I'm sure most would agree w/your opinion that regardless of motivation, acts of violence committed by individuals like those committed by Maj Hasan, are considered terrorism. However, in all definitions offered for the term, terrorism is defined by acts of violence committed for "political, ideological, or religious," reasons. Speculative public opinion aside, from the perspective of law enforcement understanding what motivates such a violent act is key to understanding the larger threat.
From the standpoint of law enforcement, how does understanding the political, ideological and or religious motives of terrorists prevent acts of terrorism? We are talking prevention, correct? Whereas law enforcement comes to identify prevalence within one or more of these motivational factors and targets groups of people, or individuals, based upon their association with one or more of these factors. (continued)
(continued) The logical conclusion here is that law enforcement, in order to prevent or reduce acts of terrorism, must either eradicate or limit the populaces association or exposure with these motives. This is a rather interesting proposition, and ultimately one that would neither impress James Madison nor prevent acts of terrorism. It is by this very proposition (continued)
(continued) where we acquiesce to limiting or extinguishing our most fundamental of freedoms, and yet evil continues to flourish in the indulgences of societys understanding.
Thank you for this insightful analysis. You are right about the problem with the terminology regarding terrorism.
Terrorism is a term used to describe attacks on civilian targets. John Muhammad, the DC sniper, was a terrorist because he chose civilian targets. But he was not a Jihadi because his primary motivation was not Jizzlam.
Hasan is a Jihadi but not a terrorist because he hit a military target.
Jihadis and terrorists can act alone. They do not necessarily have to be members of al-Qaeda or other organizations to be Jihadis or terrorists.
But experience indicates that in most cases terrorists are Jizzlamic Jihadis who are involved with terrorist organizations that provide information (usually about bombs and targets) and financial support.
Hasan should have been discharged before the attack for being either a Jihadi or a psycho.
Fundementally, I believe many problems within the realm of U.S. counterterrorism efforts lies in the differences in defining terrorism from one agency to the next. If you were to set the definitions aside though, I believe the key to unlocking the mystery that is Major Hasan is determining who his intended victims were. If on the one hand, his victims were merely the innocents he shot that day then that indicates to me a more self centered act fueled by a religiously conflicted person.
If, on the other hand, we learn that Major Hassan's intended victims were not the physical victims of his violent acts, but rather the public at large, then we see the true marker of a religiously inspired terrorist.
Perhaps the demarcation should not be set by differentiating terms like 'religiously conflicted' and 'religiously inspired'? It seems rather irrelevant and intellectually terse to consider motivation or association in defining an act or its perpetrator(s). Terrorism is the term utilized, and generally understood in Western vernacular, to describe the generation of fear through acts of violence, intimidation and/or coercion. As such and regardless of motivation or association, (continued)
(continued) Nidal Malik Hasan became a publicly known terrorist on November 5, 2009, as did Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995. One need not explore the minutiae of neither act or actor nor association in order to define or understand its consequences. Otherwise we become lost within the abyss of conjecture and inference, committed to the pursuit of arguing the categorical nature of people who are either religiously conflicted or religiously inspired. (continued)
(continued) It makes little difference as to consequence whether the person(s) who commit the act or acts are crusaders, criminals or crazies. To our detriment, we are overly preoccupied with stereotyping the actors. Is it not the act by which the actor is defined, rather than the actor the act?
@ZeusWept I'm sure most would agree with your view that acts of violence committed by individuals like those committed by Major Hasan, regardless of motivation, would be considered terrorism. However, in almost every definition offered for the term terrorism, terrorism is defined by acts of violence committed for "political, ideological, or religious" motives. From the perspective of law enforcement, understanding what motivated an act of terrorism is key to understanding the larger threat.
I don't care if he is a jihad or what. Hasan is an asshole, and should be put to death tomorrow morning. He IS a terrorist, and even had cards printed that read. SOA, servant of allah
I'm sure most would agree w/your opinion that regardless of motivation, acts of violence committed by individuals like those committed by Maj Hasan, are considered terrorism. However, in all definitions offered for the term, terrorism is defined by acts of violence committed for "political, ideological, or religious," reasons. Speculative public opinion aside, from the perspective of law enforcement understanding what motivates such a violent act is key to understanding the larger threat.
