Jihad

[strayrider]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iai8xG4ld3DgxPSPyPqnbyB3rZZg

I guess this story slipped "under the radar"?

Jihad, or not?

:eek:

-stray-

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, i was thinking of posting that earlier in the week, but given how pc some folks are around here and how divided people get over such issues, i thought it'd be best to leave it alone...

but fucking A, given what i've heard ("muslim first, american second", the shouting of "allah's snackbar", and the connections with known terror groups,) it's an open-and-shut case of domestic terrorism, jihad, infiltration of our ranks, whatever you wanna call it.

hard to believe this guy wasn't kicked out of the military for his ideological conflictions with our current predicament (since O and company don't wanna call it the "war on terror" anymore). sad for all the families affected, and i hope this piece of shit rots in a cell the rest of his life...or they could just put him to death, since he is a traitor during a time of war...but i'm sure the appeaser-in-chief will step in and make some case about him being a disturbed individual and spare his pathetic fucking life.

[strayrider]

i hope this piece of shit rots in a cell the rest of his life...

The only problem with that is, when "Bubba" comes along to poke Mr. Hasan in the behind, he won't be able to feel it, being paralyzed and all.

I say it would be simpler, and more appropriate, to behead Mr. Hasan with a dull butter knife (and I'd venture to speculate that there would be a number of US military personnel willing to do that little thing).

As for Mr. Obama ... I'm quite sure he'd be delighted to suck Mr. Hasan off to reward him for a job well done.

;)

-stray-

[kortick]

Why does everything come down to Obama?

It makes any of your statements lose all validity.

This man was in the service for 12 YEARS, and in case
you need help with math, Obama hasnt been president that
long.

It just so happens his deployment papers arrived recently,
which by the way Obama didnt type out personally and
hand deliver to him.

I can't even blame Bush cuz all the reports that this
guy was unstable never seemed to reach his desk
or the desk of anyone in his administration that
could do something about him.


maybe Clinton and Bush should be lumped into ur hate
fest too.

I know grown adults who wear diapers as a perverted
kink, and I understand them more than your saying the
president should suck this guys cock.

thats a sick fucking thing to say.

[SymphonicX]

just keep clutching, stray...keep clutching :D

[Tricky]

hard to believe this guy wasn't kicked out of the military for his ideological conflictions with our current predicament

From what I read elsewhere it was well known among his fellow officers, but none wanted to be seen as racist by confronting him over his views so nothing was done. I also imagine that a muslim serving in the US military is a PR persons wet dream which will have left him immune from criticism prior to this incident. We have a similar thing over here, if anyone dares to speak out against the extremeist beliefs some muslims have, they are quickly shot down & smeared as racists by both the press & the legal system

[TheSeasonOfFire]

The Obama hate around here is kinds hilarious. HURR DE HURR OBAMA LIEKS TERRORISM LOLOL

[acealive1]

Why does everything come down to Obama?

It makes any of your statements lose all validity.

This man was in the service for 12 YEARS, and in case
you need help with math, Obama hasnt been president that
long.

It just so happens his deployment papers arrived recently,
which by the way Obama didnt type out personally and
hand deliver to him.

I can't even blame Bush cuz all the reports that this
guy was unstable never seemed to reach his desk
or the desk of anyone in his administration that
could do something about him.


maybe Clinton and Bush should be lumped into ur hate
fest too.

I know grown adults who wear diapers as a perverted
kink, and I understand them more than your saying the
president should suck this guys cock.

thats a sick fucking thing to say.



perfection.

