Fort Hood Gunman Nidal Hasan found guilty on all counts

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
Selected paragraphs:

Army Maj. Nidal Hasan was convicted Friday in the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, a shocking assault against American troops at home by one of their own who said he opened fire on fellow soldiers to protect Muslim insurgents abroad.

The Army psychiatrist acknowledged carrying out the attack in a crowded waiting room where unarmed troops were making final preparations to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded.

Because Hasan never denied his actions, the court-martial was always less about a conviction than it was about ensuring he received the death penalty. From the beginning of the case, the federal government has sought to execute Hasan, believing that any sentence short of a lethal injection would deprive the military and the families of the dead of the justice they have sought for nearly four years.

Hasan, who acted as his own attorney, began the trial by telling jurors he was the gunman. But he said little else over the next three weeks, which convinced his court-appointed standby lawyers that Hasan's only goal was to get a death sentence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/closing-argument-fort-hood-rampage-suspect-20038305



<CNN Rant>
CNN is now repeatedly showing full screen or nearly full screen pictures of Ft. Hood Gunman Nidal Hasan (some with him in uniform smiling). This plays into the Jihadi mindset of wanting to be made into famous martyrs.
CNN is knowingly (I can't believe it would be unwittingly if anyone stopped to think about it) promoting terrorists and continued terrorism.
/Rant

Weigh in.


Edited: to de-emphasize CNN rant
 
Last edited:

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
Images including these:

nidal-hasan-fort-hood-terror-shooting-lg.jpg


0806_fthood-e1375800498380.jpg


92914076.jpg


Over and over again.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/closing-argument-fort-hood-rampage-suspect-20038305

CNN is now repeatedly showing full screen or nearly full screen pictures of Ft. Hood Gunman Nidal Hasan (some with him in uniform smiling). This plays into the Jihadi mindset of wanting to be made into famous martyrs.
CNN is knowingly (I can't believe it would be unwittingly if anyone stopped to think about it) promoting terrorists and continued terrorism.

Weigh in.

CNN is not supporting terrorism either knowingly or unknowingly. That's ridiculous. The pictures they are showing are military uniform portraits. Why anyone would be shocked that a news channel was showing the military pictures of this guy is beyond me.
 

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
CNN is not supporting terrorism either knowingly or unknowingly. That's ridiculous. The pictures they are showing are military uniform portraits. Why anyone would be shocked that a news channel was showing the military pictures of this guy is beyond me.

What about the Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Feel the same way about that?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
"CNN is knowingly (I can't believe it would be unwittingly if anyone stopped to think about it) promoting terrorists and continued terrorism."


Why not? Faux can 'unwittingly' compromise the identity of an Osama snuffing SEAL on prime time. Oddly enough I don't recall much of a right wing reaction about that, a mere fraction of the outrage that occurred when Rolling Stone had the audacity to use a picture of the Boston Bomber that didn't show gun injuries and a laser dot on his forehead.

Methinks many need to unbunch their panties and get over it. Where was this desire not to play into AQ's hand when Cheney and Rumsfeld decided to grant Osama's biggest wish? If we want to stop the ranks of jihadi from swelling, I think being more circumspect in why we go to war and who we kill when we do it will be far more productive than whining about what pictures the news uses to accompany the story they are reporting on. Just my $0.02

This is not a defense of CNN at all, before anyone starts jerking their knees.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
What about the Rolling Stone cover of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Feel the same way about that?

I didn't have a problem with that either, if that's what you're asking.

The idea that you're angry that they showed the military photos of a military member who committed his crime while on duty in the military is baffling to me. It's even more baffling that you believe this is a deliberate attempt to further terrorism. That's some paranoid delusion right there.
 

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
I know they have to "feed the beast" of the 24 hour news cycle, and show something new on the screen, but it was excessive. I'm not against them flashing the images so that you know who the guy is, but full screening them and cycling them over and over - then bringing someone else on to comment and deciding that's not good enough and minimizing the video of him so they can continue cycling the pics is beyond what is necessary and it serves to glamorize killers.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
I know they have to "feed the beast" of the 24 hour news cycle, and show something new on the screen, but it was excessive. I'm not against them flashing the images so that you know who the guy is, but full screening them and cycling them over and over - then bringing someone else on to comment and deciding that's not good enough and minimizing the video of him so they can continue cycling the pics is beyond what is necessary and it serves to glamorize killers.


