Question for DUers: Why do the Republicans consider the Ft. Hood attacks as a terror attack, and

[secondwind]

we don't???? I have a Republican friend who always brings this c*** up, and would like to respond in kind.

[wryter2000]

1. Because a muslin did it

Honestly. It's really that simple. If a Muslim shoots someone, it's terrorism. If a "Christian" kills a gay person, it's not terrorism. See how that works?

PS I am Christian, hence the quotation marks. Probably Muslim ought to be in quotation marks, too.

[timeforpeace]

17. ...and coupled with his virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments some jumped to wrong

conclusions.

[liberal N proud]

2. The republicans are going to call any attack by a muslim terror

Would the Ft Hood shooter been Christian he would have just been a mental problem.

FEAR is what motivates the GOP.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Because "we" are wrong in this instance.

For some reason a cohort of folks here are such spin-addicts that they think a new reality can be created via denial.

They think that a terrorist act on Obama's watch is a bad thing (fair enough... I assume we all think that) and seek to redefine terms until achieving the desired result (degenerate)

And what sucks about such delusional folks is that they create the situation you describe where "we" are wrong and the republicans are correct. That's a shit situation... republicans should never be right on a substantive disagreement.

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. You nailed it. nt

[sandnsea]

9. I think "we" don't know yet, 100%

Is the investigation finished? I didn't see that report.

[baldguy]

13. Hasan was not a terrorist. He has a religious delusion, not a political one.

[polmaven]

19. I don't know

that there are not such things as religious terrorists.

[baldguy]

22. Did I say that? I don't think so.

[polmaven]

25. Well, yeah...

I think you did say that...Hasan was not a terrorist. He has Religious delusions, not political ones....Yeah...NOT a terrorist if his delusions are religious rather than political....that is what you said.

[baldguy]

36. So, all people who commit murder due to religious delusions is a terrorist?

Is David Berkowitz a terrorist? Since no political motivation is required, I guess you would say yes. He certainly "terrorized" NYC in '76 & '77.

Of course, real terrorism requires a political motive. Simple fear is not enough; the terrorist desires a political change, and he believes violence is the way to achieve it. Both Berkowitz and Hasan are religious nuts with no visible political ideology at all. Therefor they are not terrorists.

[polmaven]

60. How in the WORLD

you went from my pointing out that your inference that he is not a terrorist because his delusion is religious and not political MAY not be absolute to THIS is astonishing!

Do you always think in terms of absolutes this way? No areas of grey at all?

[jmowreader]

48. There are definitely religious terrorists

Calling Scott Roeder. Calling Scott Roeder.

But yeah, barring any unforeseen information I'd say Major Hasan is a terrorist.

[woo me with science]

39. I don't think so.

All evidence suggests that his motivation was religious and political. He was posting political messages on internet chat forums, contacting people with connections to terrorists, and proselytizing about religion and American foreign policy to his colleagues and patients.

[salin]

24. except that for a long time there has been a definition of terrorism.... in which the ends

or specific. It is a 'weapon' (means) to create a climate of terror and fear in order to try to accomplish some kind of political ends. This has nothing to do with who is president or in charge of congress.

IF Hassan's attempt was coordinated with several others ... then one could easily argue that these were acts of domestic terrorism with the intent to create a climate of fear on bases in order to push the public sentiment (of fear) to force political action (changing foreign policy in the middle east.) He may have wanted that end - but this was not a campaign of 'terrorism' - any more than the sadly numerous workplace massacres which happen from time to time. Were the series of post office shootings around the turn of the last decade (around early 1990s spanning both BushSr and Clinton presidencies) considered terrorism? They were recognized as the work of individuals often acting out revenge fantasies against those they perceived to have harmed them. I think that the Hassan scenario more closely echoes those acts than say the Timothy McVeigh bombing which seems more clearly intended to strike 'terror' and fear into the larger public psyche (indeed the day even selected to make a political point.)

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. I take your point, but the phenomenon has evolved and the definition with it

A few decades ago there was little religious component to arab/muslim terrorism. The PLO was a secular outfit, for instance.

But I do not think that the recent rise of religious motivation really changes anything.

A lot of the jiggering with the term seems to me to get hung-up on an erroneously narrow definition of "political" as something separate from religion.

A clash between religions is a political struggle, and particularly so when a religion represents a form of political organization.

