Should Nidal Hasan have been scheduled for deployment to the Middle East?

[Kathryn]

TashaN, I really appreciate the tone and most of the sentiments in your post.

I have read (of course, in English) the entire Koran. To be honest with you, it sounds remarkably like the Old Testament (which is another book with some pretty harsh teachings in it). Beyond that, I haven't studied much about Islam.

I have had many Islamic and/or Palestinian friends and co workers. I can assure you that I genuinely like and respect them, and that I have never heard anti-American or violent sentiments from them, or support of any form of terrorism. My heart goes out to them since I know that they are appalled and embarrassed by the actions of radical Muslims - just as I am appalled and embarrassed by the actions of radical Christians.

Whenever a maniac do a similar act who is not a Muslim, your media would call it "shooting", but if this has been done by a Muslim, it will miraculously change to "terrorist attack"!!!

I do not agree with this statement. Timothy McVeigh claimed a form of separatist Christianity, and he was definitely labeled (and definitely was) a terrorist by our media. I do not know of any incidents in which radical Christians or Buddhists or Scientologists have gunned down government workers or civilians in a peaceful grouping, or anyone else for that matter, screaming "God is great!" or any other religious slogan while doing so - after months or years of contacting other radicals and interacting with them, and having business cards written up with "Soldier of Jesus (SoJ)" or the equivalent, etc. If you can give me examples, I'll reconsider my position on this.

In the case of abortion clinic bombings and shootings, the media always makes the religious affiliation of the attacker abundantly clear.

you forgot about the similar incidents which happened in military bases by non-Muslims?

What similar incidents? There have been similar incidents on military installations by non-Muslims? Source please.

why to draw that *mental image* for a Muslim saying Allah akbar and killing the infidels as you have described it before?

Because that's what Hasan did. He hollered out "Allahu Akbar!" and shot off over 100 rounds of ammunition - and if you can show me that he did not consider the people he shot "infidels" then I am going to assume that he DID consider them infidels - since that's what the Koran plainly teaches - and he is a devout (albeit radical) Muslim.

Listen, I don't believe that Hasan is representative of any but the most radical and violent of Muslims. Just as Timothy McVeigh doesn't accurately represent most Christians. But they do accurately represent the fringe elements of their faiths - and are terrorists in my opinion.

[CelticRavenwolf]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Because that's what Hasan did. He hollered out "Allahu Akbar!" and shot off over 100 rounds of ammunition - and if you can show me that he did not consider the people he shot "infidels" then I am going to assume that he DID consider them infidels - since that's what the Koran plainly teaches - and he is a devout (albeit radical) Muslim.

Again, allegedly. There are still no first-hand named eyewitnesses specifically testifying that he said that. Thanks to the internet, heresay and misinformation spread like wildfire. I'm not saying he DIDN'T say those words, but it hasn't been verified yet, so it's just one more thing that people should be refraining to use to jump to conclusions.

The guy is alive and conscious. It's only a matter of time before we get to find out what he thought of the people he shot.

[Kathryn]

Originally Posted by CelticRavenwolf

Again, allegedly. There are still no first-hand named eyewitnesses specifically testifying that he said that. Thanks to the internet, heresay and misinformation spread like wildfire. I'm not saying he DIDN'T say those words, but it hasn't been verified yet, so it's just one more thing that people should be refraining to use to jump to conclusions.

The guy is alive and conscious. It's only a matter of time before we get to find out what he thought of the people he shot.

Here is a CNN video of an eyewitness account (in fact, this named soldier was actually wounded in the attack) which specifically states that the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he stood up and started shooting.

Nidal Hasan DID Yell “Allahu Akbar” « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Here is a CNN video of an eyewitness account (in fact, this named soldier was actually wounded in the attack) which specifically states that the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he stood up and started shooting.

Nidal Hasan DID Yell “Allahu Akbar” « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

So we have a soldier who was wounded stating that it indeed happened. That is some good evidence, but it's not conclusive. Remember how just some days ago marine reservist Jasen Bruce attacked a Greek Orthodox priest and claimed the same thing. He said that he went for his crotch and screamed Allahu Akbar as well. Not saying this soldier is a liar, but no testimony is infallible.

[Perfect Circle]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

So we have a soldier who was wounded stating that it indeed happened. That is some good evidence, but it's not conclusive. Remember how just some days ago marine reservist Jasen Bruce attacked a Greek Orthodox priest and claimed the same thing. He said that he went for his crotch and screamed Allahu Akbar as well. Not saying this soldier is a liar, but no testimony is infallible.

Granted, it's not absolute concrete proof, but it's definitely strong evidence that he said it. I mean.. what level of proof would satisfy you? There's not a video recording of him doing it, so we can only go off of first hand testimony, right?

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by Perfect Circle

Granted, it's not absolute concrete proof, but it's definitely strong evidence that he said it. I mean.. what level of proof would satisfy you? There's not a video recording of him doing it, so we can only go off of first hand testimony, right?

Oh no doubt. Like I said, that is very good evidence and certainly seems likely, but even that doesn't mean the attack was religiously motivated. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Muslims don't say "Allahu Akbar" only when they're killing people, but in all sorts of situations.

Still waiting to get some info from Hasan himself though, if only to get a more complete picture.

[Perfect Circle]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

I do not agree with this statement. Timothy McVeigh claimed a form of separatist Christianity, and he was definitely labeled (and definitely was) a terrorist by our media. I do not know of any incidents in which radical Christians or Buddhists or Scientologists have gunned down government workers or civilians in a peaceful grouping, or anyone else for that matter, screaming "God is great!" or any other religious slogan while doing so - after months or years of contacting other radicals and interacting with them, and having business cards written up with "Soldier of Jesus (SoJ)" or the equivalent, etc. If you can give me examples, I'll reconsider my position on this.

In the case of abortion clinic bombings and shootings, the media always makes the religious affiliation of the attacker abundantly clear.

What similar incidents? There have been similar incidents on military installations by non-Muslims? Source please.

Because that's what Hasan did. He hollered out "Allahu Akbar!" and shot off over 100 rounds of ammunition - and if you can show me that he did not consider the people he shot "infidels" then I am going to assume that he DID consider them infidels - since that's what the Koran plainly teaches - and he is a devout (albeit radical) Muslim.

Listen, I don't believe that Hasan is representative of any but the most radical and violent of Muslims. Just as Timothy McVeigh doesn't accurately represent most Christians. But they do accurately represent the fringe elements of their faiths - and are terrorists in my opinion.

I agree with you hear Kathryn, on a number of points. I admit that the media is quick to point out that he's a muslim, and that it only fuels the fires of any anti-islam sentiments that already exist. However, as you've noted Kathryn, abortion clinic bombers and Timothy McVeigh are two seperate examples of Christian radicals involved in a violent act, and the media was very clear that they were religiously motivated.

Now, if the man happened to be a muslim, and had not shouted a religious phrase as he committed a heinous act of violence, then he would be labeled just a shooter. However, that's not what happened. For instance, if I'm a Christian, and I pull a gun out in a mall and start shooting people as I yell "Death to Liberals!", then it's probably a safe assumption that I'm a political extremist. Or if I start yelling "NO Saints Forever", then I'm probably a sports extremist.... whatever... The point is, he is being labeled a religious extremist specifically because of his background and the fact that he yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he killed a dozen people.

That being said, where I disagree with Kathryn is in calling him a terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic used to coerce people into an action through the use of terror. I don't think that was his motive. Instead, I think he was just an unstable, suicidal man, who's motivations were probably political and religious. I don't think he had any hopes of coercing anyone into anything, I think he just wanted to go down in a blaze of suicidal and mis-directed religious glory.

[CelticRavenwolf]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Here is a CNN video of an eyewitness account (in fact, this named soldier was actually wounded in the attack) which specifically states that the shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he stood up and started shooting.

Nidal Hasan DID Yell “Allahu Akbar” « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Thanks for pointing this out, it's the first I've seen or even heard of it.

However, I can't help but be a little concerned that the soldier isn't remembering wrong. When the anchorman says "So he did shout "allahu akbar". Ah, we had had reports of that but nothing confirmed. But you were there, that's what you heard?"

The soldier replies "I believe so." Doesn't sound very certain for something he just stated that he heard. If a person hears others saying something happened often enough, the brain can be fooled into believing that it did. He willingly states that what he heard, then when asked to confirm that it was more than just heresay he comes back with "I believe so?"

So while it does move the needle more towards the "okay, so he did say it" side of the argument, I still wouldn't call that a definitive yes.

I'm mostly just playing the devil's advocate here. Because this is such a religiously charged situation, I think it's all the more important to make sure the facts are as accurate as possible. If that's what he said, the next step is finding out why. Religious zeal hyping up for the killings, mimicing previous suicide attacks, or calling to god in desperation?

[Kathryn]

"No named eyewitnesses claim he yelled Allahu Akbar." "OK, so maybe eyewitnesses do claim it - but maybe they aren't remembering it right."

Sheeze. What about this "maybe:" Maybe he said it. Seems highly likely in fact - unless you want to contort your mind and try to see anything BUT a volatile mix of extremist religion and politics as his motive.

Here's the definition of terrorism via the US Congress:

(From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j1A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.


So let's take a look at this:

Premeditated - obviously this act was premeditated. Hasan gave away his belongings, said goodbye to people, bought a gun, loaded it and brought along extra clips, chose a crowded place filled with US soldiers who would NOT be armed (they do not carry arms to a clinic visit), and drove himself there. The day before he committed the crime, he closed his safe deposit box at the bank and told the banker, "You'll never see me again." He appeared nervous. Then he went and did some target practicing at Stan's Shooting Range.

Hasan Wanted Soldiers Prosecuted, Officials Said - ABC News

Politically motivated - Is there any doubt this is the case? He had become increasingly obsessed with his doubts about the politics of war and religion in regard to US policy and his Muslim faith. He had even made PowerPoint presentations on the very topic! He had business cards made that listed him as a Soldier of Allah but made no mention of his military rank or affiliation. He used multiple names and email addresses as he contacted numerous Jihadist websites around the world. He had recently told a co worker that she was an infidel who would burn in hell because she was not Muslim.

Hasan Had Multiple E-mail Accounts, Officials Said - ABC News

He pushed for war crimes prosecution against the very soldiers he was counseling. (WOW - major violation of medical ethics.) My, what a helpful doctor he seems to be.

For those who are not aware of this - Islam is not simply a religious system - if practiced fully, it is unseparable from it's political and legal agenda. That is why in areas with large Muslim populations you will see sharia courts and sharia banking systems quickly established. Look at the large cities in Europe if you want to see the goals of Islam being fulfilled and forwarded.

Non-combatants - Soldiers on a military installation at a clinic are non combatants. For a bit of perspective on this - the building they were in is next door to a theater and about a block away from the PX and commissary, which I can assure you was packed with spouses and children of soldiers (Fort Hood's commissary is the largest in the world). For those of you unfamiliar with military installations, generally speaking, only MPs carry weapons on post. Hasan knew that the soldiers he would be opening fire on would be unarmed. He knew it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Clandestine agent - this is what we need to know more about. What was the depth and level of his affiliation with radical Muslim groups? Whose teachings was he following? Did anyone else know about this attack - OR encourage him to commit this act?

Hasan's actions so far have clearly fulfilled three of the four requirements to be considered an act of terrorism under US law - and the evidence is building on the fourth requirement.

We shall see.

At the very least, I would say he used incredibly bad judgment if he would "rather" be termed simply a mass murderer rather than a terrorist.

In the end, it doesn't really matter - IF he acted alone. What we need to determine is if there is a larger web of dangerous, like minded people who encouraged his violent behavior - and who may also act upon their radical beliefs.

I would say that rather than worry about being so politically correct and gentle with this killer, we aggressively investigate this possibility in order to protect innocent people.

Otherwise, we are no "smarter" than the Army officials who have obviously treated this lunatic with WAY too much leniency, and been too much concerned with political correctness and possibly offending Hasan, rather than the wellbeing of Hasan's coworkers and fellow Americans.

What a heavy price they have paid in the name of tolerance.

[CelticRavenwolf]

Touché.

Lol, I'm just saying - the one eyewitness so far wasn't exactly confident in what he claimed. I'm the kind of person who wants to see facts and not heresay. People think he said it -> people who weren't there reiterate he must have said -> people who were there "maybe I did hear him say it?" -> "I must have heard him say it" -> "Yes I definitely heard him say it." The the guy later says when describing the gunshot wound that he initially knew he had been shot but you forget a lot when adrenaline hits. Does that only apply to the injury? I'm just saying that people should be darned sure of the facts before they start spreading them around.

I have no doubt that Hasan's religious and political beliefs motivated his actions. That much is painfully obvious. I'm probably getting a little too hung up on the fact, but what I'm concerned about in regards to "political correctness" is the clumping of him in with ALL Islam, which is what a lot of people jumped to when this first happened.

The business cards are a huge flag that this guy's beliefs were entering into the extreme, and at least should have raised a few eyebrows. The emails that he was known to have sent were deemed innocent in nature, though the very fact that he was in contact with such a brutal extremist leader should have been cause for concern - there are plenty of other spiritual leaders who are <I>not</I> violent promoters of violence and recruiters for Al Quaeda. The FBI appears to have dropped the ball on that one. Whether he was a crazy man working alone and performing a desperate action, or a sleeper cell coached by a terrorist agency for a planned attack will come out in time, and people should remember to keep speculation as exactly that until proven otherwise.

Very rarely does any form of violence happen without indicators. In hindsight we almost always see that the potential for violence existed, but people choose to ignore the signs because they don't want to believe that something could possibly happen.

The separation of Christianity and politics has historically been pretty painful, and there are still many, many people who insist that it cannot/should not be done, either.

Personally, I'm in the camp that if you don't like the laws of a nation or find that they are against your beliefs don't move there and expect them to accomodate you. But that's a discussion for another thread.