Los Angeles, California

  Hours after a gunman killed 13 and wounded 30 at a U.S. Army base in Fort Hood, Texas on Thursday, reporters and news anchors were still piecing together information about what appeared to be a mass murder. But as journalists got word of the identity of the suspected shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorism became a topic of discussion.

With little more confirmed than the suspect's name and Muslim faith, broadcasters and reporters explained that it was not clear whether the event was an act of terrorism. As more details emerged, journalists confirmed that there were stronger links between Hasan's faith and his alleged violent acts, with several eyewitnesses reporting he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire. Others who knew Hasan claimed he had belligerently preached about his faith and had opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do Hasan's alleged religious proclamation, supposedly fervent beliefs and subsequent acts of violence validate discussion of terrorism? And when do journalists decide that an act of violence qualifies as terrorism?

To be fair, most reporters did not refer to Hasan's suspected actions as outright terrorism, although many did state that authorities had not ruled it out as a possibility. But if terrorism, as described by Merriam-Webster, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion," then don't we have to know what Hasan was trying to accomplish before we can justify using the term? More importantly, would terrorism have entered the discussion if Hasan were not Muslim?

The importance of that question became apparent a day later, when a gunman named Jason Rodriguez opened fire at the Orlando offices of his former employer. Speculation about whether the event was an act of terrorism was not prominent in media reports.

But with news of Hasan's background just hours old, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly did not oppose the characterizations of his guest, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who declared, "This was an Islamist terrorist act."

This came after the network's Shepard Smith, having heard only Hasan's name, had this exchange with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, Texas):

Smith: We've been given a name, as well, and, quite frankly, I'm not comfortable going with it 'til it's given to me by the United States military, and they say, 'This is who it is.' Unless we get it separately. But the name tells us a lot, does it not, Senator?

Hutchison: It does, Shepard. And that's why it's a very sad situation.

The following morning, National Public Radio reporter Daniel Zwerdling explained that Hasan's former colleagues at Walter Reed Army Medical Center would meet in the hallway and wonder, "Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"

Other descriptions of the incident alluded to Hasan's faith as a possible motivation for the shooting, even though authorities had not zeroed in on it.

Since 9/11, virtually all of the acts of violence that American media describe as terrorism are committed by Muslims with extremist beliefs. Does that mean that all acts of violence by Muslims should be treated as possible terrorist acts, regardless of whether a religious belief has inspired them?

Coverage of the Fort Hood shooting illustrates a growing willingness among members of the news media to connect violent Muslims, regardless of their crimes or motivations, to terrorism. One means of addressing this problem might be to improve journalistic standards related to descriptions of terrorism or terrorists. The widely cited Associated Press Stylebook currently has no guidelines on the subject. And while the Society of Professional Journalists has guidelines on coverage of wars and terrorism, they do not include significant discussion about what should be described as terrorism or who qualifies as a terrorist.

The urgency of this need for professional clarity and precision is apparent in a potentially inflammatory reference from the New York Times. According to Times reporter Michael Moss, members of Major Hasan's religious community said Hasan felt "increasingly let down by the military and deeply conflicted by his religion." Moss includes a quotation from Duane Reasoner Jr., whom Moss describes as "an 18-year-old substitute teacher whose parents worked at Fort Hood."

"He said he should quit the Army," Reasoner said. "In the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."

While the Qur'an includes at least one verse that can be translated in this way, it was not clear why the Times included the reference without adding context or explanation, either in the form of narrative elaboration or from additional sources. Many Americans already have questions about the teachings of Islam and its perceived propensity to influence violent extremism. The Fort Hood incident, combined with widespread descriptions of Hasan as a "devout Muslim" have likely not helped to change that perception. Journalists should know that presenting a single source as an authoritative voice for an entire faith guarantees a slanted understanding of religious belief.

Times writer Michael Moss, reached by email, said he included the quotation from Reasoner as an explanation for why Hasan wanted out of the Army. In hindsight, Moss said, he found nothing wrong with his approach and would include the reference again.

"In this case, on a fairly tight deadline, I didn't think about adding a line saying some scholars have a different interpretation of the Koran," Moss said. "But now as I think about it, I'm still thinking it was not necessary, and that our readers know that the Koran, as the Bible and other religious books, is open to varied interpretation."

