2009 Fort Hood Shooting

[AEWingsMN]

I was reading a article from New York Times called Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists. It said, officials say that in 2007, there were 200 such specialists serving more than 130,000 troops, driving between bases on bomb-rigged roads.

Ok, that is precisely what I didn't know is what risk they were at. However, he shouldn't have had to fear that he would be shooting at his fellows. I guess he should have been hoping that if captured his fellows would take mercy on him. At the same that rate you posted is 1 specialist:650 soldiers. I would be that is similar if not better than the rate most high schools have of school counselors to students. (that's the only other time I can think of having assigned counselors, usually they are something one seeks). Why are the counselors going base to base so much? Shouldn't they just each be assigned a base (and mayabe surrounding area)?

To add to that, they are seeing soldiers over issues of death happening in war... like being involved in the detonation of a road side bomb.

Isn't that the nature of the job they signed up for? Don't counselors not in the war deal with patients dealing with tragic death all the time?

Not like there is anything that can be said to say that would justify him, I'm just saying I don't think it's cuz he "Just Snapped". Especially with a lot of what the media has been reporting at least, with him having certain ties or attempted ties. I don't think that's all coincidental. And especially if he was trying to make contact with these people, to me that's him putting himself in a group with them, labeling himself as if nothing else a wannabe terrorist, so when he commits an act, isn't it thus terrorism.

on a completely seperate note, the D.C. Sniper (who's motives were specifically aimed towards funding a terrorist camp for Islamic converted youth) was convicted of Terrorism, but only on the premice that he had been part of 2 shootings. Would that be 2 completely seperate incidents? or would something like Ft Hood, where he shoots multiple people in one massive event also have qualified for terrorism? if it has to be 2 seperate events (according to what i believe was VA state law), then I think under that law, Ft Hood wouldn't be considered a terrorist event, whether it was religious or not. The plot behind the Sniper is much more aimed at religious terrorism for sure, and it did require according to the court 2 shootings to be considered terrorism. Again, Terrorism remains such a vague term.

[Radio]

CNN Misquotes Ft. Hood Private to Cast Doubt on Cries of 'Allahu Akbar'

By Lachlan Markay

November 10, 2009 - 17:20 ET

CNN misquoted a soldier at Fort Hood who was wounded in last week's shooting to suggest that the soldier's recollection that Major Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before firing was in doubt. Many in the media have been doing their best to downplay evidence suggesting Hasan was acting in accordance with radical Muslim beliefs.

"I was sitting in about the second row back when the assailant stood up and yelled 'Allahu Akbar' in Arabic and he opened fire," Pvt. Joseph Foster recalled yesterday on CNN's "American Morning" (Video below the fold - h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit).

Anchor John Roberts commended Foster on his quick reaction to the situation.

So you were acting like a soldier. You were acting heroically. We should point out that you're with the 20th Engineer Battalion and despite your best efforts and I guess the efforts of your comrades, as well, four members of the battalion were killed, 10 others were injured. And you were shot in the hip and you didn't realize it at the time?

To which Foster replied with all of the modesty one might expect from a 21-year-old Army private: "I had realized it at first, but with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things." It should go without saying that Foster was noting that with his adrenaline pumping, he did not immediately realize that he had been shot.

But CNN, in its written report on the interview, quoted him completely out of context in an effort to dismiss his claim that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar". "Foster, 21, said he wasn't clear about whether the gunman said those exact words, noting that 'with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things,' " CNN reported.

Some might claim that if Foster's adrenaline rush could cause him to forget he had been shot, surely he could have heard Hasan wrong. But Foster heard the cry before he was wounded. It could not have been distorted by the adrenaline that follows a gunshot wound, as no shots had been fired when Hasan screamed the call to jihad.

CNN's blatant distortion of Foster's account seems to be an attempt to downplay any evidence that Hasan was acting out of a radical Islamist hatred of the United States military. The cable news network is terrified of the "backlash" that could ensue against Muslims in the military (even though it hasn't), but doesn't seem to have much concern for the facts surrounding the deaths of 13 of our men and women in uniform.

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/11/10/cnn-misquotes-ft-hood-private-cast-doubt-cries-allahu-akbar

[brabus]

If Islam is, as Brabus would have us believe, a violent religion thenit would stand to reason that there would be 1.5 billion muslimterrorists in the world. No?

Vertigo...read. I said there's plenty of good Muslims out there that don't take those passages "to the extreme." No where did I say just b/c Islam preaches violence does that mean every single Muslim is a terrorist.

again I think that has entirely everything to do with their culture andtheir extremist views of Islam and not the actual religion itself.

Ok, sure. But, religion is what their "views" and "way of life" are built on. Islam is the foundation for everything they do. I would buy that these extremist are kind of dragging Islam into this, but the point is they use the Qaran as justification for their views and actions. Therefore, the religion is promoting violence. That doesn't mean every Muslim is violent, but that's just b/c they don't choose to follow it to that point.

