Fort Hood: Terrorism or Shooting Spree?

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought this was a particular well-written article that gets to the heart of the issue:

http://features.csmonitor.com/polit...ng-splits-america-over-islamic-terror-motive/

Fort Hood shooting splits America over Islamic terror motive

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is charged with 13 counts of murder in the Fort Hood shootings. Was it a 'killing spree' or 'terrorism,' and is the question more than political?

Pending a series of legislative, Army, and Defense Department investigations into the rampage, the Obama administration has resisted the “terror” label. And one new poll shows slightly more Americans agreeing that the Fort Hood shooting was a “killing spree” rather than “an act of terrorism.”

But some US lawmakers see the terrorism analogy as fundamentally important to the inquiry — not just into Hasan’s motivations, but to national security generally in the Fort Hood aftermath.

At Senate hearings this week, some witnesses testified that “political correctness” undermined efforts to pinpoint Hasan and neutralize him before the shooting.

...
“The [terror or not] argument sounds a lot like the argument taking place over hate crimes — only, liberals, in general, seem to be in favor of hate crime legislation but against calling the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist act, with conservatives, in general, taking the opposite tack,” writes Nicole Stockdale, of the Dallas Morning News.

Personally, I think there is a distinct and somewhat saddening national urge to pretend that it isn't terrorism because Major Hasan (allegedly) wasn't directed from afar, but acted on his own. What's so wrong with calling a spade a spade?

 

[Marginal]

In that case, every spree shooter's a terrorist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In that case, every spree shooter's a terrorist.

Every spree shooter that acts with intent to terrorize, yes.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think we may differ on the definition of a duck here, Bill.

It's a terrorist act if it is claimed as a terrorist act - otherwise it's just murder for murders sake. If the guy turns out to truly be out of his mind then it is too late for the death penalty (as he survived the local efforts to suppress the threat). Otherwise there would be no outrage from me if the clearly intelligent but equally clearly dangerous-to-the-general-public fellow was eliminated.

 

[TKDHomeSchooler]

This was a terrorist act, no question about it. He did it as a religious idealog and shouted that crap they all do before slaughtering American Soldiers.

 

[Sukerkin]

I've not heard that, Schooler. Can you show the sources?

 

[crushing]

From the preliminary accounts of Major Hasan and his life, it sounds like he may have a lot in common with George Sodini, the fitness club shooter. Is Sodini considered a terrorist? What if his name was Girgis Hoseini?

 

[Archangel M]

I think that the "Terrorist" definition should be applied to a person acting with political intent, operating in cells supported by a nation or organization.

"Terrifying" is different from "terrorism".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I've not heard that, Schooler. Can you show the sources?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/06/earlyshow/main5549394.shtml

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he fired on his fellow soldiers, the base commander said Friday.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that the "Terrorist" definition should be applied to a person acting with political intent, operating in cells supported by a nation or organization.

"Terrifying" is different from "terrorism".

I am worried about the social redefinition of the word 'terrorist' so that Major Nidal won't be considered one.

One common definition of 'terrorist' is "a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. (dictionary.com)."

So he's not (at least as far as we know) a member of a terrorist organization. But he espouses terrorist beliefs (allegedly) and he clearly acted on them in furtherance of terrorist agendas of his radical stem of Islam.

We also have the OKC bombings - those two were notably (and without objection as far as I know) called 'domestic terrorists'. Where was their support group? Who was pulling their strings?

The Major appears to me to be a terrorist - clearly and without question. I do not understand all this twisting and gyrating to avoid using the word with regard to him, it clearly fits.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

From the preliminary accounts of Major Hasan and his life, it sounds like he may have a lot in common with George Sodini, the fitness club shooter. Is Sodini considered a terrorist? What if his name was Girgis Hoseini?

That's a problem. If I say that Major Nidal is a terrorist, I must be racist or bigoted. Because, as you imply, if his name was 'Smith', I would not be calling him a terrorist.

No, I am calling him a terrorist because of what he did, not what his name is.