Perhaps. But saying as much in the article would have ensured that the writer and his readers were all on the same page.

An unqualified quotation from a source like Reasoner could further damage Americans' already fragile perceptions about Islam said Jihad Turk, religious director of the Islamic Center of Southern California.

"To quote a person's citing such an inflammatory verse without further context is irresponsible and doesn't live up to the standards of good journalism," Turk said.

Scriptural references, when taken out of the widely varying religious contexts in which they're understood, can leave readers with a narrow and potentially misleading understanding of a faith. The same is true for acts of violence that we often too easily describe as terrorism. When journalists are reporting on an evangelicals' beliefs about the Bible and homosexuality or a Muslim's beliefs about military service and the Qur'an, context isn't irrelevant. It's everything.

I found more info and fuller statements concerning an individual named Duane Reasoner Jr. These statements are from an interview conducted by the reporter Gavin Lee of the BBC. This individual goes on to say, "They were, in the end, they were troops who were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims. I honestly have no pity for them. It’s just like the majority of the people that will hear this, after five or six minutes they’ll be shocked, after that they’ll forget about them and go on their day." To me... that's a very important quote. This is perhaps a more significant quote than the one about the Koran. I would hate to have this Mr. Reasoner as a substitute teacher. He seems so damn "unreasonable". Whoever that guy is someone should keep an eye on him... at least before he takes a trip to Yemen for "religious study". One more thing before I depart, I have a message for Mr. Reasoner and those like him. I remember from the coverage about one of the dead soldiers, a 21-year-old woman who was three months pregnant. Apparently she and her family were excited about the impending birth that will of course never happen. Her name was Francheska Velez, and I swear in her uniform she looked a lot like a close relative when she was in the military. My relative served with distinction and true honor and she is a veteran.

Duane Reasoner Jr., it has been at least a week since the shootings and I still can't forget her. I also think a lot of people feel the same way.

Happy Veterans Day...

Another quote from Mr. Reasoner "I’m not going to condemn him for what he did. I don’t know why he did it. I will not, absolutely not, condemn him for what he had done though. If he had done it for selfish reasons I still will not condemn him. He’s my brother in the end. I will never condemn him."

What seems to be lacking in public discourse is the language to understand this event. It lied as the intersection of psychology, religion, and politics. This morning on NPR I heard an interview with a Muslim soldier (don't remember name) who said that he felt Nidal did this because of his beliefs.

What is the belief that guides anyone who kills? The belief in America as a nation that must be 'defended' produces a number of killers - but these people have the backing of the state and wear uniforms.

This event should be an opportunity for journalists to develop and refine the language that alludes to the complexity of this type of violence.

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan's murder of 13 people at Fort Hood on November 5th was the act of an Islamic terrorist... Islamic radicals have always been a part of Islam. They have been the main reason for the backwardness of Islamic countries. A thousand years ago, it was the Islamic radicals who halted the work of Islamic scientists..

Most Arabs, and Moslems in general, are not too happy with all this terrorism in the name of Islam. But they are trapped by ancient lies, and compelled to, at the very least, look the other way...While more Arab scholars and journalists have been pointing out the problems, these radical ideas are spreading slowly, and often against violent resistance...It will be a long time before that changes, because Islamic radicalism has been tolerated, and nurtured in Islam since the beginning. Despite the failure of Islamic radicalism to ever accomplish anything positive, it's part of the culture, as are the often horrific results." "Major Hasan Embraces Traditon"

Some interesting perspectives, but I urge you to join to conversation on Tikkun Daily. See what Dave Belden has to say about all of this here: http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2009/11/10/how-do-we-understand-major-hasan/

This whole discussion is a convoluted act of semantics. People aren't trying to deal with the crime as it happened, but rather frame the crime as they need it to be. That's why some Americans turn their faces the other way at the thought of impeaching mass murderers who served in their white house, and now need to blabber on incessantly about the REAL reason Islam was responsible for this mans actions.

I see the approach of Americans to fellow Muslim citizens .. always expecting some special consideration, always looking for their final act of treachory. AND when one an incident does happen, "AHA!". This same attitude is targetted towards Latinos, and African Americans. Waiting for that unAmericanism to finally surface as proof that the other guys have been wrong all the time.