Look at SEA...the place is a complete breeding ground for terrorism. There's countless Islamic religious schools that start indoctrinating kids at age 5 about Islam and how every non-believer must die. By the time these kids are 7 or 8, they'd gladly cut your 7 yr old daughter's head off if they got the chance. Guess what, all of that violence is based completely on religion. Are a bunch of fuck stains down there using religion to justify their desires and teachings...you bet. Is it wrong, yes. But in reality, the Qaran does back up what they're saying, even if they're taking it "too far" or "too literally." You can say you don't believe Islam in it's purity to be violent, but the point is enough Muslims of today have made it a violent religion.

[Vertigo]

but the point is they use the Qaran as justification for their views and actions. Therefore, the religion is promoting violence.

Using the same logic Christianity is a violent religion because the Scott Roeders, Eric Rudolphs and Fred Phelps use the Bible to justify theirs. Can't you see the flaw in your logic? It's the PEOPLE that are violent and not the RELIGION.

Why people would kill over something that can't be proven or disproven (God, Allah, whomever) is beyond me. I sometimes wonder if this world would be a better place without any religion. What would people then use to justify their bloody deeds?

[FallingOsh]

I never said they were equally violent. My point was you can't throw a blanket statement out that X religion is violent, whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world were violent then obviously you could make a blanket statement.. but the fact of the matter is the terrorists/extremists are a very small percentage of a rather large population. Just as the Rev Fred Phelps, Scott Roeders, Eric Rudolphs don't represent the Christians in the world, terrorist Muslims don't represent the Muslim community as a whole.

I will concede that the majority of terrorist acts being committed in the last two decades have been committed by Muslims, but again I think that has entirely everything to do with their culture and their extremist views of Islam and not the actual religion itself.

The vast majority of pit bulls are very tame, very good dogs. Check out the list of banned dogs on your lease.

I tend to agree with you more than I disagree on this. Just playing devil's advocate. A blanket statement about any group of people (or dogs) is dangerous, but that doesn't make them entirely invalid. Are all pit bulls violent? No. Do I want one snuggling with my 6 month old kid? Not really, no.

It's the PEOPLE that are violent and not the RELIGION.

The Koran talks very openly about destroying non-believers. Couldn't it be the religion that is violent and it's the people who choose to follow those passages or not?

Edited November 12, 2009 by FallingOsh

[M2]

Once again, STRATFOR does a pretty good job tackling the topic...

The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges

November 11, 2009 | 1841 GMT

By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton

In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.

The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The victims were in the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a facility on the base where troops are prepared for deployment and where they take care of certain processing tasks such as completing insurance paperwork and receiving medical examinations and vaccinations.

Even though the targets of Hasan’s attack were soldiers, they represented a very soft target in this environment. Most soldiers on bases inside the United States are normally not armed and are only provided weapons for training. The only personnel who regularly carry weapons are the military police and the base civilian police officers. In addition to being unarmed, the soldiers at the center were closely packed together in the facility as they waited to proceed from station to station. The unarmed, densely packed mass of people allowed Hasan to kill 13 (12 soldiers and one civilian employee of the center) and wound 42 others when he opened fire.

Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim who, according to STRATFOR sources and media accounts, has had past contact with jihadists, including the radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is a U.S.-born imam who espouses a jihadist ideology and who was discussed at some length in the 9/11 commission report for his links to 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Al-Awlaki, who is currently living in Yemen and reportedly has contacts with al Qaeda, posted a message on his Web site Nov. 9 praising Hasan’s actions. Despite Hasan’s connections to al-Awlaki and other jihadists, it is unknown at this point if he was even aware of al-Wahayshi’s recent message calling for simple attacks, and therefore it is impossible to tell if his attack was in response to it.

However, one thing that is certain is that investigators examining Hasan’s computer hard drive, e-mail traffic and Internet history will be looking into that possibility, along with other indications that Hasan was linked to radicals.

We noted last week that by their very nature, individual actors and small cells are very difficult for the government to detect. They must somehow identify themselves by contacting a government informant or another person who reports them to the authorities, attend a militant training camp or conduct correspondence with a person or organization under government scrutiny. In the Hasan case, it now appears that Hasan did self-identify by making radical statements to people he worked with, who reported him to the authorities. It also appears that he had correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki, whom the government was monitoring. Because of this behavior, Hasan brought himself to the attention of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA.

The fact that Hasan was able to commit this attack after bringing government attention to himself could be due to a number of factors. Chief among them is the fact that it is tactically impossible for a government to identify every aspiring militant actor and to pre-empt every act of violence. The degree of difficulty is increased greatly if an actor does indeed act alone and does not give any overt clues through his actions or his communications of his intent to attack. Because of this, the Hasan case provides an excellent opportunity to examine national security investigations and their utility and limitations.

The Nature of Intelligence Investigations

The FBI will typically open up an intelligence investigation (usually referred to as a national security investigation) in any case where there is an indication or allegation that a person is involved in terrorist activity but there is no evidence that a specific law has been broken. Many times these investigations are opened up due to a lead passed by the CIA, National Security Agency or a foreign liaison intelligence service. Other times an FBI investigation can come as a spin-off from another FBI counterterrorism investigation already under way or be prompted by a piece of information collected by an FBI informant or even by a tip from a concerned citizen — like the flight instructors who alerted the FBI to the suspicious behavior of some foreign flight students prior to the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the FBI case agent in charge of the investigation will open a preliminary inquiry, which gives the agent a limited window of time to look into the matter. If no indication of criminal activity is found, the preliminary inquiry must be closed unless the agent receives authorization from the special agent in charge of his division and FBI headquarters to extend it.

If, during the preliminary inquiry, the investigating agents find probable cause that a crime has been committed, the FBI will open a full-fledged criminal investigation into the case, similar to what we saw in the case of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and his followers in Detroit.

One of the large problems in national security investigations is separating the wheat from the chaff. Many leads are based on erroneous information or a misidentification of the suspect — there is a huge issue associated with the confusion caused by the transliteration of Arabic names and the fact that there are many people bearing the same names. Jihadists also have the tendency to use multiple names and identities. And there are many cases in which people will falsely report a person to the FBI out of malice. Because of these factors, national security investigations proceed slowly and usually do not involve much (if any) contact with the suspect and his close associates. If the suspect is a real militant planning a terrorist attack, investigators do not want to tip him off, and if he is innocent, they do not want to sully his reputation by showing up and overtly interviewing everyone he knows. Due to its controversial history of domestic intelligence activities, the FBI has become acutely aware of its responsibility to protect privacy rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws.

And the rights guaranteed under the Constitution do complicate these national security investigations. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. — things that Hasan is reported to have said. Radical statements and convictions are not illegal — although they certainly would appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer. (We will leave to others the discussion of the difficulties in dealing with problem officers who are minorities and doctors and who owe several years of service in return for their education.)

There are also many officers and enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army who own personal weapons and who use them for self-defense, target shooting or hunting. There is nothing extraordinary or illegal about a U.S. Army major owning personal weapons. With no articulable violation of U.S. law, the FBI would have very little to act upon in a case like Hasan’s. Instead, even if they found cause to extend their preliminary inquiry, they would be pretty much limited to monitoring his activities (and perhaps his communications, with a court order) and waiting for a law to be violated. In the Hasan case, it would appear that the FBI did not find probable cause that a law had been violated before he opened fire at Fort Hood. Although perhaps if the FBI had been watching his activities closely and with an eye toward “the how” of terrorist attacks, they might have noticed him conducting preoperational surveillance of the readiness center and even a dry run of the attack.

Of course, in addition to just looking for violations of the law, the other main thrust of a national security investigation is to determine whom the suspect is connected to and whom he is talking to or planning with. In past cases, such investigations have uncovered networks of jihadist actors working together in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. However, if all Hasan did in his correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki was exercise his First Amendment right to hold radical convictions, and if he did not engage in any type of conspiracy to conduct an attack, he did not break the law.

Another issue that complicates national security cases is that they are almost always classified at the secret level or above. This is understandable, considering they are often opened based upon intelligence produced by sensitive intelligence programs. However, this classification means that only those people with the proper clearance and an established need to know can be briefed on the case. It is not at all unusual for the FBI to visit a high-ranking official at another agency to brief the official on the fact that the FBI is conducting a classified national security investigation involving a person working for the official’s agency. The rub is that they will frequently tell the official that he or she is not at liberty to share details of the investigation with other individuals in the agency because they do not have a clear need to know. The FBI agent will also usually ask the person briefed not to take any action against the target of the investigation, so that the investigation is not compromised. While some people will disagree with the FBI’s determination of who really needs to know about the investigation and go on to brief a wider audience, many officials are cowed by the FBI and sit on the information.

Of course, the size of an organization is also a factor in the dissemination of information. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army are large organizations, and it is possible that officials at the Pentagon or the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (still known by its old acronym CID) headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va., were briefed on the case and that local officials at Fort Hood were not. The Associated Press is now reporting that the FBI had alerted a Defense Criminal Investigative Service agent assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Washington about Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki, and ABC reports that the Defense Department is denying the FBI notified them. It would appear that the finger-pointing and bureaucratic blame-shifting normally associated with such cases has begun.

Even more severe problems would have plagued the dissemination of information from the CIA to local commanders and CID officers at Fort Hood. Despite the intelligence reforms put in place after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government still faces large obstacles when it comes to sharing intelligence information with law enforcement personnel.

Criminal Acts vs. Terrorism

So far, the Hasan shooting investigation is being run by the Army CID, and the FBI has been noticeably — and uncharacteristically — absent from the scene. As the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, the FBI will often assume authority over investigations where there is even a hint of terrorism. Since 9/11, the number of FBI/JTTF offices across the country has been dramatically increased, and the JTTFs are specifically charged with investigating cases that may involve terrorism. Therefore, we find the FBI’s absence in this case to be quite out of the ordinary.

However, with Hasan being a member of the armed forces, the victims being soldiers or army civilian employees and the incident occurring at Fort Hood, the case would seem to fall squarely under the mantle of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). From a prosecutorial perspective, a homicide trial under the UCMJ should be very tidy and could be quickly concluded. It will not involve all the potential loose ends that could pop up in a federal terrorism trial, especially when those loose ends involve what the FBI and CIA knew about Hasan, when they learned it and who they told. Also, politically, there are some who would like to see the Hasan case remain a criminal matter rather than a case of terrorism. Following the shooting death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and considering the delicate relationship between Muslim advocacy groups and the U.S. government, some people would rather see Hasan portrayed as a mentally disturbed criminal than as an ideologically driven lone wolf.

Despite the CID taking the lead in prosecuting the case, the classified national security investigation by the CIA and FBI into Hasan and his possible connections to jihadist elements is undoubtedly continuing. Senior members of the government will certainly demand to know if Hasan had any confederates, if he was part of a bigger plot and if there are more attacks to come. Several congressmen and senators are also calling for hearings into the case, and if such hearings occur, they will certainly produce an abundance of interesting information pertaining to Hasan and the national security investigation of his activities.

[Guest Alarm Red]

Look at SEA...the place is a complete breeding ground for terrorism. There's countless Islamic religious schools that start indoctrinating kids at age 5 about Islam and how every non-believer must die. By the time these kids are 7 or 8, they'd gladly cut your 7 yr old daughter's head off if they got the chance. Guess what, all of that violence is based completely on religion. Are a bunch of ###### stains down there using religion to justify their desires and teachings...you bet. Is it wrong, yes. But in reality, the Qaran does back up what they're saying, even if they're taking it "too far" or "too literally." You can say you don't believe Islam in it's purity to be violent, but the point is enough Muslims of today have made it a violent religion.

Huh? How is Southeast Asia a complete breeding ground for terrorism? True, Indonesia does have the largest Muslim population in the world, but with Malaysia, they are about the only two Muslim countries I can think of in SEA. That awful Buddhism seems pervasive in the rest of SEA. Know what else? The Muslim countries in SEA are wonderful places, and I never saw your 7-8 year old terrorists any time I ever vacationed there. Sorry you've been fearmongered into believing wrongly though.

[bfargin]

I sometimes wonder if this world would be a better place without any religion. What would people then use to justify their bloody deeds?

You're pretty much seeing the effects of no religion in parts of this world. We'd just keep using other distinctions like we regrettably have always done, skin color, economic status, caste, round eyes or slant eyes, long nose or flat nose, ... I grew up in Pakistan (3 years) and then Taiwan (10 years) and you'd better believe there are plenty of other factors besides religion that we humans can come up with to discriminate and hate over.

[brabus]

Christianity is a violent religion because the Scott Roeders, EricRudolphs and Fred Phelps use the Bible to justify theirs. Can't you seethe flaw in your logic?

No I don't see the flaw in my logic...why? It's because you named three dudes of which one has not harmed a single person and just leads idiotic protests, another who killed one person and Rudolph who killed two. Are these guys complete nutjobs? Yes. However, in the last 8years, there's thousands of Muslims out there (dead or alive) who have killed far more than one person in the name of religion.

So no, 3 people who used Christianity as a reason to kill 3 people between them IS NOT even remotely close to all the members of AQ, JI,etc. who have killed thousands because of Islam and their beliefs.

True, Indonesia does have the largest Muslim population in the world,but with Malaysia, they are about the only two Muslim countries I canthink of in SEA

Ok fine, I'll say Indonesia and Malaysia and not include the rest of SEA. Those two places (mostly Indonesia) is where all these problems lie. Look up Jemaah Islamiyah. They used to be an independent terrorist organization, but are now pretty much just a strong arm for AQ in SEA. They run tons of these schools and have made Indonesia a very dangerous place. Even though the Indonesian govt is trying to crack down and even allowing the US to help, it's still a completely out of control problem. Many Muslims who aren't even born in SEA move there from the Middle East, "learn" and then go back to the Middle East to put their "knowledge" to work...much like Africa. Do more research before you just go off of "well my vacation was nice."

Edited November 12, 2009 by brabus

[Steve Davies]

The Muslim countries in SEA are wonderful places, and I never saw your 7-8 year old terrorists any time I ever vacationed there. Sorry you've been fearmongered into believing wrongly though.

Trends! When are people going to actually sit up and take note of these?

Islam is rapidly influencing the way the Indonesian state runs the country; it is threatening the very democracy of the people. Since early this year, more than half of Indonesia's 50 regencies have passed around 600 Sharia laws, while those with Hindu or Christian majorities are not permitted the same powers. As a result, women out alone after 10pm are now arrested for loitering and non-Muslim women are forced to wear a headscarf in public.

While the state currently still allows people to practise their own religion (and there are plenty of churches in Indonesia), the trend at the moment is for Imams to encourage their people to vote for politicians who want the country to adopt Sharia law exclusively.

I doubt that the Indonesia you used to go on holiday to will stay the same place for much longer.

[LockheedFix]

So I guess we can say that Christianity is also a violent religion.

Deuteronomy 13:6-16 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Isaiah 13:15-18 "Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

There's about 1000 other passages in the bible describing acts of violence, mutilation, infanticide, torture, and murder. Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors, as Pope Urban II did, for example, when he preached the First Crusade in 1095 or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery.

Political and religious extremists have abused Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scriptures continuously throughout history.

OK, I can't believe this misuse of Bible quotes made it two pages without being addressed. The books of Deuteronomy and Isaiah are from the Old Testament, which is the book of God's Old Covenant (The Law) with his people (Israel.) The New Testament discusses God's New Covenant (Jesus) with his people (everyone.) Jesus' death on the cross replaced the laws from the Old Testament that you quoted, which makes them, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant to Christians. Notice how Christians don't put women out of the village for 7 days when they are on their period? Same thing.

The scripture you quoted from Luke is the words of Jesus quoting a nobleman in a parable. You basically pulled a Michael Moore there by completely taking Jesus out of context.

For all you John Boyd fans out there, here is a great article about Fort Hood and 4GW by William S. Lind.

Link

On War # 321: 4GW Comes to Ft. Hood

William S. Lind

10 November 2009

Last week’s shootings at Ft. Hood, in which thirteen U. S. Soldiers were killed and 30 people wounded, appear to be a classic example of Fourth Generation war. The shooter, U. S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was a practicing Muslim. He sometimes wore traditional Islamic dress and carried a Koran. He reportedly cried “Allahu Akbar” before he opened fire. Though American-born and a U.S. citizen (and army officer), Major Hasan appears to have transferred his primary loyalty away from the state to something else, Islam. For his new primary loyalty, he was willing to kill. That is what defines Fourth Generation war.

This incident should put an end to the misinterpretation of 4GW that defines it as “what Mao did.” Mao Tse-tung’s wars were not 4GW. They were fought within the framework of the state, for political control of a state. Mao had nothing to do with the “leaderless resistance” last week’s shootings represent. Major Hasan’s motives transcended the political. According to the November 9 Washington Post, a few hours before he opened fire, Major Hasan said to a neighbor, “I’m going to do good work for God.”

The Establishment, which continues to pretend the state (or Globalist super-state) has a monopoly on primary loyalty, predictably proclaimed the shootings the actions of “a madman.” That is what old and passing orders always say about the first avatars of the coming order (or disorder). It’s how the old order whistles past the graveyard – its own graveyard.

The cultural Marxists, leaping to the defense of “diversity,” their favorite poison for Western societies, claim Major Hasan’s massacre of his fellow soldiers does not represent Islam. Sorry, but it represents Islam all too well. Islam does not recognize any separation between church and state. States have no legitimacy in Islam; legitimacy adheres only to the Ummah, the community of all believers. The only legitimate law is Sharia. All Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against all non-Islamics. Loyalty to Islam must be the believer’s primary loyalty. Nightwatch for 5 November writes:

Two years ago, a devout Pakistani cabdriver told Nightwatch that if Allah called him or any devout Muslim to go on jihad and to kill his family and even the riders in his cab, he must do it immediately. He made that statement calmly as a matter of fact, while driving north on US 1.

This was not the statement of an insane man, but of an educated man with a degree in engineering who was making ends meet; a devoted family man and a good cab driver.

There are of course peaceful Islamics; peace be upon them. But peaceful Islamics are also lax Islamics. The ongoing Islamic revival is converting more and more Muslims, especially young men, to its purer version of Islam. That is happening everywhere, including among Islamics in Europe and America. As Islamic Puritanism spreads, violence will spread with it.

At the same time, it would be an error to think of 4GW threats within Western societies as confined to Islam. The U.S. military has already seen soldiers kill other soldiers as part of gang-related activities. Gangs may be as important an alternate primary loyalty as religion. As the state loses its legitimacy, the variety of new primary loyalties that arise to replace it will be limitless.

As this column has often warned, Fourth Generation war is not just something fought “over there.” It comes to a theater near you. That includes places like Ft. Hood. Many 4GW entities know that the best way to deal with hostile state security forces, police as well as military, is to take them from within. Last week also saw the killing of five British soldiers in Afghanistan by an Afghan policeman working with their unit. Many police departments along the southern U.S. border are owned by the drug traffickers.

The Establishment will attempt to label the massacre at Ft. Hood an “isolated incident.” On the contrary, it is just a foretaste of many more such actions to come. How might states reverse that trend? Three things might help:

Stay out of Fourth Generation wars overseas. Intervening in areas of stateless disorder imports their disorder.

Be prepared to outlaw violent alternative primary loyalties, including some religions (which in the case of the U. S. would require Constitutional amendments). To those who argue that religious tolerance must be unlimited, I ask, would we tolerate the re-establishment of the Aztec religion, with its demand for ceaseless human sacrifices, on American soil? Of course not.

Strengthen the legitimacy of the state, which in Western societies usually means reducing, not augmenting, the power and intrusiveness of the central government. Nothing undermines the legitimacy of a state more effectively than attempts to “re-make” a society according to some ideology’s demands, as is now happening in the West in the name of cultural Marxism, aka “multiculturalism.” A legitimate government defends its society’s traditional culture, it does not assault that culture.

Ask not for whom the bells at Ft. Hood toll; they toll for the state.

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

Edited November 13, 2009 by LockheedFix

[Vertigo]

So no, 3 people who used Christianity as a reason to kill 3 people between them IS NOT even remotely close to all the members of AQ, JI,etc. who have killed thousands because of Islam and their beliefs.

So you purposely ignored my earlier post listing the Christian terrorist organizations. Oh, nice spin on Rudolph... you failed to mention that he injured 150 people with his bombings. I guess those people are unimportant to your point. How many terrorist acts has Osama Bin Laden carried out in person? None as far as I'm aware of. Doesn't mean he's not considered a terrorist. You seem to think that the body count is the deciding factor in whether or not they can be considered a terrorist. I think it's the attempt to instill terror that makes them so.

Just because the Christian terrorist groups aren't as organized, effective, or prevalent as the muslims terrorists doesn't mean they aren't the same. So if you can group all of Islam in with the extremists than we can also group Christianity in with their extremists.

The scripture you quoted from Luke is the words of Jesus quoting a nobleman in a parable. You basically pulled a Michael Moore there by completely taking Jesus out of context.

Go back an re-read my last paragraph from that posting. I mentioned context and how important it was. Here let me repost it for you

Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors...

Edited November 13, 2009 by Vertigo

[Radio]

So you purposely ignored my earlier post listing the Christian terrorist organizations. Oh, nice spin on Rudolph... you failed to mention that he injured 150 people with his bombings. I guess those people are unimportant to your point. How many terrorist acts has Osama Bin Laden carried out in person? None as far as I'm aware of. Doesn't mean he's not considered a terrorist. You seem to think that the body count is the deciding factor in whether or not they can be considered a terrorist. I think it's the attempt to instill terror that makes them so.

Just because the Christian terrorist groups aren't as organized, effective, or prevalent as the muslims terrorists doesn't mean they aren't the same. So if you can group all of Islam in with the extremists than we can also group Christianity in with their extremists.

Go back an re-read my last paragraph from that posting. I mentioned context and how important it was. Here let me repost it for you

I haven't followed all the posts here extremely closely, but how did this turn into a debate about how Christianity is just as violent as Islam?

This isn't just limited to our our website here. It seems like after each terrorist attack, the media and our leaders all try to blame "guns" or "PTSD" or "Conservatism" or "violence in society" or "pressure" or blame our own foreign policies.

I know it is a pretty complicated topic, but at the end of the day, its as if I walked up to you and punched you in your face. Then you felt compelled to talk about what you had done to deserve the attack, all the pressure I had been under, how most people like me are very peaceful, and how we just have to chalk it up as an "unimaginable mystery."

[brabus]

So you purposely ignored my earlier post listing the Christian terrorist organizations

No actually I didn't see that post, but since you mentioned it I went back and looked. And guess what, your list of "Christian Terrorist Organizations" is a freakin joke. You listed a bunch of groups who have "out there" ideologies, but minus the group in Uganda, you have an incredibly low body count. Meaning these are just groups that shout rhetoric. In fact Russian National Unity has little to no religious motivation at all. They just want Russia back to the old principles with only "true" Russian people, and just b/c they want Jews out doesn't make them a Christian terrorist organization. A handful of Muslims killed 5000 Americans in one day while this entire list you put down have done jack shit except bitch and moan (for the most part). Your list compared to Muslim terrorism is like comparing apples to iphones...they are just that different.

I think it's the attempt to instill terror that makes them so.

Ok sure, but were talking about religion motivating terrorism. A few Christian people spouting off rhetoric and on top of that barely killing anyone does not make Christianity a violent religion(especially since killing = violence and they're doing very very littleof that). However on the other hand, you have hundreds of Islamic terrorist organizations who have killed tens of thousands of people inthe name of religion.

Do the math Vertigo, Islamic followers have killed in the tens of thousands while you have a few named Christian groups who really just bitch and moan and have killed a few people here and there over the years. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Edited November 15, 2009 by brabus

[Vertigo]

I haven't followed all the posts here extremely closely, but how did this turn into a debate about how Christianity is just as violent as Islam?

It didn't... I was attempting to prove that correlation is not causation.

[flyguy2181]

I didn't know if I should post here or under GD. It appears that Congress is trying to arrange for the injured soldiers to recieve Purple Hearts. First off, this would make it seem like the attack was a terrorist act in the eyes of Congress. Second, I'm not sure how I feel about people getting purple hearts in the United States under a non-combat situation. And if these soldiers get it, then should all the people hurt on 9/11 at the pentagon get it?? This is like how they tried to give out Purple Hearts of PTSD.

https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/17/fort.hood.medals/index.html

Edited November 18, 2009 by flyboy2181

[Vertigo]

A few Christian people spouting off rhetoric and on top of that barely killing anyone does not make Christianity a violent religion(especially since killing = violence and they're doing very very littleof that). However on the other hand, you have hundreds of Islamic terrorist organizations who have killed tens of thousands of people inthe name of religion.

Do the math Vertigo, Islamic followers have killed in the tens of thousands while you have a few named Christian groups who really just bitch and moan and have killed a few people here and there over the years. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bosnia... I guess you're forgetting that little bit of genocide of 8000 Serbian Muslims (Bosniaks) and some 25,000 to 30,000 muslim refugees in Srebrenica. How about the 3500+ muslim children that were killed by Serb snipers in Sarajevo? The destruction of mosques?

The dominant religion in Serbia? 90% of the population identified Christian (Orthodox and Catholicism).

