Fort Hood Shooting

[jazzy grille]

That's not their stance at this point, though. They claim to have dropped the inquiry because he didn't pose a threat.

I wouldn't trust anything the Pentagon/FBI is saying. That's just me, but maybe some people do believe everything they hear.

Given what's available at this point, I can understand the sentiment. They're not saying they may have known about him. They are saying they did and dropped it.

Mike

You can't "know" what someone is going to do.. I can tell you that if this guy went around saying "I'm going to kill a bunch of people at Fort Hood" he would have been busted, but (unless I missed something new) he did not go around saying that.

There are many documented cases where a person of suspicion is being monitored and they do something unexpected, granted it looks bad on the hands of the Pentagon and the overall Government, there is still a (IMHO) big possibility that the Government was watching this guy in hopes to catch/uncover others. This is the information age, you don't send Emails to known accomplices of the 9/11 hijackers and just go unnoticed/cast to the side by the Gov'mnt.

 

[mike_v_s]

I wouldn't trust anything the Pentagon/FBI is saying. That's just me, but maybe some people do believe everything they hear.

At this point, I'm willing to give as much credence to what they're saying they did as I am what others on the internet are saying they might have been doing. "Believing" and "considering as a possibilty given the lack of other available information" are a little different, methinks. But that's just me.

You can't "know" what someone is going to do.. I can tell you that if this guy went around saying "I'm going to kill a bunch of people at Fort Hood" he would have been busted, but (unless I missed something new) he did not go around saying that.

There are many documented cases where a person of suspicion is being monitored and they do something unexpected, granted it looks bad on the hands of the Pentagon and the overall Government, there is still a (IMHO) big possibility that the Government was watching this guy in hopes to catch/uncover others. This is the information age, you don't send Emails to known accomplices of the 9/11 hijackers and just go unnoticed/cast to the side by the Gov'mnt.

Given his employer, I'm sure he was aware of the risks. I'd be interested in knowing what, if any, precautions he took to cover his steps.

Mike

 

[burk48237]

Firstly, my condolences to those affected by this.

In response to this:


...I think the answer is fairly obvious. There have been many mass shootings in the US, none of them, to date, have been perpetrated by a terrorist. They have, for the most part, been ordinary people who have just "cracked". The only real reason for thinking this guy was a terrorist that you could get from the media is because he was muslim. However, he was born in the US. If everyone were to start playing the "muslim sleeper" angle on this without any evidence, what good would that do? Very little I suspect, but it could do a lot of harm to society. How many people know someone who is a US born muslim or just a US born person with a muslim sounding name? Probably most people. I can't imagine it would do those people much good if everyone starting thinking they were perhaps terrorists (more than perhaps people already do).

I suspect the angle is being downplayed because the suspect is alive and the true answer will come out. If it turns out he wasn't a terrorist, but just another guy that cracked (as I hope is the case), then it would, IMO, be a mistake to start fearmongering by the media. If he confesses to being a terrorist, then would be the time to start reporting it as such.

I understand that, but I doubt the same "courtesy" would have been given to a Christian if he shot up an abortion clinic. In fact I imagine the news media would be camped out in front of his church and shoving microphones in the parishioners faces at every opportunity. I STILL haven't seen a report filed by a TV network in front of this Mosque (attended by two 9/11 hijackers and Hassan) or anyone attempting to interview the Iman. Jeffery Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly makes the same point here, and he wonders why many in our media are so quick to "not rush to judgement" when Islamic fundamentalism is involved.

I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I've argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/when_muslims_commit_violent_ac.php

 

[Marlat]

I understand that, but I doubt the same "courtesy" would have been given to a Christian if he shot up an abortion clinic. In fact I imagine the news media would be camped out in front of his church and shoving microphones in the parishioners faces at every opportunity. I STILL haven't seen a report filed by a TV network in front of this Mosque (attended by two 9/11 hijackers and Hassan) or anyone attempting to interview the Iman. Jeffery Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly makes the same point here, and he wonders why many in our media are so quick to "not rush to judgement" when Islamic fundamentalism is involved.



http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/when_muslims_commit_violent_ac.php

