Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

[russ_watters]

Well, they're saying it now:

Glad they are reporting it - there is still a notable difference in tone. They reported the PTSD theory as their own theory. The terrorism possibility is attributed to "some in law enforcement".

 

[russ_watters]

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

Glad to hear it...

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.

Agreed.

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.

Ok - well, you seem to not think any evidence publicized 4 days after a crime can be "strong", so maybe that's all we disagree on. If you remove the word "strong" from that sentence (I did honestly debate with myself about whether to use it), then do you agree with the premise of the sentence?

 

[russ_watters]

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

I'm curious as to why you think shouting "Allah Akbar" doesn't have too much value in pointing to his motivation. Considering that it is probably the most common phrase shouted by terrorists before committing their acts of terrorism, it seems to me to be an intentional statement of motive, roughly translatable to: 'I'm killing you in the name of God'.

 

[DanP]

I'm curious as to why you think shouting "Allah Akbar" doesn't have too much value in pointing to his motivation.

The actual construct I used was "one it's own it doesn't stand too much value". Its different.

Given the fact that it is used by terrorist groups as "battle cry" and the situation in which the perpetrator allegedly used it constitutes circumstantial evidence indeed.

But any lawyer will weaken it's value pointing out that Takbir is of utmost importance in the life of all Muslims, it is integrate part of Muslim religion, part of their prayers, and an expression used with a large variety of semantics.

It will point out that there are other reasons for the perpetrator to use the Takbir. The simplest being reinforcement of determination. He doesn't have to prove those potential uses, only to point them out. The alleged killer is probably indeed a religious man, but this in itself is not a crime. All Muslim religious man hold Takbir dear. Not all of them are terrorists.

It will point out the apparent contradiction between interpretation as 'I'm killing you in the name of God' and the fact the perpetrator appeared to be extremely friendly against Christians, even thanking one of them for being a good friend. It will make his neighbors come to the stand and will get from them indications the perpetrator was friendly to Christians, and maybe even a good neighbor. It is a weird behavior coming from somebody who wants to kill Christians in the name of his God.

If they'll argue insanity, the subject becomes even more clouded.

So all this will weaken the argument in the court. However, if other circumstantial evidence is produced, for example if the perpetrator is found under the influence of persons who preach Holy Wars against Christians, the law enforcement will link him to the "martyr" posts who where allegedly written by him, prosecution experts find his psycho profile to fit with the terrorist model, you will suddenly have a much stronger case. Each circumstantial evidence will reinforce the total, theyll all act in a synergistic way.

This is why I said that on it;s own doesn't have much value.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

I don't think that an act of terrorism is defined as being political.
Would you say a random assassination of the persident by an angry citizen is an act of terrorism?

9/11 was an act of terrorism there is no question about it.
The point of these attacks was to spread fear and panic in the public which it succeeded in doing. (clearly since I highly doubt if 9/11 hadn't happened we would be talking about if this man is a terrorist.) Of course there is a level of politics in terrorism but I don't think that's the defining characteristic of terrorism.

 

[DanP]

I don't think that an act of terrorism is defined as being political.

Actually, it is. It has to have more features, but the political component is a mandatory one.

 

[nuby]

Who cares what the motive was? If there were "politics" involved with the media coverage (to avoid muslim hate crimes) , why is this troubling to you?

 

[DanP]

Glad to hear it... Agreed. Ok - well, you seem to not think any evidence publicized 4 days after a crime can be "strong", so maybe that's all we disagree on. If you remove the word "strong" from that sentence (I did honestly debate with myself about whether to use it), then do you agree with the premise of the sentence?

Yes, I would find it much more "equidistant" without the word strong. In fact replacing the word "strong" with "circumstantial" ... "evidence pointing in the direction of a terrorist attack" would make me agree with the premise.

 

[rootX]

Who cares what the motive was? If there were "politics" involved with the media coverage (to avoid muslim hate crimes) , why is this troubling to you?

