• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Fort Hood Shooting

This is sickening.

At least, this looks like a serious ploy to get us back to the rampant xenophobia of the fall of 2001. Honestly, the business card thing is irrelevant--I could have "I want the president's head on my wall" or "People who oppose gay rights are in service of Satan" on my business card and it wouldn't mean a damn thing unless my actions were able to allow people to frame it in a different light.

However, it is interesting that with all this mounting evidence it becomes more and more clear that the Army didn't take the necessary precautions they should've with this guy, and the implications from that seem quite sinister.
 
. Honestly, the business card thing is irrelevant--I could have "I want the president's head on my wall" or "People who oppose gay rights are in service of Satan" on my business card and it wouldn't mean a damn thing unless my actions were able to allow people to frame it in a different light.


Umm...his actions do frame it in a different light. What may have been just a little bit of writing on a card turns into yet another sign that something wasn't right with the guy. It's also relevant in that it'll be sure to come up in his trial.
 
Its a matter of perspective. I'm not defending what the guy did, I'm asking you for elucidation on the moral difference between what this guy did and what armed forces everywhere do.



It's the same difference between the cops who arrest a criminal and the vigilante who decides to take the law into his own hands.

Democratic nations are accountable to their citizens and to the citizens of other nations for the actions of their militaries. They have strict rules to follow and individual soldiers as well as their commanders are criminally liable for deviations from those rules.

Terrorists are, by nature, anarchistic. They follow no rules and are accountable to no one.

There is another difference. The militaries of modern secular democracies are (ideally) fighting to uphold and strengthen the practice of democracy worldwide in accordance to the original charter of the United Nations (again, ideally). Terrorists aren't doing this. As a rule, they are fighting to support themselves and their friends' "right" to rule over others.

I see a moral difference between democracy and dictatorships and also a moral difference between those who fight to support democracy and those who fight to oppose it.
 
Before I get back into the semantics, I think you guy should check out this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/fort.hood.hasan/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

specifically:

As investigators explore what may have led to the shooting rampage, the U.S. State Department's top counterterrorism official said Thursday there appears to be no operational link between Hasan and any outside group, citing investigators who looked into Hasan's communications with a radical Islamic cleric.

Daniel Benjamin, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Hasan and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki had communicated through e-mails, but their content raised no red flags to investigators.

"I believe that the various investigating bureaus have said that they have seen these e-mail messages to a radical cleric, but that they were not a sufficient concern to open up an investigation, and there doesn't appear to be any linkage to any outside group in terms of the operation itself," Benjamin said in his first television interview since taking up his post.
 
Before I get back into the semantics, I think you guy should check out this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/fort.hood.hasan/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

specifically:

As investigators explore what may have led to the shooting rampage, the U.S. State Department's top counterterrorism official said Thursday there appears to be no operational link between Hasan and any outside group, citing investigators who looked into Hasan's communications with a radical Islamic cleric.

Daniel Benjamin, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Hasan and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki had communicated through e-mails, but their content raised no red flags to investigators.

"I believe that the various investigating bureaus have said that they have seen these e-mail messages to a radical cleric, but that they were not a sufficient concern to open up an investigation, and there doesn't appear to be any linkage to any outside group in terms of the operation itself," Benjamin said in his first television interview since taking up his post.

This appears to be proof of how wrong they were to ignore obvious warning signs. Seems ironic the guy is in contact with al qaeda, has SoA(SWT) on his business cards and they felt it was not sufficient evidence to open up a investigation? :eyebrow: Just what would it take? :confused:
 
It seems that some believe that it's impossible for an individual, acting on his own initiative, to be a terrorist. I don't agree. I've seen no definition of the word terrorist that concludes only those who belong to an organized terrorist organization and who act on their orders can be called terrorists.

Example: Timothy McVeigh. Few would dispute that he was a terrorist. He fits the definition of a driven fanatic who commits an act of death and destruction of the innocent in order to terrorize the public in the name of his extremist ideology. Yet he belonged to no known groups and appeared to act on his own initiative.

It would appear at this point that Nidal Malik Hasan fits the same profile.
 
Everybody seems to want to pin this on ONE factor - whichever factor is their own personal hot button.

But human beings do not behave based on only ONE factor. They simply don't.

Causes I've heard people blame for the event:

- The Muslim religion
- Terrorism
- Mental illness
- Stress

And people want to blame it on ONE.

