Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence?

[DanG 1]

Quote

You substituted your own definition of terrorism. Fine with me. It's just hard to have a discussion when you change the terms of reference.

Um, yeah. Guess who offered up this definition, which I was refering to:

Quote

“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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

I used slightly different words, but if you really don't see how what I said applies directly to the definition above, then it's not me who's trying to change the discussion.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

Sigh...

I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Too much of that on here for me.

I was just noting that you added fear, public, and policy to the definition. None of those are in the definition I found and you re-posted. I think his actions were clearly unlawful and a use of force and violence. He clearly intimidated and coerced a segment of the government (Soldiers and civilians). Political and social objectives are the only part that can be argued. Given his targeting of military and previous statements / emails, I think we have to say it was not an attempted mugging. He had a political / social objective.

The only thing I was pointing out to you was that making it fear, public, and policy related changed the definition.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 620]

Even the FBI had clues it was terrorism

"The FBI has been faulted for not following up on suspicion of Hasan before the shooting. Agents in San Diego noticed in December 2008 that he had sent an email to al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki asking about soldiers who kill fellow military personnel with the aim of “helping Muslims fighting jihad.”"

IMO, that ain't workplace violence.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Too much of that on here for me.

Me either, sorry if I came off that way.

Quote

I was just noting that you added fear, public, and policy to the definition.

I disagree. I think you're reading the definition too literally. Terrorists intend to coerce or intimidate. That's done through fear, or literally, terror. You said yourself that there has to be a broader objective beyond the crime itself. If there isn't, then every violent crime is terrorism. Mug a little old lady, then you're using force to intimidate little old ladies. Without the political or social objectives, then mugging little old ladies is terrorism. I don't think anyone believes that's the case.

Quote

He clearly intimidated and coerced a segment of the government (Soldiers and civilians).

I also disagree that this can be used to support a charge of terrorism. The fact that he shot government employees, if anything, supports the notion that this was not terrorism. Terrorists target civilians, not soldiers. I think this is a grey area, because the soldiers were not actively engaged on the battlefield at the time, so they were essentially civilians. Either way, I don't think the fact that he targeted soldiers, in and of itself, lends support to calling his acts terrorism.

Quote

He had a political / social objective.

Maybe, that's not in evidence since he hasn't been tried. Even if he was shown to have a political/social objective, I think we need to be careful how broadly we interpret that. Just about all crimes could be claimed to have some social aspect to them. Do we want to go down the slope that we've already gone down with so-called hate crimes?

I propose we call these crimes, like 9-11 and the Ft. Hood shooting, what they are: premeditated murder. That should be enough. Anything more and we raise the status of these people from common thug to freedom fighter. That's what they want, why give it to them?

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

I'm not quoting to keep this post from getting too long. Sorry.

Well, you can certainly disagree with the definition. The definition of terrorism is always being debated. But I've always thought definitions of such things were meant to be taken literally.

You are the second person to suggest it can not be terrorism because he targeted Soldiers. That is contrary to the definition I used, but ok. What about Beirut, USS Cole, US Soldiers killed in plane bombings, or even the recent UK attack on a Soldier by two Muslims who stated their social agenda on camera afterwards? I think you are suggesting those can't be terrorists. I'm fine with that. But I think it makes them undeclared combatants in an undeclared war and subject to prosecution for war crimes. Not entirely sure. It also suggests Soldiers are engaged in a war with Muslims or at least vice versa.

I think his objective is made clear by his emails, statements, and actions. Yelling 'Allahu Akhbar' as he began his attack is a unique characteristic of those conducting attacks on behalf of radical Islam around the world. But, of course, it is debatable. It took days for people to call the pressure cooker test at the end of the Boston Marathon "terrorism". I don't think they've told us their reasons yet, either. But people have now accepted it as terrorism. Why?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

You are the second person to suggest it can not be terrorism because he targeted Soldiers.

I don't think targeting soldiers makes them ineligible to be terrorists, I just think that targeting soldiers doesn't automatically make them terrorists. Certainly people who attack soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are not all classified as terrorists just because they're Muslims. They are insurgents. If they targeted Afghan or Iraqi civilians, then they'd be more rightly called terrorists.

