Cheat Sheet

I guess the label you put on this tragic act is semantics at this point, but it's starting to look like it may be terrorism to me based on the common definition of terrorism as the use of violence to achieve political ends.

...ASK THE FAMILIES...IF BEING A LONE GUNMAN MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THEM, "MEATHEAD"
WHAT MAKES YOU THE EXPERT ON TERROISM?

Because he yelled ALLAH-U-AKBAR does not make him a terrorist.This is a formal ARABIC expression used as an informal expression of faith and as a formal declaration when a muslim raises his hands to pray he recites(TAKBIR)ALLAH-U-AKBAR.
TAKBIR is only the name of the expression;the phrase itself is"ALLAH-U-AKBAR".
This phrase is recited by MUSLIMS in many different situations.For example,when they are happy,to exress approval,to praise a speaker,during battles,and during times of EXTREME STRESS or euphoria.In the ISLAMIC world, instead of applause,often someone will shout "takbir" and the crowd will respond"ALLAH-U-AKBAR".
In prayer the phrase is said during each stage of both obligatory prayers(which are supposed to be performed five times a day),and spererogatory prayers(performed at will).
Christians uses the phrase Hallelujah does this make them terrorist ,i do not think so

It's irrelevant whether he acted alone...nearly all suicide bombers act "alone." The real issue is whether he was counseled and/or aided in these murders by a radical Muslin cleric. That may take some time to sort thru..but everything I'm reading is beginning to seriously point in that direction.
Terror..radical Muslim terror..has branched out considerably from organized cells...courtesy of the internet. Lone wolves now can be assisted in committing terroist acts in their native countries...without formal training or support personnel. In Hasan's case it was simple to gather site intelligence during his regular base routine. Virtually undetectable..The same goes for those who work at shopping malls...sports stadiums...you get the picture. Or maybe not....

Terrorism:
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
If it walks like a duck...

This was political correctness making our military "morally handcuffed" to do what they needed to do.

Was it terrorism? Absolutley, as that was his final objective. Was it preventable, absolutely. This falls into the same category of bad decisions from political correctness that plague us in a variety of public entitities.

The one most notable in the last hundred years was Pearl Harbor, as we had our Pacific fleet in a bottleneck harbor trying to intimidate the Japanese and we enjoyed a Sunday afternoon like it was a different day than any other and they flew low, no one reacted, and the initiated WWII in Hawaii without much defense.

The next one was the World Trade Center buildings.

There are others to be sure, but in each case it was lack of awareness or preparation that allowed it to happen.

Planning is the process that allows us to think about "what if" and prepare for it. We knew of this mans problems, and philosophy, and they triggered it by trying to send him to Afghanistan. The military was asleep at the wheel. The political correct attitude about him because he was Arabic, and how everyone treated him, and the lack of oversight by those making the decisions to deploy to his direct commanders who knew of his problems are the reason this happened. While he is the guilty one, the top brass here is also responsible because they were either not "aware", or "prepared".

An accident is something that you have no knowledge of or any idea that it could happen. Carelessness causes everything else. We knew he had problems, we knew his attititudes and we triggered it with our decisions without any oversight. Plain and simple.

Going back to your statement, "was not terrorism Hasan acted alone". Who says terrorism can't be done by one person. That philosophy will get you killed. Osama Bin Laden had been preaching about individuals moving independently to further his cause. This is just one example.

Isn't this why the department of homeland security was created, to properly channel and share information between different agencies?

Terrorism is an act perpetrated to induce terror, it does not require multiple players.

Hassan is another Islamic terrorist.
Don't bury your head in the sand.

