Fort Hood Massacre- Islamic Jihadist Act, or Simple Mass Killing by man Who Happens to be Muslim?

This question format is confusing- a Yes" means he was either a simple Muslim male or a Juhadist, and a "No" means he was ... something else?

... and I understand the settlement details clarify this, but perhaps the question can be worded to reflect that?

ladylara,

it's easy: he is Muslim, he shouted "Allahu Akbar!" thus this is a Simple Mass Killing by a Islamic Jihdist.

Double "Yes".

""We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said on the White House lawn."

Interesting how cautious Obama is here. I guess he learned something from when he accused the Cambridge police of racism after admitting he didn't have all the information.

@ladylara
"I understand the settlement details clarify this"
Good.

This question is going to get into very "hairy areas" of interpretation.

How do you separate his personal beliefs (as American born, anti Iraq and Afghan wars, against his own deployment to the war, and his Muslim faith) from Jihadist beliefs (anti-American and Muslim faith)? At what point do you draw the line?

So either, we could be looking at a planned suicide and protest against the Iraqi and Afghan wars, or a jihadist action (how would that be different from a protest against the war?), or a way to get out of deployment when you are absolutely desperate (how does this differ from suicide?) or still some other amazing combination of reasons that will come up in the next few days or weeks...Add to this problem the possibility that he might die without coming out of his coma (and not have the opportunity to tell us "why") or that the military is going to give us an "official explanation" that might constitute a coverup.

Oh, and it could also be just a "simple mass killing by a man who just happens to be Muslim"?

"This question is going to get into very "hairy areas" of interpretation."

at least for some of us. for others, the case is already crystal clear.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/11/muslim-faith-ma.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1106/p09s09-coop.html
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/06/the-muslim-brotherhood-and-ft-hood-by-jamie-glazov/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/06/the-massacre-at-fort-hood-and-muslim-soldiers-with-attitude/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/fort_hood_shooter_alive_in_sta.asp

Shouting "allahu akbar" while using the FN 5.7 dubbbed a "cop killer" gun shows that he intended to take out as many people as he could.
The fact that he chose a processing center where the victims were armed with only paper and pen shows further pre-meditation in this horrific attack.

It is a clear case of domestic jihad.
But I predict it will not be called that in our politically correct news outlets.
For further info on jihad - http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Update- Have been in contact with Cat. ed. and basically trying to determine an acceptable way to settle question. I submitted my ideas.

@chatarra- Too bad common sense doesn't work. My guess is that as news and background comes out, the answer will be clear to anyone without an agenda. There's also a strong possibility that an administration that has repeatedly bent over to appease the unappeasable Arab/Muslim block, will have an agenda here. They also have power to shape the conclusions of such organizations as the FBI and homeland security. If all the evidence points one way, and the outcome of the investigation points another way, so be it. It will just be another example of Obama's hypocrisy. Such is the way with an unaccountable government. It wasn't long ago that Bush's NIE came to the agenda driven conclusion that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. Anyone with half a brain knew that wasn't true, yet officials could publicly state as fact that Iran had no nuclear weapons ambitions.

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists
Major Nidal Malik Hasan "worshipped" at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.

...

[More at the link...]

More about Anwar al-Awlaki (the Yemen-based preacher accused of advocating violent jihad)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/23/islamist-preacher-council-address

I've written back to the author with some of my thoughts; I'm awaiting his response. Thanks for your patience...

@drzinternet: What you and others may see as "repeatedly ben[ding] over to appease the unappeasable Arab/Muslim block", other more thoughtful types may see as an attempt to press the reset button on the very deep and very sticky trough of hatred and mistrust eight years of Bush/Cheney got us into. It's one thing to swagger around your ranch in Texas drawlin' about how "...them ragheads better get into line, or pay the price"; it's quite another thing to pilot the world's lone superpower through the danger-filled and treacherous twists and turns of a world that, like it or not, is comprised of people with thoughts, beliefs, and cultural dynamics very different from one's own.

Remember, it also wasn't very long ago--though it was tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ago--that Bush came to the agenda-driven conclusion that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Anyone with half a brain (a group which likely included most of the Cheney--er, Bush--White House) knew that wasn't true, yet officials could publicly state as fact that Iraq had WMD ambitions--and the entire world paid the price for that.

Sql> You’re at it again. Some facts:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Clinton’s National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger, 1998

"We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Former Vice President Algore,2002.

CIA Director George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, declared that the presence of Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.”

"Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability." - French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, on February 5, 2003 to the U.N. Security Council

"I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” - The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, on NBC’s “Today” February 26, 2003.

The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Iraqi WMD, but so were many other governments, few of which have been accused of lying. Moreover, three independent commissions have found that there is no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD.

In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report with the following conclusions:
Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. …

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

In March 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silverman commission reached the same conclusion:
The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The July 2004 Butler Report, issued by a special panel set up by the British Parliament, found that the famous “16 words” in President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address were based on fact, contrary to the claims of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has alleged that Bush’s assertion was a lie. Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Butler report called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” The report also made clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes after the President spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence that he cited or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium.

I think that there is "Anyone with half a brain" in there, somewhere...

Erik: long after it became well-known that Saddam indeed had no WMDs, President Cheney (and his grinning lap puppet Bush) kept pushing the lie, as to change it would have hindered their neocon-driven agenda (get the oil, get the oil, get the oil). Stating that they did otherwise is revisionism at its worst...

So where's the oil?

I repeat, three independent commissions have found that there is no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD.

Stating that they did is blind liberalism at its worst...

BEFORE the War in Iraq began, I knew (from living in the Middle East for a few years) that there were NO weapons of mass destruction In Iraq. It was only a matter of UNDERSTANDING ARAB CULTURE. And Americans are notoriously bad at understanding Arab Culture.

Arab Culture dictates a game of bluff as a part of bargaining, much-heralded by Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Arafat and others. MY PALACE IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PALACE. My harems are bigger than your harems. MY OIL FIELDS ARE BIGGER THAN YOUR OIL FIELDS. My wives have bigger asses than your wives. MY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE BIGGER THAN YOUR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. ALL of which is obviously gross exaggeration. Even when the US forces were massed on his borders, Saddam Hussein never dreamed the US would attack. It was all a bluff! But the Americans didn't play the game...Saddam Hussein was still dumb-founded when he was fished out of that hole in the ground and jailed. He could control all the tribes of Iraq with this system, but he lost with the Americans. (And now the Americans are unsuccessful in controlling the tribes of Iraq. Curious, isn't it?)

@sqlman: Congratulations on working out another excellent settlement arrangement in connection with these difficult (but very interesting) questions on the Fort Hood Massacre. The options are very clear now and everyone should be comfortable in making predictions that will be understood by all. Many Thanks!

@Sqlman,
One thing I find in many of your arguments is sometimes called:
Exaggeration to excess.
Example - (and his grinning lap puppet Bush)
I sense that you may not like former President Bush very much, but your use of inanimate objects to describe him are better suited to the left wing blogs, which I find often prefer personal attacks over substantive facts. I like to think that Hubdub is above that sort of pettiness.

In regards to: (get the oil, get the oil, get the oil).
If we were there to "get the oil", wouldn't we do a better job of it, than to just let it sit in the ground until Iraq could find interested parties to bid on oil production contracts which will bring badly needed money into their (not our) coffers?

