Chard wrote on Feb 18^th, 2013 at 3:04am:


So what is your point? Is this a new kind of war or not? If not, is it because you can categorise it in a category that already exists?

Soren wrote on Feb 18^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:


The best part is you not only quoted me saying "assassinating", your dumbass bolded and high-lighted where I said it. Yet some how "assassination" gets changed to "killing", which tells me that you either don't know the difference between the terms "assassinate" and "kill" or you're a massively dishonest tool.

So which is it, Soren? Are you merely ignorant or are you lying prick? Inquiring minds want to k... ah, just kidding.I already know the answer to that, you douche.

The Fort Hood shooter wasn't a random spree killer. He didn't go down to an intersection at 11 am and started shooting randomly.

He killed active duty American soldiers for political reason, in the name of Islam, after infiltrating and pretending to be someone he wasn't. He selected active duty soldiers on American soil for maximum political and ideological impact. Payment is irrelevant.

That fits the requirements of assassination.These soldiers were targeted for who they were and where they were and your tantrum makes a difference to these facts.
Or your anal retentive hairsplitting about what is in YOUR dictionary. If it's not Bruce Willis a the jackl an it's not assassination.

Assassination IS a type of killing. What is most important about it is that it is done by infiltration, by getting close to a protected target under false pretences, not that you must ave heard about the target or that payment was received for the killing. Which is what happened at Fort Hood, no matter how much you spit and splutter on your keyboard.

Chard wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 11:54am:



Yeah, he was shouting Allahu Akhbar as he was killing them and as every US Department of Defence Diversity Officer knows, that means 'nothing to see here, folks, move along' in Arabic.
Good one, pal.

"And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favour of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.
This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could pretty much say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any “need to lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and now 14 people are dead.
..
Major Hasan sent fortnightly emails to Anwar al-Awlaki, sometime spiritual adviser to both the Fort Hood shooter and three of the 9/11 terrorists and an imam so radical he’s banned from Britain, a land with an otherwise all but boundless tolerance for radical imams. In his leisure hours, he adopted the Pushtun dress of those Arabs who journeyed to Afghanistan to sign up with Osama. And eventually the sheer accumulation of such revelations rendered the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder thesis so absurd that even Frank Rich of the New York Times was willing to muse tentatively on whether the major’s years of jihadist exhibitionism were “ignored because of political correctness, bureaucratic dysfunction, sheer incompetence or some hybrid thereof.”
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/major-nidal-hasan-had-an-enabler/

It's the first war where one side's objective is to remain Politically Correct at any price.

Aw... Poor widdle Soren has to post crap journalism because he's to dumb to understand that the Department of the Army concluded that Hasan acted alone and that his religion had nothing to do with his actions then to act as an attempt at mucking up his trial. Doesn't matter what magazine you post, the US Army thinks you're full of sh*t and since they're the people putting Hasan on trial I'm more inclined to believe the conclusions of a CID investigation then the postings of some moron that can't tell the difference between "killing" and "assassination".

P.S. eat a bowl dicks.

Chard wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:


If the West is fooked it is because of the people like you who will believe a Department of Political Correctness report rather than their own lying eyes and ears.  Shouting Allahu Akhbar while shooting your fellow Americans means, to you and the Dept of PC,  that the religion of Islamic has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'.

No wonder you guys are written off by so many. If you are the fooking Voice of America, then we are all buggered.

But thankfully, you are not. You are just a silly pizzle who swallowed a dictionary 10 years ago and is dining out, so to speak,  on the experience ever since. i

Chard wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:


Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage that killed 13 people at Fort Hood military base in Texas have reported that gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire.


What do you think 'Allahu Akbar' means, when shouted by a Muslim opening fire on a room full of infidel Americans?
Or is it meaningless unless its meaning is approved by Barry Hussein?

I don't want to make fun your being an American (if indeed you are an American) but god knows, you are sorely tempting me.