People who label Nidal Malik Hasan a "terrorist," like Joe Lieberman just did, literally don't understand the meaning of the word. And how can they keep us safe from terrorism if they don't even know what it is?
Here's what Sen. Lieberman said: ""There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Here's a fairly concise definition of the word 'terrorism', drawn from the Random House Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." (emphasis mine)
Had Dr. Hasan become "an Islamist extremist"? It sure looks that way. But was the horrific slaughter he carried out intended to "intimidate or coerce" anyone? We've heard no evidence to that effect. These terrible killings may have just been an expression of inchoate rage. And if we don't know whether coercion or intimidation was the goal, than we certainly don't know if it was done "for political purposes."
Sen. Lieberman's statement, on the other hand, probably was made "for political purposes." And bigotry might be a factor, too, don't you think? After all, the Senator made no such statements about other shootings at military facilities.
Let's get one thing straight: This is not a liberal, knee-jerk defense of someone because he belongs to an unpopular minority (although defending unpopular minorities is generally a good practice). If we learn that Malik Hasan left a note saying "anybody who serves in the US Armed Forces must know they will face retribution," we'll know that he is a terrorist. He will have committed his murders in order to intimidate or coerce. But right now we don't have any evidence that suggests Hasan is any different than the civilian who killed 23 people at a cafeteria right down the road from Ft. Hood, shouting "This is what Central Texas did to me!"
Apparently that guy really hated Central Texas. But he wasn't a terrorist, because he wasn't trying to intimidate people or change their behavior.
So if the Luby's Cafeteria Murderer wasn't a terrorist, what does qualify as terrorism? Al Qaeda's dirty deeds do, of course. Those cowardly killings are intended to provoke US withdrawal from all Muslim countries. (No, they don't do it because "they hate our freedoms.") Christian extremist Scott Roeder's act of murder was terrorism, too, because he wants doctors to stop performing abortions. (He and others like him have nearly achieved their goal, too, which makes it pretty effective terror.)
The Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people in 1946, was also an indisputable act of terrorism, designed to intimidate occupying British personnel and encourage their withdrawal from Palestine. The Irgun's behavior provoked the World Zionist Congress to condemn "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare," much as mainstream Muslim groups have repeatedly condemned Al Qaeda.
And it's not just a God thing. Muslims, Christians, and Jews are not the only ones whose followers have engaged in terrorism. Forty years ago terrorists in Europe and the United States were likely to be non-believing members of leftist groups like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, or Weather Underground. Disbeliever Leon Frank Czolgosz shot President William McKinley, arguably an act of terrorism, because of his anarchist ideals. As Robert Pape's data analysis showed in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, even suicide bombers are more likely to be driven by powerlessness than religion.
When James David Adkisson killed those Unitarians in Knoxville, he wasn't trying to change anybody's behavior. He was acting out his rage against liberals - a rage apparently fomented by viewing Fox News and reading books by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Adkisson and Hasan are similar figures, both of whom are guilty of horrific behavior (assuming Hasan's guilt and conviction, of course.) But neither are "terrorists" by any rational definition (based on what we know today.)
If we had applied Lieberman-like logic after the Knoxville shooting we would have started profiling anybody carrying a book by Hannity or O'Reilly. (I can hear some of you saying "Good idea!" Knock it off, guys - this is America.)
I believe in strong, clear-eyed work to combat terrorism. We also need an effective strategy for spotting soldiers that are about to snap and go on a killing spree. But they're not the same strategies. It's beginning to look like some serious warning signs were overlooked in the Hasan case. We need to find out what went wrong and fix it. But a tough antiterrorism policy begins with a hardnosed, non-ideological (and non-prejudiced) look at the facts. The Lieberman definition of terrorism would have us squander our investigative resources by pursuing a lot of Muslims rather than a lot of potential terrorists.
I don't mean to pick on Sen. Lieberman. It's a soul-killing waste of energy to resent any individual politician, as tempting as some of them may make it. But Lieberman's a good proxy for all the right-wingers who have called Hasan's terrible act "terrorism." (And we can drop the pretense that Lieberman is anything but a die-cut, straight-down-the-line rightist.)