Here is a news story on Iraq oil contracts dated 11-06-09
BAGHDAD—The Iraqi Oil Ministry on Thursday said it has awarded a consortium led by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC the right to develop the West Qurna-1 oil field, representing the first American-led team gaining access to the country's oil patch.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704328104574516901231406262.html

While you may despise giant oil companies, they are not doing anything wrong by signing contracts with Iraq.
At this time, oil delivers the best bang for the buck when it comes to producing energy.
The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%.
The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. (dated 4-28-2008)
Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

@Randburg,
I defer and appreciate your experience and past history of living in the middle east, but I want to offer a suggestion as to why so many different countries could believe that Iraq held WMD's prior to our invasion.

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce) occurred in the period March 16-17 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja.

The attack instantly killed thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead instantly) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them civilians.[1] Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2] The incident, which some define as an act of genocide, was as of 2009 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

@Sqlman,
FWIW, I do agree with your Category Editor Clarification:
as being a fair way to settle this question.

My question: can we know if there is only going to be one final official verdict.
I imagine this issue will be investigated by Military & Federal (DHS, FBI, Secret Service, NSA-who really knows what they get their hands into these days) and maybe even local investigators.
Since this occurred on a military base, I would like to see the military investigation be considered the final official verdict.

"no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD". To quote Chomsky : "Ideology obviates the need for crude conspiracy."

@ Erik Clinton & Gore didn't lie to the American people in order to wage war. They're not relevant.
And worse, you've completely overlooked the findings of the final Senate Commission.
<gomer pyle> Surprise, surprise </gomer pyle>

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials promoted the invasion of Iraq with public statements that weren't supported by intelligence or that concealed differences among intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday in a report that was delayed by bitter partisan infighting.
[...]
Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said the administration's actions went far beyond simply being misled by bad intelligence.

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

"Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced," Rockefeller said. "Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/39963.html

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
 
Ø      Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. 
 
Ø      Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. 
 
Ø      Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. 
 
Ø      Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. 
 
Ø      The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. 
 
Ø      The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. 
 
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

@ Erik Clinton & Gore didn't lie to the American people in order to wage war. They're not relevant.
And worse, you've completely overlooked the findings of the final Senate Commission.
<gomer pyle> Surprise, surprise </gomer pyle>

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials promoted the invasion of Iraq with public statements that weren't supported by intelligence or that concealed differences among intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday in a report that was delayed by bitter partisan infighting.
[...]
Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said the administration's actions went far beyond simply being misled by bad intelligence.

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

"Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced," Rockefeller said. "Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/39963.html

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
 
Ø      Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. 
 
Ø      Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. 
 
Ø      Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products. 
 
Ø      Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. 
 
Ø      The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. 
 
Ø      The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. 
 
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

@ chattara

No one is claiming that Saddam was a gem. However. Saddam was a bearded lion by the time Bush lied his way into invading Iraq.
Then there's this:

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

"We now know who supplied Saddam Hussein with materials of mass destruction and where his military regime, notorious for atrocities against Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds, acquired helicopters, germs and lethal chemicals--an arsenal of terror. Iraq acquired its weapons of mass destruction from, among others, the United States and Britain--the very countries preparing all-out war to disarm Iraq.

In December, in the long-awaited 11,000-page report to the United Nations Security Council, an Iraq Weapons Inventory listed more than 150 foreign companies, including European and U.S. companies, that allegedly supplied Saddam Hussein with deadly and dual-use material.

Hoping to downplay its own culpability in Iraq's past war crimes, the U.S. reportedly suppressed the list of firms that contributed to Saddam's arsenal, but the dossier was leaked to a German newspaper, Die Tageszeitung, which published it. More information trickled onto the back pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post. The main facts are no longer in dispute."
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html

@DeeLilly,
I appreciate your bringing accurate info to this discussion, however, I fail to see where it reduces the threat of WMD's. What I mean is that knowing that Iraq was sold helicopters, germs and lethal chemicals would give me (for one) the idea that Iraq probably maintained a cache of dangerous weapons. As to whether Saddam was a paper tiger or not becomes irrelevant at the point where an invasion is planned. If he had access to the weapons, any credible military action must include that factor into the planning stages.

The U.S. government, in an effort to be PC and not offend Muslims, will declare the shooting an act of a deranged man who snapped. Under no circumstance will they call it what it is: An act of Islamic Terrorism by an individual.

@DeeLilly

You are starting to sound like Timothy McVeigh.

(In fact, for people thinking I might be just kidding, head over to http://www.justicejunction.com/government_hypocrisy_mcveigh_essay.htm to see how extensive the similarities really are.)

I was just thinking about how the ultra liberal Janet Napolitano tries to make political points with her "progressive" cronies by giving out the myth that "right wing extremism" could be a breeding ground for terrorism and then tried to defend her libelous statements with allusions to Mr McVeigh who was an Arab sympathizer, defended Sadaam Hussein, was given to "weapons of mass destruction" rants and so forth, but - he was affiliated with the Republican party for a short time, years before he committed any violence, so to Janet and her ilk that makes him a "right wing extremist"!

I am not sure there is such a thing as a "simple mass killing". That said, this could prove to be a bit tortuous.
I have to tell you, I find it a bit disconcerting to read some of the extreme right wing views espoused on this site. Do you people really believe what you are writing? You guys are scarily out of touch with reality. Too much hate for my taste. No doubt you consider yourselves righteous Christians. That's even more scary. Why is so much violence and hate generated by religions of all kinds?
Squalman's comments #14 and Randburg's # 19 are spot on. Deelilley is too.
Get me out of here!

"No doubt you consider yourselves righteous Christians.
That's even more scary.
Why is so much violence and hate generated by religions of all kinds?"

@Tuff_Sledding
Speaking for myself - I cannot remember the last time I was inside a church.
We were married by a Justice of the Peace because we do have find solace in the faith.
But if you like to entertain your stereotypes instead of looking at alternative viewpoints, go right ahead.
I find it interesting that once again, I see somebody who chooses to be critical by bashing the assumed character of the poster, rather than addressing the issue.

"rather than addressing the issue"

tuff actually did address the issue, as he pointed out that the addresses to the issue made by other are "spot on".

and, at least he did not tell us that shouting "allahu akbar" (or, "hallelujah" which is what Christians and Jews use to say at its position) is really to be considered as any kind of evidence that religious motives play a role. which is what I consider scary, actually.

@kruijs:

this does bring up an interesting point. Can you please list the times you remember that terrorists shouted "hallelujah" when spraying bullets into a crowd or some similar act of terrorism? It would be interesting to see parallels and differences that might come to light with any comparisons.

I can't say whether anyone necessarily shouts "Hallelujah!" while actually committing an act of "Christian Terrorism" these days--that mostly takes place during the pre-act prayer session, I would imagine--but I can tell you that many thousands of lives have been taken over the years not in Allah's name, but in the Christian God's. The KKK consider(s)(ed) itself a Christian group; Uganda's LRA carried out massacres, rapes, torture, and mutilations in the name of the Christian God; India's NLFT uses the same tactics to 'convert' folks to Christianity; Canada's Christianity-based Sons of Freedom have engaged in many terrorist acts; the U.S. has its own rabid Bible-thumping anti-abortion terrorists; and I could go on and on. Of course, the Crusades of old were carried out entirely in the name of the Christian God, and--while no recordings obviously exist--I'd bet every bit of money in the world that the last word heard by countless numbers of executed 'heathens' was "hallelujah"...and that that word was shouted with all the passionate fervor that "Allahu Akbar!" is by some Islamic extremists today.

(I'd personally go even further by stating that the country only recently escaped eight years of being headed by a Christian extremist who committed numerous human rights abuses, including torture; rolled back civil liberties; damaged science and medicine; and left our international standing in shambles...all in the name of doing the Lord's bidding.)

