Why aren't more people calling Nidal Malik Hassan a "terrorist", I have been asked. Maybe that's because what Hassan did does not constitute "terrorism", as that word is properly defined. As you can see, from the following article:
By RJ Eskow
The Huffington Post -- November 11, 2009
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, then 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 from 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.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
Wasn't a terrorist?!? He did everything a terrorist does but hang a sign on his neck. This is political correctness at it's best!!
It's actually Intelligence at its best. There is a difference between a terrorist and a madman, a psycho, a nutcase or a lunatic.
HOTR, you seem to be very fond of words that don't apply to the situation -- "Socialist" and "terrorist", to name but two.
Yeah CJP..he contacted al queda to discuss his happiness in America. You libs defend the wildest shit.
Has anyone like Faux news blamed Obama yet?
FOX News has been saying that Obama should have been at the Berlin Wall. FOX now makes Obama's travel arrangements for him. Why should Obama have been at Fort Hood today when he could have been in Berlin?
HOTR, Hasan was not part of a terrorist organization. He was a loner. You might as well call Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald terrorists. The word would be just as meaningless when applied to
them.
We Libs defend accuracy, so we can see what's going on in the world clearly and not through a fog.
"HOTR, Hasan was not part of a terrorist organization. He was a loner. You might as well call Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald terrorists. The word would be just as meaningless when applied to
them."
The signs were there. Political correctness made several people ignore the signs. Why do you think he had contact with al queda? He had connections with radical imams. Why?
"FOX News has been saying that Obama should have been at the Berlin Wall. FOX now makes Obama's travel arrangements for him. Why should Obama have been at Fort Hood today when he could have been in Berlin?"
Personally don't care.
CJP
Funny how you will call a opinion reporter a terrorist but you refuse to call a man that shot and killed people a terrorist!
Terrorists appreciate the libs defending them. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck. It is a duck. Not to libs. They think that CONSERVATIVES ARE AMERICA'S REAL TERRORISTS!! lol
"Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists"
Yes they are as defined below:
ter⋅ror⋅ist
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
You cons own that bold area.
"1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others."
Yeah...he looked very friendly as he shot those innocent people. Libs for terrorists.
"ter⋅ror⋅ist
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others."
-Raygun
How does Nidal Malik Hasan not fall under that definition?
"How does Nidal Malik Hasan not fall under that definition?"
Brandon, I think he didn't have his terrorist membership card. That always fools the libs. lol
The mindless stupidity of Conservatives is that they get hung up on whether or not Hasan is labeled a "terrorist", when in fact he has been labeled a "murderer" and has now been charged with 13 separate counts of premeditated murder each one of which carries the death penalty.
That's why liberals consider Conservatives to be a bunch of bleating sheep who are so easily manipulated by their Right-Wing media puppeteers.
What practical difference does it make whether or not Hasan is labeled a "terrorist"? Why are Conservatives so angry and upset as to whether or not that particular word is applied to him?
There are many other, more accurate words which have been applied to Hasan -- all of which carry the death penalty.
What is the issue here? The virgins are waiting for Hasan in Heaven now, regardless of whether he is called a "terrorist" by Conservatives, or a murderer by liberals.
It's sickening to watch Conservatives react like Pavlovian dogs to the fact that he has not been labeled a "terrorist", when applying that word is totally irrelevant to the final result in this case.
Brandon, the definition of a "terrorist", according to the Random House Dictionary, is: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
That is what Al Quaida does, so effectively, -- "intimidate or coerce, for political purposes" --which is why it is indeed a terrorist organization.
However, even though Hasan shot and killed 13 people, and wounded many more, under the above definition, he was not a "terrorist" because he was not trying to intimidate people or change their behavior.
However, aside from the semantics, I ask once again, what practical difference does it make whether Hasan is charged with 13 counts of first degree murder as a "terrorist" or as a "murderer"?
In fact, the only practical difference I can see is that, when his case comes to trial, it will be a lot easier to prove that he is a murderer rather than a terrorist, making his conviction that much easier.
yes...let's not piss off the muslim extremists. We only want them to be mad at republicans. We want them to be friends with the libs. lol
That's nonsense, HOTR. I'm surprised at you.
"That's nonsense, HOTR. I'm surprised at you."
Say what you want but the fact is it's only libs who are rationalizing this terrorist act.
"Say what you want but the fact is it's only libs who are rationalizing this terrorist act."
It's libs who closed Gitmo. It's libs who are bringing the 911 terrorists to NY for a "criminal" trial. Do you realize that it's a good bet that none of these terrorists were read the miranda act. That alone would declare a mistrail thereby freeing the libs wonderful friends.
It's only the Conservatives who are rationalizing the semantic use (or non-use) of the word "terrorist" to apply to this act. As if that makes any difference.