The Washington Post reported today that Hasan wanted to transfer money "for operational-type-aspects, and knowing that he had funds and wouldn't be around to use them, they were very eager to get those funds". Checkmate

Not sure- but judging from the lack of continuity and integrity in journalism I'd say this could be another sensationalized story. Go to www.outfoxed.org I watched the documentary "Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" and the opeing previews show testimonials of C.I.A. employee's stating there no Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq- not only was this information told to a one George W.Bush as he/they pushed a weapons inspection excuse on the general public but the media also told us a different story- one of war and terror in Iraq.as seemingly informed by "them".
Fox News might say its a terror attack in Fort Hood, CNN could allude to this story and MSNBC could counteract it. So wasn't there a point and time when accuracies were to factualized in all news stories as the public LEGALLY are to be informed correctly?
Not sure? Well in free country- our society is to be informed without malice or injustice as no one group holds supreme and truth is the upheld virtue of government. And the government is run by the people not by a group dictating what to think, how to think it, when to think it. Fuck off.
No?

Hasan wrote a memo to his superiors in the Army requesting that soldiers coming back from Irac be prosecuted as war criminals....he had a clear Islamic terrorist agenda, writing numerous e-mails to Anwar al-Aulaqi, about transferring money...he murdered praising allah-U-Akbar, and followed up emptying his guns on defenseless young people leaving to serve their country...I'm very pleased he lived to face trial and the families who were devastated by Hasan's tragic commitment to murder in the name of Islamic jihid. He considered them infidials...Department of Defense, Army, and others need to update their manuals on security....None of these events took place in the Bush administration after 9-11.

Get real shamone, OF COURSE it WAS a terrorist plot. How much proof do you people need anyway??

I imagine you would have a different view of it being a terrorist plot if you had lost a loved one by the terrorist.

Islam was his co-conspirator.

Since when does someone acting alone rule out an act as terrorism. Let's assume he acted alone, which I believe also. And let's assume his interactions with imam Anwar al-Aulaqi are verified, along with these supposed emails. This alone would lend evidence that he had certain ideals that fueled this evil deed. Throw on top of this he screamed "ALLAH-U-AKBAR" while committing this deed. Shamone, use the head God gave you. The evidence is clear, this act was fostered by his lonely lifestyle but fueled by his Islamic beliefs.

One last thing, Nidal screaming "Anwar al-Aulaqi" while slaughtering innocent people proves in Nidal's mind Allah approves of his action. The same if a Christian yelled Praise God while he did the same thing. Nidal is a fundamentalist to say the least.

Nidal is simply a coward fueled by false beliefs.

You're correct of course, and it's a horrible part of our culture that those without honor will use this tragedy as a reason to achieve some petty political victories just as they did after 9/11.

Clearly Obama couldn't have prevented this. Given the stressful nature of its task, the military needs to be much more vigilant about the mental health of its employees, the soldiers, and ensure that its supervisors don't move nutjobs from post to post just to avoid a little paperwork and hassle.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE,WHO SITS IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

IT MATTERS TO ME WHO SCREWED UP...& HOW THEY WILL KEEP US SAFE IN THE
FUTURE.PRES. BUSH HAD A HIGHER LEVEL OF DOMESTIC SECURITY. THAT IS A FACT.

I couldn't agree more!! I'm sure a terrorist plot might have been a bit more involved. I'll tell who COULD have stopped him though.... that's the military itself. Talk about red flags! The guy was begging to be kicked out. Any business in this country would have fired his you know what long ago.

both would be considered terrorism. one would be terrorism tied to islamic extremists

I don't understand - Senator Carl Levin is a Democrat and he's calling it terrorism.

I'm a lefty Obama supporter, and I want this labeled terrorism too. It's religious-based terrorism. I'm not against musilim terrorists, I'm against ALL religious fundamentalist of ANY creed using violence for political purpose. It's TERRORISM in all cases.

Hasan is a terrorist and the man who killed Dr Tiller is a terrorist. I don't understand what the debate is: these killers killed in order to terrorize; deadly and simple. To further politicize their actions accomplishes nothing. They made their statements in their acts of terror. It doesn't make Bush or Obama look any better or worse. It is what it is: terror. People may think something should be done to stop terrorism but basically and especially when it is done by 1 person, there's not much that can be done unless you get lucky right at the time of the terrorist act and get that crazed individual. One thing is for sure; pointing the finger accomplishes nothing. It's a done deal.

