Fort Hood Shooting

This thread is for discussion of the shooting yesterday at Fort Hood, Texas.

ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-shooting-army-doctor-nidal-malik-hasan/story?id=9012970) says that 13 are dead and 30 wounded: the shooting suspect is Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist.

This thread could be problematic, and moderators will be watching it closely. Speculation as to his motivation is okay; bashing of Muslims or Palestinians because of his actions is not. Rumors are likewise discouraged: provide evidence to support any speculation you offer. This thread is not a place to express hatred: if it turns into such, it will be closed and the violators will receive bans from the DoIMC of not less than 14 days.

The shootings are horrible, and very very sad. The suspect is supposed to be a psychiatrist - I'm amazed that he wouldn't recognize that he was ill and get the help he needed.

It's all very very sad.

I don't have much to add right now since the investigation is under way. My thoughts are with the victims families. It's an awful tragedy.

Very shocking indeed.

They interviewed one nurse who is stationed there and she said that she had a relative on tour in Iraq and this time *he* phoned Texas because he was worried about their lives back home. That somehow says it all. Soldiers go out to face danger, but they should be able to feel safe at home, on their base.

Interesting question, Mom, about the fact that he iss apparently a psychiatrist. But then, there are often cases of doctors who somehow seem to be completely unable to see a condition they often diagnose in others when they themselves have that same condition.

It's just terribly sad, I think. Whatever it was that unhinged him (and surely, turning guns on fellow soldiers must rate as an obvious symptom of someone somehpw going off the rails), it's awful to see that something like that can happen, particularly in this particular context where people actually have access to help..... :(

such an awful tragedy :(, what could possibly be the reason behind this?

Truthout spoke with an Army Specialist (http://www.truthout.org/11050912) who is an active-duty Iraq war veteran currently stationed at the base. The soldier spoke on condition of anonymity since the base is now on “lockdown,” and all “non-authorized” military personnel on the base have been ordered not to speak to the press.

Low morale, Depression, Post traumatic stress disorder, and sending soldiers back to hot zones without treatment...well, I should wonder if anyone in the military would be surprised at all.
.

The shootings are horrible, and very very sad. The suspect is supposed to be a psychiatrist - I'm amazed that he wouldn't recognize that he was ill and get the help he needed.

It's all very very sad.
Yea they are. I heard about them this morning. Such a sad, sad thing to happen.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims families.

Low morale, Depression, Post traumatic stress disorder, and sending soldiers back to hot zones without treatment...well, I should wonder if anyone in the military would be surprised at all.

MNF, I would be wary of taking an anonymous officer's word on anything right now. I think that it is a leap to suggest that the wars, however unpopular they may be, are the defining cause of this horrific incident. PTSD can cause violent changes in personality, and soldiers are under these situations daily. However, that does not mean, nor justify, the abhorrent attack. Especially when you consider there are people under just as much stress, if not more, than Hassan and they don't go around shooting people. In addition I think it unwise to base foriegn policy on these types of attacks.

All that being said the military should constantly be updated, revising, and implementing policies to help soldiers during their tours of duty and beyond. Procedures that were effective ten years ago are probably outdated and outmoded by now.


Such a horrible thing to happen. My prayers are with family and friends.

My thoughts go to those who died and to their families. Their lives will never be the same again. :(

I wonder about his motive too, right now it seems to be a statement by an individual against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he had taken a violent step to show his displeasure, if its true. It also shows that he was willing to die even as he killed, for certainly he would have known that as he shot he would be attacked too. So, why did he do that?

To avoid being deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, he could have as a doctor, faked an illness or something. Why go on to kill people, in a place where he knows there would be retribution and knowing that his name and religious beliefs would bring unnecessary suspicion on Muslims in the US, or when fellow Muslims in the Armed forces might have to bear the brunt of his actions.

I wonder if there is a larger conspiracy; I hope not, I hope this is the work of a nut case, a burnt out man not in his senses, for if it is not, it could mean yet another divide between the Muslims and the others in a world where moderate Muslims are already being targeted for the views and actions of the extremists.

I hope this post is okay, if it is not, I'll edit out anything that is not allowed.

Your post is fine The Green Woods.

I think it is only natural to worry about it being a larger conspiracy. When I first heard about it I had those same thoughts. Right now it looks like a lone attack. Whatever it turns out to be as the investigation unfolds it's horrible. When I am home I have been glued to my television watching the news.

Your post is fine The Green Woods.

I think it is only natural to worry about it being a larger conspiracy. When I first heard about it I had those same thoughts. Right now it looks like a lone attack. Whatever it turns out to be as the investigation unfolds it's horrible. When I am home I have been glued to my television watching the news.

Thank you. :)

I have been watching it all the time too. Our TVs don't cover it as extensively as CNN and the BBC I've been worried about the motive. I am happy he has not died and I hope he lives long enough to tell the investigators something at least.

@About the Truthout article, I am not sure if the US and UK should pull out their troops out of that region. If they do this region is going to implode (more than it is already) and cause the next world war, dramatic though it seems at this time. And with the kind of weapons at everybody's disposal, the mention of a war of that magnitude is scary.

President Obama devoted his Weekly Address to the tragedy at Fort Hood this morning:

gFFmeDw4wfc

Here's the link to the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-extends-condolences-fort-hood-community) for those of you who prefer to read.

The shootings are horrible, and very very sad. The suspect is supposed to be a psychiatrist - I'm amazed that he wouldn't recognize that he was ill and get the help he needed.

It's all very very sad.

Well, from what I've read, he was a fairly devout Muslim and made statements about his displeasure with America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand, before the shooting, he was set to be deployed to Afghanistan, so he may have been upset about being sent to the battlefield again. Those aren't happy places to be shipped off to, and I wouldn't put it past someone to cause chaos just so that they'd never go back there, or for the first time. What is known is that he was actively trying to resolve harassment issues due to his faith.

My view, and I'm not a psychologist so it's unqualified, is that he was in the military but wasn't prepared for what he was required to do. Unlike recent PTSD sufferers, he had, to my knowledge, never been deployed. So, does one's disagreement with their country's wars, while being a soldier mandated to protect said country, allow a person to wantonly kill innocents until killed or captured? I think not. A soldier knows the risks associated with war, and is expected to serve whether Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, Buddhist, and yes, Muslim. If every soldier could cherrypick missions tailored to suit their own ideologies, an army would not function. There are numerous Muslims within the US military and I don't see or hear of too many (or any) following Major Hasan's example. Not every war is going to be a joyride - if he didn't want to be deployed, he should not have joined the military.

On the other hand, I really hope the Muslim community doesn't take a lot of backlash because of his actions. These were the actions of one man, not Islam itself.

Not every war is going to be a joyride - if he didn't want to be deployed, he should not have joined the military.

I agree.

On the other hand, I really hope the Muslim community doesn't take a lot of backlash because of his actions. These were the actions of one man, not Islam itself.

This will be difficult IMO, the soldiers were there to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, both which are Muslim nations, and the situation out there, in those countries is quite horrible, with many citizens already questioning the war both in the US and UK. A Muslim, who took up arms against soldiers who were on the verge of being deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq will be asked questions that have to do with his religious background and at this time interviews with Muslim radicals who call Obama scumbug and say they'll be happy if he dies or that they love Osama bin Laden more than they love themselves are going to raise more questions. And yet that is the way the reports at least on the only American TV channel that I'm getting here shows. Of course they are also showing reports that Muslims in the American Army are discriminated against and that Moderate groups are outraged at what happened. But along with that is the fear that sweeping statements about Muslims should also be contained. But, that's easier than said IMO.

Living in a country that has some 150 million muslims and in a city (Bombay) where there are many Muslims, I can say that while not many look at all Muslims as if they are terrorists, there is still a mistrust which has increased after the Bombay terror strikes, so much that a popular Muslim actor complained of discrimination because he was a Muslim, apparently Apartment Homes where most were Hindus/Marathi were not allowing him to rent a home, saying that there were no flats available, when there clearly was.

This is discrimination, pure and simple, but there is a fear that is palpable, while not exhibited openly, is still smouldering under the surface. In this are hit the Muslims who are devout, moderate and only want to be left alone to carry on with their lives, perhaps even making radicals of a few of them. But then, when ETA ::some members of a whole community spread over a few countries is causing a terror all over the world, sadly, it is the innocents in that community, apart from those who they target, who stand to suffer the most.

Peaceful preaching inside, violent message outside a New York mosque (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/radicals.mosque/index.html)

Those aren't happy places to be shipped off to, and I wouldn't put it past someone to cause chaos just so that they'd never go back there, or for the first time.

Are you saying that someone would, in cold blood, plan to shoot many fellow soldiers just in order not to be shipped off to a war zone?

This simply doesn't sound right - it's not as if (rationally thinking) their life would improve if they did something like this.

I think someone has to be quite seriously mentally unstable to do something like this - yes, his Muslim background may have played a role in making deployment to Afghanistan an even more horrible proposition than it must be for everyone (in spite of the fact that they obviously signed up for it), but surely, it's unfortunately not that rare that someone who gets mentally unstable goes on a shooting spree.

What I am trying to say is that there is no reason to believe that just because he was a Muslim, his thought processes would be so different from anybody else's - IMHO planning such an action rationally to 'cause some chaos so that they'd never have to go there' just makes no sense on any level - except that someone has to go over the edge pretty seriously in order to even contemplate such a thing.

Did his faith have something to do with getting him into that sick frame of mind? Possibly, but I guess (since he survived) they'll find out more. Should we think that he was somehow more likely to do something like this in cold blood because he is a Muslim? I really wouldn't think so.

Well, from what I've read, he was a fairly devout Muslim and made statements about his displeasure with America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Telegraph is reporting that he belonged to the same mosque in Virginia as several of the 9/11 hijackers. His statements appear to indicate that he did not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, before the shooting, he was set to be deployed to Afghanistan, so he may have been upset about being sent to the battlefield again.

From what I've read, this was to be his first deployment. As a psychiatrist he would have known that a serious mental health disorder would have ended his pending deployment. I can't help but wonder why he didn't choose to pursue that avenue, as he clearly was suffering from some sort of mental illness.

We also need to ask why a psychiatrist, in an office full of psychiatrists, could have slipped through the cracks. Apparently he was showing signs of distress. He was demonstrating, forcefully at times, through his words to his colleagues and fellow soldiers that he was not well. Why didn't anyone raise a red flag? Why didn't anyone report him?

I may be jumping here, but I think there are a number of open questions the Army needs to answer. Hateful as it sounds, was he ridiculed and assailed by his colleagues because he was Muslim - were people worried about questioning him because he was Muslim? None of that is acceptable, and the Army needs to explain.

My view, and I'm not a psychologist so it's unqualified, is that he was in the military but wasn't prepared for what he was required to do. Unlike recent PTSD sufferers, he had, to my knowledge, never been deployed. So, does one's disagreement with their country's wars, while being a soldier mandated to protect said country, allow a person to wantonly kill innocents until killed or captured? I think not. A soldier knows the risks associated with war, and is expected to serve whether Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, Buddhist, and yes, Muslim. If every soldier could cherrypick missions tailored to suit their own ideologies, an army would not function. There are numerous Muslims within the US military and I don't see or hear of too many (or any) following Major Hasan's example. Not every war is going to be a joyride - if he didn't want to be deployed, he should not have joined the military.

I agree.

From what I've read, this was to be his first deployment. As a psychiatrist he would have known that a serious mental health disorder would have ended his pending deployment. I can't help but wonder why he didn't choose to pursue that avenue, as he clearly was suffering from some sort of mental illness.

Here we have the true Catch-22 in that any mental disorder would have likely diminished his capacity to realise that he had a mental disorder.

We also need to ask why a psychiatrist, in an office full of psychiatrists, could have slipped through the cracks. Apparently he was showing signs of distress. He was demonstrating, forcefully at times, through his words to his colleagues and fellow soldiers that he was not well. Why didn't anyone raise a red flag? Why didn't anyone report him?

Part of it could have been the boiling frog principle and that it built up over time and people working in a close environment get used to and accept growing eccentricity until it manifests itself in an overt manner.

It seems always to be the case that when someone goes postal everyone sees the signs in retrospect.

In any case, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet.

In any case, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet.

Neither would I. I'm not pleased with a lot that I've been reading about this incident.

Well, the way I see it is this:

I find it pretty plausible that being a Muslim had something to do with why this man lost all control and abandoned the feelings of a decent human being - but that doesn't mean that he was a terrorist, or that he intended to be one. We can't rule that out, but I'd say as long as we haven't seen definite evidence it is obviously more sensible to assume that he really became unhinged.

Just as hundreds of other Americans (and people elsewhere, too) somehow lose it each year, shooting family, friends and innocent bystanders. Each, to be sure, would have a tale to tell about what pushed them over the edge, and ultimately all those tales would only be explanations, never excuses. Being a Muslim with conflicting loyalties is oviously not an excuse for becoming violent, but it might be part of an explanation (and surely only a part - the background almost has to be more complicated than this) - but the fact that a Muslim has committed such a terrible crime doesn't automatically equal the notion that he must have been a terrorist.

No need to rule anything out, but certainly no need to conjure up dark stories of a much larger kind, either.

The Telegraph is reporting that he belonged to the same mosque in Virginia as several of the 9/11 hijackers. His statements appear to indicate that he did not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Don't forget that, as always here in the DoIMC, you have to provide the link for any articles you refer to in your posts. Without the staff will consider the post rumour monging.

Also, if true, belonging to that mosque is totally irrelevant until it can be proved that he did share the views of those hijackers. Membership alone can't prove that.

Well, the way I see it is this:

I find it pretty plausible that being a Muslim had something to do with why this man lost all control and abandoned the feelings of a decent human being - but that doesn't mean that he was a terrorist, or that he intended to be one. We can't rule that out, but I'd say as long as we haven't seen definite evidence it is obviously more sensible to assume that he really became unhinged.

