The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla

[Taichiliberal]

stop trying to read peoples thoughts and minds. you suck at it. it just makes you look stupid when you're so wrong.

Why don't you just fucking grow up? Every blessed time I catch you flat footed wrong about something, you try to lie about what previously transgressed. Haven't you realized by now that in this medium you can't erase your words to a certain degree? Here's the truth:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla


You agreed with the more assinine portion of Dixie's willfully ignorant neocon diatribe....PERIOD. I and others pointed out in several posts how factually WRONG Dixie was. You want to be stubborn and deny facts and logic, fine. This is the SECOND time I've caught you in mental lock step with neocon numbskulls...so your claims of not being one are becoming less and less believeable.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Nah; I think you realize now how boneheaded it was to try to make some sort of "point" about irony with a sample size of exactly one post.

And you even searched for it. How embarassing.

lol...whatever it takes to make yourself feel better....

i think i'm dizzy after reading that spin

 

[Damocles]

Rubbish.

Religious delusion is a fairly common side-effect of schizophrenia. There's a written record of Hasan's psychological problems, including an increase in religious fixation, that dates back years.

Furthermore, in spite of Hasan's mental health issues, he had clearance to contact al-Awlaki for his research into the attitudes of Muslim soldiers at war with other Muslims.

Instead of admitting that he was a sick man who finally snapped, and that the Army knew about his condition for years but did nothing, CT "analysts" like you have to concoct this absurd Jihadist scenario and call Hasan a terrorist instead of what he rightfully is, a mentally-ill mass murderer.

It's a reflection of your(pl.) biases, rather than a realistic and logical interpretation of the evidence, no matter how hard you try to pretend it isn't.

And we know that people like that Imam constantly use such delusions. Shoot they've even sent in retarded kids.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Uhm... Dixie never said this. Apparently you have a little difficulty comprehending the difference between simply murdering someone and MASS murdering over a dozen in cold blood. A Muslim could get mad at his wife and kill her... (probably for daring to uncover her head in public or not walking two paces behind him) and that would be simply murder, not terrorism. When a Muslim goes onto a military base and embarks on a shooting rampage killing 14 people while shouting alah akbar, I'm sorry, it can't be anything other than a terrorist attack. You simple minded nitwits should be able to reason this, for however long this guy was shooting up Ft. Hood, it was indeed in a state of terror and being terrorized. There isn't another word in our vocabulary to describe it, that's what it is! The fact that you want to bend over backwards and literally do back flips to keep from admitting it was an act of terror, is amazing to me! Is it because Obama is president and not Bush? Does that make something NOT terror, which would otherwise BE terror? I don't understand!

This nut was being reported on by his fellow officers as far back as 2007...and records show that NEITHER Al Qaeda or the Taliban wanted anything to do with him. So essentially, he finally snapped and shoots up a bunch of people in a way that was bound to get himself shot.

Measure this against all the incidences of non-muslim soldiers flipping out and killing their comrades in arms, and I guess by your standards they could ALL be terrorists acts. Now, all you have to do is connect these acts to an organization, and you could compare it to 9/11 and such.

If you can't, then you have one more reason why your diatribe holds little water.

 

[Annie]

This nut was being reported on by his fellow officers as far back as 2007...and records show that NEITHER Al Qaeda or the Taliban wanted anything to do with him. So essentially, he finally snapped and shoots up a bunch of people in a way that was bound to get himself shot.

Measure this against all the incidences of non-muslim soldiers flipping out and killing their comrades in arms, and I guess by your standards they could ALL be terrorists acts. Now, all you have to do is connect these acts to an organization, and you could compare it to 9/11 and such.

If you can't, then you have one more reason why your diatribe holds little water.

Where's the link to al Qaeda and such refusing him? Or did you just make that up?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This nut was being reported on by his fellow officers as far back as 2007...and records show that NEITHER Al Qaeda or the Taliban wanted anything to do with him. So essentially, he finally snapped and shoots up a bunch of people in a way that was bound to get himself shot.

Measure this against all the incidences of non-muslim soldiers flipping out and killing their comrades in arms, and I guess by your standards they could ALL be terrorists acts. Now, all you have to do is connect these acts to an organization, and you could compare it to 9/11 and such.

If you can't, then you have one more reason why your diatribe holds little water.

Where's the link to al Qaeda and such refusing him? Or did you just make that up?

I have no need to lie on a forum as anonymous as this. Read this carefully:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573166,00.html

 

[Annie]

I have no need to lie on a forum as anonymous as this. Read this carefully:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573166,00.html

there is no 'proof' that al Qaeda didn't take him seriously, just that an anonymous source says that the analyst didn't think they did.

Yeah, some can read.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

there is no 'proof' that al Qaeda didn't take him seriously, just that an anonymous source says that the analyst didn't think they did.

Yeah, some can read.

lol....touchyliberal pwned

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I have no need to lie on a forum as anonymous as this. Read this carefully:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573166,00.html

there is no 'proof' that al Qaeda didn't take him seriously, just that an anonymous source says that the analyst didn't think they did.


Yeah, some can read.

Then read this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6910273.ece

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/report_cia_aware_ft_hood_shooter_LjsDA0q4t3i0Yfyi4svk9M

To date, there's no official denial of this. Seems the investigation is focusing on who knew what, when they knew it, and why they didn't share that information.

When evidence to the contrary comes forth...I'll let you know.

 

[Annie]

Then read this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6910273.ece

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/report_cia_aware_ft_hood_shooter_LjsDA0q4t3i0Yfyi4svk9M

To date, there's no official denial of this. Seems the investigation is focusing on who knew what, when they knew it, and why they didn't share that information.

When evidence to the contrary comes forth...I'll let you know.

Neither you, nor the articles so far, have backed up your assertion, that he wasn't taken seriously. Indeed, what we do 'know' is that the analysts or intelligence folks came to that conclusion. I mean they are so good at connecting the dots...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Neither you, nor the articles so far, have backed up your assertion, that he wasn't taken seriously. Indeed, what we do 'know' is that the analysts or intelligence folks came to that conclusion. I mean they are so good at connecting the dots...

Wye you wouldn't be suggesting that our government is spying on its own citizens, would you? Obama and company certainly wouldn't be doing that!

 

[Annie]

Wye you wouldn't be suggesting that our government is spying on its own citizens, would you? Obama and company certainly wouldn't be doing that!

Indeed, the Patriot Act has been used by the current administration. Imagine that! Of course, they don't believe what they hear. Sort like believing your lying eyes.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Neither you, nor the articles so far, have backed up your assertion, that he wasn't taken seriously. Indeed, what we do 'know' is that the analysts or intelligence folks came to that conclusion. I mean they are so good at connecting the dots...

Ahhh, so when it suits your purpose the intelligence community are a bunch of dolts....yet you'd defend them to the death when it comes to the Shrub & company. You're such a hypocrit it defies description.

Bottom line: news sources from every spectrum have quoted sources on this...and to date there has been no official statement to the contrary. Remember Watergate? Deep throat? He was an unnamed source.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Wye you wouldn't be suggesting that our government is spying on its own citizens, would you? Obama and company certainly wouldn't be doing that!

Hmmm, so you're saying that the Patriot Act does indeed violate parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that the Shrub's bullshit about violating FISA was just that...bullshit?

So if Obama is utilizing the same precedent (evidence please) and you condemn it, you condemn the Shrub & company. Right?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Indeed, the Patriot Act has been used by the current administration. Imagine that! Of course, they don't believe what they hear. Sort like believing your lying eyes.

Hmmm, so you're saying that the Patriot Act does indeed violate parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that the Shrub's bullshit about violating FISA was just that...bullshit?

So if Obama is utilizing the same precedent (evidence please) and you condemn it, you condemn the Shrub & company. Right?

 

[Annie]

Hmmm, so you're saying that the Patriot Act does indeed violate parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that the Shrub's bullshit about violating FISA was just that...bullshit?

So if Obama is utilizing the same precedent (evidence please) and you condemn it, you condemn the Shrub & company. Right?

Nope, wrong interpretation. Legal, Congress passed and SCOTUS has not struck down. Both have used, one with determination, the other hoped for quiet. Ft. Hood sorta wrecked the quiet.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Nope, wrong interpretation. There is NO interpretation! The laws were enacted by the Shrub & company. If Obama is using them in the same fashion (of which you haven't provided proof) as with the FISA debacle, and you are complaining, then you should logically been against the originators and their uses. But then again, logic has never been the neocon strong point. Legal, Congress passed and SCOTUS has not struck down. Both have used, one with determination, the other hoped for quiet. Ft. Hood sorta wrecked the quiet.

Newsflash for you: Ft. Hood has NOTHING to do with FISA. Hasan's attempted communique's with known Al Qaeda ops were revealed by intelligence monitorig of AL QAEDA, NOT random monitoring of civilians and US citizens without probable cause. So your analogy falls flat.

As for the Patriot Act...the majority of those that signed it admitted they didn't read 2/3 of it....and to remove it does not require a SCOTUS ruling....just an act of the congress and senate.

 

[Annie]

Newsflash for you: Ft. Hood has NOTHING to do with FISA. Hasan's attempted communique's with known Al Qaeda ops were revealed by intelligence monitorig of AL QAEDA, NOT random monitoring of civilians and US citizens without probable cause. So your analogy falls flat.

As for the Patriot Act...the majority of those that signed it admitted they didn't read 2/3 of it....and to remove it does not require a SCOTUS ruling....just an act of the congress and senate.

Really?

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/did_hoekstra_compromise_a_sensitive_intelligence_program.php

 

[zoombwaz]

This past week, I have seen these boards and the mainstream news, constantly trying to downplay the incident at Ft. Hood. We were told, almost immediately, this was not an act of terrorism. We have been lectured for a week about how this doesn't reflect on the Islamic religion or all Muslims. TV journalists were initially hesitant to even mention Maj. Hussan's name, because "it could be problematic", one anchor said.

It seems we are now walking around on eggshells, trying to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Pretending Hussan's religious background and ties to radical Islamic beliefs, had nothing to do with what he did, and persecuting anyone who dares to acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla. The man was screaming "allah akbar" as he murdered US soldiers in cold blood. If that isn't terrorism, we need to sit down and have a fundamental debate over what constitutes terrorism, because apparently, some people just don't get it.

Now, if Maj. Hussan were listening to Rush, and looked like Tim McVeigh, I am certain the left would already have him convicted of domestic terrorism, and would be pushing to have right-wing talk radio banned, to protect us from future terror attacks like this. If Bush had waffled around on his war strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and something like this happened on his watch, the left would certainly blame him, and immediately debunk the claims of how Bush had kept us safe for 8 years.

It must take a lot of effort to continue to ignore the gorilla.

I find it interesting that you brought up McVeigh, considering the initial reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing by right-wingers like yourself was the same rabid, paranoid, racist, anti-Islam bullshit you're peddling here now. Yeah, all the dumb fucks wanted to start rounding up Muslims, because the bombing of the federal office building was clearly the work of Islamic terrorists. Imagine your chagrin when the bomber turned out to be a white right-wing headcase and a veteran to boot. Never mind the right wing's penchant for hysterical, paranoid rhetoric, and their historical use of terrorism and murder in the pursuit of their anti-liberal, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, anti-government goals. It's all the fault of ______ (pick one or all of the above), and we must shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights to keep America safe, even though those documents are the foundation of the United States of America.

The Ft. Hood shootings were not a terrorist act. Hassan went postal. As Damo points out, the signs were all there. I agree, and would add that they were also there in the case of the Va Tech shooter, which also caused the right-wing pinheads to scream their knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses blaming terrorism.

The gorilla in the room is that the right wing is insane. Certifiably so.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Newsflash for you: Ft. Hood has NOTHING to do with FISA. Hasan's attempted communique's with known Al Qaeda ops were revealed by intelligence monitorig of AL QAEDA, NOT random monitoring of civilians and US citizens without probable cause. So your analogy falls flat.

As for the Patriot Act...the majority of those that signed it admitted they didn't read 2/3 of it....and to remove it does not require a SCOTUS ruling....just an act of the congress and senate.

Really?

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/did_hoekstra_compromise_a_sensitive_intelligence_program.php

Yeah, Really...because had you read the article carefully, you would have noted this:

Inside the U.S., the N.S.A. is legally prohibited from deliberately retaining the e-mails of U.S. citizens who are in contact with non U.S. citizens unless a special FISA warrant has been issued. However, there are exceptions, some of them still classified, to this rule.......Legally, the NSA can retain and disseminate information about someone who isn't an approved target if it "amounts to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence."



In other words, NSA surveillance of a known hostile/hostile sympathizer revealed communication with an American citizen. There was NO indication that they picked up Hasan on a RANDOM search of American citizens, which would have been a direct violation of FISA.