Senator Collins blasts Obama for whitewashing Fort Hood masacre.

[gsvol]

How did you come to the conclusion that Loughner is a conservative?

Liberalism is a mental disease and ACLG has and acute case.

If it weren't for double standards, liberal progressives would have no standards at all.

 

[KiffinKiller]

you sound sure of this. you must be right

 

[PKT_VOL]

While we wait, would you care to give your own thought on Hassan?

I think he is a pitiful man who committed a terrible act. As an independent thinking being, I am unable to truly put myself in his mindset so I do not pretend to know his motives. From what I have read, it seems that he held some very deep religious views which exploded into violence once he was informed that he would be shipped over to Middle East where he and his fellow comrades would be engaging his Islamic brothers. Again, this is speculation from third-hand sources. To me, his motives are meaningless. I believe it is impossible to judge a person, morally/ethically speaking, based upon their motives since we (as outside agents) are unable to ever truly know their true motives. Only an omniscient God can do such a thing. Thus, I believe the notion of "hate crimes" are a joke. Philosophically, I reject Kant's ethics. I am a Utilitarian.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think he is a pitiful man who committed a terrible act. As an independent thinking being, I am unable to truly put myself in his mindset so I do not pretend to know his motives. From what I have read, it seems that he held some very deep religious views which exploded into violence once he was informed that he would be shipped over to Middle East where he and his fellow comrades would be engaging his Islamic brothers. Again, this is speculation from third-hand sources. To me, his motives are meaningless. I believe it is impossible to judge a person, morally/ethically speaking, based upon their motives since we (as outside agents) are unable to ever truly know their true motives. Only an omniscient God can do such a thing. Thus, I believe the notion of "hate crimes" are a joke. Philosophically, I reject Kant's ethics. I am a Utilitarian.

Are you going out of your way to avoid the fact that this was an act of Islamic terrorism? I don't think GS's broad brush works, but it applies here. Hassan is an Islamic terrorist and garbage pile, regardless what he might have been struggling with at the time.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Hassan = everyone moslem

 

[PKT_VOL]

Are you going out of your way to avoid the fact that this was an act of Islamic terrorism? I don't think GS's broad brush works, but it applies here. Hassan is an Islamic terrorist and garbage pile, regardless what he might have been struggling with at the time.

I have not read anything conclusive which quoted him about his motives. I have things which indicate he was acting in the name of Islam (an Islamic terrorist as you indicated). I have read other things which make the case that he was acting mainly out of hatred for his superiors and his assignment of going overseas (much like an office shooting). Finally, I have read things which indicate that it was a mixture of both. I am asserting that I do not know one way or the other. From a moral/ethical position (which is where my post was) I could care less what his motives were. He could have been an Islamic terrorist, a Christian terrorist, a mad man, or killing for pleasure; none of which changes the outcome. As a Utilitarian, I judge people based upon the action and not the apparent motive.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Hatred for superiors? How do you reconcile that? It was steeped in religious fanaticism.

Why on earth is anyone trying so hard to avoid calling this what it is and him what he is?

 

[hndog609]

As a Utilitarian, I judge people based upon the action and not the apparent motive.

Hmm...maybe I'm running too far with this out of context but I have some issues with this. For instance, I see profound differences between someone killing another because they wanted the 47.85 from the cash register and a different someone killing another that kicked in their door with a butcher knife and a hard-on. (for the Dirty Harry fans) Both are "homicides" but I (and the law) view them very differently.

Again, apologies if I'm taking this the wrong way but you sound like you've basically dismissed the entire concept of mens rea.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Hmm...maybe I'm running too far with this out of context but I have some issues with this. For instance, I see profound differences between someone killing another because they wanted the 47.85 from the cash register and a different someone killing another that kicked in their door with a butcher knife and a hard-on. (for the Dirty Harry fans) Both are "homicides" but I (and the law) view them very differently.

Again, apologies if I'm taking this the wrong way but you sound like you've basically dismissed the entire concept of mens rea.

No you are absolutely correct. The most stanch Utilitarian would say there is no difference. I know a few who believe this. However, there are many shades of grey within Utilitarianism...I fall into one of them.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No you are absolutely correct. The most stanch Utilitarian would say there is no difference. I know a few who believe this. However, there are many shades of grey within Utilitarianism...I fall into one of them.