Just as hundreds of other Americans (and people elsewhere, too) somehow lose it each year, shooting family, friends and innocent bystanders. Each, to be sure, would have a tale to tell about what pushed them over the edge, and ultimately all those tales would only be explanations, never excuses. Being a Muslim with conflicting loyalties is oviously not an excuse for becoming violent, but it might be part of an excuse - but it doesn't equal an automatic terrorist label if a Muslim does commit such an awful crime. :no:
Without a political motivation he is not, by definition, a terrorist.

Without a political motivation he is not, by definition, a terrorist.

Well, even if politics played some role in his behaviour, that still wouldn't mean that he is a terrorist.

Surely, a terrorist is defined by political motives, a specific aim to do something about his grievances and a set of specific methods to achieve those aims. There has to be a sense of a greater cause, too.

If someone's mind just somehow fractures and politics is partly behind the reasons, that's still not terrorism. IMHO.

I'd say that even the scenario suggested above (which I don't find plausible, incidentally), namely (I paraphrase) to cause some chaos to avoid having to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, would hardly qualify as terrorism. Even if the shooting has something to do with personal grievances (e.g. for some form of bullying), that would be an act of revenge, but not terrorism.

It would be terrorism, IMHO, if he deliberately did this to sabotage/demoralise the US army or to somehow commit a symbolic act to publicise his disagreement. Terrorists can act alone, although connection to a larger group with similar aims would also be an indication, IMHO. I would say, however, that a sense of a wider purpose, a sense of some sort of mission on behalf of a greater cause, would be essential to apply this definition.


These are my critieria: perhaps there are others, but I think it's worth working out what exactly we are talking about when we start using specific labels. - I for one would not want to conjure up the moster of terrorism unless there are very good indications, well beyond mere speculation, that the label terrorist actually applies in this case.

At the moment, on the basis of all I have read, some sort of private motive (albeit linked to political views) looks a lot more likely.

I find it pretty plausible that being a Muslim had something to do with why this man lost all control and abandoned the feelings of a decent human being This kind of speculations about his religion playing a part is not welcome in this thread either.

The question I have is how can they let this guy stay in the military if he's publicly let it be known that he does not like the US. Has he let it be known in public?

The question I have is how can they let this guy stay in the military if he's publicly let it be known that he does not like the US. Has he let it be known in public?

The only thing I have heard on the news is that he did not agree with the policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even that is all speculative at this time.

If it's true he didn't commit a crime. Free speech after all.

This kind of speculations about his religion playing a part is not welcome in this thread either.

OK, sorry, I took a bad shortcut. Let me clarify.
There is a lot of talk about his divided loyalties on the basis of what friends, relatives and acquaintances report). This article (Associated Press via Yahoo) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting_suspect) provides a complex picture.

What I was trying to say is that I don't find it implausible that someone in his position (i.e. a Muslim in the US army) would feel such divided loyalties, as some witnesses have reported... and I would say that something like that doesn't always have to mean a lack of patriotism, either.

I know from personal experience that a double identity can sometimes be quite a tricky thing, although I have been nowhere near any situation where the two sides even remotely clashed in any serious way. Thus, if people suggest that this could cause a good deal of distress, I find that pretty plausible.


Essentially this was only part of a wider argument... something along these lines:

I can see a legitimate way of arguing that Muslim identity (rather than the Muslim faith per se, it has to be said), together with the current political situation in the Middle East, may have something to do with the reasons why this man somehow lost control - but even that argument still doesn't have much to do with terrorism.


The question I have is how can they let this guy stay in the military if he's publicly let it be known that he does not like the US. Has he let it be known in public?

As per the article above, people got the impression that he was apparently a proud soldier (albeit at times troubled about the wars the army is involved in) who even attended mosque in uniform.

He disagreed with the wars in Iraq and probably also Afghanistan, and he was a proud Muslim.

None of the above necessarily suggests that he 'does not like the US'.

My heart goes out to all of those who were killed or wounded, and to their families and loved ones. What a terrible tragedy for all.

[QUOTE=Midnightsfire Low morale, Depression, Post traumatic stress disorder, and sending soldiers back to hot zones without treatment...well, I should wonder if anyone in the military would be surprised at all. [/QUOTE]

But, the shooter wasn't a returning soldier. He had never been deployed and was awaiting his first deployment to Afghanistan. He was not drafted, he volunteered to serve. He had to have a pretty good idea, with the number of troops that were heading for the Middle East, sooner or later he would be deployed there. I have little sympathy for him. I'm sorry.

My son-in-law is deployed to Afghanistan, and, he is on his third overseas deployment, plus a year in South Korea. He is not depressed, his morale and that of his family is not low -- except when people at home start doubting the rightness of what he and his fellow soldiers (male and female) are doing.

Not every act can be blamed on low morale, PTSD, and whatever. Sooner or later we have to realize that there are people who hate, for whatever reason, and will act on that hatred with little or no provocation. There is a point where people have to take responsibility for their actions; where "Poor Little Whoever" just doesn't cut it.

Note to Mods: I have made a sincere attempte to keep this as neutral as possible. If I have stepped over the line, it is purely accidental, but, please let me know.

My son-in-law is deployed to Afghanistan, and, he is on his third overseas deployment, plus a year in South Korea. He is not depressed, his morale and that of his family is not low -- except when people at home start doubting the rightness of what he and his fellow soldiers (male and female) are doing.

I don't want to defend this particular incident, or discuss particular views of the current conflicts.


But based on your post I am just wondering
If I understand you correctly, you consider the simple act of not agreeing with a particular military operation is per se already problematic.

- in theory, are there any circumstances under which you'd find it acceptable to disagree with a specific military action which the US military is undertaking?
- Do you think it possible that there could be a scenario where you or your son-in-law might yourselves disagree with a military action ordered by the US government/President?
- if so, what would you do in such a case?

I know, these are hypothetical questions, but I think that they must necessarily have a crucial bearing on one's interpretation of what may have gone on in this specific case.

As per the article above, people got the impression that he was apparently a proud soldier (albeit at times troubled about the wars the army is involved in) who even attended mosque in uniform.

He disagreed with the wars in Iraq and probably also Afghanistan, and he was a proud Muslim.

None of the above necessarily suggests that he 'does not like the US'.

Klio, not even the most patriotic of American citizens agree with the U.S. Government 100percent of the time. Even some of the most horrible cases of domestic terrorism were perpetrated by people who are fiercely loyal to the U.S. even though their methods are horrible and dispicable. Hasan's liking or not liking the U.S. has very little to do with it. The question is was he in his right mind? If he was it is a case of terrorism, imo, perhaps domestic terrorism, but terrorism none the less. The fact that he opened fire on a "military" target could be indicative of the fact that he wished not to hurt civilians since they were innocent, but the military is not innocent since they are the ones actually perpetrating the wars. But that, too, is speculation and I am no doctor.

I am surprised that a Muslim would be assigned to field duty in the middle east. I don't believe it discriminatory to acknowledge that there might be a conflict of interest....

But, the shooter wasn't a returning soldier. He had never been deployed and was awaiting his first deployment to Afghanistan. He was not drafted, he volunteered to serve. He had to have a pretty good idea, with the number of troops that were heading for the Middle East, sooner or later he would be deployed there. I have little sympathy for him. I'm sorry.
When Soldiers Snap (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/weekinreview/08goode.html?_r=1)
But even in this absence of certainty, his case invites a look at the long history of psychiatric medicine in war, if only because of his status as a battlefield psychiatrist, and the chance that his own psyche was, on some level, undone by the kind of stress he treated.
In World War I, the disorder was known as shell shock, and the soldiers who fell victim were at first believed to have concussions from exploding munitions. Their symptoms appeared neurological: They included trembling, paralysis, a loss of sight or hearing.
Yet it turned out that some affected soldiers had been nowhere near an exploding shell, suggesting “that the syndrome could arise in anticipation of going into a stressful situation,” said Dr. Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert on traumatic stress.

Not every act can be blamed on low morale, PTSD, and whatever. Sooner or later we have to realize that there are people who hate, for whatever reason, and will act on that hatred with little or no provocation. There is a point where people have to take responsibility for their actions; where "Poor Little Whoever" just doesn't cut it.
I don't believe that this is the case here. This man earned his rank. He wouldn't have gone so far in the military if he hated his country.
:relax:

I am surprised that a Muslim would be assigned to field duty in the middle east. I don't believe it discriminatory to acknowledge that there might be a conflict of interest....
The military doesn't consider one's religion relevant. (in regards to assignment. That would be discrimination of a sort.) Indeed, there a quite a few muslims serving in the Mideast. Muslims in the US Military are as loyal as any (http://www.seattlepi.com/attack/43546_chaplains20.shtml)

Muslims in military fear backlash (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_muslims_in_the_military)

.

Yes. Vietnam. I disagreed with the entire way the war was conducted. It was our first attempt to conduct a "politically correct" war, IMO. The Press and politicians ran the war, not military leaders who might have had some idea of how to conduct it.

But, my brother and many friends of mine, instead of running to Canada or somewhere, went over there and served honorably. To me the dishonor was on those who met him and other returning military personnel at the airports and spat on them and called them vile names.

Unfortunately, during his second tour in Vietnam my brother was killed. Now, his name is among those forever etched in the black granite of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC.

I just asked my son, who served ten years in the Army as a paratrooper, about disagreeing with military actions ordered by the President and his reply was this:

"Soldiers are not the makers of policy, we are the instruments of policy. We are sworn to obey the orders of the Commander-In-Chief and the officers appointed over us. The only orders that we do not follow are those which are immoral or illegal. For instance, intentionally killing non-combatants, etc. We are supported in refusing such orders by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). We are also bound by the Rules of Engagement of the Geneva Convention."

Posts crossed.

Thanks, Minerva's Cat - that clarifies it. :)



Klio, not even the most patriotic of American citizens agree with the U.S. Government 100percent of the time. Even some of the most horrible cases of domestic terrorism were perpetrated by people who are fiercely loyal to the U.S. even though their methods are horrible and dispicable.

That's what I thought.... was just wondering where Minerva's Cat stands on this.


Hasan's liking or not liking the U.S. has very little to do with it. The question is was he in his right mind? If he was it is a case of terrorism, imo, perhaps domestic terrorism, but terrorism none the less.

Hmmm... if it was some kind of personal motive (just for the sake of argument, let's say revenge for a perceived personal slight), I don't think it would be terrorism, even if he was in his right mind.

But yes, there are scenarios where terrorism would eb the right word. And I like your way of separating it from his actual background. I think that with the history of recent Islamic terrorism this sort of distancing is necessary to allow a fair analysis.


I am surprised that a Muslim would be assigned to field duty in the middle east. I don't believe it discriminatory to acknowledge that there might be a conflict of interest....

Actually, I am not.
Again, in the article I linked above someone said that they discussed the deployment with Hasan, and he said that he objected to the Iraq war, but was OK with being deployed to Afghanistan (I am not sure how reliable these sources are, I don't think they are official). Whatever was said, I was surprised that he was even asked, or that people think of this as a realistic scenario.

I always thought that if someone signs up they have to go along with whatever their country demands. It is different when you have a conscripted army, but the US and the UK have professionals who know what they are in for.

Nevertheless, perhaps there should be a difficult (but available) route for servicement to prove a serious conflict of interest and to leave the army/be assigned to other duties. Is there such a process?

Ultimately, I don't think religon should not play a role there.
I know that it is perfectly possible (and common) to be Muslim and patriotically British, and I can't see any reason why this would not hold for the US as well. Being Muslim does also not necessarily pin you down to one particular viewpoint of any of the Middle East conflicts. If I think of our student population, there is a certain tendency towards opposing the Iraq war and being pro-Palestinian - but that's not an exclusively Muslim stance by a long way, and you'd be surprised how mixed those opinions of our Muslim students are.... Hence, religion shouldn't be a factor, because it doesn't coerce certain political viewpoints....


Incidentally, as far as I am aware, the UK army has quite a few Muslims among its ranks, and finds their services in Iraq and Afghanistan particularly valuable, since many of them have a cultural understanding which is incredibly important for good relations with the local people.... I have no idea whether or how they vet any soldiers for action in a particular country - I have never heard of such a selection process ( but I haven't done any research on this).

When Soldiers Snap (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/weekinreview/08goode.html?_r=1)
But even in this absence of certainty, his case invites a look at the long history of psychiatric medicine in war, if only because of his status as a battlefield psychiatrist, and the chance that his own psyche was, on some level, undone by the kind of stress he treated.
In World War I, the disorder was known as shell shock, and the soldiers who fell victim were at first believed to have concussions from exploding munitions. Their symptoms appeared neurological: They included trembling, paralysis, a loss of sight or hearing.
Yet it turned out that some affected soldiers had been nowhere near an exploding shell, suggesting “that the syndrome could arise in anticipation of going into a stressful situation,” said Dr. Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert on traumatic stress.

I don't believe that this is the case here. This man earned his rank. He wouldn't have gone so far in the military if he hated his country.
:relax:


The military doesn't consider one's religion relevant. (in regards to assignment. That would be discrimination of a sort.) Indeed, there a quite a few muslims serving in the Mideast. Muslims in the US Military are as loyal as any (http://www.seattlepi.com/attack/43546_chaplains20.shtml)

Muslims in military fear backlash (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_muslims_in_the_military)

.



He evidentally recieved a negative rating at Walter Reed before he was transferred to Ft. Hood. I didn't hear what his current rank status was -- if he had been passed over for a promotion, etc. I don't know what his actual motive was, but, to shoot and hit 40-some people, he had to have had a sizable amount of ammunition on him, which hints premeditation. This seems a little more than someone who just "snapped."