But yeah... Islam in the violent religion. /sarcasm

Now you do the math. NO DIFFERENCE.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Vertigo

[bucky60k]

I think you're confusing the fact that the primary motivator behind the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans was spurred on by Serbian Nationalism (e.g. a quasi political/ethnic influence) not necessarily due to a purely religious obligation as epitomized by Islamic terrorists. Just because the perpetrators in this case all happened to be Christian does not validate that religion made them do it, the same way that just because 100% of Nazis were Christian, etc. I understand that you are trying to spread the blame equally onto all religions but the bottom line, the primary threat to American security is ISLAMIC terrorism. The biggest terror attacks for the past 20 years have been ISLAMIC terrorism. 9/11 was ISLAMIC terrorism. Christian terrorists do not have the funding, weapons, sponsorship or simply the motivation compared to the documented network and capabilities of ISLAMIC terrorists We need to cut the PC bullshit so we can stop these guys and worry about semantics for the recitation sessions at university.

[Guest Grey]

Yes, Islamic terrorism is a big threat to the United States I think Vertigo has simply been saying that it isn't about Islam being a religion of violence just as Christianity is not a religion of violence. However, muslims are using words of Islam to justify their jihad and I think the culture is the reason for this (mentioned earlier). Christians have used words from the Bible to justify all sorts of things (and will continue to), but there are less extremists that would use them for violence than there are in Islam. Is this about the "violence" in the religion? Well, no cause you could say there is violence in the Bible. I think it has more to do with the cultures (and whatever other variables that influence) interpreting it. So yeah, they're doing it in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean that it IS their religion. Just their extremist view. With each terrorist event, it further emboldens the extremists in their interpretation.

But... ultimately the argument about whether Islam is violent is pretty pointless. Islamic terrorism is real and a threat. No arguments there? It just comes down to how much we are going to tip-toe around the facts. I think outlawing Islam is a little extreme (sorta proposed in that Lind article), but would having undercover agents in mosques around the country be overboard?

[Steve Davies]

Bosnia... I guess you're forgetting that little bit of genocide of 8000 Serbian Muslims (Bosniaks) and some 25,000 to 30,000 muslim refugees in Srebrenica. How about the 3500+ muslim children that were killed by Serb snipers in Sarajevo? The destruction of mosques?

The dominant religion in Serbia? 90% of the population identified Christian (Orthodox and Catholicism).

But yeah... Islam in the violent religion. /sarcasm

Now you do the math. NO DIFFERENCE.

Serbs were killing other Serbs, Bosniaks etc. as a result of differences in *nationality*, not because 'Jesus told them to' or said it was 'OK to'.

Milosevic did not not once tell his people to kill others in the name of the Church, and his ability to inspire his people came from his knowledge of history and his national and political ideologies, not from working up a religious frenzy. You might want to do some research into 'group identity', 'strategic fictions' and 'chosen traumas' if you really want to shed more light on what this conflict was really all about.

As far as this debate is concerned, there is massive difference between people killing other people because they don't want a diluted national identity, and people going out and killing other people because they don't believe in the right God.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Steve Davies

[Vertigo]

As far as this debate is concerned, there is massive difference between people killing other people because they don't want a diluted national identity, and people going out and killing other people because they don't believe in the right God.

Is that all it boils down to? Is because others don't belive in their God? Or is there a national/cultural identity aspect to the Islamic terrorists ideals as well? Didn't Osama claim the Al Qaeda terror attacks on U.S. embassies was a retaliation for western forces being in Arab lands in his 1998 fatwa? Aren't their attacks on the U.S. more about our foreign policies rather than what God we believe in?

Al Qaeda affiliated Abu Musab al Zarqawi, just before the January Iraqi elections, gave a speech in which he listed seven reasons to condemn democracy. If the terrorist are only attacking us based on RELIGIOUS and not POLITICAL reasons, why bring this up? Because to Islamic extremism, democracy is toxic.

Reverse the situation in Bosnia. Would you still claim that religion had nothing to do with it if it were Muslims that committed genocide by killing some 30,000 - 40,000 Christians? Or would you claim that it is just more proof that Islam is a violent religion. Seriously, think about it.

Yes, Islamic terrorism is a big threat to the United States I think Vertigo has simply been saying that it isn't about Islam being a religion of violence just as Christianity is not a religion of violence. However, muslims are using words of Islam to justify their jihad and I think the culture is the reason for this (mentioned earlier).

Exactly. Correlation is not causation (at least not fully).

Edited November 18, 2009 by Vertigo

[TreeA10]

Reverse the situation in Bosnia. Would you still claim that religion had nothing to do with it if it were Muslims that committed genocide by killing some 30,000 - 40,000 Christians? Or would you claim that it is just more proof that Islam is a violent religion. Seriously, think about it.

Exactly. Correlation is not causation (at least not fully).

IIRC, In 1570, Ottoman Turks killed approximately 30,000 Christians in the Bosnia/Kosovo area doing a little ethnic cleansing. Paybacks, while certainly not Christian, are a bitch.

