FORT HOOD: Now that I took Obama's advice and didn't jump to conclusions I think.....

[PatekPhilippe]

One law pertains to how the state department is instructed to define terrorism and the other law pertains to how terrorism is to be defined under U.S. Criminal Code.

Since this act was committed on U.S. soil then I think the more appropriate defition should be the one found in U.S. Criminal Code and that is the defition YOU provide.

I withdraw everything I have said prior to this point about whath definition should be applied. PP - IMHO yours is the correct definition for this case.

I just found that reference to the State Department.....

 

[immto]

I think it's an important distinction but I also believe it'sd not the most important POINT.
What he did was what he did - no matter what label is attached.
And it was despicable and merits as harsh a punishment as we can give. IMHO.

Yes, I agree. I'm against the death penalty, but since he knew he was signing on for it when he enlisted I think in this case I can make an exception.

I'm with you on that - I am not in favor of the death penalty - but I don't really have a problem with it in this case.

Luv it Zander. Couldn't agree more.

Terrorists aren't picky. They will kill anyone anywhere. Doesn't matter if its civilian men, women and children in a mall or pizza parlor or civilians in a night club or our men and women in uniform. Anyone is fair game for these bastards. This shitbag was American born and to me thats even worse. This fuckwad killed 13 of his fellow soldiers, comrades in arms, because his faith was more important than anything else in his life. What a fucking dirtbag. Just the kind of guy I'd want watching my back if I were a soldier.

That's why we need to stop allowing this PC crap to rule our lives. If we can't stop and say hey are you a terrorist? How are going to stay safe.

 

[nodoginnafight]

here's the reference to the law I cited:

18 U.S.C. § 2331 : US Code - Section 2331: Definitions

but as I said - I think Patek's is more applicable because this act took place on U.S. soil.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm not saying he did it because he was a Muslim. I still hold to my position that he did this because he is a psychopathic a-hole. However, it does appear to be at the least politically (internally within the base) motivated shooting that was done to make a statement and instill fear into people.

I think that is a fair statement. I think the idea of terrorism has been used to talk more about a coordinated effort than your definition (also a valid one). Certainly I think this guy was nuts and was either inspired by, or used as justification, the political/religious reasons. Though I doubt very seriously this was any plan beyond this one guy.

True, but you can still be a single celled terrorist

Definition of single cell terrorist:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Naegleria_%28formes%29.png

Brain eating amoeba.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok so he is a domestic terrorist, triator, psycho, douchebag, murdering, lowlife, shoe sole, dog .

Feel free to add more descriptors about the shooter

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Being PC is for the birds IMO

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PjP4VmZHKs]YouTube - PCU - part 1 of 8[/ame]

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ok so he is a domestic terrorist, triator, psycho, douchebag, murdering, lowlife, shoe sole, dog .

Feel free to add more descriptors about the shooter

I'll second that.

 

[Emma]

I feel this may have actually been a terrorist attack. I've had several days now to process all the different facts and opinions in relation to fort hood and in light of everything I think this guy actually intended to use violence for a political purpose to intimidate his fellow US soldiers that were deploying to fight against people of Muslim faith.

I know I know I was bitching and moaning at all of you who were saying this the day it happened and the day after but I didn't like how everyone just immediately jumped to that conclusion.

I've had time to look at what happened and look at the stuff the shooter actually said and posted on-line and it does seem like "terrorism" For purposes of this discussion I will include the definition of terrorism below from dictionary.com

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorizing.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm not saying he did it because he was a Muslim. I still hold to my position that he did this because he is a psychopathic a-hole. However, it does appear to be at the least politically (internally within the base) motivated shooting that was done to make a statement and instill fear into people.

That he did this where troops are being evaluated for deployment could point to that (and yeah, I know that's where he worked).

 

[Emma]

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm not saying he did it because he was a Muslim. I still hold to my position that he did this because he is a psychopathic a-hole. However, it does appear to be at the least politically (internally within the base) motivated shooting that was done to make a statement and instill fear into people.

