span and other News so that people could actually see how crazy or how evil the man is.    They could leave out any parts that might pertain to security etc.  or privacy of soldiers and/or their military positions.
               
               It isn't that I want to make a public spectacle of him for vengeance's sake!   It's that I think American NEEDS at this point in time in our history to be shown the hidden face of terrorism,  to see what it's like once and for all.      Just as the Boston bombers should be held to accountability in that vein also,  instead of treated as American citizens without emphasizing their hidden agenda.
               
               And in case anyone asks the difference between the Sandy Hook killer and these TERRORISTS,  it's plain that the former wasn't anti-American, he was just crazy;   while the latter had an anti-American political agenda and weren't even ashamed of their hatred.    Theirs came from an outside force, while the poor kid who killed all those other kids was sick and probably would've been ruled insane.    Yet Hasan and the terrorists aren't ashamed at all,  and Hasan was allowed to represent himself which obviously means they couldn't hold him to insanity judgement---he did it outright deliberately and has no good excuse at all for it.

               replyreport
9. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

   He's been found guilty.   He really didn't try to put up a defense.  Maybe he wants to be a martyr or maybe he's playing a game.   Who knows?.........
   
   
   http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/n … ?hpt=po_c2

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Or maybe he just thought, "Yeah, I'm pretty much screwed here."

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe he just wants his virgins?

      replyreport
10. 83

    psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

    The charged him under the most appropriate available law with the highest penalites, not for reasons of rhetoric.

    replyreport
    1. 55

       celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       if you believe that I have a bridge I can sell you at a great price---cash and carry.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Show me a terrorism law with the death penalty that they could have charged him with in that state.

          replyreport
          1. 55

             celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             The charge he should have been charged with is under the US Military Code of Justice, Murder and Treason are both death penalty crime.  He  but his mus-slime brother adolph barack hussain barry sotoero or whatever his real name is made them charge him with illegally.   and then instead of calling it terrorism, with the muslime perpetrator himself said it was called it workplace violce.   Just another of his dictatorial actions,
             now we should put him in jail multiple lifetimes at hard labor and feed him pork fried in lard so he does NOT get his virgins , if you believe in that.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah it's rather silly anyway.
                I don't understand how people can think that they're gonna still be physical as in wanting sex etc. in the afterlife anyway.    Surely all religions believe that we'll be spirit-beings, and how and why would a spirit need physical sex?   they wouldn't.

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   I would have to say that most religions throughout history believe otherwise. 
                   
                   Cave men buried their dead with knives, jewelry, tools, etc. - all useless without a body.  Egyptians buried their dead with slaves to serve them.  Other peoples believe they come back to life on earth, as in reincarnation.
                   
                   Maybe it's just difficult to imagine a body-less spirit, floating around, but whatever, most beliefs seem to include a body of some kind and a use for earthly "things" as well.

                   replyreport
                   1. 55

                      celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      maybe all others do, but not Christianity.

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         Christians don't believe in reincarnation!
                         
                         Wow!

                         replyreport
                         1. 55

                            celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            not real ones

                            replyreport
                      2. 90

                         Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         Quick! What is 1 Corinthians chapter 15 all about?
                         
                         Hint: It's reincarnation.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            Nuh uh.  Not really.    I'm pretty sure "reincarnation" implies returning as a different person or with parts of one's persona changed or intermingled with someone else (which isn't feasible anyway! lol).
                            
                            Jesus was the same person after He rose as He was before He died.     So I don't think you can label those passages as "reincarnation" in the way that you'd like to label it..

                            replyreport
                            1. 90

                               Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               That's one of several interpretations, namely that of Buddhist and Hindu belief. Another way to look at reincarnation is as the acquiring of a new body after death through supernatural means.
                               
                               In Buddhism and Hinduism, this new body is the one you wear on Earth after being reborn.
                               
                               In Christianity, it's the new body granted to the saints during the end-times. Or when Jesus died and thousands of saint!zombies flooded Jerusalem. Or just when you die. The Bible is very inconsistent about when you get your new body, but regardless, you get one, and it's been acquired through supernatural means. Thus, reincarnation.

                               replyreport
                            2. 55

                               celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               brenda you are correct.  He was not reincarnated"  He was RESTORED to life. as will the dead be for the judgement.    two totally different things.   This false doctrine they are preaching is fruit of the false doctrine "all religions lead you to God", which is widely promoted in hub pages too.   dont waste you time with this drivel

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  You're right, celafoe.   
                                  Yep, so many people are promoting that false doctrine of all religions lead to God.
                                  We know the Truth and we gotta stick to it no matter what.
                                  Amen. 

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 55

                                     celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     Brenda
                                     i will post a hub about that false doctrine on reincarnation in a day or two.  hang in there and  stay with the truth.  bless you

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        Thank you friend!    I'll be looking forward to reading the hub. 

                                        report
                         2. 55

                            celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            that is not correct, only your twisted opinion

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               New International Bible
                               
                               12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

                               replyreport
                               1. 55

                                  celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  this is not the place to promote youer false doctrines.   Go play somewhere else.   1.  the NIV is the worst translation .  2.  That scripture does not talk about reincrnation.   You do not understand either word.   But I do know that your false doctrine is one of the hot new ones . t hat does not in any way make it of interest to me or any other Christian.   I am finished on the subject, having rejected it already.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 90

                                     Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     The NIV does have some issues with its choice in vocabulary in several instances, but would you like to point out which of those verses has been fundamentally altered? Would you like those same verses in the KJV? I bet you wouldn't.
                                     
