Running Away from Terrorism

[Warrior-Mentor]

Running away from terrorism
The White House can't handle the truth
The Washington Times

The Fort Hood, Texas, massacre was the worst domestic terrorist incident since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the government refuses to admit it. The latest act of denial is procedural. The accused shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, reportedly has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which does not provide for a charge related to terrorism. Officially, this was not a terror attack, but nonpolitical murder.

The primary distinguishing characteristic between murder and terrorism is motive. The Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." We know enough about Maj. Hasan's background, worldview and political orientation to make an informed judgment about his motives. He was a jihadist seeking martyrdom who was trying to take down as many "infidels" as he could in the process.

The massacre fits the definition of domestic terrorism under section 2331 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, and Section 1114 provides for a murder charge against "whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties." Section 2332b stipulates that violations of Section 1114 that are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct" bring the incident under the definition of the "Federal crime of terrorism."

There is ample legal support for bringing a terrorism charge if the government were so inclined. Instead, the current government has chosen to make this a regular court-martial. The message is clear: Failure to prevent terror attacks on its watch will be defined away.

Compared to other recent domestic incidents, the Fort Hood massacre was a terror act of historic proportions. According to the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database of more than 1,300 domestic incidents since 1970, the Fort Hood massacre ranks fourth in terms of fatalities behind the Sept. 11 attacks (taken collectively), the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1999 Columbine massacre. It is the deadliest such attack by a lone gunman.

Yet the White House persistently and inexplicably refuses to call this terrorism. This evasion calls to mind the spring of 1994, when the State Department forbade the use of the term "genocide" to describe events then transpiring in Rwanda - in which almost 1 million people were killed - out of concern that use of the expression might obligate the United States to take some sort of action. Weeks later, the government finally came around and recognized that genocide was, in fact, taking place, by which time it was too late to do much about it.

Maj. Hasan's court-martial may reveal more about the terroristic nature of his bloody actions, but we doubt it. Any sensible defense strategy would downplay terrorism and emphasize the image currently popular on the left of Maj. Hasan as a victim of some kind of work-related stress that made him crack unexpectedly. But political correctness cannot long overpower reality or defeat common sense.

The Fort Hood massacre was a domestic terrorist attack by a jihadist radical. Fleeing from that fact places the country in greater danger and inspires other domestic terrorists to try to make the point more definitively.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rom-terrorism/

[deepblack 18x]

You think it has anything to do with our President being a Muslim and wanting to protect his ¨faith¨? We´re getting no where at this rate.

[Wolf07]

This matter has little do do with Obama's personal beliefs and more to do with the mindset of this administration, which is not willing to take responsibility for anything which leads to negative public relations. This is most disturbing, that the white house is more concerned with celebrity than taking a hard look at chinks in the armor. This is how nations die.

[msh0622]

Warrior-Mentor,

I agree that the tragic events that unfolded at Fort Hood were undoubtedly terrorist in nature and I believe that over time we will continue to hear more evidence that Nidal Malik Hasan had some affiliation with extremists within the mosque he attended, within circles with which he was associated and on websites that he frequented. I personally believe he was screened and then contacted by an organization that persuaded or coerced him to carry out the attack. Hopefully, as new information continues to surface, the prosecution will move to change the charges against Hasan to include terrorism. In the meantime, I'm frustrated and concerned that the powers that be have continued to downplay this event as something other than terrorism because it goes against common sense. Even if Hassan had not been a Muslim, the nature of the attack defines terrorism in itself. You are right, it was a suicide attack without the bomb, that is all. I'm sure he fully expected to be killed in the process of carrying out his attack, as you insinuated. I also believe that it was no coincidence that he chose the FN 5.7 as his weapon of choice, as it is a high power, high capacity weapon, which reduces the need for precise accuracy under the conditions in which he carried the attack out. Anyway, if he had been a Christian with extremist views and committed that same act in the name of Christianity, it still would have been a terrorist attack just as the bombing by Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist attack.

