• January 22, 2017

Carter wants answers from attorney general

Killeen congressman questioning decision to not classify Hasan as a terrorist

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • MamaLenore posted at 3:30 pm on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.

    MamaLenore Posts: 12

    I'm sure SFC Young (Bubba) doesn't quite understand what terroristic ties means. How could you only think this was done because he didn't want to deploy? Why make a statement by keeping his beard and saying it was for his religious purpose. If he still being paid as a soldier he should live by the same rules.

  • Bubba posted at 5:35 pm on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 844

    There is no doubt that the accused conducted himself poorly while on AD, and clearly the accused should not have been retained, promoted or transferred, and there is much blame affixed to the chain of command at Walter Reed. this does not change the fact that there is no evidence connecting the accused to terrorism. Simple as that; it's a matter of law. I am not bitter at all, and it would be best if kept your suppositions and erroneous conclusions to yourself. what needs to happen is an interference-free court-martial, followed by a neat-as-you-please execution. The last thing we need is stupid self-serving politicians getting in the way. Terrorist attacks committed by terorists are terrorist attacks committed by terrorists. That's not what happened here. Attacks of this nature are acts of war. That's not what happened here.

  • Bubba posted at 5:28 pm on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 844

    The act was not a terrorist act because the law says it is not. Simple as that. The FBI and CID LOOKED REAL HARD to make it a terrorist act and could not do it. There is no evidence to support your conclusion. Have a nice day.

  • I Am posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.

    I Am Posts: 82

    Sir or Ma'am What was committed on Ft. Hood by the accused was without a terrorist act. This individual infiltrated our Armed Forces used His profession to advance His beliefs. The unfortunate occurrences happened when His Superior's ignored His conduct, promoted Him and moved Him to a new assignment to get Him out of the way,
    After serving 30 odd years in our Army 5 of which was on Ft Hood I personally observed how it became a practice for some senior commanders to pass the problem rather than deal with it.
    You sound bitter because some politician sends a strong message to those He believes is "driving the train" from behind the scenes to properly address this terrorist act as such.
    What do You call the attacks on our military while in base area when one or more terrorist attack them. I have always through they were referred to as terrorist attacks. Why than should this horrendous attack be anything different than a terrorist attacking American Service members on American Soil.

  • tsthouston posted at 10:18 am on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.

    tsthouston Posts: 2

    Bubba, if you are trying to state this wasn't terroristic, but work related, then I suppose that all those we lost in Irag and Afghanistan should be classified as work related as well. Our military was over there 'working', doing their job so wouldn't that in your mind relate to the same thing?

    The man is evil, a terrorist, and should be labeled as such.

    And no I wasn't on Ft. Hood at the time but my brother in law was as well as my nephew. I was about 30 miles away.

  • Bubba posted at 8:26 am on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 844

    Because what happened was not a terrorist act. The accused apparently acted as he did to avoid deployment. No matter what he yelled or who he emailed, this act does not meet the definition of a terrorist act contained in Title18, United States Code. Further, declaring the accused a terrorist would make him an unlawful combatant-and require that he be sent to GITMO for military tribunal. Lastly, the congressman needs to shut his mouth, mind his own business, stay in his lane, stop interfering with the military justice system, and allow this trial to proceed without further interruption by him. These continued interruptions may well be used by the defense to force a mistrial, a delay, or even a dismissal of some charges due to your interference. There are your answers, Congressman. Now sit down and shut up. Oh, and for the record, I was on the Fort that day, inside HQ, 1CD.


Ft Hood Events