As The Huffington Post reports, hours after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 and wounded 31 at Ft. Hood Army Base on Nov. 5, a local candidate and the media are trying to frame this issue through the lens of terrorism.

Lt. Col. Allen West issued a statement saying “This enemy preys on downtrodden soldiers and teaches them extremism will lift them up." He added, “Terrorists are infiltrating Military," and, "Our soldiers are being brainwashed."

Ralph Peters of the New York Post claims it was “the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.”

Unfortunately, there is no common definition of terrorism, but the Department of Defense defines it as “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” West’s idea of terrorism implies organizational capacity, while Peters suggests identifiable political and religious motives.

Instead of politicizing this act, it may be helpful to examine instead of assume. An incorrect and tactless assumption could cause serious repercussions for the Muslim community.

There is no information as of yet to suggest a political or religious objective for yesterday’s violent act. Nor is there any indication at all that this was planned or organized.

Even by their standards, the New York Post should be ashamed to publish such garbage. Not only is Peters jumping the gun on guilt, but he is capitalizing on fear by directly implying that this tragedy is a result of political and religious extremism without any facts to back this implication up. Peters even goes so far as to imply that Islam itself is a violent religion.

Hasan, an Arab-American Muslim of Palestinian descent, is purported to have strongly disagreed with his impending deployment. But according to an AP report, an anonymous army official said that Hasan was willing to go to Afghanistan but not Iraq. This peculiarity provides context that compounds attempts to neatly tie it to political-religious terrorism or organized crime.

Instead of jumping the gun on this issue, let’s for once turn to examination. Whether people like it or not, Hasan is an American citizen. Therefore, he is a product of American culture.

House Committee Dismisses Criticisms of
Internet Thought Control Bill - H.R. 1995

By Michael Collins
Washington, D.C.
Part 2 (Part 1)

On Monday, Dec. 17, the House Committee on Homeland Security posted this document in response to the many criticisms of House Resolution 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Part 1 of this series examined the dangers that this bill posed to citizens and political groups using the Internet.

Based on the bill contents and the witnesses called to elaborate on the supposed problem of "homegrown terrorism," it appears that House bill and the Senate look alike (S.1959) pose a significant threat to political expression and free speech, particularly on the Internet (see part 1 of this series Thought Control on the Internet and this collection for more detail).

By an Overwhelming Majority

Congress Brings You…

Image

Thought Control on the Internet

By Michael Collins
Washington, D.C. - Part 1

Cracking the Code – Who's to Blame for "Violent Radicalization"?

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a 404 to 6 vote on Oct. 23. Not since the Iraq War Resolution have Democrats and Republicans found such a unifying cause. We're told that House Resolution 1955 (H.R. 1955) will be an essential tool enabling law enforcement to peg the sources of "homegrown terrorism" on the Internet.

While much of the feedback Sarah and I received on our “Islamofascism” crib sheet was poorly articulated vitriol, I wanted to share an email exchange I had this week with CP.org reader Scott Malensek. Scott is a featured writer at New Media Journal Online and contributor to Flopping Aces. Read our conversation on the helpfulness of terms like “Islamofascism” and the supposed homogeneity of contemporary terrorists after the jump.

Annika,

I agree the term Islamofacist can be offensive, and a better description is needed, but "anti-Western Salafist jihadism" is just a completely useless idea.  It's so useless it's silly.  How about some other options?  I mean, you made a great case in the 1400 word article, but only suggested 4 words in a useless combination.

Via reddit, there's an interesting Clive Thompson piece up at Wired.com about Halo 3 and suicide bombing. Basically, Thompson has found himself adopting some of the tactics of a suicide bomber when he plays Halo 3 online.

It sounds like -- and is -- a rather crude (and borderline offensive) comparison, but give the piece a read; Thompson has some interesting things to say about the nature of asymmetric warfare and the psychology of suicide bombers.

This is one area where most Americans (myself included) could benefit from more knowledge. It's hard to effectively prevent suicide attacks when you don't understand the motivations of those carrying them out. Thompson has some insights here. (Hint: It's not because they hate us for our freedom.)

Islamo-fascism-awareness-raiser and noted liberal-lister David Horowitz, in an interview on National Review Online:

But the larger agenda is create a national movement to stand up to the coalition between Islamo-fascists and American liberals at home who are running interference for the terrorists. [*] The coalition attacking Islamo-fascism Awareness Week extends from the Iranians and CAIR through the Revolutionary Communist Party to Campus Progress (an offshoot of the Hillary-Soros-Podesta operation) and College Democrats.

That is too cute. You see what he's doing here?

...which is that no one's making enough oversimplistic, excruciatingly poorly-produced Cold War-style videos about the enemy.

Thankfully the David Horowitz Freedom Foundation (named for, and by, Mr. Horowitz) is helping to ensure that we win this war like the one before it.  Presenting: "Know About Jihad," the Freedom Foundation's latest subtle effort at boosting global awareness of terrorism, a problem that goes completely ignored by the mainstream media.

