News Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

[Evo]

Quite possibly, but was it a premeditated terror act or he just "lost it" as so many other killers who went berserk and started shooting random ppl at their work place or in their schools ?

Since Takbir has a a great significance for Muslims, I find likely he would use it either as a "battle-cry", either as a mean to reinforce his courage in both cases.

Have you read any of the interviews with friends and neighbors? This appears to be pre-meditated. He spent the day before giving away his belongings to neighbors and calling friends to say good bye. Did you read the article I posted with interviews of his friends and Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen? You seem to be posting without actually reading up on what has been said. You seem unaware of any of these facts.

 

[arildno]

Since Takbir has a a great significance for Muslims, I find likely he would use it either as a "battle-cry", either as a mean to reinforce his courage in both cases.

Well, you are fishing for alternatives, and that's legitimate.

However, how does a person go about who is clamouring in order to gain courage?

Hasan has been described as being methodical and focused. He re-shot wounded people who showed signs of movement, even chasing a wounded person who was running away.

This seems more as a devoted killing spree, coldly calculated, and that rather used the Takbir to "strike terror in the hearts of men" or to invoke the wrath of Allah upon his foes, or to prepare himself for martyrdom by aligning himself with his God.

A nervous man that tries to steel himself to action would have a different modus operandi, in my opinion (more of a wild shooting ecent, running about etc.)

 

[arildno]

It seems that, from Evo's article, the promotion in 2008 was almost automatic:

Hasan was promoted from captain to major in 2008, the same year he graduated from the master's program. Bernard Rostker, a military personnel expert at the Rand Corp., said Hasan's advancement was all but certain absent a serious blemish on his record, such as a DUI or a drug charge.

"We're short of officers, particularly at the major and lieutenant colonel level because of the war, and we're short of psychiatrists," said Rostker, who served as under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness during the Clinton administration. "There would have had to be something very detrimental in his record before there would have been a banner that would have said, 'No, we don't want to promote him.'"

Thus, my own speculation that his career was going well because he was promoted, cannot be sustained. Therefore, this cannot be used as an argument, as I did, against the possibility that he was "harassed". He might have been that, or at least his automatic promotion can't tell us anything about it.

 

[DanP]

Have you read any of the interviews with friends and neighbors? This appears to be pre-meditated.

Premeditation of a extremist Islam terror act ? Did he seek to force coercion on USA foreign policy ? Was he highly motivated to support the terror agenda of any group ? Was he on a quest against "infidels" , hence possibly executing a premeditating terror act of against Christians ?

Or was he premeditating a multiple crime , much like Virgina Tech massacre ? Clack up under pressure and taking revenge against those who allegedly "wronged" him. May it be fellow students or coworkers. In this case , it happens coworkers are armed forces personal. Which makes the case very delicate.

Im not very sure he had a deep religious motivation against infidels, since he seem to treat pretty kind his neighbors, judging by the press by press accounts. Thanking an infidel for being a good friend would be something pretty unusual if he was motivated by extremist religious ideas.

What I am interested is to see if law enforcement will find evidence for the internet posts who allegedly were written by him. A confirmation would greatly contribute in elucidating the motives behind his monstrous act.

 

[Evo]

Premeditation of a extremist Islam terror act ?

Premeditation of mass murder. That he also had voiced his beliefs of the US being engaged in a Holy War against Islam will have to be taken into consideration as a motive.

 

[DanP]

Premeditation of mass murder.

Based on the facts so far I agree with this. Further investigation upon motives may change this into premeditation of a terror act, by revealing new facts.

A coverage in the media exclusively biased toward "Islamic terrorism act" is not warranted IMO at the time being. Speculations on both sides are welcome , of course.

 

[OmCheeto]

Not insisting at all. Just typed that message at the spur of the moment.
Since you are right in the higher suicide risk for military personell relative to the civilians being statistically insignificant we might forget it.

However, it still doesn't explain that previously, there was as I understand a significantly reduced risk for military personell in terms of suicide, but that now, the rates are for all purposes equal.