I get a tired of everytime someone does something like this we boo-hoo over the poor perpetrator. Sure, we need to evaluate what may have caused the incident, but, not to alieviate the blame from the perpetrator, but, to try and avoid future incidents.

Thank you, Klio. Didn't mean to be argumentative.

The last thing I think we should ever do is bash a religion or ethnic group for the actions of one individual, or, even a group of radical individuals. I consider myself a Christian, but, I certainly don't want people to hate or judge me when some other "Christian" shoots a doctor or blows up an abortion clinic.

I for one am certainly not trying to exhonerate the perpetrator. I think it is pretty clear that he committed this crime, and whatever the reasons, it remains a huge crime and he will surely be punished for it. Based on the information I have seen, I can't think of any good excuse, but obviously, none of us as yet knows the whole case, so it's probably not a good idea to express 100% certainty.

However, I think asking for reasons is very different from seeking excuses. The first has no bearing on the question of guilt or culpability, while the second does. I happen to think that asking for *reasons* is always a good thing, because it's important to understand even the most horrible actions (or perhaps particularly those) especially with a view to avoiding the same thing from happening again - and therefore, IMHO, asking for reasons makes sense even if there is absolutely no cause to admit excuses.

I guess as far as I am concerned, most of the discussion has been focused on whether this crime should be linked to terrorism or not - and at that point it becomes crucial whether he snapped or whether this was premedidated (duly noted your point about ammunition), and if it was premedidated, for what reason. This doesn't make his actions more or less excusable - but the wider implications are very different....

I always thought that if someone signs up they have to go along with whatever their country demands. It is different when you have a conscripted army, but the US and the UK have professionals who know what they are in for.

Yes and No. I think once you sign up you can't just quit. However there is a hierarchy where soldiers can and should go through a chain of command when registering official complaints. An miltary that is ignorant of their soldiers views are asking for trouble. Even if the army ultimately denies the wishes of it's soldiers the soldier will at least have an something official on the record. What I am certain of is that Hasan had these official channels open to him. He could have asked to be transfered or reassigned. Perhaps he did. And if he did, as a practicing Muslim, he should've been given more than due consideration.

I do not doubt that there are loyal Muslims within our military. If they are assigned to the middle east I salute them for certainly if they are captured in battle they will not be treated gently. And that's if they aren't be subjected to radicalization techniques. Hasan, from all accounts, was very vocal about his beliefs not only about his faith but about his service. If he did make official gestures it is my personal belief that those requests be honored in such an instance. However, if he never registered any formal complaints I do not believe that the military ought to have sought him out. In a effort to clarify my thoughts I think it would be prudent to make sure that Muslims in the military are aware of all the help available to them and are encoraged to speak to their superiors where such tendencies that Hasam may have displayed may be more noticable.

Can't we all just agree that the man just snapped, for whatever reason, and leave it at that until we know more? I'm with Klio on not liking this rush to brand him as a terrorist.

We just don't know enough to convict him in the court of public opinion.

Yes and No. I think once you sign up you can't just quit. However there is a hierarchy where soldiers can and should go through a chain of command when registering official complaints. An miltary that is ignorant of their soldiers views are asking for trouble.

Yes that's a crucial point, IMHO... that's why I was sort of wondering a few posts up whether there is some sort of procedure for soldiers to voice such problems.

I think it is the honourable thing for a soldier to just do what they are told - along the lines of what Minerva's Cat said about her son's stance on this.

However, realistically speaking, soldiers are also people, so I am assuming that for some there will be times when that honourable standard will become incredibly hard to live up to - for some reason or other (doesn't even have to be religious or political). And this could become dangerous - I am not even thinking of random shootings - more like the person in your unit who isn't quite fully able to be behind things, who drags down morale and so forth - just because he or she has for some reason or other lost all motivation. Not sure whether this could ever be an excuse - but whether there are excuses or not, it's a liability that endangers others.

So... if this happens - what does a modern professional army do in such a case?... I would assume that identifying possible problems ASAP must be a priority....

Don't forget that, as always here in the DoIMC, you have to provide the link for any articles you refer to in your posts. Without the staff will consider the post rumour monging.

Also, if true, belonging to that mosque is totally irrelevant until it can be proved that he did share the views of those hijackers. Membership alone can't prove that.

Here's the link to an article talking about what MonsterMom was referring to:
Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html)

It is fact (at least as media has reported), not rumor. As for how much relevance that has, I guess we all have to decide that for ourselves. This article makes it pretty clear he did appear to share those beliefs. Does that make him part of a wider conspiracy? Not necessarily. But he made it clear (according to this article and others) that he was carrying out his own personal understanding of jihad. (He shouted Allahu Akbar "God is Great" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fort-hood-hasan7-2009nov07,0,4900399,full.story) during the rampage and pushed his religion on his patients, for which he was disciplined as well as posting blogs and giving talks about how suicide bombers who killed American soldiers were heros like those who threw themselves on a grenade to save fellow soldiers (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115231). Those are just a couple of examples.)

Whether his beliefs were due to mental illness, the mosque imam, or other teachings doesn't really matter. He did it and he alone is responsible for his actions, whatever prompted them. I'm not saying he is representative of every Muslim in the Army, but his understanding of Islam (even if it was all in his own head) appears to be the cause. That article that was linked by someone earlier shows that there are many Muslims who preach hatred while many preach Islam is peace and love. The shooter's religious views (not those of all Muslims) obviously played a large part in this and cannot be dismissed. While all Muslims shouldn't be tarred with this, it would be foolish to say his beliefs (right or wrong) about what his religion told him to do played no part in this. Obviously, they were a huge part. Whether they were "true" Muslim beliefs is a different discussion, but HIS belief of what Islam is were obviously a large part of his behavior.

Note: As I have tried to make very clear, I am only blaming him, not the entire religion for his actions. Just as someone's Christian beliefs may lead him/her to bomb an abortion clinic, yet that is not what Christianity teaches and you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian that agrees with that behavior, even if he/she is adamantly pro-life/anti-abortion. It is only a twisted version, their interpretation of a religion, but it is still that religious belief that underlies the actions. It is not Muslim-bashing to point that out anymore than my example in this paragraph is Christian bashing. Who can honestly say they believe he would have done the same thing if he had not gone to a mosque, not been Muslim? Can you honestly say he would have done the same thing if he had gone to a Baptist church all his life and been from South America? Muslim isn't to blame, but his interpretation is part of it. Dismissing that piece is political correctness gone mad. It is part of his background that played some role in his twisted mental shape and his behavior. And probably in the military ignoring it for so long.

I had a discussion with a friend several years ago after some kids who were really into D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) flipped out and did something. (I can't remember now what they did, attacked someone with a sword, I think.) She wanted to blame the game and say it should be banned. I disagreed and said the game was not responsible for their behavior. By that logic, we should ban learning history because it makes people believe they are Napoleon and Christianity because some people believe they're God. The game isn't to blame, history isn't to blame, Christianity isn't to blame, and in this case, Islam isn't to blame. Still, they were a conduit at the very least for the madness and need to be examined objectively...not blamed, examined. How much into the game were they? How were they taught history? How much pressure did their church/mosque put on them? These are questions to ask, not to blame the game, history or religion, but to look for warning signs to avert future tragedies.

I still have trouble with even the Telegraph story. Hasan was a native Virginian. The fact that he attended the same mosque as one or two of the 9/11 attackers doesn't mean he knew them, or that he interacted with them.

" ... and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists."

In other words, the story is mere speculation that there might have been some kind of a link between Hassan and the two 9/11 terrorists.

That's what I was trying to say just above your post, probably not well, I guess. We must look for a reason. Without that we have no hope of even trying to prevent such acts from recurring (as we saw the next day in Orlando).

According to Encarta the definition of "terrorist" is:
"somebody using violence for political purposes; somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes"

So, if the shooter acted on his own, even if he thought it was for a political reason, was he a terrorist? Was he trying to intimidate, or was he just an angry person taking that anger out on others?

I just hope that this will put all of our military posts on notice that they need to be alert for both external and internal attacks of this type and be ready for them.

Or, maybe, he might just have become completely unhinged.

We've had quite a few mass shootings in this calendar year alone. All, including this one, were perpetuated by American citizens. Why they went off the deep end is the question we should be most concerned about, not fear-mongering about Muslims. It's so unfair.

I still have trouble with even the Telegraph story. Hasan was a native Virginian. The fact that he attended the same mosque as one or two of the 9/11 attackers doesn't mean he knew them, or that he interacted with them.

" ... and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists."

In other words, the story is mere speculation that there might have been some kind of a link between Hassan and the two 9/11 terrorists.

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say he conspired with the hijackers. Going to the same mosque means they all heard from the same imam, not necessarily from each other.

And I wasn't fear-mongering about Muslims, merely saying it played a part in his rampage. I didn't say all Muslims are murdering terrorists or he is because he was a Muslim, but his idea of Islam and what it called on him to do was a major contributor in the shooting spree. Denying that is putting your head in the sand.

Okay, I see your point. But what then would you say about Poplowski, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh this year? Or Roeder, who shot Dr. Tiller to death? Or von Brunn and his shooting of a Holocaust Museum guard? Or the dozen or so men who flipped out killed their wives and children?

What I'm trying to say here is that I don't believe whatever Hasan's reason for snapping happens to be, it wasn't all that different from others who have committed mass murders of innocent people this year.

Okay, I see your point. But what then would you say about Poplowski, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh this year? Or Roeder, who shot Dr. Tiller to death? Or von Brunn and his shooting of a Holocaust Museum guard? Or the dozen or so men who flipped out killed their wives and children?

What I'm trying to say here is that I don't believe whatever Hasan's reason for snapping happens to be, it wasn't all that different from others who have committed mass murders of innocent people this year.
I said that the man who shot Tiller used Christianity as a reason...at least his twisted version. (I didn't use his name, but it was clear who I was referring to.) And that has to be examined. I believe his church was (or should have been) examined to see if such beliefs were preached. (I had other things going on at the time and didn't delve into that case much, but as he killed one man, I'd hardly call him a mass murderer, though he was a nutcase and murderer and the reasons should have been investigated.) If I recall correctly, von Brunn was an anti-Semite (although I could be wrong about that as again, I wasn't paying much attention).

I would say there is a distinct difference in a person who flips out and kills a person or two and someone who cold-bloodedly plans and carries out murder against dozens of people. A man going through a messy divorce has distinctly different reasons to flip out than a man who has been brainwashed by a cult, be it Jonestown (a supposed Christian sect) or a particular strain or interpretation of Islam.

I don't see why you are trying to say they all have the same motives. Each has his own reason for killing and they aren't necessarily connected. Just as I wouldn't dream of trying to connect the nutjob in Ohio who murdered and buried dozens of women at his house. His motives were quite different, though he was obviously as insane. (I'm not talking about legal definition here, just the common definition that someone who could commit that many murders is not normal or sane.) I don't know his reasons as I haven't delved into that case, either. And even if he were Muslim (which I have no reason to believe he is), it would seem to have no bearing on his motive in that case since his victims were all women. If he had been running around saying that any woman not wearing a veil should be murdered, then I'd say it had bearing. Since I haven't heard any such thing, I wouldn't assume it had anything to do with his religion, whatever that may have been.

It's not merely that the Fort Hood shooter is Muslim that makes me think it has bearing, but his words, behavior, actions leading up to and during the shooting that say it has bearing. When someone tries to force others to convert to his religion and is disciplined for it, praises suicide bombers who kill American soldiers because they are fulfilling Allah's desire for their martyrdom, and shouts "Allahu Akbar" as he is shooting American soldiers, you can't try to say that his religion (again, at least his twisted version of it) has absolutely no bearing. And it has nothing to do with whatever reasons others may have for flipping out and committing murder.

The shooter's religious views (not those of all Muslims) obviously played a large part in this and cannot be dismissed.

Until the authorities have spoken to him there is absolutely no way you can make such a claim.

Are you saying that someone would, in cold blood, plan to shoot many fellow soldiers just in order not to be shipped off to a war zone?

It is because I think this is not the case, that I fear there may be a larger conspiracy involved. A doctor who did not want to go to Afghanistan or Iraq need not shoot at his fellow officers and either get caught or die in the effort to avoid deployment.

I posted that article about a violent message preached by some Muslims because I felt what one of them said was what this Hasan had done.

From the Article Peaceful preaching inside, violent message outside a New York mosque
Mohammed says he and his fellow radicals are "commanded to terrorize the disbelievers ... making them fearful so that they will think twice before they go rape your mother or kill your brother or go onto your land and try to steal your resources."

This is more or less what Hasan did. He was against Armed Forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he may be led to believe the troops indulged in all kinds of atrocities; and this man who was against deployment suddenly took up arms and fired off 100 rounds at everyone standing by.

While this is just speculation, the fact he shot at others who were to leave for the countries he obviously did not want US troops to go to, makes his actions lean towards his religious views, more than anything else IMO.

Until the authorities have spoken to him there is absolutely no way you can make such a claim.I'm not too sure we will have the right picture even after. :)

Hypothetically: If it's true that he totally snapped (which seems very likely), what reasons do we have to believe he is willing or even able to tell his exact feelings about it? Can he be expected to manage a reliable self analysis?

Courts in my neck of the woods do not consider the culprit's own words alone binding evidence. That the investigators have to turn every stone in his career as well as in his private life to be able to build the picture is clear.

I don't have any statistics about it, but I believe that generally when religious people snap their religion gets a significant role in their rationales for their actions. Personally I wouldn't consider his shouting Allahu akbar proof for anything else than that he was a muslim. It doesn't explain his motives.

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say he conspired with the hijackers. Going to the same mosque means they all heard from the same imam, not necessarily from each other.


But we have no evidence that the Imam of that particular mosque had anything to do with radicalising the hijackers, or indeed Hasan.

