DoD: Fort Hood jihad massacre “criminal act of single individual,” not international terrorism

Hasan was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, but that doesn’t make it “international terrorism.” One wonders what would make it international terrorism — maybe Hasan would have had to have displayed an al-Qaeda membership card before screaming “Allahu akbar” and opening fire. In any case, these distinctions are stupid. Hasan’s act was jihad, but jihad is the one thing that our government and intelligence apparatus appears determined to ignore. “DOD: Ft. Hood Massacre Likely ‘Criminal Act of Single Individual,’ Not International Terror,” by Ned Berkowitz for ABC News, May 23 (thanks to Block Ness):

It took just hours for England’s Prime Minister to say a gruesome knife and cleaver attack on a serviceman in London was likely an act of terrorism. In the U.S., more than three years since a much deadlier domestic assault on American troops — the 2009 Fort Hood massacre that claimed 13 lives, including that of a pregnant soldier — a top Army attorney maintains that incident was likely a “criminal act of a single individual.”

“…[T]he available evidence in this case does not, at this time, support a finding that the shooting at Fort Hood was an act of international terrorism,” Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman said this week in a letter to Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) on behalf of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

The letter, obtained by ABC News, was apparently written in response to an inquiry from Rooney, Rep. Chaka Fatta (D-Penn.), and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virg.) sent to Hagel on May 6, which questioned whether concerns of “political correctness” informed the Army’s decision to refer to the Fort Hood attack as an act of “workplace violence.” Victims of the shooting have long maintained that calling the attack “workplace violence” instead of “combat related” or an act of terrorism has had a massive impact on the benefits and treatment they’ve received.

In the case of the London attack, two men armed with a handgun, a meat cleaver and a knife are suspected of brutally murdering a lone serviceman, who was out of uniform, in broad daylight Wednesday. They stuck around after the attack and one of the suspects was caught on video telling a passerby he did what he did “because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

In the Fort Hood attack, Maj. Nidal Hasan stands accused of gunning down 13 soldiers and injuring 32 others in November 2009. After the assault, investigators uncovered evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack. Al-Awlaki was apparently such a threat that he has been the only American citizen ever targeted for a drone strike — though three others have been collateral damage, according to President Obama.

In both cases, witnesses reportedly said the alleged attackers shouted “Allahu Akbar,” “God is Great” in Arabic, amid the chaos.

As reflected in Chipman’s letter, the Department of Defense has consistently said that in addition to a supposed lack of evidence, it would be irresponsible to call the Fort Hood attack “terrorism” because it “may have a negative impact on the ongoing judicial process” for Hasan.

The letter also denied that the Defense Department had made a decision to classify the attack as “workplace violence” and said, “[N]o benefit has been denied to any of the victims based on any such classification” — two claims to which the survivors object stringently.

Kimberly Munley, a police officer who was hailed as a hero for her role in stopping the alleged Fort Hood shooter, told ABC News Chipman’s letter is “disgraceful” and “another direct slap in the face.” Attorneys for Munley and most of the other Fort Hood victims called the letter’s claims “counterfactual” and an “insult.”

An attorney for several of the victims, Reed Rubinstein, said the Army’s new letter is “worse than word games.”

“The ‘workplace violence’ classification has been out there for years, and [the Army] has never walked it back,” he said.

In 2010, part of then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ response to the shooting was to “strengthen [the department’s] policies, programs and procedures in… workplace violence.” In October 2011, the Defense Department said it was reviewing the attack “in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence.”

Rubinstein and his partner, Neil Sher, also said calling the attack “an alleged criminal act by a single individual” “rewrites history, consigning the government’s admissions of Hasan’s al-Qaeda ties”¦ down a bureaucratic memory hole.”

Munley said, “It is clear that the Army and the government will continue to not take responsibility for allowing a known terrorist to slip through the ranks while having multiple associations with the now-deceased Anwar al-Awlaki and has complete disregard for those injured on that horrifying day.”…

Yes.