By the way, in my two Bush examples, John Muhammad probably qualifies as a "terrorist" since he was trying to use terror to influence the government to pay him $10 million in ransom money.
However, the guy who killed 23 people at the Luby's Cafeteria in Texas probably does not qualify as a terrorist since he was just gunning down people in a raging fury and not trying to use terror to influence people to do anything.
At the moment, based on what we know so far, it appears that what Hasan did was much closer to what the guy at Luby's did (murder, not terrorism) rather than what Muhammad did.
If you think the people of New York are incapable of convicting the 9-11 terrorists, then you don't have much faith in your neighbors -- or in the American judicial system.
"At the moment, based on what we know so far, it appears that what Hasan did was much closer to what the guy at Luby's did (murder, not terrorism) rather than what Muhammad did."
Ok. We'll just ignore his connections to terrorist. this is a great way to connect the dots. Hopefully all Americans will use your strategy.
"If you think the people of New York are incapable of convicting the 9-11 terrorists, then you don't have much faith in your neighbors -- or in the American judicial system."
I have faith that lawyers will use the system to get people off. No miranda acts being read to a criminal is an easy way to get someone off. How do you get a jury of his peers. Another mistrial. The didn't get a speedy trial. Yet another way to get them off. Are you suggesting we should change our laws just for these people? I don't think so. Seems like Obama wants these people to walk.
Gitmo is being closed because it is hurting the USA more than it's helping us.
We are blessed and fortunate enough to live in the land of Sing Sing, San Quentin and Leavenworth.
Don't you think we have enough pens in this country to hold all of these pigs?
"Don't you think we have enough pens in this country to hold all of these pigs?"
Sure, but they won't get there in a criminal trial. They will be let off. Besides, I thought we were going for the death penalty.
The only ones who are "walking" are the ones who were found not to have done anything. And, most of these were released under Bush, and by the US military, not by civilian courts.
Civilian courts have an excellent track record for convictions, and death penalties, in cases of mass murder and terrorism.
CJP said...
The only ones who are "walking" are the ones who were found not to have done anything. And, most of these were released under Bush, and by the US military, not by civilian courts.
We are talking about the masterminds of the 911 terrorist act.
"Civilian courts have an excellent track record for convictions, and death penalties, in cases of mass murder and terrorism."
Yes they do. They also have an excellent track record for getting people off because officials didn't arrest them and do specific things like reading them the miranda act and the various other things I've mentioned.
Not in cases of terrorism and mass murder. That's fiction.
"Not in cases of terrorism and mass murder. That's fiction."
Show me your proof of that.
Anyone on a criminal trial in the US have constitutional rights. I won't go over my points again because you know what they are. Please tell me how we give them a jury of their peers.
Many of the Gitmo detainees have been held there for 7 or 8 years without any specific charges. These trials will determine who is really guilty -- who was truly a 9-11 mastermind -- and who is just being held without real justification.
No one will be released based on his "Miranda rights".
That's another Right-Wing red herring.
A "jury of their peers" does not mean that they have to be tried by their fellow terrorists.
That's one more Right-Wing distortion.
No one will be released based on his "Miranda rights".
Not only are you against free speech for all (you've ignored all my requests for your opinion on that) but you don't believe our criminal system. Somehow you think a defense lawyer will not jump all over that.
At the Nuremberg trials, did Nazi leaders have to be tried by their fellow Nazis? Was that a "jury of their peers"?
At the Nuremberg trials, did Nazi leaders have to be tried by their fellow Nazis? Was that a "jury of their peers"?
???? Aren't we talking about a criminal trial in the US in the year 2009?
I haven't ignored your requests for my opinion on your "free speech". I've given you my response twice. Here is is again, for a third time:
Curbing the power and influence of FOX News and other Right-Wing media would be a wonderful thing, HOTR, and a huge boon to this country. All they are doing is using their media power to influence people like you to vote against your own best interests and in favor of the wealthy power structure which now dominates this country.
For example, they are convincing you to oppose health care reform. Yet, the biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the giant health insurance companies which are raking in huge profits while millions of Americans lack health insurance and those who have plans are losing their coverage when they lose their jobs, or because premiums are skyrocketing, or because pre-existing medical conditions are not covered, or because necessary medical treatments and prescriptions are not covered by current plans. The "death panels" already exist -- and they are making their decisions in the home offices of the insurance companies.
By rights, HOTR, someone in your position should be very much on the side of health care reform and against simply continuing to perpetuate huge profits for insurance companies. Instead, you have bought into FOX News' propaganda and you find yourself supporting the interests of big insurance companies rather than your own best interests.
We are talking about your definition of "a jury of their peers", and I'm showing you how nonsensical your definition is.