Quite significant.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html" , five U.S. soldiers try to kill themselves. Before the Iraq war began, that figure was less than one suicide attempt a day.

And perhaps another reason Hasan was promoted:

That training came too late for Army Specialist Tim Bowman. The 23-year-old killed himself in 2005 after returning from Iraq.

"As my family was preparing for a 2005 Thanksgiving meal, our son Timothy was lying on the floor, slowly bleeding to death from a self-inflicted gunshot wound," said his father, Mike Bowman, in testimony to a House Veterans' Affairs committee hearing in December. "His war was now over."
advertisement

He said veterans return home to find an "understaffed, under-funded, under-equipped" Veterans Affairs mental health system.

"Many just give up trying," he said.

 

[Evo]

Based on the facts so far I agree with this. Further investigation upon motives may change this into premeditation of a terror act, by revealing new facts.

A coverage in the media exclusively biased toward "Islamic terrorism act" is not warranted IMO at the time being. Speculations on both sides are welcome , of course.

Honestly, unless an admission directly from him is found, we can only speculate based on pieces of evidence. I would feel that it's safe to say that his religious convictions had some part of it, although I doubt it is the sole factor, as I believe that he was mentally unstable. But then I guess anyone that takes a religious belief to this point is mentally unstable.

 

[Sorry!]

Honestly, unless an admission directly from him is found, we can only speculate based on pieces of evidence. I would feel that it's safe to say that his religious convictions had some part of it, although I doubt it is the sole factor, as I believe that he was mentally unstable. But then I guess anyone that takes a religious belief to this point is mentally unstable.

Just to point out:

Just because the attacker had religious motivations does not make in an act of terrorism... what kind of definition of terrorism are you guys using here in these forums?

From russ's original post:

I'm disturbed by what I am seeing in some media's coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. It seems to me that some media outlets that lean left are downplaying or ignoring the possibility - probability - that this incident was religious motivated terrorism.

If I stone someone to death for working on Sunday using the Bible as a reason for my actions does that mean I'm a terrorist?

 

[DanP]

Well, you are fishing for alternatives, and that's legitimate.

It wouldn't be fun if we wouldn't look at all possibilities.

 

[Evo]

Just to point out:

Just because the attacker had religious motivations does not make in an act of terrorism... what kind of definition of terrorism are you guys using here in these forums?

I said I believe they would be mentally unstable. That would pose the question of if some religious beliefs are more easily misconstrued and embraced by the menatlly ill.

Crimes in the name of religion have always been a large part of history, but it seems that most religions have reformed to make it clear that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Is this an issue with Islam? Perhaps in some extreme versions killing is acceptable, or even to be admired if it is done for religious reasons?

 

[Sorry!]

I said I believe they would be mentally unstable. That would pose the question of if some religious beliefs are more easily misconstrued and embraced by the menatlly ill.

Crimes in the name of religion have always been a large part of history, but it seems that most religions have reformed to make it clear that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Is this an issue with Islam? Perhaps in some extreme versions killing is acceptable if it is done for religious reasons?

Yeah I know YOUR stance on it but other people on here seem to think it was an act of terrorism and your statement up there kind of looked liek you were supporting it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Clack up under pressure and taking revenge against those who allegedly "wronged" him. May it be fellow students or coworkers. In this case , it happens coworkers are armed forces personal. Which makes the case very delicate.

He apparently did not know any of the people he was shooting at, they were new recruits. He was seemingly targeting the military at large which coupled with the fact that these were not armed persons engaged in combat would seem to indicate that he was making an example or sending a message.

People who 'snap' and 'take revenge' usually target persons they know though many bystanders may get in the way. Quite often after the initial burst of violence the 'snapped' person will also start ignoring bystanders in their pursuit for their intended targets. These strangers would seem to have been Hasan's target making revenge on coworkers a fairly unlikely motivation.

 

[Sorry!]

He apparently did not know any of the people he was shooting at, they were new recruits. He was seemingly targeting the military at large which coupled with the fact that these were not armed persons engaged in combat would seem to indicate that he was making an example or sending a message.

