A different kind of Fort Hood thread

[Wiglaf]

As OTF President I veto that motion

[Asher]

WATCH YOURSELF, Wiglaf.

[Wiglaf]

I have. Everyone has. They love it

[BeBMan]

Second, assuming this Hasan fellow was in fact motivated by sympathy for/collusion with extremists, does the Fort Hood attack qualify as terrorism, or any other kind of despicable/"cowardly" act (as I've heard people call it IRL)? Tragic, yes, but think about it: if U.S. troops had managed to infiltrate a Taliban base in Afghanistan and blown it to smithereens (I'm assuming our troops wouldn't just go on a rampage like Hasan did), we'd all be saying something along the lines of "****in' A!" The fact that it was a sneak attack would be irrelevant; this is war. If you catch the enemy in a place where he isn't expecting to be attacked, so much the better for you, so much the worse for him. Assuming you only target soldiers, that is--but even that is debatable. We still argue about Dresden and Hiroshima. I don't know current international standards on terrorism or war crimes. What say you?

A bit tricky here. Traditionally war is normally conducted between regular armies of souvereign states. Of course you have civil wars, guerilla wars/whatever else, but the entire intl system is primarily geared towards state-state thingies.

The Hasan guy didn't act in a way a member of a regular enemy army would in open battle. Prior to his action, he was not openly ID-able as member of a hostile faction. I didn't read that much about him, so I'm not sure if there is any evidence saying he had ties with AQ/Taliban, or just acted alone because of some reason we don't know yet. So can his actions be part of an act of warfare or is it something else?

As for the example of US troops infiltrating some Taliban base - in classic warfare according to the Geneva converion they could lose their status as lawful combattants (depending on the exact way they did stuff). The SS guys running around in US uniforms behind US lines during the Battle of the Bulge experienced exactly that.

But this is not classic warfare, and the Taliban/AQ don't care about these rules anyway, and without reciprocity the entire system of "rules of warfare" doesn't really work. Long story short, what this shows is mainly that classic views of war and the rules in intl relations developed for warfare between states esp. during the late 19th/early 20th century are limited and don't really go well with the kind of warfare we see now since some years, esp. in Afghanistan, but also in other places (for example during the US presence in Somalia).

Overall, I'd classify his actions as 'terrorist' or generally 'criminal' because he was a private US citizen and didn't come out with some "Hey, this sucks, I'm going to join the Taliban" stuff that provided clarification about his status. Sure, maybe not the most realistic thing, but if any private guy who is as citizen of your own country usually not supposed to be counted under "enemies" can start or join wars at his whim it gets even more confusing.

[Patroklos]

Second, assuming this Hasan fellow was in fact motivated by sympathy for/collusion with extremists, does the Fort Hood attack qualify as terrorism, or any other kind of despicable/"cowardly" act (as I've heard people call it IRL)? Tragic, yes, but think about it: if U.S. troops had managed to infiltrate a Taliban base in Afghanistan and blown it to smithereens (I'm assuming our troops wouldn't just go on a rampage like Hasan did), we'd all be saying something along the lines of "****in' A!" The fact that it was a sneak attack would be irrelevant; this is war. If you catch the enemy in a place where he isn't expecting to be attacked, so much the better for you, so much the worse for him. Assuming you only target soldiers, that is--but even that is debatable. We still argue about Dresden and Hiroshima. I don't know current international standards on terrorism or war crimes. What say you?

In general our troops don't dress up in official organizational clothing of the other side in order to prosecute attacks. Sort of hard to do in the case of opponents who don't have any of that, but whatever.

[Felch]

It leaves us at me being an idiot and you being a racist. The fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own makes me think you might be an idiot, as well.

Can I be a racist?

I'm a true bigot!

Seriously, I always lock my car doors when I see black people walking nearby.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3250

9 November 2009: According to an intelligence source speaking to the Northeast Intelligence Network, forensic analysis of Nidal Malik HASAN’s computer and other media determined that HASAN had routinely visited al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist web sites in months and weeks leading to last week’s massacre at Fort Hood. According to this investigative source, HASAN also downloaded material from the web site operated by former Dar al Hijrah mosque leader and terrorist facilitator Anwar Nasser al Awlaki. As reported here, al Awlaki was an imam at the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Fall Church, Virginia in 2001, where he advised and facilitated two of the 9/11 terrorists in the months prior to the attacks. Al Awlaki also counseled HASAN during that same period.

The information obtained from HASAN’s digital files reportedly shows a “pattern of deliberate and willful planning to conduct some type of attack against the U.S. military prior to his deployment” [to Afghanistan], stated this source who requested anonymity as he is not authorized to speak publicly. “The motive behind the massacre appears to be rooted in his ideology, an ideology which was emboldened by online activity,” added this source.

As indicated by a ABC News Online article, intelligence sources reportedly had a level of knowledge that HASAN was in communication with al Qaeda assets abroad. The source speaking to this author confirmed that report but went further, stating that this and information similar but not directly related to such communications became a “political issue” between government agencies and officials “at the policy making levels” of the administration.

According to this source, the now infamous pre-9/11 walls erected within government agencies have returned, “but this time they are higher and stronger.” “There is an unwillingness to address ‘delicate’ intelligence and security matters by sharing information outside of the beltway, and that directive comes right from the top. That’s all I’m going to say right now,” stated this source.

Based on the information provided during this interview, it would appear that intelligence officials were well aware of not only HASAN’s prior associations with known Muslim terrorists, but his current sympathy with anti-American, pro-jihad, al Qaeda ideology and his views about the U.S. military engaging the enemy on Muslim soil.

[Asher]

intelligence source speaking to the Northeast Intelligence Network

LOL.

I like how Ben jumps down the throat of anyone who cites wikipedia (which itself is cited heavily), but he posts gems like this.

FWIW, this is exactly the point I was making. The site he quoted is exactly the type of people I'm describing. If you go to their 'About Us' section they're still raving about 9/11. They're all about PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES FROM THE TERRIRSTS.

They jump on **** like this and exploit the hell out of it to serve their own agendas. Ben included.

[SpencerH]

Was this a terrorist attack? That would depend on his intent but my current appraisal is no.

Was this attack in any way analogous to a US infiltration of and attack on an "enemy base"? Are you out of your ****ing mind!

The most important question to be asked from all this is why the **** was this guy still in the military? Since he clearly opposed the war, either he should have left voluntarily where he would've been free to do as he wished or he should've been given the boot as a security risk. It smacks of either incompetance or "political correctness" on the part of his superiors.

[Ben Kenobi]

I like how Ben jumps down the throat of anyone who cites wikipedia (which itself is cited heavily), but he posts gems like this.

I have no problem with wikipedia, as a source of citations.

I have a problem with 'wikipedia' as a source in and of itself. Every time you have used it, all you do is quote the wikipedia article. That's totally useless to me. I can edit the article Asher, and don't forget that. Why not take the extra step and simply quote the actual citation?

FWIW, this is exactly the point I was making. The site he quoted is exactly the type of people I'm describing. If you go to their 'About Us' section they're still raving about 9/11. They're all about PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES FROM THE TERRIRSTS.

WTF is your malfunction? Do you seriously contest anything in the article? It's being reported in the Canada Free Press, which is where I came across this article in the first place. Unlike you, I decided to quote the actual source rather than the CFP.

I think it's pretty clear here. This is an instance of "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome". It appears that the man had serious AQ ties, which was what was speculated earlier.

[DaShi]

Asher is right. That site is pretty ridiculous.

[Asher]

I have no problem with wikipedia, as a source of citations.

I have a problem with 'wikipedia' as a source in and of itself. Every time you have used it, all you do is quote the wikipedia article. That's totally useless to me. I can edit the article Asher, and don't forget that. Why not take the extra step and simply quote the actual citation?



WTF is your malfunction? Do you seriously contest anything in the article? It's being reported in the Canada Free Press, which is where I came across this article in the first place. Unlike you, I decided to quote the actual source rather than the CFP.

I think it's pretty clear here. This is an instance of "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome". It appears that the man had serious AQ ties, which was what was speculated earlier.

Hahahahahaa....

The Canada Free Press is not a reliable news source either. Just because you have joke news sources citing eachother doesn't make it reliable info! Canada Free Press -- which is simply a conservative website -- has only been around a few years and has already had to apologize to people for making inaccurate remarks and slandering them.

Get ****ed, Ben, take your fearmongering elsewhere.

You're like a ****ing vulture. Every time someone dies you jump on it, pimp the hell out of the situation to serve your own agenda and beliefs. If you could you'd probably replace the guy in your avatar with the faces of all of these guys and a caption of 'FIGHT ISLAM'.

Edit: TO BE CLEAR, Ben, wikipedia is at the VERY LEAST peer-edited. Yes, anyone can make changes to the site but if you question the integrity of the site YOU CAN VIEW THE CHANGE TRANSACTION and the cites yourself.

You have a bad habit of quoting sites that are TABLOID POLITICAL RAGS with agendas and no citations. You seem to think highly of yourself for not quoting a CFP article -- which itself is a joke -- and instead going "straight to the source": a no-name website that has no source. Any idiot can publish **** like that.

[Riesstiu IV]

Why doesn't Ben show his patriotism and join the army?

[BeBMan]

Or the Légion Ètrangére.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Canada Free Press is not a reliable news source either.

So you'd trust me editing wiki over the Canada Free Press? Ok.

Just because you have joke news sources citing eachother doesn't make it reliable info! Canada Free Press -- which is simply a conservative website

So because a source which you purport to be 'conservative', that makes them unreliable? This, asher, is called bias. I've already stated why I believe wiki to be unreliable, and it has nothing to do with the content, but everything to do with the inherent weaknesses associated with wikipedia. But again, since you aren't an arts major, I would presume you were unaware of these weaknesses. You want to be laughed at in serious scholarship? Go ahead and cite wikipedia.

When I'm listening to you, I have to go by what people say about themselves as the highest gage of bias. When you claim conservative sites make them unreliable, that means I have to take all of your claims with a grain of salt. It's like listening to Stalin about capitalism, the only thing Stalin is valuable for, is a reliable source on himself, not on capitalism.

You're like a ****ing vulture. Every time someone dies you jump on it, pimp the hell out of the situation to serve your own agenda and beliefs.

I did not start this thread. Elok started this thread, and I answered the question. I also cited a source which I consider to be reliable demonstrating AQ connections.

Now, if you have a problem with this claim, I want to hear you say it. Do you doubt this man had AQ connections? Yes or no.

TO BE CLEAR, Ben, wikipedia is at the VERY LEAST peer-edited. Yes, anyone can make changes to the site but if you question the integrity of the site YOU CAN VIEW THE CHANGE TRANSACTION and the cites yourself.

Again, I would rather rely on primary or secondary sources, when available. Yes, I can view the changes, but again, we are relying on people who have 3rd hand sources, we do not know who they are, etc. etc. etc.

Wikipedia is inherently unreliable as a source. This isn't seriously questioned by anyone who does research.

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Peer reviewed means that the identities of those doing the editing are known, and that their credentials can be established. Wikipedia does not allow either.

You have a bad habit of quoting sites that are TABLOID POLITICAL RAGS with agendas and no citations.

I quoted a source, not me, who I believe to be reliable. You may not find them reliable, that is fine. You, however are biased against conservatives, and that makes you unreliable when assessing the reliability of sites you believe are conservative.