Fort Hood Shooter Discussion.

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Crafty Dog, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. PG Michael B

    PG Michael B Oso Grande

    "Just one mans opinion says he"..But you barked first and by doing so you opened a Pandora's box for all to gleefully jump upon, questioning you for a glib remark, whether true or false. Perhaps, that was the intention? Only you sir have that answer.

    No two people view the world the same! By automatically linking one mans actions to the entire Muslim population (even if it wasn't your intention) doesn't set well with all people. This same gun jumping can bring to light vast number of atrocities perpetrated by people of all religions.

    You do not see anyone here condemning the entire Jewish population for the barbarous acts imposed on innocent people by their shills in Government ... the same applies with the atrocities perpetrated by the Catholic church on innocent people. If we were to condemn the Catholics and the Muslims who then would the rest of the world pick on, The Jews? Surely not??????????

    Perhaps the problem's in our world are much easier to fix than one might believe.

    "When people choose humanity and understanding, convenient and sickly hate will no longer be chic"
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
  2. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    "by automatically linking one mans actions to the entire Muslim population (even if it wasn't your intention) doesn't set well with all people"

    I have already asked one person who seemed to smear me in this manner to reconsider his words and he has graciously clarified that he had not intended such a meaning.

    You on the other hand are deliberately and directly smearing me and so the conversation now changes.

    Your interpretation of Israel-Palestine seems to think little to nothing of the deliberately targeting for murder of Jewish women and children -- nor of their right to defend themselves, so maybe it is internally consistent that you should respond as you do to my sense of betrayal and treason when quite a few of my countrymen are shot down by a man who when he put on the uniform swore and oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    I have NOT smeared all Muslims with this act.

    I have used a common term for those who interpret Islam in a particular way (my term for it is Islamic Fascism, but feel free to suggest another) and I have shown why I think there is ample reason to think he thought this way and, with his impending deployment provoking his decision, decided to act upon it.

    The War in Iraq turned with the Muslim Iraqi people saw the meaning in application of the AQ Islamic Fascism. As we speak, mainstream Muslims in Pakistan support their governments military actions against the Taliban Islamic Fascism. There are many more examples, and some of them are serving in the US Armed Forces.

    The killer at Fort Hood chose Islamic Fascism and I will have no truck with the moral cowardice of failing to call a duck a duck or your specious and malicious efforts to smear those like me who do so with the label of bigot.
     
  3. PG Michael B

    PG Michael B Oso Grande

    My Mr. Denny how quick you change the conversation. If you read my words in paranthesis were (EVEN IF IT WASNT YOUR INTENTION). If you see deliberate action leading towards smearing then you sir need glasses!

    I had no interpretation period! It is what it is, you know it and I know it..it cuts all ways and that is FACT. Violence finds everyone there no matter the race, color, creed or faith. No one innocent life life is better than another.

    I accused you of nothing Mr. Denny!
    .
    Read my words...you show me where I said you condemned Muslims...again ( ? )
    Common to who? I don't hear people running around saying Jihadi in regards to the murderers who hijacked a religion. hell I live in South Texas man...we have better words for them than Jihadi. Mark you are entitled to think your way, that was never the issue. I believe I said that as well , hmmmm.


    Your right Mark, they probably do. But is the investigation over? I don't think so, so why throw fuel on something that could blow up?

    Or maybe he was just bat shite crazy and started killing people. We don't know yet, let's wait and see. Moral cowardice, gees..my God man do you see ghosts or something. Your duck isn't everyone elses duck Mark..that's thing man

    Those like you, who are you? To me your just a cat who swings a stick and has an opinion..like every other rascal on FMATALK..a forum..for TALKING and EXPRESSING OPINION...

    Gees take a toke dude!
     
  4. PG Michael B

    PG Michael B Oso Grande

    Hippys and Lawyers, just don't get along.

    Instead of continuing this pointless argument I now choose to think of those who lost their lives and were wounded, and to their families, my heart goes out to them.

    Mr. Denny and I are probably on the same chapter, but in a different paragraph.
     
  5. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Senior Member

    Hey Mark,

    Hope I can get a word in edge-wise here. As issue is not whether Major Hasan acted like a jihadi (in the everyday, common use of the word) or even if he endorses a sick, twisted, and erroneous interpretation of Islam. These issues remain to be explored.