I apologize because I must have missed it. Now I know you are against freedom of speech. Fox hasn't convinced me of anything. The simple fact that the CBO says my taxes will skyrocket was enough for me.
"We are talking about your definition of "a jury of their peers", and I'm showing you how nonsensical your definition is."
I guess I have faith in our system to make sure that there are specific safeguards to how people are arrested and the constitutional rights they have for Americans so they are not incarcerated unjustly. I don't think the constitutional rights aply to terrorists.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this. (I'm so glad I still have me freedom of speech here.)
Anyway CJP, I want to thank you for the very interesting posts. I'm calling it a night. Take care and we'll do it again soon. Have a great night my friend.
HOTR, the prisoners who were released from Gitmo by the military under the Bush administration were released because they were low-level operatives. They were people like drivers or cooks, who took those jobs because they needed the money. I think one of the people released was actually Osama Bin Laden's personal driver.
They were released because there was no proof that they had ever taken up arms against Americans, or had ever fired a shot or engaged in any violent activity.
They were not released because of technicalities like the "Miranda rule" or a "jury of their peers" -- which are red herrings that totally don't apply to this situation. Don't expect to hear anyone try to apply these concepts here because it won't happen.
As to those Gitmo detainees who are about to be tried in New York, the first motion their defense counsel will make is for a Change of Venue. Why? Very simple. Their lawyers know that, if these folks are tried in a civilian court in New York City, they are dead ducks.
"As to those Gitmo detainees who are about to be tried in New York, the first motion their defense counsel will make is for a Change of Venue. Why?"
Because they can't get a jury of their peers. Very simple. Any good defense lawyer knows what constitutional rights include. Read it on in CJP. Turn of the lib politicians for a minute. You might learn somethin.
What's "a jury of their peers", HOTR? Twelve Al Quaida terrorists in the jury box?
What are you talking about?
CJP said...
What's "a jury of their peers", HOTR? Twelve Al Quaida terrorists in the jury box?
What are you talking about?
Sorry CJRacist. I thought you understood the rights you have under the constitution if you get arrested. I know you won't listen to a uncivilized hispanic like me so look it up. You might finally learn something.
CJRacist:
What did you mean by this??
"Now, if you live up in the South Bronx (especially near Fort Apache), you may not know what "Civilization" is.
So, try hopping on the subway one day and visit Manhattan. You'll find lots of Civilization in Manhattan"
Did you mean that the minorities in the south bronx are uncivilized? Did you mean us uncivilized minorities should go to manhattan and learn from white people? Please advise.
I meant that, if you think we should just shoot prisoners who have confessed to monstrous crimes, without a trial, then you don't believe in the values of our civilization. It's my response to your
nonsensical statement.
The part about the South Bronx and Fort Apache is just a joke -- which anyone who has ever lived in New York is well aware of. It's the reputation of a very tough area. It has nothing to do with anyone's race.
CJP
I love Joe Leiberman!
Isn't Lieberman a little old for you?
Does he lie a lot, as his name begins with "Lie"?
Does he lie a lot, as his name begins with "Lie"?
Do you mean like Obama, RG?
Even CJP admits Obama's a liar. This is what he said yesterday.
CJP said...
That's true, HOTR. Obama does seem to be masking the fact that he's liberal. Fortunately, I don't have that problem myself.
LOL RayGun---He's a silver fox and I like that!
More importantly Leiberman is not afraid to stand up to his own party when he knows that they are WRONG. He is strong on national defense and he wants to cut the insane spending.
Lieberman wants to cut the insane spending on defense? 700 billion for defense verses 100 billion for national health care.
RG maybe you'd like Lieberman more if he masked the truth sometimes like Obama.
I can probably get along with Lieberman. He's not a religious nut is he? He want's to do away with a lot of the crazy drug laws? He's ok with abortion? Libertarian, correct? You get rid of the religious hypocrisy and I can am on-board more or less.
But you didn't like that he supported McCain.
National defense is something that we simply can't avoid spending on. It's a pretty ugly world right now and lots of people want to destroy us. To pretend that they don't is to live in a fantasy world.
You can't put that on the same level as healthcare.
Leiberman is Jewish. Jews don't normally push their religion on others.
It's a pretty ugly world right now and lots of people want to destroy us. To pretend that they don't is to live in a fantasy world.
--
Quite being so terrified about everything. The cons are trying to terrify the soccer mom's and dad's about everything, that's why they are the terrorists. We spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. We are going bankrupt.
"We are going bankrupt."
Yes RG, and maxing out every one of America's credit cards with help us get out of it. I don't know how you justify all the ridiculous spending we are doing.
See? My point exactly! We are in financial trouble--so lets spend more on healthcare---and hurry because it's a national crisis!
