STILL TOO SOON TO KNOW...?
Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 06:39PM Ann Coulter asks...
"It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.
Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health-care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.
We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SoA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism – or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?
And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist websites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.
Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?"
Fort Hood killings 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (39)
To me terrorism requires a conspiracy and he has/had no conspirators, just incompitent minders
Should his judgement/sanity have been investigated? Absolutely with out doubt.
But this was a spree killing by a nut job same as at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal or Dunblane in Scotland or Virginia Tech. Mentally unstable spree killers are very hard to stop
I'd love to comment on this one, but,
I'm afraid further investigations might reveal ...
he also championed the Palestinian cause.......
This would totally destroy any rights I may have had to comment on this blog............:o)
"Sudden Jihad Syndrome" is common in Islam. It is the conflict of seeing someone releasing their bonds of slavery while helplessly remaining tied and the fear of exposure leads the pack to defend itself. Nidal Hasan would have had gang-raped his daughter or poured acid on his wife's face if they became freed. So, naturally as America wanted to free the Muslim, for every one of them it is a duty to issue an honor killing.
Ali Sina explains this phenomenon better than I: http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/fear-freedom
Was Virginia Tech an act of terrorism?
Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health-care bill).
Yep, we know this. What I haven't read is where the lecture took place, why it happened and who was in the audience. Has this been reported?
As Sean pointed out, there is no proof to suggest that Hasan was a member of any Terrorist organisation nor that he received any orders to carry out this attack. Terrorist attacks normally have a set goal or outcome that the organisation whish to have and again there is little to no evidence to what Hasan's motive was. He was a lone lunatic, like many lone lunatics who have carried out attacks in the US.
Oh right, Mr "Yeah But What Is A Terrorist?" has stumbled again across a working definition.
Applied to the case in point, the verdict is that Nidal Hasan is just another good ol' shoot'em up all American patriot.
Hey, don't they all shout "allahoo akbar" first?
Pete, show evidence to suggest that Hasan was a member of any Terrorist organisation, was fighting for a particular agenda, had a particular goal in sight. He was a gun totting lunatic. Just because he happened to be a gun totting Muslim lunatic doesn't mean that he was a Terrorist.
He opened fire on scores of his colleagues and killed 13 of them. It was an evil act of mass murder. Does the level of death , misery, pain, injury and grief alter depending on whether we classify it as terrorism or not ? A thorn by any other name can still prick you.
Seamus
Just as a matter of interest, do you think the 9/11 murderers were sane? You seem to think he had to be either a lunatic or a terrorist. I don't think those are exclusive groups at the best of times. When it comes to religiously motivated violence there is an even greater overlap and when it comes to Islamic terrorism it seems almost pedantic to draw distinctions.
On the question of an organisation you are out of date. Al Queada is more of a franchise or even a state of mind. That makes it more difficult to fight and pointless to negotiate with.
I'd bet that Hasan will prove legally sane and will claim a political motivation.
Seamus -
A terrorist has to carry a membership card now, yes? Of which organisation were the 7/7 terrorists members?
He is a muslim who committed yet another mass murder in the name of islam. Don't try to be too smart.
OK here is the definitive definition of a terrorist. If you carry out an intentional act of violence which terrifies people that makes you a terrorist. GAME OVER !
(I've clarified the definition Seamus)
"If you carry out an act of violence which terrifies people and is intended to do so that makes you a terrorist."
So, if you don't intend to terrify people then you aren't a Terrorist?
A terrorist is a member of a group which is so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they are either willing to, or see it as essential to, use violence and fear in order to realise their goals.
I don't think you can have an Islamic terrorist (its playing at semantics annyway): better to call them a muslim extremist or Jihadist.
Their stated aim is the ultimate establishment of a world wide Islamic theocracy.
"If you carry out an intentional act of violence which terrifies people that makes you a terrorist."
So when soldiers shoot people, or air forces bomb places, and those acts terrify people, does it make the Army or the Air Force Terrorists?
"I don't think you can have an Islamic terrorist (its playing at semantics annyway): better to call them a muslim extremist or Jihadist."
I do think you can have Islamic Terrorists. My point to Pete wasn't that I don't feel you can have Islamic Terrorists, it is that not all violent Muslims are Terrorists, in the same way that not all violent Christians are Terrorists. If Hasan had been a Christian then I doubt certain people would call him a Terrorist.
Also, Jihadist is incorrect. They correct definition of a person involved in Jihad isn't Jihadist but Mujahid. A group of Mujahid is call then a Mujahideen.