Just imagine someone in your Church did something pretty horrific, and then everyone in the congregation would always be under suspicion because 'they heard from the same man (or, depending on Church, woman)'.

I'd call that jumping to conclusions.

It doesn't explain his motives

That he opened fire in an Army base could also suggest the role of a suicide bomber, mainly because he knew more than anyone else that retribution would be swift and hard; that if he was not killed, he could face the rest of his life in circumstances that could be even more horrible than the terror he inflicted IMO. Yet he carried out a killing that killed and wounded some 40 people. That shows a mental state where he was totally uncaring of the after math of his actions and that he was willing to die IMO.

Just imagine someone in your Church did something pretty horrific, and then everyone in the congregation would always be under suspicion because 'they heard from the same man (or, depending on Church, woman)'.

But that's how it is IMO. There were travel warnings to India from Israel and the US, because there is a tiny section of people who are allied with terrorists and are plotting to cause damage and both countries issued travel warnings, just in case their citizens get caught in the mess if it happens. But the whole country comes under the scanner and is declared taboo until the danger is passed. Because, one does not know for sure where, how and when those attacks if they happen will take place.

Likewise while Hasan could have had nothing to do with his religious background, that suspicion is going to be the first one to come up, because of radical Muslims wanting to terrorise the disbeliever and either convert them to Islam or treat them as the enemy. So when a Muslim, and a devout one at that goes about killing others for no reason, this is what generally comes to mind first IMO.

While indeed Hasan could have acted without any religious leanings whatsoever, still the way radical Muslims are trying to influence other Muslims everyday, makes one lean in that direction.

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/fearing-taliban-5000-pak-hindus-flee-to.html

http://www.aina.org/news/20091016174755.htm

I am aware this may not be the case, but equally Jihad may very well be the reason why he did what he did.

But we have no evidence that the Imam of that particular mosque had anything to do with radicalising the hijackers, or indeed Hasan.


We can be pretty sure the Imam of that mosque had very little to do with radicalising the hijackers as they were thoroughly radicalised before they arrived in the US.

I'm not too sure we will have the right picture even after. :)

Hypothetically: If it's true that he totally snapped (which seems very likely), what reasons do we have to believe he is willing or even able to tell his exact feelings about it? Can he be expected to manage a reliable self analysis?

Courts in my neck of the woods do not consider the culprit's own words alone binding evidence. That the investigators have to turn every stone in his career as well as in his private life to be able to build the picture is clear.

I don't have any statistics about it, but I believe that generally when religious people snap their religion gets a significant role in their rationales for their actions. Personally I wouldn't consider his shouting Allahu akbar proof for anything else than that he was a muslim. It doesn't explain his motives.
I believe that I've given sufficient evidence that his religious feelings played a large role and I used much more than his single phrase during the attack to back that up. I'll give even more evidence, since you appear to require more than the fact that he was disciplined for pushing his religion on patients and he shouted Allahu Akbar during the rampage. He made several other statements prior to being transferred and after, some of which I'll detail below.
But we have no evidence that the Imam of that particular mosque had anything to do with radicalising the hijackers, or indeed Hasan.

Just imagine someone in your Church did something pretty horrific, and then everyone in the congregation would always be under suspicion because 'they heard from the same man (or, depending on Church, woman)'.

I'd call that jumping to conclusions.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, either.

Before attending Muslim Community Center, (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115465)Hasan worshipped with his mother at the ultra-radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. While there in 2001, he worshipped alongside some of the hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11.
He reportedly came under the spell of the mosque's imam Anwar Aulaqi, who ministered privately to the hijackers.
Witnesses at Fort Hood say Hasan's eyes "lit up" when discussing Aulaqi's teachings, which include graphic descriptions of carnal pleasures and rewards in paradise awaiting jihadi martyrs who fight infidels in the cause of Allah. Hasan, 39, was unmarried.
U.S. intelligence now believe the American-born Aulaqi, who after 9/11 fled to Yemen, is one of al-Qaida's top spiritual advisers and recruiters.

One person in my church doing something bad isn't proof, but several doing horrific things after being preached to personally by my spiritual leader and that spiritual leader preaching the benefits of doing said horrific things and that spiritual leader fleeing the country afterward and being credited as top spiritual adviser and recruiter for a terrorist organization is pretty strong evidence.

This article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html) has even more evidence.


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.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

...
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.
Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."
...

One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.
A civilian police officer who shot him, bringing the rampage to an end, said Hasan appeared "calm" during the massacre, hiding behind a telephone pole and shooting fellow soldiers in the back as they tried to get away.




The totality of evidence here cannot be denied. I don't think we have proof that he was a member of al-Qaida, but that he was influenced by their ideology cannot be denied. I believe it was just such PC denials that allowed him to do what he did.

There has to be a middle ground between believing all Muslims are terrorists and none are. Clearly, some are. And a man who is spouting off his beliefs that non-believers (in his estimation) should have their throats slit and praising terrorists' actions needs to be looked at before he goes off. I would be saying the same thing if he had been part of some Christian sect talking about how great some abortion clinic bomber was and saying all non "my-sect" people deserve to be blown up.


Continuing to deny that his religious beliefs played a part is PC garbage that allowed him to do what he did. You don't target someone just because he belongs to a religious sect, but if he shows signs of admiring such extreme violence in connection with that sect, then you need to look at him and his beliefs more closely, whether he is Muslim, Baptist, or Satanist.

The Telegraph article relies entirely on hearsay which is at best unreliable and totally inadmissable as evidence in law.

If you believe that the rule of law is a bunch of PC garbage, then so be it.


And more to the point, if these people were so concerned, why didn't they alert the authorities?

There has to be a middle ground between believing all Muslims are terrorists and none are. Clearly, some are. And a man who is spouting off his beliefs that non-believers (in his estimation) should have their throats slit and praising terrorists' actions needs to be looked at before he goes off.

Why just Muslims? Why weren't all the commentators who praised Tim McVeigh hauled in? Why for that matter was McVeigh not hauled in before his attack even though he'd been spouting off at gun shows for months beforehand?

Freedom of speech. Without clear evidence of intent, people are free to say pretty much what they want.

Or is freedom of speech PC garbage too?

I just wonder whether it makes any sense to speculate about the worst before we have any evidence. And no, I don't accept that Telegraph piece as evidence.

I am keeping an open mind for explanations (and yes, that includes the terrorist option), but I don't think that the terrorist explanation is the *most obvious*, and therefore I am not willing to contemplate it as my main theory before there is some actual evidence. Terrorism is horrific, but look at how few terrorists there are compared to the general population (and the same is true for the Muslim population). Given laws of average, therefore, I would assume that it is still a lot more likely for someone (yes, a Muslim, too) to become mentally instable than to become a terrorist.

I bet this case will occupy the courts and the media for a long time to come, so I am expecting to find out a bit more, and on the basis of reliable evidence, too.

I think it's a bad thing that these days (and not least in the US, I am afraid) so many people are willing to jump to the worst case scenario conclusion far too quickly, and without enough sensible evidence. Ultimately, this creates a kind of vicious cycle of fear which just makes everyone more nervous and afraid - and those are states of mind that aren't helpful when one needs to make sensible decisions.

The Telegraph article relies entirely on hearsay which is at best unreliable and totally inadmissable as evidence in law.

As someone who reads the Telegraph on a daily basis, I would also point out that it has form as a not 100% reliable source (except in things like the MP expenses scandal, where it has hard documentary evidence): there are too many examples to mention of its reporting hearsay which has turned out later to be misleading or completely untrue (e.g. it was one of the papers which most faithfully reported the police's version of events of the death of Ian Tomlinson in the G20 riots). It also has a strong conservative bias - I doubt that even its editor would describe it as an impartial reporter of facts.

The Telegraph article relies entirely on hearsay which is at best unreliable and totally inadmissable as evidence in law.
Witnesses are admissable as evidence. What evidence would you accept if his words and actions aren't reliable and witnesses of his behavior aren't admissable? What would it take to prove to you that he was acting on his twisted religious beliefs?

If you believe that the rule of law is a bunch of PC garbage, then so be it.

When did you ever hear me advocate throwing away the rule of law? I find that insinuation offensive and would like an apology. I have never advocated rounding up all Muslims without evidence and shipping them to Gitmo simply for being Muslim. I would find that horrific as well. Don't put words into my mouth. I have never in any post said the rule of law shouldn't be followed, only that the warning signs were there and warranted investigation...under the rule of law.

And more to the point, if these people were so concerned, why didn't they alert the authorities?
As was said, they were afraid of being labeled anti Muslim.


Why just Muslims? Why weren't all the commentators who praised Tim McVeigh hauled in? Why for that matter was McVeigh not hauled in before his attack even though he'd been spouting off at gun shows for months beforehand?

Freedom of speech. Without clear evidence of intent, people are free to say pretty much what they want.

Or is freedom of speech PC garbage too?

As I've stated several times, not just Muslims. If someone praised Tim McVeigh, learned from him, stated repeatedly and emphatically that he had the right idea and that blowing up buildings was the right thing to do, giving speeches on that topic at a medical convention, then I think he would and should get questioned and examined. There were two plots recently foiled because people paid attention to such behavior outside the military and gathered evidence and stopped the plots. That's what I'm saying should have happened here. You can't haul off (and I didn't advocate doing so) anyone who speaks out admiring extremist views, but when they do so repeatedly (be they views admiring OBL or McVeigh or an abortion clinic bomber), then that person deserves a closer look and investigation. Especially if that person has access to weapons and his perceived enemy. That didn't happen here. Someone in a small town with no abortion clinic who spouts off about how great a bomber is is less of a risk than someone who works at a dynamite plant next door to an abortion clinic. Common sense is all I'm asking for here. And an investigation under the rule of law.

People get questioned more harshly for saying the president (any president) should be killed or even that they'd just be happy to see him dead. That is supposedly done under rule of law. Why couldn't someone spouting out that American soldiers and non-believers should have their throats slit and be set on fire at least be questioned and watched more closely? Is that truly so unreasonable?

I believe that I've given sufficient evidence that his religious feelings played a large role and I used much more than his single phrase during the attack to back that up. I'll give even more evidence, since you appear to require more than the fact that he was disciplined for pushing his religion on patients and he shouted Allahu Akbar during the rampage. He made several other statements prior to being transferred and after, some of which I'll detail below.
None of what you posted is evidence, it's pure speculation. Furthermore, why is it important to you that his religion be responsible for this?

I want the reason, whatever it is, to be examined. People here seem determined to say his religion had nothing to do with it. I don't care what his reason is, I just don't want the truth to be ignored due to political correctness. That's all I'm saying.

And it isn't speculation that he was disciplined for prostletizing or that he gave a speech at a medical convention that was about his interpretation of the Koran or that he told many people that he admired this imam who is considered a top recruiter for Al-Qaida.

I've given my evidence and stated my piece. If you want to willfully ignore it, that's your business. I'm done here. You're all just trying to attack me now and insinuate that I am anti-Muslim and anti-law. I won't defend myself from such unwarranted attacks. Anymore such attacks on me (with less evidence than you seem to be willing to accept in regards to Hasan) will be met with reports to mods. I've been clear that I don't attack him because he's Muslim, I am only trying to get the evidence looked at objectively. I am not in favor of vigilante "justice" or bigotry. Any claims to the contrary are unwarranted and will be reported if necessary.

I don't care what his reason is, I just don't want the truth to be ignored due to political correctness.
You've repeatedly made reference to "proof" and "evidence" that his reason was religion, so I don't think saying you don't care what his reason is will be very convincing now. I'm not saying that you're wrong to have concluded this, but nothing I've read so far has been even close to evidence of it. Let's wait and see what an actual investigation turns up instead of pouncing on press hypotheses.

Here's an article including statements from a Muslim leader in Killeen.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/fort_hood_shootings/Some_who_knew_Fort_Hood_suspect_doubted_his_loyalt y_stability.html


Also, concerning his promotion to Major...Medical officers are NOT line officers. They meet a completely different set of promotion boards than do line officers. In other words, when he went up for Major, he was competing against other doctors...not infantry or artillery officers.

Also, doctors start at Captain. While the Army sent him to medical school, he possibly held Lt rank of one grade or another, but other than wearing the uniform once a week, I doubt he had any duties to perform during that time.

From the article...

Hasan received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. And while he was an intern at the suburban Washington hospital, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

Hasan was promoted from captain to major in 2008, the same year he graduated from the master’s program.

Bernard Rostker, a military personnel expert at the Rand Corp., said Hasan’s advancement was all but certain absent a serious blemish on his record, such as a drunken-driving or drug charge.

“We’re short of officers, particularly at the major and lieutenant colonel level because of the war, and we’re short of psychiatrists,” said Rostker, who served as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness during the Clinton administration. “There would have had to be something very detrimental in his record before there would have been a banner that would have said, ‘No, we don’t want to promote him.’ ”

Point: We have reports from multiple news sources that suggest that this guy had problems ant that his problems were related to his religion. There is also evidence that fear of being Un-PC prevented intervention, much like in the Virginia Tech shooting.

Unless something comes out to suggest that these reporters are quoting each other (a distinct possibility) to deny that his religion had anything to do with it is horribly mistaken. Yes, it may or may not be admissable in court, but most likely it had something to do with the fact that people are dead.

All the Best,

Lunatic

The only reason to be interested in whether his religion played a part is because of the mosque he attends. It's important to be sure that it isn't a place for inciting violence. I would feel this way about any religious establishment not just Islam.

I think it is important to let all the facts come out though. Even though what this man did was horrible we still don't know exactly what drove him to do this. From news reports it is looking more and more like he was upset with the US but there is also the possibility of mental illness. We just really don't know yet.

Well, even *if* his religion had something to do with it (and personally I think that there is a chance that it contributed to the mix), this still doesn't say that we have to jump to the next conclusion and say that this automatically makes it terrorism.

