How is that relevant? Show me any legitimate dictionary that includes a likelihood of winning as a necessary component of being an enemy. By your definition the US has no enemies as it is the most powerful military country in the world and cannot be beaten.
I think you have lost the plot there.
To me his actions were that of a crazy coward, it takes no bravery to go into a room of people you know are unarmed and open fire on them. The men who tried to help their fellow soldiers were acting bravely,one threw a chair at him. He must have also been suicidal or he wouldn’t have made such an open terrible act, He may have expected to be killed and hailed as a hero to the people who use cowardly tactics as well.
The US regularly kills potential combatants who are well outside the battlefield by shooting hellfire missiles into their homes, sometimes on the information of people associated with the enemy. What makes that normal warfare, but not the killing of a bunch of certain combatants on an army base to prevent them from going to war?
Does the label of terrorism just turn on who you think is right in a conflict and who you think is wrong? The only objective distinction that occurs to me is that the pilot of the drone is a declared combatant (though he may be sitting in Virginia). But are all non-combatants who use force against combatants off the battlefield terrorists? That would be a very broad definition indeed, especially in a war in which the line between combatant and non-combatant is pretty blurry. It would also conveniently make all members of a spontaneous resistance terrorists.
Terrorism is much easier to identify when an individual targets civilians, and does so with the motivation of achieving a certain effect on a populace as opposed to the tactical desire to kill those civilians. 9/11, Oklahoma City, suicide bombing, etc. That, to me, is classic terrorism. And neither element is clearly satisfied here: he does not seem to have been targeting civilians and he may indeed have been trying to prevent these particular combatants from going to war.
It is also isn’t clear to me what purpose is served by calling this terrorism. It would seem to undermine the War on Terror to do so, since this is exactly the kind of act that cannot be stopped by fighting people in Iraq/Afghanistan and indeed is only exacerbated by such tactics.
The Washington Post has reported that the Army has no record that Hasan sought to leave the military, and that even if he had sought to leave the Army, it would have been difficult for him to leave prior to fulfilling the service obligation that arose from his medical training. cite
NYT has reported that it is difficult to avoid deployment, particularly for who have received substantial or valuable training, such as physicians. cite
I didn’t say anything about them being an enemy, personally that whole discussion seems pretty silly. I was agreeing with Dios claim that they are not a “serious threat to the U.S.” which you seemed to find unbelievable.
The you misunderstand - I disagree with using whether they are a serious threat as a major criterion in determining whether they are “enemy”.
Seems to me that Hasan could be characterized more appropriately as the perpetrator of a hate crime than of terrorism.
I won’t delve into the legal definitions in detail. But I believe in the recent thread about hate crimes, we put forth the idea that a hate crime is one in which the intent is to not simply harm the victim(s), but to send a message of threat to others belonging to the same group.
Hard to distinguish from terrorism, perhaps. But I think there is a difference.
From what I understand of Hasan’s attack, he may have intended to send a message to someone (other Americans, non-Muslims, the military?). So that strikes me as closer to a hate crime.
Insulting posts like these are not allowed in this forum. Criticize Diogenes the Cynic if you like, but avoid personal insults, such as calling people stupid and suggesting they can’t read.
Point taken, thanks. I get frustrated.
w.
While none of us know what he was thinking, he had said that he wanted to be officially excused from going to fight against other Muslims. Seems like a good bet that part of his ideation was on the order of “I’ll show them what happens when they force a peaceful follower of Allah to fight against his brothers! They’ll be sorry! They’ll have to change their ways.” That’s what makes it terrorism to me.
So you’re citing your own fanatsy of what he might have been thinking as evidence that he was a terrorist?
Sorry, he was just a nutjob. Islam had nothing to do with it, any more than Christianity makes people kill doctors. We can still credit President Obama with allowing zero terrorist attacks during his term in office.
The bolding above is mine.
Aren’t you citing your own fantasy of what he was thinking?
Isn’t it his subjective intent that matters? We don’t know what he was thinking. Perhaps in his mind Islam did have something to do with it, or perhaps not. If it is determined that he was mentally ill at the time of the attack, must we throw his subjective intent out the window? Even though I would like to credit President Obama with allowing zero terrorist attacks during his term in office, I don’t think we can make a determination yet in this case.