[Shadowofthedead]

ok on this certain topic i wont say some crazy one liner bs. first off a very reliable source from on base ft hood stated the shootings first started in barracks then lead to the readiness center. hasan was reported by said troops to have a 9mm semi automatic pistol and some type of snub revolver. the 9mm explains the amount of bullets fired due to the high cap magazines that can be used with some guns of that nature. now this comes from a source who was running for their respected lives. hell for all i know it could be all garbage. my source... two actually... the wife was stationed there when she was with her ex 2 years ago. second... i have friends who live miles off base and they interact with some said soldiers at a personal level. ive got info they wont tell you on the news. besides there is a dark cloud over that base and the truth isnt getting out. hasan wasnt screamin dirka dirka abudabi when he was shooting sources say. he had a quiet calm demeanor and went in like it was just another day shooting guns. so believe if you want or not. and no i cannot release my sources names for fear of retaliation. thank you good day.

[strayrider]

From what I read elsewhere it was well known among his fellow officers, but none wanted to be seen as racist by confronting him over his views so nothing was done. I also imagine that a muslim serving in the US military is a PR persons wet dream which will have left him immune from criticism prior to this incident. We have a similar thing over here, if anyone dares to speak out against the extremeist beliefs some muslims have, they are quickly shot down & smeared as racists by both the press & the legal system

From what I'm seeing so far, the military is bending over backwards to avoid calling this a terrorist action --even though Mr. Hasan had links to an Al Qaeda operative. Go figure.

:D

-stray-

ps -- I wonder how many other "sleepers" are walking around in uniform?

[krakenslayer]

Does anyone on here know what Strayrider's thoughts on President Obama are? Only he never seems to talk about it. :p

[deadpunk]

As for Mr. Obama ... I'm quite sure he'd be delighted to suck Mr. Hasan off to reward him for a job well done.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111409dnproforthood.44c85f8.html

Odd...I don't see felatio mentioned anywhere...:confused:

Political view points aside, I am confused as to why you believe any American President would condone terrorism on American soil? What would be the benefit? Certainly on a larger scale, you could squeeze out a conspiray theory or three... but this was 12 people. This will be old news to those unaffected long before this guy ever even goes to court.

The reality is, this has a larger negative impact on Obama than anything. Your posts confirm that.

[strayrider]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111409dnproforthood.44c85f8.html

Odd...I don't see felatio mentioned anywhere...:confused:

Why would this, or any article, mention fellatio? I never stated that Mr. Obama did, or should perform fellatio on Dr. Hasan, only that -- in my very humble opinion -- he would be delighted to do so. But, we really should not pry into Mr. Obama's private affairs. I apologize for bringing this up.:o

Now, concerning that article:

"We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information," Obama said, according to an advance text of his address. "Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability."

I see. So we must find someone, other than the Jihadist shooter, to hold accountable. That is a good way to demoralize an already stressed out military. Way to go, Mr. Obama (but that is his true intention, isn't it? "Let no crisis go to waste.").

But wait! There's more!

"Galligan said he and Hasan's Army-appointed defense lawyer arranged for one of Hasan's two brothers to fly to Texas. The brothers' hospital reunion was emotional, the lawyer said, and Hasan looked stricken when his brother first heard about his paralysis.

"I could see it in his eyes," Galligan said. "I also witnessed the effect it had on his family member.""

Thanks a lot there, Dead. You made my day ... :hurl:

-stray-

ps -- I believe that before this is all said and done, we're going see Dr. Hasan become the "victim" of all of this and George W. Bush will be to blame.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

"Galligan said he and Hasan's Army-appointed defense lawyer arranged for one of Hasan's two brothers to fly to Texas. The brothers' hospital reunion was emotional, the lawyer said, and Hasan looked stricken when his brother first heard about his paralysis.

"I could see it in his eyes," Galligan said. "I also witnessed the effect it had on his family member.""

Thanks a lot there, Dead. You made my day ... :hurl:

-stray-

ps -- I believe that before this is all said and done, we're going see Dr. Hasan become the "victim" of all of this and George W. Bush will be to blame.

ZOMG a defense attorney trying to garner sympathy for his client! THATS INSANE BRO! THANK U FOR FINDING THIS

[strayrider]

HURR DE HURR

This reminds me of the guttural sounds my cat makes when she is in heat. Are you wantin' to love on me? :lol:


ZOMG a defense attorney trying to garner sympathy for his client! THATS INSANE BRO! THANK U FOR FINDING THIS

What?