People who 'snap' and 'take revenge' usually target persons they know though many bystanders may get in the way. Quite often after the initial burst of violence the 'snapped' person will also start ignoring bystanders in their pursuit for their intended targets. These strangers would seem to have been Hasan's target making revenge on coworkers a fairly unlikely motivation.

Why does he need to act against certain individuals and not the entire 'company'. It's most likely he has acted out of rage towards his job in general not any person in particular.

EDIT: Actually I've come to realize that I just repeated exactly what you said my mistake :D haha.

 

[mheslep]

Well, you are fishing for alternatives, and that's legitimate...

Well it at least it should be legitimate, and that's the point of the OP.

Russ's original post was interesting in that it pointed out several sources in the media that were attempting to de-legitimize, or at least ignore, any inquiry into one of the alternatives: that this was a premeditated attack based on Hasan's radical Islamic beliefs. Even in this thread we've had some condescending posts upon consideration of that alternative.

 

[DanP]

He apparently did not know any of the people he was shooting at, they were new recruits. He was seemingly targeting the military at large which coupled with the fact that these were not armed persons engaged in combat would seem to indicate that he was making an example or sending a message.

People who 'snap' and 'take revenge' usually target persons they know though many bystanders may get in the way. Quite often after the initial burst of violence the 'snapped' person will also start ignoring bystanders in their pursuit for their intended targets. These strangers would seem to have been Hasan's target making revenge on coworkers a fairly unlikely motivation.

Donno how relevant this is. I don't think Virginia Tech shooter knew every one of his victims. He targeted ppl on premises at large.

 

[DanP]

Well it at least it should be legitimate, and that's the point of the OP.

Russ's original post was interesting in that it pointed out several sources in the media that were attempting to de-legitimize, or at least ignore, any inquiry into one of the alternatives: that this was a premeditated attack based on Hasan's radical Islamic beliefs. Even in this thread we've had some condescending posts upon consideration of that alternative.

As we had condescending posts upon consideration of the other alternative :P See, complete coverage from all points of view.

Russ's initial posts also stated:

We have very strong indications that this was an act of Islamic extremist terrorism and yet news organizations are speculating more prominently about some vicarious PTSD?!

From my point of view there is not enough data to conclusively lean towards it. This may change in the future, upon new facts discovered on his motives, his psychological profile, and so on. And the last word will be probably heard from a court of law.

Equilibrium coverage in press is preferable, but it won't happen in the real world. And while all speculations are legitimate, there are no rules forcing the media to prefer a side or another of the story.

Just read press from companies which lean on both right and left and youll get more than from each of them. I don't see anything particularly disturbing in what's happening in the press.

 

[mabs239]

An engineer just shot up his former work place in Orlando, Florida. OMG! What's his religion?

That's a ridiculous question, isn't it? It hasn't been addressed by the media...well, he must not be Muslim.

Chill out about Nidal Hasan's religion. The guy clearly had mental illness. He was born in the Virginia, a graduate of Virginia Tech. He is *American*...most likely, he is simply a mentally ill American.

Mentally ill people often use religion as a scaffold for their illness...how many people in mental institutions identify themselves as Jesus?

I don't see any logic in trying to associate his actions with his religion.

 

[arildno]

Hasan has been linked linked to extremist preachers all the way back to pre 9/11, and even to two of the 9/11 terrorists:

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an 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.

As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers... who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

 

[OmCheeto]

Hasan has been linked linked to extremist preachers all the way back to pre 9/11, and even to two of the 9/11 terrorists:

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

Interesting link. I believe we'll be hearing more about Anwar al Awlaki, and his relationship with Hasan.

http://insidesomalia.org/200910192527/News/Media-Technology/The-powerful-online-voice-of-jihad.html"
Monday, 19 October 2009 16:22
Awlaki's role in allegedly inciting "homegrown terrorism" was just a footnote in the volumes of evidence submitted in the Toronto case.


"Guys like Anwar al Awlaki provide do-it-yourself Islam," Shaikh told the Star. "He's building a fantasy and then pushing them over the edge. It appeals at a very basic level. It's like sheep food and they gobble it up."

