By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 16 November 2009
Edit Thread
TheRealMafoo said:
Reasonable said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ultima said:
Can I get a short summary of the story please?

There are so many stories on it, that it's hard to find one that's a good summary. Just google Fort Hood Shooting

Here is a quick synopsis of it:

 

A US Major entered Fort Hood recruiting center, killed 13, wounding 35 or so others.

 

He was a muslim who was against the war. he has on several occasions remarked about how we were on the wrong side of what's right in this war. He was about to be sent to the middle east, and decided to make his stand before he went.

 

He had written on a few blogs about how he does not think suicide bombers are the same as people who are suicidal, as most suicide bombers think that if they can take out members of the opposition who one day might kill there own, they are saving lives in what they do. He equated it to jumping on a grenade to save your fellow comrades.

If he's not clearly representing a country or the declared wishes of its leaders then it can't really be called an act of war.  To be honest, from what I've read, sounds like the guy was acting in a manner that, from a certain viewpoint (i.e. Western) was based on a mix of physcological problems and a self initiated act linked into ongoing propoganda by terrorist organizations.

Personally, the real flaw I see in US response here goes right back to Bush declaring a 'War on Terror'.  It shows a country and approach built around nations, clearly defined foes and obvious understanding of a winning/losing position.  This isn't the case, and you're looking at people acting for religious/conviction reasons with no real state behind them, many with issues that make them ideal fodder for this situation, and no clear winning strategy.

Nasty act though, no doubt about that, whatever drove him.

 

I should have used a different term. "act of war" has political meaning outside what I meant to say.

 

For example, if China invaded the US, took over my town, I (along with thousands of other Americans), would grab a gun, and fight back. We would not be told we need to do this, and we would not be acting under government orders.

 

I would consider my actions an act of war. War was declared on something I felt strong enough to defend, and I took it upon myself to stand up for what I thought was right.

 

Like this, if China had not invaded my town, I would not have been driven to take such action. Now, if I was effective enough to kill 13 and wound 35 before the Chinese caught me, I would expect them to kill me (like I would like to have done with this man), but I would hope China was smart enough to realize it's a reaction to there invasion, and not just label me a nut job.

You're trying to deny that this is an act of violence whence it's the violence in it that's bothering you. Let's say the man refused to be deployed and protested using peaceful methods, a hunger strike for example. Something like that can't be called an act of violence, but I'm positive you wouldn't call it an act of war either.

And this man shouldn't be killed just because you want him dead. He broke the law, and should be dealt with according to state law. If death sentence is still legal there, then off he goes. If death sentence isn't, then he gets 13 life sentences. Why should he be treated any differently than any other nutless murderer?