Is Hasan a Terrorist?
I was having a discussion at work the other day about the Ft. Hood killings. One of my co-workers said, “He’s a terrorist.” I disagreed with him and stated my definition of terrorism. Primarily, it deals with the motive of the act being designed to terrorize a populace into forcing a political change. Israel, Northern Ireland, 9-11 all qualify. But I think of Hasan as being more like a proverbial postal worker.
My co-worker went into a big explanation about how he shouted Allah Akbar before he opened fire. Now let’s set aside that that part of the story may have been made up out of thin air (like the “fact” that Hasan had been killed and that he had been shot by the female guard). He explained to me that this is what terrorists do. They shout “Allah Akbar” before they commit their act of terrorism. Another co-worker pointed out that he had seen a movie where Allah Akbar was essentially a blessing given to terrorists before they go off to kill and die. Seriously?
Personally, I think those arguments are a whole lot of hooey. If the guy had said “Peace be with you” to people would we assume he was a terrorist? Isn’t it just as likely that the guy was CRAZY? In fact, this is even more likely, as there was no claim of responsibility. I am sure that bin Laden was happy to hear about the tragedy, but he would have been happy if Bush had choked on a pretzel. It wouldn’t mean that Utz was part of a conspiracy.
The problem is that we don’t really have enough information about what happened, but I don’t feel any less safe than I did a week ago. They guy shot up the place he worked. It is a tragedy for everyone involved, and I have no doubt that the punishment will be severe. But conflating every violent act made by a Muslim as terrorism is a losing strategy.
Tags: domestic terrorism, Ft. Hood, Terrorism
Geek, it’s a fair question. Can anyone who places his loyalty to his faith above his loyalty to his country and fellow citizens be called anything other than a religious extremist? And in my book, putting religious extremism into action with guns makes you a terrorist. As a former paratrooper, all I can say at this point is that I’d rather have a gay guy in a foxhole next to me than a Muslim.
Aren’t there Christians that put their faith above their country? Is it inconceiveable that that person could be unstable enough that he would snap if confronted with something that forced a choice between the two?
And I wonder how much the attitude you express was on the mind and coming out of the mouth of the people that Hasan was counseling? I’m guessing that it would be easier to be gay in the military than Muslim these days.
Put their faith above their country? Like Stefan Cook? Yeah, it happens. 😉
In my opinion he was not a terrorist. He was just a nut. And the gun culture and all who enable it are to blame.
From what I’ve read he really fits the profile of a lone wolf than a terrorist. I think we should be cautious before we know more, but this case is heartbreaking and there were so many screaming warning signs before it happened that I’m sure there will be discipline involved and hopefully a change in policy.
As far as Allahu Akbar, it was reported that he said this before shooting but those reports have been disputed. Others said he said nothing at all, just started shooting.
Can anyone who places his loyalty to his faith above his loyalty to his country and fellow citizens be called anything other than a religious extremist?
I think that’s what is happening to the health care bill.
I think it’s violence for a political end, not a religious one, that is the determinate. Look at Ireland, Palestine and (often) Spain.
But since Bush made everyone who disagreed with his policies a terrorist, the definition has gotten muddy.
I’m going to probably piss everyone off here, but that’s nothing new.
I don’t think Hasan is a terrorist — mainly because I’d argue that a terrorist is one engaging in acts of violence as a part of a concerted effort to instill terror in the populace for the purpose of bringing about political/social change. As of right now, I don’t see Hasan having that direct connection to a larger organization.
I would, however, argue that Hasan is definitely a jihadi, engaged in an act of violence against the infidel for the advancement of Islamic goals. The evidence, as it currently stands, shows him to be in support of such violence, and there are too many different witnesses reporting either Allah Akbar or Allahu Akbar (the more correct Arabic construction) for it to be discounted.
And PM, I’m going to disagree with you on your analysis of the health care bill. Are you REALLY arguing that disagreement on the wisdom of nationalizing health care and/or funding abortion constitutes something akin to treason? Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
RwR, he might be a jihadi, but then again you could call every “Christian” abortion clinic killer a crusader. They believe that they are doing the work of their god, despite evidence to the contrary.
If Hasan believes that he is killing the infidels in a holy war, I think it says more about Hasan’s state of mind than his relationship to his religion.
In my opinion he was not a terrorist. He was just a nut. And the gun culture and all who enable it are to blame.
So how do you propose getting the gun culture out of the US Army?
While I agree that an act of violence by a Muslim is not necessarily always an act of terrorism, the Fort Hood incident was.
FACT: Major Hasan sympathized with Al-Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/08/us/politics/AP-US-Fort-Hood-Muslims.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
FACT: The FBI knew he was communicating with Al-Qaeda but did nothing.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwXtdoKPsNJg9PPKF7708ZC4N56AD9BPNHDO6
FACT: Military officials and doctors knew he was capable of such violent acts, and did nothing.