                                     12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
                                     13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
                                     14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
                                     15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
                                     16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
                                     17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
                                     18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
                                     19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

                                     replyreport
                                  2. 60

                                     John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     King James Bible -
                                     
                                     "12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
                                     
                                     13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
                                     
                                     14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
                                     
                                     15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
                                     
                                     16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
                                     
                                     17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
                                     
                                     18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
                                     
                                     19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
                                     
                                     I guess your faith is vain!

                                     replyreport
                   2. 0

                      Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Well, perhaps you're right about that.
                      Matter of fact, come to think of it,  several Christians that I know of have a similar mindset, even though the Bible says flesh and blood won't enter heaven.    That's one thing that really disappoints me about some of the modern preachers these days..........they can't seem to get past the physical in a way that explains either their real Faith and they can't edify others with it because they don't get it themselves.
                      
                      But as celafoe said, it's not a traditional belief of Christians, really.    It's a confused bunch of Christians we seem to have these days............

                      replyreport
                      1. 96

                         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         I don't think so, Brenda.  A body is integral to all that we are, and it is nearly impossible to rid oneself of that.  For instance:
                         
                         The saved will sit at god's feet - without a bottom, how?
                         The saved will listen to god while sitting - without ears, how?
                         They will see god and heaven - without eyes, how?
                         
                         Now, one can say that these things are not literal, and that may be right, but the very words reinforce the idea of a physical body in the afterlife.  It seems to be the only that humans, being the visual creatures they are, can picture heaven at all.  Mere words are insufficient, pictures are necessary and that picture requires a body.

                         replyreport
             2. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                I totally agree.
                It's plain as day that Obama's ties and/or influence and agenda has perpetuated tolerance for this kind of thing,  has slowed the wheels of justice immensely in cases like this.    He's doing our military a great disservice by many of his words and actions,  not to mention all of America period.

                replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

    I'm inclined to agree with celafoe.    It was commonly told even right after the incident,  that the guy had exhibited lots of signals and actions that required scrutiny and intense investigation AND immediate notification of his inability to do the job he was hired to do,  but that even the military people were afraid they'd be labeled "Islamophobic" if they (basically, "profiled") him. 
    What the hay!!?    People in those positions of such power and importance should BE the ones who are profiled as part of their job requirements!
    
    
    
    
    
    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser … 02514.html
    
    
    
    
    Seems to me that America's fast becoming chicken because of the new push for unfettered tolerance;   the liberal movement is rolling out the red carpet for anyone and everyone who's got the gall to claim "minority persecution".

    replyreport
12. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

    This all begs the question,  considering how inseparable "Muslim" and "Islam" seems to be,  of whether a Muslim can even be a patriotic American, especially in a military role!
    
    It also reminds us that America's basis was Christian,  and still would be perpetuated as such if it weren't for the current Administration's refusal to acknowledge such and its dissing of Christianity.
    
    What really is telling is the fact that ya don't see a panel of Congressmen etc.  filing petitions for better vetting of our military men and women!      Nope.   At least I haven't seen any.   Not one leader who will face this issue.      But they sure as heck did in the Sandy Hook incident;   they took up the "cause" gun control right away and with a vengeance.      But look at the silence on this one!,  even though the victims and families of the victims are the ones we should be thinking about and obtaining justice for, both personally and via political reform!
    
    
    Also, the victims can't (or couldn't last I heard) be given the purple heart award because it might hinder a "fair trial" for the killer!    I'm assuming part of that stems from the refusal to label the act as "terrorism"!
    
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 … air-trial/

    replyreport
    1. 55

       celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       of course a muslime should not be allowed to hold any office or join our military because their "religion"  forbids them to swear allegiance to anything other than islam.   But it also gives them special permission to lie so they can do exactly what the slime ball did, from the inside.    And adolph barry has  some muslimes in EVERY branch of our govt, esp in the security sections.   We have NO secrets from the muslime terrorists

       replyreport
13. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

    The jury decided.
    
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sol … d-shooting

    replyreport
    1. 60

       John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So? What did you expect.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I wasn't sure which sentence to expect.

          replyreport
          1. 90

             Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             And that is why you fail.

             replyreport
14. 59

    tirelesstravelerposted 9 years ago

    Read an interesting article about death sentenses in the army.  They take years of apeal and almost always are overturned for procedural defects. The army worked hard to avoid procedural errors.
    Sometimes you get what you want only to discover what you want isn't all that great.

    replyreport
15. 78

    Reality Bytesposted 9 years ago

    If Obama had a brother from another mother, he might have looked like Nidal Hasan.
    
    Right Barry, let's keep it real!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yup!

       replyreport
16. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago

    Good for them!   Victims of the Fort Hood killer aren't gonna be talked into political correctness!
    
    
    http://www.hannity.com/pages/fort-hood- … a-shove-it
    
    
    The shameful part is that it takes victims and family members to speak out against Al Jazeera.   The average American should've already done it.  Heck, our PRESIDENT should've done it in the first place.   But oh that's right, it's his Administration that labeled it "workplace violence" to start with!

    replyreport