I am not ruling it out, but I think the the conclusion 'crime committed by Muslim - must be terrorism' is made far too easily. That accusation is awfully, awfully serious and shouldn't be taken lightly in any case.


To me there is no question (on present evidence) that he is guilty of multiple murder, which is bad enough - but a charge of terrorism simply needs another, quite a bit more complex combination of evidence and argument to support it.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, either.

Before attending Muslim Community Center, (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115465)Hasan worshipped with his mother at the ultra-radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. While there in 2001, he worshipped alongside some of the hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11.
He reportedly came under the spell of the mosque's imam Anwar Aulaqi, who ministered privately to the hijackers.
Witnesses at Fort Hood say Hasan's eyes "lit up" when discussing Aulaqi's teachings, which include graphic descriptions of carnal pleasures and rewards in paradise awaiting jihadi martyrs who fight infidels in the cause of Allah. Hasan, 39, was unmarried.
U.S. intelligence now believe the American-born Aulaqi, who after 9/11 fled to Yemen, is one of al-Qaida's top spiritual advisers and recruiters.

One person in my church doing something bad isn't proof, but several doing horrific things after being preached to personally by my spiritual leader and that spiritual leader preaching the benefits of doing said horrific things and that spiritual leader fleeing the country afterward and being credited as top spiritual adviser and recruiter for a terrorist organization is pretty strong evidence.

I'm sorry, Denny, but relying on anything from WorldNetDaily is probably the textbook definition of jumping to the wrong conclusion. The sensationalism and shoddy journalism practiced by this rag is disgraceful. They push Orly Taitz and the Birthers, claim the Obama government is considering Nazi-like concentration camps for dissidents as a part of health are reform, pushed the hasteful book "The Obama Nation" by Jerome Corsi, engages in 9/11 Truther conspiracies and who knows what else.

But we have no evidence that the Imam of that particular mosque had anything to do with radicalising the hijackers, or indeed Hasan.

Yes, and No. The mosque Hasan attended in Virginia was headed by Anwar al-Awlaki.

Awlaki was mentioned in the report on Septemebr 11th as a person of interest. Awlaki left Virginia in 2002 and the Washington Post looked his situation to see what had come of the reccomendaiton in the 9/11 report that Awlaki might have been more than just a casual common relationship for several of the hijackers. The Post reported that intelligence officials said “There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies.”

In fact Awlaki was banned from appearing as part of a meeting in London in August of this year because of possible links between him and the people responsible for staging attacks in London.

What relevance does this have to Hasan? Well, Awlaki was his the head of the mosque Hasan attended for many years. Hasan, according to a quote from a fellow Muslim officer stationed at Fort Hood, spoke reverently of Awlaki.

Is it a smoking gun? Absolutely not. But, unless Hasan sits up in his bed and says he murdered all of those people because of his religious beliefs, it seems that there are some who will not believe that faith played any role in his actions.

While I understand and respect the desire to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, it seems that we give some people a greater benefit than others, and that is just as wrong as jumping to conclusions. I seem to recall that the finger of guilt was pointed at right wingers when a Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh book was found in the home of a man who murdered his family. The evidence that that man may have been motivated by "right wing extremists" was limited to one book found in his home - yet the accusation was leveled here on these boards without so much as a peep.

Hasan was put on probation for proselytizing about his faith to colleagues and patients. He believed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wars on Islam and even wrote a report expressing that point of view in a environmental health class. During Grand Rounds at a medical conference where speaker typically give presentations on how to diagnose and treat various disorders, Hasan gave a speech on how the Koran calls for infidels to have their heads cut off and oil poured down their throats. According to many witnesses to the shootings, he yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he was shooting.

Concluding that right wing extremism is dangerous and was the motivation behind a man murdering lots of people is perfectly acceptable when the only cause for such a claim is that fact that a Beck, Hannity, or Limbaiugh book was found in his home. Yet commenting that Hasan's faith (as horribly twisted as it appears to have been) may have had something to do with his actions is "jumping to conclusions".

I have to question that because it seems we might be giving Hasan too much a benefit of the doubt.

If a fundamentalist Christian shot and murdered an outspoken late term abortion provider, we'd question his beliefs. We'd ask what was taught in his church which made him believe that murdering another human being was acceptable. We'd justifiably condemn his actions as acts of terror.

Just to be clear, no one here as condemned Islam or people who consider themselves Muslim. We have commented about whether Hasan's beliefs may have played a role in his actions. There's nothing wrong or racist about that. I'd argue that to refrain from asking such questions would be just as wrong as assuming that the only reason he killed so many people was because of his faith.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Connections_to_9.2F11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BQ862G0&show_article=1&catnum=0

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120138496

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120162816

I am not ruling it out, but I think the the conclusion 'crime committed by Muslim - must be terrorism' is made far too easily. That accusation is awfully, awfully serious and shouldn't be taken lightly in any case.

Agreed.

Well, even *if* his religion had something to do with it (and I think that there is a chance that it contributed to the mix), this still doesn't say that we have to jump to the next conclusion and say that this automatically makes it terrorism.

No, we don't and we should not say "automatically". He seems like a lonely and isolated man whose religion contributed to his isolation and helped make him who he is today. As far as the *if* goes, those in the situation have to make some preliminary judgements. Saying religion has something to do with it is a logical conclusion.

Because that step needs an entirely different set of additional evidence, concerned with motives and ideologies.

Yes, there isn't evidence that he was ever tied to any formal terrorist network. However, he seems to have fed off of radical Islamic ideology. It begs the question, where does terrorism end and frustrated crackpot begin?

That's one of those questions that needs to be studied.

As for my opinion on Islamic culture, I've seen little condemnation of his actions or other acts of violence committed in the name of Islam. I compare this to a historical act of terrorism in America, the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, where among the first to condemn it were both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. This does not speak well of Islam.

All the Best,

Lunatic

Yes, there isn't evidence that he was ever tied to any formal terrorist network. However, he seems to have fed off of radical Islamic ideology. It begs the question, where does terrorism end and frustrated crackpot begin?

That's one of those questions that needs to be studied.

I can roughly describe where my criteria for terrorism would be (and that's rough and would have to be adapted on a case-by-case basis). I am also not sure where a court of law would stand, but as far as my own judgement goes, I'd say this:

in order for a crime to qualify as terrorism, it has to be not only premedidated, but crucially
- it has to be carried out with a clear intent to emphasise a political message, and there has to be a sense of acting on behalf of a greater ideology which somehow justifies the crime.
- In addition, there can be an intention to sabotage a state's ability to carry out some activity with which the perpetrator disagrees for political reasons (but note that IMHO not all acts of politically motivated sabotage are terrorism).

IMHO, the direct contact with an established terrorist group is NOT necessary, since in this day and age, people might become radicalised and act on their own (I don't know enough about th UNA bomber, but I am under the impression that he acted alone, but I'd still call that terrorism).



As for my opinion on Islamic culture, I've seen little condemnation of his actions or other acts of violence committed in the name of Islam. I compare this to a historical act of terrorism in America, the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, where among the first to condemn it were both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. This does not speak well of Islam.


I think this goes too far. The link hasn't actually been made officially, and your conclusions for all of Islam and Islamic culture really make no logical sense to me.

As for my opinion on Islamic culture, I've seen little condemnation of his actions or other acts of violence committed in the name of Islam.

It helps if you actually look and have an open mind.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks (http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php)

I agree with Wab, though I wouldn't have exactly phrased it that way. There's been condemnation. I think in this current situation we have to make sure we separate the individual from the group, and we have to remember that nowhere in the Koran does it condone any of these actions - if someone thinks that their religion condones it or allows this sort of action, their interpretation is likely wrong.

I agree with Wab, though I wouldn't have exactly phrased it that way. There's been condemnation. I think in this current situation we have to make sure we separate the individual from the group, and we have to remember that nowhere in the Koran does it condone any of these actions - if someone thinks that their religion condones it or allows this sort of action, their interpretation is likely wrong.

Their interpretation may indeed be wrong but that does not absolve them. That's why the term radicalized is used. Because it is abnormal. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell which member of any given groups are truly radical until it's too late these days. It is unfortunate that many peaceful Muslims are all tarred with the same brush as their radical counterparts. But it is even more unfortunate that those radical counterparts continuously put them in that position and that their peaceful bretheren have no influence on them in the least. Instead of beating people up for trying to defend themselves in the face of horrible acts perpetrated by these radicals lets put the blame squarely on the radicals themselves. Let's put in place policies that can avert these disasters by being watchful and encouraging people to be honest rather than vindictive.

As far as Hasan goes it is very likely that his religion played a part. I do not think that he was affiliated with any active terrorist cell but I think he was ripe to be radicalized and belonged to a mosque that has associations with active terrorist cells. If he wasn't already radicalized the chances of him becoming radicalized in the future is quite strong.

And, again, he might be a loyal U.S. citizen and far from wanting to preserve Islam and the Middle East it may very well be that he wished America to not further endanger itself in what could be a fruitless war against an enemy that will not be deterred. He could have gone on leave at some point and blown away civilians but he chose a military target. Who knows? Who can know for sure? As Alastor pointed out he may not even be capable of giving a logical sane reason for his actions...

The only thing I have heard on the news is that he did not agree with the policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even that is all speculative at this time.

If it's true he didn't commit a crime. Free speech after all.

True, free speech. Nothing wrong there. If it's true that he did not like America then why have him defend it?

True, free speech. Nothing wrong there. If it's true that he did not like America then why have him defend it?

How do you conclude that he didn't like America?

The only thing we know is that he didn't like some of America's policies. IMHO there is a big difference. There are plenty of patriotic Americans who don't like some of America's policies.

Of course, in no situation does such an opinion excuse violent action of any kind.

It helps if you actually look and have an open mind.


That actually is really subjective. Yeah, they condemned Sept 11th but then they'll talk about whether one act other act is right or wrong. One example is Yasser Arafat talking peace with Rabin in English but on Palastinian television promoting martyrdom at the same time in Arabic.

There's been condemnation. I think in this current situation we have to make sure we separate the individual from the group.

That is how we in the west think, and I think in this case, we should use it. On the other hand that's not how the Islamic world thinks (in general). The penalities for deviating from community standards are much higher in the Islamic world as evidenced by honor killings, even among fairly "westernized" Muslims. Also Muslims do practice (And I'd put up links to back up what I'm saying but I'm at on a libary computer which objects to doing that, rather then the comfort of my home, but keep in mind the people I'm thinking of quoting are people like Karen Armstrong, not Fox News). How they see things is very different and I know from personal experince from an Egyptian friend who had lapsed and had told me he was an Atheist. Outing him, he said, could create "big problems".

All the Best,

Lunatic

We go downhill as a society rapidly if we start extrapolating every individual action of people to the group(s) to whom they belong.

He may have been influenced by a radical preacher, but answer me this:

What percent of Muslims believe this?

What percent of Muslims in the US believe that?

Are you Muslim? Do you have knowledge to which we only aspire? Or is this all hearsay based on experts who may or may not have a clue what they're talking about?

How do you conclude that he didn't like America?

The only thing we know is that he didn't like some of America's policies. IMHO there is a big difference. There are plenty of patriotic Americans who don't like some of America's policies.

Of course, in no situation does such an opinion excuse violent action of any kind.

But, I didn't say that he didn't. I said "if it's true that he didn't." Big difference.

I have to agree with Den on this. So many jump to the conclusion too quickly that a criminal who has a book by a conservative pundit in his home was led by that pundit to do what he did, but when the person is a Muslim we want more evidence that the religion led to his crime.

True, free speech. Nothing wrong there. If it's true that he did not like America then why have him defend it?

We don't know what he did and didn't like about America. Could be he just disliked America's foreign policy. Which btw he is not the first soldier and will not be the last to think or say so.

Just to be understood here I am not condoning what he did by any means.

While it is true that being in the military does not rob you of your constitutional rights, it is also true that military members voluntarily suspend those rights to an extent in order to perform their duties.

If what I have read is true concerning statements given to superiors, the "class" he taught on one occasion, etc., I am astounded that more flags weren't raised.

Being discharged from the military would not bring up any First Amendment issues (unless that discharge was DD or BCD...as these carry legal ramifications post-discharge). It is not a right to be allowed to serve in the military. In that sense, it is like any other job in the civilian world...you meet standards or you get fired. (And sometimes you get laid off even if you meet standards.)

Instead, he was promoted. *sigh*

Instead, he was promoted. *sigh*If anything told about him is true I would wonder much more why someone thought it was a good idea to send him to Afghanistan.

In most organizations there are means of transferring possible trouble makers to jobs where they can do no or very little harm. It's hard to believe that the US army could be an exception there.

It seems I was not clear enough in my last post. I never said that his religion played no role in his actions. I tried to show how we don't have evidence enough to claim either this or that.

All we have to go by is what we're being told. Why are we question that now when we don't question it when it has to do with someone having a conversative pundit's book in their house? Are we trying to be PC? It seems that was the case with this guy and look where it got us? Sometimes I think we need throw PC out the window.

All we have to go by is what we're being told. Why are we question that now when we don't question it when it has to do with someone having a conversative pundit's book in their house? Are we trying to be PC? It seems that was the case with this guy and look where it got us? Sometimes I think we need throw PC out the window.

Well I agree it will call into question why certain things were not followed up on. If there were these red flags out there.

But you have to look at the other side as well. Can you imagine being questioned or hounded if you had no ill intentions?

But you have to look at the other side as well. Can you imagine being questioned or hounded if you had no ill intentions?