"After all, why assume that attending a hate-filled mosque had a bad influence on Hasan when attending Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled church left Obama filled with love and hope, all primed for the Nobel Peace prize?"
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/11/denial-aint-just-birth-certificate.html

I was really asking a serious question, but since you answered that way, I will just point out that Mr Bush was the one who renamed "Christmas Tree" to "Holiday Tree", celebrated Islam as the "Religion of Peace", invited Imam Qazwini to his ranch several times to help design his “faith-based initiatives”, and I could go on, but instead will just finish by pointing out that your hate-filled answer really didn't fit my honest question.

@fingers_of_fury, notablenotices

you're right!

why hasn't anyone thought of that before! Hasan should be awarded the next Nobel Peace Prize! Together with George W. Bush.

Brillant!

it is interesting to see recall the situation and context in which George W. Bush "celebrated" the "Religion of Peace":
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

"and I could go on", yes please. I'm willing to hear more.

oh, and about the "Hallelujah!" thing. Just replace it with "God bless America", and you have your deal, don't you?

@notablenotices: My "hate-filled answer" didn't "fit your honest question"? Er, why not? Because I answered that question in a way that made you see the preposterousness of your statement? If so, please don't expect an apology...

I'll put it this way: while Islam is the current poster child for everything that's wrong with religious extremism, Christianity has held that 'honor' far more often and for far more years than Islam ever has. Now, if you've a short-sighted and limited and provincial view of the world (read: you're a Fox News viewer), you might be tempted to look around and come to the conclusion that Islam is all evil and Christianity is all good. But if you open your mind and study history without the opaque blinders of religious dogma or political jingoism clouding your vision, you'll see that, while Islam's hands might be dirtier at this moment in time, it hasn't always been that way.

(You know, there's a reason that, generally-speaking, the more well-read one is, the more progressive one becomes in his or her thinking.)

I grew up a fundamentalist Christian. I was a bible scholar, and went to divinity school with the thought of becoming a fire-breathing, spittle-spewing, pulpit-pounding evangelist and preacher. By my best reckoning, I've attended 3,500+ church services in various denominations over the years. (For the record, I've also attended services in synagogues and mosques.) So nobody--this includes you, fingersoffury--can tell me that Islam (or Jeremiah Wright) has cornered the market on hate-filled preaching and proselytizing; I heard enough intolerant, homophobic, anti-liberal, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-choice, racist, sexist, and ageist BS in Christian churches to last any thinking person 100 lifetimes.

I thank God every day for making me an atheist... ;-)

Hospital: Ft. Hood shooting suspect awake, talking
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_hasan_s_condition

Send your well wishes, prayers and flowers to:
Brooke Medical Center
San Antonio, TX

@fingers_of_fury

you're a nice person to appeal us to do so. I'd rather put him in jail for a long time for what he's done.

@Kruijs #32,
Again, it addressed no issue. It only made clear whose side he is rooting for. His response added little to the debate. It was like being a cheerleader for a football team, but without the eye candy appeal. I have no doubt that Tuff_Sledding is an intelligent individual, and I would prefer to engage him in a debate over ideas, rather than simply read his false assumption of religious values.

@Kruijs # 32,
"and, at least he did not tell us that shouting "allahu akbar" (or, "hallelujah" which is what Christians and Jews use to say at its position) is really to be considered as any kind of evidence that religious motives play a role. which is what I consider scary, actually."

I am not basing my entire case on what was shouted during his rampage. It is but one clue as to what actually happened. Interestingly, his business card showed he was a SoA or Soldier of Allah.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/hasancard.jpg

@Sqlman #39,
"(You know, there's a reason that, generally-speaking, the more well-read one is, the more progressive one becomes in his or her thinking.)"
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

@sqlman:

Yeah, I am glad you got rescued from religious extremism. But that didn't do anything about curing your hatred, which is what I referenced in my reply to you.

My question was to try to get a parallel list going of incidents similar to what Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood, Cho Seung-hui at Virginia Tech, Buford O. Furrow, Jr at the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center, James Wenneker von Brunn at the Holocaust Museum and so forth.

Instead you start ranting about President Bush, alleging that he is an Christian extremist which is just tiresome as anyone who is not blinded by irrational hatred can see. The LRA example was useless too, being as everyone knows that it is led by an ex-witch doctor who is willing to say anything or kill anyone to install himself as dictator - no religion is safe from his espousal if he thinks it will take him closer to his goals!

So anyway, yeah, I am glad you got out of that extremist Christian group you were trapped in - did you plan any jihads? Or is that anything you are free to share?

@chatarra: you actually visit hate sites like jihadwatch.org? C'mon; have a little perspective, would you? ;-) At any rate, the "SoA" doesn't mean "Soldier of Allah"; it means "Servant of Allah" (while the 'SWT" stands for, of course, "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala", or "Glory to Him, the Exalted"). And Hasan putting that on a private business card is absolutely no different than, say, In-n-Out Burgers putting references to bible scriptures on their products, or country restaurants hanging pictures of a beatific Jesus near the cash register, or Christian folks handing out business cards emblazoned with little crosses.

BTW, I wasn't talking about "smarter"; I merely said that the more open-minded and free-thinking someone is, the more progressive they're likely to be (and, generally-speaking, the less reliant on religion they become). However, since you elected to link to an article written by a member of that neo-con incubator and ardent purveyor of the "cigarettes and global warming are good for you!" school of thought the American Enterprise Institute, perhaps you'll allow me to link to the abstract for a non-partisan clinical study undertaken by graduate psychologists (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html):

"...on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern."

Too much psychobabble for you? Here's a plain English summary: A) conservatives cling more inflexibly to old ways of thinking; B) they're less responsive to new information; C) they're more obtuse to complexity and ambiguity; D) they're less likely to change when the evidence says they should.

@notablenotices: again, you accuse me of being hateful. I'm sorry that your ways of thinking won't allow you to see that what you've long believed to be true may not be, but that's really no cause to repeatedly demean me by saying my words are full of hatred.

Now, your list tells me you are looking for only very recent examples of Christian terrorism, though as I pointed out more than once that Islamic extremists are the current banner carriers for violence based on religious fundamentalism. You can do so if you wish, and choose to ignore the hundreds of thousands who've been killed in the name of the Christian God, but you're only deluding yourself.

You also make it sound as though my mention of Bush is out of left field, so allow me: in 2003, the BBC claims that George W. Bush stated, “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.” So: tens of thousands of Iraqis killed--many of them innocent--because Bush heard God speak directly to him and tell him to do it. Please--oh please oh please oh please--tell me how that it one bit different from anything any Islamic extremist has done.

Please note that I'm not trying to absolve any Islamic extremist--including possible Maj. Hasan--from blame, nor am I saying that wo wrongs make a right. What I am saying is that maybe folks who live in glass houses shouldn't be quite so quick to pick up stones...

Hallelujah!

hey, maybe we should use a forum for this conversation?

maybe this one:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Topic/Religous_Repression_576

deelilley>

We have fifty senators. Sometimes, such as in the case of Rockefeller, we get 2 for 1:

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, October 2002

The consensus on which President Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first formed in the Clinton administration.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.” - President Bill Clinton, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Sect’y of State Madeline Albright, 1998

He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. - Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser

Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Nancy Pelosi, then a member of the House Intelligence Committee

This Democratic drumbeat intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House.

In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:
“There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

“Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - Sen. Carl Levin

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members. - Hillary Clinton, October 2002

“We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, September 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. - John Kerry, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Ted Kennedy, 2002

"The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." - Robert Byrd, 2002

Something else found in the 'Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq' :

"The United States still lacks a consistent approach to analyzing and reporting terrorist threats."

This is glaringly obvious in the emerging reports concerning the treasonous acts that occurred at Fort Hood.