    At issue is whether we're saying "he's a jihadi because he's a Muslim (albeit a radical Muslim)." I am pretty sure that we would pull away from that statement, as it makes as much logical sense to say "He's a crusader because he's a Christian (albeit a radical Christian)."

    To extend the analogy further: Imagine that a small group of White Christian Aryan Nation types went over to an Arab neighborhood and starting looting stores and burning buildings, all the while killing women and children and shouting "It's God's Will!" We wouldn't say that they act that way because they're Christian. We'd just recognize them for the sociopathic animals that they are - irrespective of what they want to call themselves.

    It's certainly difficult to cleave to this neutral ground when a small minority warps and distorts their own religion to justify their hatred and blood lust. (And certainly it's difficult when we're at war with these people and a large portion of their neighbors reflexively hates us for simply being over there - but I would argue that that is other issue entirely.) As Juan Cole argues cogently in Understanding the Muslim World, there is nothing specifically Muslim about this sub-class of sub-humans. Scratch any population and your bound to find a psychopath or two.

    Well, it's an interesting conversation, to say the least - and one we're going to be having for quite a while.

    Best,

    Steve
     
  6. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    Well, it looks like we're ready to wind this down, so here's what I intend to be my final words.

    1) Opinions are fine, but calling someone a bigot is pretty durn close to and may actually be fighting words. You call me one and we are going to have a problem.

    2) "by automatically linking one mans actions to the entire Muslim population (even if it wasn't your intention) doesn't set well with all people"

    My words did NOT link him to the entire Muslim population, intentionally or inadvertently. Period, forgive my candor, but please read for comprehension. I defined him by his personal history in word and deed.

    "At issue is whether we're saying "he's a jihadi because he's a Muslim (albeit a radical Muslim)."

    Again, NO. Please apply logic here. As my preceding post explicitly states, there are plenty of Muslims fighting Islamic Fascism, so how on earth there remains the idea that there is a question "whether we're saying "he's a jihadi because he's a Muslim (albeit a radical Muslim)" utterly eludes me.

    3) "Wait for the investigation". Sure I'll be interested in what it says, and if there are facts that prove me wrong then I'll do what anyone should do, I'll change my mind-- but as the Mark Steyn piece I posted points out and has been amply demonstrated by some reasoning here, there are those who seek to intimidate by calling and/or insinuating bigotry others from an honest exploration of these difficult and vexatious waters. And as far as that investigation knows, if we are being candid we know that political correctness means that some investigations seek to placate and pretend and appease.

    4) Concerning Christian extremism, as a Jew I am QUITE aware of Christianity's history towards my people over many, many centuries throughout the breadth of Europe and Russia and even here in the US on occasion. Indeed it is within my lifetime that the Pope "forgave" me for killing Christ. Trust me on this one, I have NO problem naming anti-semitism-- but that was not the question presented here, was it?

    I also know that Monty Python never faced a fatwa of death for its mockeries of Christianity, nor did Monty Python's movies trigger world wide demonstrations, burned embassies, and people being murdered by outraged "pious" Christians-- nor did Thomas Jefferson face a death fatwa for his Jeffersonian Bible in which he deleted what he regarded as the magical portions of the bible. I bet Salmon (sp?) Rushdie wishes his Satanic Verses was treated similarly. I'll bet that murdered Dutch movie director or his partner in that project that Somali woman who became a Dutch legislator (Hirsha Ali?) and now must live a life in hiding from Islamic Fascist death fatwas have similar thoughts. I bet the little Muslim girls in Afg who have acid thrown in their faces for going to school could tell you something about Islamic Fascism too.

    I could go on and on, but my point is as obvious as it is uncomfortable for some here. There is a struggle going on within Islam and one side is fascist. Ultimately the struggle needs to be defined as between civilization and barbarism and civilized Islam needs to decide to take a stand.

    5) Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that most of you are Canadians. IIRC Islamic Fascism plotted to kill a goodly portion of your parliament and behead your head of state.

    6) Lawyers and hippies: I was a lawyer but for one year 27 years ago, and I've been a hippie since I was 15. I was at Woodstock. I saw the Jefferson Airplane 23 times, Hot Tuna some 30 times, Led Zep before and after their first album, Cream, the original Santana, the original Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix twice (including the show that become the Band of Gypsies album/CD) Janis Joplin, and more bands than most of you ever heard of so , , , so , , , so there!