I tend to be utilitarian myself, but it doesn't rid the world of motive, nor does it absolve anyone from trying to eliminate those motives that can be dealt with.

 

[therealUT]

Hatred for superiors? How do you reconcile that? It was steeped in religious fanaticism.

Why on earth is anyone trying so hard to avoid calling this what it is and him what he is?

Why are you trying so hard to call him an Islamic Terrorist?

Right now, the only evidence in favor of your view are emails to Al-Awlaki, conflicting reports from witnesses as to whether or not Hasan yelled 'Allahu-Akbar' prior to firing, and the fact that Hasan is Muslim.

Of the emails, "Two FBI task forces, in Washington and San Diego, received the intercepted messages, but deemed them innocent." (ABCNews).

Hasan is a murderer who will most likely be convicted and sentenced accordingly; why is it so crucial that you label him an 'Islamic Terrorist'.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not trying. I'm calling him what he is. I am having to do no justification or hoop jumping. His was an act of Islamic terrorism, regardless what any is thinks about it.

 

[therealUT]

I'm not trying. I'm calling him what he is. I am having to do no justification or hoop jumping. His was an act of Islamic terrorism, regardless what any is thinks about it.

Your conclusion - Your evidence = Your subjective net contribution.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Your conclusion - Your evidence = Your subjective net contribution.

So. Running around the world to avoid linking the reality is the job of our court system and political douchebags, not Everyman.

Emails, innocent or otherwise, to fire preaching radicals can be overlooked, but it's naive as hell and ably done to support a blameless worldview.

 

[therealUT]

So. Running around the world to avoid linking the reality is the job of our court system and political douchebags, not Everyman.

Emails, innocent or otherwise, to fire preaching radicals can be overlooked, but it's naive as hell and ably done to support a blameless worldview.

Who said he should not be blamed? He should be tried as a murderer; there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a murderer. There is not that degree of evidence that he is an "Islamic Terrorist".

You want to make him out to be an "Islamic Terrorist" and so you jump to that conclusion on the slightest of evidence. Kudos to you, Sir.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Who said he should not be blamed? He should be tried as a murderer; there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a murderer. There is not that degree of evidence that he is an "Islamic Terrorist".

You want to make him out to be an "Islamic Terrorist" and so you jump to that conclusion on the slightest of evidence. Kudos to you, Sir.

He is going to be tried for murder. The Islamic terrorist angle is pure political stupidity on the part of this admin. The battle to state otherwise is equally silly

Your slightest of evidence point is as absurd as any you've made. Your refutation of that evidence is the scant piece.

 

[therealUT]

He is going to be tried for murder. The Islamic terrorist angle is pure political stupidity on the part of this admin. The battle to state otherwise is equally silly

Your slightest of evidence point is as absurd as any you've made. Your refutation of that evidence is the scant piece.

Burden of proof lies with you. Provide the proof.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Hatred for superiors? How do you reconcile that? It was steeped in religious fanaticism.

Why on earth is anyone trying so hard to avoid calling this what it is and him what he is?

Here is a link. Like I said earlier, it is not conclusive proof. It is just speculation. All motives have been nothing but speculation. Nothing definitive that I am aware of.

Fort Hood captain: Hasan wanted patients to face war crimes charges | Dallas-Fort Worth Breaking News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

I'm not trying. I'm calling him what he is. I am having to do no justification or hoop jumping. His was an act of Islamic terrorism, regardless what any is thinks about it.

If you can provide a link which offers conclusive proof of his motives I will gladly label him an Islamic terrorist. I have yet to see this. Some quotes directly from Hasan would put this to rest. I am unaware of their existence at this time.

I tend to be utilitarian myself, but it doesn't rid the world of motive, nor does it absolve anyone from trying to eliminate those motives that can be dealt with.

Ethics and morality are both subjective and relative. There are many shades of grey. However, motive is a non-factor in true Utilitarianism.

 

[gsvol]

However, in our legal system those considerations are used to determine whether a killing is manslaughter, 2nd or 1st degree murder which have different punishments.

Are you going out of your way to avoid the fact that this was an act of Islamic terrorism? I don't think GS's broad brush works, but it applies here. Hassan is an Islamic terrorist and garbage pile, regardless what he might have been struggling with at the time.

What broad brush?

