Jumping to Conclusions about the Frankfurt Shooting

Here is another event about which we must, at all costs, avoid jumping to conclusions. From ABC News:

A gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" opened fire on a bus carrying U.S. airmen in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two others before his gun jammed and he was subdued, officials said.

An ethnic Albanian from Kosovo was taken into custody and the FBI was heading an investigation because U.S. citizens were killed and to determine whether the shooting was an act of terrorism.

The Washington Post has an update that provides more information about which we must, at all costs, avoid jumping to conclusions.

"The suspect is accused of killing two U.S. military personnel and seriously injuring two others," federal prosecutors said in a statement. "Given the circumstances, there is a suspicion that the act was motivated by Islamism."

No! Ya think?

Early reports suggested that Uka was a Kosovar Albanian and a devout Muslim who worked at the airport. It was unclear whether he had come to Germany from Kosovo or was born in Germany.

Well, this one is a real head scratcher. "There is a suspicion that the act was motivated by Islamism." It looks like a duck and walks like a duck and damn sure quacks like a duck. No doubt it will require a concerted effort by German authorities and the FBI to determine if it really is, in fact, a duck.

PJ Crowley, spokesman for the U.S. Department of State, was confused by the question.

"Was the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords a terrorist attack? I mean, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation and then you make a judgment," Crowley told the Press.

Well, yeah. In the case of the Tucson shooting there was no reason to suspect that the act fit any reasonable definition of terrorism. In the case of Arif Uka there is no reason to suspect that it was anything else. Focus, Mr. Crowley: duck-not duck.

Maybe the problem is that the Administration and the U.S. military can only recognize a duck when there is more than one of them.

An American military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the United States was not ruling out terrorism, although it was unclear if the suspect was acting alone or with partners. "I don't know if he's tied to a group," said the official. "But there is enough information at this point to indicate that he identifies with Islamist terrorist ideology."

Was it terrorism if the Frankfurt shooter was part of a conspiracy but not-terrorism if he was acting on his own? The latter looks no less genuine and much more frightening to me. Terrorist networks give us something to look for and disrupt. A lot of spontaneous acts by individuals present a more terrifying threat. The really scary thing about the Oklahoma City bombing is that it seems to have taken only two people to pull it off.

It would be tempting to excuse the Administration's hesitance to use the word "terrorism" as benign if were merely procedural. That would be like using the words "alleged" and "accused" to refer to people who committed crimes in front of dozens of witnesses.

Unfortunately, we know that the problem is much deeper than that. The Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting shows that the Army and the FBI refused to jump to conclusions about Nidal Malik Hasan when that malevolent duck was right in front of their eyes. They spared no effort to make sure that Hasan was protected and promoted and thus kept in a position to murder his fellow servicemen and women.

PJ Crowley's confused response to questioning about the Frankfurt shooting suggests that the Administration has done nothing at all to respond to the Senate Report. President Obama doesn't know that he and his have a problem. That is disturbing news indeed.

Comments

[BillW]

KB - Isn't "Allahu Akbar" Arabic for "Glen Beck, a bunch of teabaggers and Sarah Palin made me do it"?

[larry kurtz]

I'm starting to like you guys: shoot me.

[George Mason]

The PC administration continues to run amok aided and abetted by their allies in the media. Within the first sentences we heard from Tuscon was the "gunman was motivated by the tea party." Only later did we learn that the only political utterances the gunman made were radically leftists and that he suffered from a form of liberal insanity that manifested itself as Bush derangement syndrome. Now we have terrorist shouting the Islamist fight motto and the Obama people don't want to jump to conclusions. They still cannot bring themselves to utter the words "Islamist terrorist."

[BillW]

George,

I am quick to call our left leaning friends to task when they present only one side or a skewed version of the facts, and fairness dictates I do the same when you write things like "Within the first sentences we heard from Tuscon was the "gunman was motivated by the tea party." In fact, within 24 hours of the shooting the Tea Party sent out a mass email describing the shooter as a "leftist". For them - or you - to look at his mish-mash of indecipherable political/economic gibberish and describe it as "radical leftist" and a form of "liberal insanity" is simply wrong. That guy had no coherent ideology about anything, and he was about as dumb as dirt in terms of his knowledge of what any party, ideology, or philosophy was all about.

In the Germany case, however, shouting Allahu Akbar, makes the motivation rather clear.