NobleUSANews 2 years ago
@NobleUSANews
Your reply is most kind and appreciated.
From the standpoint of law enforcement, how does understanding the political, ideological and or religious motives of terrorists prevent acts of terrorism? We are talking prevention, correct? Whereas law enforcement comes to identify prevalence within one or more of these motivational factors and targets groups of people, or individuals, based upon their association with one or more of these factors. (continued)
ZeusWept 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZeusWept 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZeusWept 2 years ago
@NobleUSANews
(continued) The logical conclusion here is that law enforcement, in order to prevent or reduce acts of terrorism, must either eradicate or limit the populaces association or exposure with these motives. This is a rather interesting proposition, and ultimately one that would neither impress James Madison nor prevent acts of terrorism. It is by this very proposition (continued)
ZeusWept 2 years ago
(continued) where we acquiesce to limiting or extinguishing our most fundamental of freedoms, and yet evil continues to flourish in the indulgences of societys understanding.
ZeusWept 2 years ago
If the US Armed forces is so dumb as to allow Muslims into the marines, Army etc, then stupidity rules.
sparwood8 2 years ago
Thank you for this insightful analysis. You are right about the problem with the terminology regarding terrorism.
Terrorism is a term used to describe attacks on civilian targets. John Muhammad, the DC sniper, was a terrorist because he chose civilian targets. But he was not a Jihadi because his primary motivation was not Jizzlam.
Hasan is a Jihadi but not a terrorist because he hit a military target.
RonaldDumbsfeld 2 years ago
(continued)
Jihadis and terrorists can act alone. They do not necessarily have to be members of al-Qaeda or other organizations to be Jihadis or terrorists.
But experience indicates that in most cases terrorists are Jizzlamic Jihadis who are involved with terrorist organizations that provide information (usually about bombs and targets) and financial support.
Hasan should have been discharged before the attack for being either a Jihadi or a psycho.
RonaldDumbsfeld 2 years ago
Fundementally, I believe many problems within the realm of U.S. counterterrorism efforts lies in the differences in defining terrorism from one agency to the next. If you were to set the definitions aside though, I believe the key to unlocking the mystery that is Major Hasan is determining who his intended victims were. If on the one hand, his victims were merely the innocents he shot that day then that indicates to me a more self centered act fueled by a religiously conflicted person.
NobleUSANews 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZeusWept 2 years ago
(continued)
If, on the other hand, we learn that Major Hassan's intended victims were not the physical victims of his violent acts, but rather the public at large, then we see the true marker of a religiously inspired terrorist.
NobleUSANews 2 years ago
Perhaps the demarcation should not be set by differentiating terms like 'religiously conflicted' and 'religiously inspired'? It seems rather irrelevant and intellectually terse to consider motivation or association in defining an act or its perpetrator(s). Terrorism is the term utilized, and generally understood in Western vernacular, to describe the generation of fear through acts of violence, intimidation and/or coercion. As such and regardless of motivation or association, (continued)
ZeusWept 2 years ago
(continued) Nidal Malik Hasan became a publicly known terrorist on November 5, 2009, as did Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995. One need not explore the minutiae of neither act or actor nor association in order to define or understand its consequences. Otherwise we become lost within the abyss of conjecture and inference, committed to the pursuit of arguing the categorical nature of people who are either religiously conflicted or religiously inspired. (continued)
ZeusWept 2 years ago
(continued) It makes little difference as to consequence whether the person(s) who commit the act or acts are crusaders, criminals or crazies. To our detriment, we are overly preoccupied with stereotyping the actors. Is it not the act by which the actor is defined, rather than the actor the act?
Good health to you and yours,
ZeusWept 2 years ago
@ZeusWept I'm sure most would agree with your view that acts of violence committed by individuals like those committed by Major Hasan, regardless of motivation, would be considered terrorism. However, in almost every definition offered for the term terrorism, terrorism is defined by acts of violence committed for "political, ideological, or religious" motives. From the perspective of law enforcement, understanding what motivated an act of terrorism is key to understanding the larger threat.
NobleUSANews 2 years ago
I don't care if he is a jihad or what. Hasan is an asshole, and should be put to death tomorrow morning. He IS a terrorist, and even had cards printed that read. SOA, servant of allah
sparwood8 2 years ago