That's a "question".

To level the charge of "terrorism" against one of our own soldiers, an officer with 12 years of service, is a very serious assertion that you seem almost eager to dispense.

-spence

12 years as an officer and 8 as an enlisted man.....20 years of service.

far more credible than your "eagerness" to characterize someone who believes this to be an act of terrorism as somehow racist and bigoted toward all muslims.....

My question was in direct response to your remarks, and the remarks of others.

Hence, it's cause and effect.

I'm simply defending objectivity and the legal principals of our Founding Fathers.

-spence

this is truly amazing, I don't recall the "years of service" being factored into the savaging of the Haditha Marines by the liberal media and elected democrats...and I'm quite sure that I can pull countless quotes from elected dems and the left referring to our military members in the most unflattering ways but that would now like to reserve judgement and weigh "years of service" for this terrorist....

Ahhh, the old "two wrongs do make a right" defense...nice.

-spence

It came as a response to FlyRod saying "You really have to be leary of someone changeing their name to something like Abdul, Mudula etc:"

When I include a quote from someone in my post, then my response is directly to them.

In FlyRod's defense, I do believe he said that in jest.

-spence

no, not at all.....just compare the reaction...................

hey....didn't Tim McVeigh have some "years of service"?...I don't recall but did we hold off on referring to what he did as terrorism until after the trial in deference to his "years of service"?

All i did was correct a fact....Its amazing how a simple correction can set your gears in motion.

Didn't say it mattered.....just corrected the facts. :rolleyes:

As I've been saying, either you agree 100% with what the conservatives say, regardless of the topic, or you hate America.

Charging ANYONE with terrorism is a very serious assertion. "LEVELING" a charge of any kind on anyone is very serious. Accusing a soldier, an officer, anyone, of just plain old "mass murder" is a very serious assertion. Claiming or believing that a soldier, an officer, mass murdered because he just "snapped" is a very serious assertion.

What does "almost eager" mean? Not quite eager, therefore not really eager? Or just that there is no proof of eagerness so just an implication that makes it sound like Scott is "eager."

If a soldier, an officer, with 20 years of service, who had not shown any signs of mental disturbance, or any indication that he was a run-of-the-mill garden variety mass-murderer, but had expressed several, clear, vociferous statements that indicated Jihadist beliefs and had tried to contact Al quaeda, should anything have been done, and what, if so, should that have been, and under what grounds?

Quite honestly, I don't care how he's charged as long as he's given a death sentence.

My question is directed toward future prevention, not the execution of the Hasan case. There seems to be a consensus here that somebody dropped the ball in allowing this man to do what he did. In what way can a similar event be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs, other than strong Jihadist tendencies, that he will turn on his comrades?

just reacting to the idea that 20 years or 100 years of service buys you anything after you slaughter and mamed that many innocent people...

apparently we can't accurately identify obvious extremism of this type

According to Ret. Col Terry Lee, who had worked with Hasan in the psych ward at Ft Hood, Hasan was constantly broadcasting his beliefs:

"He said, precisely, that maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.... When there was a shooting at Little Rock--he was almost sort of happy about it.... (He said) this is what Muslims should do. People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.... He was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out...when things weren't going that way he became more agitated, more frustrated.... He made his views well known...."

but WOW...Janet Napolitano is an expert on extremism of this type


[COLOR="blue"](U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
From the report, p. 5:

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today. [/COLOR]

apparently years of service puts you at the top of the watch list if .......

huh?, according to the current administration, right wing extremist groups are currently recruiting disgruntled military members to carry out violence as "lone wolves or small terrorist cells"...

I think they need to refocus...

It may be helpful to define "strong jihadist tendencies."

Muslims often have a strong religious unity that can appear (often falsely) to transcend nationalistic lines. I don't think it's abnormal at all for a devout Muslim to contemplate the impact to their actions if they were sanctioning the killing of other Muslims against the perceived unified threat (as seen from, we'll call it Islamic conventional wisdom).

Certainly, there's the appearance among much of Islam globally that the West is engaged in a war to destroy (or at least hurt) Islam...as a faith.

This is why Saddam was looked at with reverence (he stood up to the West) and why Bin Laden gets a pass from otherwise moderates who believe that while his tactics are ugly he is standing up for the rights of Muslims less fortunate.

Granted, not all Muslims would agree with this, and many Islamic nations and people don't have a great track record respecting the rights of their fellow Muslims.

And also, a very large number of Muslims appear to either "get it" or simply don't think any of this nonsense justifies violence. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the World's Muslims are totally non-violent.

