Friday, February 15, 2013

Members of Congress Demand Obama Administration Classify Fort Hood Massacre as Act of Terrorism

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah," massacred 13 people (including a pregnant woman) at Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akbar." The Obama Administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence," similar to an attack by a disgruntled postal worker. Some members of Congress are calling for a change in the ruling.

ABC News--In the wake of an ABC News story detailing claims by victims of the Fort Hood shooting that they have been neglected by the military and 'betrayed' by President Obama, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress demanding that the Obama administration classify the attack as a terrorist act and provide full benefits to the victims and their families.

"It is time for the administration to recognize the Fort Hood shooting for what it is—an act of terrorism," wrote Rep. Michael McCaul, R.-Texas, in a letter cosigned by Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Virginia. "To date, the Department of Defense and the Army classify this attack [as] 'workplace violence,' despite mountains of evidence [that] clearly proves the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terror."

The letter recommends that members of Congress view the ABC News report, "which highlights the broken promises made to the victims of that attack by the Obama Administration. The video contains never-seen-before footage of the terrorist attack and moving interviews with several of the survivors."

"As this news piece makes clear," wrote McCaul and Wolf, "the result of this inexcusable [workplace violence] classification … is that victims and their families have not received the same recognition or medical and financial benefits as those wounded or killed in war."

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. (Continue Reading.)


Anonymous said...

Remember, the military/government was clear in their view on this afterwards. A high-ranking general was interviewed and said that the worst thing that could be hurt by this incident was "diversity," or some such nonsense.

Anonymous said...

I hate to keep riding this theme but its hilarious:

When you follow a crazy caveman, you're gonna act like one.

You know, It's interesting that Muslims rave about Muhammad's inability to read. I find this to be extremely hilarious. I'm wondering if stupidity is inherent in Islam because I can't understand how in spite of the facts Muslims continue to defend a man that was clearly and idiot and out of his mind.

Zack_Tiang said...

Amen! Please! Let's call a spade a spade and the justice system to work its justice and to hell with political correctness.

Chief Mac said...

What has taken Congress so long?

Ken said...

Major Nidal Hassan was clearly a committed Jihadist or Islamist Muslim - his speeches to the military before and his emails and correspondence with Al Alawki confirm this; so the US government/ Obama administration should confess that it made a mistake; and should not only call it "terrorism"; but "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" or "Islamic Jihadist Terrorism".

calling it "workplace violence" is clearly out of fear of offending the other Muslims, like CAIR, etc. and is part of the narrative that the Obama administration is trying to promote. (that narrative seems to be behind the way they responded to the Benghazi scandal in Lybia; and also based on statements made by John Brennan himself, who interprets "Jihad" as only the inner struggle against sin. Even that on Hadith statement, is only one weak hadith that is not even in the 6 canonical Hadith collections)

Not all Muslims are like this; but we should be able to call something "Islamic terrorism" when it truly is inspired by the texts of Islam.

Unknown said...

I'd like to know why the attack on Ft. Hood ought to be classified as an act of terrorism aside from anticipated benefit considerations.

Joe Bradley said...

Workplace violence? - RUBBISH!

Its just our Muslim President trying to obfuscate the true nature of Islam. After all, isn't that what Muslims are supposed to do?

Foolster41 said...

@Derrick: Maybe because it was an act of terror?

Deleting said...

Derek said, "I'd like to know why the attack on Ft. Hood ought to be classified as an act of terrorism aside from anticipated benefit considerations."

Because he was shouting Allah Akbar between shots.

Because he had just given a presentation on jihad and Islam.

Because he was in contact with Anwar Alalki and was being actively coached by him.

Because he said in an email to alaki he was going to do it.

If there's any other question as to the mans motivations it should be easily resolved by the fact Hassan is actively growing a beard and refuses to shave it off even though he's being fined every day he has it.

Your questions are getting old Derek. Why not troll somewhere else for a change. Maybe go to Osama Abdullah's website since he's been kicked off of here. He could use someone else to talk to.

hellosnackbar said...

If the murder of 13 people by a Muslim within the USA is not an act of terrorism; then terrorism needs a new definition.
It is a demonstration that the murderous dogma of Islam can cause psychopathy .
He should go before a firing squad with a necklace of pig entrails.

simple_truth said...

Derrick Abdul-Hakim said...

"I'd like to know why the attack on Ft. Hood ought to be classified as an act of terrorism aside from anticipated benefit considerations."

I don't think that it was because of the benefits; rather, it was the lack of classification that denied them benefits that they were originally entitled to.