Muslim extremists do not seek to promote Islam through violence while leaving political institutions in place. A lot of the efficacy of Islam, the reason it supplanted Christianity through so much of the old world during its expansion phase, is that Islam contains a mode of organization of society.

If a person desires the spread of fundamentalist Islam it seems odd to me to say their aims are not political... they seek the overthrow of existing political power to be replaced by theocracy.

[salin]

32. certainly didn't intend to suggest a difference between political vs religious motivation

except that in the end the desired change tends to be political (policy or political form) - motivation and intention may be religious.

It is to me a difference (if there is one - not yet clear per my definition) of one acting individually and on a rampage (e.g., reference to postal workers going "postal" in the eighties and other horrific "lone wolf" workplace shooters) vs if one is part of a larger (coordinated) movement.

To me Hassan seems more like the former (rampage shooter/mass murderer) - however his theological discussions/explorations/ramblings may be that he thought he was part of something bigger - turning my individual vs part of a movement definition sideways. I would guess that even if it was more like a rampage event - and individual in nature, but in the rage/insanity one also believes that one is part of a bigger movement event... then perhaps the intent even not the event is terrorism per the intent (and expected "terror response") rather than simple revenge/frenzied kill.

[mkultra]

54. your missing the point

the purpose of terrorism is coercion. This guy just snapped. Had had no interest in coercing change, either political or religious.

[woo me with science]

40. Thank you.

For these sorts of posts, I am still looking for an emoticon or .gif of a computer fizzing and exploding when confronted with data that does not align with its preconceived worldview.

[burning rain]

46. It is the stance of the ostrich.

If I refuse to see it, it's not there.

[HughMoran]

47. Yeah, I agree

I don't like when we spin stuff. If it was a terrorist attack under Bush, it's one under Obama.

[CBGLuthier]

58. work place violence equals terrorism?

I see the incident as being aimed at his co workers. I guess I am just delusional according to your expertise.

[havocmom]

4. Guy in Oval Office has D after his name

Same reason Republicans consider Underwear Wanna-bee Bomber as a terrorist trying to attack America while shoe bomber... not so much.

[TheBigotBasher]

5. Ask him if the murder of Dr Tiller was terrorism?

Then wait for a head explosion.

[GoCubsGo]

51. Better yet...

Ask him if David Adkisson was a terrorist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

[leveymg]

6. What makes you think it wasn't? A person can go berzerk for political reasons as well as personal.

Both factors appear to have been behind Nidal Hasan's shooting rampage.

[wryter2000]

11. Terrorism and mental problems don't usually go together

We have no evidence that Bin Laden, KSM, the people who flew the planes into the buildings, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the guy who shot the guard at the Holocaust Museum, the guy who shot Dr. Tiller, the guys who killed Matthew Shepherd, etc. etc. etc. were depressed or suicidal. The Fort Hood shooter was. Yes, his pathology took on a religious tone, but the primary reason was his pathology.

[leveymg]

14. I was addressing the OP's assertion that DUers deny Ft Hood was a "real" terrorist attack.

Some have made the assertion that Hasan simply "snapped", and that an hostile institutional environment of anti-Muslim bigotry and violence "made him do it." Not everyone here at DU agrees that was the sole cause.

As for whether al-Qaeda operatives are inherently more pathological than professional soldiers or intelligence officers, I think that would make an interesting subject for a number of doctoral dissertations. We're not going to answer that question here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. I think we have ample evidence the 9/11 pilots were suicidal

[woo me with science]

37. We don't know that.

In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that his motivation was political/religious, including ties to known terrorists, attempts to proselytize others, and his shouting Allahu Akbar at the time of his shooting. Any evidence that we are getting about depression or suicidality is coming after his arrest, when he clearly has a motivation to report such things.

And what about the Unabomber? He was seriously mentally ill, and no one questions that. Does that mean he was not a terrorist?

Comparing the functioning of the Unabomber with that of the Fort Hood shooter just before their attacks, the Unabomber was living in remote cabin, disheveled, and writing psychotic screeds. The Fort Hood shooter was *still* working as a psychiatrist.

[burning rain]

42. Religious mania & mental illness often go hand in hand.

What sort of people are likely to have visions, see demons, and hear God talking to them, for instance? Not the most stable, I would say.

[sandnsea]

8. I think the investigation isn't over yet, so we don't know

Whereas, the dude on the plane is pretty clear and alive to tell his story.

