Ok, Nidal Malik Hasan Is Not A Terrorist. He's A Banana ... Or A Monkey Wrench. So What!

MP howls:

"Of what are those who cling to the illusion that Hasan was not really engaged in terror afraid? That the government will sweep down on tens of thousands of Muslims and intern them in Guantanamo? For God's sake..." etc.

Actually, Marty, some of us (perhaps including several colleagues of yours) are doing our level best not to provoke you, only counsel calm and reason, since you appear - again - on the threshold of going werewolf, jumping the gap beyond all possible means of enticement or entreaty, and stalking the hallways and stairwells without rest, necessitating that all office doors be locked and bolted until further notice.

(joking [not really])

America's Number 1 terrorrist organization. The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. How did Hasan go from Ft. Hood to a local gun dealer in Texas and just get semi-automatics? Anyone stop to ask why???

Of what are those who cling to the illusion that Hasan was not really engaged in terror afraid?

Afraid of nothing. This isn't about fear. It's about concern for the precise and accurate use of words, in order to conserve the truth-telling usefulness of the English language. It is also about concern for the accurate representation of what is known and what is believed in order that we retain our abilities to differentiate between fact and opinion.

For one thing, there is not yet enough evidence to draw any firm conclusions about Hasan's motives. Did he kill people because he wanted to kill people? Or did he kill people because he wanted to terrorize others? That is a decisive, and as-yet unanswered, question. To disregard what should be a definitional question and simply declare Hasan a terrorist is to terminally cheapen the word "terrorist," to turn it into nothing more than a bigoted slur against Muslims as such. (Anyone on the "Hasan must be a terrorist" bandwagon can prove me wrong on this last point by showing us the timestamped missives they've written excoriating others for not also calling Jason Rodriguez a terrorist. Of course, such evidence would prove my main point, since any definition of "terrorist" that includes both the assumed case against Hasan and Rodriguez completely neuters the word and strips it of all useful meaning.)

Was Hasan engaged in terrorism? Well, no, of course not, since he seemed to take care to choose military targets. But even if we expand the definition of "terrorism" far enough to include Hasan, whatever his motivations -- which by the way widens the definition sufficiently to validate the truth of the Goldstone Report, which is another reason I oppose the rush to label Hasan a terrorist -- we simply do not have the evidence at hand yet either to know or to draw any useful conclusions. What is Marty so afraid of that he can't stand to wait a few days, let the evidence be gathered, and then draw conclusions based on facts rather than speculation? Isn't that what "journalism" is supposed to mean?

Let's see.... either he imagined himself to be a brave soldier in the service of Islam taking advantage of special circumstances in order to take it to the enemy..... or ....... I don't know what else it might be........

Militarily he is quite clearly guilty of high treason. I'm fairly sure he doesn't see it that way. I'd put big money on it.

"Was Hasan engaged in terrorism? Well, no, of course not, since he seemed to take care to choose military targets"

" he seemed to take care to choose military targets"???

Interesting type of explanatics. Hasan shot American soldiers in uniform as he himself was wearing the same uniform, while shouting the battle cry of Jihadists, America's sworn enemies. According to Wild here, he was not a terrorist. What was he, then? A legitimate combatant in the war against the Great Satan?

If he seemed "to take care to choose military targets", doesn't this suggest premeditation, intentionality and therefore also lucidity of mind, that would seem to overrule a defense of insanity?

Sorry. the above quote is by rhubarbs, not wildboy. Sometimes they are indistinguishable.

"Was Hasan engaged in terrorism? Well, no, of course not, since he seemed to take care to choose military targets"

He was either a soldier engaged in terrorism, or he was a traitor killing members of his own army.

Take your pick.

Oh, for G-d's sake, BULLS**T to all of you, and shame moreover for trying Hasan before a complete investigation has been done to a military court's satisfaction and an indictment(s) handed down; further, conducting an "informal" trial which is nothing but a hog's-pool mash of dubious findings and allegations, random unestablished claims of evidence, armchair deliberation, cafe talk and gossip.

You sound exactly like the talking head "experts" and commentators, self-appointed authorities, etc. that populate (and what a population they are: dazzling and confusing) the cable tv news qua entertainment channels.

Discuss as you will but please try to avoid making fools of yourselves, or worse. Is it any wonder that defense attorney's routinely petition to have a trial moved far far away from the minds-already-made-up and ready to string up the guy without waiting for bona-fide justice to be done. OY!!!

'Speculation'...I knew I'd left out something.

Tgossard. You just called me a fool. Perhaps you could defend such a thing in court ala 'not exactly'. Is that what we hope for the illustrious major?

The line of demarcation between legitimate ruses and forbidden acts of perfidy is sometimes indistinct. In general, it would be an improper practice to secure an advantage over the enemy by deliberate lying or misleading conduct which involves a breach of faith, or when there is a moral obligation to speak the truth. For example, it is improper to pretend to surrender to secure an advantage over the opposing belligerent.