:D

-stray-

[TheSeasonOfFire]

You are surprised Hasan's defense attorney wants to generate sympathy for him? You seemed surprised, like it was something new and original.

[mista_mo]

Now, concerning that article:

"We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information," Obama said, according to an advance text of his address. "Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability."

I see. So we must find someone, other than the Jihadist shooter, to hold accountable. That is a good way to demoralize an already stressed out military. Way to go, Mr. Obama (but that is his true intention, isn't it? "Let no crisis go to waste.").


The only thing that quote from Obama conveys is that they are looking to find where exactly things went wrong with him- be it an odd thing he may have said 8 years ago, political affiliations, and the like. I really fail to see how they are looking for someone else to blame, when it is pretty apparent that they are doing this to try and use the information they gather to stop any incident like this from happening again.

[darth los]

I am confused as to why you believe any American President would condone terrorism on American soil? What would be the benefit?


So he can enrich halliburton and his oil buddies in a war of choice of course.


Hey if we're going to talk rediculous shit about commander in chiefs...:rolleyes:

:cool:

[strayrider]

You are surprised Hasan's defense attorney wants to generate sympathy for him? You seemed surprised, like it was something new and original.

Not at all. That is to be expected, and Dr. Hasan deserves every right afforded to him under "innocent until proven guilty". What disgusts me, however, is this sympathy for the murderer coming to light before the bodies of his victims have reached room temperature. Does that make sense?


The only thing that quote from Obama conveys is that they are looking to find where exactly things went wrong with him- be it an odd thing he may have said 8 years ago, political affiliations, and the like. I really fail to see how they are looking for someone else to blame, when it is pretty apparent that they are doing this to try and use the information they gather to stop any incident like this from happening again.

You're right, in a way. Obama didn't write the words that he spoke, he just read them off of his trusty teleprompter. I should not blame him for their content.


Hey if we're going to talk rediculous shit about commander in chiefs..

Hey! I'm not the only one ... http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

:D

-stray-

[TheSeasonOfFire]

I think you may be overstating the sympathy this guy is receiving; normally when I hear his name come up it is with the phrase "firing squad" or " hope he gets raped in prison the rest of his life".

[strayrider]

I think you may be overstating the sympathy this guy is receiving; normally when I hear his name come up it is with the phrase "firing squad" or " hope he gets raped in prison the rest of his life".

After rereading what I posted previously, I see that I have made a typing error. I wrote: "What disgusts me, however, is this sympathy for the murderer coming to light before the bodies of his victims have reached room temperature."

This would be better written: "this "sympathy for the murderer"", or "this ploy for sympathy for the murderer".

I see how this can be considered an "overstatement" on my part. I apologize for the error.:o


:D

-stray-

[DubiousComforts]

As for Mr. Obama ... I'm quite sure he'd be delighted to suck Mr. Hasan off to reward him for a job well done.
That is some really nasty shite right there. Congratulations.


I see. So we must find someone, other than the Jihadist shooter, to hold accountable. That is a good way to demoralize an already stressed out military. Way to go, Mr. Obama (but that is his true intention, isn't it? "Let no crisis go to waste.").
You conveniently left out the next paragraph:

"Shortly after the Nov. 5 shootings, Obama reportedly saw e-mails that Hasan had sent to a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen whom the FBI has investigated since the 1990s for possible terrorist ties. Federal authorities intercepted the e-mails about a year ago but did not pursue an investigation of Hasan, an Army psychiatrist. They said this week the communications were considered to be consistent with his post-doctoral research at a military university outside Washington, D.C."

Unless you're claiming to know better than the President of the United States as to what's best for the security of the country, it sounds like Obama is doing his job in trying to keep American citizens safe. Our "already stressed-out" military should absolutely want to know of possible terrorist ties to this alleged "Jihadist" shooter rather than sweep the incident under the rug due to the possibility that someone in their ranks screwed up real bad.

