Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Discuss.

vincent

13 dead and 30 injured.

He did not good things with a gun.

Bad things, even.

I think it's too early to discuss this since there isn't any confirmed, concrete information available.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think it's too early to discuss this since there isn't any confirmed, concrete information available.

Army psychiatrist. 39 years old. He didn't use military issued weapons. Muslim.

Act of terrorism.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Act of terrorism.

Just because he's Muslim?

Yeah, it's kind of retarded that everyone jumps on that when all evidence is rumors and hearsay. And what happened to the other two shooters?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yeah, it's kind of retarded that everyone jumps on that when all evidence is rumors and hearsay. And what happened to the other two shooters?

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Just because he's Muslim?

Both of you watch this video and then get back to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/radicals.mosque/index.html

I'll watch it when I'm not goldbricking at work and I'm not going to jump to conclusions until there is an investigation. The chronology of the reporting smells fishy to me. At first there were three shooters. Then two were in custody and one was shot dead. Then the other shooters were down graded to co-conspirators. Then the third guy was upgraded to alive. Honestly, when this happened I didn't think "muslim terrorist". The first thing I thought when news started trickling in was that it was a terrorist attack carried out by those nazis the SPLC has been tracking.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Act of terrorism.

by definition this is not terrorism, but a "spree killing"

for instance, the goal seems more to kill soldiers rather than to reduce the moral of America to continue fighting or to burden the populace enough to get them to no longer fight.

sure, it might be motivated by Islam, which we have no evidence for, but all religious violence is not terrorism. The goal was death, not symbolic intimidation, as far as I can piece together.

Wikipedia has been given international media awards for their ability to follow such events, and they have a good amount of information saying that Hasan was acting out of retribution for harassment rather than out of religious motives, though, this all remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Just because he's Muslim?
Funny how by suggesting that someone brought up the Muslim = Terrorist equation (when they didn't), you were the one who actually did.

I've read snippets of stories, love how everyone and everything else is a probable blame/cause, except for the loon himself.

Oh, he's a Muslim, so that's the cause.

It's very relevant he is a muslim. He was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq and US foreign policy in general. He also made numerous anti american posts on islamic websites. Ie recently tried to get out of the army because of "anti islmic" bias.

In the end, if he acted alone then it's a spree killing. If not, then it's a whole different ballgame.

Time will tell but expect more of this type of stuff, from muslims, over the coming years, just as there has been for decades now.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
It's very relevant he is a muslim. He was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq and US foreign policy in general. He also made numerous anti american posts on islamic websites. Ie recently tried to get out of the army because of "anti islmic" bias.

care to source any of this?

it is unconfirmed, but his aunt said he wanted to leave the military because he was being harassed for being a muslim.

The posts he is alleged to have made, for which there exists no proof he did make, are with regard to suicide bombing being acceptable within Islam, as it didn't meet the requirements for suicide which is unacceptable by Islam.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
In the end, if he acted alone then it's a spree killing. If not, then it's a whole different ballgame.

irrelevant. Unless it is found that his motives were a symbolic attack against America in order to demoralize their armed forces or intimidate their population, it is a spree killing.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Time will tell but expect more of this type of stuff, from muslims, over the coming years, just as there has been for decades now.

and just to remind you, the most common profile for a terrorist in America is white, male, Christian.

So political dissent and religion should be profiled? Why don't we profile right wing Christians and nazis?

because they control most mechanisms of power?

Well by his logic, Madoff and Abrahamoff should've been covered in the media as "Jewish Crooks" because of historical perceptions and stereotypes.

Madoff was a jew? I'm actually surprised that angle wasn't more popular...

but no, thats exactly what it is. Terrorism = Muslim violence, and vice versa, regardless of the cause. These simple little heuristics that the state/media/culture drive into people's minds.

Hell, given what has been released to the media (obviously the real motive is yet to come out), courts handing out extreme prison sentences to act as a "message" to anyone else who might commit the same crime is more of a "terrorist" act.

Shooter advised Obama

Ah, I knew Obama was somehow behind it, the Muslim!

Obama: Where's the nearest bathroom? I tried shit on a shingle as a publicity stunt 40 minutes ago.

Hasan: 2nd floor, third door on the left. Don't take the elevator because it smells like an old, steel urinal.

Obama: Thanks for the advice.

Why cant a spree killing be considered an act of terrorism?

the motive

I guess one could spree as a terrorist act, but that certainly doesn't appear to be the case here

edit: looks like "mass murder" might be more appropriate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

And why do you say that?

because there is no evidence that the attack was staged to intimidate the American public into making a specific political policy decision.

EDIT: For instance, a suicide bomb attack in a crowded market which targets primarily civilians is a terrorist attack because it is interfering with individual lives and attempting to cause enough disruption and fear that people side with the terrorist, or rather, no longer do what the terrorists are fighting against. A suicide bomb attack against a military institution, bent on damaging the material ability of one army to fight another army is a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.

You say that as if that is the definition of terrorism. When in fact, there is no exact definition. At least one agreed upon internationally. The only characteristic agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.

lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

I can see where inimalist is going with this.

Since "terrorizing" is a derivative of "terrorism"...if a man terrorizes his family, would it be because he wants to intimidate them into obeying him? Because if he didn't, he could just kill them, which according to the def. above, wouldn't be terrorism. It would just be a killing spree.

its also the most common way that terrorism is talked about academically.

Though, yes, like "religion", "state", "government", "capitalism" and essentially any other abstract concept about which people discuss, there is no set-in-stone definition for Terrorism.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

Don't be so pompous. You can't say there is one strict definition for terrorism man.

Originally posted by Quincy
Don't be so pompous. You can't say there is one strict definition for terrorism man.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, like "religion", "state", "government", "capitalism" and essentially any other abstract concept about which people discuss, there is no set-in-stone definition for Terrorism.

but more on point, are you saying this was an act of terrorism, or are you just trying to say that it is impossible to talk about terrorism in the first place?

Neither of those things

then what is your point?

I was correcting you

which statement of mine was incorrect?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

sure

all violence is terrorism. discussion over

You were joking I hope?

Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

Originally posted by inimalist
because there is no evidence that the attack was staged to intimidate the American public into making a specific political policy decision.

EDIT: For instance, a suicide bomb attack in a crowded market which targets primarily civilians is a terrorist attack because it is interfering with individual lives and attempting to cause enough disruption and fear that people side with the terrorist, or rather, no longer do what the terrorists are fighting against. A suicide bomb attack against a military institution, bent on damaging the material ability of one army to fight another army is a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.

Originally posted by Quincy
You say that as if that is the definition of terrorism. When in fact, there is no exact definition. At least one agreed upon internationally. The only characteristic agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.

stoned

Originally posted by ChakraStrings

Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

Yeah those 2 unborn children at Omagh. The decisions they made in the home office to oppress Catholics had to be met with blowing them up...No other way for it.

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
You were joking I hope?

? is it not obvious

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
Sometimes violence is neccessary to prove a point, like what the IRA did back in the day against the British government who REFUSED To leave the country.

indeed, attacks leveled against British military personnel would not be considered terrorism, but warfare.

however, the necessity of violence is irrelevant. Terrorism is determined by the target of violence and the motivation for such violence.

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
They tried peace and then had to resort to violence because there was no other solution. The IRA were far from terrorists...

I won't argue because I'm largely unfamiliar with the workings of the IRA proper. However, Ireland has suffered from a plethora of terrorism, committed by Irish nationalists and by the British military.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah those 2 unborn children at Omagh. The decisions they made in the home office to oppress Catholics had to be met with blowing them up...No other way for it.

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?

Originally posted by Quincy
stoned

so, tell me, how does one discuss terrorism, then, if there is no way to define it?

also, you are ignoring that there is an abundance of academic research that is not stifled by such considerations.

I also conceded that there is no absolute definition of terrorism, then quoted that to you.

