Fort Hood's 9/11

[Sofiyya 1,687]

PS - Let's not forget economic terrorism practiced on a daily basis by ruthless drug cartels who are kidnapping, murdering and beheading people on both sides of our southern border.

[Peikko 1,575]

You can be picky and try to suggest that this or that goal isn't political, but essentailly if the aim is to further a paricular agenda, be that bombing a laboratory that uses animals for pharmaceutical testing, or a muslim who wants to create a mono theistic society - the agenda is in essence political. The key to it being terrorism is that there is an agenda to be followed, not simply somene who flips and uses violence to regain control over their life (a deluded notion, but essentially that is what these random shooters are doing).

The key here is that there are people who are jumping the gun, and without facts are assuming that this must be terrorism because the shooter had a muslim name, and those who prefer to wait for the facts before assessing the nature of the crime.

[Peikko 1,575]

PS - Let's not forget economic terrorism practiced on a daily basis by ruthless drug cartels who are kidnapping, murdering and beheading people on both sides of our southern border.

Mafia type activities are not terroristic. Drug cartels have no agenda beyond getting rich. You are playing fast and loose with the word terrorism because you don't want to be pasted as pc. I find that a little strange to be quite honest. There is nothing in this that relates to whether one is or isn't 'pc' all that concerns me is that people draw conclusions that are based on fact rather than assumption, not indulging in these jingoistic speculations. That's it.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[alienlovechild 75]

Population estimates with no demographic breakdowns are hardly facts or proof of the number of qualified Muslims who are or who could be military members. Presenting this information as substantive enough to make a claim that Muslims in the military are underrepresented as a measure of an estimate that doesn't offer any workable number of a desirable demographic that could enter the military if they chose to is not a reasonable assumption, and certainly not a fact. Also, merely being Muslim is not sufficient for me or any other Muslim to speculate on why there are not more Muslims in the military. While there are issues that have been adequately studied, this is not one of them, primarily based on the fact that we cannot obtain the kind of information needed to do more than speculate.

I was hoping you'd show some counternumbers to the estimates but certainly no one claims that Muslims in the military are overrepresented. If that was the case, I'm know some group would bring that up again and again. The "desirable demographics" are that Muslim families tend to larger, somewhat better educated and younger than the general population and those things the military are looking for.

I find it odd that no studies are done on why Muslims don't serve in larger numbers in the military but I suspect it was always like this prior to 9/11. It's not stressed in the culture as you might have in with American blacks or white guys from rural areas which we do know from stats. I remember seeing a map on percent of recruits in all American counties. The urban counties had a lower percentage of the then target ages of 17-25. Recruiters claimed that their recruiting pool many in urban areas was smaller due to those with felonies, no diploma or low ASVAB scores. At one time, American Indians were the most overrepresented group in the U.S. military even though they may also have the greatest historical animosty towards the military. They served because there were a lot of opportunities and they had martial society that prized warriors.

My guess is that Muslims aim for business and professional jobs and have far fewer "military chaste" families that supply the military with troops for generations. Blacks served in larger numbers in the past but now have more opportunities better than the military. It's not an easy life so most most shun it unless they have no choice historically. I wasn't an Army brat but my Dad was drafted but I struck by how many other guys grew up in military families.

[Danno 1,228]

In my view, clearly the media both loves .....and avoids to use the word "terrorist" (depending on who is doing the talking).

On the limited info we have I will speculate a bit (why not

I think at the end of the day, we will see this guy was quite sane and every bit an "enemy among us".

I don't get this need to label every person who does such things a "Crack Pot"... especially in times of war.

He has extreme views and he acted on them.

Really, he is no different than all the other enemies of our Nation (except for his local zip code).

These people which we are at war with all claim their faith as their rallying cry and the fact is, they are a "part" of the followers of Islam.

But I agree with MC; how is an attack on a military target... "terrorism"?

He is a traitor plain and simple and clearly should be shot.

I would think our Muslims serving in the military are at a greater risk to "go to the other side" simply because of the realities of the conflict but these events would be rare even so... apparently even the reddest flags sound no alarm.

If we failed to identify this guy as a danger... despite all the indications, we have a serious, serious problem in the Military culture.. which many blame on PC.... run wild.

It has been common practice to be especially mindful of persons who are more susceptible of counter influences in times of war or in intelligence operations, while we don't want to tear through the haystack looking for the needle, we also want to be watchful for the needles and obviously we are so worried about offending any group, it has now gone into the absurd even in a time of war.

[nowhereman 1]

Is any random shooting spree an act of terrorism these days? It seems as though there is a concerted effort by some opinionists to completely alter the meaning of all the words we previously took for granted and it is very obvious to me that the people who blur the lines and alter the meanings have some very offensive agendas themselves.

Acts of terrorism are very specific and are associated with a political cause. Other violent acts are just that, violent acts.

Is it was a coincidence Hasan's rounds struck 43 soldiers. He was duck hunting with former VP Cheney and the sun was in his eyes.

Not specific and no political cause? What? Was he supposed to wearing a sign saying "Jihadist"?

Talk about an offensive agenda before the bodies have even been buried some are already to bury the whole incident as a common workplace shooting.

