Was the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism?

[Glaucus]

That's what everyone wants to know. Is this just a case of 12 murders, or an act of terrorism? What's your personal opinion and why?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Hey, if talking on a megaphone or wearing a T-shirt or talking about the Constitution is terrorism, hey, why not.

But it isn't likely to be. What's the point of orchestrating a mass shooting in the US. Who would notice?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

By the way, if it was an attack arranged by an outside organization then it was on a military target so pretty much legit.

 

[redrumloa]

That's what everyone wants to know. Is this just a case of 12 murders, or an act of terrorism? What's your personal opinion and why?

I am waiting on the investigation, it could be either. On one hand, he was seen right before wearing traditional garb and allegedly making some remarks that would suggest terrorism. He also attended the mosque of known terrorist... OTOH he is a long term military man. This may be a judgment call kind of thing, what the fine line between terrorism and someone going postal. I am leaning towards this being terrorism, an American version of a suicide bomber. For PC religious sensitivity reasons, we may never know.

One thing this points out is many of these mosques are breeding grounds for terrorists.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

This may be a judgment call kind of thing, what the fine line between terrorism and someone going postal.

If a terrorist commits a terrorist act and everyone is left trying to guess if it was terrorism them he was a lousy terrorist. A terrorist act is supposed to be OBVIOUS else it's pointless.

 

[Glaucus]

This may be a judgment call kind of thing, what the fine line between terrorism and someone going postal.

If a terrorist commits a terrorist act and everyone is left trying to guess if it was terrorism them he was a lousy terrorist. A terrorist act is supposed to be OBVIOUS else it's pointless.

Actually, all terrorism needs to do is cause terror - lack f obviousness may at times add to the terror. Not knowing who hit you or why you were hit can add to confusion and paranoia. The DC shooter who terrorized the public by murdering indiscriminately certainly caused all sorts of terror yet his motives were anything but obvious. And keep in mind it has always been al-Qaeda's MO to NOT claim responsibility which is a little unusual.

I've noticed that after ALL spree shootings people are terrified. There's no doubt the shooter knew this question would be pondered in the aftermath. A shooter knows that only so many will be killed and the mayhem will last for only so long, but the terror could linger for a generation.

To answer my own question directly: This was both a criminal act of murder and of terrorism, which makes it no different from any other case of spree shooting. We don't think of columbine as terrorism, but it certainly had that effect and there's little reason to believe that wasn't the intended effect.

Was the Fort Hood shooter acting as part of some international terror group? Maybe, maybe not, but the net effect is the same. Americans are now more scared of their fellow muslim Americans and can no longer allow themselves to believe that American born muslims are above suspicion. I find it hard to believe the shooter had other intentions.

 

[faethor]

I want to see what the investigation turns up. So far the news has reported there was no terrorist communications found on his computer. In addition, I've seen no terrorist groups claim responsibility. I'd bet on he was simply mental and not an actual member of any terrorist organization.

 

[ltstanfo]

I want to see what the investigation turns up. So far the news has reported there was no terrorist communications found on his computer. In addition, I've seen no terrorist groups claim responsibility. I'd bet on he was simply mental and not an actual member of any terrorist organization.

I'm with you and Red on this one Faethor. Let's see what the investigation turns up. So far the news outlets are going off on every possible tangent but until the evidence comes forward, it is speculation.

At this point, I'm inclined to lean towards an individual who "lost it" which is interesting considering this guy's career field. I just hope that this case is allowed to be tried by the military (as it should be) and not in a federal court for political reasons ("sensitivity", etc...). This was after all a military officer who apparently had legally purchased weapons that committed a crime on military property. The only rights this guy should get are those afforded by the UCMJ - including the sentencing. Time will tell where this goes.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[cecilia]

it's long been something of a joke that psychologists are more crazy than the rest of the population.

i guess if it was really true more of them would be shooting people

 

[Glaucus]

At this point, I'm inclined to lean towards an individual who "lost it" which is interesting considering this guy's career field. I just hope that this case is allowed to be tried by the military (as it should be) and not in a federal court for political reasons ("sensitivity", etc...). This was after all a military officer who apparently had legally purchased weapons that committed a crime on military property. The only rights this guy should get are those afforded by the UCMJ - including the sentencing. Time will tell where this goes.

