Senate Report: EVERYBODY Knew Major Hasan Was Insane Jihadist, But Kept Quiet To Be PC

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That sounds like editorializing, not any kind of evidence based conclusion.

By the way, why is it that nobody ever characterizes abortion bombers or IRA terrorists as "Christian extermists?’

Perhaps because there isn’t a worldwide terrorist movement whose goal is global Christian supremacy.

[Cluricaun]

@LonesomePolecat

Perhaps because there isn’t a worldwide terrorist movement whose goal is global Christian supremacy.

Sometimes I’m not so sure about that one.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

When you say, “Sounds like…” do you mean that after you read the report in its entirety, you believe it failed to provide sufficient evidence for those assertions?

Yes.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@LonesomePolecat

Perhaps because there isn’t a worldwide terrorist movement whose goal is global Christian supremacy.

There also isn’t such a movement for Islam.

Christianity actually does have a stated goal of global supremacy, though. Just FYI.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Why does it matter whether the Department of Defense is separating out violent extremists into specific categories?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That sounds like editorializing, not any kind of evidence based conclusion.

@Bricker

When you say, “Sounds like…” do you mean that after you read the report in its entirety, you believe it failed to provide sufficient evidence for those assertions?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes.

On pages 47-48, starting with section B, the report specifically identifies the West/Clark document called Report of the DoD Independent Review, Protecting The Force: Lessons/rom Ft. Hood (January 15,2010). Footnote 117 provides this citation.

The first paragraph at the top of page 48 says, inter alia:

Neither of
Secretary Gates’ two memoranda directing implementation of particular West/Clark recommendations mentions violent Islamist extremism explicitly. Both memoranda continue to downplay the unique threat of violent Islamist extremism by portraying it as a subset of a more general threat - either workplace violence or undefined “extremism” more generally.

This is the evidence from which the sentences I quoted were drawn. In what way is that insufficient?

[flickster]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is no such thing as “political correctness” and never has been.

Thanks…now I’ve got to clean up all that coffee I just spewed all over my keyboard

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Why does it matter whether the Department of Defense is separating out violent extremists into specific categories?

The report contrasts this policy with how DOD addressed white supremacist movements. As I understand it, the logic goes, “DOD separated white supremacist extremists into their own category for presumably valid reasons, and those reasons must be equally applicable to violent Islamist extremists.”

So it seems to me you might argue:

1. No, they didn’t.
2. Yes, they did, but there was a good reason for treating white supremacists differently.
3. Something else.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There also isn’t such a movement for Islam.

You are in a very deep state of denial.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Christianity actually does have a stated goal of global supremacy, though. Just FYI.

Get back to me when they start flying jetliners into skyscrapers.

[Marley23]

@Cluricaun

According to this article by NPR 40% of active duty military in the US identify as evangelical christians. I’m sure of that 40% that a healthy number of them read, watch, or listen to some sort of evangelical material that espouses what many of us non evangelicals would consider tending towards violent extremism, and despite the military’s wishes otherwise most of them enage in evangilism while on duty, which could be considered fixating on your religious convictions in an inappropriate way. I’m in no way excusing Hasan, I’m just pointing out that if you start tossing religious nutters out of the service you’ll quickly cease to have much of a service left.

Do you think a lot of them are in touch with people like al-Awlaki? Let’s say I’m skeptical.

@Bricker

Um… there are other quotes which make the case you dismiss a bit stronger:

Neither of those quotes addresses the PC idea at all.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

On pages 47-48, starting with section B, the report specifically identifies the West/Clark document called Report of the DoD Independent Review, Protecting The Force: Lessons/rom Ft. Hood (January 15,2010). Footnote 117 provides this citation.

The first paragraph at the top of page 48 says, inter alia:

This is the evidence from which the sentences I quoted were drawn. In what way is that insufficient?