To broadcast to the enemy that an armistice had been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous. Abuse of the protections afforded to medical personnel (by disguising combat soldiers as medics, or by putting a red cross on a combat vehicle) is also considered unacceptable.

It is especially forbidden to make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and military uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention in a ruse of war. [Annex to Hague Convention No. IV, 18 October 1907, embodying the Regulations Respecting Customs of War on Land., art. 23, par. (f).]

If he killed American soldiers as a ruse of War, then he should be tried and taken out and shot, like they did to the German soldiers who impersonated Americans in the battle of the bulge.
End of story and no need to engage in anymore useless debates about whether or not he was a terrorist.

By the way, what the hell is it with the: Ok, Nidal Malik Hasan Is Not A Terrorist. He's A Banana ... Or A Monkey Wrench. So What!

Good lord, doesn't Marty know that the term Banana is a racist term, one used to refer to Asians who "act" white? When I saw that (and the monkey wrench, I mean monkey, really?) I thought wtf, has Marty flipped his wig or something? Yes, I am sure it was cluelessness, but are there no editors about?

The Not Exactly Major Hasan. Tgossard. I want you on the jury. I'll spin you some buls**t you're gonna love.

International law at a time of perplexity: essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne
By Yôrām Dinšṭein, Mala Tabory

Has some interesting things to say about this. In any event it is pretty clearly written and researched. You can see it on google books. I can't copy the relevant parts.

blackton's comment reminds me that one of the most notable aspects of Hasan's rampage -- which hasn't received half enough attention imo -- is that he used a medical facility as the setting for his crime. Exactly the setting, in fact, in which soldiers feel they can let their guard down as care is the guiding ethic (including care for enemy prisoners, in the eventuality).

http://books.google.com/books?id=neA3Se7vWogC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=wear...

go to page 103 and read the essay by Yoram Dinstein on the distinction between unlawful combatants and war criminals. If Nidal acted in such a way to kill American soldiers then he is a war criminal liable to be shot. This criminality is rooted in article 23(f) of the Hague regulations.

"has Marty flipped his wig or something? Yes, I am sure it was cluelessness, but are there no editors about? "

It is a title worthy of our resident crocodile george walton.

What's so cruel is our laziness and immaturity as a nation to face the obvious - the tidal wave of guns and mental illness.

Hello?? There is a murderous rampage that kills dozens ONCE A QUARTER at this point people. Wake up!

This lune's religion is irrelevant, just a ruse for Marty's knee jerkism. What happens next month when the rampage that kills dozens is a Jew? Or a Christian? It will happen. Who fucking cares? Wasn't this same TNR crowd that sobbed over Virginia Tech? 31 college students dead in ten minutes! 31!!!!

This whole thread is disgusting.

CLEAN UP THE GUNS AMERICA OR SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY IS NEXT.

"What's so cruel is our laziness and immaturity as a nation to face the obvious - the tidal wave of guns and mental illness."

Yes, like in England, and Paris in the 1990's. Strict gun laws and lots of bomb throwing terrorists.

Rhubarbs, you know that you are a vegetable not a fruit.

I finally have it, having witnessed your forays into the world of analytical distinctions for lo' these many years: you reason like Emily Dickinson's hummingbird--"A Route of Evanescence", which is to say your counterpoising Hasan's act of war against an act of terrorism is a distinction with its difference, like the hummingbird, disappearing, specious, not to say patently asinine. The response to you is well expressed here at least twice:

1. "Ok, Nidal Malik Hasan Is Not A Terrorist. He's A Banana ... Or A Monkey Wrench. So What" and

2. "He was either a soldier engaged in terrorism, or he was a traitor killing members of his own army.

Take your pick."

Buddy, who is your travel agent? I think you need a return ticket from Mars!

Just coming in behind you round the club house turn are those who would assimilate the concrete reality of this terrible, murderous action to too many guns, even while that is a problem to be sure.

How about the people who would just like to collect some evidence about what actually happened, a bit wider and deeper than one more recounting of the 7-minute event -- before passing judgment and applying labels that may be of no use to us whatsoever? O are we already circling Ganymede?

jacko, give it a rest. (pleez)

Next to the sheer horror of this tragedy, the sorry pathetic spectacle that peretz has made of himself on this event has been disappointing. Go back and reread his posts. Reread this latest addition. The guy simply cannot control his hair trigger impulse to indict, overstate, and put his grubby, bigoted interpretation on this terrible event. I agree with Tom: Going werewolf indeed. Have at it boys but in tragedy, some people rise to the occasion and others, like this bitter sour grudgeholding pathetic old man, make things worse. Blagh.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/official-nidal-hasan-unexplained-connectio...