Oh, now I get it. For you, this not about about whether this is terrorism. It’s once again about Obama.
Gosh, I didn’t realize that this discussion was about whether Obama has or doesn’t have the super-power to stop someone in Texas from getting a weapon and killing people. But now I understand why you are so rabid with your claim that “it wasn’t terrorism, oh no, it was just a regular guy” … because you think that it means something about Obama.
What could Obama or Bush or any President have done have prevented this? That’s the height of lunacy, to make that argument on either side. I can understand Republicans making that argument. But the correct response is to point and laugh, not to say “Obama has kept us safe from terror”, as though he could have stopped the attack.
Assuming that the media reports are correct, Hasan was a radical Muslim with ties to other radical Muslims, who was trying to get out of the army because he was a Muslim who didn’t want to fight against Muslims, and shouted “Allahu akbar” when he started shooting … but oh, no, this had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, nothing at all.
You are right that Christianity doesn’t make people kill doctors, just as Islam doesn’t make psychiatrists kill unarmed soldiers.
However, some doctor killers cite their Christian beliefs as being the reason they kill doctors. I hope you can see the difference and make the obvious inferences.
Turley: Fort Hood shooter is a murderer, not a terrorist - Raw Story I vote no. He was not putting political pressure on the government when he went crazy. It had no agenda ,saying that if we did not pull out, more soldiers would die in American bases. It was more like a guy going postal. There are a few people who got guns and shot people after they lost their jobs. Did that result in less people getting laid off? Was it supposed to?
The whole lot of you just don’t see it. You haven’t a fucking clue what its like to be a fanatic believer. I’ve been there. Sometimes your left without a choice.
I"ll argue the point that Hassan went suddenly nuts. But I won’t argue the point that he was nuts for a very long time. All fanatics are nuts even if they don’t breach the confines of our overall ideas of acceptable behavior.
This guy simply was concerned with his participation in an organization devoted to killing the people of Allah. But he wasn’t directly involved. He tried to extricate himself from the US military by pulling a Maxwell Klinger to make himself unsuitable for service.
But when push comes to shove and all his options ran out, there was no way he could justify allowing himself to participate in the war zone against Muslims. Allah would most certainly deny him. He had dug himself a hole, and as much as he himself was not inclined to violence, the only way out was to terminate his temporal future and secure God’s favour for the afterlife.
He made the same decision that a Muslim suicide bomber makes.
From your citation …
As your citation points out, terrorism is more than just killing people. It is killing people to try to force society or a group of people to change its actions or its laws because they are afraid of the consequences if they don’t.
So shooting an abortion doctor is assuredly terrorism. It it trying to get people to change the abortion laws through violence. It is trying to get doctors to stop doing abortions because they are afraid they will get killed.
How is that not terrorism even under the most restrictive definition? I find your citation wholly unconvincing.
Yes, a hate crime is not necessarily terrorism. If some guys beat up a man because he is black, that’s a hate crime that is just violence.
But if they burn a cross on a lawn to scare black people out of town, that’s a hate crime that is terrorism. Turley seems oblivious to the difference.
In the Hasan case, he wanted the Army to change its laws about Muslims, and warned of “adverse events” if they did not listen to him. They did not listen to him. He created an “adverse event”.
Coincidence? Possibly …
This might be true, but your post seemed to me to imply that forcing the army to make more Muslim COs was a part of his plan. I think that might be a bit of a reach.
This is madness. Muslim armies have warred on other Muslim armies since there have been Muslims. How come the Muslim soldiers in those armies didn’t go on killing sprees to uphold the gentle nature of the Religion of Peace™? Iran and Iraq had one of the most bloody wars in recent history, millions of Muslims killed by other Muslims, and you want to claim with a straight face that Hasan was out of options?
Although I greatly wish that there were, there is nothing in Islam that says Muslims can’t fight other Muslims. This is the most candy-assed excuse for Hasan that I have ever read. The “decision that a Muslim suicide bomber makes” is all too often to kill other Muslims, so your claim doesn’t make any sense at all.
You are right, it could be just a coincidence that he wanted the Army to make special rules for Muslims, and when they didn’t he killed as many Army personnel as he could.
Or not …