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

[Kathryn]

I don't think it's trivial. Well, let me rephrase that - I DO think that his grousing about deployment is ridiculous - he was past due for deployment and, well, that's his JOB.

But there's a very vocal group of folks out there who think that's what made him flip out. So apparently it's not trivial.

Personally, I don't think that's why he went on a rampage. I believe it's a part of the picture, but I believe his reasons went much deeper than that.

And yes, just as I think the right wing extremist Timothy McVeigh committed an act of terrorism in Oklahoma City - a planned act of murder and violence rooted in political and religious ideology directed at the federal government (aka "Da Man") in order to send a political message of hate and defiance - I believe that Hasan has also committed an act of terrorism.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think it's trivial.

I said it was relatively trivial.

 

[Kathryn]

I said it was relatively trivial.

You're a goombah. And I mean that in the most affectionate manner! :bow:

Hey, why am I still here - I have to go to work!

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

a thin line there huh? if he went crazy in his own Islamic kind of way is he a terrorist or not? what makes him a terrorist? or just a nut

See, this is what really gets me. The general public and media alike are jumping to the conclusion that Hasan is a Muslim, therefore this was a terrorist act.

When George Hennard flipped out in 1991 (also in Kileen, Texas, might I add), killing 23 people, did people start shouting "what do you expect, he was a Christian?" No, there isn't even a single mention that I could find of his religion.

Now I realize that religious tensions are high because of the war itself, and so a person who flips his **** and does damage to his own nation (he was born in America) is going to be scrutinized for alleigances to the area of the world that his family comes from, and for ****'s sake Hasan should have thought of that (although clearly he wasn't thinking about any kind of reprocussions at the time).

But him flipping out wasn't necessarily a terrorist action. Just a mentally unstable guy who really, really didn't want to go to his family's motherland and participate in a war that he (and many, many white, Christian people as well) were against. The pros (going to medical school) outweighed the cons (maybe going to war) in his mind when he thought to enlist (in 1997, BEFORE all this craziness broke out following 9/11).

I'm not trying to justify such a horrific act, but I think that there were well-hidden mental issues and anguish there that ultimately made him snap - religion and empathy for his war-torn motherland were only a small piece of the puzzle, not determining factors.

 

[Smoke]

See, this is what really gets me. The general public and media alike are jumping to the conclusion that Hasan is a Muslim, therefore this was a terrorist act.

In this case, the general public seems to have leapt to the correct conclusion. The more we're learning about Nidal Hasan, the more we find out about his extremist views. CAIR is not amused:

Muslim leaders call for maximum penalty for Fort Hood shooter | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Of course, he may well have been mentally and emotionally unstable; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that terrorists usually are.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

In this case, the general public seems to have leapt to the correct conclusion. The more we're learning about Nidal Hasan, the more we find out about his extremist views. CAIR is not amused:

Muslim leaders call for maximum penalty for Fort Hood shooter | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Of course, he may well have been mentally and emotionally unstable; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that terrorists usually are.

'Hasan reportedly grew increasingly religious, had an acronym for "Soldier of Allah" on his business card, and shouted "Allahu Akbar" at the time of the shootings.'

Reportedly by whom? This is where the media has to watch itself in speculating prematurely.

'Before the shootings, Hasan had reportedly talked about whether Muslims could fight in the U.S. military against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.'

Again, by whom, but this is also a valid question that any religious person might ask. He made no secrets of his dilemma about fighting people of the same faith, but neither did he make any threats or warnings that would have tipped even his closest friends off that he might do something like this.

Hasan was investigated by the FBI last year. He was in communications with a known radical instigator, but the communications proved to be spiritual in nature, "consistent with the subject matter of his research," and devoid of any references to violence. He was doing research on post-traumatic stress disorder in troops fighting in the Middle East.