I don't object to the Joe Liebermans of the world because they're conservative. I object to them because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Their goal is indiscriminate military aggression toward the Muslim world, not effective security for the United States. They seem to believe that comments like these build a case for that agenda and prove that they can keep us safer than those now in power.
They're really proving the opposite. They're showing that they're still likely to act before they've gathered all the facts. Once again they've responded to tragedy with their patented blend of blind fear, misdirected anger, and cynical rhetoric. They're reminding us one more time how often they've failed and flailed in the face of danger. And they're demonstrating that they don't understand the real threat any more now than they did when they blundered into Iraq. Yet despite one embarrassing display after another, they keep claiming they know how to keep us safe from terrorism.
Terrorism?
They don't know the meaning of the word.
_________________
UPDATE: A flock of rightwing trolls is attempting to "prove" that Lieberman was right and that Hasan is a terrorist, rather than a soldier who snapped. In so doing, they are consistently distorting my position - which is that we don't know which he was, and that strategies for soldiers who snap are not the same as strategies for terrorists. We need both, and we need to direct our resources where they're most needed.
Every definition of terrorism offered below includes the desire to intimidate or coerce, phrased in some way or form. Terrorist? Re Hasan, once again: We don't know. Wise military and police actions are based in finding the facts before we act, not reacting based on fear or political agendas. You're suggesting you know the facts of the case better than the military or the FBI. I'm sticking with the military and the FBI.
Lieberman's comments are intended to create a climate of fear for political purposes, not to provide better protection against violence. So are yours. Your agenda distracts us from effective war planning and policing. Each of you is helping me prove my point.
And here's an idea: Maybe everyone who claims they "know" the killer's motivation and have cracked this case - yes, it's terror, etc. - should show us their military or police ID. After all, they must be experts or they wouldn't be so sure, right?
RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Nicolette Hahn Niman: Avoiding Factory Farm Foods: An Eater's Guide
Eventually, I mostly gave up on supermarkets and began exploring new ways to get at the good food I was seeking. My goal was simple: I wanted all my food to come from places I would enjoy visiting.
Hasan may likely be a terrorist. When I say this the military at the same time should be protecting our Muslim soldiers. Though nonetheless we should call Hasan what he is if in fact it is a terrorist. He appears to be influenced by the wrong people, terrorists. He didn't believe America should be fighting wars against Islam. He didn't think he should fight wars against Islam. As a non terrorist concious objector he should have run to Canada or a Muslim country like during Vietnam. Instead he killed 12 people.
Its easy to say he's crazy. All suicide bombers are crazy. So were the 9/11 perpetrators. They were manipulated and controlled. . Though he was acting alone /all of the information for manipulation was there. Extreme Muslim ideology is angry about the west and want to strike back.
He hasn't been tried he's an alleged Terrorist but it appears so. He's also an alleged murderer. Why is it so hard to use the word. I bet if it was a member of your family killed you could see the other point of view.
so mr. eskow is right to when he writes bigotry is certainly involved...
In other words, if Hasan is a terrorist then so is the other doctor.
Alarmed by the rising suicide rate among soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and “wanting to help,” Matthew “Matt” Houseal, MD, a psychiatrist with the Texas Panhandle Mental Health Mental Retardation Center (TPMHMR), reenlisted as an Army Reservist and volunteered to serve in Iraq.
Last month, Houseal, 54, of Amarillo, Tex, and Navy Cdr Charles “Keith” Springle, PhD, 52, a clinical social worker from Wilmington, NC, were working in the combat stress center at Camp Liberty in Baghdad when Army Sgt John M. Russell allegedly opened fire. Houseal and Springle were killed along with 3 soldiers awaiting treatment: Pfc Michael E. Yates Jr, 19, of Maryland; Spc Jacob D. Barton, 20, of Missouri; and Sgt Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, 25, of New Jersey.