The incident was not only violence in the workplace, but Islamic terrorism for the reasons given by others. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when we follow the example of that old criminal Mohammad.
We just end up honoring the devil in the place of God.

All murders are an honor to the devil, which is part of the reason for God's command (the 5th) that:

"You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13

Unknown said...

The Obama Administration refuses to recognize the terrorist act because it is an act of war. The global jihad has declared war AGAINST the West, especially the U.S., and to acknowledge that fact would be to admit Obama is complicit and facilitating submission to the global jihad. Obama has removed criminal intent from jihad crimes, funds and arms global jihadists with U.S. tax-payer money, and "respects" Shariah law. He is a traitor and needs to be impeached!

Murtadd said...

Let's ask the question;
Did this so- called peaceful" moderate" MUSLIM violate any of the tenets of his religion by murdering people including an unborn child? The answer is NO. He followed his disgusting prophet's evil ways as prescribed.

Have you notice that "allahu akbar" is almost always shouted when there is bloodshed.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

And muslims wanna convince us that we are worshipping the same God, absolutely disgusting.

In Christ, for Christ, by Chriist

Anonymous said...

My apologies; it should be the 6th commandment, not the 5th (Exodus 20:13)

Unknown said...


I’m quite comfortable classifying the massacre as terrorism, but that calls for a working definition of terrorism. What is terrorism? How should we distinguish acts of terrorism from similar acts? According to the State Department’s definition, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” Compare that with the FBI’s definition: “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Which is it? The former seems restricted while the latter seems broad enough to apply to everyday inner city gang activity. No easy task, I say.

By the way, Deleting, if you’re tired of my alleged “trolling” then focus your efforts elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

According to 18 USC 2331, international terrorism is

"involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;"

That is US law. Find it here:

One could also argue that it was an act of war, but that would involve stepping out of the "3rd Generation Warfare" paradigm, and accepting the fact that we are in the age of 4GW, where non-state actors fight asymmetrically versus a centralized power. These non-state actors can be united in belief, or in opposition to a "greater evil," in our case, the US.

Hassan's actions, according to USC, are international terrorism. They are also acts of war, although the outdated paradigm of war being limited only to centralized states will take some time to be replaced.

In the meantime, we can expect things to look like WW1, where Napoleonic tactics were used against fixed machine gun positions. It was very, very ugly until the military leadership got it through their heads that the paradigm/reality had changed.


Deleting said...

First, at the end of Derek's blather he said, "By the way, Deleting, if you’re tired of my alleged “trolling” then focus your efforts elsewhere."

I didn't allege and here you pretty much admit you're doing if it didn't show that's what you're doing.

But lets backtrack to his question. Derek said, "What is terrorism? How should we distinguish acts of terrorism from similar acts?...blah..."

Word Jihad again.

Why do you need help defining terrorism? Why?
Other than the different wording between the two definitions the act was still the same: Hassan fired on unarmed co-workers in the name of Islam. He shouted Allah Akbar between rounds.
It was premeditated.
It was designed to influence a group.
It was the name of Islam, a political and religious system.

Derek either you're trying to derail another conversation, which is what you've been doing all along (hence, why I called you a troll) or you really are clueless. I doubt you're clueless so just stop. It is CLEAR to anyone who reads even a fraction of the new reports on the Fort Hood massacre it was an act of terrorism.
Obama wanted to term it workplace violence for his own reasons which are far reaching beyond just compensating the victim's families, but under any other administration it would be called what it is, terrorism.

simple_truth said...

Deleting, Derrick Abdul-Hakim is asking you that question (IMO) to get you to realize that the US or Western countries commit terrorism against Muslims or Islamic countries. In that way, blood is on our hands too. Essentially, we're no better than they are, which whitewashes everything and renders Islam free of any charges levied against it.

Derrick must realize that his religion authorizes terrorism as a means of growing the religion and achieving its goal of world domination whereby everyone is supposed to become Muslim and we will have the earth become an Islamic state. Then everyone should be at peace (per Islamic def) as Islam claims its religion is.

Deleting said...

Simple said to me, "is asking you that question (IMO) to get you to realize that the US or Western countries commit terrorism against Muslims or Islamic countries. "

I disagree. That's not what he's doing. (also, I don't know where the western countries part came in here...)
My problem with Derek is his methods.

Derrick has two modes: loaded questions and long diatribes. Usually he does it when the post shows Islam in an embarrassing light. He launches into a polemic tirade in really long and complicated jargon (using the same obtuse word repeatedly). Other times, he asks a loaded question to evoke a response so he can launch another long verbal and verbose attack.

