Video Graphic of MAJ Hassan's attack

[Chloe]

I'm just curios, is there any doubt whatsoever about the Jihad aspect of this case? Why do liberals feel the need to deny that aspect?

I'm not denying the jihad aspect of it since he made no attempt to hide that fact, but my point is that the war on terrorism is in fact to many Americans a war on radical Islam and not really "terrorism" in a general sense. It goes along with what I've said before which is that the war on terrorism is actually endless war and endless fear mongering. Remove alluha Akbar and its just murder, add it in and it's now terrorism with Americans demanding blood.

[BB-35]

the fact that it was done in the name of Islam,by a soldier who had benefited from his service in the army,and didn't want to deploy to the middle east makes it terrorism,no matter what he shouted

[Peter1469]

I'm just curious, if he wouldn't have yelled out alluha Akbar during the shooting would you still consider it terrorism? And just to play devils advocate how is it not an example of workplace violence? It happened at a place of work between government employees and not on a battlefield somewhere.

Well, he left a lot of information indicating that he was acting to protect Muslims from the US military.

[Dr. Who]

But presumably it is only an act of terrorism if he was acting in concert with terrorists or under the direction of terrorist organizations. Otherwise just another nut job going postal for his own personal reasons.

[RosieS]

Why can't it be both? Islamic jihad since Hasan was working with th traitor terrorist al-Awlaki in Yemen, workplace violence in denying Hasan martyrdom status?

The Guntanamo prisoners are being force-fed so that the US doesn't create martyrs.

Regards from Rosie

[BB-35]

Why can't it be both? Islamic jihad since Hasan was working with th traitor terrorist al-Awlaki in Yemen, workplace violence in denying Hasan martyrdom status?

The Guntanamo prisoners are being force-fed so that the US doesn't create martyrs.

Regards from Rosie

OOOOOOOOOOkay

[Ransom]

I'm just curious, if he wouldn't have yelled out alluha Akbar during the shooting would you still consider it terrorism? And just to play devils advocate how is it not an example of workplace violence? It happened at a place of work between government employees and not on a battlefield somewhere.

And if the 'pilots' that flew planes into the world trade centers hadn't have yelled the same would you consider that workplace violence as well? Look who he specifically targeted. What he did prior to the shooting what he told other Mosque goers.....what was his motive he is defending himself Chloe and let me guess.....as usual, you're not paying attention? Who is reporting this to you have you done your own homework?

Why not link me the evidence coming out to show me all about your theory of how it cannot be anything other than workplace violence...rather than repeating what you've heard on tv.

[Ransom]

Why can't it be both? Islamic jihad since Hasan was working with th traitor terrorist al-Awlaki in Yemen, workplace violence in denying Hasan martyrdom status?

The Guntanamo prisoners are being force-fed so that the US doesn't create martyrs.

Regards from Rosie

It can be both. 9-11 was about as violent a workplace as you can get, the Benghazi embassy as well was where Ambassador Stevens worked and 9-11-12 was very violent. But can we give the victims their just do? Can we not obviously see where even if this was both, these soldiers and civilians should receive benefits other terror victims have needed, that's incorrect. It's wrong, your regards don't change the fact that you're way wrong here. And so is the President.

[RosieS]

It can be both. 9-11 was about as violent a workplace as you can get, the Benghazi embassy as well was where Ambassador Stevens worked and 9-11-12 was very violent. But can we give the victims their just do? Can we not obviously see where even if this was both, these soldiers and civilians should receive benefits other terror victims have needed, that's incorrect. It's wrong, your regards don't change the fact that you're way wrong here. And so is the President.

Patience is a virtue.

The victims of Timothy McVeigh were compensated. These domestic terrorism victims will be, too. But not right away...Hasan' s execution comes first, and then furtive compensation.

Again, denying Hasan 72 virgins in the afterlife is a desirable trans-national outcome.

Regards from Rosie

[Chloe]

And if the 'pilots' that flew planes into the world trade centers hadn't have yelled the same would you consider that workplace violence as well? Look who he specifically targeted. What he did prior to the shooting what he told other Mosque goers.....what was his motive he is defending himself Chloe and let me guess.....as usual, you're not paying attention? Who is reporting this to you have you done your own homework?

Why not link me the evidence coming out to show me all about your theory of how it cannot be anything other than workplace violence...rather than repeating what you've heard on tv.

I'm just trying to have a rational conversation about this. Workplace violence is about employee on employee, or employee/ex-employee vs employer type stuff. So for example with Hasan he was on duty as a military doctor at military function on a military base surrounded by co-workers. For the sake of this conversation it does not matter why he killed them only that he killed co-workers at his and their place of work. That is workplace violence. Whether he did it because he believes in radical islam or whether he did it because he hated the food that they served every day it wouldn't matter in my opinion, it's still just horrible murder. Attaching the terrorism label to it adds a level of intensity and emotion and revenge that in my opinion can be just as dangerous and misguided.

If a US soldier in Iraq somewhere snaps and kills five of his fellow soldiers because he grew disgruntled with how the war was going and with the decisions being made by those people in charge would that be terrorism or murder/treason? It would be murder. So a guy doing it for what he sees as religious reasons is now a terrorist but a guy doing it out of anger of his leaders decisions or country's involvement is not? Where do we draw the line? Where is the line? Will one day in the future everything be considered terrorism? It's something that I think we need to think about as a society.

Also i've said it before and i'll say it again even though I know it's unpopular and I get a lot of criticism for it. But, there are two sides to every story and both sides hold some truths and some falseness. If we only see ourselves as the good guys, all truths, all benevolent, and them all bad, all false, all evil...then terrorism will never ever stop because no matter what we do as a nation across the globe in our minds we will always be right, always see our actions as just, even though we are often times very very wrong and very very instrumental in suffering. We will continue to be one of the tools that helps to keep "terrorism" going in spite of our efforts to end it because OUR fanaticism when it comes to the war on terrorism, military might, and being the world's super power is just as dangerous to us and to a good portion o the rest of the world than radical islam's fanaticism when it comes to their war on the US and our allies.

I'm venting but what I just said isn't the main topic so i'll stop with it. My point about workplace violence is above though.