Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

  • #126
106
1
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.
 
  • #127
331
0
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?
 
  • #128
106
1
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #129
378
2
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.
 
  • #130
381
0
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.
 
  • #131
106
1
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.
 
  • #132
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
134
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.
 
  • #133
106
1
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 :devil:
 
  • #134
russ_watters
Mentor
20,573
7,234
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.
 
  • #135
106
1
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.
 
  • #136
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
134
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.
 
  • #137
381
0
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.
 
  • #138
381
0
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.
 
  • #139
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
134
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?
 
  • #140
106
1
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 ?
 
  • #141
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
134
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
 
  • #142
381
0
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?
 
  • #143
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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?
 
  • #144
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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" [Broken]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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
106
1
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.
 

Related Threads on Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
D
Replies
45
Views
5K
D
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
104
Views
10K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
130
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
5
Replies
107
Views
10K
Top