I think that is a fair statement. I think the idea of terrorism has been used to talk more about a coordinated effort than your definition (also a valid one). Certainly I think this guy was nuts and was either inspired by, or used as justification, the political/religious reasons. Though I doubt very seriously this was any plan beyond this one guy.

I agree.

I do think he planned to do this and didn't just "snap" but I dont think he was directed by al-quaeda or some other terrorist network.

For at least 3 months, it would seem (that's when he bought the weapons). When did he lose his appeal to be discharged? And when he was transferred to Ft. Hood in July, was his deployment a done deal? I'd think that is when he probably felt his back was against the wall (so to speak) and decided he was going to do this.

 

[Ravi]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

 

[Emma]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

Or his intent could have been to intimidate the troops themselves, or those who would enlist OR Muslims who would choose to join the military.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

iii

yet hasn't he affected the government? What new policies might be coming down the pike as a result of this act?

 

[Ravi]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

Or his intent could have been to intimidate the troops themselves, or those who would enlist OR Muslims who would choose to join the military.

The troops wouldn't fall under civilian population but the Muslims and the future enlistees would. How ironic if his intent was to influence Muslims into not joining the military.

 

[Ravi]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

iii

yet hasn't he affected the government? What new policies might be coming down the pike as a result of this act?

Aside from not allowing people that contact radical groups to buy guns I hope none.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think it's possible that it could produce some policies that provide more legal cover for folks who report and take action when they have reason to suspect someone could be a threat.

But I doubt that was his intent.

I just read that he's been charged with 13 counts of murder and they are debating a 14th charge of murder depending on whether they can charge him with murder for killing the unborn child of a pregnant victim.

OH geeee - do I see a whole NEW can of worms .......

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

Or his intent could have been to intimidate the troops themselves, or those who would enlist OR Muslims who would choose to join the military.

Thats what I was going to say. I want to rep both of you when my rep ability is back up and working (i overloaded it )

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think it's possible that it could produce some policies that provide more legal cover for folks who report and take action when they have reason to suspect someone could be a threat.

But I doubt that was his intent.

I just read that he's been charged with 13 counts of murder and they are debating a 14th charge of murder depending on whether they can charge him with murder for killing the unborn child of a pregnant victim.

OH geeee - do I see a whole NEW can of worms .......

That can of worms is already open ala scott peterson's double murder charge for killing his pregnant wife. The Smoking Gun: Archive

And thats one big ol can of worms......a whole threads worth...hmmmm

 

[Emma]

yet hasn't he affected the government? What new policies might be coming down the pike as a result of this act?

In all the interviews and information that's come out after the fact, it's clear this guy was cracking and it had been building for some time. He sent signals that he was becoming more and more desperate, to be sure, but each one by itself might not have been enough to send up any red flags at the time. I'd hope that one thing that comes of this is the military pays close attention to its caregivers, regardless of religious affiliation. I'd hate to think that just because these professions are considered so vital that the military would gloss over signs they're in need of help too.

I do believe that Hasan was harassed because of his religion and it's obvious he was concerned about his fellow Muslim soldiers experiencing the same; it's sadly ironic that because of his actions he has all but guaranteed that harassment will continue and no doubt increase.

 

[Emma]

But can it be proved that this was his intent?

(B) 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; and

Or does it only matter that it appears that way?

I'm not convinced he was trying to intimidate, influence or affect the conduct of the population or the government (if he was, he failed).

iii

yet hasn't he affected the government? What new policies might be coming down the pike as a result of this act?

Aside from not allowing people that contact radical groups to buy guns I hope none.

That is something the FBI needs to answer... why he passed the background check and was approved to purchase those weapons.

 

[Misty]

It's not an act of terrorism. It MAY wind up being the act of a terrorist - but THIS was not an act of terrorism.
By definition.

("2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

What he did was a reprehensible, indefensible act. But every deplorable act isn't terrorim.

those soldiers were noncombatant at the time they were shot. Hence act of terrorism.