And if as you've claimed Hasan is not just the typical whackjob that went unnoticed until going ballistic with a loaded weapon, but rather some sort of latent, Manchurian candidate-like Jihadist in our midst, then there would obviously exist co-conspirators and only a real pussy would let them get away with murdering U.S. soldiers. What happened to "support our troops"?

[strayrider]

That is some really nasty shite right there. Congratulations.

What? You missed my apology? No congratulations are in order. It was only right that I apologize.


You conveniently left out the next paragraph:

"Shortly after the Nov. 5 shootings, Obama reportedly saw e-mails that Hasan had sent to a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen whom the FBI has investigated since the 1990s for possible terrorist ties. Federal authorities intercepted the e-mails about a year ago but did not pursue an investigation of Hasan, an Army psychiatrist. They said this week the communications were considered to be consistent with his post-doctoral research at a military university outside Washington, D.C."

By "conveniently" leaving it out, I left the discussion open for others to challenge my position. The information was not hidden. You just happened to be the one to pick up the ball and run with it.

I'll stick with my "accountability" theory for the time being -- Dr. Hasan was a sick, disturbed man (not his fault, of course, he certainly did not volunteer for military service to be deployed during a time of war) and "someone" has to be held accountable. Maybe Mr. Obama can be that 'someone"? He is the commander-in-chief, after all, and this was one of his officers. I wonder if he's considering a "the buck stops here" speech which he can read from his trusty teleprompter while his head pivots back and forth ... back and forth ... back and forth ... ?

Furthermore, let's look a bit deeper into that "missing" block of text. It leads us to this cat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703830.html?hpid=moreheadlines (not that radical Muslim clerics have anything to do with Jihad, I just have to somehow try to tie all of this together into a workable argument)


And if as you've claimed Hasan is not just the typical whackjob that went unnoticed until going ballistic with a loaded weapon, but rather some sort of latent, Manchurian candidate-like Jihadist in our midst, then there would obviously exist co-conspirators and only a real pussy would let them get away with murdering U.S. soldiers. What happened to "support our troops"?

I claimed no such conspiracy, although initial reports indicated multiple shooters, that number was apparently incorrect. Doc H was indeed a "whack job" as you have stated and he went off on his own private Jihad. The fact that he acted alone does not make this any less a terrorist attack by a radical follower of Allah. This, of course, is my opinion on the matter and you are, by no means, required to agree with it.

My statement concerning additional "sleepers" was not intended to imply that Dr. H was part of an organized "conspiracy", rather -- that the potential for similar incidences is possible. If you do not believe that this is a relevant concern, please explain why not.

And, remember the original question: "Jihad, or not?".

:D

-stray-

[Arcades057]

When I read stuff like this, it makes me remember this (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2002-01/a-2002-01-07-4-Plane.cfm). Would you consider that an act of terrorism?

[SymphonicX]

When I read stuff like this, it makes me remember this (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2002-01/a-2002-01-07-4-Plane.cfm). Would you consider that an act of terrorism?

Actually it probably is....just not a well executed one nor a well organised one.

Definitely not a conspiratorial terrorist attack...much in the McVeigh sense really...

[Arcades057]

Actually it probably is....just not a well executed one nor a well organised one.

Definitely not a conspiratorial terrorist attack...much in the McVeigh sense really...

Well, the kid was a mentally disturbed moron who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory that would get on TV and get him posthumously famous. That's a distinction between the 9/11 terrorists: They were trying to kill as many people as possible and terrify the populace of the US into conceding to their aims.

Was Hasan a terrorist? Here I go, about to smash preconceptions:

No, in my mind he was not. He was a sick individual who wanted to kill people in the name of his religion. Just as a sick catholic who kills an abortion doctor doesn't speak for the rest of Catholocism, nor should this sicko's actions speak for Islam. He was trying to contact al Quaida, and they probably would have loved the fact that he did what he did, but he was not working for them.

