Greenwald: Yelling “Allahu Akbar” During a Shooting Rampage Is Not Suggestive of Terrorism, and It’s Repellent of You to Claim Otherwise
I couldn’t make up something this stupid if I tried. Glenn Greenwald:
Isn’t it fairly clear that the term “terrorism” is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves?
It’s about as clear as your prose, Greenwald.
Put another way, as ThinkProgress’ Matt Duss put it: “the definition of terrorism is not ‘any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason’.” But that — along with the repellent claim that saying “Allahu Akbar” is “suggestive of terrorism,” rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim (obviously the same thing in the minds of the people claiming that) — is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack.
Hold up. Hold it just one second there.
It’s a “repellent claim” to note that yelling “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage is “suggestive of terrorism”? Yelling “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage is merely suggestive of someone being Muslim — and not terrorism?
I’m at a loss for words to express how stupid Greenwald’s claim is — and indeed, I needn’t mock it, because it mocks itself. May I remind you: on September 11, 2001, Muslim hijackers aboard Flight 93 yelled that phrase as they piloted the plane into the ground. Coincidence, I’m sure.
If common sense isn’t enough for you — if you really need to rely a lawyerly-sounding definition of “terrorism” — how about the one used by the U.S. Department of Defense: “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or try to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
At the risk of explaining the painfully obvious: when you yell “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage, that’s evidence that the shooter had Allah’s greatness on the brain during the time of the murder. That suggests a religious motivation, which suggests terrorism.
When Greenwald characterizes as “repellent” the claim that shouting “Allahu Akbar” suggests terrorism, he is engaging in the same sort of political correctness that caused military brass to turn a blind eye to Hasan’s extremist support of Muslim terrorism.
Which is to say, it’s attitudes like Greenwald’s that helped Nidal Hasan kill 13 people at Fort Hood.
But at least it gives him a little frisson of self-righteousness to accuse others of religious bigotry. And in the end, isn’t that all that really matters?
UPDATE: As Andy Levy notes in comments, Hasan killed 14 people, not 13. Explanation here.
What I can’t figure out is whether Gleenwald is really a moral idiot or does he just assume the role for the sake of blog hits?
steve miller (81db43) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:22 pmI don’t agree that it’s attitudes like Greenwald’s that killed 13 people at Fort Hood. If people had had different attitudes the Nidal person might just have been more careful about leaving clues to what a murderously devout fundamentalist dickhead he was at heart.
I think definitely the next Nidal will be seen as having been a lot more careful. The Army is starting to sense maybe something’s amiss I think, and if I’ve noticed it the Nidal type ones have probably noticed it too.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:23 pm‘Put another way, as ThinkProgress’ Matt Duss put it: “the definition of terrorism is not ‘any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason’.” But that — along with the repellent claim that saying “Allahu Akbar” is “suggestive of terrorism,” ‘
Hey, I’ll say it all day long if it helps to repel left wing scumbags. Hell, I’ll wear a garlic necklace if it will keep trash like Greenwald out of my face.
Dave Surls (68aa16) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:27 pmHmmm…guess I’m just repellent, gonna have to ask my wife
Angelo (5df281) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:28 pm“If people had had different attitudes the Nidal person might just have been more careful”
This is compelling, but I don’t know… I think there will be a small number of people who can pull this off, and a smaller number that want to after exposure to our amazing Army (best people in the world). But tolerating this crap did encourage it. It justified it. Voluntary dhimmi is a concept of submission that encourages the Koran’s views on Muslim superiority.
Anyway, I think if Obama makes it one term, and this is the only mass casualty terrorism we see stateside, that he is responsible for a successful counter terror effort. But I hold him responsible for the mistakes. He can’t be perfect, but he better try to be on this issue.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:30 pmI think Greenwald should take his argument to Muslim countries, especially Iran as they have no gays and he would really stand out.
For a while, anyway.
Were there Jews like this in the 1930s ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:31 pmYes, they were kapos.
steve miller (81db43) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:32 pmOne of the gleeeeeeeens sock puppets got into the absinthe again, it appears. Oh, for the love of Allah, it is proof of the deity that his little pinhead did not assplode when he dribbled out that drivel.
JD (1e2283) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:38 pm‘along with the repellent claim that saying “Allahu Akbar” is “suggestive of terrorism,”’
It’s kind of context sensitive isn’t it?
If a muslim yells out “Allahu Akbar” after someone just gave him a million bucks, it’s probably not suggestive of terrorism, if he yells it out right before he starts shooting down American soldiers, then it very well might be.
Of course, that idea is probably a little over the head of your average lefty rocket scientist.
Dave Surls (68aa16) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:39 pmI’ve said it before: Allahu Akbar is the new Sieg Heil.
RickZ (c06fbc) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:49 pmDave Surls,
Consider the nail hit on the head.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:51 pmWhy of course, Mr. Greenwald; stake your claim that Hasan isn’t a terrorist. God forbid that we would label this person for what he is.
Okay class, raise your hands if you know the answer to this one: What is the VERY FIRST thing that Glenn Greenwald will say if someone pulls a Jack Ruby and kills Hasan before he has his day in court?
That’s right, he will label it a ‘hate crime’.
Icy Texan (e267e6) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:58 pmAll you need to know about Greenwald you can learn from his first sentence, which begins, “The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman….”
Think about that. In a piece about the murder of 14 people, it’s Lieberman whom Greenwald calls incomparably deadly, incomparably wicked, incomparably destructive.
No further proof of his childish foolishness is needed.
Andy Levy (8b47aa) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:10 pmYes, and you’re right, Andy, it is 14 and not 13.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:14 pmWould Glenn Greenwald be making such an absurd claim had the perpetrator been a Catholic chaplain shooting down fourteen people after yelling “Hail Mary, full of grace”?
You know the answer.
Mike LaRoche (ab5b2b) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:17 pmTo me it sounds like racism and bigotry to link Hasan with the 9/11 terrorists, regardless of what Hasan may have said during the shooting.
He was just a nut, plain and simple. The problem is nuts like him can get weapons too easily.
mikeb302000 (6127bb) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:28 pmHow do you propose to solve this problem?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:37 pmThe problem is best solved by eliminating Islamist nuts.
Mike LaRoche (ab5b2b) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:39 pmLiterally eliminating their nuts, so that they can’t procreate?
Icy Texan (e267e6) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:45 pmIf “terrorism” makes the Sockpuppet King uncomfortable, how about calling it what Hasan calls it: Jihad.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:49 pmLiterally eliminating their nuts, so that they can’t procreate?
Heh, that’s one way to do it…
Mike LaRoche (ab5b2b) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:55 pmMike makes the gun control argument a bit too superficially. It’s obvious that all the really bad mass shootings are committed in gun-free zones, such as this example at Ft Hood. What’s sad is that some out there really want to use this event as an argument against guns… as if that was really the problem.
Mike: This man was an officer in the US Army. He easily could have drawn his sidearm from the unit armorer. If he was creative, he could have drawn a crew served weapon. Majors can do that. When I was in the Army, a Major asked me to show him an artillery piece’s functionality. This is, basically, a perfect argument against gun control. If the other soldiers were allowed to concealed carry, this tragedy would not have occurred at all. This Major was violating the gun laws in place by bringing his POW (privately owned weapon) on post. Another gun control law would have had no effect whatsoever.
The problem is not that he had access to guns. The problem is that we have people like you, who will try to steer us away from the real issues of hatred in Islamist hearts. By attempting to make this about liberal dream goals, instead of simply thinking honestly about this, you are part of the problem that got those men killed.
That’s right: people trying to use this case to ban guns are going to have blood on their hands when their rhetoric distracts us from the real problems.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:56 pm“Hasan’s attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one’s views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers — particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war — fall within any legitimate definition of “terrorism,” which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?”–Glenn Greenwald, legal “expert”
“(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—”
“(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;”
“(B) appear to be intended—”
“(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ”
“(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or”
“(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and”
“(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002331—-000-.html
Maybe someone should send Greenwald an e-mail letting him know that there is this thing called the U.S. Code, which define what terms like terrorism mean in a legal sense.
He’s probably not aware that there is such a thing.
😉
Dave Surls (68aa16) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:58 pmLet’s see, now. I attend a church with a couple hundred other folks. The pastor is constantly telling us we need to slit the throats of nutjob internet trolls. A couple other attendees actually slit the throats of a few thousand nutjob internet trolls. The pastor runs off to another country and sets up a web-site, where he continues to constantly tell us believers to slit the throats of nutjob internet trolls. I spend time in direct contact with him over the internet. I then go out and slit the throats of nutjob internet trolls.
Obviously, there is no connection to my heinous crime and any organization, any leadership, any other heinous crimes of anyone anywhere else. Yup, yup.
(This is all hypothetical, folks, so don’t get all worked up. I can’t even kill Bambi. :()
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/10/2009 @ 11:59 pm“The use or threatened use of force, to achieve a political, religious or idealogical goal, through violence, media, or opinion.”
(I think that is the EXACT BST definition I read, and knew verbatim while I was a “board” Marine 10 years ago.)
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:13 amI could kill Bambi.
But only if I was really hungy
Icy Texan (e267e6) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:13 am“UPDATE: As Andy Levy notes in comments, Hasan killed 14 people, not 13.”
Yeah, that’s a good point by Andy. I keep forgetting about the unborn, innocent, little baby this Muslim skank killed…as he screamed out how great his god is in a non-terrorist sort of way.
Dave Surls (68aa16) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:15 amGood point, Dave. Greenwald is more concerned about how the murderer is perceived than he is about the innocent lives that were taken.
Icy Texan (e267e6) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:18 amI have to hope liberal Jeff is still watching this site, since he was all too ready to give the gleeen clan the benefits of the doubts previously.
(And, Patterico, see him in action over here.)
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:45 amPatterico,
Have you noticed that every Lefty Blogger, talk show host, politician and commenter would rather defend Al-Queda and suicide bombers in Israel, then support an American Republican or Israel?
Every Lefty cheered on Chavez and Ahamdinijad at the UN. Even though Saddam gave funds to Pali Suicide bombers, the Left still makes excuses for Saddam, rather then suopporting an American Republican or Conservative. And Ahamadinijad, Chavez and Saddam all wished for the death of Jews everywhere. No wonder Obama likes these guys.
The fact that “Sockpuppets” Greenwald has never read Strunk and White does not make his policies any more agreeable. I tend to dismiss his arguments as hackery. I wonder if “Sockpuppets” could ever “Omit needless words,”
And for a ex-pat living in Brazil, why the hell should he be included in America’s political conversation? Live in the States, then you get support.
But “Sockpuppets” Greenwald lives under the same rules as Fareed Zakharia, and “Trig Truther” Sullivan:
These ex-pats are allowed to influence policy and hate Israel and Jews as long as they hate Conservatives, Republicans, President Bush and Governor Palin.
“Sockpuppets” Greenwald is nothing but a Sonderkommando
“Sockpuppets” should go to Iran and convince them.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:50 amAlso note on “sockpppets” Blog, he will say nothing about Veterans Day.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:53 amPat why waste time on an idiot like Greenwald?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:04 amNidal can state publicly that he is a member of AQ and Greenwald would find some other stupid thing to say.
Nidal wasn’t crazy, he did what he did because he is a terrorist. The difference between a criminal murderer and a terrorist is the motive and intent. Whether or not Nidal was a ‘formal’ member of AQ or a fellow traveler is irrelevant; he acted on and aided and abetted the enemy. Hang him on the parade ground of Ft. Hood ASAP and stop wasting time with this turncoat traitor enemy sympathizer.
Heh, several have seen Liberal Jeff now. And several have now seen evidence for my calling him a Leviticus/Aphrael liberal and not an Imp/Huxter liberal (although Leviticus has strayed from the reservation recently). 😉 I think Mister Mister Patterico saw it, too.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:25 amKinda OT but look at Googles Veterans Day logo (a kid I presume looking at a torso going to war), and Bings picture of the day.
Hazy (996c34) — 11/11/2009 @ 3:36 am“Good point, Dave. Greenwald is more concerned about how the murderer is perceived than he is about the innocent lives that were taken.”
Well, of course.
Glenn Greenwald is a traitor. He’s on the terrorists’ side, not on America’a side.
No matter what happens, it’s just an excuse for the lefty Lord Haw Haws to start their anti-American propaganda (the only way cowardly leftist dogs can help their side, since they don’t have the stones to take up arms…they leave that to fools like Hasan).
If a bunch of Americans are killed by a Muslim fanatic, what’s the first thing out of the mouths of scum like Greenwald?
“The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman…”
There ya go…the first words of Lord Haw Haw’s latest essay. He already made his ritual pro forma denunciation of the murderer a few essays back, so now it’s on to the important business of attacking the United States (and loyal Americans like Liebermann), and to play little word games to defend his terrorist pals (in this case the idea is to raise doubt as to whether Hasan is REALLY a terrorist…but to make it clear that our troops are…typical lefty traitor Lord Haw Haw bullshit…same tired old game).
So, a little unborn baby was killed by this fucking rat, Hasan? Who cares? Not people like Greenwald. This isn’t about an America-hating Muslim traitor, who we took in as one of our own, and who paid us back by killing a pregnant American woman and her baby, along with a bunch of other people…this is about attacking the United States and defending terrorists…same thing it’s always about for lefty traitors like Glenny-girl.
‘“Sockpuppets” Greenwald is nothing but a Sonderkommando’
Nah, he’s not even that. Sonderkommandos betrayed their own and worked for the Nazis in a desperate attempt to save their lives. Greenwald and lefty scum like him, do it for kicks.
He’s lower than a sonderkommando. Much lower.
Dave Surls (efacbc) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:10 ammikeb90210 @ #16 – What race are terrorists? It would be interesting to see one of the leftists actually make a case for this type of asspull, rather than just asserting it, and then scurrying away.
Way off topic, buþ has anyone seen Juan?
JD (494eed) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:13 amIf Greenwald heeded Strunk and White’s advice to “omit needless words”, he wouldn’t be able to post anything.
Dr. K (eca563) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:19 amThe calvacade of mendacity from Greewald continues apace, though he has most certainly picked up the pace in the last few days. I wonder if there us a direct correlation between an appearance on the MadCow show, and this recent blizzard of douchenozzlery.
JD (494eed) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:43 amYelling “Allahu Akbar” has become suggestive of a Muslim doing something so stupid that he/she needs the blessing of Allah so some level of the stupidity can be erased.
Neo (7830e6) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:08 amAbout right.
Neo (7830e6) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:13 amPOTUS/this Congress/Liberals are more interested in finding victim-status with evil doers then in simply eliminating evil doers.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:16 amPatterico, this post is overkill. This is one of those things that is so stupid all you have to do is quote Greenwald accurately to dispute him. No argument necessary for anyone who has at least two brain cells to rub together.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:27 am[…] finds it “repellent” that someone could frame Hasan’s murder spree as motivated by […]
The Axis of Asses (e3a4cc) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:55 amAnd here is where many of you in the blogs are better at dealing with this stuff than I.
I see this and I am speechless at this kind of stupidity. Most of the time, when it gets THIS bad (black is white, up is down, this is that) I can’t do much more than hang my head and walk away.
For instance, when arguing with a Liberal friend recently (and I’ve seen the very same points he made posted by some Liberals online), I was told that:
1) The economy really is improving
2) Obama is actually a Conservative
3) Obama meant to keep these wars going
4) Obama has cut taxes
5) Obama really is against abortion
6) The obligatory, but without any facts – Palin is an idiot
How do you argue with such stupidity? These people are wild-eyed Leftist Obama-lovers who cannot under any way be dissuaded of their beliefs.
Metallica (e4735c) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:02 amIt seems that the best thing you can do is hold the facts up to the so-called independents. This 25% of the voting block always Liberal no matter what crowd is irreparable.
I didn’t clarify in my post above that the ‘independents’ are at least capable of seeing the light at time – when confronted with the facts. The Liberals have fallen into the trap of ‘Liberalism first! Nothing else matters!’
Metallica (e4735c) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:04 amHere are some Muslim kids showing how their ‘parents’ taught them to shout Allah Akhbar.
Greenwald & friends should watch often.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/muslim-child-and-friends-behead-man-while-praising-allah-video/
Creeping Sharia (a90825) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:04 amA Muslim engages in Jihad. Mentally challenged liberals pretend not to understand what motivated him and twist themselves in knots to avoid the truth.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:05 amWhat part of “during a shooting rampage” doesn’t he understand.
If he had been handing out cookies to underprivileged children while exclaiming “God is great” maybe we all might think differently!
As Buggs Bunny would say “What a maroon”.
dfbaskwill (aabf1f) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:07 amThe fact that this is what has Greenwald so exercised after a mass murder tells you all you need to know about him. I have never understood how he’s retained any credibility at all after his sock puppeting.
radar (98f691) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:37 amThe only difference in what Hasan did and the acts of a suicide bomber are the weapons he chose.
The evidence of Hasan’s radical views and the premeditated steps he made in carrying out his rampage point in only one direction…terrorism.
This is why liberals can’t be trusted with important issues like National Security.
They will spin,lie,and deny even the most obvious evidence in the pursuit of validating there liberal agenda.
It really makes you wonder just how much and how far they will go in covering up for factions like the jihadist just so it will not interfere with their liberal and PC policies.
In the pursuit of spinning this terrorist attack as a PTSD motivated episode(without ever serving overseas or in war zone) while ignoring all the facts that contradict it totally eliminate any credibility they will seek in blaming Christians and Republicans in the future for violent acts like they like to do.
To go by their twisted logic,I could attend clan meetings…
….stay in constant contact with David Duke…
…..tell rooms full of people that if they don’t conform to the Aryan ways they should all be killed…..
…..hand out aryan racist literature to my neighbors and friends….
….start shooting a room full of innocent,unarmed people while yelling “Long live the Clan”!!!!…..
…and according to Greenwald and the other liberal spin miesters….it would have nothing to do with me being a klansman.
Absolutely stuck on stupid!!!!
Baxter Greene (af5030) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:41 am“I am waiting for the day a muslim man shouts Allahu Akbar, and then peacefully distributes the morning newspaper”
Read this quote on a blog.
catch28 (742c8c) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:48 amGreenwald defended a NeoNazi preacher, Matt Hale, who wanted to sit for the bar, that’s a trifecta
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:56 amof evil there, he has defended Salafi outrages as well. One of this co-counsels, also defends
‘innocent’ Gitmo detainees, so nothing surprises
about this evasion, this is way past Chaplinsky’s
“fighting words doctrine
But at least it gives him a little frisson of self-righteousness to accuse others of religious bigotry. And in the end, isn’t that all that really matters?
You have to keep in mind that people like Glenn Greenwald undoubtedly believe that when it comes to compassion, generosity and humaneness, their shit don’t stink. The ironic thing about such liberals is they, in reality, actually are loaded down with ruthlessness, heartlessness and contemptuousness. And nothing more scary, pathetic and disgusting than a person who thinks he’s a caring, kindly soul when he’s anything but that.
Mark (411533) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:56 amThough he yelled, “Allahu Akbar!”
The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:00 amYou can’t blame the crescent and star
Don’t judge with such haste
On this nutcase
We’ll just put him behind bars.