I just finished Malcolm Gladwell's latest book and it gave me some insights I hadn't thought about on the whole Bush-Iraq WMD justification. I'm no fan of Bush and I feel it was a grave mistake to go into Iraq for a myriad of reasons, primarily Powell's china shop warning to Bush (you break it, you buy it) and the fact that the previous administration's policy of containment had been effective at maintaining a degree of stability in the region. But I digress.

The insights I got from Gladwell's book are:
"The national-security expert Gregory Treverton has famously made a distinction between puzzles and mysteries. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts are a puzzle. We can’t find him because we don’t have enough information. The key to the puzzle will probably come from someone close to bin Laden, and until we can find that source bin Laden will remain at large.

The problem of what would happen in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was, by contrast, a mystery. It wasn’t a question that had a simple, factual answer. Mysteries require judgments and the assessment of uncertainty, and the hard part is not that we have too little information but that we have too much. The C.I.A. had a position on what a post-invasion Iraq would look like, and so did the Pentagon and the State Department and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and any number of political scientists and journalists and think-tank fellows. For that matter, so did every cabdriver in Baghdad." From http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/08/070108fa_fact

If you apply that to the intellegence community of 9/11/01 through the invasion, there's a number of reasons I'm willing to accept Bush's rationalization. The intellegence community was inundated with information that WMDs were there and that they were absent. It was a mystery, demanding judgements of uncertainties. My opinion has changed because of this, that while I still question the Bush administration's judgement, I feel much less certain they lied or necessarily intended malice in their decision making.

foxnews.com asks "Do you think the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terror or a horrific crime?"

93% answered "Act of terror"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/decide-hasan-al-qaeda-massacre-extremist/

In re: my comment #48:

Woops...make that 100 Senators (where's my coffee?)

@Kruijs # 51,

From NPR transcript of story about officials beginning to put the pieces together.
"They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for what condition. But instead of that, he - Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don't believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120162816

Sounds like terror to me - Once again, the Fox news audience is ahead of the curve.
(oh dear, I am going to get flamed for that one. . . )

@sqlman
"I'll put it this way: while Islam is the current poster child for everything that's wrong with religious extremism, Christianity has held that 'honor' far more often and for far more years than Islam ever has. Now, if you've a short-sighted and limited and provincial view of the world (read: you're a Fox News viewer), you might be tempted to look around and come to the conclusion that Islam is all evil and Christianity is all good. But if you open your mind and study history without the opaque blinders of religious dogma or political jingoism clouding your vision, you'll see that, while Islam's hands might be dirtier at this moment in time, it hasn't always been that way. "

I don't understand why you have this need to be an apologist for Islamic terrorism. Since we're living today, and not in the past, we're dealing with today's realities. Trying to change the subject to whatever wrongs you believe Christians have done, does nothing to change that. The reality is that Islamic extremists are at war with us. As Hasan has said, “We love death more than you love life.” I know you're not an idiot, so I wonder how people like you can believe this massacre at Fort Hood was anything but an attack by an Islamic extremist, when all the evidence points that way.

The thing is, this isn't really a discussion. The facts speak for themselves. We have a military that allowed a radical Islamist officer to remain in the service, for fear of being unPC. The fact is, had the military acted early on their information to prevent this, the same people screaming that this wasn't an Islamic thing and that anyone who says so is a hateful bigot, would be squealing about the hateful military trampling on the rights of a poor innocent Muslim soldier. Liberalism truly is a mental disease that doesn't let its ideologues see reality.

My guess is that the evidence here may be so strong that even with the tremendous pressure from the Appeaser in Chief, this question will settle Yes.

Hmmm. Not sure why you say I'm being an apologist for Islamic terrorism. I abhor it, and I believe I've made that pretty clear around these parts. What's bothered me ever since 9/11, however, is that a large segment of our society is too quick to jump on the "Islam is evil" bandwagon when A) Christianity has been every bit as evil, and B) labeling every Muslim as a violent and wild-eyed extremist is no different than labeling every Christian as the same thing. I'm also saying that folks with a wider world view can easily see that, while we think we're the good guys in combating the darker forces of Islamic extremism that are attempting to change our way of life, they think that we're the imperialist Christian aggressors trying to change theirs, so they're just as justified in claiming that they're the good guys. They fly planes into our buildings and kill our innocents. That's bad. In retaliation, we bomb their villages and kill their innocents. That's bad, too. So tell me: who are the good guys? And for your answer, please omit any Bush-like "God is on our side" pablum, because the other side is saying the exact same thing.

Now, you've made an assumption that I've seen many right wingers make the last few days: that Hasan was allowed to remain in the service because of political correctness. It's awful early to make such an assumption, I think. Yes, Hasan was being looked at by the FBI, mostly for his email exchanges with Anwar al-Awlaki. But the FBI decided that there was no law being broken through those exchanges, which primarly consisted of research Hasan was doing as part of his job. Drumming him from the Army for those emails would be like discharging every soldier who's been in email contact with his pastor or priest back home. With that in mind, then, how should the military have acted? I guess the Right would say that he should have been removed from service simply because he's Muslim, but that would be a very limited and--let's call a spade a spade--stupid view.

You guys can parrot your populist and bigoted heroes Michael Savage and Ann Coulter by stating that liberalism is a mental disorder...but I'd state that trampling on human rights or killing in the name of any religion is a far more serious offense. If there really was a god, I doubt he'd be pleased.

@sqlman:

I do maintain that your mention of President George Bush is way out in the left field. So you quote a paper that quotes Nabil Shaath who supposedly quotes President Bush... with no supporting evidence or other witnesses. If he did say that, it was had to be a joke, in my opinion - and you can quote me on that!

Then you go off on this tare about stuff that happened either 1) far away, or 2) long ago, or both as evidence that Christianity is every bit as evil.

Well consider this. There is no nation more Christianized (if that is a word) than the United States of America. Most of the Presidents in the past have been at least nominal Christians. Many of the "christian" protestant churches have headquarters, seminaries, or some other significant presence in the USA. The vast majority of Bibles are printed in America. Many of the Founding Fathers were either Christian, Catholic, or at least favorably impressed by Christianity. My point is, if Christianity were "every bit as evil" as Islam, you would not have to reach for examples that happened long ago and far away.

Consider Islam, for clarification. Certainly this terrorist at Fort Hood was a Muslim, but if you were to go to the Middle east - say Mecca, Medina, etc, you would not need to reach very far to see examples of Muslims killing or maiming Christians, Westerners, and even each other. You just need to study a very little about the origin of Islam to find the violent truth about Mohammed and his "disciples" - in stark contrast with the origin of Christianity with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the examples of His followers.

It is true that in the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church tried to dominate and influence Christianity away from it's foundational roots with many examples of intolerance, and brutality to go around... terrorizing innocent people with their "inquisitions" and so forth - that is why they call it the "Dark Ages". The reformers stood up to the system, attempting to turn back to fundamental Christianity. Here again we find a contrast with Islam. If Muslim "reformers" tried to make Islam more peaceful, they would necessarily be taking a course away from fundamental Islam, since that has violent beginnings.

Finally, there was nothing especially sinister with President Bush saying that "God is on our side" or words to that effect. (I trust that He is on our side). You do not have to be a student of history to know that this is how leaders of countries speak during a war. Several times during the Second World War King George proclaimed a day of prayer - often followed by success on the battle field. President Franklin Roosevelt famously had his pray broadcast on the radio for D Day. Look at Abraham Lincoln for many quotes. Take, for instance, his Second Inaugural Address:

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came"

These are but a few examples of leaders turning their nation's attention heavenward in war time. President Bush was not being creative or trying a new thing with his remarks that you cite. They certainly do not indicate that the war was in any way run by men of the cloth!

