Poll: Only 44% think Fort Hood murders were an act of terrorism
posted at 9:10 pm on November 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s tempting to blame this on the media for shoving the dopey PTSD narrative down people’s throats initially, but the hard fact of the matter is that there’s been plenty of reporting on the terrorism angle by now. Search our archives for the keyword “Hasan” and see for yourself how much. And it keeps coming. Just today, we’ve had a new bombshell at ABC about Hasan telling his jihadbot cleric pal that he couldn’t wait to join him in the afterlife; a report at the Wash Times on testimony by a retired general about detecting jihadis in the ranks; a story from CNN about a security expert angry at the military’s protracted foot-dragging in rooting out extremists; and, just within the last hour or so, a scoop from the AP about Carl Levin being briefed by the Army and finding out that there may be still more e-mails from Hasan that investigators overlooked. Levin himself now says he considers the murders an act of terrorism.
The public’s had plenty of opportunity to educate itself. And yet:
A Fox News poll released Friday finds nearly half of the public — 49 percent — think the shooting is most accurately described as “a killing spree.” Almost as many — 44 percent — say the incident should be called an “act of terrorism.”
Among groups, young people under age 35 see it as a killing spree (61 percent), but seniors 65 and over are more likely to describe it as terrorism (57 percent). Democrats are more likely to call it a killing spree (63 percent), while Republicans tend to call it terrorism (58 percent). Men divide evenly between the two descriptions, while a majority of women say the shooting was a killing spree (53 percent) rather than terrorism (41 percent)…
Asked about Hasan’s possible motive for the shooting, 45 percent think he is someone who just went nuts one day and opened fire, while 38 percent think he is a Muslim extremist protesting U.S. foreign policy. One in 10 thinks it was some of both.
Here’s the most depressing data point. Questions about his motive are at least nominally debatable until Hasan himself speaks. This question isn’t debatable. There are people who knew him who are on record as saying that he was potentially dangerous and that it was political correctness that let him slip through the cracks. And yet:
The Democratic split speaks for itself. Exit question: 61 percent of people under 35 — people who’ve come of age in a post-9/11 world — can’t see any evidence of jihadism here? Good lord.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
They are in a complicit state of denial.
Connie on November 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Evidently far to many Americans are PC idiots!
MCGIRV on November 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
The MSM still has a substantial influence.
conservativecaveman on November 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
This unfortunately shows how uniformed the electorate still is, which certainly makes democrats happy.
The more ignorant they are, the better the chance they vote democrat.
Baxter Greene on November 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Total…idiotic dribble. The whole “one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter” is about as lame an idea as there is.
Itchee Dryback on November 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Great point.
The number of people involved in the attack also would negate the “lone deranged gunman” line that so many people who have not read past a headline attribute the Ft. Hood terrorist attack to.
Baxter Greene on November 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Hmmmmm, that’s not what I got out of that quote, but you must be one of those “interpret to reach your goals” humans-cause-global-warming kind of guys.
ReaganRoxx on November 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
You are so deadon here Dryback.
I mean for Christ’s sake, our whole ROE in Afghanistan puts a freaking bullseye on our Soldiers back in the attempt
to spare civilian lives while the Taliban kill civilians by the thousands.
Anybody who can’t see the difference in the American Soldier taking out a jihadist safe house as opposed to the jihadist blowing up a school full of women and children is to much of an idiot to even discuss the War on Terror or it’s policies.
Baxter Greene on November 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
This is more evidence that if America fails, it won’t be because of capitalism. If America fails it will be because of democracy.
The problem is in how America defines ‘democracy’ now. Our founders said voting should be a privilege because politics was too hard to understand for everyone. Each taxpaying household got a vote (not every person).
‘Democracy’ will be the end of America.
ThackerAgency on November 21, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Now there’s a concept I can get behind. Don’t pay taxes?…Sorry no vote.
ThackerAgency, I think you’re on to something here….
ReaganRoxx on November 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I just don’t get it. 4 decades of the slow drip of progressive liberal influence in education, entertainment and media has stupefied more people, more deeply than I thought.
Itchee Dryback on November 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Okay…went back and read the post again.
Still don’t agree with the angle of “terrorist being in the eye of the beholder” as legitimate.
The fact that other terrorist or their supporters view their actions as “legitimate” don’t make them so.
According to the definition of terrorism under US Law,
there is no mistaking the difference in our government attacking legitimate military targets as opposed to the jihadist overwhelmingly attacking civilian targets:
Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
It seems to me giving relevance to “terrorism(or terrorist) is in the eye of the beholder”
is no different than saying being a “pedophile” is in the eye of the beholder because children and adults can love each other just like two adults do.
Nothing but liberal Pretzel logic spouted off by the likes of Micheal Moore,Rosie Odonell,and the jihadist.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I think older people have simply had more exposure to news about terrorists and are more informed about the world in general, if only because they’ve lasted so long. I doubt younger people are making technical definitional distinctions. Like liberals, they are just in denial that America might have a jihadi fifth column, especially since the lone gunman is a familiar and “reassuring” thematic alternative. How many people think of Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist rather than a mere publicity-seeker?
Seth Halpern on November 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Whats even worse is that a lot of these sheep will not be smart enough to figure out how they are being lead off a cliff.
I was reading the Barbara Boxer in San Diego post here on Hot air a few days ago and could only shake my head to hear them talk about how high democrats and Obama are still polling in the Golden state.
Here is a state that had the 8th highest economy in the world but is now reduced to a broke a$$ wasteland of illegal immigration and welfare overwhelmingly due to democratic policies and they still love them to death.
Absolute morons.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Good point.
According to the huffington post,MSNBC crowd,Oswald was just another crazy right winger.
Part of that “slow drip of liberal education” Dryback was just posting about.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I look at my liberal idiot neighbors kids and I can see how these results are accurate.
Mr. Arrogant on November 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Hasan’s targets were noncombatants?
ReaganRoxx on November 21, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Hey, one of the soldiers who survived the attack didn’t know what Allah Akbar was. Never heard it before. And she’s shipping out to Afghanistan!!! Guess teaching soldiers when an attack is coming is racist.
PattyJ on November 21, 2009 at 12:41 AM
If something terrorizes then it is terrorism. Rather simple, really.
MB4 on November 21, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Not only that but maybe they told her that Afghanistan is one of the Hawaiian Islands.
MB4 on November 21, 2009 at 12:49 AM
At the time – yes.
MB4 on November 21, 2009 at 12:51 AM
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM
MB4 has already addressed this but are you serious with this question???
A room full of unarmed people and you have to ask if they are “noncombatants”.
Maybe you could enlighten us on when the last time Soldiers were carried to the front lines to fight a war “unarmed”.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Is that the distinction? If you have a gun?
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:22 AM
According to the GC, yes they were noncombatants. They were not in action. Infact, attacking medical personel is considered an egregious violation of the Laws and Customs of War, considered Perfidity.
Holger on November 21, 2009 at 1:30 AM
***
What Mosque was the poll taken in?
***
What part of ALLAH AKBAR–Bang!–Bang!…..Bang! don’t you understand?
***
Idiots!!!
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on November 21, 2009 at 1:31 AM
I see your point with the plural use and thought about that myself.
My beef with it is that we have terrorist everyday who shoot at civilians and Soldiers from their homes and in the streets that state they are doing it in the defense of “allah”.
There are not any emails or specific instructions laying around to tell them to commit these acts but it is obvious that they are killing in support of their religious beliefs.
They tell us so on a regular basis.
Hasan stated in public that it was just to kill American Soldiers because they are killing muslims.
Hasan also stated that non believers should be beheaded.
I really don’t see why we need a paper trail to put together the fact that a muslim who has made these types of statements in public then committed a mass killing while yelling “allah akbar” was somehow not a premeditated act in the defense of radical muslim beliefs (which would fall under the “political” part of the definition).
Yes they were in the military but this was not an attack on the military installation.
Hasan committed a premeditated attack knowingly on a room full of unarmed people.
Do you think that if our military went into a jihadist safe house and gunned down a room full of unarmed men and women that they could get away with saying..”it was a legitimate target”.
It would be called a massacre (or terrorist attack) just like the one at My Lai in Vietnam that liberals like to use so much to smear the entire military with every chance they get.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 1:32 AM
You don’t see the difference in attacking unarmed people as opposed to attacking people who are armed????
There is a major distinction of this in our courts of law.
Self defense laws are primarily built around this.
You seem to be taking shots in the dark with this point.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Thanks.
That certainly answers AnninCa’s question better than I did.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 1:37 AM
Oh please, of course. I meant as a technical definition.
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:39 AM
If you’re still around, what is Perfidity, strictly speaking I mean.
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I call it mass murder because of the FBI definitions. There’s a category of mass murderers that focus on institutions. That includes government/religion/etc.
The Unabomber falls into that category.
The FBI has profiled mass murderers in detail, because we, frankly, have a lot of experience with them. Unfortunately, one of the key tell-tale signs of a mass murderer is that almost everyone knows that something is terribly wrong BEFORE the act, but they never seem to reach the threshhold of “Warning! Warning, Will.” Hence, the “trigger event” occurs, and they pop.
He’s pretty classic, in that sense.
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Finally, I still think the PC criticism is valid. Regardless of spotting whether he was about to do this horrible deed, sending him to work with our military given what we knew? That’s is explained only by:
Gross military incompetence.
Extreme need of a body to fill the job.
Lack of care about that job.
PC attitudes that have swamped good judgment.
An absurd elevation of doctors to the point that nobody challenges them with commonsense.
Way too many decisions made on how much we’ve invested in someone’s education.
Any of the above call for changes. Immediately.
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Probably overblown, I’ve always thought of jihadis as culturally-driven spree killers anyway.
Merovign on November 21, 2009 at 2:07 AM
You think the ones in Iraq, for example, are just that?
I always do “picture” them being pressured and brainwashed.
This guy brainwashed himself!
AnninCA on November 21, 2009 at 2:13 AM
By that definition, you could consider a suicide bomber a mass murderer instead of a terrorist.
You could consider the 9/11 highjackers as simply mass murderers.
They exhibited plenty of unusual behavior and committed one act of mass killings.
The difference is they committed these acts to further a political/religious ideal.
I would be more inclined to put the unabomber in a terrorist classification because of his political motives that were plainly laid out in his manifesto.
How he was any different than the eco-terrorist I am not sure and it may just be marked up to semantics.
As far as everyone knowing something was terribly wrong with mass murderers,that is not necessarily so.
Mark Lepine’s massacre at the University in Montreal is a good example of someone who seemed a little eccentric,and opinionated but was primarily a loner who showed no major signs of being someone capable of committing mass murder.
Richard Speck who killed 8 nurses in one night was an alcoholic drifter and loser, who committed mostly petty crimes but did also admit to “slapping around women” from time to time.
This profile unfortunately fits tens of thousands of men around the country.
Although Speck was a punk criminal and loser, there was not a whole lot in his behavior that would lead people to say ” He is going to kill a room full of people one day”.
No threats of doing it and no bragging about committing a crime of this magnitude like a Mark Essex (Howard Johnson’s massacre in 1972) or James Huberty (McDonald’s massacre in 1984).
A lot of times in dealing with crimes,especially ones that get a lot of media attention,problems and actions that affect millions of people who don’t commit these types of crimes are taken out of context and put together to paint a certain picture.
Just like the case of Charles Whitman who shot and killed people from the tower in Texas.
He was depressed,acted erratically and seemed under serious pressure to succeed.
These traits could be attributed to millions of Americans,especially during these hard economic times.
These broad types of definitions like the one you have (which I am not disputing its authenticity) for mass murders have to be taken with a grain of salt and not as an end all.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Okay.
I think :
Answered that well.
I hope you are not asking me that question because I don’t know.
I would have to google it but I think as far as context,Holger is going to have to take care of your question….
….which is probably who you were asking anyway but I felt I should answer instead of coming off as rude.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 2:28 AM
I agree with these except for the:
“An absurd elevation of doctors to the point that nobody challenges them with commonsense.”
There apparently were many people who complained about Hasan only to have him shipped off to Ft. Hood so they could pass the buck.
I think most of your bullets there contributed to allowing Hasan to carry out his terrorist attack.
I believe the FBI has to share blame in this also because they had this information and did little to nothing.
Our men and women in uniform were failed badly here and it cost many of them their lives.
Really sucks even more that most of the people who were in charge of stopping an attack like this but negligently failed to do so were in no danger from Hasan what so ever.
Maybe if the higher ups were potential victims they would have acted on this instead of worrying about PC issues.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 2:38 AM
IMHO calling jihadis terrorists is unfair… to terrorists. Terrorists are people who use violence to frighten others into doing what they want. A good example are the IRA trying to terrorize the protestants into leaving Ireland.
Calling Jihadis terrorists implies that what they really want is [insert demand here, for example, a Palestinian state] and that once they get that demand, the violence will stop. I think this is giving them way too much benefit of the doubt! Jihadis want to murder non-jihadis. They want murder for the sake of murder, and they will continue murdering no matter what they are given, until their ideology is stamped out of the earth. That’s not terrorism, it’s something worse.
joe_doufu on November 21, 2009 at 2:38 AM
I can go with this.
My problem is when this massacre by a jihadist like Hasan is attempted by the MSM to be diminished to provide political cover for Obama.
Which is exactly what was attempted with the PTSD line that they pushed of someone who had never been to war.
By the spin coming out of the MSM on the Ft. Hood attack,
I could:
Claim to be a dedicated member of the Klu Klux Klan
Send money to the Klan
Preach the values and benefits of being a Klansman to my fellow workers
Carry a business card stating I am a “Soldier of the Klan”
Tell people I can’t wait to join the Grand Wizards in Heaven
Tell my fellow workers that to threaten or kill Klansmen lays the foundation that you should be killed
Tell my fellow workers that anyone who does not follow the Klans teachings should be beheaded
Then go into a room full of unarmed workers,start shooting them while I am yelling “the Klan rules”
But according to the MSM narrative, me being a Klansmen had nothing to do with it.
It was because of all the war stories my dad told me about that drove me to do this.
Completely stuck on stupid!!!!
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2009 at 3:03 AM
The prophet mo, (Piss Be Upon Him) instructed his followers to cry out, “Allahu Akbar” as they attack to “strike terror” in the hearts of their enemies…hence terrorists of the islamic persuasion do as the false prophet instructs them. the purpose being to induce terror. Terrorist? Kinda looks that way.
Army Brat on November 21, 2009 at 4:13 AM
We have got to break the liberal monopoly on ‘Education’. They are indoctrinating children so heavily in Political Correctness that the last thing they will think about when someone does a Hasan is islam.
DaMav on November 21, 2009 at 4:22 AM
Most people don’t label it as terrorism because the definition is too vague. Everyone’s confusing the act and the motivation when discussing this.
Most people think terrorism means an act of violence against civilians, with a motivation to instill fear in the civilian population. This is also how the U.S. Law Code defines it, and from what I recall how Bush defined it.
The motivation stems from Islamic Jihad. The act itself is an act of war, and we need to treat it as such. Then there would be less debate on how to deal with Hasan, a soldier, an enemy.
nottakingsides on November 21, 2009 at 5:04 AM
My thought exactly. What Hasan did was definitely an act of treason. The method he employed, however, was not terrorism.
year_of_the_dingo on November 21, 2009 at 5:25 AM
44% probably still waiting on Ed Morrissey to jump to the conclusion.
OSUBuciz1 on November 21, 2009 at 8:00 AM
One of the Ft. Hood wounded is a local (Iowa) woman. Our award-winning (ahem) TV station said she was ‘wounded in the arm by a fellow team member.’
marge on November 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM
Idiocracy has become reality.
Bevan on November 21, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Did they poll Hasan? He’d be in the minority on this one.
forest on November 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Please remember that a majority of the American people voted for Obama, including the vast majority of Jews who if they are not totally burying their heads know by now that Obama’s politicies are virulently anti-Jewish. The American people can sometimes vote like idiots whether it is in a public poll or at the polling booth. Why are we surprised at this
georgealbert on November 21, 2009 at 8:40 AM
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal criminal code. 18 U.S.C. §2331[25] defines terrorism as:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping….”
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Perfidity is egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions.
It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. If you come across unarmed enemy soldiers the correct course of action is to take them prisoner. If he switched sides then he needs to switch uniformsm, it is illegal to dress your soldiers in the uniform of the enemy unless that is your standard issue uniform. His attacking enemy medical personel is also illegal. I am also pretty sure he did not carry his arms openly on the way to the site of the attack which is illegal, you must carry your arms openly at all times during operations.
Holger on November 21, 2009 at 9:03 AM
So, from the results, it looks like about 50% of Americans are sympathetic to Islam:
Great!
Cybergeezer on November 21, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Terrorist acts targets civilians. Hasan attacked a legitimate military target — soldiers preparing to depart for the war front. It may have been a sneak attack that does not live up to the ideas of chivalry displayed in the crusades, but neither do hellfire missiles fired from unmanned drones. If we are at war, we have to admit that the Ft. Hood attack was a legitimate military strike.
Hasan was not a conscientious objector. He had no problem going to war. He just had a problem going to war for our side. He went to war for the enemy. He is a traitor. He was a spy. He was an illegal combatant operating behind enemy lines wearing the uniform of his opponents. He is a war criminal and should be summarily shot like the Nazis wearing GI uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.
tommylotto on November 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM
The American public is like a small child that upon hearing bad news puts it’s fingers in it’s ears and goes nanananana I can’t hear you. They have a sense that something bad is coming, and the only response that doesn’t require them to become involved is to ignore everything. If they don’t know there is a problem, then there isn’t a problem.
DFCtomm on November 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM
So it was obviously an act of terrorism.
Itchee Dryback on November 21, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Even if they were all civilian, terrorism must:
It seems, even if this turns out to be a jihadist conspiracy to kill soldiers, that this act does not fit the legal US definition of terrorism. In light of that, insisting that everyone call it terrorism becomes irrational…along with all the himming and hawing about political correctness and jihadi sympathies on the part of the American public.
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Were we, the captive american audience, Hasan’s target?
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Yes. We were. And there will be more to come if this Hasan act of terrorism is allowed to become watered down through selective polling and reliance on public opinion.
coldwarrior on November 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM
He attacked a Medical Facility where medical personnel are present. Not a legitimate target. All those soldiers are technically Hors de Combat.
Holger on November 21, 2009 at 9:30 AM
It doesn’t seem entirely obvious, or at least didn’t seem so initially. The emails and such that are being investigated currently may indeed imply jihadi conspiracy…but even so, was the whole motive really coercing us? 9/11 and car bombings are obvious…but murder?
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Most people get their news from the Lame Stream Media. It’s that simple.
marklmail on November 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Right, the whole fact that this incident seems to lack an effort to coerce our population or its government means absolutely nothing…its all about the media.
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Demoralize troops who are slated to be sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan just weeks before deployment? Demoralize families of those troops, perhaps enough to raise a public outcry to prevent deployment of any more troops? Give a President a “reason” to not send more troops? Make the specter of jihad not only within the US but within our military posts and bases very real and very tangible?
Flying a plane full of people into a building is murder. Car bombs are murder. Walking into the waiting room of a medical facility and trying to kill as many as can be killed is also murder. Terror employs murder in a very fundamental way…to change outcomes or try to change outcomes. Going back to the good old days of Kropotkin who brought terrorism into our lexicon, murder, spectacular and bloody, is an extension of politics….hence terrorism is a political decision, a political tool. Hasan wasn’t out to kill the husband of a paramour, or kill a commanding officer who was about to sign his deployment orders. No, Hasan chose an unarmed target set, within a benign medical, legally protected, setting under international law…to make a political statement, demented as it was. The “allahu akbar” part was merely frosting on the obvious cake.
coldwarrior on November 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I agree with your second point, but think the first is specious at best.
These people were not in a battle operation nor were they in the country the war is being conducted in.
If these same people were in a civilian setting..likewise remove from the battle field and the battle, say at a gathering honoring fallen soldiers by soldiers in some small home town, and someone killed them while shouting Radical Islamic calls to victory, would they have been a legitimate military target?
Itchee Dryback on November 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM
What criteria do you demand to make the case?
You set that, and lets go from there.
Itchee Dryback on November 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Well, I suppose there’d have to be some indication of a motive to effect policy or effect public opinion towards policy.
In any event, his correspondence with that imam is key. But I don’t think we can sit here speculating and come up with a definitive answer as to whether or not this counts as terrorism until we get more info.