I don't necessarily agree that the Obama Administration is running away from terrorism though, I don't really think it would make sense as a strategy to deal with situations such as this. I believe they are more concerned with the potential problems that may arise if this guy really is considered to be an "Islamic" martyr. I believe it makes more sense to try to downplay his Islamic affiliations and beliefs and play him up as a confused, frustrated and disgruntled soldier with problems that were not addressed. The potential for more homegrown copycats who are inspired by the thought of Hasan as a "soldier for Islam" is more dangerous than the picture that is being currently presented. We must never forget that an assassin that is willing to die during the execution of his attack is an assassin that is almost impossible to defend against. Young, confused and frustrated American Muslims don't need anymore motivation than they have already received.

[Fiercely Loyal]

Originally Posted by msh0622

I believe it makes more sense to try to downplay his Islamic affiliations and beliefs and play him up as a confused, frustrated and disgruntled soldier with problems that were not addressed ... Young, confused and frustrated American Muslims don't need anymore motivation than they have already received.

It is exactly this that I strongly disagree with. Call it exactly what it is. Do not pussy foot around the issue. Political correctness is destroying the country. It makes us look like a seriously soft target. If the guy is saying "Allah Ahkbar" while shooting fellow soldiers he is not just mentally unsound, but he is displaying a fundamental reason for his course of action. The guy needs a speedy recovery to good health so we can hang his sorry terrorist / jihadist / treasonous ass.

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Running away from terrorism
The White House can't handle the truth
The Washington Times

The Fort Hood, Texas, massacre was the worst domestic terrorist incident since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the government refuses to admit it. The latest act of denial is procedural. The accused shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, reportedly has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which does not provide for a charge related to terrorism. Officially, this was not a terror attack, but nonpolitical murder.

The primary distinguishing characteristic between murder and terrorism is motive. The Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." We know enough about Maj. Hasan's background, worldview and political orientation to make an informed judgment about his motives. He was a jihadist seeking martyrdom who was trying to take down as many "infidels" as he could in the process.

The massacre fits the definition of domestic terrorism under section 2331 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, and Section 1114 provides for a murder charge against "whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties." Section 2332b stipulates that violations of Section 1114 that are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct" bring the incident under the definition of the "Federal crime of terrorism."

There is ample legal support for bringing a terrorism charge if the government were so inclined. Instead, the current government has chosen to make this a regular court-martial. The message is clear: Failure to prevent terror attacks on its watch will be defined away.

Compared to other recent domestic incidents, the Fort Hood massacre was a terror act of historic proportions. According to the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database of more than 1,300 domestic incidents since 1970, the Fort Hood massacre ranks fourth in terms of fatalities behind the Sept. 11 attacks (taken collectively), the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1999 Columbine massacre. It is the deadliest such attack by a lone gunman.

Yet the White House persistently and inexplicably refuses to call this terrorism. This evasion calls to mind the spring of 1994, when the State Department forbade the use of the term "genocide" to describe events then transpiring in Rwanda - in which almost 1 million people were killed - out of concern that use of the expression might obligate the United States to take some sort of action. Weeks later, the government finally came around and recognized that genocide was, in fact, taking place, by which time it was too late to do much about it.

Maj. Hasan's court-martial may reveal more about the terroristic nature of his bloody actions, but we doubt it. Any sensible defense strategy would downplay terrorism and emphasize the image currently popular on the left of Maj. Hasan as a victim of some kind of work-related stress that made him crack unexpectedly. But political correctness cannot long overpower reality or defeat common sense.

The Fort Hood massacre was a domestic terrorist attack by a jihadist radical. Fleeing from that fact places the country in greater danger and inspires other domestic terrorists to try to make the point more definitively.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rom-terrorism/

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 2 Chron. 7:14

and then vote like we have a clue

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by msh0622

I also believe that it was no coincidence that he chose the FN 5.7 as his weapon of choice, as it is a high power, high capacity weapon, which reduces the need for precise accuracy under the conditions in which he carried the attack out.

Do you consider a .22 Magnum to be "high power" as well?

TR

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by msh0622

Warrior-Mentor,
I personally believe he was screened and then contacted by an organization that persuaded or coerced him to carry out the attack.

I've seen nothing to support that opinion. Although possible, there's been no reporting to date that anyone told him to conduct this attack as such. With all the leaks we've already heard about Hasan's e-mails, if it was in the e-mails, then we'd have heard about it by now.