Again, as hard as it may be for a Muslim to be harassed the blame should lay more with his radical brethren then other U.S. citizens. We have been attacked by radical Muslims. There is no way to tell a radical from a regular Muslim. It is unfortunate that innocents are blamed but I would hope that they would understand that we are trying to protect ourselves--to prevent such things as these shootings. How can one reasonably ask people to ignore their own safety when they meet a Muslim who is exhibiting what appears to be these radical tendencies? Which Hasan was. He may not be radical at all. But he attended a mosque with known ties to terrorism. He was reprimanded due to his religion. He spouted anti-war rhetoric. One of these things alone means nothing. Taken together they are are least worth checking and double checking in light of his position and possible deployment. It stinks that it would have to be so but he should lay the blame at the feet of those who exhibited the same tendencies and committed similar crimes. For we would not be here today if it were not for them. I would also add that even if it wasn't "terrorism" as such he will appear to radical Muslims as some sort of hero. They will only see another Muslim doing the work of his god. They will not be debating his intentions at all. To them it will be a confirmation of the work they do. And now that it is within the military I would expect that they will redouble their efforts with other Muslim soldiers.

Along the lines of "how to prevent this from happening again" - the FBI recently has been quite successful at identifying potential extremists and keeping a very close eye on them as they plan things. Perhaps even better cross-agency communication could help (I know that things are far better in these regards since 9/11, but there's always room for improvement).

To me, this also shows the need for recruiting more patriotic people within the muslim community for intelligence purposes. Again, we can't know whether it would have made a difference, but put it this way: could it hurt?

Again, as hard as it may be for a Muslim to be harassed the blame should lay more with his radical brethren then other U.S. citizens.

Absolutely not. Anyone who harassed Hasan is responsibel for their own actions and should be held to account.

I don't suppose you would be happy if people abused you for the actions of other Americans.

I don't get it. There were red flags everywhere with this guy, especially with the Walter Reed issue. It isn't about being questioned or hounded. It's about watching people who are not all that healthy.

I don't get it. There were red flags everywhere with this guy, especially with the Walter Reed issue. It isn't about being questioned or hounded. It's about watching people who are not all that healthy.

And if they prove that there were all these red flags those questions will obviously have to be answered.

Absolutely not. Anyone who harassed Hasan is responsibel for their own actions and should be held to account.

I think there is a definition between harassed by your average citizen and questioned by the government and the military body responsible for you. I obviously do not condone your avaerage citizen harassing, beating, or otherwise taking the law into their own hands. Registering a complaint with the police in circumstances where radical tendencies are shown? I do not have a problem with that. Hence why I said in one of my previous posts that people need to be honest, not vindictive or panicky in their accounts.

I don't suppose you would be happy if people abused you for the actions of other Americans.

Pardon me for saying so but you seem to jump to the worst conclusion possible when reading posts. There is no mention of "abuse" in regards to Hasan, nor details of his harrassment. Nobody likes to have ones loyalties questioned or perhaps have unwarranted complaints registered against him. In Hasan's case it appears that the fears were warranted.

There is no mention of "abuse" in regards to Hasan, nor details of his harrassment.

It is reported that among other abuses:

* someone had put a diaper in his car, saying, “That’s your headdress.”

* someone had drawn a camel on his car and written under it, “Camel jockey, get out!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&hp

We have been attacked by radical Muslims. There is no way to tell a radical from a regular Muslim. You also have been attacked by humans. There's no way to tell a radical from a regular human. The distinction you make (aka which group you choose), is up to you.
I personally feel bad to put all humans, all muslims, all religious, or whatever people in one cupboard. I trust a lot in the law and judgement of my State and I believe also the US does a good job there so that it's very well possible to differ between the mass of peaceful muslims and actual terrorists.

So to me it's always fine to speculate whether something like the Fort Hood Shooting might be influenced by terrorist's ideas, but to claim we knew anything by knowledge of media reports only - for particular in such an early state as now, will never convince me. The ones probably one day knowing what happened will in my opinion be the professional investigators involved. They have the whole picture, which the media hasn't. They surely might do mistakes in their calls, but I don't see how we ever can know more than them, for particular as long as they don't share their knowledge.
Again, I believe we have some filtered knowledge onto which base educated guesses work, but I could never believe I could be sure about any case I wasn't involved into on a direct base.

In most organizations there are means of transferring possible trouble makers to jobs where they can do no or very little harm. It's hard to believe that the US army could be an exception there.


On what basis would this be an Army institutional policy?

I'm not saying it isn't done...I'm asking why it would be.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Why on earth would it not be a policy in any healthy organisation to avoid putting people in places where they obviously wouldn't fit well. Like sending an obviously disturbed employee to Afghanistan?

We have been attacked by radical Muslims. There is no way to tell a radical from a regular Muslim.

Sure there is. Their statements and actions.

If one buys into the belief that invisible covert radicals could be ANY Muslim, then it leads to paranoia.

Makes about as much sense as you not trusting any Irish people during the troubles.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Why on earth would it not be a policy in any healthy organisation to avoid putting people in places where they obviously wouldn't fit well. Like sending an obviously disturbed employee to Afghanistan?

My point was...why would the Army protect someone espousing views contrary to the Army mission rather than discharging him?

The Army is not a public-works organization.

You also have been attacked by humans. There's no way to tell a radical from a regular human. The distinction you make (aka which group you choose), is up to you.

Very true. And I think most of us can and do live that way. But when people are attacked continuously as Americans have been by radical Muslims it is reasonable that fear begins to spread. And from there it feeds upon itself.




I personally feel bad to put all humans, all muslims, all religious, or whatever people in one cupboard. I trust a lot in the law and judgement of my State and I believe also the US does a good job there so that it's very well possible to differ between the mass of peaceful muslims and actual terrorists.

How and in what way? When people are afraid of being labeled discriminatory how do you obtain the information to tell the good eggs from the bad eggs? When there are red flags that can't be looked into for fear of racial profiling? I will reiterate we need to by making people fear both radical Islam and their own countrymen in the form of being of being labeled prejudiced where do you get the information you need to effectively prevent attacks such as this?

So to me it's always fine to speculate whether something like the Fort Hood Shooting might be influenced by terrorist's ideas, but to claim we knew anything by knowledge of media reports only - for particular in such an early state as now, will never convince me. The ones probably one day knowing what happened will in my opinion be the professional investigators involved. They have the whole picture, which the media hasn't. They surely might do mistakes in their calls, but I don't see how we ever can know more than them, for particular as long as they don't share their knowledge.

Again agreed and I don't believe anyone has belabored this point. However, I'd like to make the distinction that as we don't know enough to label him a definate terrorist vs a whacko. We also don't know enough to label him a whacko vs a terrorist. He could be either or. He could be some sort of domestic terrorist vs a jihadist. All I am pointing out is that there seems to be a blame the victim thing going on that I find unsettling. It's not about Americans Afghanistan or Iraq. It's not about Jihad or Islam. At some point you have to lay the blame as far as terrorism goes at the doorstep of the people who perpetrate it. It is the people who perpetrate terrorism that give Muslims a bad name. It's not like people woke up and one day decided they didn't like Muslims. It is the people who perpetrate terrorism that make innocent people live in fear. None of the hows and whys would occur if radicals of any sort didn't express their views so violently.

Wab, if those things did indeed happen I sympethize with soldiers who deal with it. But it's simply no excuse. It's just not.





I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Why on earth would it not be a policy in any healthy organisation to avoid putting people in places where they obviously wouldn't fit well. Like sending an obviously disturbed employee to Afghanistan?

I agree. But what is the benchmark for 'obviously disturbed'? There has to be justifiable reasons for transfers and reassignments. Especially given that Hasan had red flags people were afraid to report and him being a psychiatrist he could possible cover up any sort of mental illness.

If, as Wab says, he was harrassed, did he make requests to be exempt? If he did and was denied exemption why? Why was his previous demerits overlooked? A myriad of questions indeed.

My point was...why would the Army protect someone espousing views contrary to the Army mission rather than discharging him?



Fear of a law suit or a public relations disaster come to mind. A shortage of
trained Psycholgists come to mind.

If we were reading a headline that said--

"Muslim Psychologist Dismissed."

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army Psychologist was dismissed. As a Muslim he claims he faced routine harrassment and discrimination. This comes at a time when the Army is already under fire for it's treatment of servicemen with PTSD.

All the Best,

Lunatic

If, as Wab says, he was harrassed, did he make requests to be exempt?

He reportedly made enquiries about getting a discharge.

Fear of a law suit or a public relations disaster come to mind. A shortage of
trained Psycholgists come to mind.

And that was one reason given by the Army lawyer as to why he would be unlikely to be granted a discharge. Plus he has Arabic language skills something which is also highly valued by the military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?ref=us

And it would appear that Hasan's connection to Anwar al-Awlaki was investigated by both the Army and the FBI but the investigation was halted as the intercepted communications "gave no indication that he was likely to engage in violence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?hp

He reportedly made enquiries about getting a discharge.
And that was one reason given by the Army lawyer as to why he would be unlikely to be granted a discharge. Plus he has Arabic language skills something which is also highly valued by the military.

The lawyers answer does not address why he would not be reassigned or transfered.

And it would appear that Hasan's connection to Anwar al-Awlaki was investigated by both the Army and the FBI but the investigation was halted as the intercepted communications "gave no indication that he was likely to engage in violence."

So they're in a no win situation. If they perform a background investigation it's profiling. If they don't then they are being negligent...a tough position as apparently they tried to walk the tightrope and failed.

The more information that comes out on all of the national and cable news channels, it seems the shootist was trying to do something to impress al Qaeda. Many witnesses have stated that he yelled, "Allah akbar" as he started shooting. Stories are surfacing about his prosthletising, about his online communications, etc. It's seeming less and less like a soldier who just "snapped" and more like a self-proclaimed terrorist.

Again, are we trying to turn the perpetrator into a victim rather than looking at the real victims of this rampage and what they and their families suffered?

Don't think this has been mentioned yet, but apparently, Hasan tried to contact Al Qaeda.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6910273.ece

Adding this to all the other stuff, I think that, unfortunately some "profiling" is necessary in general if we are going to keep our civilians and soldiers safe, especially on U.S. soil. Red flags were going off all over the place and if we are going to continue the "political correctness", we are all putting ourselves in grave danger. We have to be able to admit that someone might be a radical and have them investigated. If someone isn't doing suspicious things, then there is no reason to investigate. But if red flags are going off, whether the person is Muslim or not is of no consequence to me. Only the safety of me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, my fellow countrymen and women, including the soldiers that protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. And if the threat is overseas, then the safety of those people matter as well (just in case that's not obvious).

IMHO, the man deserves NONE of my sympathy. He is a mass murderer and should be treated as such. He did not deserve to wear the uniform and he certainly did not deserve to be promoted. If he hated this country so much, why bother to join? He took an oath and he betrayed that oath in the most horrible way possible. He is a traitor and a "good for nothing".

My prayers are with the family of those that died, and with the injured still recovering. I heard on ABC World News tonight the story of several brave soldiers that risked their lives to save others, including a much smaller man, picking up a much bigger man and getting him to safety. THAT is a true hero.

God Bless America.

Makes about as much sense as you not trusting any Irish people during the troubles.

And a dinstinction between terrorists of Irish and Middle Eastern descent is that the media never stuck "Christian Terrorists Kill XX" in their headlines.

Red flags were going off all over the place and if we are going to continue the "political correctness", we are all putting ourselves in grave danger. We have to be able to admit that someone might be a radical and have them investigated.

If you check the links above you'd see that he was investigated by both the FBI and Army intelligence both determined that he wasn't a threat.

Hasan had communication with Anwar al-Awlaki and it continued into 2009. And the authorities felt it did not warrant an investigation.

The 10 to 20 communications between Hasan and the cleric continued into 2009. That prompted authorities to look into Hasan, the officials said. But they decided the matter did not warrant an investigation

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5A85DK20091110?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621

People are also questioning Obama's reaction to the attacks.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102609/Ft_Hood_Obamas_flippant_speech

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

I have to agree with Den on this. So many jump to the conclusion too quickly that a criminal who has a book by a conservative pundit in his home was led by that pundit to do what he did, but when the person is a Muslim we want more evidence that the religion led to his crime.
So because someone else once had an opinion you disagreed with you're going to adopt this opinion out of spite?

It doesn't matter what conclusion is being jumped to here, Leah. We shouldn't assume anyone is right until there's been actual investigation diligently completed and released to the public by the authorities. Maybe they won't tell us the whole story, maybe they will.

But you and I and Den don't have any idea what was going on in that guy's head, so why claim to?

And a dinstinction between terrorists of Irish and Middle Eastern descent is that the media never stuck "Christian Terrorists Kill XX" in their headlines.

Of course, we are not in two wars with Irish terrorists. 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Christian or Catholic terrorists either...

As a woman I was proud to read this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091108/us_time/08599193644400).

Munley, described by neighbor Brooke Beato, as "very petite, with long blonde hair and a strong personality," was credited by base officials with preventing further carnage by aggressively engaging Hasan as he shot at her. She rounded a corner, took aim at Hasan and brought him down, officials said. "It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," base commander Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said. It also was a tactic straight out of recent lessons learned from the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, when first responders waited for additional backup before engaging the shooter.

I wonder if this will muffle those people who are gainst women in the military? Also wanted to point out the reference to Virginia Tech here. I am glad that we learned something from that awful day. My thoughts, prayers, and praise are with Sgt. Munley and her family.

If you check the links above you'd see that he was investigated by both the FBI and Army intelligence both determined that he wasn't a threat.

Well, they were wrong then weren't they. A man contacting Al Qaeda, grouped with everything else and he's not a threat? So what is? Somebody dropped the ball and I can't help but wonder if Political Correctness played a part in it.

The man is a terrorist and should be treated as such. Again, I have no sympathy for him. He killed without remorse. He wasn't stressed. He counseled soldiers BEFORE they went over. And he hadn't been over yet and even if he did - he's a psychiatrist! He wouldn't be on the front lines!

It's a set up. He puts the bug in people's ear so that he can get sympathy from those that are very willing to give it for political reasons. And the bait has been taken.

