Why did Obama call the fort hood shooting workplace violence?

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, I don't think anyone would say Fort Hood can't be called workplace violence. The problem is when you classify it that way, you're not just calling it workplace violence, yore saying that is the most important descriptor.

Imagine a scenario: a person gets a job as an EMT. He makes an OKC ANFO explosive and puts it in the back of his ambulance. He picks up his paramedic, rides to the scene of a shooting just outside a military base. He sees lots of police, fire, emts, soldiers, and bystanders. He detonates his bomb, killing 150 or so and wounding the same number, and doing millions in damage. So, this could be called a crime, a bombing, murder, an attack, workplace violence, terrorism, and any combination of the above. However, when the FBI classifies it, what category do you think they'll use?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[toolbox 0]

Killing 150 and wounding the same with an ambulance bomb would most likely be considered a terrorist act.
Fort Hood should be considered a jihadist attack by a Islamic extremist.

[turtlespeed 212]

Stumpy

I'm curious, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You are saying its terrorism BECAUSE he targeted military? I'd have said it was defined as terrorism more if he had targeted civilians... (9/11 for example)

There is a war on terrorism, and he is on our opposing side.

So he was committing an act of war, was he not?

Being that the war is on Terrorism, logic demands that he should face charges on what war he took action in.

Bottom Line - Terrorism.

The administration trying to downplay the actions he took is absolutely criminal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Gravitymaster 0]

This liberals and their insane need to parse words is ridiculous. I wonder how many would agree that airplanes hitting the WTC on 9/11 were terrorist acts but the plane hitting the Pentagon was not terrorism?

[normiss 622]

Ummm...ok....then why ask him that???

You drinking and posting again?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Fort Hood should be considered a jihadist attack by a Islamic extremist.

How would that make it any different that pre-meditated mass murder? Legally, I mean. How would it be different if Hasan had been a Hindu, or Jew? Would you need to classify it as a jihadist attack by a Jewish extremist?

- Dan G

[toolbox 0]

Isn't jihad an islamic word describing the struggle in the way of allah?
If I'm not mistaken the struggle can be within and peaceful,or an outer struggle with violence against non believers.
It would seem that the fort hood shooter was having an outer struggle in the way of allah as he shot up his fellow soldiers who would most likely be considered non believers in his eyes.
Not saying a jew or hindu could never be a terrorist,but it seems to be far less likely.
This guy was expressing violent jihad at fort hood and that is considered an act of terrorism here in the USA where it is unlawful for the government or an individual to punish people with violence for their religious beliefs.
If a white supremacist army officer shot up a bunch of jewish or muslim soldiers I bet the present administration would be Johnny on the spot to call it an act of terror, as it should be.

[rickjump1 0]

Gravitymaster

This liberals and their insane need to parse words is ridiculous. I wonder how many would agree that airplanes hitting the WTC on 9/11 were terrorist acts but the plane hitting the Pentagon was not terrorism?

They were all CFIT or "controlled flight into terrain". They were so busy in the cockpit, they forgot to "fly" the aircraft. They were all ACCIDENTS.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

... here in the USA where it is unlawful for the government or an individual to punish people with violence for their religious beliefs ...

My point it that it is unlawful to murder a dozen people regardless of your religion or motivation.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

Fort Hood should be considered a jihadist attack by a Islamic extremist.

How would that make it any different that pre-meditated mass murder? Legally, I mean. How would it be different if Hasan had been a Hindu, or Jew? Would you need to classify it as a jihadist attack by a Jewish extremist?

Yes if He was screaming "יחי אלוהים" and/or "מוות הכופרים" while firing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

... here in the USA where it is unlawful for the government or an individual to punish people with violence for their religious beliefs ...

My point it that it is unlawful to murder a dozen people regardless of your religion or motivation.

So why sugar coat it? Why not call it what it is?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

So why sugar coat it? Why not call it what it is?

You can call it whatever you want. I don't think the government should elevate some crimes to a special status because of the motivations of the criminal. It's what they want. Hasan presumably wants to think of himself as a martyr for Allah. We take that away from him (and from other potential bad actors) by treating him like the common scumbag he is.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

I don't think the government should elevate some crimes to a special status because of the motivations of the criminal. It's what they want.

yes to the first sentence - what are his actions? judge him on his actions (i.e., you kill 20 people because you didn't get a discount at the tire store? you get tried for killing 20 people.....you kill 20 people because you think the military is killing gay baby whales? you get tried for killing 20 people......you kill 20 people while shouting "God is great, I love my adopted foreign country!!!!!"? you get tried for killing 20 people) - anything else is social manipulation to impotently try to control how people think. (for those that want to talk about self defense rationale, etc, .... sure, I get that point and it's a good one. But not really part of the point I'm trying to make.)

no to the second sentence - I don't care if it's what he wants or not. It's not a factor is what the crime is, just his actions

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>Bill, I don't think anyone would say Fort Hood can't be called workplace violence.

Good, we agree there.

>The problem is when you classify it that way, you're not just calling it workplace
>violence, yore saying that is the most important descriptor.

It is the most accurate descriptor. I agree that it may not be the most important depending on your goals.

>He detonates his bomb, killing 150 or so and wounding the same number, and
>doing millions in damage. So, this could be called a crime, a bombing, murder, an
>attack, workplace violence, terrorism, and any combination of the above. However,
>when the FBI classifies it, what category do you think they'll use?

Most accurately a bombing since it would have occurred in a public place, involved a bomb and killed many bystanders.

Now if he had driven his ambulance into the ambulance bay at his place of work and blown it up there, killing his co-workers, that would be primarily workplace violence.

Going with your example, if your goal was to stop this sort of thing in the future, the most important label would be workplace violence. Why? Because better crowd control won't stop it - better control of the workers who are already authorized to be at the scene of the shooting would have stopped it. Thus calling it a bombing, while the most accurate, would not be as useful for the people trying to prevent a future event.

[DanG 1]

Quote

yes to the first sentence - what are his actions? judge him on his actions (i.e., you kill 20 people because you didn't get a discount at the tire store? you get tried for killing 20 people.....you kill 20 people because you think the military is killing gay baby whales? you get tried for killing 20 people......you kill 20 people while shouting "God is great, I love my adopted foreign country!!!!!"? you get tried for killing 20 people) - anything else is social manipulation to impotently try to control how people think. (for those that want to talk about self defense rationale, etc, .... sure, I get that point and it's a good one. But not really part of the point I'm trying to make.)

Concur completely. "Hate crimes" are just crimes to me. Anything more and you're getting into the thought police area.

Quote

no to the second sentence - I don't care if it's what he wants or not. It's not a factor is what the crime is, just his actions

I agree. I was making a separate argument against the idea that labeling it terrorism will somehow hurt his cause. Just the opposite, I think it will help his cause.

- Dan G