ATWT Discussion Group -- Act of Terrorism?

ATWT Discussion Group

Topic: Act of Terrorism?

Topic Posted by: maggimae
Date Posted: Tue Nov 10 11:50:20 2009
Additional Comments:

The news is full now of the debate as to whether the massacre at Fort Hood was an act of terrorism or an isolated incident by a deranged man. As I understand it, if the shooter is tried by a military tribunal, that indicates that it is not perceived as an act of terrorism.

But I am wondering if this is an attempt by someone to influence how this incident is reported. If it turns out that this is an act of terrorism and if authorities were aware of the danger this person posed, and nothing was done, then it will be a black mark on the administration.

I think this is much more important than what the first lady wears or weather the president mispoke about the language Austrians speak.

This is my orginal thought.

Posted by: dandyfop
Date posted: Thu Nov 12 17:37:44 2009
Message:

I think it is best to find out as much as we can about the shooter and the reasons he chose to kill his comrades before using a word like terrorism. To do otherwise I think reinforces this idea that because a muslim is involved, its got to be terrorism. Maybe he was just a fruitcake. So I think its early days to be thinking the media is trying to cover Obama's a$$ for this one.

Personally, I don't understand what difference it makes in this case. A serial killer is a terrorist. A serial rapist is a terrorist. That sniper Virginia just executed was a terrorist. At the root of it all is violence and malice and the harm and the fear instilled is the same. What will ultimately happen to this man if it is deemed terrorism or if it was just run of the mill mass murder? In Texas- he is probably dead either way. And his victims will be just as dead.

Like every other time something like this happens, I think we want to label it and point to a reason to somehow have it make some sense.

Posted by: silver
Date posted: Wed Nov 11 16:17:11 2009
Message:
*if authorities were aware of the danger this person posed, and nothing was done, then it will be a black mark on the administration*** What authorities? I agree that Hasan's military superiors probably should have known that he was unstable. But which administration gets the 'black mark'? Hasan enlisted and received his bachelor's under Clinton. He got his MD under George W Bush; and was promoted to major in May 2009 after Obama became president. I suspect you would have to go pretty far down the ladder to find someone in the administration who monitored the mental health of majors.

Replies: (list all replies)

I figured the comment was aiming criticism of the military administrators, not any specific president.

I may have been hasty thinking 'the administration' referred to 'The Administration.' I suspect you are right, although I would have used 'Officers' or 'military powers that be.' eom/silver

Silver, I realize you are sensitive to any criticism of the administration. HOwever, I do feel that a top priority for the administration shoud be the protection of the citizens. I think the administration should find out why this disturbed individual was not stopped. I don't care if it was the last administration or this adminstration. This administration should find out what went wrong and should put procedures in place to see that it doesn't happen again. Let's try to remedy past mistakes and not worry who gets the blame./mm

Obama's administration should find out what went wrong and implement procedures to prevent a recurrence. But the event is no 'black mark' on any presidential administration. The military had purview over Hasan and should have spotted his problems. The officers over Hasan are the recipients of black marks IMO eom/silver

mm - I am not sensitive to any criticism of Obama, just to unfair criticism. Such as when he is blamed for not solving in 10 months those problems 8 years in the making, those problems 8 years in the making that had the support of many of those now doing the criticizing. eom/silver

Posted by: Tosca
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 22:41:45 2009
Message:

Tough call. We don't have enough information yet. He was born and raised in the US, joined the military to get into school and get through his degree to practice psychiatry. I really think that hearing all the stories from the troubled soldiers got to him and made him re-think the military. I do believe he may have reconnected with his religion, as well, considering both fronts are fighting Muslim extremists. Should the military have acted differently when they started noticing he was unstable? Of course. Can we always predict that someone can totally lose it? No.

Have we all not gone to a web site or two that could incriminate us if someone was really looking for dirt on us? If I go attend services at a temple/church/mosque that might have, among the hundreds of members, someone who is "questionable" --- does that mean I'm evil, too? (remember, Obama attended a church led by a radical preacher and he too was criticized...what's that about?) Like, if a Jeffrey Dahmer attended my church and I didn't know him, does that make me a pervert murderer too? Sometimes I think they're looking for connections where none really exist.

So far, I think they guy was conflicted and went off his rocker. I assume he thought he'd die that day and maybe thought he'd get some glory from Muslims if he yelled Allah's name before his death.

