List of Fort Hood shootings fatalities released

The two guns he allegedly used in the attack have been sent to an Army CID lab in Atlanta. Army officials have said Maj. Hasan fired more than 100 rounds of ammunition from at least one handgun during the rampage.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125763279691636145.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

 I'm no expert on guns but how do you fire over 100 rounds from one handgun ?

I smell Army cover up.

change the clip when it dry fires. siegfried schlagrule

What kind of gun/guns....how many bullets does it hold in a clip, how many clips were used?

What kind of gun/guns....how many bullets does it hold in a clip, how many clips were used?

found this on line..
[Print]  [Email]       
AP Sources: 5.7 mm pistol used in Fort Hood rampage was purchased legally at Texas gun store
By: LARA JAKES and DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press
11/06/09 3:35 PM PST

WASHINGTON — A 5.7-millimeter pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting was purchased legally by suspect Nidal Hasan at a Texas gun shop, law enforcement officials said Friday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

Records indicate Hasan bought the FN 5.7 at store called "Guns Galore" in Killeen, Texas, in recent months and that gun was used in the attack that left 13 people dead, one of the officials said. The pistol has been dubbed a "cop killer" by those who have tried to stop its use.

Army officials said Hasan also was carrying another handgun.

One of the law enforcement officials said that gun was an older model Smith & Wesson .357-caliber revolver, but the official added there's nothing so far to indicate the second weapon was fired. The official said the revolver was so old, investigators doubt it could be traced to a specific purchase.

The most powerful type of ammunition for the FN 5.7 gun is available only to law enforcement and military personnel. Gun control advocates call it a "cop killer" weapon because that ammo can pierce bulletproof vests, and its use by Mexican drug cartels worries police.

It is not clear what kind of ammunition was used in the Fort Hood attack.

Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as the Texas Rangers have interviewed store personnel about Hasan's gun purchase. One official said the store records do not indicate Hasan purchased any ammo when he bought the gun.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=16512916&src=news

30 per clip armor piercing.

The FN 5.7 is an impressive handgun, but I have strong doubts as to his ability to get armor piercing ammo.

As I said before, coverup.

I'll have to disagree with not being able to get armor piercing ammo - its definitely available - usually by the brick.

So, at 30 rounds per clip, carry a few extra clips - remember, nobody tried to stop him until that cop lady shot him.

It takes about 2 seconds to drop one clip and slap in another.

B

The FN 5.7 is an impressive handgun, but I have strong doubts as to his ability to get armor piercing ammo.

As I said before, coverup.

I believe it will shoot other regular bullets as well...that might be the difference between the 20-30 rounds per clip....it doesn't take long for even me to dump a clip and slam another in.  3 1/2 clips could take meer seconds.

SO the MPs found a convenient way to blame all the injuries on the lone gunman, as long as the hospital goes along with it. I also challenge anyone to go out and buy armor piercing ammunition for this weapon. It is only available by special order to law enforcement agencies, and the military does not use it. So even if he tried the "I am a US Army Major" card, it would not have been sold to him.

so seeing is believing!!!! for those who just don't think it could happen the way it was reported.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/StXMHw32kjA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/StXMHw32kjA</a>

LOL, I have seen too many officers shoot........

5.7 "armor piercing" ammo - which, by the way, is about the equivalent of a 22, is still available for 25 bucks a box.  Back in 2005, they tried to get it off the market, but since the ballistic statistics of a 5.7 will not pierce a kevlar vest, the request to pull it off the market was nixed.  (of course, that could change again).  It was originally thought to be able to pierce 48 layers at 50 meters - which was bs, of course.

A 5.7 is the equivalent of a 28 caliber, it does not pierce modern vests - even if the cops are firing them. (and they are way too light for cops).

B


Good Post Texastee2007!

SO the MPs found a convenient way to blame all the injuries on the lone gunman, as long as the hospital goes along with it. I also challenge anyone to go out and buy armor piercing ammunition for this weapon. It is only available by special order to law enforcement agencies, and the military does not use it. So even if he tried the "I am a US Army Major" card, it would not have been sold to him.

the gun shoots armor piercing but also regular...what was found in building?  You would make a good lawyer....but let's put forth all the information on the gun..

Here's another and I think it may be a revolver...not clip...I can't see it well enough today.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lJ5Pts9dUdA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/lJ5Pts9dUdA</a>

It is a handgun. It fires a round that is only slightly larger than a .22. It is a very fast round, to be sure. You claimed he used armor piercing rounds. Not me.

There is no such thing as any particular class of weapon or type of ammunition that is necessarily more deadly than others. Personally, if I were going to kill large numbers of people in an enclosed space, I would have gone with a semiautomatic shotgun with an external drum magazine such as the Saiga, which is also legal to purchase.

As far as me making a good lawyer? Nope. As soon as I figured out a client was actually guilty, I would drop the case every single time. I would be disbarred in a matter of months.

I stated that the gun shoots armor piercing bullets as that is what is said in the discription of the gun....I never said "HE USED ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS"  I asked what kind were found at the scene...Please re read posts....that's OK everyone can make a mistake.

I can technically get armor piercing rounds for my .30-06 too...does not mean that it is very likely that I will actually be successful.

Actually, I don't like armor piercing rounds - they tend to go through people (and animals) with minimum damage, since they do not mushroom until they hit something really solid.  I tend to think (though I do not know) that armor piercing probably was not used.

B

Exactly. Speculation is not fact.

This discussion about armor piercing rounds is fruitless as the assailant's
targets were not ever to be armored personnel but flesh.

That is every assailants target.

That is every assailants target.

unprotected flrsh then ,  as was the case with this cowards victims.

Since you already know this man is guilty, and know all of his motivations, please, enlighten the rest of us.

Piggy's right, it don't matter if they were armor piercing rounds.  A 5.7 is about at .224 round, slightly bigger than the .223 used by the M-16.  Most folks not familiar with firearms don't comprehend just how deadly one person with some training (which this guy apparently had) with a handgun can be.  With a Mod. 19 S&W .357cal., a six shot wheel gun, a revolver, I can fire and reload and pop off 12 rounds in less than 15 seconds.  So imagine what you can put out there with an auto and extra loaded clips.

Since you already know this man is guilty, and know all of his motivations, please, enlighten the rest of us.

You think this guy might be innocent?

It will be an obama cover up.  The army will bend to the will of obammy or the ones that dont will have their careers ruined.

I do not believe this guy is innocent. I also do not believe this is a plot by muslim sleeper terrorists in the US Army. I am waiting to see what the outcome is. As I pointed out before, the Army has a lousy track record of reporting the truth.

Rginn,

Your statement is a tad incorrect - a knowledgable person can certainly get off many rounds - no doubt about it, and, without a doubt, a 22 can kill a person (a 22 killed a Kennedy).

But, rounds are important. If you know your ammo, like you are alluding to, then you know that different loads can affect accuracy, stopping power and damage done, depending on what the bullet is capable of doing. (such as actually stopping and mushrooming out to cause more collateral damage, or going straight through a target, and doing minimal - or less damage.).  Of course, this doesn't even address angle, distance, etc.  That is the very reason why the Geneva convention specified full metal jacket ammo - less collateral damage.  Hollow points are much more destructive, in the same caliber, than a FMJ - I'm sure you know that.

I don't know if he is guilty or not - I'm still not sure why they arrested 2 other people besides him, and I'm not sure why they said the shooter was dead, when he wasn't.  In other words, I'm not sure if the story we are hearing is even complete.

I'm going to add to that, the fact that - we do not know the shooter's state of mind.

B

Personally I think this has less to do with the fact that he was a Muslim, and more with the fact that he spent the last several years dealing with soldiers with psychological trauma from war for the last several years, and found out that he is going himself.

A lot of strange things happen to people when they find out they are deploying. My wife wanted to shoot one of my toes off. She was particularly angry because my contract stipulated I would have a two year stabilization, which lasted about eight months.

I do not know why someone would go off and kill several people. If he felt that strongly about it, he should have just taken himself out. However, if he does not come out of this coma, we may never know why he did it. All evidence I have heard so far (from people I know at fort hood, not the media) does point to him being the only shooter.

Personally I think this has less to do with the fact that he was a Muslim, and more with the fact that he spent the last several years dealing with soldiers with psychological trauma from war for the last several years, and found out that he is going himself.

