AP trafficks in innuendo over Ft. Hood shootings

AP reporter Brett Blackledge should be ashamed of this lead:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

Soon after Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Ft. Hood, web surfers discovered some radical online comments signed "NidalHasan."

Interesting discovery. Bloggers like Steve Huff of ASSME kept this factoid in perspective:

We should really, really keep in mind the possibility that Nidal Hasan may not be as uncommon a name as the average American might assume. Still, an interesting comment was made by a “NidalHasan” on May 20, 2009 on a document published on the document hosting service, Scribd.com.

Blackledge wasn't so responsible. A casual reader would assume from the lede that Blackledge has some proof that these comments were written by the alleged shooter. Not so much:

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

So, Blackledge's anonymous source basically told him that the authorities had noticed the same inflammatory comments as everyone else. For obvious reasons, the FBI spends a lot of time scouring the internet for people waxing poetic about suicide bombings. People who write about suicide bombings probably know that. Which is one reason to wonder whether "NidalHasan" was the poster's real name.

The authorities admit they don't know who wrote it. Blackledge doesn't specify whether the authorities had any evidence besides the handle to link Nidal Hasan, MD of Fort Hood, TX to the posting.

It's the height of irresponsibility to imply that Nidal Malik Hasan posted those musings about suicide bombers on scribdb. We simply don't know.

There's no shortage of Nidal Hasans out there. Googling "Nidal Hasan" last night, I came across one in Nidal Hasan in Florida, one in Pakistan, and several others. There's even another Nidal Hasan, MD, an endocrinologist in Illinois. (By the time you google this, the page rankings will have changed. Items related to the alleged shooter will progressively crowd out the other Nidals.)

Let's not turn this horrible crime into an excuse for an orgy of Islamaphobia.

Comments

[J.B.]

Oh man... After searching through a sea of blogs this morning it is refreshing to find yours. The fact that you are not immediately calling for a Mad Max Beyond Thunder dome response is amazing. Thank you for not adding a pitch-fork and torch to the mob.

[(O)CT(O)PUS]

These days, outstanding bloggers such as Lindsay are practicing more journalistic integrity than the MSM. How sad. And how unfortunate as less honest media outlets exploit this subject to inflame their audiences. Dangerous stuff when mishandled, AP could learn a lesson or two here.

[parse]

For obvious reasons, the FBI spends a lot of time scouring the internet for people waxing poetic about suicide bombings.

Actually, it's not obvious to me why the would FBI spend a lot of time scouring the internet for people waxing poetic about suicide bombings.

[Manju]

there's more than just the internet posting specualtion idicating that htis may be politcally motivated violence mixed with some religious bigotry. Th man yelled ""Allahu akbar!" before shooting and WaPo reports; "His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint...Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was "a war on Islam" and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries."

I know after months of warning about right-wing political violence being enabled by the racism and exremeism we see at teabagger rallies, seeing the deadliest act of politcal violance on US sil in the last year come from someone holding views more in line wwith lefitst anti-war rheortic and islamic radicalism is a hard pill to swallow, but clinging to the belief that this was simply a crazy lone wolf with no conncetion to larger politcal narratives is as dangerous as denying the Van Brunn tradegdy is part of a violent radical right culture, sometimes enabled by the mainstream right.

[Joel]

"holding views more in line wwith [sic] lefitst [sic] anti-war rheortic [sic] "

Leftists in America advocate killing unarmed people on military bases? Got a cite?

Smarter trolls, please.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

When I posted this, the "Allahu Ackbar" detail hadn't been reported yet. It was irresponsible of AP to be focusing on the possibly pseudonymous web page ahead of the facts. That was very thin gruel indeed. Nothing wrong with reporting facts, like the fact that he shouted "Allahu Ackbar." Nothing wrong with investigating whether he was also responsible for the pro-suicide bomber webpages.

However, these are very sensitive issues and we should be extra careful about spreading poorly sourced rumors. For example, there have been a lot of irresponsible claims by conservatives about the guy being part of a larger plot. When a Christian goes crazy and shoots people, we don't automatically assume that he's tied in to a larger Christian conspiracy. Hasan might have had ties to a larger network, or he could have just gone postal with religious overtones.

[Manju]

"Leftists in America advocate killing unarmed people on military bases? Got a cite?"

Leftists don't advocate killing unarmed people anymore than O'Reilly advocated killing Tiller or Rush Limbaugh incited Van Brunn. But commentators like Pual Krugman, Judith Miller, and Dave Neiwert bought Rush and O'Reilly into the conversation because their incendiary rhetoric arguably created a climate where such violence seemd acceptable to the aforementioned crazies. It's adangeropus argument, bordering on guilt by association, but presented with some nuance it makes a compelling cultural argument. These zealots don't emerge from a vacuum.

In the last year alone, our military has been targeted 3 times by anti-war zealots. Just like we examined the dangerous tea party rhetoric (I beleved Nancy Pelosi analogized them with the atmosphere surrounded Harvey Milks assassination) perhaps its time we dialed back some of the dangerous rhetoric coming from the anti-war left: bush as Hitler, 911 conpsracy theories, anti-semitism, etc.

[Joel]

Ah, little Manju. As I suspected. You don't have a cite for your childish slander.

"perhaps its time we [sic] dialed back some of the dangerous rhetoric coming from the anti-war left"

Indeed, perhaps it is time for you to dial back, young Manju. You seem able to find the mote in another's eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

[Manju]

"Ah, little Manju. As I suspected. You don't have a cite for your childish slander."

Why in the world would I provide a cite for something I never claimed ("Leftists in America advocate killing unarmed people on military bases")?

[Manju]

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

[Joel]

Ah, young Manju,

I can see this is difficult for you. I'll type slowly this time.

"holding views more in line wwith [sic] lefitst [sic] anti-war rheortic [sic] "

This semiliterate line you posted is nothing but a lame attempt to draw a parallel between Major Nasan's violence and the words of those who oppose the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I asked for a cite to support such a connection. I knew you couldn't deliver.

Of course, your tedious, transparent implication is that those who oppose the war endorse the senseless violence that Nasan perpetrated.

Smarter trolls, please.

[parse]

Joel, what's with the "little Manju," "young Manju" bullshit? I'm not sure where you find in Manju's comments an implication that those who oppose the war endorse senseless violence. You focus on an imagined argument allows you to sidestep the one made explicitly in Manju's comments: that 911 conspiracy theories and anti-semitism are both dangerous and included in the anti-war rhetoric arising from the left.

[Joel]

"Joel, what's with the "little Manju," "young Manju" bullshit?"

Well, parse, the semi-literate prattlings of Manju are typical of the fist-typing one expects from a middle school boy. Whether I'm correct about Manju's chronological age or only his emotional age, "little" and "young" seemed among the more benign adjectives I could have used.

"I'm not sure where you find in Manju's comments an implication that those who oppose the war endorse senseless violence."

Here, let me help you:

"holding views more in line wwith [sic] lefitst [sic] anti-war rheortic [sic] "

To an educated adult, this is clearly a lame attempt to link the violence of Hasan's attack to anti-war rhetoric of peaceful, law abiding Americans. To an educated adult, this flimsy anti-anti-war smear doesn't wash. YMMV.

" that 911 conspiracy theories and anti-semitism are both dangerous and included in the anti-war rhetoric arising from the left."

LOL!

Yes, 911 conspiracy theories are dangerous. Yes, anti-semitism is dangerous. No, those of us who oppose the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are neither 911 conspiracy theorists nor anti-semites, despite your tediously dishonest attempts to assert otherwise.

Why do you and Manju feel it is ok to demonize those who disagree with you? This is the tactic of the intellectually feeble troll.

Please stop trolling this thread.

[Manju]

"To an educated adult, this is clearly a lame attempt to link the violence of Hasan's attack to anti-war rhetoric of peaceful, law abiding Americans."

Well then take it up with bill Clinton, who after OK city famously took on right-wing talk radio ("They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable.") Last I checked the like of Rush Limbaugh were "peaceful, law abiding Americans."

Or take it up with Nancy Pelosi, who after the teabagger rallies said; "I have some concerns about some of the language being used, because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco; this kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate where violence took place. I wish that we could all curb our enthusiasm in the statements that we make and understand that some of the ears that it's falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

Last I checked the teaparties were peaceful and lawful too. Now perhaps you think Clinton and Pelosi are trying to "demonize those who disagree with" them and "This is the tactic of the intellectually feeble troll." And its a fair point to say they're painting with too broad a brush, a al Joe McCarthy. But i think you're missing the nuace of their arguement, and mine.

"No, those of us who oppose the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are neither 911 conspiracy theorists nor anti-semites, despite your tediously dishonest attempts to assert otherwise."

This is either dangerous denialism (being unaware of the preponderance of anti-semitism and 911 conspiracy theories on the lift) or simplistic reductionism (interpreting the accusation as meaning all leftist who oppose the wars.) If tis the former, please reference theses pics form anti-war rallies that are as disgusting as anything that appeared at eh teabagger protests.

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

You will notice some assination references (Bush with a bullet thru his head), 911 consiracy theories (cheny blowing up the WTC) which plays into antisemitc conspiry theories of Israel being responsible for 911 (as the mossad = 911 al queada sign references)

[Alon Levy]

Well, parse, the semi-literate prattlings of Manju are typical of the fist-typing one expects from a middle school boy.

As opposed to your semi-literate prattling, which is typical of the fist-typing of a sycophant of any age?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

911 conspiracy theorists aren't dangerous. The real 911 crazies don't usually fit very well on the left-right continuum. You've got some lefties some right wingers and some technocratic cranks who are in it for the cheap thriller aspects rather than the politics. I'm talking about people who suspect that the WTC was destroyed by beam weapons.

I've talked to a lot of the hard core truthers because I cover a lot of protests. They're on all the mailing protest organizer mailing lists because they turn in large numbers, but they're just there to promote 9/11 Truth. It's a marriage of convenience for both sides.

They don't advocate violence. I've never heard a truther bringing a gun to a rally or anything like that. I've never seen a truther get in anyone's face or shout anyone down.

Trust me, the regular lefty protesters think they're as weird as you do.

[Joel]

Ah, young Manju,

Now I get it. If you can find examples of extremist left-wing nuts saying naughty things about your tribe, it makes it ok for you to smear all people you disagree with. You see, Manju, that's another example of middle school boy logic.

Poor Alon. Words fail you, I see, and you are reduced to parroting the language of others. They'll teach you how to write when you get to high school.

"Trust me, the regular lefty protesters think they're as weird as you do."

This nails it.

[Manju]

"If you can find examples of extremist left-wing nuts saying naughty things about your tribe, it makes it ok for you to smear all people you disagree with."

Suffice to say, thats not what Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton whre doing, though to the unnuanced, it may appear that way.

[Manju]

"911 conspiracy theorists aren't dangerous."

What makes them dangerous is that, like Birtherism, they overlap with bigotry. Israel/the Jews as being responsible (or at least muslims not being responsible) for 911 is a major narrative in the Islamic world and to have Americans providing creedence to such narratives is to feed an already exaggerated sense of victimization, a major recruiting tool for terrorists. Indeed, it plays into the very psychology of a terrorist as the "Journal of Conflict Resolution" explains this is one of the characteristics of a typical terrorist:

"b. A personal stake—such as strongly perceived oppression, humiliation, or persecution; an extraordinary need for identity, glory, or vengeance; or a drive for expression of intrinsic aggressivity—that distinguishes him or her from the vast majority of those who fulfill characteristic a"

"The real 911 crazies don't usually fit very well on the left-right continuum"

They fit approximately as well as birtheism fits with the right:

Brendan Nyhan: "using the weighted data provided by Scripps (see update below), we can directly compare the proportion of incorrect or don't know responses to the 9/11 conspiracy and Obama birth certificate questions There is an undeniable symmetry to the misperceptions, which skew in the expected partisan directions in both cases. The total proportion of incorrect or don't know responses among Republicans on Obama's citizenship (58%) is comparable to the proportion of comparable responses among Democrats on a 9/11 conspiracy (51%)."

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/08/911-and-birther-misperceptions-compared.html

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'm talking about members of the 9/11 truth movement. They are a tiny subset of the people who will tell a pollster that they think people in the administration probably knew about 9/11.

I can tell you from personal experience that the hardcore protesters are a distinct subculture. The best way to start an argument with the truthers is to tell them that you're a Democrat.

The truthers are not violent or dangerous. They're not armed. They don't extol violence. In fact, they're outraged about the war in Iraq. They don't destroy property. They don't even go in for civil disobedience.

I agree that it says bad things about the general climate of distrust and alienation in the country today that significant numbers of people are willing to believe in crazy conspiracy theories.

[Alon Levy]

Manju, characteristic b is common to many non-terrorists. It's hard not to describe Zionism with that characteristic. It's especially acute in the right-wing types who assassinate prime ministers or shoot dozens of Muslims, but it's endemic throughout Israel, even among people who want nothing to do with terrorism or with violence.

[parse]

Alon, are there really many people with a drive for expression of intrinsic aggressivity who want nothing to do with violence?

Lindsay, it doesn't seem to me that Manju is arguing the many 9/11 truthers are dangerous. I thought the point was that the rhetoric and ideology they support can encourage disturbed, violent individuals. I don't think the vast majority of those who zealously proclaim that "abortion is murder" would shoot down doctors who perform the procedure, but the rhetorical denunciation of those physicians is taken as license by deranged killers. Similarly, most 9/11 truthers wouldn't take up arms against the government, but if someone genuinely believes the U.S. plotted (or allowed) the murders of thousands Americans, rebellion seems almost a moral imperative.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

There's a pretty powerful internal brake on violent extremism in the 9/11 truth movement. Namely that it's self-consciously the 9/11 truth movement. It's built into their ideology that they lack definitive proof because of a massive government cover-up. They still have faith that a truly sweeping investigation would vindicate their suspicions. But until that day comes, they know they lack the smoking gun.

If you are absolutely convinced that abortion is murder, and that killing in defense of the innocent is okay, you're going to want to kill abortionists, or at least you'll tend to sympathize with those who do.

But if you believe that there's some kind of government coverup about a terrorist attack that happened eight years ago under a different administration, there's no straight line to violence. What are the truthers going to do, mount a frontal assault on CIA headquarters and seize the evidence themselves?

[parse]

There's a pretty powerful internal brake on violent extremism in the 9/11 truth movement. Namely that it's self-consciously the 9/11 truth movement. It's built into their ideology that they lack definitive proof because of a massive government cover-up. They still have faith that a truly sweeping investigation would vindicate their suspicions. But until that day comes, they know they lack the smoking gun.

You must encounter a different flavor of truthers than I do. It's not rare to find people who will state for a fact that the towers fell as a result of controlled demolition.

But again, this is not about what most 9/11 truthers would do. It's what effect their rhetoric, which casts the government as complicit in or responsible for mass murder, might have on a disturbed individual with a penchant for violence.

[Alon Levy]

Alon, are there really many people with a drive for expression of intrinsic aggressivity who want nothing to do with violence?

In Israel, there are. Just witness the general aversion to attacks on civilians on the left, coupled with the near-universal support for the IDF's value system. Many Israelis on the one hand condemn attacks on civilians and on the other view military service as the epitome of Israeli citizenship.

Military expression of intrinsic aggressiveness plus nonviolence are even more common in rural Switzerland, where men would vote in town hall meetings by raising their rifles. Switzerland just doesn't have the perceived oppression of Israel, at least not that I'm aware of.