British officials knew for two years that London jihad murderer had ties to al-Qaeda
UK intelligence agency MI5 offered job to London jihad murderer
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    I really don’t get it, Julia Davis ex border guard was labelled as a domestic terrorist, yet the same isn’t being applied to the fort hood shooter. There are more than a few rotten apples in the us government barrel.

  2. says

    So the US military, or those issuing top-level orders, are in full propaganda mode. Whether by ignorance or collusion one can only speculate, but outrages such as these will continue until the American electorate wakes up. I shudder to think what it will take to accomplish that.

  3. says

    Expert on network news channel explained: if it is just a couple of individuals acting “on their own”, it’s not terrorism. According to this new definition of terrorism, the Boston bombings are not terrorism either.

  4. says

    he has been the only American citizen ever targeted for a drone strike — though three others have been collateral damage, according to President Obama.

    That’s not exactly true…Awlaki’s 16 year old son was taken out while eating at an outdoor barbecue.

  5. says

    Delusional liars!! They keeep appeasing Muslims to no end! But nothing is going to stop Muslims from their jihad attacks on us.

  6. says

    It so much much needs to be restated that those heinous and murderous acts commited by Hasan was not as Obama and his PC gang claim “Just a case of works place violence” This was, in reality, an actual case a Muslim who was engaging in the terrorist actions of Islam’s militant jihadism. For Hasan kept on yelling out “Allahu Akbar” all the while he was engaging in those ruthless and brutal acts of mass murder. Therefore his religion inspired and drove him to commit all those malicious,hideous and evil acts of murder. For the Quran does teach in Sura 47 “Whenever you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them…” A firearm can make a greater “slaughter among them” then a sword can. Likewise in 9:122 of the Quran it also read “The believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, killand are killed.” These are just two of the many places in the Quran that teach violence and killing. Some “peaceful religion.”
    In short. Hasan is guilty of murder. Likewise, his religion which inspired anddrove to commit those vicious and murderous actions is also guilty of murder.

  7. says

    Does it take a Mime-troupe and a ASL worker to sign the verses from the quran as the jihad is acted out for Obama to finally wake-up and smell the Cleavers.

    The taqqiyah from the islamic media is like the old USSR censors but now is the iron-Burka to hide behind muslim-speak and the clothe so we can’t read their lips for what they are really saying.

  8. says

    “Hasan’s act was jihad, but jihad is the one thing that our government and intelligence apparatus appears determined to ignore.”

    So right, Robert …jeez!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    muslims lie; their *unholy* quran instructs them to lie. And allah’s cause is an evil cause: islam. Beginning, but not ending with, puke-prophet muhammad (perdition be upon him).

  9. says

    What can I say? The Woolwich arseholes made clear, in unusual video, that this was a muslim attack.
    Hasan issued the moronic islmic chant “allahu akbhar” as he slaughtered fellow servicemen.
    The US administration choose to class this clearly islamic atrocity as “workplace violence”.

    I suspect that we Brits may soon revolt – again. the US seem some years behind. On your head be it.

  10. says

    I think I get it. By denying that this act constitutes Islamic jihad/terror, the DoD believes that they are preventing Mr. Hasan from going to heaven, which is a punishment for him that is worse than death. It also implies that the DoD believes that its dictates can influence Allah. Power to the infidels!

  11. says

    Absolutely stunningly disgusting. The deception/ignorance of our federal government is a greater threat to our national security and well being than Islam is.

  12. says

    The DoD understandably wants to say that the US government is not against every one of the few million Muslims living in the USA–hence pretending it’s just one more case of “workplace violence” or the act of a “single individual”.

    However, it has come out in the course of this investigation that Nidal Hasan was motivated by the desire to wage jihad against the USA. That has become clear to a large number of people in the USA. People at high levels may fool themselves, but Nidal Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki are no secret.

    In any case, Nidal Hasan has killed people at peace with him while disgracing his uniform. He deserves the death penalty.