For now, I’ll go with what we have, and what we have so far doesn’t quite make the case for terrorism. Jihadi conspiracy, yes, but terrorism…terrorism has a strict definition with regards to US law, this doesn’t fit that description outright.
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM
It remains to be seen whether these possibilites are actually the motive. If anything, motivation to prevent an escalation of troops would fit the textbook definition to the letter. The others seem like a bit of idle speculation…but I suppose they’re all possible. The current inquest should clear this question up. For now, though, I’ll withhold judgement on the matter of whether or not this actually fits the definition of terrorism.
ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM
It’s hard for me to call it terrorism directly, too. I don’t think the Unabomber was a terrorist, either, and his violence was just as politically motivated.
To me, terrorism implies conspiracy with non-state political (IRA) or religious (Al Qaeda) organizations to carry out violence meant to achieve a climate of fear or some political end. Had Hassan been working with and receiving orders from AQ, either directly or through a chain of command, I would say yes, it’s terrorism. As it stands, he just looks like an Islamic version of Ted Kaczynski.
spmat on November 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I actually think I agree with Ernesto on this one. I’m skeptical that his intention was to foment terror. That he was a Jihadi I’ve no doubt. But due to both his choice of targets and the fact that he lacks connections and/or statements that suggest similar attacks are to follow, the specific characterization of “terrorism” strikes me as dubious.
Of course, in my book “terrorist jihadi mass murder” and “jihadi mass murderer” are worthy of precisely the same sentence, so in this case the distinction is more intellectual than practical, anyway.
Blacklake on November 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
That’s interesting, as I’d think Kaczynski clearly was a terrorist–though not because he was thinking politically (albeit schizophrenically). His targets fit a pattern, and the acts were repeated in a fashion that it was reasonable for others who met the target profile to fear for their safety in perpetuity. Toss in the fact that all those involved were non-combatants, and it would seem to me clear-cut that he meets the definition of a terrorist.
Blacklake on November 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Dude, they’re indoctrinated and brainwashed daily, by liberal jihadis. What do you expect?
Jeepers. You know what the real issue here is? Its easy to spin an attack by a muslim terrorist as a crazy person on a killing spree. There are a lot of people living with a 9/10 mentality. They don’t want to believe what’s really happening.
They won’t believe it till the bomber goes off in their faces.
dogsoldier on November 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Some of us that live on and near Ft. Hood have a slightly different opinion than the other 56%.
mizflame98 on November 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Better dead than un-PC.
Dr. ZhivBlago on November 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM
If your criteria is “some indication”, that seems to be strongly opposed to what I took your position to be, which is a sterile and defined set of criteria that you posted, which is very anachronistic imo, I believe that there is in fact “some indication” that I am correct.
Now the criteria seems to have adjusted, if I’m understanding you correctly.
Is the evidence you would hope to find in further investigation of this contacts with AlQ or other terrorists have to include some “plan” or what? Serious question, because I don’t understand what you’re gettingat.
How are you arriving at that conclusion?
Again.. in your view what is that missing “it” that we don’t quite have?
You mean its not terrorism terrorism?
Itchee Dryback on November 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM
There’s your whole vaunted moral equivalence meme for you.
The moral compass has been well and truly broken.
ElRonaldo on November 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM
People are retarded and this shows why you can read into polls too much. Yeah he was nuts, so what? You think the people who hijacked planes and flew them into the towers and pentagon were sane? Fools.
Dash on November 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Exactly right. Prime example being that for decades, the NY Times called these bad guys “terrorists” on Page 1 whenever an attack happened. But the T word mysteriously disappeared from the NY Fishwrap about the same time Clenis became President.
Del Dolemonte on November 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM
You’re forgetting that one of those killed at Ft. Hood was a civilian and 7 civilians were also wounded.
Del Dolemonte on November 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
miles on November 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/rifqa-rally-video.html#comments
miles on November 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
PEONS
Reality Check on November 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM
In a way though I miss dearly I’m glad my grandparents are no longer with us. It would be so depressing to see them so disgusted with what has become of America.
MCGIRV on November 22, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Correction: In a way though I miss them dearly
MCGIRV on November 22, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2