And now our lives are at risk because of it.

Believe that the terrorists are very imaginative at getting done what they want to get done. They'll never take over a plane again, but there are other ways to instill terror. And one of those ways could be to recruit the right kinds of disaffected Muslim Americans to carry out single person terrorist acts and then use the whole "discrimination" and "backlash" garbage to garner sympathy from the right people.

The man contacted an enemy of the United States and Chris Matthews, Mr. I've got a Tingle for Obama up my leg, has the gall to say "Well, contacting Al Qaeda isn't a crime is it?" Hasan is a traitor and should be treated as such.

What is this world coming to? When are we going to start admitting that these extremists have a plan and Europe and America are falling into that plan without even thinking about it?

So because someone else once had an opinion you disagreed with you're going to adopt this opinion out of spite?

It doesn't matter what conclusion is being jumped to here, Leah. We shouldn't assume anyone is right until there's been actual investigation diligently completed and released to the public by the authorities. Maybe they won't tell us the whole story, maybe they will.

But you and I and Den don't have any idea what was going on in that guy's head, so why claim to?

I think you missed the point - one book by a conservative in someone's house immediately sends people into a tizzy that somehow Rush Limbaugh is to blame for that guy's actions, but the NUMEROUS red flags that were going off about Hasan means we have to "wait" before we "jump to conclusions". The media is being intellectually dishonest here. This guy set us up as suckers IMHO - play the race and religion card, be against the war just like the Left is and they'll give you sympathy. He was a traitor and a terrorist. Everything we have just heard in the last few days speaks to that. I don't think Den and Monster Mom and I are jumping to conclusions at all.

I think the left wing media is and they are, as usual, WRONG.

Flimsey - I agree with you 100% - that woman is a HERO. And I'm glad some lessons were learned from things like VA Tech. But the most important lesson must be learned - "GUN FREE ZONES" are invitations for things like this. Every man and woman on a base should at least be armed with a handgun. As one woman who's husband was shot said, after it was confirmed that he was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan and is still being deployed, and I paraphrase: "at least he gets to shoot back over there".

The terrorists are going to hit us where we are vulnerable and while we are strip searching grandma in the wheelchair at the airport, the terrorists are finding other ways to get to us - and gun free zones are probably a good place to start, including military installations. "Home" or not, people on a base should be allowed to protect themselves from criminals and from terrorists. They are MILITARY for Heaven's sake! They were sitting ducks in that building. And that's just wrong.

And proof that Hasan is nothing but a coward.

Please do not forget what was said in the opening post of this thread!
Rumors are likewise discouraged: provide evidence to support any speculation you offer. This thread is not a place to express hatred: if it turns into such, it will be closed and the violators will receive bans from the DoIMC of not less than 14 days.

From The Corner today:

First Thoughts of the Day (FTOD) [Bill Bennett]

More and more information continues to come out about Nidal Hasan and the Ft. Hood massacre. As I surmised, memos will be released and institutions or institutional officers will not look good. Already some of this is coming out. This needs to be bigger than the 1991 Tailhook incident which dominated the news for a year, I fear that it will not be. You may recall the Tailhook scandal involved a party of Navy personnel where tens of women and men complained of sexual harassment by fellow servicemen and women. Nobody, however, was killed. 4,000 male military attendees were interviewed several times, many as much as five times or more, and heads rolled. I want the same thing here — I fear the story ends in a month.

But as I said, already we’re learning more and more: CNN is reporting that Hasan’s communications with a radical Imam were flagged as early as 2008. Listen to this, quote: “Military officials told CNN on Monday that intelligence agencies intercepted communications (some 10 to 20 e-mails) from Hasan to al-Awlaki (a radical imam on the U.S. intelligence radar screen going back to the 1990s) and shared them with other U.S. government agencies. But federal authorities dropped the inquiry into Hasan’s communications after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, one of the officials said. “According to the FBI, investigators from one of its Joint Terrorism Task Forces determined ‘that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center [in Washington].’“

So there you have two investigations — dropped: one by the FBI and one by army personnel at Walter Reed.

You have ABC reporting that “a fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan” said “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.”

That officer “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.”

And the Washington Post reports today a year and a half ago, this model officer was telling people in his chain of command the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting. Hasan stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental-health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers, and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”

How many signals, nay, how many direct statements, threats, and pieces of evidence, did the military need here?

We have had other testimony from colleagues as well.

But my larger point is this: Hasan was known — by the military, by the FBI, and by his fellow officers to be suspicious at the very least. If we can turn the Navy upside down over sexual harassment, if we can discharge officers for stating they are gay, why can we not separate officers suspected of having ties to terrorists and stating things like, “non-believers (infidels) should have their head cut off, and oil poured down their throat, and be set on fire”?

Why are chiefs of staff of the army saying things like: “I think we have to be very careful. . . .Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”?

You connect those dots and you will have your answer. I’m used to this kind of talk in a university — perhaps a university that outlaws ROTC. I’m surprised to find this kind of talk and attitude from on high at institutions ROTC trains under and for, namely one of the last “hard places” in America.

I well recall the 2006 Nickle Mines Amish School massacre of six children. And I recall Jay Nordlinger saying: “This is what we would have thought would have been one of the last safe places in America.” He was wrong — we would have thought a place like Ft. Hood a safe place in America, safe from our own U.S. military hosting an officer-terrorist (that’s what we shall call him, an officer-terrorist). I also would have thought the Army would have been one of the last, or one of the first, hard places in America as defined by Michael Barone (“the part of American life subject to competition and accountability where the military trains under live fire — as opposed to a soft America that seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.”).

Well if we want to be safe, if we want to defeat the jihadist threat, we’d better reinforce hard America — and, sad to say, starting with our military leadership.

President Obama is going to Ft. Hood today for a memorial service there. We will all be sorrowful and our hearts and minds and souls will be with everyone at Ft. Hood. My worry about these services now is that they are a) not angry enough and b) that they are the end and not the beginning. Ever since the week after 9/11/2001, anger has eluded memorial services (with the exception of Paul Wellstone’s memorial — that, somehow, was a moment of anger for the Left). It is an American thing to pray, to be sorrowful, and then to be angry and fight. I hope we still have the stuff for the last two parts.

Of course, we are not in two wars with Irish terrorists. 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Christian or Catholic terrorists either...

Even if 9/11 were, the media would never categorize it as such because the Western media and by extension you & I are able to distinguish between the faith & the person. We would never say the Irish terrorists were Christian Terrorists because to do so would offend Christians and it wouldn't be accurate from what we know about the Christian faith.

Therefore to label it as: Muslim Terrorists or Islamic Terrorists is an inaccurate way to portray the present political environment and only serves to pander to the ignorant and unlearned. I know many Muslims, none of whom are terrorists, so why is their faith profiled so easily and readily?

People may not like it, but mass media does an awful lot of group profiling, which burns its way into our consciousness. I'm guilty of this but I'm fortunate to work with a truly diverse group of people and you learn more by just talking and relating. It just seems with terrorism these days, it's a literal East/West divide with both sides misunderstanding and misrepresenting each other in the most generic of ways.

Please correct me if I got this wrong, but I believe the people who first shot, then murdered George Tiller were Christian, were they not? And they were motivated directly by their religion to commit that crime. So does that give us license to mistrust all very religious Christians and expect them to be capable of murder? Generalising, stereotyping and misrepresentation are very dangerous in my opinion.

Of course, we are not in two wars with Irish terrorists. 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Christian or Catholic terrorists either...[/URL].


Britain had an ugly 30 year war against Irish terrorists who were protected by successive US governments which refused to extradite those who made it to the States and looked the other way while Irish "charities" sent money to support the bombers.

Yet for all that, the Brits managed to make a distinction between Catholics, republicans and terrorists and, on the flipside, Protestents, loyalists and terrorists.

When posting news stories can we please remember to add links. Also the 70/30 rule needs to be followed for this thread.

Thanks.

So because someone else once had an opinion you disagreed with you're going to adopt this opinion out of spite? Where did you get the idea that I'm adopting this opinion out of spite? It's not spite that has me thinking this.

It doesn't matter what conclusion is being jumped to here, Leah. We shouldn't assume anyone is right until there's been actual investigation diligently completed and released to the public by the authorities. Maybe they won't tell us the whole story, maybe they will.

But you and I and Den don't have any idea what was going on in that guy's head, so why claim to?

Who said anything that we claim to know what's going on in his head? I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Considering that there were apparently investigations done, it shows that perhaps the main problem isn't with people picking up on things.

Perhaps the main problem was people's assessments of the threat(s).

Things we don't know:
1. How many others have said similar things / been "picked up by the grid" and haven't done anything? Are the FBI and Army awash in "suspicious behavior" that they don't have the resources to investigate?

2. Why the investigations were dropped. Put simply, in hindsight, that was a mistake. But putting ourself in the position of the investigators, what did they see and not see? What caused them to think "no threat"? What was said between them? Where does free speech end and threat begin? These are all questions to ask.

Clearly something went wrong. I'm unwilling to go as far as some and say that we have to start profiling every Muslim. What I think would be more productive instead is to recruit and train more Muslims to be counter-terrorists / intelligence officers. What I mean here is like the means by which they recently found and kept track of and ultimately arrested several extremists who were planning attacks on places within the United States. By keeping our eyes and ears out and then having the resources in place to better track and "foil" these people, that may be the answer.

Regarding the policy of who is and is not armed on bases...out of my element to know why they think it's best to only allow MP's and active troops to have arms.

And, here's my thoughts regarding jumping to conclusions: when the only piece of information we had was a last name and the shooting, it was premature to make a sweeping judgement. Just as it is premature to make a judgement based on a book and a shooting. But, now that more information has come out, I think that tentatively one can say that his own twisted interpretation of his religion played a role, but we cannot say that Islam itself condones it - I'd ask those who think that Islam is an inherently violent religion to show me where in the Koran it says it's OK to do something like this. I doubt you'll find it. Instead, what I expect you'd find is something akin to "treat your neighbor as you want to be treated" and other guidance which is completely at odds with his own twisted interpretation.

And, here's my thoughts regarding jumping to conclusions: when the only piece of information we had was a last name and the shooting, it was premature to make a sweeping judgement. Just as it is premature to make a judgement based on a book and a shooting. But, now that more information has come out, I think that tentatively one can say that his own twisted interpretation of his religion played a role, but we cannot say that Islam itself condones it - I'd ask those who think that Islam is an inherently violent religion to show me where in the Koran it says it's OK to do something like this. I doubt you'll find it. Instead, what I expect you'd find is something akin to "treat your neighbor as you want to be treated" and other guidance which is completely at odds with his own twisted interpretation.

Well, it turns out that most of us who "jumped to conclusions" were actually right. I'm sorry, but if terrorists were tall, blond, blue-eyed Scandanavians and I heard about a Scandanavian individual shooting innocent people on a military base, I probably would assume he was a terrorist first and anything else second. I feel that after 9/11, we should stop having a 9/10 attitude about things. I don't think we should be doing cavity searches on 80 year old women so we don't look like we are profiling. The terrorists that are currently at war with the West are Middle Eastern and Muslim. So that's what we should be looking for.

Few rational people are calling for the profiling or ouster of ALL Muslims from the military. And I don't agree with that either. But there were red flags raised rather loudly and it deserved proper attention. I don't know why it didn't get it, but they better figure it out and fix it.

So there were signs and yes there are questions. But from the little we've heard, I can't understand why this guy was allowed to go any further than he did. It's up there with the Catholic Church moving pedophile priests around (and I was raised Catholic and I find those actions to be deplorable - and that's putting it lightly). All they did was move him - he should have been thrown out. Suicide bombers as heroes?! Cutting off people's heads and pouring oil into their body cavities?! Really? This wasn't cause for IMMEDIATE CONCERN and discharge?

I'm sorry, the ball was so dropped, it won't be bouncing back up any time soon. And we have a right to question whether PC attitudes were part of the problem. Many have considered such talk to be "racist" and "xenophobic" or whatever the catch word of the day is. But being welcoming and accepting other cultures in general does not have to mean that we can't profile when the suspects that commit these crimes are of a particular race and religion.

As far as what Islam really teaches, it's hard to say as they have no "central authority figure" like the Catholic Church does. Everybody knows what the Catholic Church believes because it's set forth the same for everybody. Islam is not like that. Are their good Muslims? Sure. Are they a majority or a minority? I have no idea. When things like this happen, certainly there are groups that scramble to condemnn it. But I don't know what's on the minds of billions of Muslims. No one does.

But the radicals that are causing these problems are coming from Islam, whether it be a twisted version of it or not. After 9/11 I think there is nothing wrong with asking that when such a tragedy is perpetrated by a Muslim, to start with "terrorist" and work your way from there. To me, it makes more sense to do that than to make up Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder stuff, especially that we now know what this guy was about.

And from what I understand, it does state in the Koran that infidels have 3 choices after being conquered: 1) Become a Muslim; 2) Don't become Muslim and be treated as a second class citizen or 3) Be killed.

I don't know. That doesn't sound that warm and fuzzy. IMHO, of course.

Sounds like the Crusades except it was Christians doing the beheading.

You can pick and choose religious texts to prove anything. Included in the 600-odd Old Testament commandments is an order (not a suggestion) that adulterers be stoned. Should we draw our opinion on Jews from this?

But then, I'm distrustful of anyone who defines themselves by their religion or political affiliation..

And from what I understand, it does state in the Koran that infidels have 3 choices after being conquered: 1) Become a Muslim; 2) Don't become Muslim and be treated as a second class citizen or 3) Be killed.

I don't know. That doesn't sound that warm and fuzzy. IMHO, of course.

Proselytism is a part of many, if not most, religions. Doesn't Christianity preach that accepting Jesus Christ as a personal saviour is the only favourable option to any person on earth, that Christianity must be spread and taught to non-believers, and that non-Christians are going to hell?