I don't want to go much farther into his goals or whatever. I'll leave that for the douschebag when he goes to trial.

[strayrider]

Was Hasan a terrorist? Here I go, about to smash preconceptions:

No, in my mind he was not. He was a sick individual who wanted to kill people in the name of his religion. Just as a sick catholic who kills an abortion doctor doesn't speak for the rest of Catholocism, nor should this sicko's actions speak for Islam. He was trying to contact al Quaida, and they probably would have loved the fact that he did what he did, but he was not working for them.

By no means should Muslims as a group be held responsible for Doc's actions. In the examiner article linked below you will read: "He had attempted to affiliate himself with one Mosque which had rebuffed him for his radicalism" So, no, we should not blame the Muslim population in general for the act of a lone terrorist.

I'm sure that AQ is quite pleased by all of this as well even though he was not directly working for them. It means that their recruiting "media" is still effective, if only in a limited sense.

Further reading:

http://www.examiner.com/x-14783-Law-and-Politics-Examiner~y2009m11d16-Accused-Fort-Hood-shooter-Hasan-Nidal-was-a-Muslim-terrorist-we-ignore-this-fact-at-our-own-peril

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120535493&ft=1&f=1001

:D

-stray-

[deadpunk]

Well, the kid was a mentally disturbed moron who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory that would get on TV and get him posthumously famous. That's a distinction between the 9/11 terrorists: They were trying to kill as many people as possible and terrify the populace of the US into conceding to their aims.

Was Hasan a terrorist? Here I go, about to smash preconceptions:

No, in my mind he was not. He was a sick individual who wanted to kill people in the name of his religion. Just as a sick catholic who kills an abortion doctor doesn't speak for the rest of Catholocism, nor should this sicko's actions speak for Islam. He was trying to contact al Quaida, and they probably would have loved the fact that he did what he did, but he was not working for them.

I don't want to go much farther into his goals or whatever. I'll leave that for the douschebag when he goes to trial.

By no means should Muslims as a group be held responsible for Doc's actions. In the examiner article linked below you will read: "He had attempted to affiliate himself with one Mosque which had rebuffed him for his radicalism" So, no, we should not blame the Muslim population in general for the act of a lone terrorist.


You've confused me. :rockbrow:

[Arcades057]

What should differentiate a terrorist from a lone wacko is a) connections to a terror group, b) a larger agenda than causing deaths by their actions, or c) open support from a terror group, such as al Quaida.

Hasan attempted to contact AQ through e-mails. The Examiner article compares him to Muhammed Atta, and if that's considered honest reporting then I'm a fucking black guy. Atta was trained by AQ; Atta was funded by AQ; Atta met with bin Laden and his associates; Atta WAS a terrorist. His actions were designed to attack a symbol of America, in his case the WTC, the symbol they considered to be the heart of America, the financial industry of the nation. Did they desire to kill people? Without a doubt, but the deaths came second to the message.

We, as people--not necessarily Americans, but people of Western nations--have to be honest in our dialogue. When we overuse or misuse the term "terrorist" it becomes a word like "communist:" No one will take it seriously anymore and you'll have a legion of idiotic teens and 20-somethings running around labeling themselves terrorists because they think it's cool, wearing bin Laden or Zawairi shirts like they do with Che Guevera.

Part of that is in correctly labeling acts of terror as such, and labeling lone-wolf attacks as such. Did Hasan kill in the name of Islam? Undoubtedly, from all accounts, he did. Does that make him a terrorist? no it does not; not unless he was funded, supported, trained, or encouraged by a terrorist group.

Note the underlined. If he WAS encouraged by AQ, then I'll agree, yes, he was a terrorist. Right now, all we have is an asshole firing on his comrades while hollering "Allahu Ackbar" after trying to contact AQ through e-mails and talking on jihadi websites.

