The real reason why Fort Hood happend/Never happend

[Chulo]

MSNBC EXCLUSIVE: FORT HOOD NEVER HAPPENED!


It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.
Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.
We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SOA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism -- or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?
And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.
Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?
Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews -- at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law -- the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out -- and will be out for many, many years.

Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.
Like many on the left, Keith loved to sneer at all terrorist plots allegedly foiled by the Bush administration. He was particularly contemptuous of the purported plan of six aspiring jihadists to sneak onto the Fort Dix army base and kill as many soldiers as they could.
On Nov. 11, 2008, he explained why the Fort Dix terrorist plot was a laughable fraud, saying the "morons" apparently didn't realize that "all the soldiers have these big guns."
Keith, the moron, apparently doesn't realize that on military bases on U.S. soil only MPs have guns. (Special authorization is required for soldiers to carry a firearm, which can be granted only in the case of a specific and credible threat against military personnel in that region. Thank you, Bill Clinton.)
Again on May 21 this year, Olbermann ridiculed the Fort Dix terror plot, pointing out that the six alleged terrorists seemed to be "forgetting that every man there was armed." (Curiously, even though ROTC was offered at the ag school Keith attended, he appears not to have investigated it.)
But it was not until Aug. 21 of this year that Olbermann hit upon the true reason for the Bush administration's hyping of this implausible terror plot. According to Keith -- and I'm not kidding -- it was to distract from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' announcement that her state had been unable to respond adequately to a tornado because Bush had diverted the National Guard to his crazy war in Iraq!
The Bush administration, you see, had revealed the arrest of the Fort Dix conspirators the day after Sebelius' world-reverberating bombshell about Kansas' decimated National Guard! Eureka!
This little theory of Keith's, adorable though it is, has problems apart from his insistence that it would be impossible to kill army personnel on "a closed compound full of trained soldiers with weapons." The other problem is Gov. Sebelius was full of crap.
First, Sebelius wasn't in much of a position to know how well Kansas responded to the tornado, inasmuch as she had been partying at New Orleans' Jazzfest the day after the tornado hit -- while Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and both local congressmen were on the scene, helping the rescue efforts.
Second, the manager of the actual rescue team soon contradicted Sebelius, saying: "We have all the staff that we need and can manage at this time. If we had more people right now, it would just start being a cluster."
The Kansas National Guard had 352 Humvees, 72 dump trucks and more than 320 other trucks, which would seem to be sufficient for the town hit by the tornado, Greensburg, Kan., population 1,574. That's almost one National Guard truck for every two people. (This is the same tornado that Obama claimed had killed 10,000 people. He was off by 9,988.)
Third, it turned out that Gov. Sebelius had rejected offers of additional help from neighboring National Guard units.
Consequently, the day after her dramatic cri de coeur for more National Guard resources, Sebelius' office completely reversed course, telling The Associated Press that the rescue efforts were going "just fine."
What the governor had meant, her office explained, was that Kansas' National Guard might be stretched thin if, hypothetically, another natural disaster were to strike immediately after the tornado.
Keith, unfortunately, was unaware of Sebelius' humiliating about-face, as it was not carried on Daily Kos.
Last December, five of the Fort Dix plotters were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to kill American soldiers. The sixth had already pleaded guilty.
Still, compare the macho posturing of the Bush administration over thwarting the Fort Dix terror plot to the masterful handling of domestic terrorist plots since the angel Obama has taken the helm. Why, the Obama administration managed to capture and arrest Maj. Hasan without violating a single American's civil liberties!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20091126/cm_ucac/msnbcexclusiveforthoodneverhappened

The question would be was it political correctness and "cultural sensitivity" that is partly to blame for Fort Hood.

[budgie]

The answer would be - to anyone other than Ann Coulter - No.

[Chulo]

The answer would be - to anyone other than Ann Coulter - No.
There was plenty of indications and warning signs that Hasan was a danger. You dont go around claiming to be a terrorist and giving lectures on it without having some scrutiny. Why was that all ignored?

[Wimbly]

Why was that all ignored?