I would think that regardless of where he is tried he's not likely to get of easy. I wonder which of the two trials would allow the public the greatest sense of justice and understanding?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I would think that regardless of where he is tried he's not likely to get of easy. I wonder which of the two trials would allow the public the greatest sense of justice and understanding?

This guy was found guilty within hours by the media before the entire country. There is no jurisdiction in which he could find an unprejudiced jury. The other suspects were never named.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

A list of the dead is here.

 

[Glaucus]

This guy was found guilty within hours by the media before the entire country. There is no jurisdiction in which he could find an unprejudiced jury. The other suspects were never named.

Sucks to be a mass killer doesn't it?

I'm not too concerned about the fairness of the trial. What I'm more concerned about is will we be able to hear, in his own words, why he did it? Will he choose to show remorse or be defiant to the end? There's no question about it, this guy will go away for ever if not face the death penalty (not use that's an option). But that's my least concern.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Actually, all terrorism needs to do is cause terror -

You seem to be using the new expanded definition of terrorism that has become so popular with law enforcement in the last decade.

Terrorism has political motive - it is trying to change policy or government and as such carries demands.

Random acts of scary violence is more in line with state sponsored destabilization like when the US destabilized the Balkans.

The DC shooter who terrorized the public by murdering indiscriminately certainly caused all sorts of terror yet his motives were anything but obvious.

Terrorizing the public is not terrorism unless it is the means by which a political end is being advanced. If not, it is just a plain old crime.

If spreading terror were the crime, the TV news would be in jail.

To answer my own question directly: This was both a criminal act of murder and of terrorism, which makes it no different from any other case of spree shooting. We don't think of columbine as terrorism, but it certainly had that effect and there's little reason to believe that wasn't the intended effect.

But not part of a concerted effort to change any policy.

Americans are now more scared of their fellow muslim Americans and can no longer allow themselves to believe that American born muslims are above suspicion. I find it hard to believe the shooter had other intentions.

If the intention of the shooter was to further marginalize Muslims in America then he is unlikely to be a Muslim. This is something that would better benefit the Christian power structure and current ruling classes. It wouldn't be something that a sane Muslim would aspire to do. Either it is a false flag designed to smear Muslims or the guy just wasn't thinking that far ahead.

And getting back to my initial point ... terrorism by shooting spree in the US is pointless. It barely rises above the background noise. Firearms kill about 150 people a week in the US homicidally and 350 people a week suicidally. Twelve people homicidally shot in one place at one time is a mere 1% blip in the week.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I'm not too concerned about the fairness of the trial. What I'm more concerned about is will we be able to hear, in his own words, why he did it?

See. He hasn't been found guilty yet but you say he did it. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is completely violated. You have already found him guilty based on what the TV news said within hours of the event - and you seem to be pretty sure that he's a terrorist too (unless you are just playing devils advocate on that subject) - all on heresay.

 

[Glaucus]

See. He hasn't been found guilty yet but you say he did it. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is completely violated. You have already found him guilty based on what the TV news said within hours of the event - and you seem to be pretty sure that he's a terrorist too (unless you are just playing devils advocate on that subject) - all on heresay.

Technically, you're right, he's just a suspect. But something tells me there's really not much doubt and I would be shocked for him to plead anything other then guilty. And as for your false flag theory, a dead terrorist would have fit into that model a lot better then a living one, mostly because living ones talk and that can cause massive problems don't ya think?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Technically, you're right, he's just a suspect. But something tells me there's really not much doubt [...]

Yes, something called the media (without which you wouldn't even know it happened).

And as for your false flag theory, a dead terrorist would have fit into that model a lot better then a living one, mostly because living ones talk and that can cause massive problems don't ya think?

1) He was reported to have been killed at the scene initially. It turned out subsequently that wasn't true. Now we will (hopefully) get to hear what he has to say about this.

2) At least two other people were arrested as suspects. They were subsequently released.

3) It is not my theory that it is a false flag. I currently tend towards the theory that he just snapped. My point was that if it was a deliberate act designed to marginalize Muslims then it would be more likely to have been done by persons who WANT Muslims to be marginalized rather than by a Muslim.

4) The press was very quick in naming names and muddying the water with rumours about Al-Qaeda connections. This is at the least reckless. It may even be nefarious opportunistic pot stirring.


If you check the dead, about half were Medical. That this happened at the processing center where other soldiers were being processed, (the place was apparently quite crowded) implies that there were 50% medical and 50% non medical there at the time if the shootings were random or that he was targeting colleagues (um ... allegedly).