That is not evidence, that is more editorializing. The characerizatiuon of “downplaying” is a personal opinion of the author and is based on personal assumptions about “Islamist extremism,” not on facts. It presumes to know the motivations of Secretary Gates (who is a Republican, by the way, and served in the same position under Bush - not exactly a “PC” liberal). It is not evidence based.

[Bricker]

@Marley23

Neither of those quotes addresses the PC idea at all.

Actually… you’re right. Both address the failure to take action; neither address the the reason that action was not taken.

My bad.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

The report contrasts this policy with how DOD addressed white supremacist movements. As I understand it, the logic goes, “DOD separated white supremacist extremists into their own category for presumably valid reasons, and those reasons must be equally applicable to violent Islamist extremists.”

So it seems to me you might argue:

1. No, they didn’t.
2. Yes, they did, but there was a good reason for treating white supremacists differently.
3. Something else.

It’s the difference between a group and an individual.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@LonesomePolecat

You are in a very deep state of denial.

Pony up the evidence for your Global Islamic Supremacy theory.

Get back to me when they start flying jetliners into skyscrapers.

They don’t have to. They have cruise missiles.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That is not evidence, that is more editorializing. The characerizatiuon of “downplaying” is a personal opinion of the author and is based on personal assumptions about “Islamist extremism,” not on facts. It presumes to know the motivations of Secretary Gates (who is a Republican, by the way, and served in the same position under Bush - not exactly a “PC” liberal). It is not evidence based.

No. It provides the evidence that the threat of violence is characterized as general violence, not Islamist extremeism.

As I just conceded to Marley23, it specifically does NOT make assumptions about why this was done. It merely says that this was done. That’s not editorializing, and it is taken directly from the West/Clark report.

That’s a fact, in other words, drawn directly from evidence. The West/Clark report DOES discuss the incident without emphasizing Islamist extremism. That’s a fact.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@Marley23

Neither of those quotes addresses the PC idea at all.

Then why did they go to the trouble of point out that the DOD…

…still has not specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack as what it is: violent Islamist extremism. Instead, DoD’s approach subsumes this threat within workplace violence or undefined “violent extremism” more generally.

And that…

DoD’s failure to identify the threat of violent Islamist extremism explicitly and directly conflicts with DoD’s history of directly confronting white supremacism and other threatening activity among servicemembers. DoD should revise its policies and training in order to confront the threat of violent Islamist extremism directly.

…if not to point out that there must be SOME reason the DOD is avoiding the term “Islamic extremism?” If not for PC reasons, then why?

[Cluricaun]

@Marley23

Do you think a lot of them are in touch with people like al-Awlaki? Let’s say I’m skeptical.

Well define “like”. People who advocate violence as a mean to religious ends? Like killing abortion doctors?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

No. It provides the evidence that the threat of violence is characterized as general violence, not Islamist extremeism.

This carries an assumption that such a characterizatuon is incorrect. I disagree that it is. This was one lone nutjob, not an organized group.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Then why did they go to the trouble of point out that the DOD…

And that…
…if not to point out that there must be SOME reason the DOD is avoiding the term “Islamic extremism?” If not for PC reasons, then why?

Because it would not be accurate, that’s why. I know the right wing desperately WANTS this incident to be represenataive of some kind of wider, organized effort, but really it was just one nutball, no different than the Tucson shooter.

[Marley23]

@Barkis_is_Willin

…if not to point out that there must be SOME reason the DOD is avoiding the term “Islamic extremism?” If not for PC reasons, then why?

I agree the authors are probably be trying to say that’s a PC thing. They think the military should do more to separate Islamic extremism from other extremism. I don’t know if that’s necessary. But even if they are right about, it does not say what the OP said: that Hasan’s warning signs were ignored because people were afraid of being called Islamophobes if they reported what he was doing. In fact, the military, the FBI, and Defense Department were aware of what he was doing and they were investigating him. They failed to act, but it wasn’t because of PC concerns.