I was also trying to point out this thing. Blaming religion wouldn't achieve anything other than more discrimination against large number of innocent people who are Islamic. It is possible to reject all Muslims from serving in the army but then calling it war against Islam would do more harm.

But I would have to agree that religion played a big part in this incident but I doubt that he had links to terrorists or that he had intentions when he joined the army.

 

[Sorry!]

Actually, it is. It has to have more features, but the political component is a mandatory one.

Well actually, terrorism does not have to have any politics involved in it. Many times it will but that's beside the point.

Just because something is politically motivated, religiously motivated, or motivated by anger or PTSD does not make it terrorism.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

I do not think that this incident fulfills any of these... Possibly he had an ideological goal but that is it.

 

[DanP]

Just because something is politically motivated, religiously motivated, or motivated by anger or PTSD does not make it terrorism.

Only because A and B share the same common property C does not make A == B.

I told you (in fact more persons told you) that a one of the important criteria of terrorism is political motivation. It is a widely accepted fact, and one of the base premises in defining terrorism. A key feature.

There is no use in disputing widely agreed upon definitions. If you want to define "white" as "black" it is your prerogative, but don't be surprised the rest of us will not react favorably to your newly invented definitions.

 

[arildno]

Only because A and B share the same common property C does not make A == B. .

Well, if "A" walks like a duck ("B"), looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e, shares three C's with "B"), then it is less rational to assume A=not-B than to assume A=B, unless "A" has some fourth property rarely held by ducks.

The least rational choice is to assume that "A" is NEITHER not-B nor B, since that is impossible.

 

[DanP]

Well, if "A" walks like a duck ("B"), looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e, shares three C's with "B"), then it is less rational to assume A=not-B than to assume A=B, unless "A" has some fourth property rarely held by ducks.

The least rational choice is to assume that "A" is NEITHER not-B nor B, since that is impossible.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood

 

[russ_watters]

Something else just occurred to me.

Whatever one might say about speculation/theorizing by people such as ourselves, in the context of this thread, such speculation/theorizing is an absolute necessity of law enforcement in the minutes, hours and days following such an attack. The first thing law enforcement must assess as soon as the cartriges stop bouncing off the floor is whether the shooter acted alone.

In cases of terrorism in general, it is rare for terrorists to act alone. In this case an investigation of his motivation appears to imply that he did work alone, but at the same time it would surprise me if there weren't others (besides those who had investigated him previously) who knew of this attack. And in chasing such people down, time is of the essence.

I can only hope that law enforcement isn't following the advice of Obama and the Army Chief of Staff who have advised against such speculation.

 

[DanP]

I can only hope that law enforcement isn't following the advice of Obama and the Army Chief of Staff who have advised against such speculation.

You are absolutely right.

But I don't think Obama tryed to imply anything for the way in which the criminal investigation is conducted.

I seen his words more as an appeal against *public speculations* by law enforcement, which can do more harm than good. My personal opinion, I could be wrong of course. (I am not American, I have neither republican or democratic sympathies).

I am sure you have there highly trained law enforcement investigators and specialists in homeland security which will follow every possible lead. I trust they'll get to the bottom of this.

 

[arildno]

I am sure you have there highly trained law enforcement investigators and specialists in homeland security which will follow every possible lead. I trust they'll get to the bottom of this.

Not if they fear they will be branded as bigoted racists (and hence see their careers stall/crumble) if they intimate that the killer's motive was strongly connected to his precious, wonderful religious faith.

 

[Sorry!]

Only because A and B share the same common property C does not make A == B.

I told you (in fact more persons told you) that a one of the important criteria of terrorism is political motivation. It is a widely accepted fact, and one of the base premises in defining terrorism. A key feature.

There is no use in disputing widely agreed upon definitions. If you want to define "white" as "black" it is your prerogative, but don't be surprised the rest of us will not react favorably to your newly invented definitions.

If only this made sense and had anything to do with what I was saying in my post. You seem to just be hostile towards anything that you assume to be against your point. I don't care what YOU told me. I care about what the actually definition of the word TERRORISM is and what it involves. Look it up. No terrorism does NOT require politics and no because something is politically motivated it does not make it terrorism either.