Mass-murderer Major Nidal Hasan has thus far been diagnosed as suffering from:

• Post-traumatic stress disorder
• Pre-traumatic stress disorder
• Post-traumatic stress disorder by proxy
• Prospective traumatic stress disorder
• Compassion fatigue
And …
• Vicarious trauma

Now Time magazine offers the latest medical opinion, also prior to Hasan offering a single word of explanation himself ("Allahu akbar” evidently doesn’t count). He’s suffering from:

• Secondary trauma

SO you think it was based on his being a muslim, and nothing else?

Ok let's say that this jerk wasn't a freakin muslim. Would it be ok to do this ? Muslim, Chinese, Portugese, American, Mexican, whatever, the jerk took out some of our military.He is now the enemy.

You are missing my point. Maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a muslim, but maybe some other factor drove him to do this. And we need to know why, so we can try to keep it happening again in the future. We (the US Army) have been trying to figure out why people keep killing themselves in greater numbers since the war started. Where is the outcry over that?

Nice to see that you all have the details of the crime scene, photographs, ballistics reports and witness statements to base your conclusions off of.

Oh wait, you don't.

But i'm sure you know what happened.. somehow, right?

You are missing my point. Maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a muslim, but maybe some other factor drove him to do this. And we need to know why, so we can try to keep it happening again in the future. We (the US Army) have been trying to figure out why people keep killing themselves in greater numbers since the war started. Where is the outcry over that?

This mindset is one of the reasons it keeps happening. We can't put the blame where it belongs. Yes, it's MUSLIM, plain and simple.

Nice to see that you all have the details of the crime scene, photographs, ballistics reports and witness statements to base your conclusions off of.

Oh wait, you don't.

But i'm sure you know what happened.. somehow, right?

It wasn't Muslims that were responsible for 911 either. No, that was terrorists, not Muslims.

Perhaps you should call the Fort Hood MPs, since you have clearly wrapped this case up for them. I guess Muslims killed Kennedy, and are also responsible for the hole in the ozone layer, and the fact that you cannot buy cherry flavored Skoal anymore.

You are missing my point. Maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a muslim, but maybe some other factor drove him to do this. And we need to know why, so we can try to keep it happening again in the future. We (the US Army) have been trying to figure out why people keep killing themselves in greater numbers since the war started. Where is the outcry over that?

This mindset is one of the reasons it keeps happening. We can't put the blame where it belongs. Yes, it's MUSLIM, plain and simple.

I think that's a great idea. In fact it's so good i'm going to report the Catholic priest at our local church for being a child molester.

I mean, I don't need any evidence he did anything wrong, by your logic since some priests do it they are all to blame.

Perhaps you should call the Fort Hood MPs, since you have clearly wrapped this case up for them. I guess Muslims killed Kennedy, and are also responsible for the hole in the ozone layer, and the fact that you cannot buy cherry flavored Skoal anymore.

Like I said, this is the reason it can continue. Carry on.

I almost forgot. Those who don't agree with you are dumb people who take a bit of Skoal now and then, right? Personally, I don't use the stuff.

You are missing my point. Maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a muslim, but maybe some other factor drove him to do this. And we need to know why, so we can try to keep it happening again in the future. We (the US Army) have been trying to figure out why people keep killing themselves in greater numbers since the war started. Where is the outcry over that?

This mindset is one of the reasons it keeps happening. We can't put the blame where it belongs. Yes, it's MUSLIM, plain and simple.

I think that's a great idea. In fact it's so good i'm going to report the Catholic priest at our local church for being a child molester.

I mean, I don't need any evidence he did anything wrong, by your logic since some priests do it they are all to blame.

You probably know what I think about that.

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

I don't know about the one in your unit, but I've heard some nasty things about the one at Fort Hood.

I think the whole thing is sad - for the people who lost their lives, for the people who were injured, for the families of the dead, for the psyche of anyone who was part of, or witnessed this.

I remember, during the '91 war, in the Navy, a soldier went "off" on ship - and they ended up with dead soldiers - it is horrible no matter who, no matter when, no matter why.

But I think it is too easy to say "because he was Muslim" - even if it was part of the reason.  The average person does not do a 180 - though, I did look up psychological problems with psychiatrists and couselors - it is higher than average.

So far, they have said that he did not plan on coming back to his apartment - that he gave away his food to a neighbor and called a friend to thank him for his friendship and to say farewell.

It is also said that he did complain that some people were making him a 'target' because he was Muslim, and said in a class that people were waging war on Islam, instead of on terrorism.