What a moron.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:11 amI am waiting for the day a muslim man shouts Allahu Akbar, and then peacefully distributes the morning newspaper”
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:15 amCan’t stop laughing. 😀
A.W.
It’s really not overkill to document Greenwald’s continuing atrocities to the facts, or those committed by others.
What Patterico has done here is compile a factually vetted Wikipedia of leftist lies, distortions and evasions, complete with links and other supporting evidence. That’s the Internet antidote to the left’s flushing inconvenient truths down the memory hole. For example, when people tries to defend the LA Times’ journalistic reputation, all we need do is send them here. Those with a speck of honesty and intelligence will find the revelations about the LAT vastly disturbing.
Because perpetrators of falsehoods and distortions are so active, debunking must be equally active, or the lies win by default. And some people need a lot of repetition before the light bulb goes off in their heads.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:20 amThe only thing clear to me is that folks like Greenwald are going to be busy tying themselves into semantic knots until some radical Islamist shoves a gun up his ass to slap him back to reality.
If he’s ever been there before.
the wolf (85e509) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:29 amJust because Hasan thinks that Sharia trumps his oath of allegiance to the Constitution, puts “S[oldier] O[f] A[llah] on his calling cards instead of, say, “Major, USA,” considers the US to be at war with Islam, considers himself to be on the path of jihad which requires him to kill to defend and spread Islam and shouts “Allahu Akbar” while killing American soldiers…
Peter B (7a25cc) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:30 amActually, Greenwald may have a point, though not in the way he thinks: not terrorism, but treason and making war against the United States.
True, Hasan didn’t enlist in the service of a foreign power, and “we’re not at war with Islam” so performing acts of jihad isn’t serving an enemy in the same way that serving the GRU would have been for a Major during the cold war.
Come to think of it, Hasan was just expressing his right to freedom of religion.
Of course, as serious as Americans were about their religion at the time of the Founding, they were thinking of Christianity. Islam not only has its own code of that covers what we divide into civil, criminal and military law, Islam draws no boundaries or distinction between them. It’s the sort of thing that used to be approvingly called “totalitarian” before that word became pejorative and the word “holistic” became the positive term for the concept.
The bottom line is that a Muslim who understands himself to be obligated to jihad as Hasan did (and coming to that understanding seems, for many to be part of “getting serious about Islam” has no business in the US Army, or becoming a US citizen.
For Hasan and his ilk, membership in the ‘Ummah transcends citizenship in any nation. Part of our difficulty is that our conceptual framework, to say nothing of our legal system is poorly equipped to deal with that fact. And the idiot internationalists on the Left get all warm and excited thinking about the “transcends citizenship in any nation” bit and think that promoting an ideology hostile to Western Civilization will stop global warming.
By the way, how can Hasan claim he is fighting for Islam by killing American soldiers here while right there in Iraq and Afghanistan, Muslim soldiers are also killing fellow Muslims in the fight against terrorism. Those folks in the Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani armies are presently killing fellow Muslims who are terrorists. So when he claims he is against killing fellow Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan, who is he really talking about? Who is Hasan killing for?
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:47 amThe idea that it is somehow wrong for muslims to fight against muslims is always a pretty hilarious claim. Muslims have historically never observed any such restriction.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:00 amHasan was trying to coerce a policy he preferred for muslims with fear. And he is a terrorist. He manufactured his own “adverse event” – which he said would be the result of the army failing to implement his suggested policy change: Muslim soldiers should be allowed to opt out of deployement as conscietious objectors when they express a religious objection to deployment.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:00 amThe liberals are trying to couch the shooting into anything but terrorism because to do so would mean that we must act. USA Today has a story saying it is workplace violence. Bob Schieffer says it was a government foul up.
It reminds me of a scene in the Terry Gilliam movie, Brazil. People would be enjoying a meal at a fine restaurant and there would be an explosion or shooting or some form of violence. The people would continue on eating and pretending that nothing happened.
This see-no-evil philosophy is a perfect description of America under Obama. Clinton was said to be the country’s first black president. Then Obama must be our first Muslim one.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:05 amWhile watching some terrorist tapes of attacks against US troops in Iraq, including suicide bombers, allahu akbar is the standard. As it is in almost all suicide attacks by jihadists around the world. Greenwald and the useless idiots espousing political correctness are complicit in the thousands of murders already committed by Islamist terrorists in the US, including those at Fort Hood.
One wonders when decent people in this country will get enough of the terrorist facilitators like Greenwald.
templar knight (f7c667) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:19 amIf something is done as an act of religious devotion, does that mean it can not also be an act of terrorism?
That’s his claim. And he may be semantically correct if an act of terrorism must be purposely to terrorize, and not primarily to serve god.
We wouldn’t want to offend Muslims by implying that their gunning down innocent people was not an act of worship.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:32 amWhat I honestly don’t get is why this is such a BIG BIG deal to Greenwald. As emotional as he is and as unhinged as his prose is about this, one would think that he was defending his own Mama or his significant other from outrageous accusations–not the actions of Nidal, a mass murderer. Very, very strange. He usually at least pretends he is opining on some important “Constitutional” issue when he goes off. Not this time. He just goes off.
elissa (0a788d) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:58 amWhat Hasan did was not terrorism because his targets were military. But then, I don’t go by the U.S. military’s definition. For it to be terrorism, in my view, the attack has to be indiscriminate and where civilians are likely to be nearby. If Hasan did indeed commit these acts for religious reasons, warped and misguided as those reasons are, then what he did was an act of war and therefore treasonous.
To me, it would be more accurate to say that what Hasan did was an act of militant Islamism, which is why I call this war the War Against Militant Islamists. Yelling “Allahu Akhbar” before they blow themselves up or go on murder sprees is what militant Islamists do.
Bird Dog (9a752b) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:06 amAllahu Ahbar!!!! (handing out candies to little kids…)
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:22 amAllahu Akbar!!!! (pulling a child out of a burning vehicle..)
Allahu Akbar!!!! (laying hands on a demon possessed and casting out devils…)
But how does saying “Allahu Akbar” which means “God is great!” inspire one to take a blunt knife and chop off someone’s head or fly a plane into a tower or grab a gun and shoot to death innocent people? How does saying “God is great” inspire to kill? Is there something about God’s greatness that inspires people to kill? I just wonder. Can’t make the connection.
Bird Dog, you’re a loon. But let’s look at your definition.
Occurred in a medical compound.
A civilian died. And there are always loads of civilians on a US military base.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:27 amNah, the reason why the liberals want to talk about this as something other than terrorism, is the same reason why no one could notice the giant, flashing neon warning signs that this guy was putting up: political correctness in denial of all facts.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:42 amIs Jihad a hate crime?
L Nettles (69ae76) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:55 amThe leftists will figure any way out of having a domestic terrorist attack occur early into Obama’s administration. Bush bats 100% and keeps us safe for almost 8 years. Obama fails in 10 months.
PC14 (82e46c) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:56 amSubjective judgment vs objective data.
mcnorman (b56f73) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:58 amRegarding “political correctness”…http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/coverage-fort-hood-shooting-press-dodges-religious-component/
PC is killing us
Angelo (5df281) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:58 am1 + 1
Conservative commentators are making the repellent claim that this is equal to 2. The fact that there is a “one” there is only indicative of there being a “one”, and I refuse to put the two together.
Gleen Greenwald (00e075) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:02 amre #75, ironically i suspect Greenwald is now the VICTIM of sock puppetry. 🙂
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:07 amAnd Glenn, what, you had no original words for Veterans Day? You had to rely on John Cole?
Someone’s going to get the impression that you care more about Al-Queda, Hamas, hezbollah, Ahmadinijad, and Chavez before American soldiers.
Some might the impression that Glenn Greenwald want them dead.
JSF (4ea85e) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:07 amThat’s largely true but there have been exceptions. When the Mongols rolled up the Caliphate they adopted several of the practices of Islam. There were widespread problems with Muslim soldiers leaving the field of several battles due to the ongoing perception that the Mongols were now, in some way, Muslims and, thus, jihad was illegal.
ibn Taymiyya changed all of that when he wrote that Muslims who do not follow the strict interpretation of Islam as put forth by the Cleric Council of the day were considered apostates. That freed the Emir (who had asked Taymiyya to produce the Fatwa) to convince his troops that jihad was righteous in this circumstance and war could be waged.
Over the years other radicalized scholars (especially the Egyptian Qutb in the ’50’s and ’60’s) expanded the definition of what constituted apostasy, shrinking the “true believer” ranks to a relatively small portion of the Muslim world. Today we are left with an awesome legacy that proclaims women and children killed in suicide bombings were either apostates or, if innocent and righteous, abettors in martyrdom and receiving their rewards in heaven.
Oh and Greenwald is an ignorant, moral equivalency pimping asshat.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:11 amIf bigots could see their own bigotry they wouldn’t be bigots.
–Assclown Pumpkinhead
Assclown Pumpkinhead (f0d390) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:18 amPC only counts on some issues – as a smoker I can tell you nobody hesitates to offend me. Nobody hesitates to offend fat people, or hillbillies, or people who live in manufactured housing, or who have guns, etc. And God help you if you are all the above, it’s open season on you.
But Muslims, that’s different. I can’t figure out why, the ‘safe’ categories don’t make much sense to me.
jodetoad (059c35) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:19 amIt’s not that hard to figure out, Jodetoad… fat skoal dipping hillbillies on their way to a quail hunt are not likely to hurt anyone who insults them. For all the ugliness directed at them, they understand individual freedom.
Muslims cut heads off and blow up buildings, and those who react to that with deference are the reason terrorism works.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:25 amI can hear Flip Wilson right now…”the devil made him do it.”
mcnorman (b56f73) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:25 amBush bats 100% and keeps us safe for almost 8 years. Obama fails in 10 months.
Sorry, I wouldn’t call 9/11 batting 100 percent. You can’t just pretend that didn’t happen while he was president.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:28 amIt’s a terror act by my standard; it’s character and purpose make it so. Sneaky, out-of-the-blue berzerking to coerce a policy change that promotes sharia doesn’t become a military action because the targets include the military.
He provided an example of an “adverse event” to get his policy change argument not just before the military, but the public, the American public and the world.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:29 am[…] any case, Patterico takes the dizzying intellect that is Glenn Greenwald out to the woodshed. Much fun to be had. Just figured I would point it out to ya’all just in case you were in the mood to see a […]
Patterico’s having some fun with Glenn Greenwald « Blog de KingShamus (fb05f5) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:37 amThe most ironic thing is that this political correctness , which will be the death of us all, is nothing but people being intellectually lazy and taking the easy way out.
Instead of having to seriously think through an issue and actually be uncomfortable and uneasy about conclusions that might be drawn because they are that difficult, the political correctness crowd takes the emotional route that lets them feel good about themselves. It’s that simple and that shameful and I would add, that dangerous as it has become a dangerous weapon in the hands of children being brazenly used to undue the underpinnings of our country.
Greenwald reminds me of that intellectual laziness. And he does it with aplomb. I’m sure at the end of the day he feels good about himself and isn’t that what matters most?
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:43 amNothing is gained by pointing out that this occurred during Obama’s watch. But we need to continue to point out that Obama refuses to recognize this as an attack that is inspired by Jihad.
The left wants to put this in the category of Columbine, going postal or just someone who just snapped, whatever that means. The contortions of the left are really ridiculous.
The American people are not such fools to go along with this. Obama and his media troops lose credibility by the hour on this issue.
It is actually a fortunate thing that Hasan lived because this keeps the issue in front of the American people for a long time. And Obama and the mainstream media will continue to lose on the issue.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:49 amMyron, I am actually glad you brought that up at 10:28 because it is the perfect opportunity to raise the following:
Despite the fact that 9/11 hijackings occurred only eight months into the Bush administration the left and the old media always made it “his fault” because it happened on “his watch”. I eagerly waited for the magic date of Sept. 11 2009 to pass by because I knew that then it was acceptable and “safe” to pin absolutely everything and anything that happened from that time on to Barack Obama—- because it happened on “HIS watch”. Ft. Hood, unemployment, economic freefall, H1N1 vaccine fiasco, healthcare reform mess, Acorn, Czars, etc. etc. you name it. It’s all Obama’s fault now. Yep, no nuance allowed or required, no quarter given; those are the rules now as was decreed by the left and the media during the previous adminstration.
elissa (0a788d) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:51 amelissa
Good comeback. 🙂
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:54 amAlta Bob: Do you think the president has forbidden the Army and federal investigators to investigate this as a possible terrorist attack? If so, what is your evidence? There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary, in fact. His possible ties to the terrorist imam — which the initial stages of the investigation have already revealed — are front-and-center in news coverage.
You seem to be criticizing the president for the sin of not jumping to a conclusion. Is he supposed to jump to a conclusion, when an investigation is ongoing? Is that responsible leadership, in your view?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:54 amElissa: I think you’re re-writing history a little, or maybe a lot. I remember a national coming-together after 9/11, and bipartisan support for the president, which led to strong bipartisan support for both wars.
Old media — and plenty of regular Americans — left the ship when “Mission Accomplished” proved to be untrue and then no WMD were found.
That’s how I remember it.
But none of that is the point in this discussion. You seem to be arguing that b/c the left made what I’m sure you considered to be phony arguments against Bush back then, you are justified in making the same phony arguments against Obama now. I understand the tit-for-tat satisfaction of this kind of debate, but my question for you is this: Isn’t the argument still phony? Or does it because less phony since your side is the one making it?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:03 amAnd that should have said, ” … does it BECOME less phony since your side is the one making it..”
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:04 amYou misremember “Mission Accomplished.”
But that’s expected.
steve miller (81db43) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:20 amScreaming Alah Akbar during a mass assassination is an religious act: an edeavor by the murderer to ensure that he is not short changed on the number of virgins allocated to him when he arrives in eternal paradise.
Keith (a8ff8f) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:22 amI suppose it could be argued that unarmed soldiers NOT in a war zone are on a similar plain as civilians but in the end I think Greenwald’s column is preemptive more than substantive. What we’re seeing as an attempt by leftist pundits to keep the definition of terrorism as a moving target lest it should adhere to an act on Obama’s watch. The Bush admin’s actions prevented any terrorist acts post-9/11 and the president’s media bodyguards will distort whatever is necessary to maintain plausible deniability that this administration’s actions (or lack of actions or weakening of existing safeguards) allowed a terrorist act to occur so soon into Obama’s term.
jhepp (820c64) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:26 amComment by Peter B — 11/11/2009 @ 7:30 am
Very well put indeed!
It’s funny how the likes of Greenwald seem to overlook just 64 years ago on the deck of the USS Missouri the representatives of militant Shintoism formally signed the documents of surrender.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:32 amI seem to remember The President jumping to a conclusion when his friend was arrested by the police. He even went on air to express his opinion.
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:35 amI can hear Greenwald’s cavil already:
But Hasan was not intending to inculcate fear or influence governments; he was just trying to kill. Therefore, not suggestive of terrorism, per the DOD definition.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:35 amThe debate concerning the appropriate application of the term “terrorism,” like “racism” really does hinge on a shared definition. If there is no agreement on what actions the word is intended to describe, what is the point of arguing about its connection to an event?
JDBlackaby (1309cf) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:38 amIn this post a definition of terrorism was offered. Applying that definition to the reported “facts” surrounding the Ft. Hood massacre, including the shouting of “Allahu Akbar” during the shooting, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the action is “suggestive” of terrorism. Greenwald’s piece is absurd and appropriately denounced in the post and comments.
However, the DOD definition clearly indicates that intent is an essential element of an appropriately defined act of “terrorism.” Therefor, without establishing what Hasan intended by his actions one cannot with certainty proclaim it was, indeed, an act of “terrorism.” He may not have intended “to inculcate fear” or to “intimidate government or society” in furtherance of his (at this point pretty clear) religious goals. He may actually have been motivated by a sincere desire to serve as a “Soldier of Allah” and engage in a murderous suicidal rampage against those he perceived as enemies of Islam. The mounting evidence is not inconsistent with terrorist intent, but it is not dispositive.
Terrorism is a tool. Often, it seems, the focus is placed too narrowly on this tool, i.e., the “war on terror,” when it should more appropriately be placed on those that seek our demise, whatever tool they may seek to employ. Hasan was and for the time being is a dangerous, murderous religious fanatic and enemy of the United States of America. A terrorist? Maybe so, maybe not.
How about security breach, intelligence breach, treason facilitated by eyes closed to the danger Hasan telegraphed in many ways?
Why was his refusal to be photographed with colleagues because some of them were women tolerated?
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:38 amIt’s terrorism because terror was the goal.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:39 amYelling “Allahu Akbar” During a Shooting Rampage Is Not Suggestive of Terrorism, and It’s Repellent of You to Claim Otherwise
I think it’s a case of what isn’t said… the power of the implied. If Maureen Dowd can say Joe Wilson meant his “you lie!” outburst to be “You life, boy!” – let me just complete the Allahu Akbar sentence…
“Allahu Akbar (God is great), but I’m a douchebag!”
Linotard (6129ae) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:39 amI wonder: What would Greenwald say if a Baptist cried “Onward Christian soldiers!” while on a shootage rampage?
Actually, I don’t wonder. I know what he’d say.
Paul (8cbb16) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:41 amSorry for the spelling error. That should read “shooting rampage.”
Paul (8cbb16) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:44 amIf only the shooter had been shouting “White Power!” Then, the left would have had no problem connecting it to an ideology.
Gregory of Yardale (07425b) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:46 amReally? Lefties were planning “peace” marches before the Towers fell. Their primary goal was to prevent the US from responding.
That’s some real “coming-together” there.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:50 amThat was quite a remarkable re-writing of history there, Myron. Misremember often?
JD (9d3477) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:56 amRob, Myron has scrubbed his memory like MoveOn.org scrubbed its website of pieces opposing reaction against Afghanistan post 9/11.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:01 pmHitchcock,
The attack occurred on a military base, in a room packed with military personnel. A suicide bombing of police station or army headquarters is not the same as a suicide bombing of a market or bazaar.
The problem I have with the U.S. military definition of terrorism is that it’s so broad that U.S. military actions can fall under that same definition.
Bird Dog (9a752b) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:03 pmYelling “Allahu Akbar” while committing violent acts is not evidence of terrorism. It is evidence of Islamism, but while those two things are sometimes linked, they are not equivalent.
You pointed out that the terrorists on Flight 93 said it on 9/11. They also had boxcutters in their hands. Is having a boxcutter in your hand evidence that you are a terrorist? No it is not, thus your reasoning is flawed.
The definition of “Allahu Akbar” is not that different from the definition of “Bismillah”. They are both phrases of praise to Allah. So is Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan a terrorist for wearing a necklace with “Bismillah” on it when he went into battle?
Are American soldiers terrorists if they pray before they go into battle?
For that matter, are these people terrorists:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/12/Dad-God-told-me-to-kill-my-son/UPI-71281234475937/
They both had a religious motive for their crimes, which seems to be enough for you to call it terrorism.