For exactly the reasons you think, political correctness. The left and the media still cant come to grips with the fact this was a terrorist attack. The tiller murder was clearly terrorism (since it was an attack on something they beleive in), but for PC reasons they cant bring themselves to admit it in this case.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The answer would be - to anyone other than Ann Coulter - No.

Well I'm afraid you'll have to amend your answer to include me in there too. Political correctness was unquestionably a factor in formulating a proper response to Hasan's growing - and recognized - threat. One can hardly deny that, since even now it continues to form a constituent of how we view his motives for the attack. Many of us simply lack the intestinal fortitude to disobey our social indoctrination.

[Danik]

There was plenty of indications and warning signs that Hasan was a danger. You dont go around claiming to be a terrorist and giving lectures on it without having some scrutiny. Why was that all ignored?

I'm siding with gross incompetence.

[Redox]

It could also have been ignored for the exact same reasons that all of us were so astonished that a major of the US army could have comitted such a crime.

Respect for a member of the US army and his rank.

[budgie]

Look a bunch of people screwed up. They were people in uniform. It is not fashionable at mp.net to cast aspersions on people in uniform. Therefore the convenient scapegoats become 'political correctness' the liberals, the media, and president HUSSEIN!!!! Yeah we get it: broken record darling.

[3rdMillhouse]

There was plenty of indications and warning signs that Hasan was a danger. You dont go around claiming to be a terrorist and giving lectures on it without having some scrutiny. Why was that all ignored?

I call dibs on political correctness and excess of tolerance.

[Wimbly]

Look a bunch of people screwed up.

Why do you just dismiss all of his connections to radical Islam?

[Chulo]

Why do you just dismiss all of his connections to radical Islam?
Political Correctness ;)

[Soldat_Américain]

I'm siding with gross incompetence.

Chulo really disappoints me with this, however I should have expected it to happen.

[Chulo]

Chulo really disappoints me with this, however I should have expected it to happen.
I am sorry I disappointed you by pointing out the extreme cost of Political correctness and the incompetence of some commentators on MSNBC

[matthew.manhorn]

If the Fort Hood shooter were a non-Muslim I wonder will that be labeled as terrorism.

[LineDoggie]

If the Fort Hood shooter were a non-Muslim I wonder will that be labeled as terrorism.Apparently, it's only terrorism if you shoot a abortion doctor, then its free game.

[Wimbly]

If the Fort Hood shooter were a non-Muslim I wonder will that be labeled as terrorism.

When that abortion doctor was killed everyone in the MSM was calling it terrorism. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmCzW8pCupc


MADDOW: Remember this one? Yes, it is the old paint-the-Democrats-as-soft-on-terror routine. But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democrat greatest hit, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking -- was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer. And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism.

Yet, when 'reporting' on the Tiller case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmRTdcaOnN4


MADDOW: We begin tonight with another deadly act of domestic terrorism.

MADDOW (initially referring to Roeder): He's known in extremist, anti-abortion circles. He has had writings published in a newsletter called Prayer & Action News which promotes the idea of killing people who provide abortion services as justifiable homicide. Someone calling himself Scott Roeder had participated in anti-abortion discussions at a website of the group called Operation Rescue.

She instantly declares it, "domestic terrorism", using all the same reasoning we are using now. Somehow its different when the terrorist is brown and attacking US troops.

Olbermann just called Dana Pierno his "worst person" last night, for calling the Fort Hood incident terrorism. If this sort of hypocrisy was coming from Fox, you know Stewart and the usual suspects would make sure we all knew about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkgz6KdKFOw

[3rdMillhouse]

If the Fort Hood shooter were a non-Muslim I wonder will that be labeled as terrorism.

[rethorical question tag]How many non-muslims do you see practicing acts of terrorism nowadays? [/rethorical question tag]

[Soldat_Américain]

[rethorical question tag]How many non-muslims do you see practicing acts of terrorism nowadays? [/rethorical question tag]

Plenty of non-muslims did it here before muslim extremism became the kind of threat that white extremism was...pretty sure lynching and blowing up buildings is terrorism.