" ... we aren't safe under President Obama. Right?"

Hannity, Cheney and Limbaugh hammer the Right with this: Bush/Cheney's policy kept us safe after 9/11. Since the election they've been "hoping" for an Obama failure. "Sadly" the deaths of 12 American soldiers/one civilian for them is success...personal success for a trio who couldn't wear the uniform, but CAN "use" blood stained uniforms for individual power/ratings/money in the bank.

Terrorist acts do not have to be "a plot". Terrorism consists of using violence or the threat of violence to achieve political aims. One terrorist acting alone in pursuit of a political goal, or a hundred terrorists acting in concert. Terrorism.

We are less safe under President Obama because he and Janet Napolitano do not see a difference between "terrorism" and simple criminal acts. The administration seems to have decided to ignore the fact that Islamic fundamentalists declared war on the USA and the western world, and will strike as often and wherever they see an opportunity.

So the only reason the 'Left' doesn't want it called terrorism, is what? What do left or right have to do with this anyway? We are at a sad state when we refrain from calling out terrorism because we don't want to give points to the opposition party. Soldiers are dead, families grieving and you are playing political games. Why is the killing of Dr. Tiller even relevant here? People call this terrorism because it's terrorism, the left should be calling it that too. If this happened to someone close to you, I doubt you would be so callous.

The war on terror has created more terrorists and has irreparably damaged the US. Everybody knows that except you.

before you condemn anyone look to the US activities over the last decade in other countries that could easily be classified as terrorist acts. Not the least of which is a war that has killed 100,000's of Iraqis that was started by one man (our president) whose motives are suspect at best and most likely were driven by revenge and greed. The activities of any other group pale in comparison.

"At the very least we need to double the Defense Department budget"...

and expand the Patriot Act. How about invading Iran? Hell, let's just bomb all Muslim nations in the Mid-East. But hey, fair is fair, we must also bomb Israel.

What, the $680 Billion in one year for defense spending that just sailed through isn't enough? Yes, double that !

I don't think we need to do any of those things. And we've reacted without common sense in many cases -- shifting our attack from Osama to Sadam and Iraq is the most glaring and egregious. On the other hand we shake down grandmas and others who don't fit the terrorist profile in the least at airport security.

Hasan, and Osama for that matter, sent up numerous red flags that were blatantly ignored by the powers that be. While the suggestion, albeit a sarcastic one, to intern all Arab Americans is ridiculous, I don't think it's ridiculous to report and keep an eye on those who are obviously radical or go around videotaping federal and other public buildings, etc. It's foolish to overlook the fact that most terrorists these days, for whatever reason, are Middle-Eastern in origin or background. I mean, were any of us surprised that the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim extremist? Really?

You don't understand the nature of this war. It is directed against the entire western world and wherever there is western influence: Bali, Mumbai, Pakistan, London, Spain, Aceh, Mindanao, Jakarta, the USA. The perpetrators define themselves as "Islamic" fighters in pursuit of an Islamic world. It isn't helpful or smart to make facetious suggestions about banning all Muslims or interning Arab Americans. What we must do is find out who among us wishes our destruction. European governments are paralyzed because of their huge, often widely hostile, Muslim populations. The US needs to recognize the threat and act on it and pay no attention to people with their heads firmly buried in the sand. Like you.

Some would call it treason as well as terrorism for a member of the US military to attack it.

Good point. Sometimes in our quest to figure out why, we go to extremes labeling people when in fact, murder is murder and the terror caused by that murder is usually brought on by a specific factor, i.e., hatred, religious fervor, mental illness, jealousy, etc. Cooler heads need to prevail; think back to the fervor surrounding WMD and the results of that fervor.

robertell - Some aspects of religion (in general) can be delusional or rather can be irrational, and most certainly seem that way to the non-religious, but at the same time there are aspects that are of some value. Perhaps eight of the ten commandments would be useful in even a non-religious society. Imagine lawyers and politicians that don't lie or steal.

What fascinates me is why people create gods and spirits to explain things. I bought a copy of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes today, to reread it, as I had read it a approximately 20 years ago. Perhaps it will tell me.

