Former Hasan Co-Worker Says He Was Angry About War In Iraq
November 5th, 2009, 9:21 PM EST
Colonel Terry Lee, who worked at Fort Hood with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, spoke with Fox News’s Shepard Smith. He says Hasan believed we shouldn’t be in Iraq, and became increasingly agitated about our involvement there. Lee says Hasan made comments about how Muslims needed to stand up to the aggressor, and seemed almost happy when there was a shooting at a recruiting office in Little Rock that resulted in one death and one injury. Lee says Hasan was trying to get his deployment to Iraq canceled.
Often the story changes as it goes along, so it is best to withold judgement until all the facts are in.
T speak generally to the allegation as to motive, this is the same reason for 9/11.
Bin Laden knew with a couple thousand people he could never defeat the U.S., but if a sizeable percentage of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide could be mobilized, it would be a different story.
In bin Laden’s version of radical Islam, Muslims are not required to fight beyond the land of Islam, but all are required to defend the homeland.
So the REASON for 9/11 was to enrage the U.S. and cause us to invade a Muslim country. Bin Laden even predicted we would invade an Islamic country to steal its oil wealth even though that country was no threat to us. He hit the jackpot when we invaded the second holiest land in Islam.
Fortunately, he was wrong about the reaction from the rest of Islam. Our invasion did supercharge terrorist recruiting, but not by the tens of millions, which bin Laden was hoping for….
flap Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
“So the REASON for 9/11 was to enrage the U.S. and cause us to invade a Muslim country.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Yes, hence the departure from the pattern of attacks in Muslim countries.
Michael Scheuer’s “Imperial Hubris” and his first book, “Through Our Enemy’s Eyes” are good on why bin Laden is attacking us.
There is also a good book titled “Messages to the World” edited by Bruce Lawrence which containes everything published by bin Laden up to 2005.
Gotta know the enemy before you can beat him….
goliath43 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I thought 9/11 was a US conspiracy done by our own government.
placefield Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Why would you think that, are you a conspiracy theorist?
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
No.
placefield Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Are you responding to me burqa? Cause I was just being a smart a$$ in response to goliath.
flap Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
9/11 was perpetrated by the JEWS…
(Just kidding, of course.)
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Me too, placefield. I knew people in the Pentagon, as well as fire and rescue personnel who responded.
No to a government conspiracy
placefield Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Should have known I was the dense one ;)
jasperjava Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Sounds more like Goliath43 is the dense one, placefield.
TDro319 Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
“I thought 9/11 was a US conspiracy done by our own government.”
It depends on who you believe. For example, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say the GAYS were responsible for 9/11.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
The world is a much more complicated place then either of those two ideas.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Religion is a cancer on humanity.
crh3e Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
while I am no follower of any religion, I disagree with your statement. Life isn’t black or white, more like grey.
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
You’re right, crh.
I would add life is also more complex. Blanket statements like that reflect poorly on the author…
placefield Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
If it was not for religion people would (and do) find plenty of other reasons for crazy and destructive behaviour.
crh3e Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
heck they would make up their own religion if there weren’t any other ones around to justify the nonsense. But last thing on mouse’s comment, don’t let a few bad apples spoil the bunch…..some people become charitable after converting to a religion.
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I agree, placefield.
People who are violent will find reasons or justifications and opportunities to be violent; people who like to get loaded will do the same;
so will bigots;
and so will those who are generous….
jasperjava Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 am
I don’t know that the shooter was religiously motivated. Sounds like he was angry about the Iraq War and he feared being deployed there.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Sounds like he was angry about the Iraq War and he feared being deployed there.
Absolutely possible. In fact it is likely that him being Muslim, or possibly being Muslim, is not the motivator.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:56 am
You are correct, John, though we don’t know about this specific incident and should withold judgement until all the facts are in.
Robert Pape’s “Dying to Win” is a fine bit of statistical analysis of over 300 suicide terrrorist attacks around the world from about 1980 to 2003.
What he proves is that religion is an organizing factor among people of various societies, but it is not the motivating factor for suicide terrrorism.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
“Some guy was on Larry King offering this shooting as proof that, basically, all them Muslims want to kill us real Americans.”
Classic example of the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general.
Here is how that logic works:
Every one of the hijackers on 9/11 had black hair, therefore all people with black hair are terrorists.
Or,
The same guys were all short, therefore all short guys are terrorists.
Or,
Carrie Prejean is thin, therefore all thin chicks are conservatives who make x-rated videos….
anonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Ah, Carrie Prejean. The communist with the red star pinned to her … OUCH!!