@FrogChop # 50,
That wins my vote for the most interesting post on this thread.
T. Y.
Interesting how too much information can make a hard decision even more difficult than having too little information.

I haven't read all the comments, but I don't believe anyone has said that all Muslims should be removed from the military. We may have been thinking that, but would never say it- JOKING!!!

Should all Muslims in the military be investigated to see if they have ties to radical Islam? Of course not, there aren't that many attacks like this. If 12 are murdered here, and 6 murdered there by radical Islamists, it's a small price to pay for political correctness, isn't it? After all, isn't it just as likely that Christians or Jews might perpetrate a jihadist attack like this? Why would anyone think Muslims are more likely to do this? Even radical Muslims who believe that it's their duty to kill those who threaten Islam, are Americans just like you and me. "There's is absolutely nothing I've seen that ties Islam to terrorism", said the blind man.

RE: #55

They fly planes into our buildings and kill our innocents - that was done on purpose!

In retaliation, we bomb their villages and kill their innocents - thats NOT done on purpose!

theres the major difference!

how do i know that you ask? any reasonable person would have to admit if the USA wanted to they can turn afghanistan into a parking lot. so to say we're bombing the villages and killing their innocents on purpose is a stretch of any logical reason.

"There's is absolutely nothing I've seen that ties Islam to terrorism"

Maybe he was an Islamic Jehadist. Maybe the Islam is terrorism.

Nevertheless, it says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" [1] and "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [2] as well as "But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." [3]

Oh, ups, that's not the Koran, it's the Bible. Sorry.

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A18
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk+16%3A16
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2%3A12

@kruijs:

No need to apologize, quoting the Bible is no crime!

@kruijs:

You are trying to confuse yourself. You find a word you think is sinister .... here it is "condemn"! quick report it as scary! instead of just reading the next verse to see what it means:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A19
     "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

Oh! who looks like a fool now? maybe you better just stick to quoting from the Koran if you want scary stuff.

@notablenotices

what does it tell me? what meaning does it give the verb "to condemn"? tell me, what is the meaning of "light" and "darkness" in that quote? which "deed", leading to the condemnation, is considered "evil"?

who looks like a fool now? I don't know. but "scary stuff" is all around in both the Koran and the Bible, I guess we don't have to argue about that.

And that's exactly the point. it is not the teachings of the religion as such to be considered evil. it's the interpretation and the instrumentation.

"Nevertheless, it says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" [1] and "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [2] as well as "But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." [3]

Oh, ups, that's not the Koran, it's the Bible. Sorry. "

And your point?
Let's see if you can get my point. Here's some examples in only 2001 & 2002:

I guess it was Christian terrorists who perpetrated 9/11
I guess it was Christian terrorists who beheaded Daniel Pearl
#attacked Israel, January 25: 25 people were wounded when a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated explosives outside a cafe on a pedestrian mall near Tel Aviv's old central bus station
#attacked Israel, January 30: An 81-year-old man was killed and over 150 people were wounded, four seriously, in a suicide bombing in the center of Jerusalem. The female terrorist, identified as a Fatah member, was armed with more than 10 kilos of explosives.
#Israel, February 16: Two teenagers were killed and about 30 people were wounded, six seriously, when a suicide bomber blew himself up at a pizzeria in the shopping mall in Karnei Shomron. A third person subsequently died of his injuries. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel, February 18: An Israeli Bedouin policeman was killed by a suicide bomber whom he had stopped for questioning on the Ma'ale Adumim-Jerusalem road. The terrorist succeeded in detonating the bomb in his car. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, February 27: A Palestinian suicide bomber blew herself up at a roadblock on the Jerusalem-Modi'in highway, injuring three policemen.
# Israel Israel, March 2: Eleven people were killed and over 50 were injured, 4 critically, in a suicide bombing near a yeshiva in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a barmitzvah celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 5: One person was killed and a large number injured, most lightly, when a suicide bomber exploded in an Egged bus as it entered the Afula central bus station. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 7: A suicide bomber blew himself up in the lobby of a hotel in Ariel. 15 people were injured, one seriously. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 9: 11 people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded in the crowded Moment cafe in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 17: A suicide bomber exploded himself near an Egged bus at the French Hill junction in northern Jerusalem. 25 people were lightly injured.
# Israel Israel, March 20: Four soldiers and three others were killed, and about 30 wounded, several seriously, in a suicide bombing of an Egged bus near Afula. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 21: Three people were killed and 86 injured, 3 of them seriously, in a suicide bombing in the center of Jerusalem. The terrorist detonated the bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in the center of a crowd of shoppers. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 27: A Palestinian suicide bomber kills 30 and injures 140 during Passover festivities in a hotel in Netanya in the Passover massacre.
# Israel Israel, March 29: Two people were killed and 28 injured, two seriously, when a female suicide bomber blew herself up in a supermarket in Jerusalem. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 30: One person was killed and about 30 people were injured in a suicide bombing in a cafe in Tel-Aviv. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, March 31: A Hamas suicide bomber kills 15 and injures over 40 in Haifa in the Matza restaurant massacre.
# Israel Israel, March 31: A paramedic and three others were very seriously injured in a suicide bombing at the emergency medical center in Efrat, south of Jerusalem.
# Israel Israel, April 1: A police officer was killed in Jerusalem when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in his car after being stopped at a roadblock. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, April 10: Eight people were killed and 22 injured in a suicide bombing on an Egged bus near Kibbutz Yagur, east of Haifa. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Tunisia Tunisia, April 11: A natural gas truck fitted with explosives is driven into a synagogue by an al-Qaeda member, killing 21 and wounding more than 30 in the Ghriba Synagogue Attack.
# Israel Israel, April 12: Six people were killed and 104 wounded when a woman suicide bomber detonated at the entrance to Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda open-air market. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# United States United States, May: Luke Helder injures 6 by placing pipebombs in mailboxes in the Midwest. Motivation to protest government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana and promotion of astral projection
(Woops, here's one not by a Muslim terrorist)
# Israel Israel, May 7: 16 people were killed and 55 wounded in a suicide bombing in a crowded game club in Rishon Lezion, southeast of Tel-Aviv, which caused part of the building to collapse. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Pakistan Pakistan, May 8: May 8 Bus Attack in Karachi kills eleven Frenchmen and two Pakistanis.
# Russia Russia, May 9: A bomb explosion in Kaspiisk in Dagestan kills at least 42 people and injures 130 or more during Victory Day festivities.
# India India, May 13: Twelve people are killed in the Jaunpur train crash, caused when Islamic extremists cut the rails.
# Israel Israel, May 19: Three people were killed and 59 injured, 10 seriously, when a suicide bomber, disguised as a soldier, blew himself up in the market in Netanya. Both Hamas and the PFLP took responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, May 20: A suicide bomber, apparently bound for Afula, killed himself after policemen approached him for questioning at a bus stop. There were no other injuries.
# Israel Israel, May 22: Two people were killed and about 40 wounded when a suicide bomber detonated himself in downtown Rishon Lezion.
# Israel Israel, May 23: In the 2002 Pi Glilot bombing, disaster was averted when sprinklers put out a fire after a diesel truck was detonated in a gas depot. The bombing could have caused a chain reaction, killing thousands of people.
# Israel Israel, May 24: A security guard opened fire on a terrorist attempting to ram a car bomb into a disco in Tel Aviv. The terrorist was killed and five Israelis slightly injured when the bomb exploded prematurely.
# Israel Israel, May 27: A grandmother and her infant granddaughter were killed and 37 people were injured, some seriously, when a suicide bomber detonated himself near an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, June 5: 17 people were killed and 38 injured when a car packed with explosives struck an Egged bus at the Megiddo junction near Afula. The bus, which burst into flames, was completely destroyed. The terrorist was killed in the blast. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
# Israel Israel, June 11: A 14-year-old girl was killed and 15 others were wounded when a Palestinian suicide bomber set off a pipe bomb at a restaurant in Herzliya.
# Pakistan Pakistan, June 14: Car bomb at US Consulate in Karachi kills twelve.
# Israel Israel, June 18: A Hamas suicide bomber detonates himself on a bus in Jerusalem in the Patt junction massacre. The attack kills 19 people and wounds over 74.

What does that above reference from the Bible have to do with current reality?
Nada

"And that's exactly the point. it is not the teachings of the religion as such to be considered evil. it's the interpretation and the instrumentation."

Wow, something we can agree on. No one can argue that throughout history there have been horrific massacres in the name of various religions. In this day and age, right here and now in our time, these horrific massacres are essentially being carried out in the name of one religion. Is there anyone who can say with a straight face that this isn't true?

"in the name of one religion"

is any assault done by a Muslim automatically to be considered an assault in the name of his religion? if so, than you're right. but maybe it would mean that the "war on terror" actually is a "war on Islam".

did Hasan go nuts and kill 13 in the name of his religion? or was religion an aspect in his life which became more important as other aspects kept frustrating him? I'm not sure. I don't apologize what he did, nor think that he should punished mildly for any reason. I'm simply thinking that he didn't had any political goals in mind. and without political goals, I wouldn't call it terrorism. and without religion as driving force, I wouldn't call it a Jihadist act.

in the end, it would be a Simple Mass Killing by a man Who Happens to be Muslim.

if that isn't bad enough already.

kru> I'm glad that you have nothing to do with my country's security.

I'm sad that many of your ilk do.

"The FBI said today that it appears Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan acted alone in the Fort Hood shootings, and was not involved in terrorist activities when a joint terrorism task force crossed paths with him last year."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6717231.html

The investigation continues...

@Erik,

which of my points do you disagree with?

@Kruisj #66,
Once again, I disagree with you, but not in a vehement way.
Nobody (at least nobody that I know. . . ) says that the 9/11/2001 attacks were not terrorism. The hardest hit targets were the twin towers which represent capitalism. Capitalism does not represent politics. It represents Americas way of life.
Lately, politics is stifling capitalism.

@chatarra,

I didn't say that the target has to represent politics for the attack to qualify as terrorism. the assault against the American way of life, definitely, is an expression of a political agenda and goals. and that is why these attacks are considered terrorism.

@Kruijs,
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

This is the closest that I could find to matching your idea.
My objection is that this definition is too limited. Granted the use of any word can become over usd as well.

Kruijs,
Obama called this a tragedy - A tragedy is when an 8 year old girl is hit and killed by a car, while riding her bicycle.
If Nidal Malik Hasan had gone into a public setting and shot up the place, killing the same number of strangers, then it would be more likely that he had snapped. Since he chose a military base and only intended to shoot at U.S. Soldiers, it should be unquestionably terrorism.

Bush (rightly or wrongly) was able to claim that no terrorist acts had occurred during the 8 years since 9/11.
No wonder Obama does not want to state the obvious.

@73 chatarra, that doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it unquestionably terrorism because he only attacked soldiers? Most IR definitions of terrorism state the targetting of civillians (or non-discrimination) is neccessary for an act to be terrorism.

Reading drzinternet just depresses me, we could produce a list just as long of appalling American and British attacks, it doesnt prove anything to list attacks by muslim extremists. Using examples in Israel is just ridiculous, they can't expect to be allowed to continue their ethnic cleansing without being attacked.

@chatarra

here we disagree. do you think that the Columbine kids where terrorists (against the school system) because they choose their own school? only the motivation behind the act determines if something is to be seen as terrorism. the fact that he went to the place he knew best doesn't tell me much of his motivation, clearly.

and please don't tell the relatives of the killed soldiers of Fort Hood that you don't consider their losses a tragedy.

@74 So because this attack was against unarmed military, and not civilians, it wasn't terrorism. Do you condone this attack as being a legitimate strike, since it was directed at the military?

@74
"Reading drzinternet just depresses me, we could produce a list just as long of appalling American and British attacks, it doesnt prove anything to list attacks by muslim extremists. Using examples in Israel is just ridiculous, they can't expect to be allowed to continue their ethnic cleansing without being attacked."

That's good that the truth depresses you, since you obviously don't want to face it. OK, I'll take your bait. I listed about 37 acts of Islamic Terrorism between Jan 25 and June 18 of 2002. That's 37 acts of murder, attempted murder, bombing, maiming, and other acts of barbarism in a 5 month period. Show me your list for a 5 month period of your choice in recent times.

The fact is, you can't, because it doesn't exist. Instead of talking out of your ass, why don't you back it up with something?

Your post is saying that acts of Islamic terrorism are acceptable when it's perpetrated against Israel. Even the anti-Israel UN, and most Arabic countries don't condone terrorist attacks against civilians. You are truly a fascist POS if you think it's ok for terrorist attacks against civilian populations. What are you doing here anyway? Why not go to Afghanistan or Palestine and help your buddies blow up some infidels?

@drzinternet

"are acceptable"
he didn't say that. he said these attacks are expectable, as a response to their own behavior. to explain doesn't mean to approve.

"You are truly a fascist POS if you think it's ok for terrorist attacks against civilian populations"
well, he didn't say that (and I doubt he thinks that way). in fact, he considers attacks on civilians to be terrorism - obviously in contrast to what chatarra said.

what do you think to achieve by calling someone "a truly is a fascist POS"?

"What are you doing here anyway?"
yeah, quite convincing argument.

@Kruijs # 75,
The fact that Obama deliberately chooses to understate the massacre, doesn't equate to my not feeling that a genuine tragedy has occurred - and you know it. I have had my American flag flown in "Distress" mode for the last week - (even before Obama announced that US flags should be flown at half mast till after Veterans Day)

As for the Columbine High School shooting - Yes, I would call that terrorism. I lived in the same metro area where that occurred, so I remember the event very well. Do you think anybody who survived Columbine, would have called that "just another day at school - except for 2 wild and crazy kids?" Of course not. Any time you strike terror into the heart of an innocent victim, you can rightfully be accused of terrorism.

@Heavy_Heart # 74,
I was simply using Kruijs very own definition of "Terrorism", where he feels that it must be politically motivated, in order to be considered authentic terrorism. My personal view of the word is not so narrow to be debatable as to proper usage.

As the lone gunman stormed the processing facility, he knew those soldiers were not armed. Most of the victims were probably shot in the back, as they tried to find cover, since they were out gunned and unarmed. In my book, that is scary enough to be considered terrorism, along with a multitude of other words.

Hee hee... I had to look up POS. :-D

@ chatarra 79: While I'll agree that Ft. Hood meets my definition of terrorism, I'll disagree on Columbine. IMHO, without political motivation/anti-government as at least a partial source of motivation and intent, I don't think it meets the modern definition. I was here (in Denver) too, and while I don't take anything away from the terror experienced by those teachers, kids, and the greater community; it was not motivated to promote or dissuade from a particular ideology.

Overall, I think Hasan was psychotic (textbook, not common meaning), and if he was a fundimentalist "Christian" he would have firebombed an abortion clinic, if he was an agnostic he would have killed his wife and coworkers, but the influence of a radical Imam moved him against the American government and its people. Unlikely directly, but it's no different than some AM radio talk show host inspiring someone to kill gays or abortion doctors. Sometimes hate speech hits an unsound mind and tragedy results. Training, opportunity, and choice of weapons makes the difference in the death toll, not the religion or strength of hatred in their souls.

@Kruijs

what do you think to achieve by calling someone "a truly is a fascist POS"?

According to your own comment, I didn't call him that. My comment, which you conveniently truncated was "You are truly a fascist POS" if you think it's ok for terrorist attacks against civilian populations. If what you say is true, then I clearly didn't call him that, so what are you whining about?

Journalists raise funds for troubled Fort Hood shooter

Journalists across the nation, moved by the plight of a troubled Muslim psychiatrist whose "understandable emotional turmoil" broke out in gunfire last week at Fort Hood, Texas, will hold a major fundraising event in the coming weeks in honor of the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

News coverage of the tragedy sparked reporters and anchors in the mainstream media to "reach out to Hasan in love and brotherhood because his righteous indignation at the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led him to express his outrage in the only avenue open to a non-journalist," according to an unnamed organizer of the upcoming charity event.

"We in the free press naturally see Hasan's actions as a First Amendment issue," the source said. "As a disadvantaged Muslim American, and captive of the U.S. military, Hasan's options for speaking truth to power were quite limited. He did what he could within his means, and now he's being punished for this expression of free speech."

The event will include a bevy of "A-List" news media figures manning the phones to receive contributions toward establishment of a graduate school that will train disenchanted members of the military to solve their problems with a computer keyboard, rather than with a semi-automatic handgun.

In a news release announcing plans for the fundraiser, the Society of Professional Journalist-Celebrities said, "As Major Hasan lies grievously wounded, cut down in the prime of his life by a police officer whose sworn duty is to protect and serve him, we journalists will do what we can to guard future Hasans from the brutality of an oppressive regime."

"We can't help but think how things would have been different if, instead of a handgun, Hasan would have had a press pass and a laptop computer," the group said. "He still could have accomplished his purposes, and he wouldn't be strapped to a gurney, fighting for his life right now. Rather, he could walk right into the White House or Pentagon press rooms and take the fight to the enemy like the rest of us do every day."

Washington Examiner 11-10-09

@drzinternet

you're an asshole if you're serious about that. but I know you're joking.

@chatarra, 79

I'm closer to frogchop's comment #82 in this case, but yes, I agree that even the Columbine shooting may feel like terrorism. In contrast to frogchop, though, I'm not convinced that he's been actually politically motivated, though there are many signs pointing in that direction, superficially at least, for sure. but for the sake of preventing unjustified xenophobic, and anti Islamic tendencies, one shout be cautious with a conclusion. maybe this is too much PC as some would say. but it would be just fair, IMO. I repeat: I do not excuse his deeds, nor do I think he should be mildly punished. but one shouldn't make more out of it as it already is, as long as you don't know for sure.

@drzinternet.

I'll start with my favourtie quote: "Why not go to Afghanistan or Palestine and help your buddies blow up some infidels?"
Aside from how ridiculous this comment is, there's a serious point here. This kind of comment is exactly why I got involved in this debate. Palestine is not islamic terrorism in the same way as Al-Qaeda. Not at all. Palestine is brutally occupied by the Israeli military, who control almost every aspect of the Palestinians lives, whilst bulldozing houses to build Israeli settlements. Unsurprisingly then, the Palestinians retaliate. Given that Palestine doesn't have the vast array of attack helicopters, fighter jets, or tanks that Israel receives from the US, their option are limited to throwing stones at said tanks, firing primitive drainpipe rockets into Israel, or blowing themselves up on Israeli buses. I am in no way supporting blowing yourself up on a bus, I'm simply saying these are the only tactics available to the Palestinians. While the US stands so firmly behind Israel, and blocks any UN attempts to restrain their behaviour, Palestine can expect no help from the international community. Now I'm sure if Palestine had the same military hardware as Israel, they wouldn't resort to blowing themselves up on buses.

"Your post is saying that acts of Islamic terrorism are acceptable when it's perpetrated against Israel." Not at all. At no point in my comment did I say attacking civillians is ever acceptable, and I hope you will retract that. As Krujis tried to explain to you, I was not condoning, I was trying to explain how Palestinian attack on Israelis are to be expected. I was saying was that Israel had to expect retaliation for their brutal occupation, and the tactics used are the only ones available for the Palestinians to retaliate. Their attacks are not the same as Al Qaedas, the Palestinians are not connected with Al Qaeda, they do not aim to attack the Western way of life, they attack the country that oppresses them, keeps them in conditions on unbearable poverty, and kills them.

What you ignore drz, is that Israel continually targets civillians. Will you accept that whatever definition you use, Israeli actions are classed as terrorism too?

I had to google POS, thanks mate. What I don't find funny is the fascist slur. Politically I am the polar opposite, hence why I am sickened by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. I can't understand you calling me a fascist if you support the Israeli occupation. I would also argue that I'm not talking out of my ass. My point about your list was that it doesn't prove anything when Israel is guilty of even larger acts of terror, which they undoubtedly are. As I mentioned earlier, the main difference is that Israel uses fighter jets, helicopters, and white phosphorus, while the Palestinians don't have any real military capability, so have to resort to suicide bombings. As I said before, a list doesn't prove anything, but I won't use 5 months, I'll just point to the three weeks in December 08 and January 09.

x

@Erik (#84): you do realize the article from which you quoted is nothing more than a poorly-done bit of satire from an ultra-conservative DC-area rag, do you not? Wool? Meet Erik's eyes...

(Things like that article should serve as yet another reminder that the Right should really give up on their lame attempts at satire and parody. To do those forms of comedy justice, one must be creative and open-minded, but because creative and open-minded types tend to be more liberal, the Right is stuck with such knee-slappingly hilarious comedians as Ott, Glenn Beck, and the folks behind last year's major box office flop An American Carol.)

I think (hope) he does, if he thought it was real there would have been a angry, largely capitalised, rant after it.

*an

Satire? Yes... but, oh so realistic

@Kruijs, 86,
"but for the sake of preventing unjustified xenophobic, and anti Islamic tendencies, one shout be cautious with a conclusion."
I believe that I have limited my conversation on this issue to one man, not one race or one religion.

And yes, you are too PC. ;-)

@FrogChop #79,
My issue with the word "Terrorism" creates a dilemma for me. It is too broad based to be effective.
I have always felt the the War On Terrorism is like the War On Drugs - both are doomed to failure, by their over-reaching ambitions.

Kruijs would probably like to see all use of the word "Terrorism" be applied to specific political attacks, similar to the Israeli Olympic Athletes being murdered in the Munich massacre in 1972. On the other hand, I see terrorist acts with a broader viewpoint, like a lone gunman storming a processing center at Fort Hood, Texas. In this case, Nidal Malik Hasan may have simply been ideologically driven.

I will always feel that this was a domestic Jihad. I also understand that many, if not most, people may not agree with me. To me, this is another example where being too PC is going to get people killed.

correct. to let you know, in Europe people are fairly familiar with terrorism. just naming some of the most prominent terror organizations: PKK, RAF, ETA, IRA.

chatarra, do you think that if someone is cautious before convicting a murderer of being a terrorist (like me, being too PC, in your eyes), lead to more people getting killed?

Kruijs,
I use caution too. I do not typically rush to judgment & believe it is necessary to examine motive, action & ramifications when make the many normal decisions that life puts in front of us everyday.
The danger in being too Politically Correct comes in putting on blinders and refusing to see the obvious, because it might be offensive to others.

Just curious - what would it take for you to decide that Nidal Malik Hasan was acting in the role of a terrorist and not a madman? Do you need for an audio tape to be dropped off at the NY Times, from an Al Qaeda source declaring praise for the efforts of this ideological patriot?

Here is an article from a former psychiatrist, now turned syndicated opinion journalist - Charles Krauthammer.
A politically correct — and dangerous — delicacy about the Fort Hood shooting
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2010270553_krauthammer14.html?prmid=op_ed

@ Chaterra 93: The term War on Terror is just plain silly and the practice is downright dangerous. Terrorism is a method of warfare; a tool for the warrior. Like the blitzkrieg or guerilla warfare are styles of warfare utilizing various stregths you have against the weaknesses of your enemy. However, historically, the US has used guerilla warfare and there's legitimate arguments that the US use of "Shock and Awe" style warfare was a form of terrorism. The point is, you can't defeat terrorism because it's a method, not the enemy. The term itself diffuses the focus of our limited resources. While this is not as simple of a goal or objective as defeating Germany in WWI or WWII or ousting the Iraqi army from Kuwait, if we don't understand who the enemy is, we stand no chance in their defeat.

The problem then becomes, is the answer to who the enemy is too politically incorrect... and that's why politicians dance.

sql (88)

You always make me grin

@chattara 93.

So you see terrorism from a broader viewpoint? Fair enough, would you like to define what you call terrorism? I would say you don't see it in a broader sense, you see it as attacks by Islamic militants. If I'm worng, please correct me. The problem with wider definitions of terrorism is that they have to include the majority of modern warfare.

@Heavy_Heart,
You are right. I do see Terrorism as attacks by Islamic Radicals.
If I had lived in Iraq, during the invasion, then I would view that event as Terrorism too.
Sometimes they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in this instance, I say "Experience is in the heart of the beholder".

When I said earlier that I viewed Terrorism with a broader viewpoint, I meant that I can see an attack as a terrorist act, without needing to have certified Bin Laden audio tapes delivered to the newspapers, in order to validate my definition of terrorism.

Really, it is quite simple for me. I support 99.5% of what our U.S. troops do. They do not set policy and only follow orders. I openly question the reasons we went into Iraq & Afghanistan and why we are there now. In fairness, I felt we were doing the right thing when the invasion first occurred, but have come to realize that it was a mistake. Going into Iraq has done nothing to help us track down Bin Laden.

Islam & Christianity are the two largest religions in the world today making up approximately 54% of the worlds faith.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
While I choose to not attend services, I feel that religion does much more good than harm to the mass of people who find comfort in expressing faith throughout their daily lives. However, there is a small element of Islam, that scares the bejeezus of out of me. This is not to condemn the entire Muslim religion, only those who feel that radical Islam is entitled to take over the world.

@chatarra 99 - I don't think you quite understood me, I was looking for you to define terrorism. You say you've got a broader view of it, so what is that view, because it seems to me your definition of terrorism is any attack by muslims?

Did anyone actually believe invading Iraq would help you catch Bin Laden? Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda, your administration made those up remember. I'm not going to get into the whole religion debate, but I totally disagree, I think organised religion does vastly more harm than good.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. The "bin Laden" question is just a red herring.

For instance, see http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2009/07/former_civilian_senior_intelli_1/
Former regime's links to al Qaeda
When asked about recent media reports citing Saddam Hussein's denial to the FBI about links to al Qaeda Degn viewed these reports as part of an ongoing attempt to rewrite history saying these reports stand in stark contrast to what he saw and heard firsthand in Iraq. In fact, Degn said that to many of the detainees links between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups including al Qaeda was not even a point of contention but freely acknowledged. Many of the high value detainees took it as a given that their captors were aware of Iraq - al Qaeda links. Some even bragged about those links.

@Heavy_Heart 100,
I think it is you that did not quite understand me. I did not deliver the definition that you were looking for. That is too bad - I am so sad.
I have done a lot more to explain my definition, than you have yours. My definition is not limited to the Muslim faith, but recent examples of terrorism have been perpetrated by radical members of the Muslim faith. If you are looking for the red herring so you can point out my racism, go ahead and just do it. My retort will be: Is that the best you have?

NN is right about the linkage to Al Qaeda within the nation of Iraq. Perhaps they were not associated with Saddam, but they did find safe haven there - until the Bush administration (not my administration, BTW) invaded Iraq.

As for religion - I do not attend services, but I do believe in a benign supreme being. This world is just too fascinating for it to be explained any other way. While not being a recipient firsthand, I have seen the good that Catholic Charities has done in paying overdue water bills, and in giving needy people a place to sleep. The only people I come across that are bitter about religion, usually are whiners on internet forums.

Not at chatarra, I'm not for a second trying to catch you out or call you a racist, I'm just making the point that it's almost impossible to find a definition of terrorism which will class islamic militants as terrorists, but not the US, UK, Israel etc.

Iraq was not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, NN's source is a blog somewhere. On the other hand, the US senate and the CIA found no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5328592.stm

not “from a blog somewhere”:

"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations."

Joint Center for Operational Analysis (JCOA)-sponsored study entitled “The Iraqi Perspectives Project -- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents.”
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html

and I always though that the US invaded

- Afghanistan because of the Taliban and Bin Laden.
- Iraq because of oil Saddam and his WMD

Erik, I said NN's link was from a blog, which it was. And you're quote backs the point up: a de facto link, or the appearance of link, is not "an established relationship" between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda operatives, which is what Bush and Cheney claimed. They repeatedly said he was "dealing with Al Qaeda", which just wasn't true.

I follow heavy_heart's line of reasoning, because s/he's asking pretty much what I've asked here: what's everyone's definition of terrorism? Does the fact that a killer considers himself a Muslim automatically make him or her a terrorist? If so, we'd have to apply that same logic to all the self-proclaimed Christians clogging our prisons, wouldn't we?

@chatarra: why do you and so many others assume that because agnostics choose not to believe in some supreme being (as they've seen not one single shred of irrefutable proof that such a being exists now, or ever has) that they're bitter? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? If you answer 'No' to any of those--and I would hope you would--I wouldn't make the assumption that you're bitter; I'd just say that you grew up, looked at the facts, applied some objective logic, did some critical thinking of your own, and realized there were mostly likely no such beings. That's all we agnostics have done. Now, you stated that you do believe in a benign supreme being because, in your words, "this world is just too fascinating for it to be explained any other way," and you're certainly within your rights to feel that way. But you should note that that's pretty much how small children feel about those three nonsense beings: "How else could that candy/those presents/that shiny dollar have gotten there?"

@Erik (#104): that's a wholly ridiculous CYA statement. So because two disconnected individuals or groups have "similar aims", they're somehow connected? Really? So because I occasionally fantasize about sleeping with Angelina Jolie, there's a prosecutable "de facto" link between me and Brad Pitt?

Yeah, good luck with that one, Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al. ;-)

listen, people, we've passed the 100 comments mark already and I really want to suggest that we use the forum platform to discuss this issue further.

seriously, who wants like to risk missing dieseldog's contribution??

okay, just kidding :-P

Jesus Christ people....(you know who you are), for those of you who can't SEE IT, sqlman isn't full of hatred or bitter. He's full of sarcasm and perhaps even a touch exasperated. After reading all these comments I can understand why.

@39, May Science bless you sqlman

heavy heart sql > I assume that you can document those quotes that you attribute to Bush

From ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339

"United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.
end

Those who enjoy lying to themselves can believe that it's just a coincidence that he's Muslim, and his religious beliefs had nothing to do with this jihadist attack. Of course, that's pretty laughable.