FBI Review - Hasan did Not Pose a Threat

But to go back and answer the OP's main question - Hasan was in the military, and therefore subject to possible deployment. If leniency was granted based on religious standards, then really one could argue that no Christian should be going to war either, for "thou shalt not kill." Maybe if Hasan had have known that the situation in the Middle East would explode to such a dire situation he never would have risked joining the military, but things were nowhere near this intense in 1997 when he did join up.

But that doesn't change the fact that he had just as much of a requirement to go as did anyone else in the service. If he was that against it, I hope the he explored every other possible venue of getting out, but nothing excuses such a brutal act.

 

[Perfect Circle]

See, this is what really gets me. The general public and media alike are jumping to the conclusion that Hasan is a Muslim, therefore this was a terrorist act.

When George Hennard flipped out in 1991 (also in Kileen, Texas, might I add), killing 23 people, did people start shouting "what do you expect, he was a Christian?" No, there isn't even a single mention that I could find of his religion.

Now I realize that religious tensions are high because of the war itself, and so a person who flips his **** and does damage to his own nation (he was born in America) is going to be scrutinized for alleigances to the area of the world that his family comes from, and for ****'s sake Hasan should have thought of that (although clearly he wasn't thinking about any kind of reprocussions at the time).

But him flipping out wasn't necessarily a terrorist action. Just a mentally unstable guy who really, really didn't want to go to his family's motherland and participate in a war that he (and many, many white, Christian people as well) were against. The pros (going to medical school) outweighed the cons (maybe going to war) in his mind when he thought to enlist (in 1997, BEFORE all this craziness broke out following 9/11).

I'm not trying to justify such a horrific act, but I think that there were well-hidden mental issues and anguish there that ultimately made him snap - religion and empathy for his war-torn motherland were only a small piece of the puzzle, not determining factors.

Witnesses heard him "Allahu Akbar!" before he started shooting... That connects it to religion pretty definitively.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

Witnesses heard him "Allahu Akbar!" before he started shooting... That connects it to religion pretty definitively.

For one - those reports are - from all accounts that I have read - unconfirmed. And if it IS true all that does is confirm that he's a religious guy. Many people have called out to the Christian God while committing violence too.

Muslims also say that - or even cry it - out for a multitude of reasons, and during times of great mental anguish and distress a person will cry out. So just because Hasan did (if he actually did), doesn't equate it with a terrorist action, and by all account he was acting completely on his own anyway.

But yes, I cannot deny the connotations therein, and the fact that it is apparently a common battle cry for Muslim extremists. But I'm willing to bet that it was a desperate act from a mentally unstable individual and not a calculated terrorist action.

 

[Zephyr]

Regardless of whether Hasan's motivations were religious, political, or just suicidal*, this won't be the last shooting we'll have if we keep sending soldiers off into war. PTSD should never be overlooked.

*it should be noted that generally spree shootings are more of a "I'm too afraid to kill myself so I'm going out with a bang" kind of a crime, rather than a "death to The Great Satan(tm) I am a terrorist" crime. If his intentions were as a terrorist, a bomb or targeted killings would be a much more likely M.O. We always hear about suicide attacks when we talk terrorism, but remember that before 9/11, American terrorists (at least the more prominent ones) used methods where they had a chance to get away. Bombs, individual killings, stuff like that. Spree killings really strike me as a "rush job." Just compare how much effort it'd take to make a plan and a bomb, and just buying a cheap gun (or hell, you're a soldier, guns shouldn't be scarce) and shooting until you get shot back. I'm not discounting the possibility of religious motivations (and hell, I'm almost certain religion was involved in at least some manner, such as the idea of fighting fellow Muslims aggravating some sort of second-hand PTSD he could have picked up while counseling soldiers.).

Hasan's crime doesn't strike me as anything unique to him or to Muslims at all. He comes off as a result of what happens when you throw people into extremely stressful situations (like wars) and fail to provide sufficient mental health care. Hasan could be replaced with any one of us under the right circumstances.

Of course, the facts are still coming and I'm p drunk right now so I'll leave it to people with their full capacities.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

Of course, the facts are still coming and I'm p drunk right now so I'll leave it to people with their full capacities.

Lol, no, I think you're on to something. I agree that things like this tend to be either a) keep killing people until someone actually tries/manages to kill me or b) keep killing until I work up the nerve to kill myself.

 

[kai]

well i guess we will have to wait for more info at the trial maybe to make our minds whether Nidal had any political/religious reasons for his murders. My question was what would classify him as a terrorist? Would it be a terrorist act if he was making a point? all be it a near suicidal one.

 

[kai]

Regardless of whether Hasan's motivations were religious, political, or just suicidal*, this won't be the last shooting we'll have if we keep sending soldiers off into war.

PTSD should never be overlooked.

*it should be noted that generally spree shootings are more of a "I'm too afraid to kill myself so I'm going out with a bang" kind of a crime, rather than a "death to The Great Satan(tm) I am a terrorist" crime. If his intentions were as a terrorist, a bomb or targeted killings would be a much more likely M.O. We always hear about suicide attacks when we talk terrorism, but remember that before 9/11, American terrorists (at least the more prominent ones) used methods where they had a chance to get away. Bombs, individual killings, stuff like that. Spree killings really strike me as a "rush job." Just compare how much effort it'd take to make a plan and a bomb, and just buying a cheap gun (or hell, you're a soldier, guns shouldn't be scarce) and shooting until you get shot back. I'm not discounting the possibility of religious motivations (and hell, I'm almost certain religion was involved in at least some manner, such as the idea of fighting fellow Muslims aggravating some sort of second-hand PTSD he could have picked up while counseling soldiers.).

Hasan's crime doesn't strike me as anything unique to him or to Muslims at all. He comes off as a result of what happens when you throw people into extremely stressful situations (like wars) and fail to provide sufficient mental health care. Hasan could be replaced with any one of us under the right circumstances.

Of course, the facts are still coming and I'm p drunk right now so I'll leave it to people with their full capacities.

I believe he wasnt actually deployed , was he?

 

[Zephyr]

I believe he wasnt actually deployed , was he?

Don't think so. However, he was in a position where he'd be in plenty of contact with soldiers who acquired PTSD overseas. Now I'm not a doctor and I don't even have my degree yet, but if you've been surrounded by people stressing out, you might understand what I'm saying here. Stress is contagious. I don't doubt that enough contact with people suffering from PTSD, combined with other factors (most notably the fact that he saw his actions of supporting the military as supporting people killing his Muslim brothers and sisters), could easily cause those symptoms to eventually build up to a similar disorder. Maybe he had a screw or two loose in the first place, I dunno. The MO of this attack just seems so unusual for a terrorist that I can't help but assume it was stress-based/suicidal until we get some words from Hasan's mouth.

 

[Zephyr]

well i guess we will have to wait for more info at the trial maybe to make our minds whether Nidal had any political/religious reasons for his murders. My question was what would classify him as a terrorist? Would it be a terrorist act if he was making a point? all be it a near suicidal one.

Under my current (possibly incorrect) assumptions, I wouldn't personally consider him a terrorist. The working definition of terrorism or terrorist seems to change whenever you talk to somebody else, but I usually see it as an attack directed against civilians for a cause. Even if Hasan was attacking for something even so blatant as "I hate America's freedom", he did target a military installation and shot at fellow soldiers. I guess it really depends on how you define "terrorism".

 

[kai]

Don't think so. However, he was in a position where he'd be in plenty of contact with soldiers who acquired PTSD overseas. Now I'm not a doctor and I don't even have my degree yet, but if you've been surrounded by people stressing out, you might understand what I'm saying here. Stress is contagious. I don't doubt that enough contact with people suffering from PTSD, combined with other factors (most notably the fact that he saw his actions of supporting the military as supporting people killing his Muslim brothers and sisters), could easily cause those symptoms to eventually build up to a similar disorder. Maybe he had a screw or two loose in the first place, I dunno. The MO of this attack just seems so unusual for a terrorist that I can't help but assume it was stress-based/suicidal until we get some words from Hasan's mouth.