  13. says

    All fits in.

    “Islam, just another great religion, highjacked by a few extremists.” … “W”

    “Yeah, I’m a muslim, hell, where do you think that hussein part of my name came from? ha! I am POTUS … too bad, America, you were stupid enough to elect me!” … barry hussein

    “In my role as muslim manchurian candidate, I am softening up the ‘Great Satin’ for eventual islamic takeover… that’s my job, allah told me. No more GITMO, we want my fellow muslims on the mainland.” … more barry hussein

    Check out Drudge and Fox News to see how much the U.S. Department of Defense is still paying this asshole.

    R/

    Paleologos

  14. says

    … questioned whether concerns of “political correctness” informed the Army’s decision to refer to the Fort Hood attack as an act of “workplace violence.”

    Words

    Words. Put them together and they become text. Then there are the follow on issues: are they comforting or upsetting? Who will hear or read them? Do they represent reality or are they a manipulation? And, nowadays, are they even legal to freely speak?

    This are especially important questions when the words involve the reserve status automatically bestowed on anything involving religion.

    But, as Barack Hussein Obama himself said, “Words are important.”

    Indeed they are. What we have here with Ft. Hood is a redefinition of reality by the occlusion of facts. But what are facts, if not just another paragraph of words?

    His speech the other night involved misdirection, redefinition, manipulation, comforting… and religion. We’re not at war with them, and only a small percentage of them are at war with us. This is of course a fiction, one that occludes important facts. If repeated enough they become believed enough and soon they become fictive reality, where something that is not real, that is not factual, is so widely accepted as fact that it may as well be.

    The key juncture in this hustle is the threshold beyond which the words, the facts, are introduced into the mainstream consciousness, in other words recounted with credibility on national TV and in the newspapers.

    The term politically correctness is damaging and self-defeating. While political, PC words are inherently incorrect. Fictive reality. Fictive realities are en masse occlusions that leave a population, including its voter base, blind to key things. This is how hundreds of millions are manipulated, not by gun barrel disincentive but by the comfort inducing incentive to accept as true things that are not. The disincentives themselves are words. Racist. Bigot. Homophobe. Xenophobe… and the biggie: Islamophobe.

    The decision of what you may believe is made by the editors who tell the talking heads what to read or write. The editors answer to the owners, who act in accord with their interests, with little or no regard for what’s true. So, the next time Bill O’Reilly blabs about “Muslim moderates” and Sean Hannity breathlessly inveighs against “Islamic extremists,” the best thing to do is to think about what Roger Ailes is thinking and what he wants. And, above him, what Rupert Murdoch wants.

    Two sides the same coin: Fox News vs. the mainstream media. The New York Times vs. the WSJ. The Democrats vs. the Republicans.

    Until the truth is introduced to the populace, and may it can’t be so it will never happen, until reality can displace fictive reality, it looks like we’re sunk.

    Let freedom ring… the doorbell on its way out, as one last gag before it forever disappears into the dark of the night.

  15. says

    1. We do know that Hasan murdered/wounded all of those military/DoD personnel.

    While we don’t know if the desire to terrorize the filthy kuffar played a part in his decision to murder/wound them, there is no doubt that his religious literalism did.

    He’s being charged with murder, assault, etc.

    Not with terrorism.

    So far, so good.

    2. The dead and wounded were engaged not in combat with an enemy. They were attacked by a criminal, and are not eligible for a purple heart, combat pay, etc. as a result of Hasan’s actions.

    3. The wounded and the families of the dead are seeking purple heart awards in order to be compensated the same as combat wounded vets, and I think they shoud be properly compensated (health, financial, whatever).

    4. IMO, however, the purpose and reasons for awarding military medals need not be tinkered with or changed in order to provide such compensation, if congress would create a bill providing said compensation to those folks as a special compensation package.

    It would probably be an even better solution, as the bill would be in their names.

    Weren’t the 9/11 survivors and family members compensated similary?