Exactly. Which is why all those Hitler shows on History and Military Channel have given rise to the masses of Nazi skinheads we are currently plagued with.


Glamorize? Did they show him partying with hookers and blow? Footage of him saving a baby from a burning building? Does he even lift?
 

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
"CNN is knowingly (I can't believe it would be unwittingly if anyone stopped to think about it) promoting terrorists and continued terrorism."

...

Why not? Faux can 'unwittingly' compromise the identity of an Osama snuffing SEAL on prime time. Oddly enough I don't recall much of a right wing reaction about that, a mere fraction of the outrage that occurred when Rolling Stone had the audacity to use a picture of the Boston Bomber that didn't show gun injuries and a laser dot on his forehead.


This is not a defense of CNN at all, before anyone starts jerking their knees.

I'm not a Fox News fan either. I'd watch BBC news if it was available to me. Irresponsible reporting runs rampant these days.
 

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
Exactly. Which is why all those Hitler shows on History and Military Channel have given rise to the masses of Nazi skinheads we are currently plagued with.

You might be surprised about the opinion of Hitler some people hold. In India for example.

econ_hitler50__01__inline202.jpg
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/closing-argument-fort-hood-rampage-suspect-20038305

CNN is now repeatedly showing full screen or nearly full screen pictures of Ft. Hood Gunman Nidal Hasan (some with him in uniform smiling). This plays into the Jihadi mindset of wanting to be made into famous martyrs.
CNN is knowingly (I can't believe it would be unwittingly if anyone stopped to think about it) promoting terrorists and continued terrorism.

Weigh in.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Look what they did to Pamela Gellar and this is part of the leftist ideology.

Still waiting for obama to declare this a terrorist attack instead of workplace violence.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
With all the attention on this trial and conviction, you'd almost think it was real terrorist action, but our dear leader told us it was just a "workplace incident". Nothing to see here, move along ;)
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
You might be surprised about the opinion of Hitler some people hold. In India for example.

econ_hitler50__01__inline202.jpg

Not really. I'm actually more surprised you've shifted to what some Indians think - when we're discussing an American network, an American serviceman, a crime committed in America, the trial conducted in America, and the effect it might have on America's horribly named War on Terror.

The Brits, like they've done elsewhere, did a real number on India during the colonial times. Many Indians still resent that past and it's not surprising to me that some might embrace or defend one of England's staunch opponents. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Same reason why militant Irish courted Germany during WWII - hate of the English. Good thing not even Hitler and German Efficiency could organize the Irish. It could have made life a lot harder for England at a bad time, and by proxy, for us too.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Good thing not even Hitler and German Efficiency could organize the Irish. It could have made life a lot harder for England at a bad time, and by proxy, for us too.

My wife happens to be Irish. I've just about had it with people bashing the Irish with impunity. For the record, I have reported your post to the mods for its racist overtones.

:
:
:
:
:
just kidding, LOL!!!!
 

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
Not really. I'm actually more surprised you've shifted to what some Indians think - when we're discussing an American network, an American serviceman, a crime committed in America, the trial conducted in America, and the effect it might have on America's horribly named War on Terror.

Good points.

It's an article I read which was relevant to one comment you made.. not your central point I see, my apologies for getting off topic.

(I appreciated the stapler tangent & pic too. :thumbsup:)


The War on Terror is having an atrocious impact on our country and service people (some of which are my good friends). It has completely changed the face of our foreign policy, cost tens of thousands of lives and untold American fortune. And it's increased many fold the violations of American's privacy (of which my sig shows I actively care).
On the other hand, we expected - demanded - those in charge to do something after the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't all just knee-jerk reactions, the authors of the Patriot Act included very important "sunset" provisions. It's a shame it looks like those will keep being extended out ad infinitum.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
Doesn't surprise me at all. Look what they did to Pamela Gellar and this is part of the leftist ideology.

Still waiting for obama to declare this a terrorist attack instead of workplace violence.

There was absolutely no reason to mention Pamela Geller here. If you hadn't misspelled her name I'd actually have to think you might be her ghost writing (posting). Her insane, xenophobic, bigoted rants fit your posting style pretty closely.