At least seven killed at Fort Hood

[amherstblackbear]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

What is of concern is doing more to make sure he's the last G.I. who murders other soldiers because of <s>his religious fanatacism.</s>

I hear you.

But if it's all the same, I'd like to get all liberal on you & take a position against killing fellow soldiers for any BS reason. Including this wack-job's "reasons."

 

[Patman]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

It could be infiltration via recruiting assets with special access to enemy facilities. Part of espionage is seeking recruits with ideological sympathies to steal secrets, plant false clues, commit sabotage, create subversive cells, etc.

He's a mass murderer either way, but perhaps he is quite literally an enemy agent, or perhaps he is a sort of horrible "wanna be." Or... maybe he just flipped his wig.

They didn't bother to ask the commanding officer... all that "well it could have been this" stops right there.

I agree with the wisdom that says that nobody wanted their career stopped by going after a muslim military specialist. Think of the risk reward... what happens to your career if you investigate and turn out to be wrong on your suspicions.

The dots weren't connected because there was an unacceptable cost for the people involved. Just like Ann Coulter's piece about the hypothetical interception of the 9/11 attackers (to which civil liberties and liberals would be screaming and they know they would)... what would happen if they went out and investigated this guy? CAIR would come out and do their dance, the non-fox msm would do their dance, and all of the sudden you have a PR nightmare with the military being accused of being institutional slack-jawed yokels who are pervasively racist.

 

[Patman]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

I hear you.

But if it's all the same, I'd like to get all liberal on you & take a position against killing fellow soldiers for any BS reason. Including this wack-job's "reasons."

Does this mean you disagree with the involvement of religion and this religion's apparent predisposition to draw people to violence and mass-casualties?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

And, in fact, "Dr." Hasan DID do it because he was a Muslim. In addition to everything the shouting of "God is Great" in Arabic, just before he began murdering, pretty much makes the argument in my eyes.

So, in your eyes, what seperates Hasan from the rest of the worlds Muslims (I don't know how many there are... a billion or so?) Is there a difference between Hasan and the 999,999,999 Muslims in the world that did not open fire that day? This is the whole crux of my argument. Its not about making excuses for Hasan. Its about your assertion that he did this because he's a Muslim. It's not because he's criminally insane, or because he's just a rotten human being. No, to you it's because he's a Muslim. Are you aware of the logical implications of making that statement?

All I'm saying to you is that, while he may have been a radical Muslim and an al Qaeda wannabe, you can't attribute his behavior to ALL of Islam like that any more than you can blame me personally for all abortion clinic bombings just because I'm a Christian.

I'll stand by one of my earlier statements: in terrorist acts, religious or political motives are incidental and insignificant next to the insanity required to do such a thing.

You're entitled to think he did it because of "stress" or "anti-Muslim bigotry" or anything else you chose.

I don't think that. I've never posted anything that even resembles that. It's a funny defense mechanism of yours to say that by disagreeing with you, I therefore must be making excuses for him. Nice argument...

I suggest you read the hundreds of articles on this creep and his activities before you embarrass yourself any further with talk of a mysterious "investigation." The whole problem here is that despite months and months of warning signals, complaints from G.I.'s, lecturing other doctors about beheading non believers, and what appears to be months of planning, absolutely nothing was done to separate this "Dr." from the Army. That is the scandal here. A scandal which we're likely to repeat unless we quit worrying about offending "the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful," and deal with the reality that some are not

AGAIN, I'm not disagreeing with this part of your argument. If he showed warning signs of this, there is no excuse for not addressing them. But, since I'm not blaming this on him being a Muslim (instead of him being a raging psychopath), I think you'd better spend another several paragraphs trying to tell me not to come to his defense or some other bs.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Does this mean you disagree with the involvement of religion and this religion's apparent predisposition to draw people to violence and mass-casualties?

You know stats. Run the numbers. Tell me that religion is a significant predictor of mass violence in the U.S. military.

That's not to say it's irrelevant. It's clearly intertwined with whatever was going on in this loon's head. But the lesson that's emerging from this tragedy is that bureaucratic incompetence is at least as dangerous.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

I hear you.

But if it's all the same, I'd like to get all liberal on you & take a position against killing fellow soldiers for any BS reason. Including this wack-job's "reasons."

That's not liberal, it's common sense, and I agree completely.

However, most G.I.'s who commit murder(s) do so for a variety of reasons, some of which are apparant, some of which are not.

In the case of "Dr." Hasan and Sgt. Akbar, the murders were committed because of their adherance to Islamism, and they all but glowed in the dark prior to the carnage.

As I've posted previously, we owe it to the thousands of Musims who serve honorably in our military, some of whom have given their lives, to separate any future "Dr." Hasans from service. They deserve not to be smeared with this cowardly behavior or to have their loyalty questioned because of it. So the idea, IMHO, is to learn from our mistakes here, I remain uncertain that we will. Service in our military is not a right. One has to meet and maintain certain standards, especially if one is an officer.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

The dots weren't connected because there was an unacceptable cost for the people involved. Just like Ann Coulter's piece about the hypothetical interception of the 9/11 attackers (to which civil liberties and liberals would be screaming and they know they would)... what would happen if they went out and investigated this guy? CAIR would come out and do their dance, the non-fox msm would do their dance, and all of the sudden you have a PR nightmare with the military being accused of being institutional slack-jawed yokels who are pervasively racist.

Even with all those 'what ifs' in mind, it still doesn't seem like a good idea to let a guy with potential al Qaeda ties (or even al Qaeda sympathies) stay in the Army. PR nightmares be [darn]ed.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Why are you putting Dr. in quotes? I'm pretty sure he's still a Dr. even though he's a murdering psychopath.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

So, in your eyes, what seperates Hasan from the rest of the worlds Muslims (I don't know how many there are... a billion or so?) Is there a difference between Hasan and the 999,999,999 Muslims in the world that did not open fire that day? This is the whole crux of my argument. Its not about making excuses for Hasan. Its about your assertion that he did this because he's a Muslim. It's not because he's criminally insane, or because he's just a rotten human being. No, to you it's because he's a Muslim. Are you aware of the logical implications of making that statement?

All I'm saying to you is that, while he may have been a radical Muslim and an al Qaeda wannabe, you can't attribute his behavior to ALL of Islam like that any more than you can blame me personally for all abortion clinic bombings just because I'm a Christian.

I'll stand by one of my earlier statements: in terrorist acts, religious or political motives are incidental and insignificant next to the insanity required to do such a thing.

I don't think that. I've never posted anything that even resembles that. It's a funny defense mechanism of yours to say that by disagreeing with you, I therefore must be making excuses for him. Nice argument...

AGAIN, I'm not disagreeing with this part of your argument. If he showed warning signs of this, there is no excuse for not addressing them. But, since I'm not blaming this on him being a Muslim (instead of him being a raging psychopath), I think you'd better spend another several paragraphs trying to tell me not to come to his defense or some other bs.

"If he showed warning signs?" "If he showed warning signs?" To suggest, at this late date, that he didn't, makes it really sort of pointless to have this discussion. I mean, you have been paying attention, haven't you?

If we were up to our hips here with terror attacks perpetrated by Baptist adherants of some strange ideology, I'm guessing you wouldn't be so reluctant to point that out. Why do Muslim murderers and terrorists get the benefit of your doubt? If "Dr." Hasan had been an Assemblies of God, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Possible, of course, but not probable. He told us what his motivation was.

You seem to be arguing that only a "raging psychopath" could have done what he did. I disagree. He did it because as an Islamist he thinks killing as many infidels as possible is his sacred duty. And he's far from being alone in that belief. Islamists are killing people every day all around the world. All in the name of their "religion." They proclaim it loudly. Some even made videotapes before their atrocities, explaining how "holy" they are.

In your final paragraph you're arguing a point I have not made. I have never, either implicitly or explicitly, made any statements regarding Islam or "most" Muslims. That would be the kind of stereotyping Islamists engage in every day when they proclaim that all infidels (and that includes you) should be put to death.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Why are you putting Dr. in quotes? I'm pretty sure he's still a Dr. even though he's a murdering psychopath.

He gave up the right to be called Doctor, IMHO, when he opened fire. "First of all, do no harm." It's just my way of showing loathing and contempt.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

He gave up the right to be called Doctor, IMHO, when he opened fire. "First of all, do no harm." It's just my way of showing loathing and contempt.

Fair enough. Though you could go the Keith Olbermann route and just call him Mr. Hasan.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

"If he showed warning signs?" "If he showed warning signs?" To suggest, at this late date, that he didn't

I'm not suggesting that he didn't show warning signs. Let's do a quick logical check of what you just said I'm implying, sall we? We can start by looking at my statement. If I were to retype it here:

"If he showed warning signs of this, there is no excuse for not addressing them."

does the part of this post that I have in bold imply that I did not just retype it?