I remember in recent history, an ordinary Christian American man, massacred a classroom full of mormon children, and the whole media had to devolved into spin about what really caused the insance violence. But in the end, the only effort is to make Americanism seem innocent and something else guilty. Thats what's happening right here and now with this incident.

Why do all the veterans and veteran lovers not talk about the incidences of torture and rape or murder committed by their fellow marines? Semper Fi on that. Why do all the low-key racists prefer to avoid the link that deals with some rural village children blown up by a remotely piloted drone? Give that drone a medal. You have to love the sense victimhood here. How it goes from being the victimhood of a few families, to being a media circus and injury on national pride and the true patriots everywhere. Yet if Hasan himself had just killed himself (as some would have preferred), I have to wonder who would have given him a second thought. The whole groupthink thing (as happens in the military), is just an excuse to not deal with the demons under the bed.

>>> According to Times reporter Michael Moss, members of Major Hasan's religious community said Hasan felt "increasingly let down by the military and deeply conflicted by his religion."

I don't deny that the conflict with religion isn't there. But in these extremely confined military environments, its very easy to be sidelined from the mainstream. I've watched alot videos of American soldiers online. Their contempt for Arabs, the racism shown towards anyone who isn't authentically American etc.

I remember in recent history, an ordinary Christian American man, massacred a classroom full of mormon children, and the whole media had to devolved into spin about what really caused the insance violence. But in the end, the only effort is to make Americanism seem innocent and something else guilty. Thats what's happening right here and now with this incident.
>>>>

Don't forget that it sells copy. These kinds of stories make it appear that something huge and organized and ominous is going on, something that demands instananeous action that will put everyone at ease, i.e. a release from the collective "terrorism" and that plays instantly into the public imagination.

>>rape or murder committed by their fellow marines?

Bull; You need to read the Taguba report and other reports more closely: it was Iraqi guards and translators who did the raping. They were just being themselves; the Americans who were present, if any, could have intervened. But then again, we did that and 2003 and look where it got us, so its not our problem anymore what they do to each other, is it?

OMARG >>> They were just being themselves; the Americans who were present, if any, could have intervened. But then again, we did that and 2003 and look where it got us, so its not our problem anymore what they do to each other, is it?

Do you still believe the censored reports coming out of the military? Is it somehow a different military from Abu-Ghraib, Vietnam, Gulf War1? The same military that will not allow itself to be charged for international war crimes? I think what you're doing is deflecting my original assertion, that there are deepseated issues all-round.

Arguing who's right and who's wrong like its a trial, creates a false parity where "Americanism" is either all guilt or all innocent, and one in which the media distortions that label all the "Islamic" acts of terrorism and "American" acts of pragmatic righteousness and manifest destinty, will do immeasurable damage to American culture itself. Are you taking some comfort in this guys actions as a sign of your proof of failed immigrant culture? You don't think that it reflects servere issues with military institution and media politics?

That's no difference to the DrMs of the world who take it on themselves to be attorneys in the defence, entering contra-evidence after contra-evidence in what isn't a trial and isn't a war, but the common ground and shared space of all human beings.

So, you present a picture of seemingly rampant rapes committed by American troops. The few cases we know about are quite few and even assuming that there a perhaps several times more cases unreported, its still within the percentage range of expected criminal activity by sociopaths in any human population.

So, trying to tarnish the military by asserting its a rape machine is a red herring. In all my years, I never heard even murmuring rumors of someone getting tail through rape, and believe you me, scuttlebutt travels *fast*.

I just cannot accept an imagined mass rape campaign whose only evidence are assertions by the wives, daughters, and sisters of the insurgency.

OmarG >>> So, you present a picture of seemingly rampant rapes committed by American troops.
>>> I just cannot accept an imagined mass rape campaign whose only evidence are assertions by the wives, daughters, and sisters of the insurgency.
>>> So, trying to tarnish the military by asserting its a rape machine is a red herring.

Firstly, the military is already tarnished. I don't buy the argument that sodliers are inherently free of moral culpability for their actions because they are following commands. The invasion, occupation and subsequent implosion of invaded countries may have been decided in the white house, but that doesn't preclude any ethical responsibilities of the soldiers who participated OR their subsequent responsibility as citizens to bring their leaders to account for their failures. And historic evidence of American Military barbarism is quite substantial. Its hardly the most respectable institution in the worlds modern history.