[secondwind]

10. thanks, guys! DUers are the BEST!!

[stray cat]

12. DU only believe terrorism is done by white supremicists and home grown organizations

One person can not perform a terrorist act unless he is a white supremicist or kills a doctor who practices abortions. If someone kills someone DU doesn not like - its not a terrorist act.:sarcasm:

[wryter2000]

16. I think you'd get consensus here that 9/11 was terrorism.

You can find someone on DU to say anything, but I'd guess that over 95% of people here would agree that 9/11 was terrorism.

What you won't find is the assummption that any violence on the part of a Muslim is terrorism.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. ...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

15. cause republicans are super smart & we're super dumb about what makes things work...

and who gets to work them - i hope that's the right answer, or the left answer, cause you can't out it in the middle cause there is no middle :dunce:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Because the republicans are islamophobic bigots and we're not.

Well, most of us aren't. The good ones.

[CTyankee]

21. Same damn question we have had all along! When do we wake up and say the HELL with you, Republicans?

This is their FOREVER response. Can we please stop trying to argue with these people.

Wehave to find another way. We just have to. This is NOT working.

I am so despondent I am ready to declare myself a socialist and be done with everything...

[salin]

23. Does he consider the Tennessee assailant who went in guns blazing into a UU Church,

to be a terrorist? I don't think most of us call that terrorism either. We call it a massacre. Terrorism generally has at its point the intent to win a political advantage by creating a climate of terror.

If we were to learn, for example, that there multiple such plots being planned - then I think we could agree that it was terrorist in nature (as the intent to create a climate of fear and terror around army bases.) Same thing if the church shooter was part of an effort to carry out such attacks at a number of churches, for the same reason.

[burning rain]

41. That was certainly terrorism.

He made his political grievances against liberals, based on Bernard Goldberg's rantings, well-known, as well as the fact that he wanted to strike a blow against liberals. If that's not terrorism, I'm an egg salad sandwich.

[treestar]

26. It was a mass shooting along the lines of Columbine and Va. Tech

These are not terrorist attacks, but sudden violence from one individual. That individual is having mental problems. It does not turn it into terrorism even if that individual thinks he is working for a political end. He's not working with anyone else.

The 911 terrorists weren't having mental problems, they knew what they were doing and did it very deliberately.

The crotch bomber is harder to characterize - if he really was working on an Al Qaeda plot he could be a terrorist. But he might have just been mentally ill. We don't know yet.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. The presumpton of the sanity of the 9/11 actors is one of this thread's weirder aspects

[treestar]

31. Clinically they were sane

they organized and carried out a complex attack. They were deliberate. they may be described as crazy in a general sense but it was not the same thing as a lone shooter who goes nuts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. The lone shooters you're talking about usually do a lot of planning

You would have to be thinking of road rage or bar-room brawls.

The lone work-place shooting is almost always organized and planned. Same with school mass-shootings.

There is no psychiatric difference between the 9/11 pilots and the Columbine kids.

[treestar]

49. Can't agree there

those kids were super messed up, and the planning was not nearly so sophisticated, if it had to have been, they would not have followed through. It's easy enough in the U.S. to get a gun and shoot people, but a whole different thing to plan a coordinated attack like 911.

The shooting massacres don't have any political aim, and have no political effect. Maybe some stuff about gun control, but that is not intended.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. I don't really care if you agree. I am offering information, not negotiating.

You chose to think something false, that's your business.

[burning rain]

43. I would call Hasan a self-formed cell of one.

It does not turn it into terrorism even if that individual thinks he is working for a political end.

To that I answer, As a man thinketh, so is he. I would certainly call the Tennessee UU church shooter an independent domestic terrorist, too--he had formed a political grievance against liberals and acted on it.

[Hamlette]

27. we object to calling it terrorism because we object to the kind of fear engendered by that label.

As Glenzilla said:

Ever since I began writing in late 2005 about this fear-addicted dynamic, the point on which David Brooks focused yesterday is the one I've thought most important. What matters most about this blinding fear of Terrorism is not the specific policies that are implemented as a result. Policies can always be changed. What matters most is the radical transformation of the national character of the United States.