Was Sodini espousing a terrorist agenda or reason for his attack? Did he shout "Allah Akbar!" or "God Save the Queen!" as he attacked?

Why is it so important that Nidal not be a terrorist? Is there something horrible about using the word correctly?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's a terrorist act if it is claimed as a terrorist act - otherwise it's just murder for murders sake.

No one ever took credit for the Birmingham bombings in the 1970's. Commonly assumed to be the work of the IRA, but they didn't (as they usually did) take credit. Was it therefore not a terrorist act?

 

[crushing]

That's a problem. If I say that Major Nidal is a terrorist, I must be racist or bigoted. Because, as you imply, if his name was 'Smith', I would not be calling him a terrorist.

No, I am calling him a terrorist because of what he did, not what his name is.

I don't know why else people are judging Nidal and Sodini so differently when it appears they had similar motivations for their terrorist shooting sprees.

Was Sodini espousing a terrorist agenda or reason for his attack? Did he shout "Allah Akbar!" or "God Save the Queen!" as he attacked?

Why is it so important that Nidal not be a terrorist? Is there something horrible about using the word correctly?

Shouting "Allah Akbar" is not espousing a terrorist agenda. It is a very common phrase he has likely uttered countless times, in all sorts of situations. What else should he have said?

Maybe they were both terrorists then? That doesn't matter to me so much, and I'm not sure why you asked if you already knew the answer ("horrible about using the word correctly?"). At any rate, they both killed people in a similar manner, with apparently similar motivations. What really matters to me is justice.

 

[Archangel M]

My personal opinion is that if a person is not trained, funded and controlled he is not a "terrorist".

He's simply a criminal.

But in typical fashion our Gvt. is trying "real GITMO terrorists" as if they were criminal offenders and debating whether to classify a nutjob Army Major as a "terrorist".

 

[Sukerkin]

Did the IRA not claim the Birmingham pub bombings as their handiwork? I rather thought that they did. Of course, the media is ever a fickle and unreliable conduit for information. The best person to tell you the answer would be Tez, counter-terrorism being part of her job.

 

[Tez3]

No one ever took credit for the Birmingham bombings in the 1970's. Commonly assumed to be the work of the IRA, but they didn't (as they usually did) take credit. Was it therefore not a terrorist act?

You're incorrect, it wasn't admittedly publically but it was privately. It's been known but unproven for a long time who was responsible.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...m-pub-bombings-were-a-mistake-97319-25221649/


"Mrs Mitchell, 56, met the former bomber during special reconciliation sessions in Ireland not long after the 30th anniversary of the attacks.
She said: “At the one session I was at a different table from my husband and I could see that he was getting angry.
“He was talking to an ex bomber who was convicted of a bombing in the 1980s, but was released as part of the peace process. He told Andy that the IRA had ‘never targeted civilians’.
“Andy was incensed, so he called me over and said ‘how do you explain what happened to my wife?’
“He told us that it was a mistake, but he said the IRA would never admit that publicly."

Please note the date of bombings 21st November 1974 and spare a thought for those victims.

 

[Makalakumu]

How in the hell can this guy e-mail Al-CIAda, speak out against the president and the government, and imply threats to Americans and NOT be stopped? How many others have we seen grabbed and locked up for doing a fraction of doing what he did before the shooting? I smell something deep and thick.

Terrorism, shooting spree, or maybe...

 

[Archangel M]

PC at work. And fear of not being "inclusive" or unfairly biased.

 

[Makalakumu]

PC at work. And fear of not being "inclusive" or unfairly biased.

I hope you're right. This whole thing stinks and its damned tragic no matter how you look at it.

 

[Archangel M]

Maybe he was one of those "deep operatives" that placed the demo charges in the twin towers. Now the "Project MKULTRA" programming went haywire causing him to go "postal". The gvt. Cabal sent in the "cleaner" ( the DOD cop) to fix their mess but they were unable to complete the job. Perhaps they are swapping the Maj. with a body double in the hospital as we speak.

:hmm: