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.

ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM

You’re forgetting that one of those killed at Ft. Hood was a civilian and 7 civilians were also wounded.

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.

Seth Halpern on November 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM

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.

The moral compass has been well and truly broken.

Well, I suppose there’d have to be some indication of a motive to effect policy or effect public opinion towards policy.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Only 44% think Fort Hood murders were an act of terrorism

Some of us that live on and near Ft. Hood have a slightly different opinion than the other 56%.

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.

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.

I don’t think the Unabomber was a terrorist, either, and his violence was just as politically motivated…
spmat on November 21, 2009 at 10:45 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.

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.

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.

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?

coldwarrior on November 21, 2009 at 9:54 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 9:25 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.

Were we, the captive american audience, Hasan’s target?

ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:25 AM

What criteria do you demand to make the case?
You set that, and lets go from there.

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

I agree with your second point, but think the first is specious at best.

Terrorist acts targets civilians. Hasan attacked a legitimate military target — soldiers preparing to depart for the war front.

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?

ernesto on November 21, 2009 at 9:32 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.

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.

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

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?

Hasan attacked a legitimate military target

He attacked a Medical Facility where medical personnel are present. Not a legitimate target. All those soldiers are technically Hors de Combat.