So where do you draw the line? Certainly acting out with violence to "protect the faith" is well past it, but what about peaceful opposition, protest or condemning language?

Or if one explored the meaning of violent actions (like Hasan's jumping on a grenade comment) without actually calling for or explicitly condoning violence?

Is attending a mosque where radical preachers are know to oppose the US a warning sign or just an exercise of free speech?

Would the same standards be applied to a Catholic who's pastor flirted with violence against abortion clinics in their sermons?

Would these be offending "jihadist tendencies" for a US citizen?

-spence

I'm pretty sure the rules change a bit when you become a member of the military, he referred to soldiers/officers...

why don't we ask Napolitano, she seems to have outlined in detail "strong right wing extremist tendencies"...

So there's an incompatibility between Islam and US Military service?

-spence

Perhap's, if he were a Muslim.

So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.

There is certainly an incompatibility between radical, jihadist (the little jihad--holy war against the infidel stuff) Islam and the US Military. There is certainly an incompatibility between Shariah law and US law. There is certainly an incompatibility between honor killing and US law. (I know, I know, that's not true Islam. Just an extremist quirk . . . like all those other little quirks, the treatment of women, or non-Muslims, . . .)

I would think you could say the same thing about nearly any extremist behavior.

-spence

I think you're mixing issues.

The real breakdown of the military appears (based on what we know today) is that Hasan's private life was inhibiting his ability to perform his job. Given some of the erratic behavior that's been noted, one would think this should have raised the appropriate red flags.

The degree of radicalization is a legal issue, and Hasan has the same rights of any US citizen. I'm not sure he crossed any legal lines before the shooting in this regard, at least with what we know.

While some assert the Army was blinded by political correctness, they seem to ignore the fact that he was promoted to Major in spite of his poor performance simply because there was a shortage at the time.

Certainly his action was influenced by his faith, but all religious rage isn't terrorism. With hindsight, the biggest change that could have prevented this event appears to be more judicious management and monitoring of a subordinate.

-spence

I was not referring to extremist behavior, but to your question"So there's an incompatability between Islam and US military?" And I specifically mentioned Holy War Jihadism and a couple of "quirks" in Islamic belief that are incompatible with US law.

I would not say that nearly any extremist behavior is incompatible with US law. So long as that behavior is not unconstitutional nor breaks any legal codes, I think we are garantied a right to it.

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor. And I agree that terrorism is not an accurate description, which is why I spoke about Jihadist tendency. Other than that, I don't see what judicious management and monitoring could have prevented this unless the military would have been allowed to reject him because of his expressed views on our policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the various complaints against his attempt to proselytize those he counseled to Islam.

Not necessarily. I believe he suffered a mental breakdown over his inability to resolve the internal conflict. Faith certainly was a major influence though as it was the source of the conflict. All other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps he had some latent issues that were brought to the surface.

I think his leadership could (hindsight here, right) have seen him as a potential issue because of his behavior in context of his job. This might have led to deeper exploration to reveal his real issues which could have had him removed from his duties.

Granted, I have the luxury of hindsight here...but...

-spence

Long distance psycho-analysis based on unsupported conjecture is worse than useless and can be used to suppose any motives we wish. If we are going to discuss this (perhaps as amateurs who only "know" the tip of the iceberg, we shouldn't discuss it, but that would be boring) we must, in our best Sherlock Holmes/Joe Friday imitation, just examine what little facts we "know."

His Leadership could have seen his relative incompetence as a reason for demotion but not as a threat to go Jihadist on the guys. Deeper exploration into his incompetence would seem a bit extreme and not only expend inordinate hours of analysis over a simple, obvious trait, but would, ipso facto, be cause for such useless analysis of many thousand other less than highly competent personnel.

The only other issues that I'm aware of are the conflict between his religious views and his military duties. I don't think that those conflicts are a cause for psycho-analysis unless one is to believe that religious views, per se, are psychotic. The fact that "all" other . . . (I'm sure the "all" is just an exageration as there have been other such "incidents" in the military) . . . the fact that many other Muslim soldiers don't seem to have "this" problem may, and I hope it's so, is that they are of a reformed view of Islam. The Holy War Jihadist, I believe, is a throwback view that is in dire need of reformation, as was Christianaity centuries ago. To be a partner with the rest of the world rather than a master, the "convert or die" mentality, along with many other rules, customs, and beliefs of Islam need reformation.

The "bad" Muslims--those that more loosely follow their faith like their counter-part Christians and Jews, are the "good" citizens and soldiers. The really "good" Muslims, of the fundamentalist persuasion, see the rest of the world as not just a threat, but an underclass that, at best, is merely allowed to exist, or worse.