Thats my stance on this. If you have something more constructive to say or at least some references to substantiate your claim (as I have done) then go for it. If your just going to go off on me telling me it's of your opinion that such and such then don't bother replying to me.

 

[Sorry!]

Something else just occurred to me.

Whatever one might say about speculation/theorizing by people such as ourselves, in the context of this thread, such speculation/theorizing is an absolute necessity of law enforcement in the minutes, hours and days following such an attack. The first thing law enforcement must assess as soon as the cartriges stop bouncing off the floor is whether the shooter acted alone.

In cases of terrorism in general, it is rare for terrorists to act alone. In this case an investigation of his motivation appears to imply that he did work alone, but at the same time it would surprise me if there weren't others (besides those who had investigated him previously) who knew of this attack. And in chasing such people down, time is of the essence.

I can only hope that law enforcement isn't following the advice of Obama and the Army Chief of Staff who have advised against such speculation.

Yes but as it stands now there is nothing here for us to assume that he infact didn't act alone and until this evidence arises why should we speculate on this persons actions as being terrorism?

Yes it should be investigated but why spread rumors and hearsay without the concrete evidence?

Like this guy was part of the American military and he helped MANY soldiers in his long career as a part of the military so why should you guys come on this forum and **** on him?

Especially if it was some sort of disease that triggered this event. I just don't see why it's necessary at all.

 

[arildno]

Yes it should be investigated but why spread rumors and hearsay without the concrete evidence?

And what would be morally wrong about that?

Does it oppress the killer?

 

[DanP]

Not if they fear they will be branded as bigoted racists (and hence see their careers stall/crumble) if they intimate that the killer's motive was strongly connected to his precious, wonderful religious faith.

Are you actually trying to convey something ? Or was it yet another emotional statement ?

 

[arildno]

We may note the following outbursts from Hasan during lectures he gave to fellow medical doxtors:

Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

 

[Sorry!]

And what would be morally wrong about that?

Does it oppress the killer?

Are you part of the military or have any family in the military?

 

[mheslep]

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

Why? (first highlight mine) Why do you require that standard as to his motives? His actual commission of the crime requires that standard in a courtroom. But for policy purposes and general discussion why do we need BRD for motive?

 

[mheslep]

Yes but as it stands now there is nothing here for us to assume that he infact didn't act alone and until this evidence arises why should we speculate on this persons actions as being terrorism?

Yes it should be investigated but why spread rumors and hearsay without the concrete evidence?

Like this guy was part of the American military and he helped MANY soldiers in his long career as a part of the military

The fact that Hasan was a US soldier makes his actions worse. Just as it did for Calley at My Lai.

so why should you guys come on this forum and **** on him?

Especially if it was some sort of disease that triggered this event. I just don't see why it's necessary at all.

If this attack was politically motivated, it is a fact that there have been a dozen or so similarly politically motivated attack attempts (one successful) against US soldiers and citizens in the US, and it is prudent to look into those politics or cults (I'd call it a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist" cult) to prevent more of the same for happening tomorrow.

Discussing various cited main stream reports as we have them so far is not spreading rumors, nor is it **** on him, because whatever Hasan's motives, he slaughtered and wounded dozens of people, and adults in this country are assumed to be responsible for the actions until shown otherwise (not the other way around). Condemning discussion here of cited reports about Hasan's political motives, is, I think fair to say, **** on the victims, their families, and future possible victims.

 

[DanP]

Why? (first highlight mine) . But for policy purposes and general discussion why do we need BRD for motive?

Because I believe it would make the speculations over the terrorist nature of the attack crystal clear to anyone. Presenting concise support for a theory would make it much easier accepted. But you are right in what you point out , the standard can be lower for the purpose of the discussion on a forum.

However withouout a standard, all this thread is just a bunch of yessayers and naysayers who play with words. It has no substance, and remains nothing but an entertaining string of posts.