My answer is: it's almost certainly some combination of ALL of these. Human beings don't just act like this based on one event or one motivation. There is no simple, single answer, and there's not going to be.

So I wish people would stop over-simplifying it and attributing it to one thing. That's certain to be wrong.
 
Everybody seems to want to pin this on ONE factor - whichever factor is their own personal hot button.

But human beings do not behave based on only ONE factor. They simply don't.

Causes I've heard people blame for the event:

- The Muslim religion
- Terrorism
- Mental illness
- Stress

And people want to blame it on ONE.

My answer is: it's almost certainly some combination of ALL of these. Human beings don't just act like this based on one event or one motivation. There is no simple, single answer, and there's not going to be.

So I wish people would stop over-simplifying it and attributing it to one thing. That's certain to be wrong.

Yes, many factors drive people to terrorism.


========================================

A must-read:

Invalid Link Removed

A Web of Lone Wolves

Fort Hood shows us that Internet jihad is not a myth.


BY EVAN KOHLMANN | NOVEMBER 13, 2009

Upon learning of the reported "missed" link between the alleged culprit responsible for the massacre at Ft. Hood -- Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan -- and Anwar al Awlaki, my heart sank for a multitude of reasons. Al Awlaki is an infamous character in the halls of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and he has been for several years at least. The cleric's recurring presence again in the Ft. Hood case seems to be powerful and disturbing evidence of how fringe extremists -- who otherwise might remain in obscurity with no real means of living out their private jihadi fantasies -- are quite literally being equipped for battle by so-called "theological" advisors known only to them through the Internet. In short, it is a reminder of how real online terrorism networks have become.

In mid-2008, I was invited by the FBI to look at the voluminous evidence they had gathered against a group of defendants who were caught plotting to attack various military installations on the East Coast, including Fort Dix in New Jersey. At first, I was a skeptic. Most of the men under scrutiny were Westernized Albanian Muslims who spoke little to no Arabic, were into hip-hop music, and were working as pizza delivery boys and taxi drivers. They didn't have any obvious connection to al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, they had never visited a real terrorist training camp, and they cut a pretty kooky appearance. They certainly didn't seem to fit the classical terrorist stereotype.

But to my surprise, this motley crew of would-be homegrown killers turned out to be much more sophisticated than I had initially given them credit for. Aside from having an unsettling interest in acquiring assault rifles, these young men had separately downloaded hundreds of megabytes of hardcore terror propaganda videos from the web, including the wills of Sept. 11 hijackers and the July 7 London suicide bombers, and instructional materials on how to build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and carry out sniper attacks -- and they knew all about radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his online lecture series "Constants on the Path of Jihad."

In "Constants," al Awlaki argues, "Jihad does not depend on any particular land. It is global. ... No borders or barriers stop it." He continues, "If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war' in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth. Islam cannot be customized to suit the conditions where you are, for instance Europe."

Al-Awlaki's fanatical "lone wolf" approach to jihad -- broadcast virally over the Internet -- was adopted with terrific gusto by, among others, the Fort Dix plotters, who were caught by the FBI in early 2007 discussing the extent of their devotion to al-Awlaki. In a conversation taped by the FBI in 2007, one said, "[T]his brother locked up in Yemen, Anwar al Awlaki the Imam in Washington D.C., they kicked him out of the U.S. and now they locked him up in Yemen. He was talking about jihad, the truth, no holds barred, straight how it is! ... In his own country they locked him up for speaking like this."

In another conversation recorded by the FBI in February 2007, convicted Fort Dix conspirator Eljvir Duka repeatedly instructed other "recruits" to download copies of Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures. "It's called the Constants of Jihad, the Constants of Jihad and this, ever since I heard this lecture brother I want everyone to hear about it," he said. "You know why, because he gives it to you raw and uncut ... this is the truth I don't give a damn what everybody says this is Islam, this is the truth right here. ... So this lecture is very necessary for people today, if you're concerned. ... [It is] verbal, audio, you have to download it."

Perhaps this is the most frustrating aspect of transnational vendors of hate and mayhem like al Awlaki. The Internet has inadvertently become a powerful tool in their hands, offering easy access to an interactive virtual universe where they can mobilize vulnerable, unstable people around the world and incite them to carry out acts of violence. And because the message is spread to individuals scattered across the globe, the violence comes in seemingly random bursts from unexpected sources - like pizza delivery boys, or even an Army psychologist. Even Web-savvy Holocaust Museum shooter James Von Brunn, for example, turned to the parallel virtual world of neo-Nazi radicals for instruction and support.