But gee. If he didn't want to go to war, why didn't he just kill himself in his bathroom or something? Did he have to take so many people with him?

Jury's still out with me. I need to know more.

Replies: (list all replies)

Don't know if this is true, but I heard that Hasan counseled soldiers BEFORE they went to combat, not afterward. Therefore, if true, that negates the claim of his stress from listening to their combat stories.

That's just it. There are lots of ''stories'' out there. Heard on NPR this morning from a psychiatrist who said that all psychiatrists need psychiatry because all they hear 24/7 is the problems of others. He said it was very stressful, holding the fate of one's happiness in one's hands (or on one's couch?) Fear is contagious. If Hasan had been counseling all those who hadn't gone into battle YET, he could have picked up on their fears and they became his own. One can argue this in so many ways.

Posted by: Deb
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 22:00:26 2009
Message:
just tagging on here....will the shooter be charged with 13 or 14 counts? jmho...should be 14. Has any one heard anything on this?

Replies: (list all replies)

Good point. I suppose you are thinking about the pregnant soldier. So sad./mm

Posted by: Suellen
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 20:25:10 2009
Message:
According to the CBS news there were 12 emails sent by Hasan to this terrorist friend and this fact alone should have been reason for a dishonorable discharge from military service for this shooter. Somebody messed up! Prayers for the families of the victims.

Posted by: anon
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 15:47:52 2009
Message:
so how's that much-touted multiculturalism workin' for ya?

Replies: (list all replies)

Do the names Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols mean anything to you? eom/D

Now that's what I call racism and cowardice to boot./mm

Tsk, tsk. I perceive that in my absence someone naughty has been using my posting name--anon. it is a lovely name, i know, so i will cede it to you and hereinafter be known as Anon E. Mouse. besides confiscating my name, now you have made maggiemae, who has so recently pleaded for civility, call you rather ugly names. but we are a forgiving bunch. go, thou, and sin no more.

Too bad you don't care to reveal yourself. You seem quite clever./mm

mm, if i ''revealed'' myself, told you my name was minnie mae mack, for instance, what would you know that you don't know now? aren't we all anonymous, really? (by the way, don't read anything into that name; it was just something that came off the top of my head as i typed.)

True, but I have become quite close to the posters here who identify themselves. I enjoy their company, even those I disagsree with. As you pointed out, other people will use the screen name ''anon'' or a derivative. But the use of a ''unique'' screen name gives you a personna, Also, the use of ''anon'' indicates you are not willing to own up to your posts./mm

Dolphina...you beat me to it! I was going to mention Tim McVeigh. You are quick girlfriend! And doing a fine job here, I might add!

mm, i am not trying to challenge you or argue but i am curious as to your remark that using ''anon'' indicates that you don't want to ''own up'' to your posts. to whom does one HAVE to own up (other than mr. michael gill)? and why would anyone feel they had to ''own up'' to their posts? other posters may dislike what one posts but they can only kill you, they can't eat you! seriously, do explain to me why one needs to ''own up'' and who, on this board, would have the authority to require you to.

You are right that no one has the authority to prohibit you from posting anonymously and I really would not want to prohibit your from doing so. But I personally want to use my unique screen name so that people know these are MY thoughts and not someone else's. The only rationalization for posting anonymously is fear or shame. And now the light is beginning to dawn on me who you might be./mm

I need to correct myself. I should have said the only reason I can see is fear or shame./mm

And I don't think I said you ''need'' to own up to your post./mm

no, no, i wasn't questioning the posting anonymous as much as the ''owning up''. i don't know what you mean by ''owning up''. i don't feel that i have to ''own up'' to my posts. there is nothing in them to cause the ''fear or shame'' you spoke of. so i am at a loss to understand why posting anonymously (in my case because i haven't picked a name) proves that you don't want to ''own up'' to your posts. there is nothing in my posts to be fearful or ashamed of.

On the off chance that you are who I think you might be, I have decided that I don't wish to respond any more to your posts. I would prefer that the people I have a dialogue with do not hide behind the term ''anonymous.''/mm

mm, now i AM crushed! i thought we were getting along a like a house-afire. and just because i didn't choose some silly name to post under. if i did choose a posting name, and posted just as i do now, would you then respond to my posts again? so the name is what makes the difference, even though you wouldn't know me any more than you do now? i trust you see how silly that is. oh, and there is no way i could be ''who you think i might be'' but i suppose that denial will only convince you that i AM that person. sorry that i couldn't see anything in my posts to be fearful or ashamed about and make you feel better.

