Probe of Ft. Hood murders

It depends on the circumstances.

We do not count them was worthy of their peace and lives; so they must force us to count them when we count our own dead... It is an act of futility, and they know it; but soft targets are the only ones available to them...

How are innocent Muslims praying in a mosque responsible as a group for what Americans did?

?? (As usual)..............

It depends on the circumstances.

Hence my use of that word "might".

Yes. But just ?nutty" is not correctly applied to those who intentionally target innocent people. "Viciously and evily nutty" is the term.

Well Dave, we need to nip those child suicide bombers in the bud. They don't understand the benefits of the democracy we've been so generous to give them, they're still all bent out of shape because their little huts got scathed by a few sidetracked cruise missiles...uhhhhhh....Remember thems still gots tha weapons uh marse deestruktion!

pan and dave, you funny guys-i am laughing so hard i am crying.

i didnt know the guy was an arab-i thought he was just a muslim....isnt it funny how the picture changes when you put a different identifier on someone. makes their intentions and their actions come out different too.

kenneth, if the press actually meant to say it wasnt an act of terrorism i would have to give them credit for trying to stop another wave of mass hysteria and useless red alert, to which by now everyone must surely be immune. but often the press will say 'it wasnt' something just to put the idea in the minds of the masses that it was. so their apparent political correctness is quite devious and every bit as insidious as any military or political action as far as results-why not, they are probably all owned by the same 'people'.

So, does the press say someone was something just to put the idea in the masses that it wasn't? My goodness, however do you know all this?

i tend not to believe anything i read in the media, but first i consider the source. there are some that are less biased, and i also read some that are biased in opposite directions, feeling that the truth is somewhere in between. bbc (where the article you posted came from) is one of the better ones. if you make a list of those other reports you saw and examine which newspapers they came from, there would be more to go on.

think about when a politician makes a speech and then the commentator comes on and says "now here's what he said", and goes on to explain what you heard, but if y ou listen to both you will see that they are never the same. it is so obvious, but most people only listen to the commentator, thinking that the speech in its entirety is too long and boring, and they just want a recap.

media exists to bend the mind of the public, and it is paid to do so by its advertisers and various sponsors, and owners, and people who have their own agendas. i dont pretend to know who all is at the back of this, but i do know that they are not simply objectively reporting news. this is not a conspiracy theory, this is just a fact of business, and a fact of life, and a feature of humanity (that last part referring to people having their own agenda to try and propagate).

Do you believe Hassan murdered 13 people and wounded 39 others? And that he yelled, "Allahu Akbar" as he did his work?

Do you think the attack in Mumbai occurred? Or was that a lie?

no-i would say you have efficiently sorted out the truth.

i tend not to believe anything i read in the media, but first i consider the source. there are some that are less biased, and i also read some that are biased in opposite directions, feeling that the truth is somewhere in between. bbc (where the article you posted came from) is one of the better ones. if you make a list of those other reports you saw and examine which newspapers they came from, there would be more to go on.

think about when a politician makes a speech and then the commentator comes on and says "now here's what he said", and goes on to explain what you heard, but if y ou listen to both you will see that they are never the same. it is so obvious, but most people only listen to the commentator, thinking that the speech in its entirety is too long and boring, and they just want a recap.

media exists to bend the mind of the public, and it is paid to do so by its advertisers and various sponsors, and owners, and people who have their own agendas. i dont pretend to know who all is at the back of this, but i do know that they are not simply objectively reporting news. this is not a conspiracy theory, this is just a fact of business, and a fact of life, and a feature of humanity (that last part referring to people having their own agenda to try and propagate).

Do you believe Hassan murdered 13 people and wounded 39 others? And that he yelled, "Allahu Akbar" as he did his work?

Do you think the attack in Mumbai occurred? Or was that a lie?

kennethamy, you are the only one here who is trying to 'put the idea in the masses', the 'masses' being the users here on the forum. This is the second time in recent memory where you've copy and pasted a news snippet that attempted to at least be objective, but then you threw your own spin on it in order to make a political statement.

In this case, you are saying that 'political correctness' is what allowed Hasan to go on the killing spree, so why don't you back up this claim with a real argument. Nothing in the news article said anything about political correctness having to do with it, so you need to convince us why we did not pick up on this information when reading the article. I guess you have inside knowledge of the FBI's investigation, and knew that political correctness scared them off? Please enlighten us.