I think you're confusing the point I was making. I wasn't saying that the motivation wasn't his beliefs, but whether he is a terrorist is a different matter. Speculating that because he was a muslim (which was one of the few facts known at the time I posted that) that he must therefore be a terrorist was what I was commending on. The comparator example would be having someone blow up an abortion clinic and speculating that they had terrorist links because they were a christian. As for the comment you posted, I think its quite misguided. There is no real basis for his conclusion. However, to discuss his conclusion in itself is political since it relates to the political treatment of such acts. Needless to say, in any such investigation, the motivations are relevant, but speculation / rushing to judgement that someone is a terrorist just because they are muslim?

 

[burk48237]

I think you're confusing the point I was making. I wasn't saying that the motivation wasn't his beliefs, but whether he is a terrorist is a different matter. Speculating that because he was a muslim (which was one of the few facts known at the time I posted that) that he must therefore be a terrorist was what I was commending on. As for the comment you posted, I think its quite misguided. There is no real basis for his conclusion. However, to discuss his conclusion in itself is political since it relates to the political treatment of such acts.

I'm not sure it's "political" to talk about the media treatment of certain religious faiths. Goldberg and I certainly don't agree on much politically and yet we agree on this one. His argument is that their appears to be a different standard for acts of Islamic violence in western media. And I believe that was born out in the early coverage of this. All of the talk about PTSD for someone who has never been in combat appeared a bit weird to me to say the least. It almost appeared like the media was looking for ANY reason to blame this on besides terrorism.

And even now, while they're talking about the overseas connections (the emails) and his personal actions (his speech to fellow doctors). There has been very little coverage (none I've seen that was live) of the homegrown angle. Why aren't reporters talking about and interviewing parishioners and leaders at a mosque that just happened to have in it's attendees two of the 9/11 hijackers and this murderer? I realize it's very possible there is no connection. But again if it was a Church or a Synagogue I doubt the same courtesy would have been shown.

 

[Marlat]

I'm not sure it's "political" to talk about the media treatment of certain religious faiths. Goldberg and I certainly don't agree on much politically and yet we agree on this one. His argument is that their appears to be a different standard for acts of Islamic violence in western media. And I believe that was born out in the early coverage of this. All of the talk about PTSD for someone who has never been in combat appeared a bit weird to me to say the least. It almost appeared like the media was looking for ANY reason to blame this on besides terrorism.

And even now, while they're talking about the overseas connections (the emails) and his personal actions (his speech to fellow doctors). There has been very little coverage (none I've seen that was live) of the homegrown angle. Why aren't reporters talking about and interviewing parishioners and leaders at a mosque that just happened to have in it's attendees two of the 9/11 hijackers and this murderer? I realize it's very possible there is no connection. But again if it was a Church or a Synagogue I doubt the same courtesy would have been shown.

Perhaps we are reading different sources, but I am not seeing any lack of coverage of the muslim angle on this story. I am seeing a lack of speculative accusations of him being a terrorist. Again, in mind mind the two arn't interchangable.

As for why there arn't interviewing attendees at the mosque, perhaps they are trying and arn't getting any response. I don't believe its against the law in the US to refuse to speak to the press.

 

[jazzy grille]

"Believing" and "considering as a possibilty given the lack of other available information" are a little different, methinks. But that's just me.

Strange, you don't read as if you are "considering" the fact, you should work on that.

Given his employer, I'm sure he was aware of the risks. I'd be interested in knowing what, if any, precautions he took to cover his steps.

As would I.

As of now... It is all just speculation (as outlined in my previous post).

 

[mike_v_s]

Strange, you don't read as if you are "considering" the fact, you should work on that.

Nah. I like it better when people make assumptions predicated on preconceived notions of what I might think in a given situation, which are in turn based on...well...I'm not sure.

Did I really read as if I was doing anything other than considering it? Here, I bolded the parts that make it obvious I haven't bought leather-bound version of the story, yet:

That's not their stance at this point, though. They claim to have dropped the inquiry because he didn't pose a threat.

By "work on that", do you mean dumbing down my posts, or eliminating possible explanations because I don't like the source? Neither seems very constructive to me.

