The FBI hasn’t announced anything yet as far as I know. My personal take on it at this point is that it doesn’t qualify as terrorism because of the lack of a policy goal: I think his aim was killing people who were going to fight Muslims, rather than influencing policy.
I admit that I have not been following the stories about Fort Hood all that closely, so forgive me if this is common knowledge and I missed it.
Not 10 minutes ago, on NPR, they were interviewing a soldier who had been wounded in the attack at Fort Hood and it was stated specifically that those involved were not to talk about the shooter in any way as it could possibly jeopardize the prosecution. If that is true, where did the information that he was yelling “Allah Akbar” while shooting come from?
From witnesses, and from politicians who have been briefed on witness testimony.
Thanks for the response.
I wonder why if it is already out there in the media, the Army would turn around and tell their people not to talk about it.
Maybe it was just for the NPR report.
They probably want to fry the guy, and don’t want any loose lips to endanger the case.
The first reports about “Allahu Akbar” came the day after the shooting, I think. It may have gotten out there before the army had a chance to tell everyone to clam up - and politicians have also been talking to the press about what they have learned. In any case, they probably don’t want anything else to get out there even if a few details are now public.
Telling people not to talk about things and keeping people from talking about things are not quite the same thing. Anyway, there are ~30,000 people living at Fort Hood at any one time, and half of them are civilians.
So that’s where my cocaine went!
Well, sure, but none of the ones mentioned so far were by an Ay-Rab, and that’s what it’s all about.
Did you know all Muslims are Ay-Rabs? Its true!
-Joe
It might get awkward if you shouted it just before you climaxed:
“Fuck you, Fox New!”
“Fox News?! My name is Peggy!”
It’s not really a big deal. I was just curious if the information was valid or if it was just a rumor. Obviously, if it came from soldiers who were actual eye witnesses, it is valid.
Yes, because eyewitnesses are notoriously reliable on what they’ve seen and heard.
I guess the point is, that this incident, by most reasonable definitions, was in fact a terror attack performed in the name of islamic jihad. And the point Fox News and the conservative press is making, is that there seems to be a lot of reluctance by the President and some Democratic lawmakers to actually call it that, in light of some pretty strong prima facie evidence.
Don’t forget the Amish School incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting
Beltway Sniper, anyone?
By definition, terrorism aims to promote or force societal or political change. I seriously doubt Dr. Crazypants genuinely believed in any real sense that he would accomplish anything vis-a-vis effecting change in US foreign/military policy by his actions.
I’m just trying not to be cynical.
For now, I don’t believe what happened was a “terrorist” attack. I think the guy was a garden variety nutcase. However, I am willing to wait until all the facts are known before I pass final jugement.
I would have to agree. From what I’ve been hearing, Maj. Hasan was undergoing a major psychosis. In short: He went 'round the bend. If he weren’t a muslim, he still probably would have shot up some place.
Here’s really the only definition that matters:
Terrorism: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” 28 C.F.R. § 0.85.
if the perpetrator is not part of a larger organization, or if he doesn’t communicate, in some way, to his victims, his intent to coerce/intimidate concomitantly with his terroristic act, then the act really is not fairly classified as terrorism, if you ask me. it’s just crime.
I disagree. It can easily have been the work of someone who was essentially “losing it” and choose this method to lash out. If a whack job on the street stabs someone while screaming about the Jews do we conclude that the attack was motivated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or do we say it was just the ravings of a lunatic and don’t attribute organized motivation to an insane act?
The reluctance to attribute motive to this incident is because the evidence isn’t all in yet and there’s good reason not to believe this is a terror attack in the name of islamic jihad.