I believe the reformation needs to, quickly, come from within the faith, and little perfunctory "condemnations" of radical Islamist violence is not going to do it. It is a faith that is very susceptible to crackdown from the higher-ups. They could could change this so-called minority behavior in a nano-second, if they truly wished to do so.

Would the military be allowed to deeply explore such issues with Hasan? Again, the only other "facts" that I'm aware of in this case that might, in any way, indicate what he was about to do, stem from his conflict between his faith and his military duty (not to mention how that faith, as he viewed it, would impact his view of American culture and law--not enough facts to conjecture). And if the military were allowed to explore his inner conflict, could they find cause to remove him. I think there would be, dare I say, a politically correct objection to that.

I think you guys are illustrating perfectly why little or nothing will change and why it will most likely happen again...:uhuh: hiding in plain sight is a brilliant strategy these days....


Dr. Nidal Hasan served on a Presidential Transition task force and helped set national security priorities.
In the proceedings report for the Presidential Transition Task Force entitled, "Thinking Anew -- Security Priorities for the Next (OBAMA) Administration," in APPENDIX C Task Force Event Participants, on page 29, we find the name of Nidal Hasan, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine. This is the same Nidal Hasan, Major, US Army, who murdered and maimed fellow soldiers at Ft Hood. This is the same Nidal Hasan who had been spouting Jihadist rhetoric and defending radical Islam for years without disciplinary action or censure. This is the same Nidal Hasan who communicated with Islamic radicals and was tracked by the FBI.

If he were a member of a militia however, he would have been out. The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.

I have a number of military families renting in my neighborhood because we live close to the War College....shortly after every military family moves out of the neighborhood, I get a knock on my door and there is an agent standing there with a badge, requesting that I answer questions about the family that has just departed...the questions are remarkably detailed, to a great degree intrusive questions that I could never answer regarding their bank accounts, visitors, behaviours etc...the investigation is much more than thorough and they are looking for ANYTHING that would indicate any kind of suspicious behaviour...it is mind boggling that this guy was allowed to continue through to his ultimate claim to fame...

I just went through the DOD Security Clearance process in February.....don't remember anything about belonging to militias on the Questionaire.

and who in their right mind is actually going to admit to belonging to a Violent Islamic group.....your not really banking on somebody actually checking off box "A" and flushing them out that way are you?

He went in as an Enlisted and rose to throught tthe ranks to Major....he obviously must have been doing something right somewhere along the way. It was in the past 5-6 years where he started to show the warning signs that should have gotten him investigated a little more thoroughly.

This almost reminds me of the Catholic church passing the guy along in hopes that somebody else will fix the problem.

I just hope now they just get rid of the guy permanently

Currently, the “SF 86: Questionnaire for National Security Positions” is
completed by every applicant for military service in the United States. Its purpose is to
collect information for background investigations of persons applying for security
clearances. For military accessions and security clearance vetting, the SF 86 is the
primary questionnaire for documenting potential indicators of hostile and disloyal
associations and histories.

and these guys are investigated constantly as I indicated, thoroughly, which makes more even disturbing the fact that this guy continued on despite broadcasting that he was a problem...

I don't know what more is required...

from ABC News

Major Hasan's E-Mail: 'I Can't Wait to Join You' in Afterlife

American Official Says Accused Shooter Asked Radical Cleric When Is Jihad Appropriate?

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Nov. 19, 2009 —


United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."


Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

Major Hasan also wrote, "My strength is my financial capabilities."

Federal investigators have found that Hasan donated $20,000 to $30,000 a year to overseas Islamic "charities." As an Army major, his yearly salary, including housing and food allowances, was approximately $92,000. A number of Islamic charities have been identified by U.S. authorities as conduits to terror groups.

Two FBI task forces, in Washington and San Diego, received the intercepted messages, but deemed them innocent.

On Capitol Hill today, Senators questioned how that could be.

"The choice of this recipient of emails says a lot about what Hasan was looking for," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Senate's Homeland Security committee. Lieberman's committee held a hearing on the Fort Hood shootings, and announced that it was launching an investigation.

"What I'm getting at," said Lieberman, "Is he may have been looking for spiritual sanctions for what he's accused of ultimately doing."

The American-born Awlaki is considered a recruiter for al-Qaeda. He has been in hiding since the shooting, but a Yemeni journalist told ABC News today that the e-mails show Hasan was "almost a member of al-Qaeda."

Pentagon Probe Looking For Gaps, Gates Said
At Fort Hood today, federal investigators continued to gather evidence for the criminal prosecution of Hasan, while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced his own investigation of the incident.