[strayrider]

What should differentiate a terrorist from a lone wacko is a) connections to a terror group, b) a larger agenda than causing deaths by their actions, or c) open support from a terror group, such as al Quaida.

Hasan attempted to contact AQ through e-mails. The Examiner article compares him to Muhammed Atta, and if that's considered honest reporting then I'm a fucking black guy. Atta was trained by AQ; Atta was funded by AQ; Atta met with bin Laden and his associates; Atta WAS a terrorist. His actions were designed to attack a symbol of America, in his case the WTC, the symbol they considered to be the heart of America, the financial industry of the nation. Did they desire to kill people? Without a doubt, but the deaths came second to the message.

We, as people--not necessarily Americans, but people of Western nations--have to be honest in our dialogue. When we overuse or misuse the term "terrorist" it becomes a word like "communist:" No one will take it seriously anymore and you'll have a legion of idiotic teens and 20-somethings running around labeling themselves terrorists because they think it's cool, wearing bin Laden or Zawairi shirts like they do with Che Guevera.

Part of that is in correctly labeling acts of terror as such, and labeling lone-wolf attacks as such. Did Hasan kill in the name of Islam? Undoubtedly, from all accounts, he did. Does that make him a terrorist? no it does not; not unless he was funded, supported, trained, or encouraged by a terrorist group.

Note the underlined. If he WAS encouraged by AQ, then I'll agree, yes, he was a terrorist. Right now, all we have is an asshole firing on his comrades while hollering "Allahu Ackbar" after trying to contact AQ through e-mails and talking on jihadi websites.

Well thought out and written, Arcades, which is exactly the type of responses that I'm looking for.

Thus far, my opinion on this matter has been completely subjective -- my POV. I see a terrorist, lone wolf certainly, but a terrorist still.

As for being "encouraged" to plan and launch his attack: by your definition, does this mean that Hasan has to be "encouraged" through direct contact with AQ, or can this encouragement come through the reading of their propaganda -- indirectly? The same question could be asked concerning his "training".

I agree with you that not everyone who commits a violent act of "terror" should be labeled a "terrorist, however, in the case of Hasan I do see a connection with the common definition of the word.

:D

-stray-

[Arcades057]

Interesting question.

By encouragement I meant that if he had a connection with AQ and they told him "go for it, kill for us," then he was a terrorist. If they led him to the conclusion, such as by suggesting that particular course of action, then he was a terrorist.

The reading materials... here I'm going to have to say no, if he read about Jihad and became interested in it or took notes from it, I would still, personally, say he was not a terrorist. That, to me, would be along the lines of blaming the gun in a shooting death: Since our culture loves dey guns and dey violence, den ma baby ain't do nuffin wrong by shootin dat man! as evidenced in the Nathaniel Brazil case a few years back. We, as a nation, must move beyond blaming the group, and get back to blaming the shithead who decided to shoot up his comrades as an individual: A lone asshole who decided that his best course of action was to kill people.

His training, on the other hand, was clearly provided by us, through the military and the various medical schools and hospitals where he found employment. This is, or should be, a favored tactic of AQ and other organizations, but it remains to be seen if it is. If you insert your people into the host country, or convince individuals within the country to do your bidding, then their training comes from the nation, as well as at that nation's expense. Those operatives will have a much deeper pool of resources and skills to draw from. Now, if he had an unexplainable trip to, say, Pakistan recently, or to one of these Muslim "camps" in the US, then, again, I'll have to change my mind and agree that he was a terrorist.

An act of terror IS by definition a terrorist act; therefore the perpetrator is, by definition, a terrorist; however it's the definition of his acts which beg the question we're asking. Was the DC area sniper a terrorist? Certainly, and by his own admission. His aims were not simply to kill but to terrorize. If Hasan says that he, too, wanted to spread terror rather than kill as many people as possible, then he's a terrorist.