TG Chicago (2b8752) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:04 pmTerrorism or treason? Or both. Its a distraction. Bottomline, he murdered and injured many people and he will hang; by pass go and not collect 72 virgins
Angelo (5df281) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:06 pmTG, just because “Allah Akbar ” is not proof of terrorism does not mean it’s not suggestive. Of course it is. And yes, a religiously motivated mass murder is terrorism.
You are so lost.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:07 pmJD, you should ask Myron to help you out during your work – while you’re discussing different playing fields to consider, Myron will run out immediately and start moving those goalposts as quickly as possible.
I remember a national coming-together after 9/11, and bipartisan support for the president, which led to strong bipartisan support for both wars.
I call BS on that one – although there were a lot of Dem congressional folks that supported the wars, the lunatic left and many other prominent spokespeople basically went off the rails about three months after the attacks, if not sooner. And where were the Dem politicos that attacked Michael Moore and other noxious plankton of his ilk when they accused the POTUS of basically allowing the attacks to occur, if not originating them all by his lonesome? Nobody did, because most of them were attending the DC premier of that douchebag’s movie.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:07 pmIs having a boxcutter in your hand evidence that you are a terrorist?
It is when you summarily proceed to cut unsuspecting passenger’s throats. How obtuse and/or willfully ignorant do you have to be to make this inane distinction without a difference?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:10 pmThis is an excellent example of group therapy.
Just imagine how much frustration and tension is being released in the beating of this dead-horse.
Now, will someone please call the Health Department to pick-up this carcass and dispose of it in the nearest land-fill –
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:18 pmor would that require a Haz-Mat permit from the EPA?.
TG Chicago, I find it amusing that you are attempting to attack the logic with what are in fact, a chain of your own logical fallacies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:18 pmSPQR…Someone from the Left can never be accussed of being guilty of logical fallacies since they absolutely refuse to be logical.
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:22 pmThey survive in a petrie-dish of cognitive dissonance where logic cannot exist.
That’s unfair. The Sonderkommando were the Jews who were forced to empty out the gas chambers, retrieve gold teeth etc from the corpses and put the bodies in the ovens. Obviously they were in a morally gray zone, but they did not do their jobs willingly. The Sonderkommandos knew better than anyone that they, too, would eventually be killed.
More culpable than the Sonderkommandos were the kapos, the Jewish and other inmates used as trustees, who would keep the other inmates in the labor and concentration camps in line.
Either way, I have no idea how I would have acted had I been a Jew in Europe.
I have mostly compassion for those who were in the Sonderkommando units. For kapos obviously there is less compassion. There are few epithets one Jew can call another Jew worse than “kapo”. While many were forced to collaborate, kapos were noted for cruel and sadistic behavior. Still, while they made bad, perhaps evil, choices, even the kapos were not completely free agents.
I’d say that those who volunteered to work for the Nazis, like Ukrainian John Demjanjuk, were even more morally degraded than kapos.
Natan Sharansky says that in a totalitarian state, people are almost invariably compromised by the state, and standing up and refusing to be compromised is a great moral act. As some have said, the question is not why so many do bad, but why some do good.
I think what Greenwald is trying to argue is that a Muslim saying “Allahu Akbar” at a time of stress is no different from a Jew reciting the Shema, “Hear O’ Israel, HaShem is our God, Hashem is One”, just prior to dying.
The problem with Greenwalds apologetic is that it’s common knowledge that “Allahu Akbar” has and continues to be an Islamic battle cry. In contrast, Jewish soldiers in Israel don’t scream the Shema when going into battle.
Greenwald is more likely to get his tit in a wringer over the hymn Onward Christian Soldiers than recognize the triumphalism inherent in Allahu Akbar.
Bozoer Rebbe (6e42d2) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:23 pmI don’t understand what TG is trying to say.
Did he read the post he’s condemning?
It’s ridiculous to say that ‘allah akbar’ by itself, is terrorism. But that’s not what anyone is saying. People are saying that this guy who committed a mass murder used that as a battle cry. It’s a totally different proposition. Yes, that suggests terrorism. It’s such a mild and banal point.
Instead, Greenwald and his ambassadors are demanding we also call soldiers who pray ‘terrorists.’ Or that people having anything in common with a mass killer is a terrorist. Why?
It’s a charged term, and liberals want to be able to call any warfare terrorism, while also saying that this kind of thing is not terrorism. They want to take the word’s meaning away, so that it’s harder to have a fair discussion. They got the wrong point when reading 1984.
When someone tries to coerce with killing targets that are not legitimate, such as unarmed members of your own military, that is terrorism. That this man contacted other terrorist, expressed sympathy for terrorists, and obviously committed this act in order to further the efforts of terrorists, make this beyond real argument, but that he simply shouted ‘allah akbar’ while slaying innocents is pretty suggestive on its own.
Greenwald and his cohorts are actually saying that it can’t even suggest terrorist intent to yell ‘allah akbar’? these are the kinds of folks who let this Hasan suggest terrorism for months. These are the people we should blame.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:25 pmWell said.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:25 pmComment by Bozoer Rebbe — 11/11/2009 @ 12:23 pm
Does anyone wonder what he thinks of “The Battle-Hymn of the Republic”?
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:28 pmi think maybe i can solve all this. why not just say yelling allah whatever the hell it was is acting “stupidly”. and we can just diffuse this whole thing with some beers. ok guys? nothing to see.
fred (370d39) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:29 pm“You seem to be criticizing the president for the sin of not jumping to a conclusion. Is he supposed to jump to a conclusion, when an investigation is ongoing? Is that responsible leadership, in your view?”
Is it really possible that someone missed Professor Gates and Officer Acted Stupidly this summer? Why yes it is possible.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:29 pmDustin, but of course. The Gleeny twist appears to be that if this is terrorism, warfare is terrorism, or that if warfare is legit, this act is simply “warfare.”
He’s full of it as usual.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:30 pmThe DiC could not reach a conclusion even if it was the shortest walk on Earth – or if it was on his desk next to the phone.
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:32 pmThe DiC could not reach a conclusion even if it was the shortest walk on Earth – or if it was on his desk next to the phone.
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:33 pmAlso Gleenwald can suit himself but if some guy stands up in a crowded theatre and yells “Allahu Akbar” I am getting up and getting the hell out of there.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:36 pm“Have you noticed that every Lefty Blogger, talk show host, politician and commenter would rather defend Al-Queda and suicide bombers in Israel, then support an American Republican or Israel?”
Its much, much worse than that. They hate their own countrymen for simply having political views that differ and manifest itself at the ballot box.
They don’t hate totalitarian regimes for murdering innocents, or for torturing dissidents. They don’t condemn Iran for stoning women and hanging gays. They don’t even take the time to educate themselves about such stuff.
It is so much easier to sit up every night and listen to Bill Maher and cast aspersions at their own countrymen for the ills of the human condition.
The real sins are wanting a limited government, wanting personal freedom, and having the courage to love and protect your country. Young kids who nobly put their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated and dismissed as flyover-country rubes.
These morons have never faced evil in the flesh. For them this is all intellectual gamesmanship, not a life or death issue that involves personal risk or sacrifice.
fapo (f7470d) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:38 pmOops. Sorry about the double.
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:45 pmLOL, Sarah W,
elissa (0a788d) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:46 pmAnd that flash you see running past you in the theatre lobby will be me!
TG
Ramrod (a5f0d9) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:47 pmWhile being able to string together a bunch of words can sometimes imply that you are a scholar, in your case, it overwhelmingly suggests that you have the reasoning ability of Koko the chimp.
Ah, yes. If you rip a fact out of its context, does it mean the same thing? No. Thus, therefore, and thusly, when you place it back into context, it must logically mean the same thing it meant when you ripped it out of context.
So, for example, Hasan’s possession of a firearm is not evidence that he intended to kill — because you can possess a firearm without intending to kill. Q.E.D.
The rest of your comment is built on the same amazing logic.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:53 pmSome have made the argument that, based on a definition of terrorism that focuses on the status of the intended target, that Hasan’s act was not “terrorism”.
Certainly, that is, in itself, a legitimate definition of terrorism and their point is strictly correct.
However, by other definitions, that focus on the purpose of the violence, Hasan’s act was terrorism. Regardless, Hasan’s act was certainly criminal, treasonous, a betrayal of his comrades and their community.
At some point, the semantics cease to enlighten.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:00 pm[…] close close second, Patterico: When Greenwald characterizes as “repellent” the claim that shouting “Allahu Akbar” suggests […]
Fort Hood Massacre Quotes of the Day « Nice Deb (44368e) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:00 pmI seem to remember The President jumping to a conclusion when his friend was arrested by the police. He even went on air to express his opinion.
And you supported that, Corwin? You thought it was good leadership, so he should do the same here?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:04 pmMyron, that act of your to pretend to miss the point got old quite a long time ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:09 pmIt’s terrorism because terror was the goal.
That’s close to my view. At bare minimum, it was domestic terrorism inspired by the killer holding a jihadist view of Islam. I think early evidence suggests so far that he fits the profile of someone who wanted to specifically harm U.S. forces.
The goal is to see if this is part of a larger plot — and I’m not putting anything off the table at this point.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:11 pmMyron, I think he;s saying that Obama loves to jump to conclusions when they favor liberal bigotry, so his refusal to draw the obvious conclusions at this point, in this much more obvious case, when the stakes are much higher, says a lot.
you think you can just spin the hypocrisy around and say, well, you either like them both or hate them both! But that’s not good reasoning. If it’s OK to draw conclusions from weak evidence, then it’s OK to draw them from strong evidence. It just doesn’t work in reverse.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:13 pmI suggest reading Robert Spencer’s books on Mohammed and Islam. You might find out some things that would make it all a little clearer for you.
LarryG (80b0df) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:27 pmMyron, that act of your to pretend to miss the point got old quite a long time ago
Wrong SPQR, which is a very familiar position for you, I’ve noticed.