    The Adventure continues!
     
  7. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Senior Member

    Mark,

    Glad you replied. The point eluded me, as well, until someone pointed out to me that we don't talk about e.g., radical Christians or Zorastian fascism - even though Christians or Zorastians commit crimes from time to time. It's something I'm actually still not to clear about. The problem is that in the present historical context of who we are fighting and where we are fighting it does seem as though many Muslims do make a choice between barbarism and civilization, and that the choice is made on religious grounds. My contention is that although the choice is real, the premise upon which it is made is ultimately false - although it may seem real to those who make it. To go back to my example of the marauding Aryans, these aren't people who have made bad Christian choices - they are Christians who have made [bad] choices, for any number of unreligious reasons.

    O.K. - so how many angels can you stand on the head of a pin? I realize that this debate is merely semantic and stands against a background of angry Muslims who want to kill us - but the history of the world often turns upon semantics.

    This is not (nor is it intended to be) the last word. I don't even know whether it's a position that's supportable. Happy to cycle back in a few days or weeks when we know more about Major Hasan and his particular darker angels.

    Best,

    Steve
     
  8. PG Michael B

    PG Michael B Oso Grande

    !


    Now let's not get into a concert stub debate..lol....you win that on age alone...LOL..but hippy none the less!

    As to this quandary of a subject. I think we all agree that it was a tragedy of epic proportions.

    I never once called you a bigot nor was it my intention for you to view it as such..I just disagree with you on the Pandora's box of a statement, that is all. If you think we have a problem oh well...it won't be my first or last. But as I see it there is no problem.
     
  9. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    Well, as long as I am not being called a bigot we're cool.

    The Adventure continues!
    =======

    Subject: Fort Hood Account from JAG officer onsite

    What happened.

    Since I don't know when I'll sleep (it's 4 am now) I'll write what happened (the abbreviated version. the long one is already part of the investigation with more to come. I'll not write about any part of the investigation that I've learned about since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation).

    Don't assume that most of the current media accounts are very accurate. They're not. They'll improve with time. Only those of us who were there really know what went down. But as they collate our statements they'll get it right.

    I did my SRP last week (Soldier Readiness Processing) but you're supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it's this big itchy growth on your shoulder). I am probably alive because I pulled a ---------- and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building).

    The Medical SRP building is off to the side. Realizing my mistake I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building. As I'm walking up to it the gunshots start. Slow and methodical. But continuous.

    Two ambulatory wounded came out. Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood. Hearing the shots but not seeing the shooter, along with a couple other soldiers I stood in the street and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to "RUN!" I kept motioning people fast.

    About 6-10 minutes later (the shooting continuous), two cops ran up. one male, one female. we pointed in the direction of the shots. they headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away). then a lot more gunfire. A couple minutes later a balding man in ACU's came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically.

    He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us. I don't think he hit the couple other guys who were there. I did see the bullet holes later in the cars. First I went behind a tire and
    then looked under the body of the car. I've been trained how to respond to gunfire...but with my own weapon. To have no weapon I don't know how to explain what that felt like. I hadn't run away and stayed because I had thought about the consequences or anything like that. I wasn't thinking anything through.

    Please understand, there was no intention. I was just staying there because I didn't think about running. It never occur red to me that he might shoot me. Until he started shooting in my direction and I realized I was unarmed.

    Then the female cop comes around the corner. He shoots her. (according to the news account she got a round into him. I believe it, I just didn't see it. he didn't go down.) She goes down. He starts reloading. He's fiddling with his mags. Weirdly he hasn't dropped the one that was in his weapon. He's holding the fresh one and the old one (you do that on the range when time is not of the essence but in combat you would just let the old mag go).

    I see the male cop around the left corner of the building. (I'm about 15-20 meters from the shooter.) I yell at the cop, "He's reloading, he's reloading. Shoot him! Shoot him!) You have to understand, everything was quiet at this point. The cop appears to hear me and comes around the corner and shoots the shooter. He goes down. The cop kicks his weapon further away. I sprint up to the downed female cop. Another captain (I think he was with me behind the cars) comes up as well. She's bleeding profusely out of her thigh. We take our belts off and tourniquet her just like we've been trained (I hope we did it right...we didn't have any CLS (combat lifesaver) bags with their awesome tourniquets on us, so we worked with what we had).