[3rdMillhouse]

Plenty of non-muslims did it here before muslim extremism became the kind of threat that white extremism was...pretty sure lynching and blowing up buildings is terrorism.

Here, let me help you with that.


[rethorical question tag]How many non-muslims do you see practicing acts of terrorism nowadays?[/rethorical question tag]

[Soldat_Américain]

Plenty but I still find it that it has to be muslim as there are still plenty here in the US that are "white-christians" that wouldn't mind blowing up some buildings.

[3rdMillhouse]

Plenty but I still find it that it has to be muslim as there are still plenty here in the US that are "white-christians" that wouldn't mind blowing up some buildings.

Yeah, but let's only consider those that go beyond rethoric and bravatas for just a second.

[matthew.manhorn]

[rethorical question tag]How many non-muslims do you see practicing acts of terrorism nowadays? [/rethorical question tag]

Like those in South Africa and Nicaragua during the 80's

or those white Christians in North Ireland?

or how about that white dude Bill Ayers who conservatives loath a lot?

Enough with the xenophobia.

[Macs.]

This discussion seems to come down to one thing, like pretty much everything else that happens in the US right now.

Republicans vs Democrats.

The other side is always guilty of something, and political "opinionmakers" are ready to exploit every tragic happening for their little games of pouring mud on the other side.

[California Joe]

I think it's kind of strange to link Olberman and Maddow and their rather odd opinions or MSNBC for that matter with somehow setting or influencing military policies or internal security issues on an Army base. It's no different from when "liberals" claim Glenn Beck or Rush have undo influence on the "Right" and you guys go batsh*t.

Many people in that ****heads chain of command f*cked up. Period. Why? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they're investigating this appalling lapse. I'm also pretty sure that some retard talking head's definition of "terrorism" is of no consequence to anyone.

[Soldat_Américain]

I think it's because he wants to spin the argument to his perception when his perception is ridiculous.

[3rdMillhouse]

Like those in South Africa and Nicaragua during the 80's

or those white Christians in North Ireland?

or how about that white dude Bill Ayers who conservatives loath a lot?

Enough with the xenophobia.

NOWADAYS goddamnit!!!! Which part of NOWADAYS don't you ****ing understand? I'm gonna have to highlight that word in pink letters so people's brains won't skip it.

The days of non-muslim terrorism are mostly gone, the large majority of terrorism caused around has islamic motivation, that an undeniable fact.

[futurepilot2004]

NOWADAYS goddamnit!!!! Which part of NOWADAYS don't you ****ing understand? I'm gonna have to highlight that word in pink letters so people's brains won't skip it.
.

Wow, forgot to take your chill pills today???

And in fairness the christian terrorists in Northern Ireland havent totally stopped.

[Maine Finn]

NOWADAYS goddamnit!!!! Which part of NOWADAYS don't you ****ing understand?

What the **** do you mean by "nowadays"? Are you limiting it to last year, last month, last week?

[TheSteve]

I am sorry I disappointed you by pointing out the extreme cost of Political correctness and the incompetence of some commentators on MSNBC
Political Correctness? Listen, who gives a **** what these people say? There are literally hundreds of different definitions of terrorism, they can pick and choose which one suits their argument at the time. The people at FOX can pick one, the people over at MSNBC can go with another one.

From what I understand, Hasan had no real goal. Terrorism is a method to achieving something more, if all he wanted to do is just kill a bunch of people, its not terrorism. Just a nut who obviously had plenty of warning signs that nobody caught or were turned a blind eye to.


Many people in that ****heads chain of command f*cked up. Period. Why? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they're investigating this appalling lapse. I'm also pretty sure that some retard talking head's definition of "terrorism" is of no consequence to anyone.
That's just far too rational for this thread.

[3rdMillhouse]

Wow, forgot to take your chill pills today???

And in fairness the christian terrorists in Northern Ireland havent totally stopped.

Like I said it, mostly gone doesn't equal completely gone. Heck, we even have problem till this very day with leftist terrorism here in South America......

[LineDoggie]

Plenty of non-muslims did it here before muslim extremism became the kind of threat that white extremism was...pretty sure lynching and blowing up buildings is terrorism. And the Number of Lynchings in the last 40 years is what?