School shooters who target children typically get "better" results than Hasan will, but they aren't labeled as terrorists. Sure, the government might tighten its gun laws in an already-gun-free zone, or force more law-abiding Americans to relenquish a bit more of their 2nd Amendment rights, but people aren't considering keeping their kids home from school over the Fort Hood shootings.

In the end, it all boils down to intent, I believe. Once he comes out and says "Yes, I wanted everyone in the country to be afraid. We are everywhere. If I can do it, what about your neighbor? Death to America, bla bla," then I'll be leading the e-charge against him.

[strayrider]

In the end, it all boils down to intent, I believe. Once he comes out and says "Yes, I wanted everyone in the country to be afraid. We are everywhere. If I can do it, what about your neighbor? Death to America, bla bla," then I'll be leading the e-charge against him.

Not that I'm ignoring the rest of your comments (I had a bunch of stuff written when the server went down last night ... POOF!) ...

By trying to contact AQ, he telegraphed his intent. By shouting their battle cry, "ALLAHU AKBAR!", he expressed sympathy for their cause. He's a terrorist alright, he just didn't scare most of us. Now, if he had chosen a shopping mall ...

:eek:

-stray-

[deadpunk]

The problem here is, by every definition of the word; so long as a whack-job with a gun shouts out religious intent, he's considered a terrorist.

[strayrider]

The problem here is, by every definition of the word; so long as a whack-job with a gun shouts out religious intent, he's considered a terrorist.

No, anyone can shout out "religious intent". What he shouted is only one piece of the puzzle. In my opinion (only, obviously) he is a "do-it-yourself" terrorist who aligned himself with the ideas of a known terrorist organization and carried out a successful -- independently planned and self-supported -- operation in a way that they can only dream of, and be inspired by. An American soldier has now carried out an attack on American soil (regardless of intent) while shouting their "slogan"! This has got to be a great morale booster for them, even if he wasn't officially "one of them".

While I may be "knee jerking" to an extent in drawing my conclusions concerning H, it is dangerous to simply call him a "whack job" and hope that there are no more out there like him. For all we know he could become the "poster child" for an American jihad. Or, maybe not. It is all up in the air at this point.

:sneaky:

-stray-

[deadpunk]

No, anyone can shout out "religious intent". What he shouted is only one piece of the puzzle. In my opinion (only, obviously) he is a "do-it-yourself" terrorist who aligned himself with the ideas of a known terrorist organization and carried out a successful -- independently planned and self-supported -- operation in a way that they can only dream of, and be inspired by. An American soldier has now carried out an attack on American soil (regardless of intent) while shouting their "slogan"! This has got to be a great morale booster for them, even if he wasn't officially "one of them".

While I may be "knee jerking" to an extent in drawing my conclusions concerning H, it is dangerous to simply call him a "whack job" and hope that there are no more out there like him. For all we know he could become the "poster child" for an American jihad. Or, maybe not. It is all up in the air at this point.


I think the problem I have with continuing to label such individuals as terrorists stems from several areas.

First, a terrorist does not need to succeed in creating a body count. Had Hassan only killed one person, to give him such a label would justify his end goal. He would have inspired paranoia, fear, and well...terror. The significant gain for the ole AQ on 9/11 was not the destruction of their actual targets, but the manner in which they changed the world.

Secondly, this world has become a place driven forward by mass-media. When you have Bin Laden hiding in a hole in the mountains, but still watching CNN, you begin to enter territory where the labels you give are important. To call every AQ-inspired lone gunman a terrorist can only inspire more individuals to act out in such a manner.

We give credence to these men by giving them that label. Their actions, the deaths of the innocent begin to pale in comparison to the further implications the word terrorist brings to mind.

In my opinion (only, obviously), we have a further responsibility to prevent such Johnny Jihads from emerging by never giving their actions such undue attentions. Because no matter the body count, no matter the level of autrocity, no matter what... it is the feeling of terror that they seek as an end goal. To give them that is to admit defeat.

