« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Was it an act of Terrorism?

By: Flagstaff (Diary)  |  November 11th, 2009 at 06:59 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yes.

This may be obvious to everybody else by now, but it wasn’t obvious to me until today.

At first (and still, to some extent), I didn’t think it mattered much just what we called it–it was murder, I’d also say treason, and certainly worth the death penalty.  There were plenty of more important aspects to this event.  And I have no idea whether anything yet to come in the legal prosecution of this case depends upon whether it’s determined to be “terrorism” or not.

Be that as it may, today I realized that it was definitely terrorism, and it isn’t even a close call.  The only reason it’s being discussed is that nobody has ever officially defined just what terrorism is.  It’s been one of those “I know it when I see it” kind of things.  Until now.  Today, this analogy popped to mind:

If Hassan had strapped a bomb to his body, or planted it in a car, and had he then caused it to explode in an area on Fort Hood where 14 people would be killed and 38 more wounded, it would clearly be called “terrorism.”  The only difference between that scenario and what actually transpired is the weapon of choice.

Although analogies don’t always work as a means to explain unusual events, this one seems to be pretty exact.  In fact, it shows just how mundane the event was, unusual only in the fact that it occurred on American soil.  I think it also puts to rest the idea that it was simply the act of a “wacky psychiatrist,” a point that al Qaeda apologists seem to never tire of making.

It’s time to recognize the fact that we have allowed the 9/10 mindset to creep back to life, and that fear of reprisals for “political incorrectness” prevented this terrorist from being identified and perhaps stopped before he killed.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • penguin2

    If I remember correctly, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the FBI watch list and agents noted they were in the country. Their superiors squashed the report due to the political correctness which had been in full assault in the 90′s. Instead of learning our lesson from 9/11, we seem determined to continue on this self-destructive path. Terrorism is not only about the weapon or place, but the intent.

    Hassan may have had mental health issues, but then I consider Jihad extremists to have some sort of issue, and if American military or civilians are the target, it is terrorism.

  • Flagstaff

    or even important, but it was nice to see a similar analysis (done in one sentence or two) in a letter to Bill O’Reilly on TV about 2 hours after I posted this. He of course thought it was “a brilliant” point.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    attacking our military forces in essentially an ambush. Terrorism is ordinarily defined as an attack against innocent civilians to make a political point.

    But in can be both.

    Had Hasan not been an American citizen, it would we an act of war.

    see the definition of treason in the Constitution

    it requires a citizen to either

    1-levy war against the US

    or

    2-adhere to enemies they aid and abet

    more later

    and still wrking on my gop vs dem party “extremist” column coming this week

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    For one thing, it matters if Hasan was on duty at the time. In his off hours, he could be considered a terrorist, and to have committed treason.

  • Flagstaff

    And there was at least one witness to his shouted oath supporting our Islamic enemies, plus many witnesses to his aiding and abetting (surely killing our citizens, civilian or military, in support of a foreign cause, both aids and abets the enemy). The question of “adhering” is a legal one, I suppose. I say we throw him against a wall a few hundred times and see if he “adheres.”

    I stand by my statement. Had he done his damage with a bomb instead of a gun, nobody would be asking, “Was it terrorism?”

    This also illustrates why it wasn’t a great idea to launch a “War on Terror.” A war in response to Islamic aggression would have made more sense. Whether the act is terrorism or not is irrelevant. But it wouldn’t have been as catchy a war cry. (^:^)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • romatrast

    And if you can’t trust the UN, who can you trust!

    In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”.
    From Wikipedia article on terrorism.

    My this definition, Soldier of Allah Hasan’s murderous rampage was an act of war against our military and certainly treasonous. A public hanging would be fitting.

  • Flagstaff

    was an act of terrorism. The soldiers were definitely “non-combatants,” and his intent is becoming more clear every day, based on his own statements to other soldiers and doctors and his contacts with Afghani al Qaeda.

    Terrorism, treason, and multiple murders (including three women, one of whom was pregnant, and four men over the age of 50). I suggest we cut thirteen body parts off his torso, destroy each of them while he watches, then execute him by pouring hot oil down his throat.

    If you read the brief bios of the 13 adults killed, you will see why I’m so angry at this POS.

    Then let’s take a look at the treasonous behavior by Attorney General Eric Holder in deciding to investigate the CIA operatives who were working to protect us from filth like Hassan, and at the judicial system that let the ‘Flying Imams’ collect big bucks because they were reported for suspicious activities. Both of these outrageous official acts have given aid and comfort to our enemies and discouraged any attempt by the people who were critical of Hassan from taking their concerns to a higher level. And General Casey’s concern that the Army will become ‘insensitive’ is ludicrous. The man should resign in shame of his own words.

  • Flagstaff