Quote

But I think it makes them undeclared combatants in an undeclared war and subject to prosecution for war crimes.

Really, why can't they just be criminals?

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

I absolutely agree that targeting military does not make it terrorism. I was just pointing out that he had a specific group that he was targeting. That group was consitent with a Muslim philosophy that military are oppressing Muslims. Therefore...the agenda.

Like I said in the beginning...this targeting of a specific group is the reason I can't see this as frustration with work, random violence, etc. If he had just killed people randomly, I would not see this as terrorism.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jcd11235 0]

davjohns

I was just pointing out that he had a specific group that he was targeting.

Yes, co-workers and/or "clients."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Stumpy 256]

DanG

Quote

You are the second person to suggest it can not be terrorism because he targeted Soldiers.

I don't think targeting soldiers makes them ineligible to be terrorists, I just think that targeting soldiers doesn't automatically make them terrorists.

Just for clarity - this was where I was coming from also.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[davjohns 1]

jcd11235

***I was just pointing out that he had a specific group that he was targeting.

Yes, co-workers and/or "clients."

According to all of the reports I was able to find, he avoided the civilian co-workers and clients. Reportedly, he came across five civilians cowering at close range and he avoided them. He was targeting military. That's the point.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

According to all of the reports I was able to find, he avoided the civilian co-workers and clients. Reportedly, he came across five civilians cowering at close range and he avoided them. He was targeting military. That's the point.

So if he had specific targets in mind, and was not killing indiscriminately, how is this any different from any other mass murder?

- Dan G

[kallend 1,621]

While it seems there is disagreement on whether or not it constituted "terrorism", there doesn't seem to be any doubt at all that it WAS VIOLENCE, and it happened in his WORKPLACE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 620]

AFTER he inquired with terrorist organizations about killing military coworkers as an act for Allah.

[kallend 1,621]

There isn't any doubt at all that it WAS VIOLENCE, and it happened in his WORKPLACE. Which IS the answer to the OP's question.

All else is just speculation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 620]

That's not what the FBI said.

[billvon 2,380]

>That's not what the FBI said.

They said it wasn't violence, or they said it didn't happen at his place of work?

[rickjump1 0]

kallend

While it seems there is disagreement on whether or not it constituted "terrorism", there doesn't seem to be any doubt at all that it WAS VIOLENCE, and it happened in his WORKPLACE.

There was a lot of violence in the Battle of Stalingrad and both sides were in their favorite WORKPLACE, the battlefield.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,380]

>There was a lot of violence in the Battle of Stalingrad

Why do you call a war "violence?" Do you really, honestly think that the Battle of Stalingrad wasn't part of a war?

[normiss 620]

I don't see where he called war violence.
Only that the former had a lot of the latter.

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>There was a lot of violence in the Battle of Stalingrad

Why do you call a war "violence?" Do you really, honestly think that the Battle of Stalingrad wasn't part of a war?

Oh, like the one at Fort Hood? The one where the jihadist avoided collateral damage to innocent civilians by carefully shooting soldiers. You don't think killing those soldiers was done by a jihadist at war with the US Military?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[normiss 620]

No no no.

The call to al qaeda was just a normal work conference call.
Travel arrangements for a seminar maybe?

[rickjump1 0]

normiss

No no no.

The call to al qaeda was just a normal work conference call.
Travel arrangements for a seminar maybe?

You bet, and war does not have violence.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,380]

>I don't see where he called war violence.

"There was a lot of violence in the Battle of Stalingrad"

No mention of war in his post.

[billvon 2,380]

>Oh, like the one at Fort Hood?

No, the Battle of Stalingrad. Are you really trying to say that it was "just" violence? Why can't you call it a battle in a war?

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Oh, like the one at Fort Hood?

No, the Battle of Stalingrad. Are you really trying to say that it was "just" violence? Why can't you call it a battle in a war?

Did I use the words, "just" violence? Having been wounded in the Vietnam "war" and on the "battlefield", it was the same thing the troops at Fort Hood experienced only I was in Vietnam, and they were killed or wounded on American soil by an islamic jihadist at war with the United States. It's pretty obvious that islamic jihadists are bringing the war on America to America. We are the perfect battlefield for islamic jihadists born here or imported. It's a steal for them.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.