    Meanwhile, in the most bizarre moment of the day, a photographer was standing over us taking pictures. I suppose I'll be seeing those tomorrow. Then a soldier came up and identified himself as a medic.
    I then realized her weapon was lying there unsecured (and on "fire"). I stood over it and when I saw a cop yelled for him to come over and secure her weapon (I would have done so but I was worried someone would mistake me for a bad guy).

    I then went over to the shooter. He was unconscious. A Lt Colonel was there and had secured his primary weapon for the time being. He also had a revolver. I couldn't believe he was one of ours. I didn't want to believe it. Then I saw his name and rank and realized this wasn't just some specialist with mental issues. At this point there was a guy there from CID and I asked him if he knew he was the shooter and had him secured. He said he did.

    I then went over the slaughter house. - the medical SRP building. No human should ever have to see what that looked like. and I won't tell you. Just believe me. Please. There was nothing to be done there.

    Someone then said there was someone critically wounded around the corner. I ran around (while seeing this floor to ceiling window that someone had jumped through movie style) and saw a large African-American soldier lying on his back with two or three soldiers attending.

    I ran up and identified two entrance wounds on the right side of his stomach, one exit wound on the left side and one head wound. He was not bleeding externally from the stomach wounds (though almost certainly internally) but was bleeding from the head wound. A soldier was using a shirt to try and stop the head bleeding. He was conscious so I began talking to him to keep him so. He was 42, from North Carolina, he was named something Jr., his son was named something III and he had a daughter as well. His children lived with him. He was divorced. I told him the blubber on his stomach saved his life. He smiled.

    A young soldier in civvies showed up and identified himself as a combat medic. We debated whether to put him on the back of a pickup truck. A doctor (well, an audiologist) showed up and said you can't move him, he has a head wound. we finally sat tight.

    I went back to the slaughterhouse. they weren't letting anyone in there. Not even medics. finally, after about 45 minutes had elapsed some cop showed up in tactical vests. someone said the TBI building was unsecured. They headed into there. All of a sudden a couple more shots were fired.

    People shouted there was a second shooter. a half hour later the SWAT showed up. There was no second shooter. That had been an impetuous cop apparently. but that confused things for a while.

    Meanwhile I went back to the shooter. the female cop had been taken away. a medic was pumping plasma into the shooter. I'm not proud of this but I went up to her and said "this is the shooter, is there anyone else who needs attention...do them first". She indicated everyone else living was attended to. I still hadn't seen any EMTs or ambulances.

    I had so much blood on me that people kept asking me if I was ok. But that was all other people's blood. eventually (an hour and a half to two hours after the shootings) they started landing choppers. they took out the big Africa American guy and the shooter. I guess the ambulatory wounded were all at the SRP building. Everyone else in my area was dead.

    I suppose the emergency responders were told there were multiple shooters. I heard that was the delay with the choppers (they were all civilian helicopters). they needed a secure LZ. but other than the initial cops who did everything right, I didnt' see a lot of them for a while.

    I did see many a soldier rush out to help their fellows/sisters. there was one female soldier, I dont' know her name or rank but I would recognize her anywhere, who was everywhere helping people. a couple people, mainly civilians, were hysterical, but only a couple. one civilian freaked out when I tried to comfort her when she saw my uniform. I guess she had seen the shooter up close.

    A lot of soldiers were rushing out to help even when we thought there was another gunman out there. this Army is not broken no matter what the pundits say. Not the Army I saw.

    Then they kept me for a long time to come. oh, and perhaps the most surreal thing, at 1500 (the end of the workday on Thursdays) when the bugle sounded we all came to attention and saluted the flag. In the middle of it all.

    This is what I saw. it can't have been real. But this is my small corner of what happened.
     
  10. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=9030873



    Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda


    By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
    Updated 18 min ago






    Army Major in Fort Hood killing used 'electronic means' to connect w/ terrorists
    U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
    It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
    Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.
    In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).
    Hoekstra said he is "absolutely furious" that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan's attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.
    "This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies—not the CIA—have the lead," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. " Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect."
    Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.
    In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hasan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
    According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.
    The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.


    The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.
    He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI , Awlaki moved to Yemen.
    People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
    "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

    Army Chief of Staff

    A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, "He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University."
    Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan's statements.
    "And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict," Finell told ABC News.
    The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, raised concerns over the weekend that innocent Muslim soldiers could suffer as a result of the shooting at Fort Hood.
    "I think the speculation (on Hasan's Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," he said on ABC's "This Week."
    Click Here for the Blotter Homepage.
     
  11. PG Michael B

    PG Michael B Oso Grande

    My question is this, why was no action taken to remove this individual from the military? If they had this much intel and yet did nothing then someone else should definitely be in deep kimshe. It seems the red flags were popping up everywhere (perhaps falling on deaf ears).

    General Casey has deep concerns for the safety of Muslim soldiers...err..yeah I bet he does, and rightfully so. This nut jobs actions has added more fuel to this fire for Muslims not only in the military but for Muslims in America as a whole.

    Is it me or does it seem like ball dropping becomes convenient in our time when dealing with this subject matter? If they new this cat was a whack job and was trying to contact the nut jobs on the other end of the globe one would think he would have been nailed pronto and given a shackled trip to a rubber room.

    Sad, very sad.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2009
  12. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    One of the news reports stated that his performance was poor at Walter Reed "in ways that had nothing to do with patient care."

    Another stated that there were concerns about some of the internet postings he made, but there wasn't enough proof to determine that the postings were actually made by Hasan.

    It raises more questions. (Why wasn't there enough proof? Was Hasan good at covering his tracks? Did too much time elapse? Was there not enough effort put in to finding out the truth?)
     
  13. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Senior Member

    Re. "Why wasn't Hassan red-flagged earlier on?" Being a major (and a doctor) has its perqs and one of them is that you just don't attract the same level of scrutiny for your angry rambings compared to a specialist with a couple of NCO's looking over your shoulder. There was an interview the other night on CNN with two ex-JAG's (one torn up about being a Muslim and being caught up in this s**t, and the other more of prosecutorial "he knew what he was doing all along" type) and both agreed that no matter what Hasan might have said, or what red flags he might have raised in passing, if he passed his latest readiness review the Army beauracracy wouldn't have paid him any mind.

    Best,

    Steve
     
  14. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    PG Michael:

    One reason this guy was not flagged is , , , ahem , , , some people less aggressive than me are worried about being flagged as bigots :)

    Carol:

    I read an early report which said that he was written up for preaching Islam to his patients. This probably was a "leak" that violated certain privacy regulations and as such sent down "the memory hole" (doggie treat for someone who gets the literary reference) and the articulation that you now read is what someone came up with to clue us between the lines.


    Steve:

    A relevant point! Here's this from the DBMAA forum from a former Air Force MD:
    ====================

    Been reading more - a lot has come out today. I stand corrected on a few points (but not all)

    My intention in my original post was to answer some earlier comments regarding how a military psychiatrist doesn't just crack up - my contention was that it would absolutely not be surprising or hard to believe particularly if he has underlying religious (muslim) conflicts - the more religious the person, the easier to believe. My other comment in my first post above was how I found it hard to believe from my experience that it would be possible for those who worked with him not to have some inkling that that was something was coming to a head. Perhaps I should have been more concise - not a particular gift of mine, I'm afraid.

    As more info comes out it appears that Maj Hasan was more influenced by religious ideology than initially realized. It also appears that lots of people around him knew it and somehow failed to act. I guess that's the part that threw me because I just couldn't imagine working next to someone in a clinic setting and having NO clue they were becoming a raving ideologue. Well as it turns out, they did have a clue. I'd hate to see this turn into a witch hunt for his coworkers who dropped the ball because 6 years ago that could have been me next to him (his chain of command has more answering to do). I also was under the impression from early reports that he discovered he was going to get deployed and then went ballistic, but it now appears the pattern had developed over quite some time. That does change things. As I said earlier, the true believers are among us - if this is the case here, so much the worse.