[strayrider]

I think the problem I have with continuing to label such individuals as terrorists stems from several areas.

First, a terrorist does not need to succeed in creating a body count. Had Hassan only killed one person, to give him such a label would justify his end goal. He would have inspired paranoia, fear, and well...terror. The significant gain for the ole AQ on 9/11 was not the destruction of their actual targets, but the manner in which they changed the world.

Secondly, this world has become a place driven forward by mass-media. When you have Bin Laden hiding in a hole in the mountains, but still watching CNN, you begin to enter territory where the labels you give are important. To call every AQ-inspired lone gunman a terrorist can only inspire more individuals to act out in such a manner.

We give credence to these men by giving them that label. Their actions, the deaths of the innocent begin to pale in comparison to the further implications the word terrorist brings to mind.

In my opinion (only, obviously), we have a further responsibility to prevent such Johnny Jihads from emerging by never giving their actions such undue attentions. Because no matter the body count, no matter the level of autrocity, no matter what... it is the feeling of terror that they seek as an end goal. To give them that is to admit defeat.

Dead, I agree with what you're saying to a great extent -- NOT to give credit to every "nut job" who wants to make a name for themselves by committing a quasi-"terrorist attack".

However, if evidence does exist that the attack was indeed terror motivated (regardless of how major/minor the action), we need to know about it and not just have the perpetrator "swept under the rug" and labeled as a simple "nut job" to avoid panic. Otherwise, we are lulled into a sense of false security. In my opinion (only, obviously).

;)

-stray-

[deadpunk]

Dead, I agree with what you're saying to a great extent -- NOT to give credit to every "nut job" who wants to make a name for themselves by committing a quasi-"terrorist attack".

However, if evidence does exist that the attack was indeed terror motivated (regardless of how major/minor the action), we need to know about it and not just have the perpetrator "swept under the rug" and labeled as a simple "nut job" to avoid panic. Otherwise, we are lulled into a sense of false security. In my opinion (only, obviously).


I agree to an extent. While nothing should ever be swept under the rug, the media holds a responsibility to ensure it likewise does not create undue panic.

The word terrorist has come to hold a meaning that we can not afford to take lightly, nor to use casually.

I'm of Irish heritage. I could research (and pollute my computer with) every known IRA-related site on the internet. I could walk into work as a disguntled employee one day and redecorate with a hail of bullets while shouting "Sinn Fein!" at the top of my lungs... Am I then a terrorist? Or simply a mis-guided individual with a lot of rage who found a cause to use as the ultimate vent?

The world is currently a powder keg. Our misconceptions are random sparks being tossed at an ever-shortening wick. We no longer have the luxury to hasten into decisions or to make minor mistakes. There are no minor mistakes anymore.

It's time to keep our mouths shut and our eyes and ears open.

[Neil]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iai8xG4ld3DgxPSPyPqnbyB3rZZg

I guess this story slipped "under the radar"?

Jihad, or not?

:eek:

-stray-

I hope he's still mentally with it, just so he can full enjoy the rest of his miserable life! Long may he live!

[strayrider]

Hot on the heels of Dr. Malik Hasan's mini-Jihad comes this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/27/national/w061337S17.DTL&feed=rss.business

President Obama's Homeland Security director, Janet Napolitano sez: "that the system worked as it should have."

Really? A terrorist smuggles the makings of an explosive device onto a commercial airliner, assembles them in the crapper, attempts to blow up the plane over Detroit, fails, and is subdued by fellow passengers. That's quite a system!

Thus far, President Obama has remained silent in order to reassure the American people that "all is well", though advices from sources indicate that he is "likely" to "say something" once he has finished his vacation. Warm up the teleprompters -- bobble-head "might" have something to say here shortly (As soon as someone else writes it down for him to read, that is).

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-likely-to-speak-about-flight-253.html

FORE!

:D

-stray-