My original point still stands - when a soldier kills other soldiers, whether on US soil or not, does not mean it was an act of terrorism. It means the killers have mental or emotional problems. When the proof comes in it was an act of terrorism, then, I will call it that.
I emailed Liberman's office on Monday urging him to use restraint in labeling the Ft. Hood attack as a terriorist act until all the facts were in. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population from which Liberman is trying to garner support and that segment is easily incited.
some of us percieve that this is plain old terrorism (or whatever word you wnat to call it) and soem choose to believe that this is nothing more than a soldier gone crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ffRkv9et0&feature=player_embedded
Just another Tuesday
Remember that Major Hasan was born in this country, he volunteered to serve at 18, prior to 9/11. When he started medical school, he could not have envisioned the future, of a theater of war in a Muslim country. He was vocal about not wanting to deploy, and wanting out of the military. We have a consciencious objector regulation in the military, but it does not deal well with the sorts of issues that Major Hasan's story raises. We need to revise this regulation, and, I believe that if any one of several things had been different, he would not have taken his weapons to Ft Hood last week.
Pr Chris
Pr Chris
Sean … as you can see this is a major mess up between agencies starting with the Bush-two administration. The information coming out at this time confirms numerous contacts with “persons that we consider unfriendly” to this country. As you so clearly stated … these people are terrorist. We also found out that these contacts occurred during the Bush-two administration’s time in office through recent times this year. We found out that different security agencies of the United States knew about this individual and his contacts along with his intent.
Sean, have you considered that perhaps these agencies can’t admit that they were possibly using Nidal Hasan as a means to get other covert information? Maybe he was passing information to these agencies about terrorist activities. After all he is a doctor and his function was involved with helping individuals with respect to psychological involvements.
We have a great deal more to find out about this crazy situation and the true involvements of these agencies. We have a great deal more to find out about Nidal at to why this was done? In any case Nidal did the deed. He is guilty of this deed. It will also be interesting to find out his relationship to the security agencies of this country and the Iman.
I am sure this will come out during the trial. I hope you really follow this up and leave the speculation to others.
By all means let find out all of the speculative items that anyone can come up with but let's not allow that to prevent us from getting Hasan off to those 72 (or whatever) virgins as soon as possible. Bush-two has absolutely nothing to do with this. This happened on Obama's watch.
"Premeditated"? Nidal Malik Hasan bought his guns, loaded them, brought them to Fort Hood and began shooting.
"Politically motivated"? Hasan has been quoted as approving of suicide bombing and the murder of army recruits by another Muslim.
"Noncombatant targets"? The term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. Most if not all of Hasan's victims were reported to be unarmed until a policewoman was able to bring him down and was also shot in the process.
"By subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience"? Well it is true that Hasan appeared to be operating alone, although he had clandestinely contacted on several occasions his former radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, after the latter fled to Yemen and became a recruiter for al Qaeda.
As for intending to influence his audience, he shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (the jihadist mantra) right before starting his bloody rampage.
Of course, apologists for Islamic terrorism ignore the plain facts and prefer to wallow in politically correct fantasies.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/11/obama-unable-to-utter-two-simple-words-islamic-terrorism/
Thank you!
http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
allegiance to neither political party
or can't we ever be right in your mind?
I don't think I can write what they are and have it published - so I leave it up to your imagination.
PAX
This Fort Hood act is at least a criminal act. It may be a terrorist act, but it depends on several things. Was Hasan trying to influence the U.S. Government in some way by his action? If so and if he acted alone, it may be a "lone terrorist" act. If the email exchange with his imam in Virginia show that he and the imam were writing to each other about doing this act for some political purpose (i.e., influencing the U.S. Army, Gov't, etc.), then this may have been either a domestic or international terrorist incident, depending on if the imam was in turn in contact with people overseas (Muslim extremists, Bin Laden?) and talking with them about doing terrorist stuff over here in the States.
Or, it may be that Hasan just did this because he was nuts and didn't want to be deployed overseas. Then it's just a criminal act.
Let's wait for the info on this and see how it turns out . . .