[larry kurtz]

There is no doubt to anyone that Jared Loughner acted as a terrorist. http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2011/02/loughner-case-updated.html

[larry kurtz]

My two daughters live in Rapid City. If a radicalized cell seeking justice for relatives killed in Pakistan drove a truck bomb into Central High School as retribution against personnel based at Ellsworth, you can bet that my simpleton bromide will morph into something else.

Loughner acted out in frustration against rather than for something. He believes that Israel is illegal and that Giffords was corrupting his mother, also Jewish. Tucson is home to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, home to (he believes) terrorism on a global scale. His actions are no surprise to crazies like ip.

[BillW]

Larry - There is absolutely no connection between Loughner and DM air base. The kid lived his entire life in a very small corner on the northwest side of Tucson. It would shock me if he even knew where DM is (the far southeast side about as far from his stomping ground as you can get and still be in Tucson).

People can try to politicize this demented kid all day in a desperate attempt to use it as ammunition for their political agenda, but it won't wash. He had no ties to any organizations at all after leaving high school. he had few friends and the ones he had were regular, old apolitical high school kids whose lives revolved around girls, beer, pot and cars - not necessarily in that order. He git most of his insights from internet chats on gaming sites - where other teenagers blathered incoherently about the stuff they should have learned in high school civics class, but didn't.

He had demons in his head that came from no political party or philosophy - and he shot the congresswoman because she did not take his insane question seriously.

The kid was a very sad luatic. End of story.

[KB]

Bill: I am going to go out on a limb here and say something in Larry's defense. I THINK he was kidding. The site he links to is Twilight Zone weird.

[larry kurtz]

Yer both wrong. I've plunged myself into this guy's brain; the only thing he lacks is self-restraint. His motivation is myriad.

[Jimi]

BillW,

"to look at his mish-mash of indecipherable political/economic gibberish and describe it as "radical leftist" and a form of "liberal insanity" is simply wrong."

I generally agree.....but the problem is the guy was in fact aligned with the political left....so the people who claimed he was "Left" were not incorrect.....that is big difference from the poeple who claimed he was aligned with the "Right"

[Jimi]

Larry,

"oughner acted out in frustration against rather than for something."

I also agree with this, but every single person has a political bent that sways their thinking. I do agree that political thought was only a minor player....that kid has some other mental or chemical issues that are driving the bus.

[larry kurtz]

Apolitical is not quite correct.

As an only child his is is the politics of anarchy. Have any of you had experience with Halo3 or any number of its ilk?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3

This kid is part of a world that exists in his hippocampus alone.

Nuts? That will be determined by the courts. Mental illness looks like the schematic of chaos theory where the lobes are steeper and deeper.

[larry kurtz]

Terrorism is a label only. If the guy is an Islamic terrorist, Loughner is a Jonesian terrorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

[larry kurtz]

Guess what, fellers: We the People have a few enemies. Diane Rehm is hosting this very discussion right now. http://thedianerehmshow.org/

[BillW]

George:

Provide one shred of evidence to support this statement:

"the guy was in fact aligned with the political left"

[larry kurtz]

Bill, if I may: the only "left-leaning" aspect of Mr. Loughner's personality is with the environment. The Democrats are every bit as culpable in his eyes.

[larry kurtz]

Loughner sees the entire political structure as corrupt. All are complicit in the destruction of the desert, the US, and the Earth. Rep. Giffords represented the ultimate, most tangible symbol of that. He saw her gifts as a chameleonic plastification of everything that was wrong with his male-centric worldview.

[larry kurtz]

He hates women most likely because his mother nags his father who has retreated into a world of his own.

[BillW]

Larry,

I supposed he hated women because he couldn't find one desperate enough to go out wih him. The Congreswoman ignored him ... but I get the impresson that every female in Desert View High School and Pima Community College ignored him, as well. I believe he was the only 22 year old virgin in Pima County, and that was not by choice.

[larry kurtz]

Fine observation, Bill.

[larry kurtz]

Back to Ken's point: is it terrorism?

[BillW]

Larry,

I don't knnow exactly how one would define "terrorism", especially terrorism versus garden variety murder, but I believe terrorism has to be an element of a larger political or social objective. The 9-11 terrorists certainly wanted to kill a bunch of Americans but they had a broader goal than merely that - strike fear in our hearts, cause us to change policies vis-s-vis the middle east, who knows? Maybe to bring about a financial collapse and the demise of the United States. But it was an act within a broader purpose.