Three of five men convicted this year of plotting an attack against U.S. soldiers in Fort Dix were allegedly inspired by his "Constants of Jihad" lecture, a court was told.

Six American youths from Minnesota's Somali community have been killed in Somalia after secretly traveling there to join al Shabaab.
They too had watched Awlaki's videos, their families reported.

In the meanwhile, we can become a fan:

 

[russ_watters]

Just to point out:

Just because the attacker had religious motivations does not make in an act of terrorism... what kind of definition of terrorism are you guys using here in these forums?

From russ's original post:

If I stone someone to death for working on Sunday using the Bible as a reason for my actions does that mean I'm a terrorist?

No, a stoning isn't terrorism. Terrosim involves an act or threat of violence against people or property for political purposes.

Please understand: it isn't terrorism because of the religion aspect, it is terrorism because of the political aspect. It just so happens that in this case the religion is driving the politics. Ie, Hasan came to be fighting a "holy war".

I'm a little surprised I'm getting resistance on this point. Do people who don't see this as terrorism also not see the 9/11 bombings as terrorism? If you do - what is the difference that makes you think of one as terrorism and the other not?

Important Caveat: A memeber of a foreign military attacking members of our military, even via unconventional means is not a terrorist. An argument could be made (though I think unsuccessfully due to the context) that this was simply an agent of a foreign military attacking our military.

Another Important Caveat: AFAIK, there is no chargeable crime called "terrorism" so while I consider the label important as a matter of honest analysis, whether the word is used or not doesn't change the following, which at this point I consider a fact:
Hasan committed murder in large part due to his religious/political beliefs.

 

[russ_watters]

Well it at least it should be legitimate, and that's the point of the OP.

Russ's original post was interesting in that it pointed out several sources in the media that were attempting to de-legitimize, or at least ignore, any inquiry into one of the alternatives: that this was a premeditated attack based on Hasan's radical Islamic beliefs. Even in this thread we've had some condescending posts upon consideration of that alternative.

Yes. It bears repeating. The fact that we are debating all of these alternatives here is fine. The point of the OP was to point out the fact that much of the media is ignoring one particular motive and forwarding another as a probable motive.

As someone else pointed out, the two motives (Islamic extremist terrorism and vicarious PTSD) are not mutually exclusive. In addition, there is a awful lot of evidence for the religious motivation. And that's why I started the thread: why is the media not taking seriously the evidence that points to a religious motivation?

 

[russ_watters]

Honestly, unless an admission directly from him is found, we can only speculate based on pieces of evidence. I would feel that it's safe to say that his religious convictions had some part of it, although I doubt it is the sole factor, as I believe that he was mentally unstable. But then I guess anyone that takes a religious belief to this point is mentally unstable.

I guess I would agree, though I think I would say that the evidence very strongly points to the religious motive. We already have one such statement: shouting "Allah Akbar!" before starting to fire.

I'd even be willing to place a wager that we will find something more substantive, such as a statement made to one of his Imans or an internet posting.

 

[russ_watters]

I said I believe they would be mentally unstable. That would pose the question of if some religious beliefs are more easily misconstrued and embraced by the menatlly ill.

That question has been raised in here before and I'd prefer to keep discussion of it out of this thread. There is no need to generalize this beyond the case in question and it isn't the topic I was trying to discuss here. I'm not sure it even meets our guidelines anyway.

 

[DanP]

No. Terrosim involves an act or threat of violence against people or property for political purposes.

Please understand: it isn't terrorism because of the religion aspect, it is terrorism because of the political aspect. It just so happens that in this case the religion is driving the politics. Ie, Hasan came to be fighting a "holy war".