    Let me amend my prior posts to the following:
    1) Psychiatrists are among the craziest of people, both because of innate traits and because of the daily demands of what they do.
    2) Doctors are no more sane than the rest of the population and have some of the highest rates of suicide and substance abuse of any professionals. Yes, we do crack. Just ask my wife.
    3) Military doctors often face additional difficulties in adjustment because they didn't get the full "military training" that other officers do.
    4) Muslim service people face additional psychological stressors that the rest of us service people don't have on top of everything else and so are at higher risk for psychological issues related to service in the current global context. Not recognizing that and keeping an additional eye on them for signs of stress or cracking is negligent and foolhardy.
    5) My points above about the medical profession are important because I suspect that if a muslim Marine or infantryman or God forbid an Air Force pilot were making the same posts or statements prior to deployment something more concrete would have been done and people would have picked up on it better. The problem here was that everyone assumed that a medical professional, MD, psychiatrist can't be that crazy or that much of a threat, and everyone was afraid of "harassment" of a valuable military asset. Sadly, lesson learned.

    Sorry to be so wordy, but this one really hits home for me on multiple levels. It could have been my friends dead or my family in mourning now. And just because I try to understand my enemy, please do not think I am excusing or condoning him in any way. My nature is to give people the benefit of the doubt when possible. Guro Crafty, I know you have picked up on that on some of my previous posts and probably consider me naive. I am actually not, but I do try to hold off assuming the worst until I have more evidence. I was giving him the credit before for just being a nut that cracked, and in my experience that is actually quite believable. As you noted above, however, doubt is being steadily erased. I am sad to stand corrected.
     
  15. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    Wsj

    Look out! I am on a rampage! Here's another :)