  16. says

    The disgusting part is how the government is using half truths to avoid admitting the actuak truth:

    HALF TRUTHS:
    – It was a “criminal act of a single individual” — technically true in that killing people is criminal and only one person pulled the trigger

    – It was “workplace violence” — technically true, occurred at a place of work and it was a wee bit violent

    – It was not “international terrorism” — possibly true in that Al-Alwaki may not qualify as a co-conspirator under the rules of evidence in the US criminal justice system

    CRITICAL MISSING TRUTH
    — It was an act of “Islamic terrorism” — this is the one statement that clearly and precisely describes the nature and motivation for a bearded Mohammaden yelling “Allahu Akbar” and massacring dozens of people simply because they are infidels. Hard to think of a clearer example of “Islamic” and “terrorism”.

    So the government is using lawyerly half-truths to hide the only real truth.

  17. says

    DoD: Fort Hood jihad massacre “criminal act of single individual,” not international terrorism
    …………………………

    Never mind his links with Al-Awleki. Never mind his screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he attacked. Never mind his “Soldier of Allah” business cards. Never mind his giving away Qur’ans the night before the Jihad attack. Never mind his pre-attack rants about Da’wa and Jihad made while he was supposed to be lecturing to his fellow soldiers, ignored by higher-ups for months on end.

    What fools these dhimmis be!

  18. says

    The government is further undermining their own credibility by their ‘Alice in Wonderland’ approach to reality.

    Hassan should be in Gitmo! And the top brass of the military replaced by real soldiers who are neither ostriches nor cowards.

    But then, the intelligence of this nation has been so crippled by political correctness, where can we find such people?

  19. says

    RS often gives the example that if I knock you down and steal your wallet it’s a crime, but if I knock you down, steal your wallet and call you a nasty name, it’s a HATE crime.

    So what is it if I knock you down and steal your wallet and yell Allahu Akbar?

  20. says

    “…[T]he available evidence in this case does not, at this time, support a finding that the shooting at Fort Hood was an act of international terrorism…”

    Well, yes. It was a domestic act of terrorism.

    What’s the use of splitting hairs over the definition that most aptly applies?

    Call it workplace violence, domestic terrorism, or just plain, old treason.

    I don’t care. Just hang him high till he’s dead, then soak his corpse in bacon grease and send it to Porkistan or somewhere over there.

    Just. Get. It. Done.

  21. says

    That British debate was pretty depressing. The advocate for free speech was not very good, and the witnesses called on behalf of free speech were also not that great.

  22. says

    You’re damned right Gerald. The electors have gotta require their prospective representatives at election time, to state their position on the threat that Islam represents to the free world

  23. says

    You’re so right gravenimage. The government has accepted dhimmitude on behalf of the population, without even bldy having a referendum on such a significant issue. We’re fkd over by our very own.

  24. says

    Since the unholy Koran is a hate book, and Mohammed (cbuh) was to say the least a hateful person, and since the resulting “religion” is full of hateful declarations, can’t one logically conclude that any crime committed under the influence of Islam is a hate crime?

    c=curses

  25. says

    Well, this is why I think that the whole category of “hate crimes” is suspect. Who, loving his neighbor, or simply respecting him, will kill or rob him?

  26. says

    whatmecare,

    I agree with the useful dissection you did.

    It’s incredibly disturbing to see how advanced the same half-truth business seems to be in the UK. At least that’s the impression I got from watching the “British Debate” linked to in this comment above.

    However, there is the UK lawyer and mosque-buster Gavin Boby, who I think tells it straight.

  27. says

    Well, I do, on the whole, agree with the things he says. And I’m trying to welcome him here, because I think he’s a valuable addition here, and he previously had a rough entry. I’m displaying my agreement with him, because I want people to know that I consider him an ally, that I’m vouching for him. If my concept of him turns out to be very off from what I thought, I’ll eat crow till the end of days and tell everyone you were right all along.