The Assholes of the KKK dont ride the south with impunity lynching blacks, jews, catholics since before we were both born.




And lets not compare blowing up buildings shall we, as your going to lose that big time.

[Jobu]

From what I understand, Hasan had no real goal. Terrorism is a method to achieving something more, if all he wanted to do is just kill a bunch of people, its not terrorism. Just a nut who obviously had plenty of warning signs that nobody caught or were turned a blind eye to.

From what we've been told, if it's all true, I believe his goals and motivation were clear.

It was jihad.

And there's certainly a strong suspicion that political correctness may have played a part in why those warning signs were not acted upon. No officers wants to ruin their careers by being labeled as racists or bigots. The internal investigation may or may not get the real truth out since we all know these things sometimes tend to be whitewashed.

[Noons86]

I'm going to have to go with gross incompetence. I know plenty of very PC people, and talking with them is sometimes annoying. But if half of the warning signs coming out about Hasan are true, like the how-to lecture on beheading infidels, I can't see anyone dismissing a call for investigation as racist or intolerant.

[Wimbly]

I think it's kind of strange to link Olberman and Maddow and their rather odd opinions or MSNBC for that matter with somehow setting or influencing military policies or internal security issues on an Army base. It's no different from when "liberals" claim Glenn Beck or Rush have undo influence on the "Right" and you guys go batsh*t.

Except it wasn't just those two, it was the entire MSM. From CBS to the New York Times. How do you explain their inconsistent approaches to both incidents?


I'm going to have to go with gross incompetence. I know plenty of very PC people, and talking with them is sometimes annoying. But if half of the warning signs coming out about Hasan are true, like the how-to lecture on beheading infidels, I can't see anyone dismissing a call for investigation as racist or intolerant.

Even though I just showed you that even now the media's PC mentality wont allow them to report on this incident the same way they did the Tiller murder? How do you explain that?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Just my opinion here, but it seems to me that far too many people "screwed up" for it to be chalked up to random chance. Each one of these highly trained and motivated individuals made conscious individual decisions based on the culture they operated in. If racism is real, then it can operate in any way - any direction we ask it to, right?

For any of us - just one look at Hasan, and all the info they had on him- he's a slam-dunk for at least a talking to in a nice quiet room. So many people knew so much and yet nobody did anything. Why? I would have demanded he receive additional scrutiny. Why? Because he looked suspicious and I have nothing to lose by calling him in.

There had to be a reason why each and every person who could have made that happen looked the other way. For me, there's little doubt that each one of them feared for their careers - worried that they'd appear too aggressive or to be profiling etc...and so none would take the risk.

Surely nobody in management told these people not to follow up on the guy because he was XY or Z. But our society - and especially the federal workplace - is bathed in the poisonous light of political correctness. Even the smallest accusation of racism is a career killer.

[Chulo]

From what I understand, Hasan had no real goal. Terrorism is a method to achieving something more, if all he wanted to do is just kill a bunch of people, its not terrorism. Just a nut who obviously had plenty of warning signs that nobody caught or were turned a blind eye to.


Terrorism is not a method, it is an act with intent to cause terror. If he had no goal to induce terror for a political or ideological purpose then it would be just another senseless criminal act.
In my studying of terrorism, we spent half the year just trying to define terrorism. There is alot of nuance to a definition, but everyone agrees that there must be an ideological/political goal/intent.

[kimujnr]

Terrorism is not a method, it is an act with intent to cause terror. If he had no goal to induce terror for a political or ideological purpose then it would be just another senseless criminal act.
I my studying of terrorism, we spent half the year just trying to define terrorism. There is alot of nuance to a definition, but everyone agrees that there must be an ideological/political goal/intent.

I agree with your take on the intents of terrorism but I believe the main reason that Ford Hood and media were so reticent in branding the incident as an act of terrorism was due to the fact that he was a muslim and the fear and even prejudice this would produce toward other muslims in the military.

The PC nature of the whole issue works both ways in that it keeps individuals from jumping the gun but also leads to overlooking a guy like Hassan.

[seraosha]

Plenty but I still find it that it has to be muslim as there are still plenty here in the US that are "white-christians" that wouldn't mind blowing up some buildings.

I see what you are trying to do and it's not working.

The shooter was yelling "allah akbar".
There is no way around it, he is a muslim, and a mass murderer.
I (personally) believe it stemmed from mental illness, but I do not rule out that he was influenced, goaded, persuaded, or even asked to do these attacks by another politically motivated muslim.

[Henry's Fork]

From what we've been told, if it's all true, I believe his goals and motivation were clear.

It was jihad.

And there's certainly a strong suspicion that political correctness may have played a part in why those warning signs were not acted upon. No officers wants to ruin their careers by being labeled as racists or bigots. The internal investigation may or may not get the real truth out since we all know these things sometimes tend to be whitewashed.

x2 Lets call a duck, a duck.

[California Joe]

Except it wasn't just those two, it was the entire MSM. From CBS to the New York Times. How do you explain their inconsistent approaches to both incidents?

I don't have to explain it, I think it's as retarded as you do


Just my opinion here, but it seems to me that far too many people "screwed up" for it to be chalked up to random chance. Each one of these highly trained and motivated individuals made conscious individual decisions based on the culture they operated in. If racism is real, then it can operate in any way - any direction we ask it to, right?

For any of us - just one look at Hasan, and all the info they had on him- he's a slam-dunk for at least a talking to in a nice quiet room. So many people knew so much and yet nobody did anything. Why? I would have demanded he receive additional scrutiny. Why? Because he looked suspicious and I have nothing to lose by calling him in.

There had to be a reason why each and every person who could have made that happen looked the other way. For me, there's little doubt that each one of them feared for their careers - worried that they'd appear too aggressive or to be profiling etc...and so none would take the risk.

Surely nobody in management told these people not to follow up on the guy because he was XY or Z. But our society - and especially the federal workplace - is bathed in the poisonous light of political correctness. Even the smallest accusation of racism is a career killer.

Having worked, like you, in the Federal workplace, I agree with you and Jobu on this completely. My point is that it's now become ingrained in the culture of the Military, DoD, Government etc...not influenced by the media. It's like when Tailhook happened and all of a sudden there were sh*t tons of ridiculous "don't grab your coworkers ****" powerpoint presentations we all had to endure...


I see what you are trying to do and it's not working.

The shooter was yelling "allah akbar".
There is no way around it, he is a muslim, and a mass murderer.
I (personally) believe it stemmed from mental illness, but I do not rule out that he was influenced, goaded, persuaded, or even asked to do these attacks by another politically motivated muslim.

Also agree with this completely. He was a perfect storm.

[Soldat_Américain]

I see what you are trying to do and it's not working.

The shooter was yelling "allah akbar".
There is no way around it, he is a muslim, and a mass murderer.
I (personally) believe it stemmed from mental illness, but I do not rule out that he was influenced, goaded, persuaded, or even asked to do these attacks by another politically motivated muslim.

My point is that these people are not looking at the other factors that you stated. They're saying he's just a terrorist, which uh hello, you don't get to be a major if you're a religious fundamentalist. And obviously he went nuts and nobody and I mean nobody cared that the writing was on the wall that he'd either kill himself or somebody else.

[Rossdobby]

In a related story being from Alberta we don't have much exposure to non-whites alot of philipino's but thats it. I remember a few years ago in my social studies class we had this new kid he was from pakistan. Spoke perfect english he was really nice. However one day we were sitting in the library doing a project and he walked by and started talking to me about whatever. I glanced down to see the three books he was carrying. One simply titled Terrorism that contained every terrorist attack carried out since 2004 it explained in detail how they planed and executed these attacks. The second book was about Guns and Bombs Not sure what was inside the book but the cover had an ak-47 and hand grenade and a IED on it. The third book was about psychological warefare and I remember that one cause I had read it about two weeks prior.

Now I don't jump to conclusions but I put the dots together I went straight to the counselor and informed him of what I saw. Police came the next day to talk to him. Next week he never came back.

Long story short. These people are everywhere and you make think they are good people from talking to them. But when you see some red flags act on it do not worry about being politically correct. I would rather have been wrong and acted on it then to not have acted on it and watch a terrorist plot go down in my school

**Not sure if he was actually a terrorist. Or if he left because he was embarrased that someone accused him.

[Macs.]

In a related story being from Alberta we don't have much exposure to non-whites alot of philipino's but thats it. I remember a few years ago in my social studies class we had this new kid he was from pakistan. Spoke perfect english he was really nice. However one day we were sitting in the library doing a project and he walked by and started talking to me about whatever. I glanced down to see the three books he was carrying. One simply titled Terrorism that contained every terrorist attack carried out since 2004 it explained in detail how they planed and executed these attacks. The second book was about Guns and Bombs Not sure what was inside the book but the cover had an ak-47 and hand grenade and a IED on it. The third book was about psychological warefare and I remember that one cause I had read it about two weeks prior.

Now I don't jump to conclusions but I put the dots together I went straight to the counselor and informed him of what I saw. Police came the next day to talk to him. Next week he never came back.

Long story short. These people are everywhere and you make think they are good people from talking to them. But when you see some red flags act on it do not worry about being politically correct. I would rather have been wrong and acted on it then to not have acted on it and watch a terrorist plot go down in my school

**Not sure if he was actually a terrorist. Or if he left because he was embarrased that someone accused him.

You know what ? This sounds like one of the biggest bull**** stories someone wrote on here in the last 2 weeks.

And with you knowing 2 of the 3 books he had with him - Did you also report yourself ?

[Rossdobby]

Oh yah cause you would know eh being from my town and going to my school in all. Actually it wasn't bull**** it was very true. Why did I have a book on terrorism? maybe because I wrote an essay on that subject for my Mid term exam. Why did I have a book on psychological warfare? Well its interesting and most of my family at one point was in the military and has served oversea's.

He however was not doing a mid-term or end of year exam. We were studying the root causes of WW1 and 2. Those three books had nothing to do with that. Had he taken out one at a time I most likely wouldn't have noticed. However having three books all connected with extremism in some way did make it an issue.

I never said he was a terrorist. I just decided to let someone know what I had saw. If a kid was gonna shoot up or bomb your school and you had a reason to think this and you didn't act and it happened you would feel like you had been the one doing it

I'm not lieing I wouldn't about this issue it has caused 5 of my family members to goto A-stan. Only 4 to come back. If they are gonna fight them there. I'm gonna fight em here.
I think someone's jealous that i had a good true story to tell while he had nothing.

[budgie]

Look a bunch of people screwed up.


Why do you just dismiss all of his connections to radical Islam?

Where did I dismiss it? Sure the guy had connections to radical Islam and he was obviously a nutter and his superiors failed to take action. Therefore a bunch of people screwed up


Terrorism is not a method, it is an act with intent to cause terror. If he had no goal to induce terror for a political or ideological purpose then it would be just another senseless criminal act.
In my studying of terrorism, we spent half the year just trying to define terrorism. There is alot of nuance to a definition, but everyone agrees that there must be an ideological/political goal/intent.

I don't see much of an ideological/political goal. Hasan certainly identified himself with terrorist causes but in the end went on a rage and depression induced rampage - like any run of the mill crazed gunman. Every time a Muslim kills someone its terrorism now?

I have no doubt this guy fantasized about being some kind of Jihadist but in the end he acted alone and failed to make any political point with his actions. Now the idea that this was a genuine act of terror is being used to browbeat 'the media' (presumably Fox uses the 'correct' term and is excluded from 'the media') for failing to report it as such.

The real story is what happened, who screwed up and how to prevent guys going of the rails in the future.

The last line in the quote in the OP even goes as far as to suggest it's the Obama admins fault for fostering some kind of weak PC culture in the military that led to the massacre. All that in only eight months in office. This is a an argument about nothing.

[Chulo]

I don't see much of an ideological/political goal. Hasan certainly identified himself with terrorist causes but in the end went on a rage and depression induced rampage - like any run of the mill crazed gunman. Every time a Muslim kills someone its terrorism now?

I have no doubt this guy fantasized about being some kind of Jihadist but in the end he acted alone and failed to make any political point with his actions. Now the idea that this was a genuine act of terror is being used to browbeat 'the media' (presumably Fox uses the 'correct' term and is excluded from 'the media') for failing to report it as such.




1. My argument was in defining the elements of terrorism
2. No one said all just because he was a Muslim he was a terrorist.
3. Not all Muslim go around pretending to be a member of a terrorist group, seek out membership in one, talk about being a terrorist and give lectures in how to behead a human.

4. Just because he acted alone does not mean it is not a terrorist act. Terrorism is not a team sport.
5. Unless you have other information and know what is in the mind of Hasan, your argument is just speculation. But his acts have all the indicative marks of a terrorist act.

And here is the point about being in a PC culture and being overly sensitive. So far the main argument is that because he was a Muslim they have not labeled the act terrorism. And now you jump to the conclusion that because he was a Muslim we are calling him a terrorist.

[budgie]

Well for the record I don't see the shooting of Abortion doctors is a terrorist act either. Just because Rachel Maddow does isn't indicative of a general bias in what Dronetek likes to call the MSM (that'll never catch on BTW). Some commentators have called it terror and others have called it mass murder.

Still think - dictionary definitions aside - that genuine terrorism is a team sport: they plot a strategy together and they have a goal that goes beyond wanton destruction. In effect they are trying to 'win' something - be that making a statement, gaining concessions, or attacking their perceived enemy. This guy Hasan, despite his terrorist fantasies, was just venting his personal rage. He acted alone.

[Chulo]

Well for the record I don't see the shooting of Abortion doctors is a terrorist act either. Just because Rachel Maddow does isn't indicative of a general bias in what Dronetek likes to call the MSM (that'll never catch on BTW). Some commentators have called it terror and others have called it mass murder.

Still think - dictionary definitions aside - that genuine terrorism is a team sport: they plot a strategy together and they have a goal that goes beyond wanton destruction. In effect they are trying to 'win' something - be that making a statement, gaining concessions, or attacking their perceived enemy. This guy Hasan, despite his terrorist fantasies, was just venting his personal rage. He acted alone.
Technically shooting an abortion doctor to make a point is terrorism, it is motivated by ideological/political reason. If he was shot while being mugged it is a crime.

You cant reject the definition and then try to implace your own definition to make an argument about the definition.
Terrorism, singularly acted or in a group is anything that is done with a political or ideological motive. Just because the majority of terrorist acts utilize a larger reference group and resources does not mean it is the rule.

Timothy McVeigh acted alone and is considered a terrorist act.

[LRPV]

Just my opinion here, but it seems to me that far too many people "screwed up" for it to be chalked up to random chance. Each one of these highly trained and motivated individuals made conscious individual decisions based on the culture they operated in. If racism is real, then it can operate in any way - any direction we ask it to, right?

For any of us - just one look at Hasan, and all the info they had on him- he's a slam-dunk for at least a talking to in a nice quiet room. So many people knew so much and yet nobody did anything. Why? I would have demanded he receive additional scrutiny. Why? Because he looked suspicious and I have nothing to lose by calling him in.

There had to be a reason why each and every person who could have made that happen looked the other way. For me, there's little doubt that each one of them feared for their careers - worried that they'd appear too aggressive or to be profiling etc...and so none would take the risk.

Surely nobody in management told these people not to follow up on the guy because he was XY or Z. But our society - and especially the federal workplace - is bathed in the poisonous light of political correctness. Even the smallest accusation of racism is a career killer.


As a Government officer in my country I can relate to trhis post. Unfortunately...

[LRPV]

Well for the record I don't see the shooting of Abortion doctors is a terrorist act either. Just because Rachel Maddow does isn't indicative of a general bias in what Dronetek likes to call the MSM (that'll never catch on BTW). Some commentators have called it terror and others have called it mass murder.