EDIT: to this last point, there is also no absolute definition of "red"

Originally posted by inimalist



indeed, attacks leveled against British military personnel would not be considered terrorism, but warfare.

however, the necessity of violence is irrelevant. Terrorism is determined by the target of violence and the motivation for such violence.




The targetting of military personell can be made to deter others from joining the military. Thus attempting to damage the resolve of a country to fight by convincing people not to join the military for fear of violence even in areas they would deem to be safe, such as homeland bases.

Thus terrorism.

Of course, we don't yet know what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's motivations were. It may well simply be that he was mentally ill (as is often the case with people who commit these types of atrocities). If it turns out that it was genuine and deliberately thought out actions that were in revenge for US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan then it's terrorism. If it's a reaction to the alleged bullying he'd been the victim of for being a muslim then it's no different to high school shooters who commit their acts under a justification of revenge for whatever stupid personal reason they say.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?



Originally posted by inimalist
so, tell me, how does one discuss terrorism, then, if there is no way to define it?

also, you are ignoring that there is an abundance of academic research that is not stifled by such considerations.

I also conceded that there is no absolute definition of terrorism, then quoted that to you.

EDIT: to this last point, there is also no absolute definition of "red"

You seem upset over that last little smiley.

Originally posted by inimalist
by definition this is not terrorism, but a "spree killing"

for instance, the goal seems more to kill soldiers rather than to reduce the moral of America to continue fighting or to burden the populace enough to get them to no longer fight.



There was a civilian among the soldiers killed fyi.

Originally posted by Quincy
You seem upset over that last little smiley.

not particularly, though you did dodge the question.

You said it is not impossible to talk about terrorism, yet you are claiming we cannot define terrorism in any way except for the fact that it is violent.

how is this possible? or is the extent of your discussion about terrorism to simply repeat that there is no definition of terrorism?

Originally posted by jaden101


Of course, we don't yet know what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's motivations were.

Yeah we do...shoot and kill people.

Originally posted by jaden101
The targetting of military personell can be made to deter others from joining the military. Thus attempting to damage the resolve of a country to fight by convincing people not to join the military for fear of violence even in areas they would deem to be safe, such as homeland bases.

I might disagree. Targeting the military of a nation in such a way strikes me more as asymmetrical warfare more than terrorism. Simply an adaptation that weaker military forces have had to make in order to compete with more powerful forces.

I do see the point, and clearly it is a gray area, and different attacks would be more or less obvious.

If Mr. Hasan's motives were in fact to scare people away from joining the military, sure, that could be terrorism.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
There was a civilian among the soldiers killed fyi.

you would define any military operation in which a civilian is killed terrorism then?

as best as can be pieced together, the attack was not targeting civilians. Also, there are many civilians employed by the military, and a distinction between civilian employed by the military or whose job brings them in close proximity to the military and a proper soldier might be too pedantic for the discussion.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Yeah we do...shoot and kill people.

then he is not a terrorist, but a mass murderer

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Just because he's Muslim?

No. Because he terrorized people.

Although I'd call it a killing spree.

In the photo he looks like a slightly fatter Krist Novoselic

Originally posted by inimalist
then he is not a terrorist, but a mass murderer

Do tell us what a terrorist is then..since you're so high in the definition.

A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.

Or in short, motive. That is what it comes down to.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Do tell us what a terrorist is then..since you're so high in the definition.

how detailed do you want? I've admitted 3 times directly and implied in a 4th that an unambiguous definition is nearly impossible.

Basically, however, I'd say it is an action for which the motive is symbolic rather than material or psychological, the symbol fostering fear and terror in the minds of the victims and the greater community the victims belong to.

If you want me to get any more specific, give me an example you want me to discuss.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or in short, motive. That is what it comes down to.

motive, causative method, and intent.

He's a shrink who worked as a grief counselor for returning soldiers...and then went nuts. Sounds like a movie pitch, don't it?

Unlike most American mass-shooters, this one didn't off himself, so maybe the investigators will be able find out things, assuming he's not a total nutjob who's foaming at the mouth, rocks back and forth and doesn't recognize other humans.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
a total nutjob who's foaming at the mouth, rocks back and forth and doesn't recognize other humans.