Seamus
YES !
Right, just to make sure, the British Army are Terrorists, in your opinion?
Seamus you are asking Colm, a conditioned self-imposed homosexual, if he can define what is moral and what is not. The wrong question. His left-brain suppresion of the male he could have been, means he lives in the dominated flat-land of the female.
A Muslim, a conditioned self-imposed omega male, cannot think about art or music, for it is counter-intuition fearful to hisleft brain. To block out the noise of awakening imagination of "What if Mohammed was wrong?" He live in the dominated vertical-land of the male.
Ask Coln about the role of uniforms in defining the order and chaos of war and you will not stop him on the subject.
He lives by intuition, and intuition says all killing is wrong. He cannot hear you. Like the dog which cannot be objective to emotion, if it does not feel right it must be wrong.
The only peace for the Muslim and the Homosexual is to live like an animal. Women and Men to them respectively, are sexually disposable.
Kinderling
I do not think that is in any way a fair comment re Colm.
Mr Vance. A 'conditioned self-imposed homosexual'? - I only have the evidence of what comes out from him.
Now you, representing the majority sitting on the fence without a moral compass being told what to think...
I have more respect for Coln. He is honest to his emotions. He has a chance to wake up.
David
The trouble with Kinderlings comments is that they are not Pseudo intellectual enough. He needs to analyse a bit more and stop writing for the thickest in the class.
kinderlings you are an ass but funnily enough a stereotypical one, why is that funny you ask? Because you just stereotyped some one else
Hasan didn't just "go crazy." He didn't lash out in town, or in hospital, or just anywhere on base against one unit. He choose soldiers that were going to the front. That impies a political motive of stopping American soldiers from killing those that believe the same as he.
He is a traitorous soldier and American. He stabbed his comrades and country in the back and struck a blow for the enemy. With that amount of carnage, he did a month's work for the Taliban. I wait for the day he hangs.
Seamus,
"Also, Jihadist is incorrect. They correct definition of a person involved in Jihad isn't Jihadist but Mujahid. A group of Mujahid is call then a Mujahideen"
.....yeah,
....that's what I meant...
Colm,
I didn't know you were a homosexual.
If so I would agree that it was an unfair comment.
However,
"The trouble with Kinderlings comments is that they are not Pseudo intellectual enough. He needs to analyse a bit more and stop writing for the thickest in the class.2
I consider myself as one of the thickest, and would hate it if comments became even more intellectually challenging!
I enjoy reading everyone's postings as it makes me consider my own thinking on issues.
Kinderling
1. I don't sit on any fence and I am clear where my moral compass is pointed.
2. Colm has earned my respect over several years here on ATW. You have some way to go.
'Kinderling
1. I don't sit on any fence and I am clear where my moral compass is pointed.
2. Colm has earned my respect over several years here on ATW. You have some way to go.' - DV
Hate to say it :-), but many blog owners would have booted Kinderlings off their site for the comments he made about Colm. Your restraint, and measured response, David, are very refreshing, and do you great credit. I know that's totally off-topic, but I felt it needed said.
The greatest threat to Western Society is Homosexuality and Islam and you pussy foot around it while it burns. Both can be cured. There is an ex-gay movement and an ex-muslim movement, very much pilloried by the government subsidised pro-movements that target the young and emotionally vulnerable.This post was about a man who 'suddenly' killed people. It was not sudden, but the crisis at end of the road - who was he? He no longer knew himself. There are others who put their HIV infected blood into take away food, another end of the road experience.
A few of you get it, the others won't admit it.
Seimi
Thanks for your comment. Kinderlings comments do not bother me at all. Either 'he' is engaged in a deliberate wind up with all that pseudo nonsense or he really is drowning in his own high faluting intellectual sea. I can't take any of it seriously.
Danny
Kinderling does not know anything about me . Not my gender faith race or age , let alone my sexual orientation. I am just a series of digits on a website .He can speculate or posite his daft anthropological/psychological assumptions all he likes all he likes I have no intention of giving him the benefit of the doubt either way.
I;m just curious as to what a "self imposed" homosexual is.
Is it one who doesn't really want to be but thinks that they should? ;o)
I think it's someone who takes this heavy mantle upon themselves, for the sake of others. If so, fair play to ye Colm! :-)
Well said, Colm.
Colm,
Well, whatever.
I don't like it when we start slinging labels around.