Secondly, I was not commenting on acts of mass rape. I was commenting on the callousness of a citizenry and media that ignores the wrongdoings perpertrated in the name of America by Americans, but then harp on incessantly about even more isolated actions like the Luqman Abdullah and Fort Hood incidents. Any action arising out of the defense of America, no matter how servere is not considered a measure of unrighteous action.

So while rural people were dying of cholera and air raid victims were rotted in morgues or under rubble, civilians killed by Soldiers in shooting sprees, tortured in prisons set up to punishment the population ... the very incidence of it is watered down or completely ignored. But let one guy with arab sounding name do anything ill, and the sense of victimisation and the "world of terror" comes alive and all the patriots sing in chorus.

With your reasoning, 9/11 was just an isolated and minor incident and is "still within the percentage range of expected criminal activity by sociopaths in any human population" when compared to American aggression and violations during the Gulf War, Sanctions and or through its supply of weapons to Israel, through the arms trade, support of despotic regimes etc.

Can anyone deny, that American media in relation to anything unAmerican is not an obective or serious source of information. If anything, they present a predictable low-level form of propoganda.

Just a follow-up on everyone’s favorite (ex) substitute teacher Duane Reasoner Jr. Info collected from the Washington Post and ABC News:

“Reasoner has not been seen at the mosque in recent weeks. He had been working as a substitute teacher for Killeen public schools, but a schools spokeswoman said last week that he is no longer employed.

“Duane Reasoner Jr., 18, who is said to have recently converted to Islam and attended the mosque. In the weeks before the shootings, he frequently was seen dining with Nidal Malik Hasan at the Golden Corral buffet restaurant in Killeen.”

“On personal Web sites, Reasoner displays provocative videos and photographs of Islamic radicals, including Awlaki. One of Reasoner's sites features a composite image of Osama Bin Laden presiding over a burning White House under siege by armed men in Arab dress.”

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasans-friend-proclaimed-extremist/story?id=9100187

“On his YouTube account, Reasoner chose as favorites 14 different videos by Anwar al-Awlaki. Reasoner also chose videos featuring Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Omar Abdur Rahman – the so-called "blind sheikh" now in prison in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- and Adam Gadahn.”

So here you have the revelation that Hassan was dining with a like-minded individual, Duane Reasoner Jr. while he was in direct email communication with Anwar al-Awlaki. Duane Reasoner was also a fan of Awlaki's YouTube sermons. To me this is an interesting convergence of a disaffected solider, an increasingly radicalized youth and a notorious imam.

Could Duane Reasoner Jr. be some kind of protégé to Hassan as Hassan was an apparent follower of Awlaki?

Crow >>> Could Duane Reasoner Jr. be some kind of protégé to Hassan as Hassan was an apparent follower of Awlaki?

And by the title of the article, when does opposing Americanism become terrorism? The media spins one way, but can it spin information the other way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8343123.stm

Do you know of this story in the US? Does American news even report on victims of these extraordinary renditions?

>> when does opposing Americanism become terrorism?

Is cuddling up to head-chopping Arab guys really the same as critiquing American policies or power??

>>> Is cuddling up to head-chopping Arab guys really the same as critiquing American policies or power??

This is an actual example of what DrM called a strawman argument. Who in these news events is "cuddling up to head-chopping Arab guys" anyways? You're still deflecting from the actual events and what, where and why it has happened .. by promoting the association of terrorism to promote the Americanism.

Similar examples of media racism that have become wrong in an overt sense over time, are the portrayals of non-whites as dangerous, the portrayals of African-Americans as violent or unintelligent, the historic portrayals of whites as the sacrificial US patriots, the portrayals of the chinese as dirty etc.

Of course these prejudices remain in subversive ways, but the terrorism-Islam-Arab prejudice is still quite fresh propoganda. And its generated to deflect from the true face of American problems. As is indeed these two cases have easily shown. Not that Luqman or Nidal shouldn't be accountable in public domain for what they did in the public domain. But the media is purposefully overcompensating to prevent dealing with the broader issues here. And as was quoted of Huxley on the Tunku article “A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt.”

>>Who in these news events is ...

The aforementioned 18 year old dude is accused of overtly identifying with them. That's who we're talking about these past few comments, yes?