Gates said the Pentagon probe would try "to find possible gaps or deficiencies in Defense Department programs, processes and procedures for identifying service members who could potentially pose credible threats to others."

Some members of Congress have raised questions about the military's counter-intelligence unit, based at Fort Meade, and Gates said every question will be answered.

"I promise the Department of Defense's full and open disclosure," said Gates.

Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was once the imam of a Falls Church, Virginia mosque attended by Hasan and two of the 9/11 hijackers. After an intensive investigation by the FBI, Awlaki moved to Yemen where he was imprisoned in 2006 and says he was interrogated by U.S. authorities.

A blog entry posted on Awlaki's site after the Fort Hood massacre praised Hasan as a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people." The site has since been taken down, as has a Facebook fan page devoted to Awlaki. In a subsequent interview with the Washington Post, Awlaki described himself as Hasan's "confidant."

In addition to his contacts with Hasan, Awlaki served as an inspiration for men convicted in terror plots in Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, according to government officials and court records reviewed by ABCNews.com.

In Toronto, members of the so-called Toronto 18 watched videos of Awlaki at a makeshift training camp where they allegedly planned an attack on the Canadian parliament and prime minister.

So deteriorating mental health that impacts job function wouldn't be of concern to his leadership? I thought the military actually paid very close attention to this.

The source of the conflict is irrelevant if it has a negative impact to his duty.

Like most things this falls on a spectrum. I'm sure there are many Muslim soldiers who are conflicted but stay true to their duty to serve. The fanatics obviously would consider them infidels, but it's not necessarily either / or, the right push and you could find yourself on the other side. This looks to be what may have happened to Hasan.

The difficulty is that to some the Sharia is seen as a highly refined legal and moral system. Hence, no need for any "Enlightenment". To the many Muslims detached from the mainstream, this may appear to provide more comfort. Just like how people will send their kids to a Madrassa as it's the only place to get an "education".

Speaking of good and bad, there's a pretty interesting read called "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim."

Definitely agree that reform needs to come from the inside, but I'm not so sure change is just a matter of free will. In fact a lot of Western behavior works against the very people who might seek reform.

Perhaps we should start dropping Ayn Rand books instead of bombs :hihi:

The military is a regimented organization, and I'd be surprised, if what was starting to look like a clear dereliction of duty, wouldn't be cause for his removal from service.

Again regarding PC, he was promoted despite his performance simply because of a need for more psychiatrists. This would seems to trump any simple speculation that they were afraid of confronting a religious issue.

I do think some heads will roll once this is investigated.

-spence

That would be good. Especially if they roll all the way down from whatever top instills the fear of PC.

Actually if you read the Form they ask if you are a member of any Foriegn Military or Militia....not Domestic

They also ask a series of questions about whether you belong to any organizations that are terrorist organizations or organizations that want to overthrow the government..

here's a link to the form so you can view it.

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf

I believe there are many reports of erratic behavior, a good example is where instead of a required medical report he gave a presentation on Islam.

Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

Interestingly enough, he calls out his own dilemma on slide two.

There's push and pull. What many don't seem to be willing to accept is that it's really a mix of legitimate and not so legitimate issues that eventually work to radicalize someone. Again, it's a spectrum.

And loose their sources of funding? You'd better be prepared to fill the void or we may get something even worse.

Interesting book. Nothing groundbreaking but there are some good observations and anecdotes. I'm sure I have a copy somewhere if you want to read it.

The aversion to dogs is perhaps the best evidence I've seen that our cultures are truly not compatible.


And always with tiny print...I never really did like her style of writing.

See above. I'm sure there are other examples but this is particularly noteworthy.

Multiple issues. From what I've read he really didn't deal with the death of his mother very well. As the FBI pro filers have said, he was the classic loner after all.

-spence

All mothers, sadly, die. And many loners have done great things. These things, in themselves do not motivate to mass murder. Radical Islam, however, does.

So does radical Christianity....

I haven't heard of any indications that Hasan is a radical Christian.

Well I hate to take this thread back to the case at hand, but it appears they will plead not guilty and then use the trial as a means of spreading there veiws of America and explain their reasons for the attack..... stay tuned

He wasn't implying that there were. I think the intention is that there could possibly exist a difference between religious fanatics and terrorists.

No one was screaming terrorists when abortion clinics were getting bombed. Or did not enough people die in those incidents?

Or is it murder if you kill because of Christian beliefs, but terrorism when you kill due to Islamic beliefs?

I rememeber the outcry. Yes they were.
IMO you can't equate someone trying to protect an innocent unborn child with someone killing 3000 . It's not right but it's not the same