Logic. It's a killer.

If we were up to our hips here with terror attacks perpetrated by Baptist adherants of some strange ideology, I'm guessing you wouldn't be so reluctant to point that out. Why do Muslim murderers and terrorists get the benefit of your doubt?

They don't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that, and neither is anyone else here. Terrible guess by the way.

You seem to be arguing that only a "raging psychopath" could have done what he did. I disagree.

Yeah. Non-crazy people go on killing sprees all the time...

He did it because as an Islamist he thinks killing as many infidels as possible is his sacred duty. And he's far from being alone in that belief. Islamists are killing people every day all around the world. All in the name of their "religion." They proclaim it loudly. Some even made videotapes before their atrocities, explaining how "holy" they are.

You can say almost the exact same thing about abortion clinic bombers. Just because a psychopath says that he thinks that his actions are holy and encouraged by the Bible/Qaran doesn't make it true. Do I, as a Christian, therefore believe that it is the sacred duty of said bombers to murder doctors? Just because some loony said so? As a right-winger, does that pigeon-hole you into supporting and encouraging the actions of Timothy McVeigh? Where can I buy what you're drinking?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

Fair enough. Though you could go the Keith Olbermann route and just call him Mr. Hasan.

I suppose, although I try not to do anything he does, for obvious reasons. But it would be about the same, for sure. I've posted previously that my old man was a chest cutter in WWII, and he proudly wore the caduceus device on his uniform. Seeing it on "Dr." Hasan's uniform makes me want to puke.

 

[SteveP]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

He gave up the right to be called Doctor, IMHO, when he opened fire. "First of all, do no harm." It's just my way of showing loathing and contempt.

100% agree. Dirtbag would be a more appropriate title.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

I'm not suggesting that he didn't show warning signs. Let's do a quick logical check of what you just said I'm implying, sall we? We can start by looking at my statement. If I were to retype it here:

"If he showed warning signs of this, there is no excuse for not addressing them."

does the part of this post that I have in bold imply that I did not just retype it?

Logic. It's a killer.

They don't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that, and neither is anyone else here. Terrible guess by the way.Yeah. Non-crazy people go on killing sprees all the time...You can say almost the exact same thing about abortion clinic bombers. Just because a psychopath says that he thinks that his actions are holy and encouraged by the Bible/Qaran doesn't make it true. Do I, as a Christian, therefore believe that it is the sacred duty of said bombers to murder doctors? Just because some loony said so? As a right-winger, does that pigeon-hole you into supporting and encouraging the actions of Timothy McVeigh? Where can I buy what you're drinking?

Boy howdy you're right, logic IS a killer. All I know is by using the word "if" (this sounds so Clintonian) you held out the prospect that he may not have.

You're the second person today who's brought up McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers as if that's some sort of proof I'm being inconsistent. McVeigh deserved to die and so do all Christian psychos who kill doctors. What is it that makes you so reluctant to put a name on the 800 pound gorilla? Why is it so hard for you to indict radical Islam? You don't seem to have a similar problem indicting radical Christianity? I know I don't. And this moral equivalence argument only goes so far. No Christians have flown airplanes into buildings, put bombs on London subways or in Spanish trains, or in hotels in Bali and none have committed mass murder on an Army base. And none that I am aware of are tying to destroy America to be replaced by a gentle Islamic "republic" like, say, Iran.

To normal people, like us, you'd have to be "crazy" to do what "Dr." Hasan did and on some level we'd be right. I posted previously about Reinhard Heydrich, whose background and upbringing was upper middle class and devoid of any trauma. Yet he grew up to be the architect of the "final solution." Was Heydrich "crazy" or evil? Is "Dr." Hasan "crazy" or evil? I suggest the latter.

Honestly, I don't get your point about McVeigh. Let me say this, I would have juiced him personally if given the chance.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

You're the second person today who's brought up McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers as if that's some sort of proof I'm being inconsistent. McVeigh deserved to die and so do all Christian psychos who kill doctors. What is it that makes you so reluctant to put a name on the 800 pound gorilla? Why is it so hard for you to indict radical Islam? You don't seem to have a similar problem indicting radical Christianity?

...

Honestly, I don't get your point about McVeigh. Let me say this, I would have juiced him personally if given the chance.

