Talk:Little Rock recruiting office shooting

FBI directed to "back off"??

It might be appropriate to figure out how to include pieces like this that criticize the reluctance to categorize or investigate this as terrorism. Considering that nearly all non-useless information on the Fort Hood case has been from anonymous sources, this order to "back off" could explain how the FBI could pronounce that there was no evidence of any motive, and that he acted alone despite getting the spiritual go-ahead from Awlaki. It is doubtful the FBI looked into whether Muhammed had been influenced by Awlaki who is the primary source of the idea that shooting US soldiers is a justifiable act of war in defence of / pursuit of Jihad. An attempt to paint the awful FBI performance on the FBI article was quickly reverted. A strong top-down command to be blind to Islamic terrorist incidents appears to be the only explanation that everybody in the press except for the president/FBI/DOD/HomelandSec thinks it's obviously terrorism. In situations like this "reliable sources" aren't reliable and when the government says it's not a terrorist incident (such as the instant no-terrorism statement on Lloyd Woodson), it means that the evidence is obvious enough to officially cover it up, and so far it's worked for Fort Hood.

If there were LOTS of blogs or mainstream press accounts quoting as is the case for Fort Hood, it would be easier to incorporate into the article, so be on the lookout for similar articles. Bachcell (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

http://thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/abdulhakim-mujahid-muhammad

On June 1, 2009, Americans were once again attacked on American soil by Muslim Terrorists.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert attacked a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. He killed Private William Long and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. Even though the Terrorist had an initial preliminary FBI investigation started on him, no full blown investigation was authorized. An article from STRATFOR.com might shed some light on that.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090603_lone_wolf_lessons

However, politics have proved obstructive to all facets of counterterrorism policy. And politics may have been at play in the Muhammad case as well as in other cases involving Black Muslim converts. Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The defenders of American security have been suffocated by the new administrations attitude and policies. The likelihood that a preliminary investigation will be authorized for a full investigation by a supervisor has been diminished. There is a fear that their career could be ruined or worse if they did as they want, and not as the administration might wish.

Some perspective might be in order - if you looked at websites of Christian militia and other homegrown American groups out in rural areas, you would see much to make you nervous, and the US has plenty of domestic mass shooters: Columbine, the Connecticut shooting. This article seems to put too much emphasis on quoting the claims of a young man who may have a grandiose idea of his place in the scheme of things- whom the county prosecutor said might be "self-serving" and who described this as a "terrible shooting," like many others. No independent evidence supports Muhammad's claims of being linked to al-Alakwi, and having his literature does not seem to be sufficient. His claims do need to be examined and not taken at face value. There is too much emphasis in the article on what al-Alakwi has done or said. Analysts are looking at the other factors that make someone act in a case like this.Parkwells (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

new coverage

see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/us/17convert.html Bachcell (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Assault rifle

Not really worth noting, but just wondering why the semi-automatic 10 round SKS is called an assault rifle, it's the 7.62x39 round? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.231 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Add facts, timing, trial

At least three paragraphs of the article on Muhammad's planning for the attacks and other planned attacks appear to have come from his own handwritten letters of May-Oct. 2010 sent to a TN newspaper, well after the events directly related to the shooting. I have indicated this in order to clarify the source; it was not a result of journalistic investigation. Editors need to check if there is independent confirmation of these statements. His claims to be connected to Al-Qaida have not been confirmed. In addition, the article failed to include the fact that he did go to trial in 2011; the prosecutor did not accept his plea of guilty in Jan. 2010. He must have pled "not guilty" at the opening of the trial, as sources say he changed his plea at a recess during the trial. After that, the judge sentenced him to life imprisonment.Parkwells (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Over-eagerness to claim as terrorism

In the end, the state investigation found nothing to support Muhammed's own claims of connection with AQAP and did not charge him with terrorism; it charged him with capital murder, attempted capital murder, and related weapons charges. The prosecutor described his statements as self-serving and likened the murders to "other awful killings." The prosecutor pointed out that Muhammed acted alone. Editors need to be careful not to try to over-determine terrorism connections. It sounds like this guy was delusional and flailing around trying to get attention, like other disturbed men who commit murder.Parkwells (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

as there should be no over-egerness to dismiss the idea that it was terrorism. The government is clearly going out of its way to ignore the elephant in the room which is that it has radicalized Islamist terrorist from Yemen written all over it, but the government did not see it that way. Redhanker (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletions

Parkwells may well have a POV which agrees with the cover story that "this guy was delusional and flailing around trying to get attention", but NPOV demands that all points of view be presented to be balance, including the point of view that Muhammed was telling the truth, and he was a terrorist just like Nidal Hassan who followed anwar al-awlaki who specifically praised the incident as a justified attack in defence of muslims.

Here are the deletions which I won't put back right now, but will hold here: Redhanker (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This certainly qualfies as a related terrorist incident since one branch of the government (the senate) called it terrorism, and it is quite remarkable that the OBama adminstration would not make such a determination.

2009 Fort Hood shooting, Hasan in the U.S. communicated with al-Awlaki in Yemen, and expressed approval of the Little Rock shooting

Jihadist was removed from the original text, destroying its integrity

By 2007 he was a deeply religious Muslim and **jihadist**

This removes an important linkage between two similar cases

Both men were Muslims who expressed anguish about U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who appeared to have other emotional problems.

This also removes the important point that the government went out of its way to NOT recognize or charge the criminal with terrorism, despite obvious indications and links to anwar al-awlaki:

Although like the Fort Hood case the suspect was not accused of an act of terrorism, terrorism experts have pointed a connection to other homegrown terror plots in recent years, including their targets, ideological motives and religious inspiration. Other experts believe stated ideological or religious reasons maybe simply be a cover for personal problem.

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/nov/13/muslim-who-shot-solider-arkansas-says-he-wanted-ca/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gaO4LUN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hsgac.senate.gov%2F%2Fimo%2Fmedia%2Fdoc%2F052407Powell.pdf%3Fattempt%3D2 to http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)