So, it is still a paradox.  However it comes out, 11 are dead, and there may be more before it is over - some of the victims are in critical condition.

B

Can someone tell me what percent of terrorists are not Muslim?

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

I don't know about the one in your unit, but I've heard some nasty things about the one at Fort Hood.

Certainly, and of course "what you've heard" is absolute fact?

Can someone tell me what percent of terrorists are not Muslim?

Depends how you classify terrorism, and when.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Currently some people think Israel's actions towards Palestinian civilians are terrorism, others disagree saying that it's the correct response to Palestinian terrorism.

How an act is viewed depends who has more power at the time, Russia's invasion of Afghanistan looks very different to the Russian's than it did to the Afghanis.

If our troops torture Iraqi civilians who are innocent are we "terrorizing" them?

Unfortunately I think there are no simple answers.

  Like I mentioned before. Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, American, whatever. It could have been any one of these folks. It has happened before, take Vietnam for example. American soldiers shooting and killing other American soldiers. It happens in just about every war.

 I believe they should prescreen a little better before recruiting folks. They should pull everything that they can about these folks that have done this type of thing in the past. Find the things that they all have in common that is different from the folks that do not do these shootings.

 I still believe that we should not enlist folk that are not 100 % American. I know I'm gonna get some grief on that, but hear me out. This guy was a Muslim, maybe not a terrorist or an extremist, but nontheless he was a Muslim. And just who are we at war with? I wonder if China has any Americans in thier armies? How about Russia ? I don't know the answer but I would be willin to bet that they don't.

 How can you be patriotic and be a soldier of the U.S. if you are of another nationality?  This guy was in the service for one thing and one thing only. It wasn't because he wanted to serve his country. It was to further his education, and his career. He wanted his country to serve him. He was in it for the benefits, and when it came time to do what all soldiers know that they will be doing one day, he pitched a temper tantrum !

 Sorry folks but I still believe that he took out some of our soldiers, so now he is the enemy from within.

I still believe that we should not enlist folk that are not 100 % American. I know I'm gonna get some grief on that, but hear me out. This guy was a Muslim, maybe not a terrorist or an extremist, but nontheless he was a Muslim. And just who are we at war with? I wonder if China has any Americans in thier armies? How about Russia ? I don't know the answer but I would be willin to bet that they don't.

Actually he was a US citizen by birth, and he put down "none" for religion on his enlistment form.

This attitude is killing the CIA and FBI, kind of hard to get people to translate middle eastern languages or train spies about local customs if you're not hiring muslims.

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

Exactly, waiting for his masters cue, thinking thoughts that you can't even begin to understand,
a sleeper.

I still believe that we should not enlist folk that are not 100 % American. I know I'm gonna get some grief on that, but hear me out. This guy was a Muslim, maybe not a terrorist or an extremist, but nontheless he was a Muslim. And just who are we at war with? I wonder if China has any Americans in thier armies? How about Russia ? I don't know the answer but I would be willin to bet that they don't.

Actually he was a US citizen by birth, and he put down "none" for religion on his enlistment form.

This attitude is killing the CIA and FBI, kind of hard to get people to translate middle eastern languages or train spies about local customs if you're not hiring muslims.

 That don't cut it for me.

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

There is no answer to this because ;
1. some regard all muslims as "sleepers" or potential terrorists waiting
for the right cue or trigger.
2. there is not a "test" yet that can pick a potential terrorist or murderer.

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

There is no answer to this because ;
1. some regard all muslims as "sleepers" or potential terrorists waiting
for the right cue or trigger.
2. there is not a "test" yet that can pick a potential terrorist or murderer.

I think you're a sleeper. You're obviously lying about who you are.

I'm reporting you to the FBI.

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

Exactly, waiting for his masters cue, thinking thoughts that you can't even begin to understand,
a sleeper.

You too.

Actually he was a US citizen by birth, and he put down "none" for religion on his enlistment form.

This attitude is killing the CIA and FBI, kind of hard to get people to translate middle eastern languages or train spies about local customs if you're not hiring muslims.

He did not have a conversion to Islam, he was always a Muslim, that much is never disputed.
Therefore he lied to enter the Army.
Some say it was to further his education, I say he was a "sleeper" terrorist waiting
for the moment.