"Senior Official: More Hasan Ties to People Under Investigation by FBI
Alleged Shooter Had "Unexplained Connections" to Others Besides Jihadist Cleric Awlaki"

By MARTHA RADDATZ, BRIAN ROSS, MARY-ROSE ABRAHAM, and REHAB EL-BURI

Nov. 10, 2009 —

A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. The official declined to name the individuals but Congressional sources said their names and countries of origin were likely to emerge soon.

Questions already surround Major Hasan's contact with Awlaki, a radical cleric based in Yemen whom authorities consider a recruiter for al Qaeda. U.S. officials now confirm Hasan sent as many as 20 e-mails to Awlaki. Authorities intercepted the e-mails but later deemed them innocent or protected by the first amendment.

The FBI said it turned over the information to the Army, but Defense Department officials today denied that. One military investigator on a joint terror task force with the FBI was shown the e-mails, but they were never forwarded in a formal way to more senior officials at the Pentagon, and the Army did not learn of the contacts until after the shootings....."

From the above link:

"The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation to fellow Army doctors in 2007 in which he said, "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 recommended that Muslim soldiers be given the option of being released from the military as conscientious objectors to decrease what he called "adverse events." Under "comments," he wrote, "We love death more than you love life." "

Ken, later for the adverbs and adjectives.

What is your case against what Peretz has written?

If these latest reports are accurate it's should be obvious that Major Hasan spoke the language of Islamic JIhad. People who deny this are denying the obvious.

Itz,
"Come to think of it, if you had just returned from duty in Afghanistan or Iraq and having troubles readjusting to home, wouldn't you be a little freaked out that your decommissioning shrink was wearing native Arab dress as Hasan often did at Fort Hood?

We are now about to enter a period of dissimulation. Ours is a culture very edgy about discussing such matters lest someone in the room be offended or that our conclusions turn out to be, well, very uncomfortable"

But which suicide bomber, even one inspired by what the president continues to call the "Holy Koran," as if that nomenclature would moderate the hatred of America in the world of Islam, is not crazy?"

"The media can often be stupid but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized. The correct phrase is: The public's right to know. It is not: The public has to be guided into drawing the proper conclusions by slanting and limiting information even if the conclusions being pressed on them are lies and nonsense."

"But one reality that is being ignored is that the establishment press, the anti-establishment blogosphere and the American government (particularly from the military axiomatically enmeshed with Hasan's diabolical deeds) is not treading where the truth lies. Hasan's Muslim murders in the military are not the only ones of the genre. In fact, Islam has been a factor in an increasing number of crimes, against targeted groups and specific "loose" women. Ignoring all this will not make it go away."

"This is that, here and there in America, there are Muslims plotting against the country and its people. Some of them are pathetic, as I believe Hasan’s act was pathetic. But maybe there are people more conspiratorial, more imaginative, more efficient who are planning more dramatic terrorist feats."

The old fool, as usual, takes a tragic incident and instead of embracing a responsible wait and see attitude, wraps his biases around his own deluded sense of courageous truth telling.

This Hassan murderer was likely working from some kind of extremist perspective. The facts are moving in that direction. What bothered me about reading the Spine, especially the drivel from peretz, is how quickly this guy is to start using the incident to showcase his anti Muslin bigotry. He pretties it up by belatedly saying that he would protect "good" Muslims from Korematsu like inquisitions but I don't believe that for one moment. This guy does not have the temperament or the sense of probity to be put into a position to write about a city council meeting, much less a national tragedy.

"The old fool, as usual, takes a tragic incident and instead of embracing a responsible wait and see attitude, wraps his biases around his own deluded sense of courageous truth telling.

This Hassan murderer was likely working from some kind of extremist perspective."

Could it be that "the old fool" knew something that Old Cookie didn't know? Could it be that he has access to sources that we don't have?

The reason defining Hassan down matters is because what he is proven to be--nutjob, war criminal or terrorist--compels our response to this tragedy. If in fact Hassan acted on the influence of Anwar al-Awlaki, then the US needs to examine the options of military action or sanctions against the country that provides the radical cleric shelter. Again, though, without that evidence, we would be pre-emptively taking action based on intelligence that has not been validated. That kind of screwed us over in the past.

"... defining Hassan down matters..."

What would be the narrowest, least interpretative, definition of what Hasan did?

Hassan is Arab-American of Palestinian descent who grew up in the shadow of Washington D.C. and then entered the Army where he earned a doctorate in psychiatry and was enlisted as an official Army psychiatrist who went on to explicitly justify Muslim holy war in power point presentations, which were presented in front other Army subjects in class, and though some investigations into Hassan were conducted, he was able in his months of enlistment to buy a gun at the steep price of $1.1K and subsequently gun down 40-odd uniformed Army personnel at an Army base on US soil, 13 of which died.

"Defining down" suggests to me dumbing down, but your post seems not to mean that. Do you mean by defining down getteing to the essence of, or something else.

Ken, Ithanks for your response: I'd lke to answer you when I have more time--can't do it now.