Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Using your reasoning, we would have to call Columbine terrorism as well.
I think we still don't have enough facts to make a determination of this as terrorism or not. It's possible that this was politically motivated, but possible as well that it wasn't politically motivated. We just don't know enough to determine that.
I would say the two at Columbine were terrorists, the same as McVey, and several others...Terrorism doesn't always refer to religion, political views or the like. It is an unshaken belief in something which most of us can not fathom.
I would say the two at Columbine were terrorists, the same as McVey, and several others...Terrorism doesn't always refer to religion, political views or the like. It is an unshaken belief in something which most of us can not fathom.
Nita
Terrorism has to have an element of coercion to it. It cannot exist in isolation. It is part of something. It has an agenda.
Perhaps Dr Hasan saw himself as part of something bigger. Perhaps he was politically motivated or religously motivated. Perhaps he had an agenda.
But right now, we don't know what his motives were. We don't know, so we cannot say conclusively whether it was or was not terrorism.
And just like the 9/11 terrorists, in the hours before the attack, Hasan gave away his most prized possessions, attended a strip club, and shaved all of his body hair.
That's not the only commonality btwn Hasan and the 9-11 highjackers.
Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as three of the September 11 terrorists. The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, a now exiled American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
And just like the 9/11 terrorists, in the hours before the attack, Hasan gave away his most prized possessions, attended a strip club, and shaved all of his body hair.
That's not the only commonality btwn Hasan and the 9-11 highjackers.
Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as three of the September 11 terrorists. The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, a now exiled American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
There is a distinction between a personal act and an act of terrorism. Whether Hasan crossed that line depends solely on him. Terrorism has to have a connection. Personal violence does not.
I'm not saying that Hasan wasn't a terrorist. I'm saying we need to know more before we can make that evaluation.
So you arent even willing to admit that his action was based on his understanding of Islam?
Just killing on behalf of a religion, isn't a terrorist attack by definition. That would be the Crusades were terrorist actions. Also, the Christian who started shooting at the Holocaust museum would have been terrorism.
No, I don't think killing for religion makes you a terrorist.
So the US invasion of Iraq was a terrorist attack going by your definition?
Well, we warned them, so not really. It wasn't a vague warning either. We had warnings about 9/11, but it was things like "We are going to hurt you real bad".
And we generally don't target civilians, although that does happen.
How elaborate are the human bomb attacks of Palestinians in Israeli restaurants or any other places where people gather? Someone gives them the explosives and the harness to carry them and puts their finger on the detonator, I guess, but he still pulls the trigger. Hasan had been listening to a militant imam and had been in contact with, or tried to contact, al Qaeda people. I don't know who told him how to do it or when to do it and I don't know that anyone else told him when. I do know that his finger pulled the trigger, he reloaded and started firing again at least three times. He just did the same thing that the bomber does when he "pulls the trigger". One is considered a terrorist and the other is considered crazy. That is Pelosi.
Takes a lot of careful work to make a car bomb. Don't believe me, I can go down to the EOD school and get you several guys who know how hard it is.
Here is my thing: I consider the guy a terrorist because of his ideological/religious and political motivations...plain and simple. I think the fact he was stressed out or mentally ill is irrespective of him being a terrorist or not. I doubt the 19 hijackers who flew planes into the towers and the pentagon, were all sane..but we still refer to them as and treat them as terrorists. I suspect that MOST terrorists have mental problems and are conflicted in some way and/or impoverished. Psychologists have some sort of psychological profile for pretty much ALL violent perpetrators that would place them in a mentally ill category. So I dont think this loser was any different in that regard. The only difference is that his very carefully deliberated motivations were political and religious, and we are trying to exonerate him of being the terrorist that he is, simply because he had managed to infiltrate our military ranks. (I consider it infiltration because by his own admission and actions, in his heart, he did not truly want to be in the Military.)
As for him needing to be a part of a larger plot in order to be considered a terrorist..As far as Im concerned, his actions and speech leading up to the event clearly indicate to me that he was, on his own terms, part of the larger religious jihad.
Last edited by solytaire; 11-12-2009 at 04:54 PM..
President Obama can not call it an act of terror because he would have to face in the first 9 months of his presidency he allowed a terrorist attack on our own soil.
But Bush had a terrorist attack in his firs t 9 months , he then did his job and protected the country from a terrorist attack on our soil.
If Obama admits its was a terrorist attack he would have to face hard choices
No he didn't. Remember Anthrax? Remember the DC shootings? Both terrorist attacks. And the amount of terrorism against US targets increased significantly under Bush. He was an unmitigated disaster.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