Under my current (possibly incorrect) assumptions, I wouldn't personally consider him a terrorist. The working definition of terrorism or terrorist seems to change whenever you talk to somebody else, but I usually see it as an attack directed against civilians for a cause. Even if Hasan was attacking for something even so blatant as "I hate America's freedom", he did target a military installation and shot at fellow soldiers. I guess it really depends on how you define "terrorism".

I guess we will just have to wait and see what his motives were, if any.

 

[Zephyr]

I guess we will just have to wait and see what his motives were, if any.

It's a good thing he was caught alive, lest my morbid curiosity lead to disappointment.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, call me a square but the mental image conjured up by the description of a radical Muslim yelling "Alla Akbar" (or whatever that phrase is), as he shoots over 100 rounds into a crowd of Americans in a clinic kinda fits the stereotype of a terrorist. The suicidal aspect of this only enforces that mental image.

Look, my problem isn't at all that he's Muslim. My problem is that he apparently was influenced by radical ideas that made him think God would be OK with him opening fire on a crowd of infidels.

But really - why does it even matter whether we call him a terrorist or just a plain and simple mass murderer? What does the distinction even matter? Thirteen people are dead by his hand - twelve of them his fellow soldiers. What a disgraceful act of evil.

 

[Kathryn]

The word for this is Taqiyya.

Not sure what you mean to imply by assigning this word apparently to Hasan and his actions. Am I right in thinking that you're applying this word to Hasan's mindset?

Within the Shia theological framework,[1] the concept of Taqiyya (تقية - 'fear, guard against', also taghiyeh)[2] refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.[3]
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "dissimulation." [4]

If so, it seems that the implication is that Hasan felt threatened because of the growing differences between his increasingly radical Muslim beliefs and the purpose of the US military.

I have a problem with this interpretation.

When you enlist or are commissioned into the military, you know that part of your job will be placing yourself in situations of iminent danger. If you are unsure of that at first, basic training and all the months and years of subsequent military training that you receive makes that abundantly clear.

Hasan was not new to the military - he was a career field officer. He is an American citizen, born and raised in the United States. He was an adult during the first Persian Gulf War. He has grown up watching the destructive spread of radical Islam, and the increasing terrorist attacks by radical Muslims - not just in the US, but all over the world.

As an officer, much of his military training over the past 12 years has included training on US policy regarding terrorism.

When you are in the military, you trade benefits for terms of service. Hasan has had several opportunities over the past 12 years to sever his commitment to continued military service. He has voluntarily chosen to re-commit on several occasions to continued military service - in spite of the probability that he would be deployed to the Middle East.

Hasan is not a victim of the war machine. Hasan chose to trade service in the US military for a medical degree. (By the way, the usual exchange is this: Uncle Sam pays for your degree in exchange for six years of active duty service Or - serve first and then Uncle Sam will pay for most of the cost of a degree AFTER you get out of the military - see GI Bill).

He certainly doesn't have PTSD. HE HAS NEVER DEPLOYED OR SEEN A DAY OF COMBAT. Now - would the stress of listening to stressful stories get to you? Sure it would. The military offers a minimum of 30 days of leave every year - and that doesn't include holidays. Also, as a doctor, he would know that he could receive counseling himself. My point is that the fact that he had a stressful job doesn't excuse his actions at all.

Newsflash, folks - serving in the military is stressful. That's why they put you through basic training and AIT on the front end - it's a warning of things to come.

