Terrorism

[Arraya]

From ABC

Hasan was initially reported to have been killed but Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone told a late-night news conference that the suspect was wounded and in custody. Cone declined to comment on Hasan’s medical condition was but said he is expected to live.
Hasan has not spoken to authorities, Cone said.
Two other soldiers were taken into custody but were later released.

Second Gunman In Custody At Army’s Fort Hood -Report

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

A second gunman is in custody after a shooting at the Army’s Fort Hood in Texas in which at least seven people were killed and 12 wounded, reports KCEN-TV of Waco. The report comes about two hours after a first suspect was captured, shortly after gunfire broke out.
Authorities say the gunmen were dressed in fatigues, though it’s not confirmed whether they are military personnel. It’s also not known if the victims were military personnel or civilians.
The incident reportedly began at Fort Hood’s theater and then moved to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, Killeen City Public Information Officer Hillary Shine told Fox News. A graduation ceremony was scheduled to take place Thursday.

[Arraya]

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/politics/2009/11/09/intelligence-agencies-deny-sitting-information-fort-hood-shooter/

U.S. intelligence officials on Monday denied that the intelligence community “sat” on valuable information about the alleged Fort Hood shooter before last week’s massacre, after one lawmaker questioned whether agencies like the CIA could have done more to warn military and government officials.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, announced Monday that he’s asked the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to “preserve” all documents and material connected to the attack. He said the administration has “critical information” that it is “refusing to release” to Congress and the public about the attack, and that lawmakers will want to “scrutinize” how intelligence officials handled information about the shooter before the attack.

Hoekstra’s announcement came as ABC News reported that intelligence agencies knew for months that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was trying to contact people associated with Al Qaeda. The report said it was unclear whether the agencies informed the Army.,

So CIA knew this guy was a “terrorist” for months and did nothing? Man this story is falling apart at the seams. All that wiretapping and ease dropping is supposed to keep us safe. What happened here?

Of course, my information is that there was a firefight when an argument over refusing to deploy crossed over into a minor mutiny as in three people fighting back.

Since the US Government cannot allow the rest of the military to know there was a revolt in the rank and file, there was a quick decision made to blame the dead Muslim, only it turns out he wasn’t dead, and in typical shoot-from-the-hip fashion the propaganda stories are not being well thought out.

See, the intelligence agencies can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they KNEW about him and let it happen but they also want the “terrorist” story over a mutiny story.

[Arraya]

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/politics/2009/11/09/intelligence-agencies-deny-sitting-information-fort-hood-shooter/

U.S. intelligence officials on Monday denied that the intelligence community “sat” on valuable information about the alleged Fort Hood shooter before last week’s massacre, after one lawmaker questioned whether agencies like the CIA could have done more to warn military and government officials.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, announced Monday that he’s asked the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to “preserve” all documents and material connected to the attack. He said the administration has “critical information” that it is “refusing to release” to Congress and the public about the attack, and that lawmakers will want to “scrutinize” how intelligence officials handled information about the shooter before the attack.

Hoekstra’s announcement came as ABC News reported that intelligence agencies knew for months that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was trying to contact people associated with Al Qaeda. The report said it was unclear whether the agencies informed the Army.,

So CIA knew this guy was a “terrorist” for months and did nothing? Man this story is falling apart at the seams. All that wiretapping and ease dropping is supposed to keep us safe. What happened here?

Of course, my information is that there was a firefight when an argument over refusing to deploy crossed over into a minor mutiny as in three people fighting back.

Since the US Government cannot allow the rest of the military to know there was a revolt in the rank and file, there was a quick decision made to blame the dead Muslim, only it turns out he wasn’t dead, and in typical shoot-from-the-hip fashion the propaganda stories are not being well thought out.

See, the intelligence agencies can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they KNEW about him and let it happen but they also want the “terrorist” story over a mutiny story.

[Arraya]

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/politics/2009/11/09/intelligence-agencies-deny-sitting-information-fort-hood-shooter/

U.S. intelligence officials on Monday denied that the intelligence community “sat” on valuable information about the alleged Fort Hood shooter before last week’s massacre, after one lawmaker questioned whether agencies like the CIA could have done more to warn military and government officials.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, announced Monday that he’s asked the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to “preserve” all documents and material connected to the attack. He said the administration has “critical information” that it is “refusing to release” to Congress and the public about the attack, and that lawmakers will want to “scrutinize” how intelligence officials handled information about the shooter before the attack.

Hoekstra’s announcement came as ABC News reported that intelligence agencies knew for months that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was trying to contact people associated with Al Qaeda. The report said it was unclear whether the agencies informed the Army.,

So CIA knew this guy was a “terrorist” for months and did nothing? Man this story is falling apart at the seams. All that wiretapping and ease dropping is supposed to keep us safe. What happened here?

