Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

[arildno]

We may note the following outbursts from Hasan during lectures he gave to fellow medical doxtors:

Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

 

[Sorry!]

And what would be morally wrong about that?

Does it oppress the killer?

Are you part of the military or have any family in the military?

 

[mheslep]

This is exactly the point. At this time the existing circumstantial evidence is not enough to
determine whatever it was a terrorist attack. (IMO of course)

What it must be established beyond reasonable doubt is that the perpetrator:

1. Used violence with the intention to perpetrate a political goal

Why? (first highlight mine) Why do you require that standard as to his motives? His actual commission of the crime requires that standard in a courtroom. But for policy purposes and general discussion why do we need BRD for motive?

 

[mheslep]

Yes but as it stands now there is nothing here for us to assume that he infact didn't act alone and until this evidence arises why should we speculate on this persons actions as being terrorism?

Yes it should be investigated but why spread rumors and hearsay without the concrete evidence?

Like this guy was part of the American military and he helped MANY soldiers in his long career as a part of the military

The fact that Hasan was a US soldier makes his actions worse. Just as it did for Calley at My Lai.

so why should you guys come on this forum and **** on him?

Especially if it was some sort of disease that triggered this event. I just don't see why it's necessary at all.

If this attack was politically motivated, it is a fact that there have been a dozen or so similarly politically motivated attack attempts (one successful) against US soldiers and citizens in the US, and it is prudent to look into those politics or cults (I'd call it a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist" cult) to prevent more of the same for happening tomorrow.

Discussing various cited main stream reports as we have them so far is not spreading rumors, nor is it **** on him, because whatever Hasan's motives, he slaughtered and wounded dozens of people, and adults in this country are assumed to be responsible for the actions until shown otherwise (not the other way around). Condemning discussion here of cited reports about Hasan's political motives, is, I think fair to say, **** on the victims, their families, and future possible victims.

 

[DanP]

Why? (first highlight mine) . But for policy purposes and general discussion why do we need BRD for motive?

Because I believe it would make the speculations over the terrorist nature of the attack crystal clear to anyone. Presenting concise support for a theory would make it much easier accepted. But you are right in what you point out , the standard can be lower for the purpose of the discussion on a forum.

However withouout a standard, all this thread is just a bunch of yessayers and naysayers who play with words. It has no substance, and remains nothing but an entertaining string of posts.