    By JAMES TARANTO

    (Editor's note: We'll be on assignment tomorrow, returning Wednesday.)
    "We don't know all the answers yet," the Associated Press quotes President Obama as saying Friday about the Fort Hood massacre. "And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
    Not only is the president right, his advice is tautological. Premature judgment is ill-advised by definition. But one senses in much of the commentary about suspect Nidal Malik Hasan a desire to avoid considered judgment as well--not just a reluctance to jump to conclusions, but a drive to go far out of one's way to avoid ever reaching one particular conclusion.
    "It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan," the New York Times reports this morning. "He seems to have been influenced by a mixture of political, religious and psychological factors." A Times story yesterday suggested that Hasan was driven crazy by the stress of his job as a psychiatrist:
    Major Hasan's motives are still being investigated. But those who work day in and day out treating the psychological wounds of the country's warriors say Thursday's rampage has put a spotlight on the strains of their profession and of the patients they treat. . . .​
    Many military [mental health] professionals, meanwhile, describe crushing schedules with 10 or more patients a day, most struggling with devastating trauma or mutilated bodies that are the product of war and the highly advanced care that kept them alive. ​
    Some of those hired to heal others end up needing help themselves. Some go home at night too depressed to talk to their children. Others, like Bret A. Moore, a former Army psychologist at Fort Hood, ultimately quit. ​
    That's informative, isn't it? Some, some and others, respectively, do something, something else and another thing. It occurs to us, though, that only one military psychiatrist is alleged to have committed mass murder. Is there anything else that might set him apart from his peers?
    Here's one clue, from London's Guardian: The gunman "allegedly shouted 'Allahu Akbar,' or 'God is greatest,' as he opened fire." The paper's Michael Tomasky helpfully explains:
    The fact that Hassan reportedly shouted the above is meant, I suppose, to imply that he was an extremist fanatic.​
    I'm not sure that it does. My understanding is that it's something Arab people often shout before doing something or other. ​
    So, to recap: Some end up needing help. Some go home depressed. Others quit. Still others do something or other! And if they're Arab, they "often shout," according to Tomasky. But although we do not wish to jump to conclusions, we should point out that they do not often shoot dozens of people, and that doing so could be taken as evidence of being an "extremist fanatic."
    Here's another straw in the wind, from London's Daily Telegraph:
    Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001. ​
    Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. . . .​
    The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.​
    Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree. ​
    The Middle East Media Research Institute last month excerpted a blog post from al-Awlaki's Web site in which he cheerleads for America's enemies:
    America failed to defeat the mujahedeen when it gave its president unlimited support, how can it win with Obama who is on a short leash? If America failed to win when it was at its pinnacle of economic strength, how can it win today with a recession--if not a depression--at hand?​
    The simple answer is: America cannot and will not win. The tables have turned and there is no rolling back of the worldwide Jihad movement. ​
    Today al-Awlaki has a post titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing":
    Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam.​
    The Sunday Telegraph reports that Hasan "once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats":
    He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July. . . .​
    Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second." ​
    One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.​
    In light of all this, consider the following insight from Susan Campbell of the Hartford Courant:
    Much has and will be made of [Hasan's] religion from people too ignorant to read a Qur'an, or too isolated to talk to a Muslim, or too stubborn to educate themselves. Even the Washington Post calls him a "devout Muslim." But can a "devout Muslim" commit such acts? No more than a "devout Christian" can, no.​
    In fairness to Campbell, she posted this on Friday, before much of the above information had been published. Still, it seems fair to ask: Just who is jumping to conclusions?
    At the root of this sort of denial is a fear of anti-Muslim backlash--not an unreasonable worry, as Forbes.com's Tunku Varadarajan argues:
    Muslims are the most difficult "incomers" in the ongoing integration challenge, which America has always handled with pride--and a kind of swagger. We're the salad bowl/melting pot. Drive through Queens to see how we do this.
    America differentiates itself on integration from Western European countries, which are far more cringing and guilt-driven in their approach. But can the American swagger persist if many Americans come genuinely to view Muslims as Fifth Columnists? The integration compact depends on a broad trust that the immigrant's desire to be American can happily co-exist with his other forms of racial/cultural/religious identity. Once that trust doesn't exist, America faces a problem in need of urgent resolution.​
    Have we reached that point of breakdown in trust? Not yet, I think, and not by some distance; but a few more murderous incidents of the Maj. Hasan variety--a few more shouts of "Allahu Akbar" as Americans are shot dead--will push many Americans on to a dangerous cusp. ​
    Some are there already: Since the Fort Hood massacre, this columnist has heard more than one acquaintance make invidious anti-Muslim generalizations.
    But Susan Campbell-style denial is merely the mirror image of such prejudice. It is as stupid to exonerate "Islam" for crimes committed in the name of Islamic supremacy as it is to issue a blanket condemnation of the faith or its adherents. It's a pointless argument in which each side's ignorance serves mainly to inflame the other's.
    Preventing future such attacks will require a vigilance that was lacking among the officers who reportedly feared "appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier." Servicemen will need to understand the difference between vigilance and being discriminatory--a distinction with which too many journalists seem to have difficulty.
    None Dare Call It Terrorism--Because It Isn't!
    An editorial in the Washington Times faults those--without specifying who they are--who say the Fort Hood attack wasn't terrorism:
    Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that. ​
    Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist. ​
    In fact, this was not a terrorist attack. By definition, terrorism targets noncombatants. When an irregular force like al Qaeda attacks a military target, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, that is more accurately termed guerrilla warfare.
    The real question here is not whether the attack was terrorism but whether it was an act of war as opposed to personal aggression. ABC News reports that "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago" that the suspect "was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda," which if true certainly bolsters the case for the affirmative.
    When a soldier attacks members of his own force in an act of war, it seems to us the most apt term is treason.
     
  16. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    It would be doubleplusungood if I missed that reference. ;)
     
  17. Crafty Dog

    Crafty Dog Active Member

    Ding, ding! We have a winner!

    Would you like a DBMA bumper sticker for your doggie treat? :-D
     
  18. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    I'd love one! Thank you so much Guro Crafty :bow:
     
  19. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Senior Member

    Hmm...an enigma wrapped in a tautology. Does it make sense to say, "It is as stupid to exonerate "[pick your religion] for crimes committed in the name of [pick your religion] supremacy as it is to issue a blanket condemnation of the faith or its adherents."? Granted that blanket condemnations of the faith or its adherents are odious - but what is it, specifically, about Islam that makes it as stupid to exonorate?

    Best,

    Steve
     
  20. Brian R. VanCise

    Brian R. VanCise Senior Member Supporting Member

    It would appear based on the intel above that action should have been taken and that the military missed this one. However, anyone in this line of work will tell you that it is just not always that easy. What a tragedy for everyone involved and my heart goes out to the victims families.

    In a situation like this it is best to let all of the facts come forth before we assume anything. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page