Still think - dictionary definitions aside - that genuine terrorism is a team sport: they plot a strategy together and they have a goal that goes beyond wanton destruction. In effect they are trying to 'win' something - be that making a statement, gaining concessions, or attacking their perceived enemy. This guy Hasan, despite his terrorist fantasies, was just venting his personal rage. He acted alone.


budgie, your views are well recorded, however terror is not always organised.

[martinexsquaddie]

"I can't belive its not the ira" are still active don't belive they have any memberswho are muslim

are you a catholic or a protestant
actually I'm a muslim
ok are you a catholic or protestant muslim.

the uk's had several crap nazi's knicked for terrorism.
plenty of non muslim nutters out there.

[3rdMillhouse]

"I can't belive its not the ira" are still active don't belive they have any memberswho are muslim

are you a catholic or a protestant
actually I'm a muslim
ok are you a catholic or protestant muslim.

the uk's had several crap nazi's knicked for terrorism.
plenty of non muslim nutters out there.

You might wanna format your post properly cause you just made no damn sense at all.

[11 Bravo]

If the Fort Hood shooter were a non-Muslim I wonder will that be labeled as terrorism.

Would a Non mooslim dress up in a bedsheet and head wrap and enter a clinic screaming Allouh akbar... and with Hasan's track record of religious dogma in your face attitude the answer would be obviously NO.

[California Joe]

You might wanna format your post properly cause you just made no damn sense at all.

Martin has his own format, always has. I've had years of practice reading it. Makes perfect sense. :)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Here, let me help you with that.


[rethorical question tag]How many non-muslims do you see practicing acts of terrorism nowadays?[/rethorical question tag]

Here let me help you with that: http://www.fallsnewspress.com/news/article/4719117

Apparently blowing yourself up with a pipe bomb and having 35 others in your house is natural if your white and live in Ohio.

[Soldat_Américain]

Would a Non mooslim dress up in a bedsheet and head wrap and enter a clinic screaming Allouh akbar... and with Hasan's track record of religious dogma in your face attitude the answer would be obviously NO.

Bed sheet yes, Allahu Akbar, I have no idea. You should buy one of those bed sheets btw, the pockets are deep and its comfortable.

[Clockwinder]

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.If the shoe fits ..... if the definition fits .....

[budgie]

Well since the definition says 'often for ideological or political reasons' it's open to interpretation. I think one thing that separates this case from say, McVeigh's is the suspect. We haven't heard his side of the story yet. If he is ever in a state to talk about his reasosns for doing this then we can say whether it was terrorism or not. After all if Hasan was doing this for the greatness of God or as punishment to America, then I'm sure he'll just come out and say it - terrorists are hubristic like that.

[Clockwinder]

And then of course there are the just plain psychotic lunatics who have a jaundiced view of dogma or doctrine ... or have just forgotten to wear their tinfoil hat

[seraosha]

Would yelling "God is Great" as he shoots people be a small indication that he just might have been doing it for a "greatness of god"?

C'mon man, thats your own words...just swallow the bitter pill, admit you are wrong, and move on. It's not life or death among us forum nerds.

[Chulo]

Well since the definition says 'often for ideological or political reasons' it's open to interpretation. I think one thing that separates this case from say, McVeigh's is the suspect. We haven't heard his side of the story yet. If he is ever in a state to talk about his reasosns for doing this then we can say whether it was terrorism or not. After all if Hasan was doing this for the greatness of God or as punishment to America, then I'm sure he'll just come out and say it - terrorists are hubristic like that.
That is just one definition. This is an excerpt from one of my papers

Schmidt and Youngman noted in their book “Political Terrorism” that a statistical breakdown of reoccurring elements within 109 definitions of terrorism as described by leading academics in the field resulted in the following list: [1] (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#_ftn1)

· Violence, force (appeared in 83.5% of the definitions)
· Political (65%)
· Fear, emphasis on terror (51%)
· Threats (47%)
· Psychological effects and anticipated reactions (41.5%)
· Discrepancy between the targets and the victims (37.5%)
· Intentional, planned, systematic, organized action (32%)
· Methods of combat, strategy, tactics (30.5%)

[1] (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/#_ftnref1) Alex P. Schmidt and Albert I. Jongman et al., Political Terrorism (1988), 8.