Of course, my information is that there was a firefight when an argument over refusing to deploy crossed over into a minor mutiny as in three people fighting back.

Since the US Government cannot allow the rest of the military to know there was a revolt in the rank and file, there was a quick decision made to blame the dead Muslim, only it turns out he wasn’t dead, and in typical shoot-from-the-hip fashion the propaganda stories are not being well thought out.

See, the intelligence agencies can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they KNEW about him and let it happen but they also want the “terrorist” story over a mutiny story.

[Arraya]

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/politics/2009/11/09/intelligence-agencies-deny-sitting-information-fort-hood-shooter/

U.S. intelligence officials on Monday denied that the intelligence community “sat” on valuable information about the alleged Fort Hood shooter before last week’s massacre, after one lawmaker questioned whether agencies like the CIA could have done more to warn military and government officials.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, announced Monday that he’s asked the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to “preserve” all documents and material connected to the attack. He said the administration has “critical information” that it is “refusing to release” to Congress and the public about the attack, and that lawmakers will want to “scrutinize” how intelligence officials handled information about the shooter before the attack.

Hoekstra’s announcement came as ABC News reported that intelligence agencies knew for months that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was trying to contact people associated with Al Qaeda. The report said it was unclear whether the agencies informed the Army.,

So CIA knew this guy was a “terrorist” for months and did nothing? Man this story is falling apart at the seams. All that wiretapping and ease dropping is supposed to keep us safe. What happened here?

Of course, my information is that there was a firefight when an argument over refusing to deploy crossed over into a minor mutiny as in three people fighting back.

Since the US Government cannot allow the rest of the military to know there was a revolt in the rank and file, there was a quick decision made to blame the dead Muslim, only it turns out he wasn’t dead, and in typical shoot-from-the-hip fashion the propaganda stories are not being well thought out.

See, the intelligence agencies can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they KNEW about him and let it happen but they also want the “terrorist” story over a mutiny story.

[Arraya]

http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/politics/2009/11/09/intelligence-agencies-deny-sitting-information-fort-hood-shooter/

U.S. intelligence officials on Monday denied that the intelligence community “sat” on valuable information about the alleged Fort Hood shooter before last week’s massacre, after one lawmaker questioned whether agencies like the CIA could have done more to warn military and government officials.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, announced Monday that he’s asked the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to “preserve” all documents and material connected to the attack. He said the administration has “critical information” that it is “refusing to release” to Congress and the public about the attack, and that lawmakers will want to “scrutinize” how intelligence officials handled information about the shooter before the attack.

Hoekstra’s announcement came as ABC News reported that intelligence agencies knew for months that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was trying to contact people associated with Al Qaeda. The report said it was unclear whether the agencies informed the Army.,

So CIA knew this guy was a “terrorist” for months and did nothing? Man this story is falling apart at the seams. All that wiretapping and ease dropping is supposed to keep us safe. What happened here?

Of course, my information is that there was a firefight when an argument over refusing to deploy crossed over into a minor mutiny as in three people fighting back.

Since the US Government cannot allow the rest of the military to know there was a revolt in the rank and file, there was a quick decision made to blame the dead Muslim, only it turns out he wasn’t dead, and in typical shoot-from-the-hip fashion the propaganda stories are not being well thought out.

See, the intelligence agencies can’t have it both ways. They can’t say they KNEW about him and let it happen but they also want the “terrorist” story over a mutiny story.

[Zeitgeist]

There is definitely something more to the story and there are conflicting accounts of how the female civilian cop engaged Hasan. Is this another Private Jessica issue? I am not doubting her courage at all. I am just wondering if this is a distraction to change the focus of the media to someone other than Hasan and the plot. He did plan it and he was giving his belongings away. Both of these are consistent with a suicide.

[Zeitgeist]

There is definitely something more to the story and there are conflicting accounts of how the female civilian cop engaged Hasan. Is this another Private Jessica issue? I am not doubting her courage at all. I am just wondering if this is a distraction to change the focus of the media to someone other than Hasan and the plot. He did plan it and he was giving his belongings away. Both of these are consistent with a suicide.

[Zeitgeist]

There is definitely something more to the story and there are conflicting accounts of how the female civilian cop engaged Hasan. Is this another Private Jessica issue? I am not doubting her courage at all. I am just wondering if this is a distraction to change the focus of the media to someone other than Hasan and the plot. He did plan it and he was giving his belongings away. Both of these are consistent with a suicide.