Why was Holder so eager to put McVeigh to death but is dragging his feet so much in the Hassan case.

Is Holder's motive the same as Hassan's was when he committed his origianl cowardly murders?

Why doesn't Holder ship Hasan off to Gitmo?

I have not read anything conclusive which quoted him about his motives. I have things which indicate he was acting in the name of Islam (an Islamic terrorist as you indicated). I have read other things which make the case that he was acting mainly out of hatred for his superiors and his assignment of going overseas (much like an office shooting). Finally, I have read things which indicate that it was a mixture of both. I am asserting that I do not know one way or the other. From a moral/ethical position (which is where my post was) I could care less what his motives were. He could have been an Islamic terrorist, a Christian terrorist, a mad man, or killing for pleasure; none of which changes the outcome. As a Utilitarian, I judge people based upon the action and not the apparent motive.

Ho-hum, just another case of workplace violence, nothing to see here folks, keep in line and don't make any noise on your way to the slaughter house.

Hatred for superiors? How do you reconcile that? It was steeped in religious fanaticism.

Why on earth is anyone trying so hard to avoid calling this what it is and him what he is?

One of the most troubling things about the whole affair was that his supperiors were very hesitant to criticize Hasan's rhetoric of behavior as relates to islam because they were afraid it would hurt their carreers if they were seen to be islamophobic etc.

That political policy is stupifyingly stupid.

I'm not trying. I'm calling him what he is. I am having to do no justification or hoop jumping. His was an act of Islamic terrorism, regardless what any is thinks about it.

Hammer meet nail, or brush meet wall, as the case may be.

 

[PKT_VOL]

However, in our legal system those considerations are used to determine whether a killing is manslaughter, 2nd or 1st degree murder which have different punishments.

Excellent point. Sometimes there is clear-cut evidence of motive. There is no such evidence in the Hasan case. Furthermore, the fact that it was obviously premeditated negates the significance of his motives.

Ho-hum, just another case of workplace violence, nothing to see here folks, keep in line and don't make any noise on your way to the slaughter house.

As TRUT and I asked, please provide evidence in the way of direct quotes which proves your assertion. I have an open mind; I just need some evidence, not unfounded assumptions because he was Muslim.

 

[therealUT]

Who needs proof when one can just continue to insist?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Here is a link. Like I said earlier, it is not conclusive proof. It is just speculation. All motives have been nothing but speculation. Nothing definitive that I am aware of.

Fort Hood captain: Hasan wanted patients to face war crimes charges | Dallas-Fort Worth Breaking News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News



If you can provide a link which offers conclusive proof of his motives I will gladly label him an Islamic terrorist. I have yet to see this. Some quotes directly from Hasan would put this to rest. I am unaware of their existence at this time.



Ethics and morality are both subjective and relative. There are many shades of grey. However, motive is a non-factor in true Utilitarianism.

I don't give a crap about true utilitarianism. Anything that avoids cause of action is of almost no value to me, especially in those cases where we'd like to preclude repeats.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Who needs proof when one can just continue to insist?

I need no more proof than you do. In fact, given the circumstances and the history of the piece of garbage in question, your defense is horrendously weak. This isn't a court of law, so the burden of proof standard is silly. Running 50 miles around the block to dredge up a plausible opposing view is quaint, but worthless.

 

[therealUT]

I need no more proof than you do. In fact, given the circumstances and the history of the piece of garbage in question, your defense is horrendously weak. This isn't a court of law, so the burden of proof standard is silly. Running 50 miles around the block to dredge up a plausible opposing view is quaint, but worthless.

And, playing your game of, "This is the conclusion I want to draw, so I am going to do everything I can with what weak evidence I have to get there" is how we ended up in Iraq. You are right, it is not a "court of law" so no need to be rigorous...

 

[lawgator1]

I don't have any problem saying that the Fort Hood guy was at least partly motivated by some sort of Muslim hatred thing. I mean, from what I've read, it might be more of a rationalization or justification for him than some long term, political/religious goal for him to do what he did. I wouldn't call him Al-Qaeda or foreign-terror trained.

That said, it would not be fair to assume that all Muslims would do or tolerate what he did. It would also be naive to think that you could somehow stop such stuff from happening if you attacked Islam in some form or fashion. He, and others like him, would just find some other way to justify their bad actions.