Reducing the citizenry to a frightened puddle of passivity, hysteria and a child-like expectation of Absolute Safety is irrevocable and far more consequential than any specific new laws. Fear is always the enabling force of authoritarianism: the desire to vest unlimited power in political authority in exchange for promises of protection. This is what I wrote about that back in early 2006 in How Would a Patriot Act?:

"The president's embrace of radical theories of presidential power threatens to change the system of government we have. But worse still, his administration's relentless, never-ending attempts to keep the nation in a state of fear can also change the kind of nation we are."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Calling everything a terrorist act can "change the kind of nation we are." We need to be like the brits: Be alert and carry on.

[burning rain]

45. I can't buy that.

I can at one and the same time realize that (1) being killed by a piece of falling space debris is something that could happen to me, and it would be awful, and that (2) it's extremely unlikely to happen and therefore I shouldn't be driven by fear of the possibility. Sort of similar with terrorism. I can call it by its right name and yet not allow myself to be wracked with fear, or manipulated on its basis.

[LovinLife]

30. I just consider it as a psycho that shot up his workplace. It always happens. NT

[elana i am]

33. my understanding is a terrorist attack

is a planned event that comes from a terrorist organization. an attack from an individual not connected to a terrorist organization or a member of an organization who has gone rogue is what i would consider a mental case who has finally gone off the deep end.

whichever it is, they are ALL mental cases.

[Hansel]

34. The people involved in terrorism are not usually the people carrying out the attacks.

It's the leaders who manipulate mentality unstable people into committing these atrocious crimes who are the terrorists. I think that in most cases the people committing the acts are acting out of mental illness or revenge. I don't know that they have a larger ideal of terrorizing people for political purposes. They just want to hurt someone who they perceive to be causing their pain.

It is the "religious leaders" or rather people who use religion to try to enforce their control and power over the world who are the terrorists. It is their stated goal to terrorize and without them the people actually carrying out the crime would not have acted.

Personally, I think the fools on the front lines are criminals acting on behalf of terrorists and should be treated as such. No more and no less. Calling them terrorists seems to be an attempt to make them into bigger than life monsters when they are just sick men or men in great pain. Case in point, how sick do you have to be to strap an explosive to your genitals and try to light it on fire? I imagine some real sick f*ck laughing his ass off because he was able to manipulate some mentally despondent person into doing this. I'm not even sure the "cleric" who manipulated this is a terrorist. I think it just might be a psychopath using the whole Al Qaeda facade as his playground to manipulate some real sick puppeteering. In other words: "How far can I get these fools to go in my name?"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Motivation matters a lot IMHO

Having a lone nutbar shoot up a military base because of severe mental health issues (all suicide attackers, I'm sure, have *issues* but this guy who did Fort Hood was clearly need of extensive psychiatric treatment and likely acted out because of his illness rather than a deliberate desire to go for jihad) and another nutbar's deliberate attempt to attack an American airliner based on a deliberate desire to go for jihad and kill Americans are two different situations IMHO. The "underpants bomber" (as he will probably forever be known) seems like he was clearly acting in league with Yemeni terrorists as a part of a broader plot whereas it is is unlcear that the Ft. Hood shooter was part of a deliberate plot to shoot up Fort Hood. As I said before, I just think that he had *issues* and acted little different than your *average* person whom "snaps" and goes on a shooting rampage. :shrug:

[vaberella]

44. Muslim=terrorist; I thought this was understood. n/t

[MadMaddie]

50. Because the Repugs are unable to separate Terrorism with

workers going postal. You should ask your friends about all of the shootings across the country with multiple victims do they consider those incidents terrorism? If they say no ask them why not? Their answer will be simple - you will get a blank look because most if not all of the other shooters were white.

The Repugs use race and religion to condemn anyone with dark skin but they never shine the light on white Christian perpetrators.

The FT. Hood shooter used his Muslim beliefs to justify his cowardice of not wanting to get deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now, having said that the U.S. military dropped the ball on this nutcase because of the following reasons:
1. Not enough Muslims in the military
2. This guy was an officer and basically untouchable
3. No replacements if they kicked him out

[niceypoo]

52. They want to run on it

during the next couple of elections. The fear card.

[mkultra]

56. terrorism is a tool used by a wider org to move thought in their direction

one person going on a rampage is NOT terrorism. One person going on a rampage at the behest of an organization for political or religious gain IS terrorism.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beaverhausen]

61. Does your friend think Oklahoma City was a terrorist attack?

[Lurks Often]

62. Here's a question for everybody

And how do we determine if a specific act is terrorism when we can't even agree on how to define what terrorism is?