And are you trying to say that there aren't factions that want to destroy us? That isn't fearmongering that's reality. We can't be paranoid, but we shouldn't be blind, either
Terrorist countries are not only building bombs, they're testing them to make them better. So what's the democrats answer: let's get rid of our nukes. These terrorists coutries want us out of the picture. When someone brings it up, we are fear mongering. I'll tell you what's fear mongering. "We need this stimulus or unemployment will go up 10%, lol, People are dying for healthcare. We must pass it now.
Now that's fear mongering!
Right again HOTR. When did this healthcare thing become such a national emergency? Putting it above decisions in Afganistan, unemployment, and everything else? Oops! I forgot---because people are "dying in the streets"
"People are dying for healthcare."
--
Recent Harvard Study, 45k are dieing per year for lack of health insurance.
Government corruption Casey, Good God, compared to corporate corruption. That's like comparing firecrackers and atom bombs.
Are we talking about Gov corruption such as Congressman Jefferson, or government corruption such as LockHeed, Haliburton,etc? If the latter, you're really talking about corporate corruption.
No, I am talking about Congressmen and Senators that leave office as millionaires, fraud in Medicare, politicians that don't pay their taxes, the selling of public offices, ACORN, and the list goes on. Yet you want to entrust everything to the government!
Regulation will take care of a lot of fraud. What else should we do? Pray to god for men to do right?
Are we talking about Gov corruption such as Congressman Jefferson, or government corruption such as LockHeed, Haliburton,etc? RG
How about Chris Dodd who received sweetheart loans from Fannie? This unethical senator is head of the banking committee! What a joke! How about Charlie Rangel? The head of the tax committee! The tax committee!! Another joke. (How is this crook even allowed to stand next to the president? How about regulation for these guys?
Regulation hasn't done it yet. There are laws against not paying taxes, and tax fraud, yet we have big tax cheats that are in high government positions, with no repercussions. You and I would be in jail for it, but they seem to be above the law.
More regulation isn't going to do it
What other recourse do we have besides regulation, Casey? How do we keep people honest?
What other recourse do we have besides regulation, Casey? How do we keep people honest?
Regulation is necessary, of course, but it just goes to show you that the government is not the answer to everything either. It is not any better than any other big company. Greed and cooruption runs rampant in the government, too
Start by not voting for the same corrupt people over and over again. Everything will fall into place because politicians will get the picture and change the status quo.
Casey, you can't cover up billion dollar swindles from government employees. By definition, public servants are supposed to be poor. By definition corporate masters are smart and deserve everything they have (according to cons).
RayGun said...
Casey, you can't cover up billion dollar swindles from government employees. By definition, public servants are supposed to be poor.
Casey, you might as well stop trying. What can you say to someone who has a narrow view of "cons". This is all he can say.
"By definition corporate masters are smart and deserve everything they have (according to cons)."
He thinks that everyone who wants better from their politicians is a "con". Wanting to throw out corrupt politicians is conservative? I just can't understand that.
So government employees are simple saints that have taken an oath of poverty? How about the IRS agents that were just found to have fraudulently used the tax credit meant for 1st time homebuyers? (just to sight the most recent) Government employees are every bit as likely to be corrupted by greed as anyone else.
Just as you cannot legislate morality, (you libs love that saying)you can't regulate honesty. The point being that giving the government more power is not the answer. As HOTR says---the anser is to vote these assholes out of office. WE have to be the oversight
"WE have to be the oversight"
The law/regulation is the oversight.
Things are complicated, except in Sarahs, Bachmanns, RayGuns, and Ws world. And to me, the common denominator with those nuts world, is religion. Oh and maybe being born with a silver spoon, ie; rich parents and or screw-able good looks. Funny how the bible, rich parents, and screwing, all seem so contrary...
"Funny how the bible, rich parents, and screwing, all seem so contrary..."
Can't stop the obsession.
Funny how the bible, rich parents, and screwing, all seem so contrary...
Not sure that I am following this logic. Sorry.
Not really logic. More irony.
Folks, there are greedy and corrupt people in government and in corporations and other large institutions. It's all part of human nature. Sometimes religion gets it right, as when it talks about Original Sin -- and Continuing Sin -- being part of the human condition.
The only answer is the one our Founding Fathers came up with, namely, a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.
Government is an important check and balance on the power of corporations and on the power of all those Ayn Rand "Masters of the Universe".
Without government economic laws and regulations, most people in this country by now would indeed be slaves. That's where we were heading during the 19th Century, and the reforms of the early 20th Century are what stopped that from happening and kept America free.
Well said HOTR. Now I think that it is time that we get back to basics in government, and stop the intrusion into our lives
Post a Comment