[Steve Davies]

Is that all it boils down to? Is because others don't belive in their God? Or is there a national/cultural identity aspect to the Islamic terrorists ideals as well? Didn't Osama claim the Al Qaeda terror attacks on U.S. embassies was a retaliation for western forces being in Arab lands in his 1998 fatwa? Aren't their attacks on the U.S. more about our foreign policies rather than what God we believe in?

Yes, as far as fundamentalist Muslims are concerned, that is all it boils down to.

Their interpretation of the Koran legitimises their openly expressed desire to make Islam the only religion on the planet. It has nothing to do with national or cultural identity, and everything to do with religious identity. Once you live in a country with a growing and ever-more-vocal Muslim population, that message might come home. For example, a British-born Muslim acquaintance of mine speaks fluent Arabic and English. When she asked where she might get a job as a translator, I told her that the security services would be a good place to start. Shocked, she stated that she could never be "a traitor". When I responded that that depended on whether her commitment was to her country or her God, she repeated that she would never be a traitor. Is she concerned about national or cultural identity? No, she is concerned about her religious identity.

AQ's attacks on the US and others may well be blamed on foreign policy, but anyone with half a brain can tell that this is a completely specious argument. I am paraphrasing here, but I believe that Bin Laden actually stated that the impetus for his actions came from the occupation of Arab lands during and following the 1991 Gulf War; he may well have indicated that he would cease all of his activities (as if he has any real control over the enigmatic being that is AQ), but there I would bet my house that there is not one intel. analyst out there that actually believes that. In any case, that's never going to happen, so Islam remains, and willcontinue to remain, the number one threat to Western democracies. AnyChristian terrorists that you may think of are little more than amomentary distraction.

And let me ask you a question: do you think that if we all suddenly pulled out of AFG and Iraq, and Russia stopped its activities in Chechnia, and across the world at large non-muslims stopped fighting muslims, that these people would sit down and return to living quiet lives in their communities? I suggest to you that this will never happen: instead, they will find some other form of 'persecution' to worry about - political, cultural, legal... whatever justification they need to keep the fight going and to achieve their ultimate goal.

Besides, if the only reason Islamic extremists exist and operate is because they don't like US foreign policy, then why are they attacking other Muslims who have done precisely nothing to offend them (think Bali, Kenya, Eritrea, etc.)? The answer is that they do so because they want a strict implementation of Sharia law. You need only look at Somalia (where they today stoned a divorced, 20-year-old woman to death for having an affair, and have another lined-up for stoning pending the birth of her baby) to see what this is really all about - not national identity (they are Somalis, after all), but religious identity.

Saying that Islamic extremists kill other people because they want the world to assume a single national identity would be as ridiculous as saying that the Republicans and Unionists in NI kill eachother because they want a single religious identity.

AlQaeda affiliated Abu Musab al Zarqawi, just before the January Iraqielections, gave a speech in which he listed seven reasons to condemndemocracy. If the terrorist are only attacking us based on RELIGIOUSand not POLITICAL reasons, why bring this up? Because to Islamicextremism, democracy is toxic.

Because politics undermines all religions. Pretty simple, really.

Reverse the situation in Bosnia.Would you still claim that religion had nothing to do with it if itwere Muslims that committed genocide by killing some 30,000 - 40,000Christians?

Yes, I would.

As I stated, this war was never about religion - it was about the strategic fiction that was the FRY, the fall of the USSR, and the desire to re-assert national identities that had first been infringed upon more than 600 years ago ('assumed trauma'), and about the restoration of whittled down group identity.

I don't have a problem with owning up to Christianity's less than perfect past, and while the local Serb clergy may well have stood by and watched Milosevic orchestrate the slaughter these people (they have blood on their hands, too), I do not concede that at the heart of this was the matter of one religion against another.

Or would you claim that it is just more proof that Islam isa violent religion. Seriously, think about it.

I don't think I have ever said that Islam is a violent religion.

I have said that Islam is increasingly a religion that is exploited by violent fundamentalists. I have said that there are worrying trends that Islam is not compatible with western democracies (see the 'traitor' story above), even for moderate Muslims.

[M2]

The press is reporting that Hassan might plead not guilty by reason of insanity. That kinda blows the whole theory behind it being a planned terrorist act right out of the water now, doesn't it?

If he intentionally committed the murders in defense of Islam, why negate it through an insanity plea? That will kill any chance of martyrdom he would have had. It also pulls the rug out from under any theories behind his motivations, as that plea simply means he wasn't in his right mind when he committed the shootings.

I am sure some will claim he is only trying to save his own neck; but given the promises of such a glorious life after death, why would that concern such a devout Muslim? The 9/11 terrorists are pleading not guilty so they can so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, if Hassan was following their lines, than why didn’t he follow the same tact?

I think what we are seeing is the real truth behind this attack…that it was the actions of a deranged individual, and not some planned terrorist operation...

[Ice Cream]

As far as the insanity defense goes, it is VERY RARE for someone to win it. I think I heard that in the U.S., ~97% of defendants who plead insanity are unsuccessful. Also, the term "mentally insane" is actually considered a LEGAL definition, not a psychological one like most people think. In short, the criteria to be declared legally insane is as follows. "A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts." So we will have to wait and see how his defense counsel spins the case.

Edit: Speling erors

Edited November 23, 2009 by VNE