Now, I have to go back and oogle her photo again.
John Galt Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Every one of the hijackers on 9/11 had black hair, therefore all people with black hair are terrorists.
No one is saying that. Only that if you want to increase the chances of identifying a potential terrorist, you would do well to ignore elderly Scandinavian women and children under 3. Of course, I would imagine that there are many many other demographics that you could whittle away. In the end, I bet you end up with Middle Eastern men, between the ages of 16 and 35 that are born Muslim and are Islamic.
John Galt Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Muslim and are Islamic.
Just reread that. It’s late; sorry.
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
John, the fallacy is arguing from the particular to the general.
It is not logical and the examples I gave illustrate the fallacy.
Timothy McVeigh served in the Army, therefore everyone who was in the Army is a murderer.
George Washington was from Virginia, therefor all Virginians have false teeth.
We can not say that because one Muslim murders that all Muslims are murderers any more than we can say that because one person who served in the Army committed murder that therefore all former vets who were in the Army are murderers.
Just because one Virginian had false teeth it doesn’t mean all Virginians have false teeth.
In logic and in debate, we learn the fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general….
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:13 am
We can not say that because one Muslim murders that all Muslims are murderers any more than we can say that because one person who served in the Army committed murder that therefore all former vets who were in the Army are murderers.
We’re not talking about “One gentleman from Virginia.” We are talking about the sub-set of people that commit acts of terrorism against the United States.
Admittedly, some are not Muslim men between ages 16 and 35; Tim and German dude for example. Many many many more are.
anonymouse Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Bernie Madoff is a financial criminal and a Jew. Thus, all financial criminals are Jews and all Jews are financial criminals.
Sound familiar?
Not a good place to go, where you’re going.
Immediately after the OKC bombing, elements of the media were all over it with the conclusion the A-Rab Muslims did it. Within minutes, that was the early conclusion of many of the on-air personalities. Only it turned out a good Irish Catholic boy and Army veteran from New York was behind it.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Bernie Madoff is a financial criminal and a Jew. Thus, all financial criminals are Jews and all Jews are financial criminals.
Listen very carefully. No one is saying that one example makes a pattern.
What I am saying is that a pattern makes a generalization.
Because a tall guy is good at basketball doesn’t mean that ALL tall guys are good at basketball. But when you see that virtually all basketball players are tall, it is a good idea to focus on tall guys, or at least eliminate short guys, when looking for good basketball players. And even then, you have to take into account that you may be wrong.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:32 am
John, you’re still missing it.
Most people get the principle more quickly, but this is another examplr of a conservative being slow on the uptake. That’s ok, I am patient.
The subset you refer to committing terrorism against the U.S. may well be a smaller percentage of their faith than the Catholics who have been committting terrorist attacks on Americans in South and Central America.
That does not make all Catholics terrorists any more than nineteen 9/11 terrorists mean all Muslims are terrorists.
The subset of Red Hand Defenders in Northern Ireland does not mean all Protestants are terrorists.
The subset of Tamil Tigers does not mean all Hindus are terrorists.
The small subset of Irgun or Stern Gang terrorists does not mean all Jews are terroists.
In each case, the fallacy is attempting to argue from the particular to the general.
anonymouse Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Because a Jew is good at financial crimes doesn’t mean that ALL Jews are good at financial crimes. But when you see that virtually all financial criminals are Jewish, it is a good idea to focus on Jews, or at least eliminate gentiles, when looking for financial criminals. And even then, you have to take into account that you may be wrong.
Mostly what you need to take into account is that you’re not only wrong but you’re also likely wasting your time and only stirring up trouble where none exists.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:38 am
The subset of Red Hand Defenders in Northern Ireland does not mean all Protestants are terrorists.
You are right. But if you are in Northern Ireland and looking for Red Hand Defenders you would do well to ignore Muslims.
The subset of Tamil Tigers does not mean all Hindus are terrorists.
You are right, but if you were in the vicinity of the Tamil Tigers and looking for a Tamil Tiger, you would do well to ignore Latino Catholics.
The small subset of Irgun or Stern Gang terrorists does not mean all Jews are terroists.
You are right, but if you are looking for Irgun or Stern Gang members, you would do well to ignore Japanese Buddhists.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:40 am
But when you see that virtually all financial criminals are Jewish
Except it’s not true, nor did I posit it, that virtually all financial criminals are Jewish.
Nice liberal fall back to the whole racism card by the way. When you can’t win a debate, resort to just any ol’ tactic that serves the masses.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I can see John is going to need more examples.
John, the subset of Red Brigade members does not mean all Italians are terrorists.
The subset of Baader-Meinhoff Gang members does not mean all Germans are terrorists.
The subset of the Abu Sayyaf Group doesn’t mean all Filipinos are terrorists.
The subset of Action Directe does not mean all French people are terrorists.
The subset of ETA does not mean everyone from Spain is a terrorist.
The subset of the Angry Brigade does not mean all Brits are terrorists.
The subset of the KKK does not mean all people in the South are terrorists.
John, you are trying to believe and apply a standard that has been known as a logical fallacy for centuries…
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:49 am
“The subset of Red Hand Defenders in Northern Ireland does not mean all Protestants are terrorists.”
“You are right. But if you are in Northern Ireland and looking for Red Hand Defenders you would do well to ignore Muslims.”
If you did that while investigating the IRA, you would have missed arms shipments from Libya.
You have no idea how these groups used to be connected back in the day.
What you continue to do is to miss the fact that arguing from the particular to the general is a logical fallacy that has been known since before the Roman empire.
Until you learn this, you will make a fool of yourself in future public debate and will also miss a great weapon to use, because this fallacy is quite common.
Do you live near a community college that offers a Logic 101 class or has a debate team or a debate club?
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:56 am
If you did that while investigating the IRA, you would have missed arms shipments from Libya.
In the example you gave me, you were asking how to identify Red Hand Defenders. If you had asked me to help identify people who supply terrorists, independent of their affiliation, I certainly would have changed my criteria.
What you continue to do is to miss the fact that arguing from the particular to the general is a logical fallacy
We might be passing in the night here. I am not proposing that a generalization be made from a single specific. I am saying that when a pattern forms, you would do well to to that pattern into account.
Do you live near a community college that offers a Logic 101 class or has a debate team or a debate club?
Why, you looking for a recommendation?
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:04 am
“In the example you gave me, you were asking how to identify Red Hand Defenders. If you had asked me to help identify people who supply terrorists, independent of their affiliation, I certainly would have changed my criteria.”
No John.
Go back and look.
From the beginning of this part of the discusssion I have been making reference to the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general. If you were to take a good class in logic or participate in formal debate, you would be taught this.
I have repeatedly given examples which illustrate this fallacy. You are not reading what I have said, but are picking up on fragments that ring bells for you and responing to what I have not said.
Again, the fallacy is arguing from the particular to the general.
I brought up the Red Hand Defenders NOT to develop ways of locating them, but in order to illustrate – - – - -concentrate, John – - – but in order to illustrate that just because the Red Hand Defenders are Protestants it does not mean all Protestants are terrorists.
That would be arguing from the particular to the general.
It is a fallacious argument.
Go back and look at all the examples and all the times I spoke of “arguing from the particular to the general.”
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“We might be passing in the night here. I am not proposing that a generalization be made from a single specific. I am saying that when a pattern forms, you would do well to to that pattern into account.”
No John.
You would not be proceeding logically and therefore would be garunteeeing error.
The logical way to proceed is to go from the general to the specific.
Otherwise when you look for this “pattern” you speak of, you end up with a situation like they had after the Oklahoma City bombing where they were looking for Muslims when McVeigh was a blonde caucasian who fortunately was too damned stupid to have a licence plate on his getaway car or to conceal his pistol.
If you only look for Muslim suicide bombers, you miss a Richard Reid and his shoe-bomb.
When you are only looking for Arab terrorists in Israel, then you miss the Japanese Red Army terrorists who assaulted Lod airport.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:20 am
just because the Red Hand Defenders are Protestants it does not mean all Protestants are terrorists.
Again. I agree with you. I am not trying to create a description of Protestants. I am trying to make a description of Red Hand Defenders.
If you want too catch a Red Hand Defender, you might want too ignore non-Protestants. That is not the same as saying that ALL Protestants are going to be Red Hand Defenders. I’m just saying that virtually ALL Japanese are not; so ignore them.
anonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Hey, look who showed up.
If anyone should have a problem with “profiling”, you should.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
The Fort Hood shooter was single with no children.
Conclusion: all single men with no children are killers.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:27 am
The Fort Hood shooter was single with no children.
If 98 out of 100 shooters were single men with no children, you would do well to ignore:
married people
women
parents
And even with the group you focus on, you have to account for the fact that you could be wrong.
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:34 am
you would do well to ignore:
married people
women
parents
In fact, you could conduct studies that would demonstrate it to be gradient:
Lowest risk: married women with kids
Medium risk: Married men with kids
Higher risk: Married men with no kids
Even Higher Risk: Single men with kids
Highest Risk: Single men with no kids
anonymouse Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I can find no crime statistics on any of the above statements.