The problem here is that most people are looking at the issue with blinders on... either they assume without any proof that Major Hasan is a terrorist (he's Muslim & he killed people so he must be a terrorist) or they are assuming that it was an ordinary (for lack of a better term) workplace shooting. As facts emerge the truth doesn't appear to be so cut & dried... Major Hasan was apparently a troubled individual & a malcontent. At times (based on what I've heard on the news from other officers who worked with him) he was very dedicated & sincerely cared about the soldiers. At other times he was openly arguing with soldiers about the validity of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & did attend a mosque that has ties to at least one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Was Major Hasan a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer? From what has emerged so far the facts are leaning towards no & yes (respectively). I recall President Obama taking a lot of flack (and he should have) when he jumped to conclusions about the white police officer & the black professor, but he's now taking flack when he said don't jump to conclusions about this incident. Lets wait for the facts to paint a clear picture before we jump to conclusions.

[Peikko 1,575]

What I think is clear even now, is that he did not have any official ties with any known terrorist organization. I don't think it would take very long to discover such ties. Which leaves us with, he was working on a personal agenda. That personal agenda may have had a political motivation, or it may not have but without being part of an organization, it is not possible to really call this an act of terrorism.

I don't agree with Danno logic though - he's cleverly worded post is basically saying that muslims should have different rights to other citizens which is nothing to do with being 'too pc'.

[_Simpson_ 250]

What I think is clear even now, is that he did not have any official ties with any known terrorist organization. I don't think it would take very long to discover such ties. Which leaves us with, he was working on a personal agenda. That personal agenda may have had a political motivation, or it may not have but without being part of an organization, it is not possible to really call this an act of terrorism.

I don't agree with Danno logic though - he's cleverly worded post is basically saying that muslims should have different rights to other citizens which is nothing to do with being 'too pc'.

Heres a couple definitions of a terrorist -

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Why are we getting so caught up in the semantics of all this, its obvious that it was more than him just snapping, his screwed up view of his beliefs had something to do with this, what he did was despicable and that should be the focus.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I think is clear even now, is that he did not have any official ties with any known terrorist organization. I don't think it would take very long to discover such ties. Which leaves us with, he was working on a personal agenda. That personal agenda may have had a political motivation, or it may not have but without being part of an organization, it is not possible to really call this an act of terrorism.

I don't agree with Danno logic though - he's cleverly worded post is basically saying that muslims should have different rights to other citizens which is nothing to do with being 'too pc'.

Heres a couple definitions of a terrorist -

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Why are we getting so caught up in the semantics of all this, its obvious that it was more than him just snapping, his screwed up view of his beliefs had something to do with this, what he did was despicable and that should be the focus.

So when are they going to arrest Stephen King?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

MC, Big Dog, Nowhere, etc etc... All willingly wrong on the subject.

It was a politically and religiously motivated attack just by the admission of the terrorist himself. So by MC's own admission, he's a terrorist.

It doesn't matter what the target is - we still call Al Qaeda in Afghanistan Terrorists and they are attacking the military.

Nice word play MC "he doesn't have any "official" ties". Good way of covering yourself. He sat under the same imam that 911 hijackers sat under. He was very well aquainted with this radical imam and met with him many times. He even tried to contact Al Qaeda abroad. While killing servicemen and women he was shouting Allah Akbar.

You people would just as soon defend terrorists who want us all dead than you would your fellow countrymen. Its sickening. I guess the message of Osama bin Laden and the Democrat party has been in unison anyway for the past 6 or so years.

[_Simpson_ 250]

What I think is clear even now, is that he did not have any official ties with any known terrorist organization. I don't think it would take very long to discover such ties. Which leaves us with, he was working on a personal agenda. That personal agenda may have had a political motivation, or it may not have but without being part of an organization, it is not possible to really call this an act of terrorism.

I don't agree with Danno logic though - he's cleverly worded post is basically saying that muslims should have different rights to other citizens which is nothing to do with being 'too pc'.

Heres a couple definitions of a terrorist -

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Why are we getting so caught up in the semantics of all this, its obvious that it was more than him just snapping, his screwed up view of his beliefs had something to do with this, what he did was despicable and that should be the focus.

So when are they going to arrest Stephen King?

Well as soon as he kills 13 people while shouting "Allahu Akbar"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But surely Stephen Kings work terrorizes and frightens people, no?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

But surely Stephen Kings work terrorizes and frightens people, no?

Terrify, yes. Terrorize - no.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a pretty vague definition, was the point.

[Peikko 1,575]

MC, Big Dog, Nowhere, etc etc... All willingly wrong on the subject.

It was a politically and religiously motivated attack just by the admission of the terrorist himself. So by MC's own admission, he's a terrorist.

It doesn't matter what the target is - we still call Al Qaeda in Afghanistan Terrorists and they are attacking the military.

Nice word play MC "he doesn't have any "official" ties". Good way of covering yourself. He sat under the same imam that 911 hijackers sat under. He was very well aquainted with this radical imam and met with him many times. He even tried to contact Al Qaeda abroad. While killing servicemen and women he was shouting Allah Akbar.

You people would just as soon defend terrorists who want us all dead than you would your fellow countrymen. Its sickening. I guess the message of Osama bin Laden and the Democrat party has been in unison anyway for the past 6 or so years.

There is nothing in this that pertains to anything I wrote, yet again. I don't sympathise with terrorists, well not Al Qaeda anyway