[Zeitgeist]

There is definitely something more to the story and there are conflicting accounts of how the female civilian cop engaged Hasan. Is this another Private Jessica issue? I am not doubting her courage at all. I am just wondering if this is a distraction to change the focus of the media to someone other than Hasan and the plot. He did plan it and he was giving his belongings away. Both of these are consistent with a suicide.

[Zeitgeist]

There is definitely something more to the story and there are conflicting accounts of how the female civilian cop engaged Hasan. Is this another Private Jessica issue? I am not doubting her courage at all. I am just wondering if this is a distraction to change the focus of the media to someone other than Hasan and the plot. He did plan it and he was giving his belongings away. Both of these are consistent with a suicide.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.[/quote]

If there was a plan, then it was pretty poorly coordinated and executed. If al-Qaeda really had someone on the “inside” in a position like his, one would think they would have planned to use him a little more effectively.

We will never know the truth, because many of the reports and interpretation of the facts will be skewed by agendas. Fighting “terrorism” is big business for big companies. Fighting the occasional nutjob or wannabe terrorist is not so profitable.

[quote]If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.[/quote]

The stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize civilians in order to influence them. Killing uniformed military is either murder or war, depending upon the context. I would label this incident the former.

This may seem like a semantic nitpick, but it’s important. Terrorism is the targeting of cilvilians. We do a lot of stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan that scares the hell out of our enemies (by design), and that’s not terrorism.

[quote]And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.[/quote]

We interrogate him to learn if there is, in fact, more to know. We don’t “interrogate” to punish or get revenge. If we are going to ignore the 8th Amendment, then why not throw out the 2nd as well? And I know you wouldn’t like that.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.[/quote]

If there was a plan, then it was pretty poorly coordinated and executed. If al-Qaeda really had someone on the “inside” in a position like his, one would think they would have planned to use him a little more effectively.

We will never know the truth, because many of the reports and interpretation of the facts will be skewed by agendas. Fighting “terrorism” is big business for big companies. Fighting the occasional nutjob or wannabe terrorist is not so profitable.

[quote]If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.[/quote]

The stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize civilians in order to influence them. Killing uniformed military is either murder or war, depending upon the context. I would label this incident the former.

This may seem like a semantic nitpick, but it’s important. Terrorism is the targeting of cilvilians. We do a lot of stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan that scares the hell out of our enemies (by design), and that’s not terrorism.

[quote]And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.[/quote]

We interrogate him to learn if there is, in fact, more to know. We don’t “interrogate” to punish or get revenge. If we are going to ignore the 8th Amendment, then why not throw out the 2nd as well? And I know you wouldn’t like that.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.[/quote]

If there was a plan, then it was pretty poorly coordinated and executed. If al-Qaeda really had someone on the “inside” in a position like his, one would think they would have planned to use him a little more effectively.

We will never know the truth, because many of the reports and interpretation of the facts will be skewed by agendas. Fighting “terrorism” is big business for big companies. Fighting the occasional nutjob or wannabe terrorist is not so profitable.

[quote]If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.[/quote]

The stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize civilians in order to influence them. Killing uniformed military is either murder or war, depending upon the context. I would label this incident the former.

This may seem like a semantic nitpick, but it’s important. Terrorism is the targeting of cilvilians. We do a lot of stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan that scares the hell out of our enemies (by design), and that’s not terrorism.

[quote]And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.[/quote]

We interrogate him to learn if there is, in fact, more to know. We don’t “interrogate” to punish or get revenge. If we are going to ignore the 8th Amendment, then why not throw out the 2nd as well? And I know you wouldn’t like that.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: There are reports emerging that he actually did have a plan and either was in contact with al-Qaeda or attempting contact with al-Qaeda.[/quote]

If there was a plan, then it was pretty poorly coordinated and executed. If al-Qaeda really had someone on the “inside” in a position like his, one would think they would have planned to use him a little more effectively.

We will never know the truth, because many of the reports and interpretation of the facts will be skewed by agendas. Fighting “terrorism” is big business for big companies. Fighting the occasional nutjob or wannabe terrorist is not so profitable.

[quote]If the stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize: Then, by definition, he’s a terrorist.[/quote]

The stated purpose of terrorism is to terrorize civilians in order to influence them. Killing uniformed military is either murder or war, depending upon the context. I would label this incident the former.

This may seem like a semantic nitpick, but it’s important. Terrorism is the targeting of cilvilians. We do a lot of stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan that scares the hell out of our enemies (by design), and that’s not terrorism.

[quote]And, I couldn’t agree more about executing him. After extensively interrogating (not torturing) him, of course.[/quote]

We interrogate him to learn if there is, in fact, more to know. We don’t “interrogate” to punish or get revenge. If we are going to ignore the 8th Amendment, then why not throw out the 2nd as well? And I know you wouldn’t like that.

[Author]

Posts