An in-depth front page article in the New York Times yesterday lays out clearly how the war in Iraq has compromised success in the war in Afghanistan and how the Bush Administration's policy has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The article lays out that once President Bush shifted focus from Afghanistan, a country harboring Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that actually attacked us on 9/11, to Iraq, a country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11 and was kept in check by UN sanctions, the situation in Afghanistan began to deteriorate.

Wow. I know that it’s pretty easy for anyone, on any given day, to find something stupid that someone wrote somewhere. Such is the power of the internet. It’s counterproductive and borderline cliché, in fact, to author a blog post that does nothing but excoriate a terrible column or blog post. I didn’t plan on doing this today. Really – I didn’t. 

And then Bill Kristol had to go and have one of his columns published in the Sunday Post.

Press coverage of the Bush Administration has been abysmal at best and criminal at worst.  From hyping the threat of Saddam Hussein to using White House talking points to write articles, the “this side vs. that side” journalism just doesn't work when one side is clearly lying.  

While the New York Times was one of the culprits, it did offer a mea culpa on Iraq and Judith "toeing the fear line" Miller no longer works there. 

Today, however, the Times has a piece that illustrates what journalism should be: seeking out the truth.

Since the Know Your Right Wing Speakers bio on Michael Medved just went up, I thought I’d hop over to Medved’s site to see what the latest from the Mustachioed Madman was. A fresh blog post from Medved was there to greet me and it did not disappoint. He begins:

The latest example of political correctness run amok involves the BBC describing the Islamists who planned bombings in London and Glasgow as arising from “the disfranchised South Asian community.”

Medved goes on to claim the terms “South Asian” and “Indian” are “misleading.” He denounces “[t]he refusal to use the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to identify these terrorists,” and continues: “But of course, they’re all Muslim.”

This isn’t all that shocking coming from Medved, who calls Islam “a primitive religion” and insists there is “a violence problem in the Muslim world because that is an inherent problem in Islam.” What is shocking is that President Bush invited this guy to the White House talk to him about Middle East affairs. Glad the president’s talking to the experts.

The latest from Medved is by no means as ridiculous as Michael Savage’s comments which Cara dutifully reported yesterday, but it just reinforces the need for progressives to reclaim the airwaves from rabid right-wingers.

Much of the discussion focused on the nature of good and evil, a perennial theme for Bush, who casts the struggle against Islamic extremists in black-and-white terms. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, said it was clear that Bush weathers his difficulties because he sees himself as doing the Lord's work.

"His faith is very strong," said Novak, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Faith is not enough by itself because there are a lot of people who have faith but weak hearts. But his faith is very strong. He seeks guidance, like every other president does, in prayer. And that means trying to be sure he's doing the right thing. And if you've got that set, all the criticism, it doesn't faze you very much. You're answering to God."

I find this fascinating. ABC News is reporting that "Israeli police detained an Orthodox Jewish man carrying a small homemade bomb in Jerusalem on Thursday, as thousands of Israelis marched in support of gay rights in defiance of religious protesters." But something about ABC's reporting is weird...

Yesterday the Senate voted 51-46 to give 40,000 airport baggage screeners the right to unionize. The House supports a similar bill, but President Bush has threatened a veto, which there doesn’t appear to be enough votes in either the House or Senate to override. The New York Times reports that Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-NC) called the bill “absolutely absurd. Terrorists don’t go on strike. Terrorists don’t call their union to negotiate before they attack.”

It’s nice to know that some senators look to al-Qaeda to model fair labor practices. Personally, I’d like to think the people who prevent weapons from making it onto airplanes are content at work. There’s been high turnover among screeners, and a union could help provide the stability necessary to professionalize the job, keeping us all safer.

Cross-posted at TAPPED.

It seems like it was another life back when I got to think a lot about the theories of French dudes like Jean Baudrillard, but my memory was jogged when I just read about his death. Baudrillard believed we were living in a new stage of history in which reality itself is nonexistent, so mediated are our experiences by, well, the media. He controversially claimed the first Gulf War "did not take place" -- hyperbole to get his point across -- but called 9/11 the "absolute event," a hyper-real, immoral response to the United State's immoral globalization policies.

Like a lot of French philosophers, he had a fascinating love-hate relationship with the United States. If you read about Baudrillard you'll come across a lot of confusing semiotics vocabulary, but at their core, his ideas were really a post-modern rearticulation of Karl Marx and Walter Benjamin, theorists who believed capitalism (Marx) and consumer culture (Benjamin) deeply affected, often in negative ways, human social, political, and even emotional interactions. 

I'm oversimplifying. But that's what blogs are for, right?

First they accepted donations from the porn industry. Now we have a documented case of the GOP accepting donations from an alleged terrorist.

 From The Blotter, Brian Ross' investigative blog:

 "The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) won't say what it plans to do with thousands of dollars in campaign donations it received from an accused terror financier.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari gave $15,250 to the NRCC since 2002, according to FEC records published on the Web site opensecrets.org."

 God bless the GOP and their consistent family values.