The “act” of mine is to get people to follow their arguments to their logical conclusions. Many people will take their argument only far enough to make whatever easy (or cheap) point they wish to make, then shy away from where the argument ends up, b/c it undermines the easy (or cheap) point.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:27 pmDustin: You stated Corwin’s point much more clearer than he.
I see what you’re saying.
But I still think we should not advocate the president jumping to conclusions, especially on issues of national security. The point still stands.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:30 pmIt’s not as though no Christian (or Jew, etc.) has ever invoked the name of God when committing an atrocious act of violence. The issue that Greenwald & company are probably trying to address is that many may think that any “Allahu Akbar” could now come to signify terrorism to the average American, in or outside of violence. Just a thought…
John S (b4892f) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:32 pmI agree that we should not jump to conclusions. We also should not blind ourselves to evidence supporting particular conclusions, for reasons of political correctness, or for any other reason.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:33 pmHold on thar, pardner.
Sissy Matthews said calling Al Qaeda wasn’t a crime.
This is an all-out race to the top of the idiot ladder.
drjohn (c12243) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:39 pmAlso Gleenwald can suit himself but if some guy stands up in a crowded theatre and yells “Allahu Akbar” I am getting up and getting the hell out of there.
Me, too – but not before we all gang rush that scum and beat the hell out of him. Seriously, try that act in some of the local environs around here and see how far you get with that one.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:39 pmAnd yeah, no jury would convict.
This is an all-out race to the top of the idiot ladder
Correction: it’s an all – out race to the top of the head quisling ladder.
But I still think we should not advocate the president jumping to conclusions, especially on issues of national security. The point still stands.
Oh, I agree completely – just like when the POTUS said last week that those opposing his healthcare boondoogle need to be silenced, and how they’re really all just a buch of ignorant, bible – thumping rednecks. But hey, it’s not like he was jumping to conclusions.
Want some more examples to help beclown yourself some more? Don’t you get tired of having those tiresome facts thrown back in your face on almost everything you post here lately?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:45 pmThe President only jumps to conclusions when a white Christian police officer arrests a black professor. Only then can the President conclude, without the benefit of facts, that the white office acted “stupidly.”
This is second mass murder of Americans committed by a Muslim in the name of Allah since 9-11 and STILL the perpetrators are the victims.
I’d just about bet that Obama stifled the investigation into Hasan just as he spiked the Black Panther voter intimidation case.
drjohn (c12243) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:46 pmI disagree with several of you. the Federal Government should have jumped to a conclusion about Hasan months ago.
And they should do the same to the rest of the folks who are in sensitive occupations.
We aren’t at camp… we’re at war.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:48 pm142 – john S. See also, #127.
Unfortunate but the association is a natural result of pairing that cry with murderous violence. Given context of a place where people ordinarily contain loud announcements, and perhaps some other clues, I don’t think I will be embarrassed to err on the side of preserving my own hide.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:48 pmThe “act” of mine is to get people to follow their arguments to their logical conclusions.
Then here’s one.
Barack Obama demanded that the FBI investigate people who protested at tea parties, but summarily quashed investigations and punishment of people who a) were filmed threatening voters, b) who were caught red-handed abusing Federal funds, and c) Hasan.
The logic made obvious here is that Barack Obama determines whether or not something is a crime based on skin color, religious affiliation, and political alignment.
North Dallas Thirty (416e07) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:51 pmthe Federal Government should have jumped to a conclusion about Hasan months ago.
Well, I never advocate “jumping” to a conclusion as it connotes reaching conclusions on inadequate facts. That said, there certainly were adequate facts known to the government to get him removed from the Army. The idea that they worried about even investigating him should be of concern to every American.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/11/2009 @ 1:57 pmSockpuppet1: 14 people have been killed by a radical muslim screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’
Sockpuppet2: Oh my Obama! I hope the Rethuglikkans aren’t calling it terrorism!
Sockpuppet1: They ARE!
Sockpuppet2: THOSE BASTARDS! Hand me my kaffiyah and my Death to Israel manbag. We’re going to give those thugs a piece of our mind!
Dark Eden (802d93) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:02 pmSaying “Allahu Akbar” to one’s friends or acquaintances would be indicative of that person being a Muslim. Yelling it while gunning down innocent bystanders in cold blood is indicative of said person being a TERRORIST.
Doug (573630) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:17 pmALLAHU AKBAR..Yeh let me get a glazed…one of those bear claws……
…and ……
That's Right (f4fcc3) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:22 pmGiven what we know he had said prior to the slaughter, and his actions in committing said slaughter, it is hardly jumping to a conclusion. The idea that the words spoken at the time are the only reason people are being all racisty and bigoty like johns and flanders and their ilk suggest is simply laughable, a construcÞ that only exists in their mind, and Gleeeeeen’s. As someone noted above, context matters. Should someone yell out Allahu al-akbar after sinking a 40 foot putt, it is not likely to cause concern. Yell out the same thing while jamming a magazine in a semi-automatic and opening fire is quite different.
JD (ab2af5) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:22 pm“May I remind you: on September 11, 2001, Muslim hijackers aboard Flight 93 yelled that phrase as they piloted the plane into the ground.”
It’s raaaaacist to mention that.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:27 pmRandom question – What race are terrorists?
mikeb90210 and a couple other drive-by’s dropped a few RACIST nuggets here, and I am curious as to how terrorism relates to race, especially given the definition of terrorism that they appear to want to use, which would basically apply to anyone that takes up arms. I do not really expect an answer, but am curious.
Gleeeeeen prolly has to write “inhale” on one hand and “exhale” on the other, in order to remember to breathe. Good Allah, for someone that is supposed to be so smart, he is sooooooo not smart.
JD (ab2af5) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:32 pmThe “act” of mine is to get people to follow their arguments to their logical conclusions. Many people will take their argument only far enough to make whatever easy (or cheap) point they wish to make, then shy away from where the argument ends up, b/c it undermines the easy (or cheap) point.
The irony meter just broke, Myron. You’ve never taken any of your own arguments to their logical conclusions.
I’ve decided that I’m not going to give you the benefit of the “naivete” doubt any longer. Its now obvious that your hypocrisy is not merely intentional but calculated.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:35 pmAllahu Akbar!!! You all are infidels!
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:39 pm“Allahu Akbar!!! You all are infidels!”
TERRORI….
*zap*
terro…
*zap*
Teflon Don (f313c4) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:44 pmI was talking about this earlier with a really smart and wise lady – allahu akbar is not technically correct. The phrase is actually Allahu al-akbar. My MSA is quite rusty, but the al should be in there, though it is not really audible in the contracted spoken form.
JD (ab2af5) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:52 pmWhat race are terrorists?
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 2:59 pmHatington?
No wait….Allahus?
Comment by JD — 11/11/2009 @ 2:52 pm
I think this explains it.
Definition and grammar
The form Allāhu is the nominative of Allah “[the one] God”. The form akbar is the elative of the adjective kabīr “great”. In Semitic languages, an elative may indicate a superlative (best), or a comparative (better). The term takbīr (تَكْبِير) itself is the stem II verbal noun (tafʿīlun) of the triliteral root k-b-r “great”.[1]
The word akbar as used in the takbir indicates the superlative, usually translated as “greatest”. In Arabic usage, akbar may also be used as a comparative, in which sense it may be approximately translated as “greater”, or “bigger” in some dialects (dictionaries carry both senses of akbar).
[edit]Usage
This phrase is recited by Muslims in numerous different situations. For example, when they are happy or wish to express approval, when they want to praise a speaker, during battles, and even times of extreme stress or euphoria.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 3:24 pmThe phrase is said during each stage of both obligatory prayers, which are supposed to be performed five times a day, and supererogatory prayers, which are performed at will. The Muslim call to prayer, or adhan, and to commence the prayer, or iqama, also contains the phrase, which is heard in cities all over the Muslim world. Utterances in the Prayer.
Note that takbīr (تَكْبِير) is only the name of the expression, while the phrase itself is “Allahu Akbar”. In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will shout “takbir” and the crowd will respond “Allahu Akbar” in chorus.
Mayor Daley, mayor of the city where kids are being killed at an unbelievable rate, thinks that the Ft. Hood massacre wasn’t the fault of any one groups–the problem is too many guns. Can a day go by without some sleazy politician sensationalizing this to promote their own agenda?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/11/2009 @ 3:35 pmthinks that the Ft. Hood massacre wasn’t the fault of any one groups–the problem is too many guns.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/11/2009 @ 3:52 pmI think he got it wrong. This last massacre was possible only because there were no guns in that preparation center at Ft. Hood. If those poor defenseless soldiers had their guns with them, Hasan wouldn’t have had time to finish the words “Allahu Akbrrr…..!!!”…..** A fact Hasan knew and took advantage of.
Our friends on the left are upset;
The Limerick Avenger (474dfc) — 11/11/2009 @ 3:56 pmDiversity we just don’t get
‘Cause Hasan yelled “Akbar!”
The Muslims we tar,
And GG thinks we are all wet
I wish that I had
The Haiku Avenger (474dfc) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:00 pmA nickel for every time
Glenn has soil’d himself
The Emperor pointed out a quote I missed:
Nidal Hasan was an officer in the United States Army. I have to wonder under what logic one would deny a major in the Army the right to have a gun.
When you go to basic training, you are issued your weapon, early on. You are to take your weapon with you every place you go except the latrine. Every soldier is, at need, a rifleman.
The Army daddy Dana (474dfc) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:07 pmCatch28 wrote:
If the newspaper being distributed is The Los Angeles Times, would that not constitute an act of terror?
The non-journalist Dana (474dfc) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:12 pmComment by The non-journalist Dana — 11/11/2009 @ 4:12 pm
He would need to be shot as if a rabid dog!
AD - RtR/OS! (11f16f) — 11/11/2009 @ 4:36 pmThe point Greenwald is making is one that any good lawyer or prosecutor should understand, Patterico.
Here we have an officer who apparently decided to throw in his lot with the forces that the military is fighting. He conducts a murderous attack on his fellow soldiers.
Is that “terrorism”? The answer is no; it is murder, treason and a number of related offenses. Terrorism is actually a well-defined tactic; one commits heinous acts against the public to obtain, directly or indirectly, a change in a government policy or the government itself. As everyone knows, 9/11 was the greatest act of terrorism America has ever seen; the previous such act was the Oklahoma City bombing by a home-grown terrorist. Bill Ayres is another classic terrorist; he believed public bombing could change the American government.
That’s terrorism, and there is no strong evidence so far that Hasan was doing that.
This is not the first time that American military members have gone to the other side; it won’t be the last. But we don’t classify it as terrorism, we classify it as something worse.
This case is very similar to the Hasan Akbar case. Akbar killed two fellow soldiers in 2003, complaining about similar wrongs in the military. No one called THAT case terrorism. Other than the greater casualties, the two cases are pretty similar. Akbar was tried and sentenced to death for murder.
Now there is an interesting question as to whether radical Muslim ideology played a role. But in nether of these two cases is there proof of the aims associated with terrorism.
So you are wrong again on this point; it is one, however, you should really understand as a lawyer and prosecutor. Labeling everything as “terrorism” is not just intellectually and rhetorically lazy, it debases one’s understanding of the real threat of terrorism and how to combat it.
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:13 pmThe creation of a pre-existing insanity defense begins:
Angelo (5df281) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:14 pmhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120313570
Included with #172
But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?
Shootings at Fort Hood
One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.
Angelo (5df281) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:19 pmRe: the response at #171.
Is anyone surprised?
It’s much more a reflex than a response.
Patterico, I think this guy has a crush on you. He acts all jilted.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:20 pmCertainly, Sanai’s false claims predominate his fatuous comment. There are multiple definitions of “terrorism”, as has been discussed. And Sanai’s sweeping assertion of “no evidence” is pretty comical too. Once again, we see Sanai demonstrate the practice of declaring one’s own ignorance as proof.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:22 pmI think timmah took law classes from Cyrus the Virus.
JD (204bee) — 11/11/2009 @ 5:49 pmCyrus Sanai,
A competent lawyer can make distinctions between a claiming a piece of evidence is “suggestive of terrorism” (as I did) and a piece of evidence causing someone to “label[] everything as ‘terrorism'” (as you falsely suggested I did).
By purporting to slur my professional abilities with your mushy-headed argument, you show that you have no real point but rather are simply trying to get my goat. As Eric Blair says, it’s more reflex than response. Unfortunately for you, you have (as is typical for you) allowed your personal spite to blind you to the weakness of your arguments — and how advancing those illogical arguments damages whatever reputation you claim to retain as a critical thinker.
Which is a wordy Greenwaldesque way of saying that while your silly argument scores no points on me, it does reflect poorly on you, on a number of levels.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:06 pmIf you want to call it a rear guard ‘act of war,’
narciso (996c34) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:42 pmaiming at those who have or will be deployed, so be it. Rather than terrorism since one generally doesn’t expect the base shrink to open fire on you.
Was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole “terrorism”?
Patterico (64318f) — 11/11/2009 @ 6:44 pmWell, I never advocate “jumping” to a conclusion as it connotes reaching conclusions on inadequate facts. That said, there certainly were adequate facts known to the government to get him removed from the Army. The idea that they worried about even investigating him should be of concern to every American.
Comment by Patterico
Of course, you’re a journalist (in this capacity), so you should always make it clear when you’re speculating, as you tend to do.
But Obama is the commander in a very tough war, and he shouldn’t jump to conclusions when he has the luxury of avoiding it, but if we’re to do a good job, we really should jump to conclusions, exactly as you define it, with less than perfect knowledge, if it concerns our war effort. We really should have concluded this was terrorism, instantly. We should have assumed this guy was exactly what he turned out to be, very quickly. Soldiers should be given the boot, at the very least, at the first hint of disloyalty. This is unfair, from the point of view of a person who handles criminal trials. It would be unfair to have put Hasan in jail before he opened fire. But our commanders have to come to conclusions and act, even when it’s hard. That’s why we tend to elect only seasoned, experienced leaders, who can handle the crushing burden.
I meant exactly what you thought I meant: our federal government, when it comes to this sort of thing, has no choice but to ‘jump’ to conclusions. If they did that, we would be much better off. Part of our love for soldiers is that they give up the freedoms they fight for.
Anyway, you didn’t make any conclusions when you states that screaming a religious slogan while murdering people is suggestive.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:12 pmI just read Ed Driscoll’s article here, about how it was Bill Clinton who disarmed our troops on post, an made it very difficult for troops on post to be armed, even by their commander. One of Clinton’s very first actions. I always wondered why our soldiers didn’t have weapons. Many times, I would be training in a pretty remote area, and thought whatever sensitive equipment we had was really poorly safeguarded.
What is the reasoning behind banning guns from our troops? They are responsible enough to be handed a 240b and thrown into Fallujah, but they can’t be trusted with their own pistol? It goes without saying that a lot of our soldiers like guns, and that a lot of our soldiers live in barracks, and that they have a much harder time enjoying the hobby of shooting when they must go to their unit armorer to even look at their personal firearm. Practice makes perfect with firearms, and I know I would have liked the chance to practice shooting in my spare time when I was living in barracks.
And really, E7s and up, or something like that, should be permitted to carry a weapon whenever they feel the need. Why micromanage this issue?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 7:57 pmMyron,
I jumped to the conclusion that Hasan was motivated by religion. I think people are getting hung up over whether it is terrorism because he acted alone. He chose to join the Jihad. He is a terrorist.
What are you saying? He had a bad day?
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:23 pmI get hung up whether it’s terrorism because he took on the United States Army. Not helpless civilians. All by himself.
Sorry, Patterico.
This thing about calling him a terrorist sounds too much like us calling ourselves victims of terrorism and feeling sorry for ourselves. And that has to stop.
nk (df76d4) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:32 pmI do agree, he seems to have chosen a military target, in a sense. These soldiers were not armed, and they were attacked from the inside, in a way completely contrary to the rules of war. But he did attack soldiers instead of a synagogue or whatever.
nk, I think that’s part of why Patterico brought up the Cole. That’s a fully military target, and yet it was called terrorism.
I think the term terrorism is an effort to call an attack morally outrageous in some way. And I think they were helpless as civilians, for the reason I noted above, Clinton (and Bush and Obama) have made sure that these people cannot defend themselves. Like almost all mass shootings, the shooter selected a gun free zone, and these men were more helpless than the people anywhere in Killeen, and indeed, it took a cop to end it.
Those dead soldiers ARE victims, and we should feel sorry for them, in my opinion. They did not have a chance against an armed Major. But this attitude that this is a crime that we can control with the legal system, rather than a battle in the war on terror, indeed does have to stop.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:51 pm“That’s terrorism, and there is no strong evidence so far that Hasan was doing that.”
Cyrus – Only if you accept your unsupported assertion and concept of a well defined tactic called terrorism and ignore the definition presented by Patterico in the body of the post. You can also choose to ignore Hasan’s documented connections to a radical Islamic preacher rumored to be involved with terrorism as well as his public statements regarding the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. On balance, there is much more evidence in support of Patterico’s position than your’s, which any rational person would be able to see, but you seem to be choosing the reflexively contrarian positions on this blog of late, much to your humiliation.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:01 pmWhen the United States Army becomes a “soft target” maybe we should look for a new army.
In the words of Clint Eastwood, “They should have armed themselves”.
The thing I have always detested about the Palestinian camel-molesters is how they claim victimhood. I hate to see even a hint of that in us.
nk (df76d4) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:04 pmWas the attack on the U.S.S. Cole “terrorism”?
I say no, Patrick. It was an act of war. The targets were military, and an American military vessel is considered American soil.
Bird Dog (9a752b) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:09 pmnk, you’re absolutely right. Our military should have armed themselves (Unforgiven is my favorite Eastwood movie, BTW).
The commander of our military must bear blame for having an unarmed military, because the decision was taken away from our troops and their leaders below the CinC level.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with an Army that is this kind of pathetic target. I am sore as hell over this, and I know that many of our soldiers probably died while charging at this Hasan, bravely dying for their country. We won’t know their bravery, and they are being remembered as victims of a crime. It’s utterly not the Army we ought to have had in that place.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:10 pmObama’s speech at Ft. Hood chastised Americans:
“In an age of selfishness, they (soldiers) embody responsibility; in an era of division, they call upon us to come together; in a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.”
Who is he referring to as being selfish, divisive and cynical?
This ought to be repeated over and over to all Americans. Obama hates you.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:12 pmnk,
Whether you call it terrorism or a crime, the targets are still victims. The point is to call it what it is.
I think what you object to are helpless victims, but terrorism victims aren’t any more helpless than victims of crimes. The point is not to let your victim status make you impotent but, instead, to do something about what happened. It isn’t what the act is called that makes victims helpless, it’s what they do about it afterwards.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:14 pmmany of our soldiers probably died while charging at this Hasan
From the initial stories, four of them were detained as suspects.
nk (df76d4) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:14 pmI have to disagree here. Defining one person does not define a second person. It’s when the second person’s reaction is noted that the second person begins to be defined.
Hasan is a terrorist, as defined by his actions. What we do next is what will begin to define us. Will we become puddin-head victims? Or will we be Reaganesque (and Bushesque) and man-up?
Many people are comparing Obama to Carter. Personally, I’d prefer Carter in this situation. Carter was a total loser wimp, the worst President in history up to his time. Obama isn’t the wimp Carter was; Obama is orders of magnitude more dangerous. If Obama gets his way, we will definitely become puddin-head victims.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:14 pmnk – I suggest you substitute the word target for victim and you might get over your squeamishness. There is no doubt that U.S. interests have been a target for terrorists for more than 20 years. In this case, a target was hit.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:16 pmIt is still shocking to realize that American soldiers on an American base were forced to call 911 for help. And that in spite of the concentrated population of fully trained personnel who were prepared to face the enemy on the other side of the world, were rendered completely impotent in their own country. This, I believe, has caused our enlisted men and women undue humiliation before the rest of the world.
Re the U.S.S. Cole, I was just doing a little refresher reading about it, and found this. I’m not clear what role Clinton had in the Pentagon’s approval of the rules of engagement.
Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole’s fantail away from a second small boat approaching. “With blood still on my face,” he said, he was told: “That’s the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we’re shot at.” He added, “In the military, it’s like we’re trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed.” Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft “we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors.”
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:28 pmIt’s heartbreaking, Dana, to see how we let down our best and brightest with these insane ROE. All in the hopes that liberals won’t hate us.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:31 pmYou know, Patricia, it has just been eating at me how we allowed, permitted, set up (through political correctness or whatever is the root of the decision to not have men and women armed on the bases) our military personnel to be so humiliated in front of the world. There had to have been a horrible sense of frustration at having their hands tied and thus the inability to fire back and take this murderer out. How many more lives were lost because of these restrictions? It’s just shameful. The most powerful military in the world and it’s unable to defend and protect it’s own? Unbelievable.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:36 pmDidn’t you all get the memo? There is no such thing as terrorism anymore. That word has actually been abolished inside our White House.
This was a Man Made Disaster. Learn the new language. Freedom is slavery. This was like weather. Our military installations are fighting the good fight against ethnocentrism.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 10:20 pm“Who is he referring to as being selfish, divisive and cynical?”
Hey, you would be saying that too, if you spent all your time around liberal Democrats.
Dave Surls (16767b) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:00 amI propose that yelling “Allah Akhbar” in this situation wouldn’t be such an indicator of terrorism if it hadn’t already been used to ubiquitously by terrorists in the past.
Given historical precedent, a Muslim, shouting this phrase, and proceeding to kill people has become a de facto indicator of a terrorist act.
Regardless of what anyone’s PC sensibilities wish were so.
Steve B (5eacf6) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:20 amI wish the likes of Jake Tapper (who was a scold about it) , et al, would apprehend the difference between jumping to conclusions and speculating about a person or event, and TESTING those speculations again and again as a picture emerges. Pruning the weak and kindling the strong connections results in clearing of a foggy picture.
SarahW (692fc6) — 11/12/2009 @ 9:12 am#177
As an earlier, thoughtful commentator pointed out at #110, you confuse “islamism” or radical Islam with “terrorism”. Terrorism is not “Islamic”; it is a strategy and tactic independent of ideology; again, your favorite education theorist, Bill Ayres, was a straight-up terrorist because that was the strategy of the Weathermen.
Yelling “allahu akbar” while killing soldiers does not mean terrorism. It means you think that your actions are being done to glorify, or in the name of, Allah. It’s a common war cry among soldiers in Islamic countries for, oh, 11 centuries or so. The ideology that animates one is irrelevant to the question of whether the action is terrorism.
There’s no question that Hasan was sympathetic to radical, anti-American Islam. It looks pretty clear, at this point, that this was part of his motivation for committing a heinous mass murder. But it is not terrorism, or on its own, suggestive of terrorism. Greenwald is right about that, and you are clearly wrong.
My issue with you is that you hysterically attack someone like Greenwald in multiple posts when his points are not ridiculous, absurd, or dishonest. When you do so on a point that any lawyer should understand–because you are a lawyer and a prosecutor–well, you need to be called out. The venom you spew back–as opposed to dealing with the important conceptual question–is a nice confirmation of the weakness of your argument.
Again, there’s nothing good that can be said of Maj. Hasan. His name will go down in history as a reviled traitor and mass-murderer. But as the recent work of NPR and the New York Times is showing, he is much more like the Hasan Akbar killer–i.e. a committer of workplace violence–than the 9/11 conspirators. Because he is different, he needs to be looked at differently. More important, realizing that this is the SECOND incident of this kind in the Army will assist in identifying those powder kegs ready to become the third.
So instead of getting all huffy and self-righteous, you should try to fairly address points opposed to yours.
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:33 amThere’s no question that Hasan was sympathetic to radical, anti-American Islam. It looks pretty clear, at this point, that this was part of his motivation for committing a heinous mass murder. But it is not terrorism, or on its own, suggestive of terrorism.
Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 11/12/2009 @ 10:33 am
Sorry, truly don’t understand this – the last sentence here seems to completely contradict the first. Would you mind clarifying – thanks.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:10 amUh, that’d be: the first two (sentences)
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:11 amLOL, add ‘allahu akbar’ to any violent crime, and it OBVIOUSLY calls to mind, by thought or association, jihadist terrorism. Good gravy grief on a gluestick.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:21 amReports that Hasan wired money to Pakistan are suggestive.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:47 pmIt is terrorism not only because of what he said while carrying out the murderous rampage. It is terrorism because it was motivated by a hatred for US’ anti-terror policy. It puts him in the same category with Osama Bin Laden whose motive for terrorism is hatred of the west and what is perceived as persecution of Arabs by the west. There is no difference between how Hasan feels about US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and how our enemies feel about it. This is why the Taliban is mobilizing such an army to fight us. The difference between Hasan and the average terrorist is that Hasan wore the uniform of the United States Military and could walk freely around in their midst and so, able to strike. He is a terrorist. And he is not alone.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:09 pmAnd, if his primary loyalty is to AQ/IslamoFascism,
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:13 pmand he wears the uniform of his avowed enemy,
he is a spy,
and a traitor!
Hang him!
Oh, they won’t hang him. That would be soooooo cruel. Soooo unusual.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:19 pmI suppose if suicides at Guantanamo can be considered “asymmetric warfare” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5068606.stm, this is terrorism.
nk (df76d4) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:42 pmby now, the people who are really in this investigation know if Hasan is really part of a larger group, or truly isolated. The money exchanges, the contact, and all that make me think Hasan could have good intel.
I would not mind the feds making a deal with this guy, in exchange for the truth. Life in prison is a poor substitute for justice, but so is a death penalty. I don’t think Hasan is the kind of person to squeal, though.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:56 pm[…] Stuck on unbelievably stupid Glenn Greenwald, says it’s ‘repellent to say that a muslim yelling Allah u Akbar during a terrorist act, is suggestive of terrorism’. https://patterico.com/2009/11/10/greenwald-yelling-allahu-akbar-during-a-shooting-rampage-is-not-sugg… […]
Here Comes the “Insanity” Defense for Hasan « The Foxhole (565823) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:32 pmSorry it took me so long to get back here. Is it too late to continue commenting on this thread?
Hasan was not a terrorist, he was just a nut. You guys are the terrorists. (That was a joke. Didn’t you guys tell me recently what a good sense of humor you have?)
Anyone who was ever in the military need only think back on the rough-housing, the macho pranks, the general cutting up that young soldiers and marines get up to, in order to realize that arming them on stateside bases would be disastrous. You’d have frequent unintentional shootings as well as more frequent examples of what Hasan did.
Consider the suicide rate on military bases over the last few years. Even if these headline-grabbing mass shootings would be cut shorter, the net result would be much much worse.
About race, it’s not the liberals who associate the Arabic races with terrorist acts, it’s the conservatives, just like you associate other races with other problems, always careful to conceal or deny the fact lest you be called on it.
mikeb302000 (41eabc) — 11/14/2009 @ 2:02 ammikeb90210 – What race are terrorists?
What race are Muslims? Give us specific examples of our racism, which may be difficult since we are so crafty in trying to hide it. Do you have a superiduper racism revealer that allows you to see that which we so carefully conceal?
You infantalization of the military is cute. Psychotuc murdering killbots that would kill others, and themselves, far more often were there not strict gun laws. Your condescencion and arrogance oozes from your words.
JD (cfbd15) — 11/14/2009 @ 4:37 amYou guys are the terrorists. (That was a joke.
— Don’t quit your day job, dude.
You’d have frequent unintentional shootings as well as more frequent examples of what Hasan did.
— The military is not a place of discipline? it’s more akin to Animal House? Plus, there are many potential seial shooters in the military, just biding their time until they are issued a weapon?
Consider the suicide rate on military bases over the last few years. Even if these headline-grabbing mass shootings would be cut shorter, the net result would be much much worse
— So, if i have this right, it’s acceptable for there to be more 1st degree murders, but unacceptable for there to (potentially) be more suicides.
Well, it makes sense that the libby aversion to taking personal responsibility for ANYTHING would extend to suicide. The perpetrator did not cause his own demise; it was the man that authorized the issuing of weapons — he’s responsible!
And by “cut shorter” you’re referring to an American patriot taking out the serial shooter w/ his gov’t issued weapon; right? And u think that it would be better for the serial shooter to shoot without confrontation because fewer of the survivors would try to commint suicide?
About race
Icy Texan (d5af0f) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:07 am— Stop right there. If race has nothing to do with this issue, the STFU about it.
Icy – You know that ‘tards like mikeb90210 get off on squealing RACISM at others. It is what they do.
JD (0fdde5) — 11/14/2009 @ 5:15 am