With such a generalized threat, it will be a continuing challenge for Western governments and societies to draw the fine line between what is protected under the freedom of speech and what is criminalized as direct incitement to murder. In order to help address those critical determinations and intercept potential threats, the FBI and other government agencies must redouble their efforts at sharing intelligence in a timely and effective manner. They must train and empower agents and analysts, who are on the frontlines of the battle against terrorism, by training them about the players and issues peculiar to the blight of international terrorism. Surely, if homegrown extremists can train themselves to be al Qaeda aficionados using only their own home computers, then it is within the capabilities of a determined U.S. government to thwart them.
 
More on the Hasan's terrorist internet inspiration [it's worth the time if you want a better understanding of what happened and what undoubtedly will continue to happen]:

Invalid Link Removed

Who is the Imam Consulted by the Ft. Hood Assassin?

A Look at the Terrorist Ties of Anwar al-Aulaqi and the Radicalization Process

by Susan Schmidt
Published on November 9th, 2009
ARTICLES

Anwar al-Aulaqi, the former imam of mosques in Falls Church and San Diego who was a spiritual advisor to two of the 9/11 hijackers is suspected of involvement in terrorist plots directed at the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other parts of the world, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials.

Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was imam at Virginia’s Dar al Hijrah on 9/11, moved to Yemen a few months after the attacks. Audiotapes and transcripts of his lectures on waging jihad against the West have been discovered in the password protected computer files of numerous suspects arrested in bombing plots in Europe and North America.

He pronounced suspected Fort Hood slayer Nidal Hasan "a hero" and "a man of conscience" in an internet blog posting Monday.

U.S. officials have believed for several years that Aulaqi’s activities go beyond proseletizing to include recruiting, training, marshaling resources and planning attacks.

"There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies," a U.S. counterterrorism official told The Washington Post last year.

Aulaqi was arrested in Yemen on August 2006 and released in late 2007. Authorities there had little to say about why he was held. In a taped interview posted on a British website after his release, Aulaqi said he did not know why he was held, but said he was interrogated several times by the FBI. Before his arrest, Aulaqi had been teaching at an Islamist university run by Sheik Abd-alMajid al-Zindani, designated a terrorist in 2004 by the United States and the United Nations.

Aulaqi’s suspected role in terrorist activity deepens lingering questions about the FBI’s conclusion that the 19 hijackers carried out their attack without aid from others in this country.

Aulaqi befriended two of the future hijackers at his San Diego mosque in 2000; when he was hired early the next year by Dar al Hijra, two of the hijackers also moved east to the Falls Church mosque.

The 9/11 Commission and a 2002 House-Senate inquiry both judged Aulaqi’s dealings with the hijackers suspicious and complained the FBI’s failed to fully investigate him before he left the country in 2002.

A review of Aulaqi’s activities reveals that while he was living in this country he had connections to individuals tied to terrorism, including Zindani, as well as contact both before and after 9/11 with now- convicted members of the so-called Virginia Jihad network. Aulaqi and the network’s spiritual leader, Ali al Timimi, shared similar religious views and appeared at Islamic conferences together, including one in England weeks before 9/11. A year after the attacks, Aulaqi returned briefly to the U.S. and went to Timimi’s home in Fairfax to ask about recruiting people for jihad, according to a court filing by Timimi’s lawyer.

Aulaqi, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents studying here, grew up in Yemen. He returned to the US and earned an engineering degree from Colorado State University in 1991.

In the first few months after 9/11, Aulaqi was often sought out by the mainstream media looking for the perspectives of American Muslims. He was often described as a charismatic young spiritual leader at one of the country’s largest mosques.

The Muslim community is "between a rock and a hard place," he told the Washington Times. "We’re totally against what the terrorists [have] done. We want to bring those who [have] done this to justice... but we’re also against the killing of civilians in Afghanistan."

But that was not the view he offered in comments Sept. 17 to IslamOnline. Israelis might have been responsible for the terrorist strikes, and the 19 men named as hijackers were being framed. "It appears that these people were victims rather than hijackers. It seems that the FBI went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default," Aulaqi wrote.

Aulaqi’s public lectures on Islamic principles–delivered in person as well as sold on audiotape–had gained an international following among of young English-speaking Salafi Muslims who adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. Dar al Hijrah board members have said they hired Aulaqi because of his popularity with young Muslims.

Aulaqi’s discourses in recent years have been openly radical. He often speaks of Muslims as a people under siege. In one taped speech available on the internet, apparently made in 2006, he celebrated the current "Golden Era of Jihad" and predicted a global faceoff between Muslims and "kufr" (unbelievers).

He has lauded the insurgency in Iraq, praised "martyrdom operations" in Palestinian territories and said "America is in a state of war with Allah."

Muslims must take sides, he has said, and "the solution for the Ummah (Muslim world) is jihad."

Other material attributed to Aulaqi circulated in password protected internet chat rooms includes his English language explication of "Constants on the Path of Jihad," a call to arms by Yusef Ayyeri, the now-dead al Qaeda commander in Saudi Arabia. The book-length lecture series has been submitted as government evidence in several recent British terrorism trials.

Ayyeri, known as "Swift Sword," was the author of widely circulated al Qaeda military training manuals. In his lessons promoted by Aulaqi, he says that the Quran calls upon on Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in every country of the world. His ideas, rendered in Arabic, had no currency in the West until Aulaqi interpreted them in English, said Evan Kohlmann, a terrrorism reseacher who was called by British prosecutors as an expert witness on the materials in a bombing conspiracy trial this fall. Aulaqi is one of a small handful of extremist Salifi clerics who can speak and write in Engish, according to Kohlmann.

Terrorism investigators have found that lecture series and Aulaqi audiotape materials on the computer files of suspects in a string of recent suspected homegrown terrorism cases in the United Kingdom.

The materials were promoted heavily by al Qaeda webmaster Younis Tsouli, the self-described "jihadist James Bond" who posted guides to assembling suicide vests and videos of beheadings in Iraq. Tsouli pled guilty in London to inciting people to commit murder. Tsouli’s computer and phone records tie him to terrorism suspects arrested in Toronto, Georgia, Scotland, England, Bosnia and Denmark, according Scotland Yard.

U.S. government officials have said little about Aulaqi’s suspected involvement in planning terrorist attacks, but sources said information about him surfaced in 2006 in the investigation of a terrorist plot in Britian. It is not clear whether that information was a factor in Aulaqi’s arrest in Yemen on Aug. 31, 2006. The Yemeni government downplayed any ties to terrorism then. Yemen’s ambassador in Washington, Abdulwahab Al-Hajjri has said Aulaqi was held for "kidnapping, stuff like that. Family, tribal stuff."

There were conflicting press reports in the region, some suggesting Aulaqi was involved in a foiled plot by suicide bombers to blow up two oil installations in Yemen. All four assailants were killed during the Sept. 15, 2006 attack, which officials attributed to al-Qaeda.

Yemen, the ancestral home of the bin Laden family, has been a recruiting ground for al Qaeda and other radical groups. Even as it pledges to assist the United States in battling terrorism, the Yemen government has sought to appease militant Islamists.

Notwithstanding his citizenship and a decade spent in the U.S., Aulaqi comes from a prominent family in Yemen. His father, Nasser al Aulaqi, is a retired Yemeni government minister and former rector of Saana University.

"My son is not a terrorist," the elder Aulaqi told the Post in an interview last year. He said he had given a series of lectures at al Zindani’s Al-Iman University in the months before his arrest.

Zindani, who fought with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war, was named a "specially designated global terrorist" by the U.S. Treasury in 1994, accused of recruiting for al Qaeda training camps and funding weapons purchases for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Students at his university, said Treasury, are suspected in terrorist attacks and assassinations; among its attendees before he joined the Taliban was American John Walker Lindh. In 2003, a judge in Yemen said that several prisoners held for the attack on the Cole said Zindani issued a religious decree ordering the bombing, but the judge said he did not look into the truth of their claims. Zindani, a fiery red-bearded Islamic fundamentalist, is a founder of the opposition party Al- Islah, but he supports Saleh.

Zindani’s Al-Islah party runs Yemen’s biggest charity. Tax records show that in 1998 and 1999, while Aulaqi was imam at a mosque in San Diego, he served as vice president of its U.S. subsidiary, the now defunct Charitable Society for Social Welfare, Inc. The group reported collecting funds for the needy in Yemen. US prosecutors have called the group a "front organization" that supported al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Reports issued by the 9/11 Commission and the 2002 Joint House and Senate inquiry into 9/11 noted that the FBI opened an counterterrorism investigation of Aulaqi in June 1999 after it learned he may have been visited by a "procurement agent" for bin Ladin. Federal prosecutors then investigating the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa would use that description for a man named Ziyad Khaleel, who purchased a satellite phone and batteries for bin Laden.

Khaleel also was a U.S. fundraiser and webmaster for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which has been charged with violating sanctions against Iraq. IARA’s website listed Aulaqi’s organization–CSSW–as its partner in Yemen. Khaleel had a curious passing connection to one of the Virginia paintballers. In 2000, he rented a room from Randall Royer’s father in Colombia, Mo., where IARA was headquartered, though the elder Royer told the Post his son and Khaleel never met.

The 9/11 Commission and congressional investigators reported that Aulaqi was visited in early 2000 by a close associate of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh jailed for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Soon after, however, in March 2000, the FBI shut down its counterterrorism investigation of Aulaqi, saying later it did not have sufficient evidence to bring a case. A month before it did so, hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, fresh from an al Qaeda planning meeting in Malaysia, arrived in the United States and turned up at Aulaqi’s mosque in San Diego.

Witnesses later told the FBI that Aulaqi was a spiritual advisor to the two men. "Several persons informed the FBI after September 11 that this imam had closed-door meetings in San Diego with al-Midhar, al Hazmi and another individual," said the joint congressional inquiry report.

That June, Midhar left San Diego for a return trip to Yemen, where his wife had recently given birth. There his father-in-law was running al Qaeda’s communications hub, where information from operatives in many countries was relayed to bin Laden on his satellite phone.

Aulaqi departed San Diego that summer for an overseas sabbatical. He returned by early the next year, enrolling in a Phd. program at George Washington University. He also got hired as an imam at nearby Dar al Hijrah. Hamzi turned up at Aulaqi’s mosque in April, along with hijacker Hani Hanjour. Eyad al Rababah, a Jordanian man they met there, helped them find an apartment. Rababah later told the FBI he had bumped into them when he stayed around after prayer services to seek Aulaqi’s help finding work. Rababah would end up driving them and two other hijackers to New Jersey and Connecticut.

"Some [FBI] agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi’s prior relationship with Hazmi," the 9/11 Commission said in its report.

It was shortly thereafter, in May 2001, that a funeral was held at Dar al Hijrah for Hasan’s mother.

In the days after 9/11, Aulaqi told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he did not know Mihdhar or Hazmi. He told the FBI that he recognized Hazmi’s photograph as someone he met with several times at the San Diego mosque, but could not recall what they discussed. He denied ever meeting him or Hanjour in Virginia.

The FBI has said it did not have enough evidence to detain Aulaqi. Law enforcement sources the bureau wanted looked for ways, and even considered making a Mann act case here when he was photographed traveling with a woman they suspected was a prostitute.

The month after he left, an Aulaqi essay in Arabic appeared on IslamToday lauding the fervor of Palestinian suicide bombers titled, "Why Muslims Love Death." Aulaqi audiotaped a lecture at Masjid a--Tawhid in London months later, praising those who become "shaheeds" and "die in the sake of Allah."

"Some believe that Aulaqi was the first person since the summit meeting in Malaysia with whom al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi shared their terrorist intentions and plans," former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham wrote in his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters."

Aulaqi returned to the U.S. for about 10 days in October 2002. Court records show that while he was here, he paid a visit to the Fairfax home of Ali al-Timimi, spiritual leader of a group of hardline young Salafi Muslims who gathered to hear him at Dar al Arqam, a small Islamic center a few miles from Dar al Hijrah. Timimi was convicted in 2005 of inciting his young Muslim followers to go to Afghanistan after 9/11 and to wage war against the United States.

"At that meeting, Aulaqi attempted to get al Timimi to discuss issues related to the recruitment of young Muslims," according to a pre-trial court filing by Timimi lawyer Edward MacMahon, who wrote that the "entreaties were rejected." McMahon filed the motion to learn if government prosecutors had an undercover tape recording of the conversation.

Aulaqi and Timimi shared similar religious views and had appeared together as speakers at Islamic conferences, including one in England in August 2001.