You’d have as much luck profiling Muslims as terrorists as you’d have profiling Jews as finanicial criminals. There’s no difference but perspective and all you’ll accomplish for your profiling efforts is to waste a lot of time and stir up trouble where none existed previously.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Besides employing the logical fallacy of attempting to argue from the particular to the general, John is also trying to employ another fallacy – static analysis.
He does not realize that people, whether they are criminals or terrorists will look at how authorities try to catch them and then react.
So if the authorities are looking for Arabs, they recruit caucasians.
If the authorities are looking for males, they recruit females (check out the Tamil Tigers on this one especially).
If authorities have a prticular profile, what it does is tell the terrorists where the focus is – and more importantly – where it is not.
Both of these fallacies indicate lazy thinking.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:19 am
To take specific examples, in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of airplane hijackings.
Many were done by Arabs, but if that i where you focus, then you miss the caucasians who hijacked a number of planes.
In Israel, they had a lot of Arab terrorists, but if you concentrate on them, you miss the Japanese Red Army terrorists who attacked Lod Airport.
Many of the airplane hijackers were male, but if you concentrate on males you miss Leila Khaled and the weapons she smuggled aboard 2 different planes she helped hijack.
John here is trying to judge entire groups by the actions of small percentages of their members.
This is a classical logical fallacy, but here we are all watching hard-headedness triumph over logic in one person’s mind….
John Galt Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:38 am
This was a made up example trying to explain away another made up example.
It should be illuminating that I would have to explain that to the two of you.
John here is trying to judge entire groups by the actions of small percentages of their members.
Sigh. No. No I am not.
Only that if you want to try to hunt terrorists against American interests, you would do well to ignore Japanese women over the age of 60 with grandchildren.
And so on.
Hope for Change Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Best to give up John. You are making perfect sense. The first thing you do in a criminal investigation, for example, is to eliminate potential suspects. The police don’t have unlimited resourses, so they focus their investigation on the most obvious people. Are they sometimes wrong? Sure. If you find long blonde hairs on a dead body, you will be wasting your time interogating bald men.
John has been talking about effective use of resourcse if we are ‘hunting terrorists’. Plese tell me, burqa or anonymouse, where did he ever use the fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general?
burqa: Many of the airplane hijackers were male, but if you concentrate on males you miss Leila Khaled and the weapons she smuggled aboard 2 different planes she helped hijack.
It sounds like they DID miss her. And John even said if you focus your search, its possible to be wrong.
If 98% of terrorists against America are ‘Middle Eastern men, between the ages of 16 and 35 that are born Muslim and are Islamic’, it makes sense to me that that’s where we should be looking.
burqa: John here is trying to judge entire groups by the actions of small percentages of their members.
No he is not. There are about 2.8 million muslims in the US. No one is suggesting they are all terrorists, but if I was looking for one – I’d sure start there. I don’t think that should offend the innocent.
If a young girl were to disappear in my neighborhood, I’m sure the police would be questioning me, a 40 year old divorced male, a lot more than my 75 year old female neighbor. Unfortunately for me, most child abductions are done by my demographic. No one is suggesting that all 40 year old single males are child abductors, but if the police are looking for one – it makes sense to focus on them. It would upset me to be a suspect, but that’s the reality.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:32 am
The man had a screw loose.
Everything else is only white noise.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:29 am
If he didn’t want to do to Iraq then why did he join the service during a war?
Don’t Try an apply logic to this Radical Jerk’s action…. Who don’t favor the death penalty now?
November 6th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Guns don’t kill people! People kill people!
But I guess that’s why nobody’s supposed to have loaded weapons except the MPs!
November 6th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Who is at fault?
start with America; then the government; then the military.
When America sends youngmen to fight other peoples’ battles for them; dis-arms innocent civilians; hands out cheap, unstylish clothes; hands out cheap candy to kids; yells 4-letter words at kids and women; screws those kids’ underage sisters; shoots those kids’ pets (formerly, it was water buffalo)swoops down in helicopters and scare civilians out in the countryside; and a host of other despicable acts, TREATING FOREIGNERS LIKE DOGS-
what you end up with is epidemic p.t.s.d. !!!
NO WONDER AN ARMY PSYCHIATRIST WOULD GO BERSERK !!!
Maybe, if we’re going to train foreigners to do anything, we should do it HERE in the U.S.A. by QUALIFIED CIVILIANS who are mature and treat foreigners like PEOPLE !!
November 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm