Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
lightningBugout wrote:Not to mention the suggestion that he was a coward who was too afraid to go to war which potentially taints those soldiers who oppose the war.
Not to mention it sticks to the military mental health professionals who are most able to vocalize the long-term psychological and social costs of the war for the leagues of returning vets. On some level they become enemies.
How many people with Arabic sounding names will get targeted with random violence I wonder? And how many of those will make it into the papers?
smallprint wrote:CNN now saying he had a pistol AND a semi-automatic. Well that explains everything. Easy to hit 43 soldiers that way. You know, 22 with one hand and 21 with the other. And all those early reports of 2 or 3 shooters-- just confused grunts who can't possibly be expected to identify the direction of gunfire.
Was he also wearing a black trenchcoat, and cackling maniacally?
n0x23 wrote:Numerous reports of multiple shooters at Virginia tech, redcated, just one dead English major after all...
Percival wrote:Apparently a BLOG POSTING of his:
NidalHasan 5 months ago
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bE ... =firefox-a
I'm not sure what scholars he's talking about and what is SWT?
Sweejak wrote:Percival wrote:Apparently a BLOG POSTING of his:
NidalHasan 5 months ago
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:bE ... =firefox-a
Sounds logical to me. But, it all depends on what weapons and the targets that are at your disposal. How many 'suicide' bombings would there be if both sides were equally armed?
I'm not sure what scholars he's talking about and what is SWT?
Ghandi?
“Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence. To take the name of non-violence when there is a sword in your heart is not only hypocritical and dishonest but cowardly ... Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
-- Mohatma Gandhi
The pope?
"......Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
-- Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests