White House vs. Fox News

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Because they were probably thinking that she meant "since 9/11" like any other fair person watching the clip would have.

Which still would be false...

[djhutch]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that those in the media would call Tiller's killer a terrorist. It is completely in line with their world view. I don't get the point of arguing whether its terrorism or a serial killer. I think the punishment should be the same for both of them.

[MrDeeds]

DJ, what gets me is how those in the media that are so adament in calling Tiller a terrorist are equally demonstrative in denouncing those who want to consider that fanatical muslim a terrorist. As you said, its a good look into their world view. In my book they are both terrorists and deserve to rot in hell.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Because they were probably thinking that she meant "since 9/11" like any other fair person watching the clip would have.

But she was obviously wrong even if that is what she meant. Any fair person would have corrected her mistake of ignoring anthrax.

[billms]

Originally Posted by djhutch

It doesn't surprise me in the least that those in the media would call Tiller's killer a terrorist. It is completely in line with their world view. I don't get the point of arguing whether its terrorism or a serial killer. I think the punishment should be the same for both of them.

Please explain to me why he isn't a terrorist. Do you really think the killing had no chilling effect on other doctors? And that this was not one of the intended goals? If that is your opinion - ok - maybe it isn't terrorism. However, if that is your position I think you are clearly wrong.

[billms]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

DJ, what gets me is how those in the media that are so adament in calling Tiller a terrorist are equally demonstrative in denouncing those who want to consider that fanatical muslim a terrorist. As you said, its a good look into their world view. In my book they are both terrorists and deserve to rot in hell.

Was columbine or VT terrorism?

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

Please explain to me why he isn't a terrorist. Do you really think the killing had no chilling effect on other doctors? And that this was not one of the intended goals? If that is your opinion - ok - maybe it isn't terrorism. However, if that is your position I think you are clearly wrong.

I don't care if you call him a terrorist or not. I don't think it matters what you label either one of them. They both deserve the death penalty. I'm most interested in the reasons some call one a terrorist & seem to avoid calling the other a terrorist at all costs. I think it's purely political. They've done all they can to promote Islam as a perfectly peaceful religion, especially here in America, and if they call Hasan a terrorist they feel like they're admitting they're wrong, something they are loathe to do. The minute you skew your news writing for reasons such as this is the day you can no longer call yourself objective. I'm fine with that, I have no problem at all with media doing that, but at least have the guts to admit it.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by djhutch

They've done all they can to promote Islam as a perfectly peaceful religion, especially here in America, and if they call Hasan a terrorist they feel like they're admitting they're wrong, something they are loathe to do.

I don't think any religion is an inherently violent religion. I also think people can twist the words of any religion to make it justify violence (except, perhaps Buddhism). One person's jihad is another person's crusade, if you'll remember your history. It just so happens that there is an extremist fringe within the Islamic religion that thinks they are justified in violence because some psycho clerics think they can pick out and twist certain words of the Koran to make it seem like violence is acceptable. You can do that with the Bible just as well.

I see terrorism as a military or political attack, and not one caused by someone with intense emotional and psychological problems that tries to lash out. The motivations are completely different. Hasan fits more into that latter category, despite his religion. A military attack can be carried out by any average rational soldier for a political cause. You don't necessarily have to be mentally disturbed to carry out a terrorist attack, at least any more than any other soldier has to be mentally disturbed to kill whom he believes to be an "enemy". You just have to be able to carry out orders for your team. A shooting spree has a completely different motivation, and from the evidence that is available, Hasan's motivations were caused by his own inner problems and not fighting for a foreign army.

If you can't see the difference between these two acts, and want to dismiss the difference as "purely political," than I think you're the one that is trying to equate the two types of attack for your own political reasons. And for the record, I've lived with two Muslims before, and both were some of the most peaceful, respectful and docile people I've ever met. Far more so than most Christians I have ever known. They obviously didn't see any violent motivations in the Koran, and would probably feel pretty ashamed and offended that you try to attribute violence to their religion.

[billms]

Originally Posted by djhutch

I don't care if you call him a terrorist or not. I don't think it matters what you label either one of them. They both deserve the death penalty. I'm most interested in the reasons some call one a terrorist & seem to avoid calling the other a terrorist at all costs. I think it's purely political. They've done all they can to promote Islam as a perfectly peaceful religion, especially here in America, and if they call Hasan a terrorist they feel like they're admitting they're wrong, something they are loathe to do. The minute you skew your news writing for reasons such as this is the day you can no longer call yourself objective. I'm fine with that, I have no problem at all with media doing that, but at least have the guts to admit it.

If you don't care what they call them and the labels don't matter and you are not interested in thinking about it it is ridiculous that you think that others apply labels only for political reasons. If you are not willing to engage your brain and listen to the reasoning - and there is quite a bit - then you are just making a judgement about these people based on your own political prejudices not theirs.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

A shooting spree has a completely different motivation, and from the evidence that is available, Hasan's motivations were caused by his own inner problems and not fighting for a foreign army.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence that is available? How can you say that the shooting didn't have anything to do with his own inner conflict of fighting against fellow Muslims in the army? Did you know that he has tried to get out of the Army for years because of the conflict between the American military and his Islamic faith? If you are solely getting your information from the likes of Kos, Maddow, Slate and other left wing sites, therein lies your problem.

Hasan was in contact with Al-Qaeda operatives and radical clerics who openly campaign for jihad against the West.

The hearing comes as new revelations about Hasan's monitored email contacts with an extremist preacher in Yemen deepen questions about whether his behavior should have set off red flags before the shooting rampage.

He told Anwar al-Awlaki that he "couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife", according to ABC News. He also asked the cleric when jihad (holy war) was appropriate and whether it was permissible if innocents were killed in a suicide attack.

The two men also discussed financial transfers abroad by Hasan in communications that intensified in the run-up to the shootings, The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the emails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources.

Some were sent to the FBI's Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources told the newspaper.

"He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalised toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances," said the source. "It became very clear toward the end of those emails he was interested in taking action."

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Hasan faces first court hearing - Telegraph

Why would an officer in the US military continuously be contacting Al-Qaeda and terrorists sympathizers? Was he looking for a recipe on how to grill his kababs? Was he looking for a good wife who shared his faith? Why was he talking with a known terrorist about transferring money?

He also gave a 1 hour lecture to Army superiors on how the Muslim faith justifies, in the minds of Muslims, the jihad against the West. He also pointed out that Muslims in the military should be allowed to conscientiously object to the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. With cruel forewarning, he explained that Muslims within the Army could one day use acts of terrorism against fellow soldiers.

Take a look at who he targeted for his supposedly "random" shooting spree. On an Army base that's over 330 square miles and has over 50,000 active duty soldiers, he specifically targeted a building and a specific area within that building where Army troops were being ready for deployment to Afghanistan. Why do you think he chose to target these particular soldiers?


And you also have Hasan in his own words:

NidalHasan scribbled: There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.

NidalHasan | Scribd


If you believe that either Hasan or the Dr. Tiller murderer isnt a terrorist then you are either willfully ignoring the evidence from both cases, or you are a paid political operative.

[TheCouga]

You're totally wrong about where I get my news from.

However, Hasan had a history of mental problems before the attack was committed. Those e-mails don't prove anything about whether he was operating as a political operative or not. All it shows me is that a crazy man sent some e-mails to someone who would likely sympathize with his deluded fantasies. He might have deluded himself into thinking that he was being a hero and he was fighting evil. That's what most serial killers and shooting spree killers convince themselves of before they commit the act. They convince themselves that their victims don't deserve to live because they are evil, heartless and/or worthless, so they deserve to die. This guy's killing came from his own mental instability and insanity, and not from instructions from or affiliation with a political group or foreign army. If this same guy did the same thing in the name of Christianity, he'd be regarded as a psycho, and not a terrorist. The only reason people want to call him a terrorist is because Islam is involved.

[billms]

The government looked into his contacts with AQ sources and concluded - prior to Ft. Hood - that it was a proper part of his ongoing research. Perhaps they were wrong - but the experts saw a perfectly reasonable reason for it Deeds.

It is ironic that many of the same voices that condemned the earlier report on right wing extremist violence and terrorism being associated to some degree with military personel and vets now want to make that connection strong. I assume its because it helps them tar muslims and Obama - advancing their cultural and political views.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

You're totally wrong about where I get my news from.

However, Hasan had a history of mental problems before the attack was committed. Those e-mails don't prove anything about whether he was operating as a political operative or not. All it shows me is that a crazy man sent some e-mails to someone who would likely sympathize with his deluded fantasies. He might have deluded himself into thinking that he was being a hero and he was fighting evil. That's what most serial killers and shooting spree killers convince themselves of before they commit the act. They convince themselves that their victims don't deserve to live because they are evil, heartless and/or worthless, so they deserve to die. This guy's killing came from his own mental instability and insanity, and not from instructions from or affiliation with a political group or foreign army. If this same guy did the same thing in the name of Christianity, he'd be regarded as a psycho, and not a terrorist. The only reason people want to call him a terrorist is because Islam is involved.

So you are saying that even if Hasan committed the murders because he believed himself to be an agent of Islam who is fighting against evil, he still isn't a terrorist? That would also mean that since Dr. Tiller's murderer rationalized that he was fighting against evil by killing an abortion doctor, he was not a terrorist, but rather just another insane killer. Take the parisan shades off. Both of these men are terrorists.

[billms]

Don't you think it depends on whether the goal was to terrorize others as a result of the act? I do. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts deeds.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

So you are saying that even if Hasan committed the murders because he believed himself to be an agent of Islam who is fighting against evil, he still isn't a terrorist? That would also mean that since Dr. Tiller's murderer rationalized that he was fighting against evil by killing an abortion doctor, he was not a terrorist, but rather just another insane killer. Take the parisan shades off. Both of these men are terrorists.

I will admit that it's kind of a fine line, but I just don't see this guy's motivation as political. The Tiller murder was commited strictly as a political act to terrorize a group of people. I'm not even sure the killer was insane. What group of people did Hasan try to terrorize?

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The only reason people want to call him a terrorist is because Islam is involved.

I chose this one sentence.

My view of terrorist seems not to agree with several here. I don't care if Hasan was Baptist and named Rockefeller, by his known actions and possible ties, I consider him a terrorist. His real Islamic connection is only incidental.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

What group of people did Hasan try to terrorize?

Americans

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

Americans

I'm not scared. Every indication had been that this guy acted out of his own psychosis, and not for a greater political cause. And he's where he belongs now.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

I'm not scared. Every indication had been that this guy acted out of his own psychosis, and not for a greater political cause. And he's where he belongs now.

Soldiers are Americans too. How about other good Muslim-Americans? They might be negatively affected by his actions as well.

Even if he didn't do a real good job at spreading fear, his connections and some beliefs can lead you to conclude that he was doing it for religious/political reasons or to spread hatred. I personally think he was a terrorist but I also acknowledge that not everyone might have the same definition of the term.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that he exchanged emails with Anwar al-Awlaki makes it a fairly easy connection.

If a white man had exchanged emails with a high ranking member of the KKK who openly spreads hate towards African Americans, and then proceeded to gun down 13 black people and injure 30 more, I don't think it would be a question that this person committed an act of terror or not, at least in my opinion.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

Soldiers are Americans too. How about other good Muslim-Americans? They might be negatively affected by his actions as well.

Even if he didn't do a real good job at spreading fear, his connections and some beliefs can lead you to conclude that he was doing it for religious/political reasons or to spread hatred. I personally think he was a terrorist but I also acknowledge that not everyone might have the same definition of the term.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that he exchanged emails with Anwar al-Awlaki makes it a fairly easy connection.

If a white man had exchanged emails with a high ranking member of the KKK who openly spreads hate towards African Americans, and then proceeded to gun down 13 black people and injure 30 more, I don't think it would be a question that this person committed an act of terror or not, at least in my opinion.

That's a decent analogy, but I really think Hasan's mental problems were the motivating factor, and not religion. I'm willing to admit that whether the attack was terrorism or just a man gone mad via mass-shooting is debatable. To me, the act looks more like a school or workplace shooting than anything else. But this case is complex, and there was likely more than one motivation behind the shooting.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

That's a decent analogy, but I really think Hasan's mental problems were the motivating factor, and not religion. I'm willing to admit that whether the attack was terrorism or just a man gone mad via mass-shooting is debatable. To me, the act looks more like a school or workplace shooting than anything else. But this case is complex, and there was likely more than one motivation behind the shooting.

I think the deciding factor will probably be the nature of the contacts that he made. If they were hate based at all I think that the assumption can be made that he was a terrorist. If they weren't, then I think you're probably right. It is a very tough subject though. However, the views of Veterans and active military can probably give better insight whether or not this "feels" like a terrorist attack than I would be able to.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

I will admit that it's kind of a fine line, but I just don't see this guy's motivation as political. The Tiller murder was commited strictly as a political act to terrorize a group of people. I'm not even sure the killer was insane. What group of people did Hasan try to terrorize?

He was terrorizing the same people who the fellow suicide killers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorize, American soldiers.

If he was just a psycho out to kill his co-workers he would have gone to the hospital where he worked and started shooting. Instead, on a base with 50,000 soldiers and over 330 square miles in size, he specifically targeted soldiers deploying to Afghanistan. Soldiers who he felt were fighting agaisnt his people in a religious holy war.

[billms]

Wait a minute - are you telling me that snipers from other military are not terrorizing soldiers? Of course not. So logically they must be terrorists as well. And our soldiers terrorize other soldiers - we are better trained and have better equipment. So you must feel our soldiers are terrorists.

I disagree with you Deeds - for the most part our soldiers are not terrorists.