The point with McVeigh is the same as my point with abortion clinic bombers, just with a different ideology. There are numerous other analogies that can be made. If the examples of abortion clinic bombers and Timothy McVeigh feel a little trite and well worn to you, may I suggest the difference between disliking illegal immigrants (which makes sense) and disliking Hispanic/Latino people (which is racist)?

As to the other part of the post I've quoted: It's not hard for me to indict radical Islam, just like (as you note) I have no problem indicting their Christian counterparts. It's not an issue of denouncing radical Islamic terrorists. What I take issue with is using the actions of said radicals and using them to indict ALL of Islam. That's what I consider to be bigoted and wrong. There's a pretty clear and simple line to draw in the sand here, and I have no problem making sure that its known.

As a Christian, I don't appreciate being held accountable for the acts of Christian radicals (abortion clinic bombers, Fred Phelps, etc.). I don't support them, or believe their acts to be holy. I, as with the vast majority of my fellow Christians, denounce them. So if the vast majority of Muslims feel the same way about al Qaeda, Hasan, etc. (and even Yassar freakin' Arafat denounced al Qaeda after 9-11, for crying out loud), why should I indict the whole lot of them over the actions of the few?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

The point with McVeigh is the same as my point with abortion clinic bombers, just with a different ideology. There are numerous other analogies that can be made. If the examples of abortion clinic bombers and Timothy McVeigh feel a little trite and well worn to you, may I suggest the difference between disliking illegal immigrants (which makes sense) and disliking Hispanic/Latino people (which is racist)?

As to the other part of the post I've quoted: It's not hard for me to indict radical Islam, just like (as you note) I have no problem indicting their Christian counterparts. It's not an issue of denouncing radical Islamic terrorists. What I take issue with is using the actions of said radicals and using them to indict ALL of Islam. That's what I consider to be bigoted and wrong. There's a pretty clear and simple line to draw in the sand here, and I have no problem making sure that its known.

As a Christian, I don't appreciate being held accountable for the acts of Christian radicals. I don't support them, or believe their acts to be holy. I, as with the vast majority of my fellow Christians, denounce them. So if the vast majority of Muslims feel the same way about al Qaeda, Hasan, etc. (and even Yassar freakin' Arafat denounced al Qaeda after 9-11, for crying out loud), why should I indict the whole lot of them over the actions of the few?

I think I've made it clear what my feelings are on ALL of Islam. There's no real doubt left on that score. And you keep on watch, defending ALL of Islam from unreasonable attacks (none of which have eminated from me) but make certain that in your zeal you don't permit another "Dr." Hasan to slip through the cracks.

You know, if the Army had cashiered "Dr." Hasan like it should have, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have committed a jihadi terror attack somewhere else, just not on an Army base.

Your point about "group guilt" is well taken. The overwhelming majority of pro-life people find the concept of "murdering in the name of life" to be repellant and counter-productive. I would never (and have never) accuse christians (small or capital "C") with being complicit or supportive of the violence perpetrated by pro-life extremists. However, the difference here is that the extremist, murderous Islamist ideology is taught at schools, proclaimed on web sites, nurtured by various leaders in the middle east and approved of by a disconcertinly high number of Muslims around the world. That is why useful terms to differentiate as between most Muslims and these purveyors of terror and death are used: Islamist, Muslim Facists, Islamo-fascists, etc.

It's a trivial matter, but you brought up that old murderer Arafat. He denounced 9/11 all right, but only after significant numbers of his people took to the streets acting like it was New Year's Eve. He also threatened with death stringers who took the video footage of the celebration. I'm guessing there was a political calculation going on here, rather than any genuine shock or concern about 3,000 dead Americans. As I say, trivial.

 

[Patman]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120313570

Couple this with the FBI bit you'd get 13 less dead, ~40 less wounded.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120313570

Couple this with the FBI bit you'd get 13 less dead, ~40 less wounded.

Yeah, this guy was hiding in plain sight. Political correctness, incompetence and intertia all played a role here. Lots of these guys were probably worrying about their own careers and didn't want to put their heads up like whack a mole. On the other hand, even if it would have been difficult to get him out, he could have been assigned to Johnston Island or Adack or someplace.

I just hope we figure out what went wrong here. I don't want any more dead kids stateside.

 

[Slap Shot]

You know, if the Army had cashiered "Dr." Hasan like it should have, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have committed a jihadi terror attack somewhere else, just not on an Army base.

I bet he hopes just as strongly as you do that we prevent another such event from happening. Your rhetoric may differ, but the goal is the same.

My $0.02