Mike

 

[bassrique]

Invalid Link Removed

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

Read the whole thing.

 

[jazzy grille]

Nah. I like it better when people make assumptions predicated on preconceived notions of what I might think in a given situation, which are in turn based on...well...I'm not sure.

Not sure?

You wrote your post in contrary to what I posted... Based on what they are saying. How is that making up stuff?

To dive further into this, I was jumping more to your reply to my first post:

At this point, I'm willing to give as much credence to what they're saying they did as I am what others on the internet are saying they might have been doing. "Believing" and "considering as a possibilty given the lack of other available information" are a little different, methinks. But that's just me.

When you get all snarky and defensive about what I post it seems that you are more than "considering" the things stated. But, I guess you could be special...

By "work on that", do you mean dumbing down my posts, or eliminating possible explanations because I don't like the source?

Either sounds fine..

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

It is certainly interesting how much this incident reveals, as well as how much it can (and already has) be misinterpreted and used for fearmongering (on both sides of the spectrum).

 

[hbarcat]

It appears as if the suspect had been sympathetic for awhile to some extremist views that are consistent with the views of typical terrorist organizations.

If true, it is a plausible alternative to the "he just snapped from stress" hypothesis that is popular right now.

Invalid Link Removed

But I'd rather not speculate until all the facts are in.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

So at this point in the discussion we've decided that it would've been impossible for him to be acting against the Army on his own?

 

[hbarcat]

So at this point in the discussion we've decided that it would've been impossible for him to be acting against the Army on his own?

I didn't see any posts that suggest that he had any help from others. But there is the legitimate question as to his personal motive. Did he act because he lost control of himself due to stress or mental imbalance or did he act because he held an extremist ideological viewpoint that it is his duty to murder members of the U.S. military.

Was he a deranged lunatic or an intolerant fanatic?

 

[bassrique]

So at this point in the discussion we've decided that it would've been impossible for him to be acting against the Army on his own?

Had he been drummed out of the Army, he could've easily went to a mall and started shooting, so your question -in a way- doesn't matter.

The "lone wolf" suicide killer is very hard to defend against. The seemingly non-threatening email to the imam that was possibly involved with 9/11 isn't enough to put a man away -- it's only enough to get him out of the Army and/or survail.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Had he been drummed out of the Army, he could've easily went to a mall and started shooting, so your question -in a way- doesn't matter.

The "lone wolf" suicide killer is very hard to defend against. The seemingly non-threatening email to the imam that was possibly involved with 9/11 isn't enough to put a man away -- it's only enough to get him out of the Army and/or survail.

I disagree, and I think the fact that he didn't go to a mall or to another civilian area (where, you know, he wouldn't have been surrounded by people trained to fight back) is very telling.

The fact that he chose to attack the US Military is, in my mind, extremely pertinent to understanding why he did what he did, as well as the situation involved.

Also, unrelated to my post, but worth reading, is this article from Slate. Its about whether or not he is going to be considered a terrorist:
http://www.slate.com/id/2235361/?from=rss

 

[bassrique]

The shooter tried to contact [I read just before more than once] an imam that preaches terrorism against the West as well having connections with the 9/11 terrorists. The shooter yelled "Allahu Akbar" while shooting. Terrorist.

My point is that Husan could have killed soldiers in a bar if he was kicked out of the army. He could have done any number of terrorist acts, including but not limited to a Beslan [school] type incident. It's hard to stop lone actors using legal tools, in this case a pistol. Had he been shopping for bomb supplies, that's a different story.

I did enjoy the slate.com link by the way.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Ah, now I see your point. And you're absolutely right.

 

[bassrique]

Ah, now I see your point. And you're absolutely right.

Something I failed to mention which frames my main point is the looming Washington DC finger-pointing and scapegoating, the majority of which is and surely will be pure partisan political rubbish.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Another good point. Isn't it refreshing when the internet doesn't devolve into one-way back and forths?

That said, I'm still not sold on the idea he was a terrorist. Fanatic, maybe, but terrorist implies a generally civilian target area, and most of the time a solid connection to a wider group. I'm going with fanatic for now.