Exactly. Thank you.

And we have to have Muslims as enemies, flyoverland? Very dangerous thinking for a modern world. You need to read more reports, try the ones on the Muslim thinking in regard to attacks on their world.

Every religious and ideological faction wallows incessantly in political and moral correctness. We're right. And therefore by definition if you don't agree with us you're wrong.

The True Believers. The shallowest of minds.

And, really, how different is the mentality of BeckWorld from jihad? And it's only a matter of time before someone gets shot and killed. You know, "Pray For Obama: Psalm 109:8"

Which reads in part:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.


Christian love, perhaps? Sounds a lot like the way they protray Muslim love though, doesn't it?

Maybe you will then get some balance.

Let's just put them in internment camps, as we did the Japanese, Italians and Germans in WWII. That was America's finest hour. No political correctness then. But this time we have to stamp out a religion, not a nationality. But it's okay, because they're subhuman anyway.

thank you flyoverland!...see I lost the caps!

Mentally PLUS unstable PLUS Muslim PLUS e-mails = terrorist (Military minds formulaic results)

Next equation?

(Characters disappeared from first version)

The KKK ,the Skinheads and other WHITESUPREMACY groups are all of the Christian religion(terrorist).

AD 481; really? That's certainly current...

Why don't we aim for Christian "examples" of a more recent era...say the last 200 years??? It's the state of religious exercise today that matters..what Muslims or Christians did centuries ago is irrelevant....You could readily justify sawing off someones arm who had a gunshot wound because it was done during the Napoleonic Wars using the "it happened long ago.." logic.

I don't disagree that religion is bogus. However, I have two questions for you:

1. How many Christians today still live by what is stated in the Old Testament or by the example of Christian leaders of centuries ago?

2. How many Muslims today still live by what is stated in the Qu'ran?

If you don't know what is stated in the Qu'ran or anyone who lives in an Islamic nation, then I can understand why you reason away the possibility that Islam drives people to terrorism to an exponentially greater degree than Christianity does.

I have raised that scenario myself a few times since the shooting at Ft Hood. It seems as though Hasan, while not as normal as one would like, was still moving along in a relatively normal way and then, something triggered him and he did, indeed, become a Manchurian Candidate. There's been no official talk about that possibility which, of course, makes me suspicious because it just seems so apparent.

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.--
Thomas Paine

Wellstone,

There is so much that is incredibly disturbing about your post. Let's deal with each confounding statement individually.

First, you are willing to demonize half of the American citizenry with your statement of "What is CLEAR to me here is that the "TERRORIST" activity I see here is by people from the Right, who are doing all they can to politicize this violence." You are willing to accept and downplay Muslim terrorism that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, as well as tens of thousands of innocents around the world. While at the same time you want to escalate those who won't accept terrorism (the "Right") to the level of terrorists. You have to be utterly mad.

Then, as your proof, you use false statements, like "Hassan did not wear holy robes, or use holy weapons, nor make anny statements as to the reason for his actions.,". Apparently you missed the video of Hasan's dress as he walked into the Circle K that morning, just prior to his killing spree. He was indeed wearing "holy robes", or at the very least, Muslim robes and head covering.

It's amazing how many foul names you are able to come up with for those who don't believe that permission should be given to radical Islamists to murder Americans in the name of Allah, such as "fearmongers, the wingnuts, the racists, the Islamophobes, the anti-Democrats and Obama-haters". And yet you take offense at calling a mass-murderer, who was in constant contact with a radical Imam, who gave speeches supporting terrorism, who proclaimed himself a "soldier of Allah", a terrorist??? How does your sick mind function?

You do know that radical Muslim terrorists don't care whether you are a Democrat, Independent, or a Republican, don't you? If you are not a Muslim, you are an infidel. But then, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you are a Muslim.

You clearly have the most distorted view of terrorism I have ever encountered. Or your intention is to distort everyone else's view of terrorism. I find it so easy to see through people like you. I can only hope others do as well.