Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

[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.

 

[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 ?