Mastermind

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

I read most of the stuff from your link, none of which is definitive as to exactly what "authorities" believe motivated Hasan. The Q & A with the Post reporter was nice, but it too left open the Q of motivation. To me, it all suggests, without further evidence, that Hasan is an Islamist extremist of Jihadist persuasion. Rather than calling his behavior erratic, it appears to me, with the facts so far presented, that his behavior was very pointed, conscious, rationally directed from a Jihadist view. I was not able to link to the slides of his presentation, but the description of them points to what I say.

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.

I am sure that any radical views the issues that drive him as legitimate.

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

Are you saying the Imams, Mullahs, and Islamic scholars are in it for the money? If so, we can solve the "problem" by paying them from our treasury instead of funding the war on terror.

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

Good one!

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

Her style is more geared to essay than fiction. I like her ideas, but the fiction is a deep plow.

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

These things, in themselves do not motivate to mass murder. Radical Islam, however, does.

So does radical Christianity....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So does radical Christianity....

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

There was an outcry, but people weren't screaming "terrorists". So, if you bomb a clinic to "protect an innocent unborn child" then that's not terrorism, but shooting people in the name of religion (which we still don't know is fully the case) is terrorism?

You sure can equate it. Killing is killing, isn't it? This isn't directed towards you, but I love the religious hypocrisy of murdering an abortion doctor being acceptable to some people because he's, in their opinion, murdering babies.

We've had this discussion before where you've made the comparison to the number of people killed during 9/11. What exactly is the number of people that must be killed for a situation to be considered terrorism? The interesting part is that we weren't even talking about 9/11.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

There was an outcry, but people weren't screaming "terrorists". So, if you bomb a clinic to "protect an innocent unborn child" then that's not terrorism, but shooting people in the name of religion (which we still don't know is fully the case) is terrorism?

You sure can equate it. Killing is killing, isn't it? This isn't directed towards you, but I love the religious hypocrisy of murdering an abortion doctor being acceptable to some people because he's, in their opinion, murdering babies.

We've had this discussion before where you've made the comparison to the number of people killed during 9/11. What exactly is the number of people that must be killed for a situation to be considered terrorism? The interesting part is that we weren't even talking about 9/11.

99.999% of Christians would call the taking of any life wrong JD. Why are you so quick to call the killing of an abortion DR terrorism but give this terrorist the benifit of the doubt.
FYI, his clock was set at 9/11 at his apartment but thats just a coincidence.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

Which is also what I have been saying. I specifically said that terrorism is not an accurate description of Hasan's motives. I attributed it to "Jihadism" which non-Jihadists would probably refer to as religious fanaticism.

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

Although no one was "screaming" terrorists, the abortion clinic bombings have been defined by many as terrorism. Even Wikipedia defines it as a form of terrorism.

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

If it's murder, it's murder in both cases. The motivation for the murders is probably different. As far as anti-abortion violence, the main animous seems to be a loathing for the killing of what is considered to be innocent human life, innocent babies. I think that nine such anti-abortion murders have occured since 1993. Not all, probably the minority, were attributed to religion. As horrible as these have been, I don't think they evoked a national security threat. Jihad against the West seems to be a much different, much larger, greatly more dangerous phenomenon. And it is specifically an Islamic religious phenomenon.