You know my uncle Larry?

Originally posted by inimalist
how detailed do you want? I've admitted 3 times directly and implied in a 4th that an unambiguous definition is nearly impossible.

Basically, however, I'd say it is an action for which the motive is symbolic rather than material or psychological, the symbol fostering fear and terror in the minds of the victims and the greater community the victims belong to.

If you want me to get any more specific, give me an example you want me to discuss.

Take some notes.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Take some notes.

DJ's is more detailed, but we are making the same general points.

Given he had just written that, and that I feel strict definitions of terrorism allow for more examples that don't "fit the mold", so to speak, I decided to give a heuristic rather than a formal definition.

Given what we know of Hasan at this point, he does not meet DJ's definition any more than he does mine.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Just because he's Muslim?


How else would you classify a mass shooting? The Columbine shootings was an act of terrorism.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
How else would you classify a mass shooting?

"Mass Murder"

Most definitions of terrorism require the terrorist to have a political goal in mind.

allah akbar is also something said similar to "God damn it"

also, all religious violence is not terrorism

Well, I read the news report and I don't speak arabic. But if you know Arabic, then I will take your word for it. Otherwise he was praising Allah.

he may have been praising allah. All indications are that he was very devout.

Also, he was wearing a traditional South Asian garb associated with Muslim conservatives in Iraq and Afghanistan (though his linage is Jordanian and Palestinian) and was allegedly handing out Qurans.

Don't mistake what I am saying. Religion probably played a significant role in this attack, but that doesn't make it terrorism, the same way people can commit terrorist acts for motivations that are not religious.

Probably another planned step on bringing the masses against religion, some clever people in the NWO

Originally posted by inimalist
allah akbar is also something said similar to "God damn it"

also, all religious violence is not terrorism

I never heard that before. Not saying it's not possible, probably different for different Arabs.

Although 'akbar' or 'ekber' (again depends on accents) means great, it probably is used like ''oh dear god'' kind of thing.

But I don't know.

Originally posted by inimalist
allah akbar is also something said similar to "God damn it"

also, all religious violence is not terrorism

I've never heard that or read it. Doesn't mean it's not true, it's just likely to not be true at all.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6516570/Fort-Hood-shootings-the-meaning-of-Allahu-Akbar.html



We can take it at what it most likely was: battle cry. His gun wasn't jamming, he didn't stub his toe, etc. He was doing a battle cry before he mowed some people down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've never heard that or read it. Doesn't mean it's not true, it's just likely to not be true at all.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6516570/Fort-Hood-shootings-the-meaning-of-Allahu-Akbar.html



We can take it at what it most likely was: battle cry. His gun wasn't jamming, he didn't stub his toe, etc. He was doing a battle cry before he mowed some people down.

Also, all prayers start (or majority of) with Allah-u-Akbar. It also may not be likely that it would mean ''godddamn it'' if a prayer is commenced with these words.

Again, not saying its not true, just saying possibility of it being true is not great.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, all prayers start (or majority of) with Allah-u-Akbar. It also may not be likely that it would mean ''godddamn it'' if a prayer is commenced with these words.

Again, not saying its not true, just saying possibility of it being true is not great.

Right. In my opinion, a devote Muslim like that, is not going to be using a sacred phrase in such a manner. Considering no where in that "enlighten" article does it say it can be used as an expletive, I'm quie sure he was using it the way jihadists do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I never heard that before. Not saying it's not possible, probably different for different Arabs.

Although 'akbar' or 'ekber' (again depends on accents) means great, it probably is used like ''oh dear god'' kind of thing.