 

[Zephyr]

Of course your average person wouldn't get PTSD just from stories, but put yourself in his shoes. You're struggling to reconcile serving in the military while it's fighting against people you perceive as brothers and sisters in faith. The men who come to you are broken men, and only serve to enhance your perception that it is a war against Islam. As for counseling, sure, he had access to it, but did he ever take that opportunity? Even if you have access to help, doesn't mean you're going to work up the balls to admit you have a problem. It took me about a month between my first big psychosis outbreak and finally getting to a counselor.

I'm just struggling to comprehend why a "terrorist" would go on a spree killing in a military base. If it was a terrorist act, it sure was a stupid MO and a stupid target. If his motivation was terror, it would be much easier to just attack civilians.

Now if only he would have had the mind to just destroyed the infrastructure and weaponry without all that murder mixed in. That could have turned this tragedy into a celebration.

 

[TashaN]

I lived on Fort Hood for three years and have been in the building that was the scene of the attack and know that area like the palm of my hand.

I have great empathy for the victims and their families. My OP wasn't about that topic though - it was a question about one particular aspect of this tragedy - not meant to emcompass the entire scope of this terrorist attack on US soldiers - by a US FIELD OFFICER.

I know how you feel, especially that you have been living there. I know the type of answers you are looking for, and i sympathize with the families of those soldiers who been murdered in a coward way. I don't have a problem with American soldiers being killed on battlefield, because they know what they are going into, but in this way?! This is not what Islam teaches me. Islam teach me that if the need for a fight arise, so i have to fight with honor, and to not kill prisoners or those who got captured during war, how about killing the people they have trusted you and treated you as one of them, your own comrades? any decent man with ethics would reject this evil act.

On the other hand, you also have to consider the feelings of other people too.

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"!!!

Although many people in the west try to be so considerate with Muslims and try to keep positive, but they can't deny that a discrimination still exist even inside of them and they can't help it because what you been through is too much, and a stereotype has been set, and no body can change that easily, in the minds of Americans especially.

We hear and read in the news of catching so many Israeli spies, but the media deal with it mildly as a political issue although most--if not all of them--were Jews. Why don't they highlight they were JEWS who did that?

Until now i don't understand why these "shooting" incident happen many times in several American military bases and schools?

I find it really devastating to see how many educated Americans would not rise above themselves and start thinking toward the right direction, to start thinking in a way different than what the media and the government try to inject into the minds of the masses.

Hey, call me a square but the mental image conjured up by the description of a radical Muslim yelling "Alla Akbar" (or whatever that phrase is), as he shoots over 100 rounds into a crowd of Americans in a clinic kinda fits the stereotype of a terrorist. The suicidal aspect of this only enforces that mental image.

Why do you give up for such images? you forgot about the similar incidents which happened in military bases by non-Muslims?

Look, my problem isn't at all that he's Muslim. My problem is that he apparently was influenced by radical ideas that made him think God would be OK with him opening fire on a crowd of infidels.

But really - why does it even matter whether we call him a terrorist or just a plain and simple mass murderer? What does the distinction even matter? Thirteen people are dead by his hand - twelve of them his fellow soldiers. What a disgraceful act of evil.

It does matter to me and to millions of Muslims around the world, especially to the American Muslims in your country who love America just like how you do. When you say it's a terrorist attack, you would link it directly to Islam, then it wouldn't matter whether you call it radical Islam or just plain Islam because the damage already been done and they stereotype already been spread widely. Why not calling it "shooting" as i mentioned above? why to draw that *mental image* for a Muslim saying Allah akbar and killing the infidels as you have described it before?

It appear that you don't know much about Islam except what you been told about or read occasionally. Although i didn't like the way you have phrased some of your arguments, but i like that you are asking and try to get answers.

I'm not attacking you, but just trying to make a point, and i hope you already got it.

If you have any question about how Islam view this act don't hesitate to ask me here, and if you want to know more about Islam in general, just visit the Islam DIR and ask whatever you want.


Peace and blessing,
Faisal