Mastermind

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have to admit that I have not followed any breaking news that talks about new facts about his private life. And the only erratic behavior that I've heard about all was in some way related to his religious views conflicting with his duties.

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.

Poor performance would certainly speak against promotion, but would not be an indication that he would mass-murder.

I don't think the Army was blinded by political correctness, rather, it was ordered by it. As a society, we have no compunction against speaking out against and even demonizing many views, especially right wing views as being dangerous. We have not only political warnings but media sanctions, including movies and television shows that have overt or subliminal cautions and admonitions that inform us of the dangers and lunacy of militias and the religious right and the mean spiritidness of "extreme" conservatives. This has a suppressive effect, good or bad, depending on your point of view. And one effect is to persuade many away from "extremism." But there seems to be a reluctance to speak out in an equally culturally aggressive manner against the extremism of Islam. Could we not persuade, as a moderate, liberal, centrist society, those in the Islamic community, through the same cultural and media modes, that Holy war Jihadism against the West is an extreme belief that is just as threatening to our civil society as the so-called religious right? If we are to be a unified society of diverse elements, those elements must adhere to a common law. We must as a civil society teach equally against ALL dangerous extremes.

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So we agree that his faith was the decisive factor.

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.

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.
-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.

[scottw]

I think you guys are illustrating perfectly why little or nothing will change and why it will most likely happen again... 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...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

The DOD's security clearance questionnaire asks about militia membership, but not a peep about radical or violent Islamic groups.[/B]

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

[scottw]

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...

[scottw]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

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.

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 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 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".

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

I haven't been following new updates on this. Has there been some new evidence that Hasan showed signs of deteriorating mental health?

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

Until the "incident", I am not aware of evidence that the conflict between his religious views and his military duty had a negative impact. There are reports that he was not the sharpest tack in the drawer which may have been cause for demotion but not a discernable motive for Jihad.

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.


Precisely what I meant earlier in this thread when I responded to your view that most Muslims in the world are not violent, and I said that the Jihadists were working on that--that is, to "push" them "to the other side."

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".

This is why reformation not "enlightenment" is necessary. The Mullahs and Imams and Islamic scholars must stop merely verbally "condemning" occasional eruptions of "terrorism" and begin to forcefully preach in every Madrassa and in every Mosque that the holy wars must stop or Allah will rescind the 70 virgins and send all Jihadists to hell.

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

I think that's were I got the idea--didn't read the book, just heard about it--if it's the same one.

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.

Again, not free will (not sure if there is much of that in Islam . . . some, for sure) rather forcefull reform from the top dogs. Oops, dogs is a term in Islam used for non-Muslims--should read forceful reform from the hierarchy.

Perhaps we should start dropping Ayn Rand books instead of bombs

I LIKE IT! Actually, we should be dropping the Ayn Rand bombs over here on our way too far left citizens. They're kind of lengthy, heavy though . . .

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, haven't kept up on this--is there evidence of dereliction of duty before the "incident"?

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.

You start this post by implying that deteriorating mental health (which is somehow tied to his religious views) is a cause for concern and that the mililtary paid close attention to such and then feel that it is not serious enough to confront simply because of a shortage of psychiatrists?

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.[/B]

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

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I haven't been following new updates on this. Has there been some new evidence that Hasan showed signs of deteriorating mental health?

Until the "incident", I am not aware of evidence that the conflict between his religious views and his military duty had a negative impact. There are reports that he was not the sharpest tack in the drawer which may have been cause for demotion but not a discernable motive for Jihad.

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.

Precisely what I meant earlier in this thread when I responded to your view that most Muslims in the world are not violent, and I said that the Jihadists were working on that--that is, to "push" them "to the other side."

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.

This is why reformation not "enlightenment" is necessary. The Mullahs and Imams and Islamic scholars must stop merely verbally "condemning" occasional eruptions of "terrorism" and begin to forcefully preach in every Madrassa and in every Mosque that the holy wars must stop or Allah will rescind the 70 virgins and send all Jihadists to hell.

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

I think that's were I got the idea--didn't read the book, just heard about it--if it's the same one.

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.

Again, not free will (not sure if there is much of that in Islam . . . some, for sure) rather forcefull reform from the top dogs. Oops, dogs is a term in Islam used for non-Muslims--should read forceful reform from the hierarchy.

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

They're kind of lengthy, heavy though . . .

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

Again, haven't kept up on this--is there evidence of dereliction of duty before the "incident"?

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

You start this post by implying that deteriorating mental health (which is somehow tied to his religious views) is a cause for concern and that the mililtary paid close attention to such and then feel that it is not serious enough to confront simply because of a shortage of psychiatrists?

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

[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.

[buckman]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

I'm not calling either terrorism.

And I know a lot of Christians that are in support of the Death Penalty.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not calling either terrorism.

And I know a lot of Christians that are in support of the Death Penalty.

Me for one. I'm able to see the difference between a innocent unborn child and a murdering scum bag. You can too, you just won't admit it.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Me for one. I'm able to see the difference between a innocent unborn child and a murdering scum bag. You can too, you just won't admit it.

Well, you're a bad Christian then.

Thou shall not kill.

You do keep twisting the topic though. This isn't a comparison between abortion and murder.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Well, you're a bad Christian then.

Thou shall not kill.

You do keep twisting the topic though. This isn't a comparison between abortion and murder.

I think I'll be Ok when Peter calls my name at the gate