The links to Al-Qaeda make this a terrorist attack. I am glad Obama is having this investigated. Too bad Hasan was on Obama’s transition team as a Homeland Security advisor:
http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf
(Go to page 32)
To me his attack seemed personal. (I’m not committed to this position, because we simply don’t have enough information.)
The reason it strikes me as personal, rather than political, is due to the statements centering around his not wanting to be shipped out and the claims that he was trying to get out of the military. Now, his reasons for wanting out may be tied to his beliefs, but (and I’m guessing) I’d bet his discontent with his work strengthened his religious beliefs.
It’s kinda like the chicken and the egg question. Which came first? His wanting out of the military or his “supposedly” religious extremism? So… I guess I’m going with “he’s crazy” side.
And UI is correct about the screaming warning signs, which also lends itself to his actions being personal. He wasn’t exactly covert. He didn’t blend in, and had drawn attention and concern to himself.
The gun culture is what saved the people at the assembly he was targeting. He could have used a bomb or a car but he was indeed a terrorist who hated the U S and its institutions.
The government at all levels (like Hurricane Katrina) missed this guy and the pass the Obama administration is deafening.
This incident will not be the last of its type under Obama.
Mike Protack
Is this really your communications strategy?
You know, the warning signs signaling that Protack is a loon are evident. Harmless, one might even say… impotent, but still a loon.
Is this really your communications strategy?
Classic.
Jason O – Now you have to read my links that point out that MANY of the initial reports have turned out to be incorrect. EVERY one of your links that was supposed to prove something was based on information from “unnamed sources” early in the situation.
Come back when you have actual statements from real people that support your so-called “facts.”
And saying that Hasan was on the transition team by pointing out that he attended a series of meeting that were laid out in April 2008 (see your link, page 1),before Obama was even the nominee) is about 180 degrees off, since it is likely that he was asked to be involved by the Bush Administration if by any administration at all.
“The gun culture is what saved the people at the assembly he was targeting. He could have used a bomb or a car but he was indeed a terrorist who hated the U S and its institutions.”
Not the gun culture; the police presence. Even warm, fuzzy, Sesame-Street like countries have armed police. (and please don’t tell me about all the places that have unarmed forces; even those have armed domestic forces as well).
Technically a “Terrorist” must seek to instill fear, terror in a person, group or country. The goal is to render them ineffective. Typically it is a weapon of the weak to strike at the strong. While Hassan is a Muslim surrounded by fundamentalist Christians( it’s Texas)his actions had little if any poltical intent, just to say he was a Muslim means nothing. I see him as a deranged, mentally ill man who commited a hienous act, but not terrorism.
“…I’d argue that a terrorist is one engaging in acts of violence as a part of a concerted effort to instill terror…”
Why does it have to be a concerted effort to be classified as terrorism? Eric Rudolph (anti-abortion) was a lone wolf, but you’d have to say he was a terrorist, right? I was only blocks away from Centennial Park in 1996 when that bomb went off, and I sure felt terrorized, especially since I’d been there the night before to see Carlos Santana. And let’s not forget the Unabomber.
“And the gun culture and all who enable it are to blame.”
Wow! A “gun culture” existing in our own military… Imagine that. It sounds very dangerous.
Terrorist? Perhaps not. Martyr wannabe? Definitely.
Good point Mis. He may have just been trying the gangbanger trick of “suicide by cop”
Oh and the more I think of it, Jason O’Neill is a douche-nozzle. To try to put this guy on Obama’s transition team is one of the most disgusting accusations made on this site. You have learned well from your master.
The transition team talking point is one that was made and debunked last week. It was made by swiftliar Jerome Corsi, who is also a birther. I think Hasan attended some meetings for an organization that said something about transition but it had nothing to do with Obama.
The “communicating with Al-Qaeda” point is also one being debunked. He sent emails to a guy he knew who might have some peripheral connection to Al-Qaeda. WAPO says, “The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan’s e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.” Of course we all know that those uber-patriotic conservatives would love nothing more than for there to be some sort of terrorist attack that they can blame Obama for. I second the douche-nozzle motion.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/abcs-brian-ross-cooks-dangerously-ina
“This incident will not be the last of its type under Obama.”
or so you Hate party thugs hope
Blaming the guns for this terrorist’s killings is like blaming the printing presses at the mint for printing too much money as our debt goes out of control.
So this guy’s exploits spanned the terms of both of the parties…who are you all going to blame?
I heard Hasan screamed “Waka Waka”.
I guess he IS a puppet of AQ.
Well, YOU, and the rest of the Right Supremacist Hate Party are gonna blame Obama. so IM gonna blame capitalism and america.