Was John Wilkes Booth a terrorist? Probably, since he seemed to believe he could reverse the outcome of the Civil War (although at the time of the assassination that was a real stretch do it may have been born more of frustration at his inability to kill or kidnap Lincoln in time to actually accomplish the goal).

Wad Oswald a terrorist? Probably not (unless one buys into some of the conspiracy theories). If the official investigation is to be believed he merely wanted to vent some insane anger and go down in history for something big - but he apparently did not harbor any illusions of bringing about political or social change in the USA.

That is why Loughner is not a terrorist in my mind. He just wanted to kill Gifford because he hated her. He doesn't seem to have thought about things thought much beyond that. Whether he hated her for being Jewish, a Democrat or for parting her hair on the wrong side, or as seems to be the case - for some perceived insult, doesn't have much bearing on whether or not he is a 'terrorist', in my mind. He is merely an isolated nutcase.

So we get to the guy in Germany. Yeah, I suppose he is a terrorist even if he is not connected to any larger terrorist organization because it seems as though his motivation was to support (or at least impress) the terrorist leadership. I imagine he believed Bin Ladin would put his picture up on the Hall of Fame inside whatever cave Bin Ladin is holed up in. All 72 of those virgins would line up to meet him some day for his contribution to the cause. So if the goal is to advance the Al Qaeda terrorist cause, then the act was one of terrorism even if there is not specific group or plot this guy had any concrete ties to.

Wuddya think?

[larry kurtz]

When kids get killed in coordinated attacks against soft targets (yes, I see the abortion slippery-slope) to me that's terrorism. I don't see the intended Frankfurt, or even the Fort Hood, victims as soft targets.

[Jimi]

BillW,

"Provide one shred of evidence to support this statement: "the guy was in fact aligned with the political left"

Please don't try to pretend that there is actual evidence to suggest that it is possibly to not have a political bent. Everyone has a political bent....PERIOD! Typically people who try to claim that they don't, do so because of lack of knowledge, lack of interest, or fear.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Anti-Flag, but if this kid agreed with their writings than he was part of the Left, whether he knew it or not. To believe in and know the rhetoric of a 9-11 Truther is also a major display of how this kid was politically aligned.

• he opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as violations of international law;
• he supported the UN Declaration of Human Rights’s assertion that the state owes the individual a decent standard of living, health care, and shelter; and
• he was vehemently anti-religion.

That sounds like someone politcally aligned to the right doesn't it?

But don't be mistaken....I only claim that he was aligned politically to the left, and I don't believe it is the driving force behind what he did. Also as with most people he may have some leanings to the right on certain subjects....I'm just saying that in the big picture his thinking and his rhetoric was definetly aligned mainly to the Left.

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2011/01/12/was-loughner-a-left-winger/

[Jimi]

Larry,

"I don't see the intended Frankfurt, or even the Fort Hood, victims as soft targets."

1.) Civilians are soft targets

2.) Soldiers on home soil not in battle are soft targets

Let refer to the working definition of Terrorism:

• "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

[BillW]

Jimi,

In other words there is no evidence that Loughner was aligned with the left - just opinion and inference. You acknowledge Loughner leaned right in other areas, which seems to be very true. A lefty out to prove that Loughner was motivated by the right could cut and paste your words, substituting the right wing ideas and sites he 'supported' within his limited ability to understand and support much of anything, and make the same wholly uncompelling case.

The fact that you cite another opinion blog, rather than any source of real data, as the evidence to support your opinion on this blog speaks volumes. I rest my case.

[larry kurtz]

Jimi: Loughner fits all the criteria you cite in your last paragraph. A soldier is a target by definition.

[BillW]

Larry,

If a soldier is a target by definition doesn't that open up a whole can of worms you may not want to open up regarding the disposition of the good ol' boys down in Guantanamo re: whether they should be tried in military courts under military rules versus hauling them to New York and trying them as common criminals?

[larry kurtz]

I'm not a lawyer, but do GI conscripts not differ from insurgents?

[larry kurtz]

I get the sense that the concept of "unlawful combatants" is going to be adjudicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#International_criticism_of_unlawful_combatant_status

[Jimi]

Bill,

Use some common sense and look at what Lougher wrote and said himself. Don't attack the messenger like the left always does. If you are so confident he is not aligned politically left, then why aren't you supporting the idea that he is aligned with right?

[George Mason]

Bill old boy; It was Jimi not I who wrote that Loughner was connected with the political left. As far as the tea party sending out a blast that Loughner was connected with the left there are two points to be made: That statement is closer to the truth than what the media was promoting and which tea party sent it out? The tea party is not an organization it's a movement. There are loose organizations calling themselves tea party but they are quite disparate in the issues they focus on, although all the issues are about government overreach.
Was Loughner a terrorist? What is generally viewed as terrorism are acts designed to instill long term fear to advance politics by other means.

[Ken Blanchard]

Great thread! What is terrorism? Traditionally defined armies meet each other in the field. Guerrillas, unable to survive that kind of exchange, use stealth to continue fighting. In both cases the aim is to destroy the enemy forces or to raise the cost of deploying them so high that the enemy will withdraw.

Terrorism is employed by a party that cannot meet even that standard. Terrorists attack civilians for the most part and enemy soldiers as persons rather than as fighting units. The aim is not to reduce the enemy's ability to fight but to raise the psychological cost of fighting. The terrorist tempts the enemy to believe that he can escape from the terror by making concessions. The terrorist always responds to the concessions by continuing or escalating the terrorist war.

Traditional war and even guerrilla war can be waged with some concern for the innocent. Terrorism is always innocent of such concerns. Traditional and guerrilla war can be settled. Terrorist war frequently cannot be settled, except, perhaps, by the suicide on the part of the terrorist's foe. See Israel.

Terrorism is uniquely terrible. My point in the post was that we might ought to recognize it where it rears its terrible head.

[BillW]

George,

The email came from Tea Party Nation, the largest Tea Party group and the organizers of the National Tea Party Convention last year. They also sent out an email soliciting donations after the Tucson shooting - a la Bernie Sanders - in order to raise funds to "defend themselves from the inevitable attack from the left".

"Was Loughner a terrorist? What is generally viewed as terrorism are acts designed to instill long term fear to advance politics by other means."

By that definition the answer to your question is No, Loughner was not a terrorist.

George, I am as conservative as they come but I value facts and truth more than ideology. When right wingers and Fox News blast the left for their labeling Loughner right-wing-inspired without acknolwedging that the largest Tea Paty group did the same in reverse; and when they slam Sanders for using Loughner as a fund raising tool, without acknowledging the Tea Party doing the same, their credibility goes down the toilet with me. If conservatives have a valid position, they should not be afraid of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When the arguemant has to be spun and skewed, it is not a very strong arguement.

[William]

As someone who self identifies with the Tea Party movement, as I believe its inception was a grass roots outcry of "Taxed Enough Already" (AKA, It's the Spending Stupid), the Tea Party is best described, as George states: "a movement, not an organization."

If you recognize that BIG Government, spending BIG Money based on BIG borrowing is unsustainable, then you're probably in the "Tea Party".

A lot of people want to use the label "Tea Party" to raise money and gain political power by invoking it, either by praising it or demonizing it.

Most of them are simply attempting to capitalize on it, very few have any real credibility and NONE of them can necessarily speak for more than a small segment of them.

When someone really speaks for the "Tea Party", they probably won't need to claim "ownership" by reminding everyone they "represent the Tea Party".

The Tea Party is mostly a state of mind that realizes we've reached a tipping point where we have to step away from the precipice. A lot of people realize that, but they've got different ideas on how to back away from it. Its a diverse group, but represents a majority that feels our country is "on the wrong track."

I identify with the movement, but I sure as Hell can't claim to be its spokesman! - lol

[BillW]

William,

I understand the nature of the Tea Party. Liberal is also a state of mind, rather than an organization, without annointed chairman or spokesperson. seems pretty disingenuous, doncha think, to tattoo liberals with the words of Bernie Sanders or any of the media that assigned blame for the Tucson shooting on conservatives.

After all, if tea partiers do not want to be accountable for the words of Tea Party Nation, it hardly seems fair to hold liberals accountable for the words of Rachel Maddow, Micheael Moore, the New York Times, or anyone else does it?

[William]

BillW,

I would say it's best to limit the criticisms to those that actually make the claims (Tea Party Nation, Bernie Sanders, etc) and those that voice their support of them.

I agree, there's no monolith voice of liberal, conservative, libertarian.

That said, some voices DO carry more weight than others, simply due to the number of people that actively associate themselves with the viewpoints they express. Tea Party Nation, does not carry much credibility and is one of the more criticized elements that associates itself with the Tea Party movement.

[Dave]

Thanks BillW!

'Isn't "Allahu Akbar" Arabic for "Glen Beck, a bunch of teabaggers and Sarah Palin made me do it"?'

Still laughing! Keep up the GOOD work!