Haven’t you been following the bouncing ball? I have provided various citations showing that Hasan was heavily involved in jihadic Islam. I have provided an eyewitness account that he shouted “Allahu Akbar”. I have provided information that he had business cards that didn’t mention he was in the army but gave his occupation as “Soldier of Allah”. I have provided evidence that al-Akwari, Hasan’s spiritual mentor, certainly thinks it has everything to do with Islam. And for bonus points, I provided citations showing that your definition of “enemy” wasn’t used by anybody but you.
In fact, unlike you, who have provided absolutely nothing, I have provided citations for everything I have claimed.
What in the world are you talking about? Was the United States not at war in Vietnam because there was no threat the USA could be overthrown? Nobody has had a shot at overthrowing the US government since 1812, so I guess that means we’ve been at peace for 200 years!
Christianity doesn’t cause people to kill doctors, but if you’re the type of person who’s already prone to violence against other people, then if you come to believe that abortion is a great moral evil and that you have a moral duty to stop it by any means necessary, that belief may focus your violence against doctors who perform abortions.
Since it is generally easier to overlook something than to make something up out of the whole cloth, my general rule of thumb is give more weight to the person who saw or heard something than to the person who saw or heard nothing.
However, you could be right. Where did you read it, and who said it? I have provided a citation to the actual words of an actual person.
Finally, whether he said “Allahu Akbar” or not, there is plenty of other evidence (cited upthread) that radical jihad made up a large portion of Hasan’s ideation.
Do you have a cite for your statement that at least one medic at the scene has said that Hasan never spoke? I’m not just giving you a hard time here. I have been trying to find confirmation of this in a reputable news source and I can’t find it.
NPR reported that “FBI investigators aren’t sure Hasan really did say those words before he started shooting,” but this isn’t an affirmative indication that eyewitness testimony is in dispute. It could merely mean that the investigation is ongoing.
I did find that the AP and Washington Post reported yesterday and Friday that
Mother Jones has an article saying it . I also heard a witness on the radio say he heard no shouting at all. I know it would fit nicely into peoples preconceptions but I thing we should wait before we proclaim it actually happened. This is not Fox News yet.
Is shouting “Allahu akbar” before going on a killing spree evidence of being a terrorist or just evidence of being Muslim? If it’s evidence of being a terrorist, why?
Being nuts had nothing to do with it. If being nuts caused people to become spree killers, then all nuts would be spree killers. Therefore being nuts does not cause people to be spree killers. It’s pretty simple.
Well, let’s see. The person posting the story says:
and the account says:
So on one hand, we have an unsigned account by an unknown person who was not an eyewitness to the start of the shooting, who wasn’t even in the building when the shooting started, who says nothing either way about “Allahu Akbar”… please tell me this is not your idea of a citation.
On the other hand, I have cited a person with a name who was there when the shooting started and has the bullet wounds to prove it, and he says Hasan did yell “Allahu Akbar”.
It certainly doesn’t prove that the person was a terrorist. It does add to all the other evidence that Hasan was deeply into radical jihad. It does provide us with a clue as to what was on his mind. He didn’t shout “you bastards are putting mind altering poison in my Cheerios” or “Jim, you passed me over for promotion” …
To me, and to US law, a terrorist is someone who uses violence or assassination to try to force people or the government to change their policies. Hasan wanted the Army to change its policies on Muslims serving in actions against Muslims. He warned of “adverse events” if they didn’t change the policy. He created an adverse event, shouting “Allahu Akhbar” as he killed people he didn’t even know.
When I connect the dots, I get “terrorist trying to change Army policy”. However, if you have an alternate theory of why he killed all those folks, bring it on. He wasn’t looking for revenge on an individual, he wasn’t going postal to kill a supervisor who had done him wrong … so if he wasn’t trying to make a point of some kind, what was he doing?
Thank you for the cite. This may be the article that you are referring to (please correct me if I am wrong).
I realize that this is Great Debates, but I wish it was possible to ask for a cite without people getting worked up about it. In my posts in this thread I have been saying that we do not yet know Hasan’s motivations or mental state at the time of the crime; for this reason I have not advocated for or against the “terrorism” issue. I am trying to evaluate the available evidence and I encourage others to do the same.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I don’t know why Hasan did what he did. I was just disagreeing with the denial of the possibility that it could have had something to do with his view of Islam.