But I don't know.

thats more my understanding. It could also be like "OMFG" or "good grief", to the best of my knowledge. I just don't think they have as diverse a set of expletives as we do.

its not a literal translation though, that is true, it would be a coloquialism, and probably varies between regions. I just know I used it that way in some Arabic skits that I did in class.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. In my opinion, a devote Muslim like that, is not going to be using a sacred phrase in such a manner. Considering no where in that "enlighten" article does it say it can be used as an expletive, I'm quie sure he was using it the way jihadists do.

right, because western media has been known to give a realistic and thorough examination of Arab culture in the past

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because western media has been known to give a realistic and thorough examination of Arab culture in the past

Instead of posting something childish, you could actually back up your claim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Instead of posting something childish, you could actually back up your claim.

a UK news release explaining why a gunman might say Allahu Akbar before shooting people is an authoritative study of the arabic language?

cool, i now see your point

oh, totally unrelated, the phase "whats up" in english, not actually asking what is above you.

similarly, the phrase "ma akbar" (not akbar "great", the second 'a' is a fatah and not an allif, the 'a' sound would be less pronounced in pronunciation) literally means "what is the news", but, when a person says it, they are saying hello.

Originally posted by inimalist
a UK news release explaining why a gunman might say Allahu Akbar before shooting people is an authoritative study of the arabic language?

cool, i now see your point

oh, totally unrelated, the phase "whats up" in english, not actually asking what is above you.

similarly, the phrase "ma akbar" (not akbar "great", the second 'a' is a fatah and not an allif, the 'a' sound would be less pronounced in pronunciation) literally means "what is the news", but, when a person says it, they are saying hello.

Good God, man. Stop being childish.







Edit - I have not found one reference to what you are saying, inimalist. Every last place I go to, islamic worship sites, news articles created to "educate" people on the use, religion databases, etc. Not one of them has indicated what you said.

You've made childish comments (replied with sarcasm and argumentum ad hominem comments) instead of actually proving yoru point. You should know that making claims like that need to be substantiated.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not a literal translation though, that is true, it would be a coloquialism, and probably varies between regions. I just know I used it that way in some Arabic skits that I did in class.

I can't do any better than that

Native Arab speaker from Morocco saying that it is a correct usage of the phrase. I guess his Jordanian (I think) TA also said it was correct.

Originally posted by inimalist

oh, totally unrelated, the phase "whats up" in english, not actually asking what is above you.

similarly, the phrase "ma akbar" (not akbar "great", the second 'a' is a fatah and not an allif, the 'a' sound would be less pronounced in pronunciation) literally means "what is the news", but, when a person says it, they are saying hello.

I am not sure that's correct...?

I am almost certain that the word is ''ukbarak'' not ''akbar''.

Akbar is ''gretaest'' also could be used for as superlative for big...so ''bigger''.

yup

I can't for the life of me remember if it is an ayn or alif at the start, but akbar with a fatah means news, like news broadcast program.

EDIT: I only took a year and a half, so I don't know for sure, but akbar (news) and ukbarak may have a similar root, K-B-R or something

EDIT: damn it, akbar (great) also has the fatah, it must be that akbar (news) begins with an ayn... blah...

EDIT: ok, so wow, it is phonetically similar to akbar, but is spelled Akhbar (alif, kha, ba, alif, ra)

Yeah, and also I cannot write at all. All those letters which are from the same ''family'' i.e written the same but with ''accents'' or ''dots'' as I call them, on top or bottom, I mix up all the time.

The sound changes depending on the ''dots'' like ''zh'' and ''z''. But I cannot decide on the roots at all. Plus my vocabulary is extremely limited.

If I knew how to write it, maybe we could check it out.

lol, I actually just looked it up in my text book, but I have no idea what the word ukbarak means. It could also be news, I just have a really limited vocab as well

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I actually just looked it up in my text book, but I have no idea what the word ukbarak means. It could also be news, I just have a really limited vocab as well

It means news. But I have no idea if that's how you ''englishize'' the word. I just guessed the writing. Haha.

the K would have to be a Kha (the kh, or the sort of gurgle at the back of the throat) for them to have the same root, but they could mean the same thing and not be the same root

Test post

So, The source of the Obama adviser thing- Jerome "swift boat", "obamanation" "Kerry can't be a good president because he's secretly a Jew" Corsi.

I was reading over the case of Hasan Akbar when he threw a grenade into a ten, killing 2 and injuring 14.

Coincidence, anyone?