I am quite happy to set myself up for others to laugh, at because I choose to.
I am after all, vertically challenged with (sniff) a few other (sniff sniff) personal problems,
which others (coughs weakly)..
may find...
unpleasant!
Going back to the original purpose of this thread:
A devout Muslim who believes in the ultimate triumph of an Islamic theocracy is not a terrorist.
He is a soldier for his god, whether he acts alone or with others.
For him the world is divided into believers and non believers.
If he is a naturalised American and has taken the oath of allegiance, from a USA perspective he is a traitor.
A non practicing muslim who is part of a gang with political motives, is a terrorist.
Terrorists are people who live within a democratic State,
and disagree so strongly with that democratic government on a particular issue, that they will use violence to achieve their aims.
Freedom fighters are people who live under a repressive regime or state, and are fighting for what they believe to be freedom to express themselves and the minority they represent.
The British Army cannot be terrorists because they militarily represent a democratic society, Their brief is to defend or attack a perceived threat to that democratic society's existence or interests.
Now, I have to say that I am quite proud of the above definitions!!
I know some of ye'se will be itching to pick holes in what I have wrote, but I'm ready.
My tin hat is firmly in place
A Magen Dovid round my neck
A glass of Tullamore Dew within easy reach,
An' a stout stick by me side..
The wife is manning the Provisionning and First Aid post,
# so come on...
I'm ready for yeez.!
The British Army cannot be terrorists because they militarily represent a democratic society, Their brief is to defend or attack a perceived threat to that democratic society's existence or interests.
Danny.. just wondering if you would stand by the above definition if it the modification below was made
The British Army cannot be terrorists because they militarily represent a democratic society, Their brief is to defend or attack, in anyway, a perceived threat to that democratic society's existence or interests.
Or are there limits to what you would let any Army, lets not limit it to the British army, do in order to protect the state
Kloot,
(not Cool Hand Kloot by any chance?)
You have the dubious honour of leading the charge of "the shredders and doubters" of my cleverly thought out definitions!
As a good vaguely jewish/english/irish/vertically limited/horizontally expanding fella, I would say that I don't like the idea of using subterfuge/spying/infiltrating the enemy so as to win.
I believe that it ultimately leads to a blurring of what is right and what is wrong. It might work in the short term, but in the long term it opens the gates to moral relativism.
If a man or woman is starving, I can understand the temporary abandonment of the individual's principles.
Like at Masada perhaps it is better to die for what you hold dear, than cunningly compromise so as to rise again.
If survival is all that counts, what value the human spirit?
ps. how do you print in bold letters?
I can't do that..
nor italics
nor colours
Nor do I know how to import a video clip.......
Danny Boy, Hows the form.. its Kloot from Manchester band "I Am Kloot"...
As a good vaguely jewish/english/irish/vertically limited/horizontally expanding fella, I would say that I don't like the idea of using subterfuge/spying/infiltrating the enemy so as to win.
Ive just finished reading a book on Inspector Mallon, a RC who was a chief inspector in the RIC at the time of the phoenix park murders in the mid 1900s. The use of tailing and subterfuge by the police was considered a disgusting practice and frowned upon heavily by those in power. Funny how times change.. The innocence of it eh.
At the bottom of the comment box are some HTML tags which provide some nice handy text formatting mechanisms.
<_i>my text</_i> for italics
<_b>my text</_b> for bold
(in both cases remove the _ though. I had to include the _ to prevent the browser interpreting the tag as a... well tag)
Hope those help/work
Looked you up on the web Cool Hand, but "I am Kloot" makes no sense to me....
I switched off music when The Furies broke up...
Thanks for the "how to" stuff though.
Somehow I believe that if something's right and true, it should be both inspiring and worth fighting for.
I don't like the idea of accepting underhand tactics, because inevitably it corrupts you.
Don't know which spy film or tv prog it was, but I remember the hero saying that in the end all that distinguishes the two sides, is a name..
We live in an imperfect world Cool Hand, clever people can justify annything...
Terror used by Islam, IRA, PLO, Communism and Fascism is used to gain allegence, the Stockholm Syndrome... Terror used against Japan and they gave up worshipping their Emperor as God.
Give up terror and you give up the last resort to releasing and setting people free.
But the that's the agenda, the united socialist front, to teach Communism is not as bad as fascism, projected as Liberalism onto you, and then intimidated by their ruthless Political Correction you claim it as your very own. The Dhimmi is born. Got to be in 'every way fair'.