He is said to have used an FN Five-seven which has magazine sizes of 10, 20 and 30 rounds (just what you need for self defense - if you are a totally crap shot - but then maybe you shouldn't have a gun if you are that shaky). So if he had two of the really big magazines he could have fired off 60 rounds hitting someone about 2/3rds of the time. I have no idea whether the 20 or 30 clips are legal or not. If they are I'll bet you will start to hear talk about why they shouldn't be.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually, all terrorism needs to do is cause terror -

You seem to be using the new expanded definition of terrorism that has become so popular with law enforcement in the last decade.

Terrorism has political motive - it is trying to change policy or government and as such carries demands.

I disagree with that as it is too narrow a definition. I think terrorism most commonly exists outside of a political context. For me, an abusive husband is an example of terrorism, as it's not just the violence that's a problem, but the threat of it as well. Terrorism for me is the manipulation of fear for some gain, whether it be political or personal.

[quote:1b84vyb6]
The DC shooter who terrorized the public by murdering indiscriminately certainly caused all sorts of terror yet his motives were anything but obvious.

Terrorizing the public is not terrorism unless it is the means by which a political end is being advanced. If not, it is just a plain old crime.[/quote:1b84vyb6]I don't see why we need political motive to brand it as terrorism if the net effect is the same. I think all spree shooters should be classified as terrorists as spreading terror is clearly one of their main goals. In fact, by your definition the Montreal Massacre would classify as terrorism as the shooter certainly had a political motive - anti-feminism. But I see little difference between that and the Virginia Tech or Columbine shootings.

If spreading terror were the crime, the TV news would be in jail.

If they were fabricating such events then I would agree with you. Since it's the nature of humans to communicate their experiences, reporting the news is just human nature. There's little reason to believe that news of such events would maintain a higher level of integrity or be any less terrifying if it was distributed souly via word of mouth.

[quote:1b84vyb6]
To answer my own question directly: This was both a criminal act of murder and of terrorism, which makes it no different from any other case of spree shooting. We don't think of columbine as terrorism, but it certainly had that effect and there's little reason to believe that wasn't the intended effect.

But not part of a concerted effort to change any policy.[/quote:1b84vyb6]I actually did not venture a guess as to motivation here. What I did say was that motive was not important. Big difference.

[quote:1b84vyb6]Americans are now more scared of their fellow muslim Americans and can no longer allow themselves to believe that American born Muslims are above suspicion. I find it hard to believe the shooter had other intentions.

If the intention of the shooter was to further marginalize Muslims in America then he is unlikely to be a Muslim. This is something that would better benefit the Christian power structure and current ruling classes. It wouldn't be something that a sane Muslim would aspire to do. Either it is a false flag designed to smear Muslims or the guy just wasn't thinking that far ahead.[/quote:1b84vyb6]But do you believe al-Qaeda to follow the true teachings of Islam anyway? I'd say about as closely as GWB follows Christianity's virtues of peace, forgiveness and brotherly love. al-Qaeda is a self serving entity that thrives of East-West tensions. For them the American Muslims integrated into the American culture are even worse then the rest of the infidel Americans.

Anyway, I'm not really saying that he was working for al-Qaeda, although I suppose it's possible. My hunch so far is that he operated on his own. But that's not to say his beliefs are not inline with al-Qaeda. I guess what I am saying is that any Muslim who contemplates a spree shooting like this MUST have some understanding that the non-Muslim Americans will be asking questions about al-Qaeda. For him to go ahead with this shooting tells me that he was ok with that.

And getting back to my initial point ... terrorism by shooting spree in the US is pointless. It barely rises above the background noise. Firearms kill about 150 people a week in the US homicidally and 350 people a week suicidally. Twelve people homicidally shot in one place at one time is a mere 1% blip in the week.

Here in Winnipeg a kid pulled out a pellet gun at the mall the other week. Police were all over the place and a news reporter interviewed my girlfriend about the incident as we were leaving the mall. In the US you have to kill a bunch of people to get on the news. But that's exactly what this guy did, and he knew he'd make the news now didn't he?

 

[redrumloa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_ ... d_shooting

Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan's contacts with a radical Muslim cleric and others of concern to the U.S. and what they did with the information.

Hoekstra confirmed this week that the government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam, beginning in December 2008.

 

[Glaucus]

Looks like some heads are about to roll...