Aulaqi had contact with two other members of the paintball group, court records show. Aulaqi was driven to Timimi’s home that day by Nabil Garbeih, a paintballer and Timimi follower who later testified as a government witness. Another paintball group member, Sabri Benkahla, convicted of perjury for lying about his attendance at jihad training camps, kept on his cell phone a number Aulaqi used abroad, according to FBI testimony at his trial.

In the months ahead, the investigation of the Fort Hood shootings may well prompt the FBI to take a closer look at the road that brought Aulaqi to Dar al Hijrah and the connections he may have made there.
 
Meh.
Personally, I don't care what his particular malfunction or motivation is or was.
I see no need to get in side his head or feel his pain.
I don't care what his race, creed, color, age, religion or national origin is.

Every star in the universe could line up on his side and what happened would still be horrifically wrong.

Can you make the argument of mistaken identity and it wasn't him, it was some guy that looked like him?

No?

Sorry. Get a friggan rope.

IMHO YMMV.
 
Before I get back into the semantics, I think you guy should check out this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/fort.hood.hasan/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

specifically:

As investigators explore what may have led to the shooting rampage, the U.S. State Department's top counterterrorism official said Thursday there appears to be no operational link between Hasan and any outside group, citing investigators who looked into Hasan's communications with a radical Islamic cleric.

Daniel Benjamin, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Hasan and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki had communicated through e-mails, but their content raised no red flags to investigators.

"I believe that the various investigating bureaus have said that they have seen these e-mail messages to a radical cleric, but that they were not a sufficient concern to open up an investigation, and there doesn't appear to be any linkage to any outside group in terms of the operation itself," Benjamin said in his first television interview since taking up his post.

I think it cements the idea that this wasn't some kind of terrorist attack, but was the actions of an individual who happened to hold overlapping beliefs.
I'm still thinking more and more that the label "terrorist" and its disputed definition are constricting this discussion. Personally, I don't think evidence of his links (or lack of, depending on your point of view) with a larger organization change his motives or actions. I DO think that all of the peripheral things (what he may have said prior to shooting, his business cards, supposed vocal support of suicide bombers) point to a possible motive. If it's determined that his political/religious leanings ended up playing a large part in this shooting, those same things (along with other signs) could be used to identify other people with similar intent.

I don't necessarily see it as bringing the xenophobia back. Those are facts of the case that are being reported. Surely you don't want them ignored? Some of the attitudes I've seen here don't really inspire me, but those feelings are going to exist whether we pay attention to and report a shooter's political/religious leanings or not.

Mike
 
I'm still thinking more and more that the label "terrorist" and its disputed definition are constricting this discussion. Personally, I don't think evidence of his links (or lack of, depending on your point of view) with a larger organization change his motives or actions. I DO think that all of the peripheral things (what he may have said prior to shooting, his business cards, supposed vocal support of suicide bombers) point to a possible motive. If it's determined that his political/religious leanings ended up playing a large part in this shooting, those same things (along with other signs) could be used to identify other people with similar intent.

Interesting. One of the points about whether he is labeled a terrorist or not may have a huge effect on if-by-whiskey arguments, which I'm sure the pundits would exploit to their every advantage.

Pilgrim said:
Everybody seems to want to pin this on ONE factor - whichever factor is their own personal hot button.

But human beings do not behave based on only ONE factor. They simply don't.

Causes I've heard people blame for the event:

- The Muslim religion
- Terrorism
- Mental illness
- Stress

And people want to blame it on ONE.

My answer is: it's almost certainly some combination of ALL of these. Human beings don't just act like this based on one event or one motivation. There is no simple, single answer, and there's not going to be.

So I wish people would stop over-simplifying it and attributing it to one thing. That's certain to be wrong.

+183,948,296,800,281.62

Human behavior is a complex system with a myriad of variables that interact with each other. You couldn't compute an ANOVA or regression analysis large enough to totally predict a person's behavior. Unfortunately, all of people, particuarly the punidts and people in the media, who earned their Psy.ds from The Armchair Quarterback School of Psychology are going to come up with all types of simplistic deductionist arguments to explain exactly why this man acted in the way he did. It's going to be an interesting time for those who love to watch media circuses and a frustrating time for those who actually understand the science of psychology. Fortunately and unfortunately, I fall into both camps. :D