Posted by: dolphina
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 15:18:00 2009
Message:
Since 'terrorism' is generally considered to be the use of violence/threat/fear for coercive purposes, this incident probably can't/won't be classified as such until Hasan's motive can be established. My original thought is that it's imprudent and inaccurate to label the act 'terrorism' until the investigation is completed. Speculation at this point by outsiders like us is not very meaningful.

Regardless of whether Hasan was acting out of ideology with a purpose, or simply went crazy, the military will have to answer for failing to recognize that he posed a threat. As a psychiatrist, he should have been subject to routine evaluation by his peers. His peers are other military psychiatrists.

Replies: (list all replies)

I'm just curious.....since you said terrorism is considered to be the use of violence/threat/fear for coercive purposes, what would the coercive purposes have been for 9-11?

An attempt to scare us out of supporting Israel and maintaining a military presence in the Muslim world. eom/D

Well, that is good to know the real reason for 9-11 since I had read so much about the Muslims hating us and wanting to destroy our way of life. Also many people say the Koran invokes jihad against the infidels. Now I know the real reason, don't I?

Now you know ONE of the reasons - the coercive one. eom/D

Posted by: Lyrica
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 12:26:35 2009
Message:

MM, the following is NOT original!! ;-) However, it is interesting that Hassan is considered a hero by al-Khattab, who thinks the slain soldiers deserved to die and are in eternal hellfire. Nice, huh? Ironically, he brags that he can say all this because his ''hatred is protected by the First Amendment.'' What is wrong with this picture?

"Yousef al-Khattab, 41, a radical Muslim in the borough of Queens who runs RevolutionMuslim.com, claims on the site that the soldiers massacred at the Texas base deserved to be massacred, and he insists the victims are in "eternal hellfire." As for the suspected gunman — Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — Al-Khattab hails him as a hero.

"An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack," al-Khattab wrote on the site. "Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you."

Al-Khattab, a Jewish-born New Jersey native formerly named Joseph Cohen, converted to Islam in 2004. Known by the FBI for posting radical messages online, al-Khattab claims that the 13 murdered and 38 wounded soldiers at Fort Hood were "terrorists" who deserved to die.

"These people are soldiers in a volunteer army," al-Khattab told the Post. "They expect to see combat. They know the danger."

"Rest assured the slain terrorists at Ft. Hood are in the eternal hellfire," al-Khattab writes online.

On Oct. 7, al-Khattab posted a message on the Web calling on Allah to carry out "wrath on the Jewish occupiers of Palestine & their supporters."

"Please throw liquid drain cleaner in their faces," he wrote. " … burn their flammable sukkos while they sleep … Ya Allah (Oh God) answer my duaa (prayer)." ("Sukkos" refers to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, during which Jews build and eat their meals in outdoor huts known as "sukkahs," which represent the huts the Jews lived in during their exodus from Egypt.)

Al Khattab insists that his hatred is protected by the First Amendment. "If it was a threat, I'd be in jail," the 41-year-old al-Khattab told FoxNews.com in October.

Hasan — a radical Muslim — reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar," or "God is great" in Arabic, before unloading more than 100 rounds at soldiers preparing to ship off to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Replies: (list all replies)

This guy is a nut. But the fact that he idolizes the shooter, doesn't not constitute proof that the shooting was an act of terrorism./mm

What WOULD constitute proof for you if his saying ''Allahu Akbar'' before shooting them doesn't do it? Why is it that only white Christians seem subject to ''hate crimes'' punishment, I wonder?

I don't equate a hate crime with an act of terrorism/mm

Actually, I threw in the hate crime sentence as an afterthought, not really relating to this topic. But what would make it terrorism for you? Obviously with the Allahu Akbar reference, Hasan was making it about Islam and their well-documented determination to kill all non-believers.

Well, I've been doing some research on what the official (government) definition of terrorism is. Not satisfied with what I have found yet, but one says that if a person attacks an government organization, that would be terrorism. I think the Army would count. I'll try to go back and find the link when I have time./mm