[/b]

This is exactly the point. At this time the existing circumstantial evidence is not enough to
determine whatever it was a terrorist attack. (IMO of course)

What it must be established beyond reasonable doubt is that the perpetrator:

1. Used violence with the intention to perpetrate a political goal
2. It is not clinically insane

Circumstantial evidence builds up and each piece of the puzzle reinforces another.
As I previously stated, I'm interested to see the answers law enforcement will give for

- linking him with the internet posts speaking about "martyrs" which where allegedly made by him
- answering whatever Anwar al Awlaki had any influences *on him* which could lead to motivation to commit a terrorist attack
- a profile made by a forensic profiler (most likely prosecution will resort to expert whiteness)
- a profile made by defense expert whiteness
- X other developments which time can bring in this case

The truth is you are not getting resistance. At least not from me. It can surely be a terror act, as it can be mass murder. Some ppl made their mind, I prefer to wait for more evidence. For me this thread it's a killer / victim "game", where we try to speculate and build scenarios using the circumstantial evidence we have.

 

[DanP]

That question has been raised in here before and I'd prefer to keep discussion of it out of this thread. There is no need to generalize this beyond the case in question and it isn't the topic I was trying to discuss here. I'm not sure it even meets our guidelines anyway.

But it is extremely relevant to the nature of the case. You can't keep things of this nature out and expect to find out more.

Of course, we need to know the testimony of expert witnesses. But then again, all we do is speculation.

 

[DanP]

I guess I would agree, though I think I would say that the evidence very strongly points to the religious motive. We already have one such statement: shouting "Allah Akbar!" before starting to fire.
.

Yes, it is circumstantial evidence but you need to corroborate it with more. On it;s own doesn't stand too much value.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, they're saying it now:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/07/official-timing-of-hasan-s-gun-purchase-shows-of-course-he-planned-this.aspx"
To some in law enforcement - including the one who spoke to Newsweek -- the purchase of the high-powered gun, the Internet writing and Hasan's alleged shouting of "Allah U Akbar" (Arabic for "God is Great") during the attack - suggest that the Fort Hood shooting should be viewed more as a terrorist act by a "lone wolf" Muslim extremist than as the work of a troubled physician who "snapped" under pressure.

 

[russ_watters]

This is exactly the point. At this time the existing circumstantial evidence is not enough to
determine whatever it was a terrorist attack. (IMO of course)

What it must be established beyond reasonable doubt is that the perpetrator...

Of course we aren't at the point where we can know anything for sure. This just happened 4 days ago. "Reasonable doubt" is the criteria for conviction. There are many steps that have to come before presenting a case to a jury, starting with investigating all reasonable theories of the crime.

So let's flip it over: The media is forwarding a theory that this was caused by vicarious PTSD. Do you think they should not be forwarding or exploring this theory?

The truth is you are not getting resistance. At least not from me. It can surely be a terror act, as it can be mass murder. Some ppl made their mind, I prefer to wait for more evidence. For me this thread it's a killer / victim "game", where we try to speculate and build scenarios using the circumstantial evidence we have.

This thread was motivated by one thing only: the fact that the media is preferentially supporting one theory over another. If you are arguing against me on any basis other than that, you are missing the point of the thread. If you agree that this could be an act of Islamic terrorism, then there is no reason for you to be arguing with me here!

 

[DanP]

So let's flip it over: The media is forwarding a theory that this was caused by vicarious PTSD. Do you think they should not be forwarding or exploring this theory?

The media should indeed explore all possible theories , from the point of view of professional integrity.

However we know that things doesn't work so in practice, that media is one of the major opinion forming instrument in Western society. Hence I would be very surprised if all the press trusts would adopt an equidistant line.

Such a high profile incident bears with it a lot of political torque. (Unfortunately, death of the humans are often used to gain political capital). It is to be expected the "liberal" media use it as capital against war, or whatever other agenda they want to push, while other trusts to lean the balance in the other side, using it to support whatever they believe in.

I argued other possibilities because of this very specific construct in your initial post:

***************************************************************
We have very strong indications that this was an act of Islamic extremist terrorism and yet news organizations are speculating more prominently...
******************************************************************

It didn't seem to me that we have "strong indications that this was an act of Islamic extremist terrorism". All we have is circumstantial evidence which must be verified for validity by investigators then needs to be corroborated, and this process will take some time.