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

There is no answer to this because ;
1. some regard all muslims as "sleepers" or potential terrorists waiting
for the right cue or trigger.
2. there is not a "test" yet that can pick a potential terrorist or murderer.

I think you're a sleeper. You're obviously lying about who you are.

I'm reporting you to the FBI.

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

Exactly, waiting for his masters cue, thinking thoughts that you can't even begin to understand,
a sleeper.

You too.

He was obviously lying about his religion as you , yourself pointed out.

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

There is no answer to this because ;
1. some regard all muslims as "sleepers" or potential terrorists waiting
for the right cue or trigger.
2. there is not a "test" yet that can pick a potential terrorist or murderer.

I think you're a sleeper. You're obviously lying about who you are.

I'm reporting you to the FBI.

SO I guess the muslim guy in my unit who has deployed FIVE TIMES is just a really patient terrorist?

Exactly, waiting for his masters cue, thinking thoughts that you can't even begin to understand,
a sleeper.

You too.

He was obviously lying about his religion as you , yourself pointed out.

I'm sorry, I can't debate this with you anymore, I do not negotiate with terrorists.

That's ok, your credibility was lost way back in post #52.
You have stated before you are not a Christian, I leave it to
others to say who you are.

That's ok, your credibility was lost way back in post #52.
You have stated before you are not a Christian, I leave it to
others to say who you are.

Your Christianity is obviously a false ploy to make us think you are not a muslim sleeper.

But I am certain you are.

Don't bother saying i'm wrong, nothing you say will change my mind, I know the truth and that's that.

The country of Turkey (our ally), just for starters.

Can you tell me what percentage of Muslims ARE terrorists?

B

I can't give you a number, and I'm not looking for an actual number. What I CAN do is look with my eyes and see who is doing what. But if you want to keep your eyes closed, go ahead. What is meant to be WILL be.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Not all Muslims are terrorists . This person here is a peace activist.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/10/2738383.htm
But can he be forgiven for his acts against grieving and innocent families.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

You're just proving that such people exist, that's all. We already knew that. But they aren't Christians.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

You're just proving that such people exist, that's all. We already knew that. But they aren't Christians.

So you just figure he claimed to be doing a terrorist act in the name of Catholicism but somehow was not?

Or are you trying to claim that Catholics aren't Christians?

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

You're just proving that such people exist, that's all. We already knew that. But they aren't Christians.

So you just figure he claimed to be doing a terrorist act in the name of Catholicism but somehow was not?

Or are you trying to claim that Catholics aren't Christians?

Much is done in the name of Christianity that Isn't Christianity. Catholosism, as well as all denominations, are what they are. There is no denominations in Christianity. You said yourself, they have commited murder.

Ok lets face the facts,  Muslims are a religion not a race so one CHOOSES to be a Muslim, to be a Muslim means you follow the Koran, the Koran teaches violence (just read some passages from it if you dont believe me).  Now I could be wrong im not a bible scholar but I do not recall Jesus ever telling anyone to kill another or to convert by force.  Maybe this guy was innocent, and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.  We can all put our heads in our ***** and let the world collapse around us just so we can stay P.C. Deal?  

Much is done in the name of Christianity that Isn't Christianity. Catholosism, as well as all denominations, are what they are. There is no denominations in Christianity. You said yourself, they have commited murder.

Since you don't see any difference between Muslim sects I see no reason to do any different with Christians. You're part of a terrorist religion and that's the line i'm sticking to.

If you don't like that, tough.

Perhaps you should call the Fort Hood MPs, since you have clearly wrapped this case up for them. I guess Muslims killed Kennedy, and are also responsible for the hole in the ozone layer, and the fact that you cannot buy cherry flavored Skoal anymore.

Yeah I mean he could just have been a random Muslim guy with 2 pistols in a building were several people were killed.  Maybe after he shot the lady cop and she shot him they switched the real guys body with this Muslim guys so they could blame it on them.    

Much is done in the name of Christianity that Isn't Christianity. Catholicism, as well as all denominations, are what they are. There is no denominations in Christianity. You said yourself, they have committed murder.

Since you don't see any difference between Muslim sects I see no reason to do any different with Christians. You're part of a terrorist religion and that's the line i'm sticking to.

If you don't like that, tough.

You misunderstand. I neither like, nor dislike that. It is what it is. So, follow your heart and see where it leads you. But I can tell you, Christianity is not a sect.

Much is done in the name of Christianity that Isn't Christianity. Catholosism, as well as all denominations, are what they are. There is no denominations in Christianity. You said yourself, they have commited murder.

Since you don't see any difference between Muslim sects I see no reason to do any different with Christians. You're part of a terrorist religion and that's the line i'm sticking to.

If you don't like that, tough.

Unless other Muslim sects use a different Koran why should we?  It's all the same teachings.

Kentucky Kache,

Again, I will have to disagree.

If you have read the bible, you would have read a few other things about God and war.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

 Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder.

There are many more instances.  Here is a New Testament instance. Quote:
  
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword"


B

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Guy Fawkes was a Spanish soldier and under the employ of Spain durign a time of war.  He was not fighting a Jihad.  He was not killing people in the name of God.  It would be like claiming the British firebombing of Dresden was a terrorist attack.

Kentucky Kache,

Again, I will have to disagree.

If you have read the bible, you would have read a few other things about God and war.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

 Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder.

There are many more instances.  Here is a New Testament instance. Quote:
  
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword"


B

So, what are you saying? In your mind, is God Just or unjust in his judgments?

I HAVE read it. The old testament is in type and shadow of the new. Many things that were physical in the old was a type of what would have a spiritual meaning in the new.

Jesus DID say that. And he said your enemies would be those of your own household. He wasn't telling anyone to slay with the sword. His word is a sword and it separates us from unbelievers. If you think he was telling them to kill, then you need more than to just read it. Understanding makes all the difference.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Guy Fawkes was a Spanish soldier and under the employ of Spain durign a time of war.  He was not fighting a Jihad.  He was not killing people in the name of God.  It would be like claiming the British firebombing of Dresden was a terrorist attack.

Gotcha, so killing civilians in the name of god is a-ok as long as you have government backing, but without that backing it's terrorism.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Guy Fawkes was a Spanish soldier and under the employ of Spain durign a time of war.  He was not fighting a Jihad.  He was not killing people in the name of God.  It would be like claiming the British firebombing of Dresden was a terrorist attack.

Gotcha, so killing civilians in the name of god is a-ok as long as you have government backing, but without that backing it's terrorism.

What civilians were going to be killed in the name of god?  You need to read into the history surrounding this case some more. 

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Guy Fawkes was a Spanish soldier and under the employ of Spain durign a time of war.  He was not fighting a Jihad.  He was not killing people in the name of God.  It would be like claiming the British firebombing of Dresden was a terrorist attack.

Gotcha, so killing civilians in the name of god is a-ok as long as you have government backing, but without that backing it's terrorism.

What civilians were going to be killed in the name of god?  You need to read into the history surrounding this case some more. 

Last I checked the British Parliament building is not a military installation.

The larger point is i'm 100% certain that Christians have committed terrorist acts. So they are just as guilty as a group as Muslims are. Period. Therefore I am now painting all Christians as possible terrorists.

I believe God is just.  But, I also believe that God expects people to do his work here on earth.

I think you need to remember that he drowned many people, made people wander in the desert for 40 years and many other things.  Also, Jesus had disciples for a reason - to do the work of his father.

"But, be not deceived. I am a vengeful God and my vengeance shall be poured out upon this sinful and unrighteous people. My word is sure, and the vials of my wrath shall be poured out upon the evil of this earth."

B

In all of these threads about the massacre, there is speculation as to why Hasan acted the way he did.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if I remember correctly, motive is NOT a determining factor in a court of law in establishing guilt. Or proving innocence.
The only thing that can be proven is if he did it or not. "Why" is not a viable defense or prosecutorial tool. It is human nature to want to know why. Perhaps if why does come out, it could help prevent future atrocities...

Scott

I believe God is just.  But, I also believe that God expects people to do his work here on earth.

I think you need to remember that he drowned many people, made people wander in the desert for 40 years and many other things.  Also, Jesus had disciples for a reason - to do the work of his father.

"But, be not deceived. I am a vengeful God and my vengeance shall be poured out upon this sinful and unrighteous people. My word is sure, and the vials of my wrath shall be poured out upon the evil of this earth."

I am not Christian therefore I view the "great flood" as a terrorist act against those not of the Christian faith. Obviously an act of Jihad against non-believers.

At one point or another in history both Christians and Jews both committed acts that could be considered terrorism.

Jesus said they would kill thinking they were doing God a service. You can't call that Christianity. In fact, they are worse than the Muslims, as the Muslims are not acting AS Christ.

Pardon me while I roll with peels of laughter. Nice to know if God tells you to kill it's ok but if Allah tells you to kill it's terrorism.

Killing people in the name of one's savior is still killing.

It wasn't Christians killing, it was Christians being killed. God didn't tell the killers to kill. He did say they would do it. Laugh all you want.

Maybe you should check why Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

Guy Fawkes was a Spanish soldier and under the employ of Spain durign a time of war.  He was not fighting a Jihad.  He was not killing people in the name of God.  It would be like claiming the British firebombing of Dresden was a terrorist attack.

Gotcha, so killing civilians in the name of god is a-ok as long as you have government backing, but without that backing it's terrorism.

What civilians were going to be killed in the name of god?  You need to read into the history surrounding this case some more. 

Last I checked the British Parliament building is not a military installation.

The larger point is i'm 100% certain that Christians have committed terrorist acts. So they are just as guilty as a group as Muslims are. Period. Therefore I am now painting all Christians as possible terrorists.

Either were most of the German cities we bombed in WW2. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Either were most of the German cities we bombed in WW2. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm intentionally using poor logic in order to make a point about using poor logic.

Motive does have its place in the courtroom - probably not in this case, of course.  But, when you have pleadings of self-defense (which is a motive in itself), temporary insanity (such as "I killed the guy because he raped my daughter) - and that sort of thing, will and has, changed a guilty/not guilty verdict from a jury.  It will also make a difference in particular charges - first degree murder versus manslaughter, etc.

Like I said, though - I'm not sure it will be a deciding factor in this case.

B

Either were most of the German cities we bombed in WW2. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm intentionally using poor logic in order to make a point about using poor logic.

Poor logic?  Once again read history.  The religion based war which caused this chain of events began in the House of Parliament.  Parliaments anti-Catholic stance was the spark that ignited decades of war.

Motive doesn't play into guilt or innocence but factors into sentencing such as premeditated murder, hate crime sentence enhancement, RICO and gang profit

Motive does have its place in the courtroom - probably not in this case, of course.  But, when you have pleadings of self-defense (which is a motive in itself), temporary insanity (such as "I killed the guy because he raped my daughter) - and that sort of thing, will and has, changed a guilty/not guilty verdict from a jury.  It will also make a difference in particular charges - first degree murder versus manslaughter, etc.

Like I said, though - I'm not sure it will be a deciding factor in this case.

B

Please explain how you would PROVE motive. Only mind readers can discern motive.
Say a man stands to inherit $1,000,000 from an abusive Father. The guy offs his Dad. Was it because of the potential payday or because of the abuse? Or something else entirely.
Motive has no bearing on the crime being prosecuted. He is either guilty or not, regardless of motive.
I concede that motive could be factored into sentencing, but it should not be, there are sentencing guidelines.
And in the case of self defense, there would not be any charges, they would be dismissed.

Scott

At times the proof of motive is in the suspects own words associations dress or tattooing. Past convictions can come into play also. In the case of conspiracies motive absolutely has a bearing on the crime being prosecuted.

interesting...

Fort Hood shooter was member of Homeland Security Panel advising Obama

Of course. Why not? He was a "moderate." Until he wasn't.

"Nidal Hasan: Ft. Hood Shooter Participated in Homeland Security Disaster Preparation," from Gawker, November 6 (thanks to Mary Belle):

    The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year.

    The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

    According to the task force's May 2009 report [pdf], a "Nidal Hasan" from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times....

When will it end ; this link to Homeland Security is very , very disturbing.
It shows how far reaching a middle ranking officer can influence and garner plans.
This adds further weight to the argument to eliminate Muslims from the Armed Services.
Why take further risk.
As I said before there is no test to determine the potential threat/terrorist leanings  of any Muslim.

Isn't this the same attitude that had us rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps during WW 2?


Why take a chance?  Then maybe we should stop everyone who owns a gun - why take a chance on them shooting someone - maybe we should stop everyone who is taking medication - why take a chance - why don't we stop all alcoholic beverages - why take a chance.  Oh wait - I remember - each person is an individual who will choose for themselves what they will do and what they will not do.


Here we are again - "kill one, frighten a thousand".


B

Isn't this the same attitude that had us rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps during WW 2?

Why take a chance?  Then maybe we should stop everyone who owns a gun - why take a chance on them shooting someone - maybe we should stop everyone who is taking medication - why take a chance - why don't we stop all alcoholic beverages - why take a chance.  Oh wait - I remember - each person is an individual who will choose for themselves what they will do and what they will not do.


Here we are again - "kill one, frighten a thousand".


B

If these loose cannons can't be reigned in by the Mullahs then it may come to that.
Is this the final straw that broke the camels back.
Remember Norway during WWII , rapidly overrun by Nazi's due to a fifth column rearguard.

So, how do you account for the Timothy McVeighs in the military?

B

So, how do you account for the Timothy McVeighs in the military?

B

Now that can of worms should remain sealed.

So, how do you account for the Timothy McVeighs in the military?

B

He snapped after he was out of the military so we really cant compare that to this case.

Isn't this the same attitude that had us rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps during WW 2?


Why take a chance?  Then maybe we should stop everyone who owns a gun - why take a chance on them shooting someone - maybe we should stop everyone who is taking medication - why take a chance - why don't we stop all alcoholic beverages - why take a chance.  Oh wait - I remember - each person is an individual who will choose for themselves what they will do and what they will not do.


Here we are again - "kill one, frighten a thousand


B
[/quote


Mrs. O...I'm having a hard time seeing this morning...where did it say to round up people?  I only see facts on one person...not a roundup and branding...please help me..or maybe your remark wasn't about the facts I posted.  thank you as always.

Texastee,

No, not about your comment - in fact, it was just an observation on how people (saying things like, "don't let any muslims in the service, why take a chance), can get carried away and lose sight of what the real issues are.

To me, the real issues in Fort Hood is that - someone missed something - - and, one of the only ways that I can see, is to do a thorough investigation (I have heard that there were different signs that everyone ignored), that something wasn't right.  And, of course, like someone pointed out, none of us was there, so we can only try to make sense of it by what the news has reported.

I don't think jumping to conclusions is going to solve anything.  There are many soldiers who are muslim/americans, immigrants, etc., who have outstanding credentials.  This guy, not so much, of course.  But, before we go off the wall and say "no muslims in the service", we need to thoroughly investigate why this particular instance happened.  It is difficult to follow what goes on inside someone's head, but, we really need to try.

B

Sorry for the misunderstanding!


PS - I have a family member who's brother-in-law committed suicide a week or two after coming home from his 2nd tour - our soldiers need to
have better counciling and follow-ups (imo).  Many, many soldiers flip out after they get out of the service.  I don't believe their "issues" started when they got home - but rather while IN the service.

Isn't this the same attitude that had us rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps during WW 2?

Why take a chance?  Then maybe we should stop everyone who owns a gun - why take a chance on them shooting someone - maybe we should stop everyone who is taking medication - why take a chance - why don't we stop all alcoholic beverages - why take a chance.  Oh wait - I remember - each person is an individual who will choose for themselves what they will do and what they will not do.


Here we are again - "kill one, frighten a thousand".


B

If these loose cannons can't be reigned in by the Mullahs then it may come to that.
Is this the final straw that broke the camels back.
Remember Norway during WWII , rapidly overrun by Nazi's due to a fifth column rearguard.

The Quislings had very little to do with German success in Norway, if anything..
Allied forces were thrown in pell mell without a plan, were stretched thin and nearly were unsupported everywhere they were, and were about to get hammered on the western front in France itself, whereupon Norway receded to secondary importance in short order.
The Germans on the other hand had a fine plan which was ruthlessly put into effect, had local air superiority, and were only hindered by some valiant Norwegian shore batteries & RN units, which took quite a toll on the naval component of the invading force. [It is worth pointing out that the Allies invaded Norway as much as Hitler did, and in fact landed on Norwegian soil first. Hitler would have been guilty of a 1st class blunder not to have responded by ejecting the Allied force from this vital lifeline to raw imports which the Germans could not do without].

Quislings or no Quislings, the result would have been exactly the same, they were not a factor until the Nazis installed them into power after their victory.

I say we ban all savage cultures from entering the west.  We see what they did to the Roman Empire.  Some people's are just not ready to enter civilized society.