Now, maybe he's really bad at engaging in conversation but he's articulate and smart. Arrow has asked him direct questions several times and Derek didn't reply. I don't need to guess why that is.

I called him out a few posts ago on this. Other people saw it too.

Sure, David posts blog articles that upset Derek, but if he's really THAT disturbed by what he reads here then he either needs to change his religion or he needs to quit coming here.

Anonymous said...

The definition:

“premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” ("State Department’s definition")


“the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” ("the FBI’s definition")

...are both from the same overall government ordained by God...

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13:1

...and are saying the same thing, that is, any criminal behaviour which includes acts of terror, intimidation etc. is unlawful.

Whether they are commited by Islamists or "inner city" gangs is irrelevant. The same law applies to all, as per the following verses.

Therefore whoever resists the authority [temporal government] resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves [for criminal behaviour].

For civil authorities are not a terror to good works [abiding by the law], but to evil [crime]. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is Gods servant to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword (law enforcement) in vain; for he is God’s servant, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’s sake.

For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers [public servants – judges, magistrates, police] attending continually to this very thing.

Romans 13:2-6 [60 A.D.]

Unknown said...

You mentioned portion (A) but you didn’t mention portion B:
“appear to be intended –

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping...”

Condition (i) – (ii) state that any act with the intention to use force as a means to intimidate or coerce a person, population, or government qualifies as international terrorism. Unfortunately, as a definition, it fails to distinguish terrorism from extortion. Acts of coercion already fall within the confines of law, and I don’t see what’s morally or conceptually distinct in the definition that isn’t already covered by extortion; if (i)-(iii) qualify one’s act as terrorism, then terrorism, as far as law is concerned, isn’t different from extortion. That seems redundant to me. So I’m not sure what the definition intends to achieve or what it particularly delineates.

Unknown said...


You can start by spelling my name as it appears on the screen. Anyhow, to answer your question: terrorism, like any other concept, needs to be clearly defined in a non-pejorative way. In common day usage, terrorism often is a charge of moral condemnation. Perhaps it is. However, it’s also a technical term in law. So anyone guilty of it should be guilty of committing certain acts. That begs the question: what *are* those acts and how does one properly distinguish *those* acts from similar acts? You mentioned Hassan’s actions as the following: premeditated, designed to influence a group, and murder in the name of an ideology. Let’s assume that’s enough to qualify Hassan’s actions as terrorism. That would mean ANYONE guilty of premeditated murder with the intent to influence a group is a terrorist. As I said yesterday, that much is true of many inner-city gangs (try Los Angeles) as well as various mob groups (try New York). What about it isn’t already covered by premeditated murder and extortion in law?

And just for the record I’m not trying to derail the conversation (as if one existed prior to my post). I just don’t believe terrorism is easily defined, nor do I think the current definitions on offer do a decent job of picking out a morally/conceptually distinct act. That’s just my view. I asked for clarification about a term that’s used in both a loose sense as well as a technical sense. Since everyone in the linked article seemed so gun-sure that they know the massacre was an act of terrorism I thought it would be a good idea to ask for clarity about a disputed concept so many people claim to know a priori.

Anonymous said...


Ok great.

But will you at least admit that Islam is inherently violent?

Sadly Major Nidal was duped by Islam. Instead of getting his virgins, he's getting life in prison.

If it wasn't such a serious matter, it would be hilarious.

Deleting said...

Derrick says he's serious about engaging in conversation so I'm going to go with it for now. went through a lot of writing to say that if Hassan is a terrorist then Gangs/Mob are also terrorists.

Problem: gangs/Mobs aren't apart of an ideology that calls for violence to achieve a government goal or eternal command from God. They kill because of feuds, because of wars or profits.
Furthermore it seems you're trying to build a case that the current definitions are too weak to classify someone as a terrorist so we either need to stamp everyone terrorist or no one is a terrorist OR you mean to say that it's judgmental to deem Hassan a terrorist when the same can't be said for gangs/mobs.

Derrrick put yourself in the shoes of one of the victim's families. Would this still be a cause of concern? Do you know of any victim's family who believes workplace violence is a fitting term for what happened?

The laws against terrorism, as weak and loose as you claim them to be, serve to protect you and your family by 1.) dissuading violent behavior, 2.) punishing those that are guilty and would do it again, or 3.) avenging you if you were the victim.

However nothing subtracts from the point that Obama ruled it workplace violence and it clearly is not.

As for mispelling your name, I tried to address points made and spend a lot of time scrolling up and down the points made to address them so much so that spelling your name wasn't a top priority. Not to be catty but it's still not. You know I was talking to you but I made the effort in this post to spell it right. Thanks for noticing.