Fort Hood's 9/11

[Soldat_Américain]

But using the logic here you many of you guys state, any murderer is a terrorist. Look at his behavior before you even try to look at his religion. It was completely erratic and he was going nuts.

[AZZenny]

It was completely erratic and he was going nuts.

No it wasn't, Soldat - The majority of people in closest contact with him over the past several weeks (recall he bought the gun a few months ago) say he was quite calm and 'normal' in his behavior -- coworkers, family, neighbors, fellow Muslims.

One of the very few who said he recently sounded wacko was a local Imam who refused to let Hasan serve in a lay 'deacon' type role -- because Hasan was openly anti-America and "seemed almost incoherent."

[little icebear]

Originally Posted by AZZenny

They will really try to downplay the Muslim or terrorism aspects.

Who´s "they"? Them evil pawns of the PC-World-Order? BTW: Since when is it supposed to be politically incorrect to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and since when is it desired to play down the threat of islamic extremism?
Don´t know where you´ve been but over the time I´ve seen a lot of coverage concerning terrorism. News are filled with this topic.

I´m all for calling a spade a spade. And I´m all for calling a mass murderer / spree killer for what he is.

Once again for uber-thick people:

Terrorist would be something like: infiltrates the military on purpose in order to gain access to the very place where he wants to inflict damage.

Not a terrorist but a spree killer would be something like: works years over years for the military, over the time he developes some serious issues and at some point he goes bonkers and decides to kill his co-workers.

Again: What´s the purpose of making the label "terrorist" stick? What is there to gain?

[AZZenny]

As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," he said in the presentation.

"It was really strange," said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. "The senior doctors looked really upset" at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.

The title of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It consisted of 50 slides. In one slide, Hasan described the presentation's objectives as identifying "what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military."

He also sought to "describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims" who serve in the U.S. military may have and to persuade the Army to identify these individuals.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:
"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

'They' are the Feds responsible for deciding about filing civilian vs military charges and then prosecuting. If it's deemed terrorism, it apparently moves out of Court-Martial into Federal court. I don't think they want that to happen. That's why I think the feds and army do NOT want a terrorism label to stick.

However, you are very over-simplified in your concept of what makes a terrorist. Read the definitions.

[LazerLordz]

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Personally, I hope they just go with treason and multiple homicides, and I bet they will, in order to keep the charges and prosecution of the case as uncomplicated as possible. They will really try to downplay the Muslim or terrorism aspects.

I agree that this would be better. Takes the sail out of groups who might want to hype up his actions and glorify it for their own aims. Also reduces publicity weightage.

It's simple treason and murder really..and perhaps the customary psychiatric report will come out saying he's really a fries short of a happy meal.