Depends on the flavor of Christianity.

And none of them preach that those who do not become Christian should be sent to discuss it with the Supreme Judge.

I think we shouldn't go into the teachings of the Koran in this thread, if it preaches violence against non believers or not.

Depends on the flavor of Christianity.

And none of them preach that those who do not become Christian should be sent to discuss it with the Supreme Judge.

BINGO! :clap:

But then, I'm distrustful of anyone who defines themselves by their religion or political affiliation..

So does that mean you are distrustful of those that identify themselves as jihadists?

Are we too blind to read my in thread?

Well, it turns out that most of us who "jumped to conclusions" were actually right. I'm sorry, but if terrorists were tall, blond, blue-eyed Scandanavians and I heard about a Scandanavian individual shooting innocent people on a military base, I probably would assume he was a terrorist first and anything else second. I feel that after 9/11, we should stop having a 9/10 attitude about things. I don't think we should be doing cavity searches on 80 year old women so we don't look like we are profiling. The terrorists that are currently at war with the West are Middle Eastern and Muslim. So that's what we should be looking for.

Actually, many of the British suicide bombers/attempted suicide bombers have been non-Middle Eastern converts, deliberately chosen by terrorist groups because (a) they will arouse less suspicion than Pakistani/Arab-looking terrorists (b) they are often easier to radicalise, having less of a grounding in moderate Islam to act as a compass. So you can't assume that the terrorists we are at war with are "Middle Eastern" or even obviously, openly "Muslim"

I feel very strongly that the stereotyping of Muslims generally and Arabs/Pakistanis in particular as likely terrorists is destructive and wrong and makes it more likely that hitherto moderate Muslims will feel beleaguered and victimised and become more vulnerable to radicalisation. I have witnessed this amongst the young Muslims I used to teach.

And I think that a divisive society where Muslims are considered suspect is what Al Qaeda want. After 7/7, I knew that in a sense Al Qaeda had won the day I got out of an Underground carriage as soon as a young Asian man got on. I am never again going to give them that satisfaction.

Therefore to label it as: Muslim Terrorists or Islamic Terrorists is an inaccurate way to portray the present political environment and only serves to pander to the ignorant and unlearned. I know many Muslims, none of whom are terrorists, so why is their faith profiled so easily and readily?

Thank you for posting this, Matt. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of what I've read in this thread.

I feel very strongly that the stereotyping of Muslims generally and Arabs/Pakistanis in particular as likely terrorists is destructive and wrong and makes it more likely that hitherto moderate Muslims will feel beleaguered and victimised and become more vulnerable to radicalisation. I have witnessed this amongst the young Muslims I used to teach.

Hence why I said in an earlier post that things tend to feed on themselves once the ball gets rolling. You must look at the people who perpetrate the crimes and lay all the blame at their feet. I find it very sad that people whom are trying to protect themselves the best way they can are getting bombarded from both sides. From the people who want to kill them and the people who will paint you as a bad person for even considering someone suspect over their age, look, race, religion etc etc. Many people have reason to be scared of radical Muslims (especially as we are actively engaged in two wars with them) and as long as they don't take the law into their own hands I don't have a problem with them having those concerns. We have been repeatedly attacked on a grander scale by radical Muslims than by any other faith or organized group here in America. I simply cannot fault people for seeing threats where there may be none. Instead I lay all the blame on the people who instilled that terror in the first place. The terrorists, where it belongs. While we argue about the best way to keep people safe they continue to attack us. If we follow the left party talk the terrorists use it to portray us as weak and easily subjugated. If we follow the right party talk they use it in their martyrdom efforts. They make us fight amongst ourselves and continue to attack and kill us. Why does no one see this?

But since I think this thread is kind of devolving into party lines once again I will say this. I saw one person pause from the party line talks to praise Sgt. Munley for her brave deeds that I linked to. I hope more people will take the time to go back and read that link as well as this article (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/225466) and realize what those soldiers were going through and how they managed to care for and save one another.

So you can't assume that the terrorists we are at war with are "Middle Eastern" or even obviously, openly "Muslim"

Really, because Iran funds most of these things and they are Persian or "Middle Eastern" and also "Muslim". Hezbollah and Hamas are Middle Eastern and Muslim.

Now, if you want to get picky with the wording, then fine "radical Islamist terrorists". But the point is that being radical about their belief in Islam is part of who they are, part of why they do what they do. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't call out "Allahu Akbar" before blowing themselves up and taking innocent civilians with them. Everything Hasan wrote about was based on his religion, whether it be twisted or not.

What I find disgusting is any excuse to excuse what this man did. This man was not suffering from any kind of Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The counseling of soldiers didn't make him feel sympathetic with them and what had happened to them. He was arguing with them. He didn't feel sorry for them. He sold his belongings, recently bought one of the hand guns (you know, the weapons his cousin said he didn't feel comfortable with) and gave every indication he knew exactly what he was doing and why.

He is a nut job, a traitor and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, up to and including the death penalty, for what he did. I don't care if he's Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, whatever.

But the fact that he is Muslim, that he was preaching radical Islamic talking points, etc. is of concern and matters. Because if our enemies are trying to turn Muslim-Americans (or any Americans) against this country, we need to know about it and we need to do something to stop it and keep our citizens and our soldiers safe.

I don't see what is so disgusting about that.

Good post, flimsey. Very good post.

Hell yes Sgt Munley deserves praise. As do any of the other responders that helped bring him down. And I think that Hutchinson's been great too in her handling of things - she's showed a lot of real leadership.

LadyK: You conveniently ignored my proposed solution. And my analysis of what questions need to be answered. Any thoughts there? Or are you just content to challenge my opinion that we need to be afraid of excessive profiling and creating more extremists by our actions trying to combat the extremists that are out there? (this is a genuine question, i'm not attempting to put words in your mouth): Would my proposed solution of recruiting Muslims to track down and follow and generate intelligence about the few extremists that there are be unacceptable since you do not trust any muslims?

Sometimes I think we need to ask as a society: is it better to have an innocent man in jail just because they might have done something wrong if they hadn't been arrested or is it better to give people the benefit of the doubt knowing that if they did do this sort of action, then we have ample opportunity for second-guessing. The first option results in loss of hard-earned civil liberties, when an innocent person gets swept up in the net. The second option appears to have been what the military followed (I don't know much about the content of the communications but early reports appear to be that he was researching PTSD or what not) and it clearly backfired.

ETA: My main concerns are how can we find and prosecute those few that are extremists without catching too many in the net. And if possible, the techniques really shouldn't cause us to lose civil liberties. I realize this is a hard question. The FBI and the Army just got one wrong, and the consequences were terrible. We have some reports of what they knew, but the big "smoking gun" - the communications with the radical cleric - appear to have been called "job related".

I think that if we start profiling Muslims, we run the risk of creating extremists by making them feel like second-class citizens. And while nothing will ever excuse their actions, we still run that risk. But the flip side is perhaps profiling would catch a few people earlier. I rather like the approach used in the recent case in Dallas, where they found this kid spouting off at the mouth online, then got in contact...supplied him fake bomb-making materials...drove with him to the building where he parked the (fake) bomb...and waited with him as he attempted to blow it up...THEN arrested him. At no time were people in actual danger, yet they didn't coerce him. Maybe more actions like that have to be taken.

I think only a few lone nutcases are truly excusing his actions or apologizing for them. Rather, I think those of us going "whoa, wait up a minute" are mostly concerned about taking actions which violate the constitutional rights of some of our citizens in order to save the life and liberty of other citizens. Slippery slope, to sum it up succinctly. To truly condone his actions is disgusting and un-American. I think it's patriotic, however, to try to make sure that the actions we take don't erase 233 years of hard-earned liberty at the feet of the very soldiers that one twisted individual attacked in his warped view of his religion.

Show me a Christian who killed, tortured, bombed innocent people simply because they weren't Christian (or weren't that person's sect of Christianity) and I'll call him a Christian terrorist. When someone is motivated to kill people simply because they aren't of the same religious belief, they should be called a [insert religious belief] terrorist. (People who bomb abortion clinics or kill abortionists may be Christian, but they are killing based on behavior, not because the abortionists aren't Christian. Not that it makes it any better, but it isn't a reason to call them Christian terrorists, since they aren't killing because someone isn't a Christian, but because they are committing a certain behavior.) If the wackos who picket the military funerals and celebrate gay people's deaths started killing, I would call them Christian terrorists, because the reason for them killing someone would be simply that they didn't hold all the same beliefs as the nutjobs. (The Inquisition, Crusades and possibly the Salem Witch Trials might qualify, though that's iffy since they were actually part of the establishment, so they'd be more like Tyrants than terrorists.) Calling someone a religious terrorist is not saying all people of that religious belief are terrorists, only that that person's terrorist acts were done solely because of religious beliefs.

No one here believes all Muslims are terrorists, but the 9/11 hijackers killed purely because of their religious beliefs, so they were rightly called Muslim terrorists. The DC Snipers were Muslim (I believe) but weren't considered Muslim terrorists because they didn't commit the murders due to their faith, but simply because they were insane. So not all Muslims are terrorists, not even all Muslims who kill are Muslim terrorists; only Muslims who kill people for the sole reason that they are not Muslim are Muslim terrorists, just as someone who killed people simply because they weren't Christians would rightly be called a Christian terrorist.

So I think there is a very legitimate reason to refer to someone as a Muslim terrorist and it is possible to do so without branding all Muslims as terrorists.

Chris, I think the problem in your solution (and what Bush ran into and for that matter what Obama is running into in his stimulus bills) is that it is impossible to quantify that which has not occured. In this case how can the right say with any certainty that Bush prevented more terrorists attacks? How could left say with any certainty that it is the stimulus that is helping us out of recession? When there is nothing quantifiable how can anybody feel justifed in claiming that it was their actions which caused it to be so?

Aaaand....back again to my earlier earlier earlier post about Sgt. Munley...

Does this effect anyone's views on women in the military? By all accounts Sgt. Munley was small and petite--yet her weapon proved to be a great equalizer. Should women go into combat? Or be restricted to guard duty on base? I'm sure that her fellow soldiers were glad she was around.

Flims - given good evidence behind a conviction, I think we can safely say in cases where we did prosecute someone / etc that we got someone off the street. But it is impossible to quantify anything else in that equation, I'd readily agree.

I think the most productive conversations around this whole incident revolve around "how do we prevent further attacks". I think most of us would agree on that. But when I even change it to "how do we prevent further attacks without the loss of civil liberties", we're already running into disagreements.

I know that hard choices may have to be made, and I have placed my own stake in the opinion I've posted that the best way of preventing further attacks is improved intelligence from "within" (and, as a corollary, someone would have to keep an eye on the watchers so that we avoid a situation like what happened with the Mafia in New England and possibly elsewhere where the mafia ended up paying their FBI handlers and the FBI agents themselves ended up in jail for their actions...we'd need to make sure the agents we recruit don't become double agents).

I do sympathize with those who think we need to aggressively profile and to look upon any Muslim with suspicion. Personally, I could never adopt that attitude because I don't want to look upon any fellow man with hatred based solely on an outward appearance. However, I'm perfectly willing to look upon someone with hatred based on their actions.

No one here believes all Muslims are terrorists, but the 9/11 hijackers killed purely because of their religious beliefs, so they were rightly called Muslim terrorists.

Debatable. Two of the three demands made after 9/11 by al-Qa'ida were mainly political although with religious overtones:

1) Removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia;

2) Palestinian statehood;

the third, creation of a caliphate is more overtly religious.

When someone's mental health is in question then I think it is okay to not promote them to a position that would eventually send them overseas to fight in a war. If that's discrimination then so be it.

When someone's mental health is in question then I think it is okay to not promote them to a position that would eventually send them overseas to fight in a war. If that's discrimination then so be it.

That isn't discrimination, to me. I'm quite befuddled as to the apparent contradiction between him getting a poor performance review and a promotion. That's a legit question for an individual.

Did he get a poor performance review and a promotion?

I think the most productive conversations around this whole incident revolve around "how do we prevent further attacks".

Prevent is the key word. How can anyone quantify that their actions prevented anything. There is no way to know!

I do sympathize with those who think we need to aggressively profile and to look upon any Muslim with suspicion.

Do you then feel justified in your conviction to keep people from protecting themselves as they see fit? I'm not advocating anarchy but we have laws and protocols for a reason. Many of the horror stories you hear are not about people who followed protocol but who twisted or defied law and protocol. The same goes for how people practice the religion. It's the people who go radical who are at fault.


Personally, I could never adopt that attitude because I don't want to look upon any fellow man with hatred based solely on an outward appearance. However, I'm perfectly willing to look upon someone with hatred based on their actions.


It is natural instinct to feel safe with those who are most like you. That's why domestic terrorism hits almost doubly hard. There was no warning. No red flag. The perpetrator was someone like you, down the street. It's a different type of terror and we deal with that on a more daily basis with your average serial killer than with your foreign terrorists. (Did I say average LOL)

And society HAS changed because of those people who are like us terrorizing us. Only letting our children play in the backyard. Alarm systems and gps. Cell phones in case of emergency. Passing a broken down car on the road instead of stopping to help for fear it's a trick or a kidnapper. Not walking alone outside at night. Teaching our children about "stranger danger". Looking askance at every priest we meet. You name it. We take precautions against all these things because we live with it. We live in fear every day and yet it's so normal we don't even realize that that is what we are doing. That we are profiling every. single. day.

Did he get a poor performance review and a promotion?

Apparently.

This (http://www.mywire.com/a/AFP/Fears-US-army-missed-warnings/13963207/?extId=10029) is the best article I could find that wasn't a blog ranting about this, that, or the other thing (liberal, conservative, or a few disgusting ones praising him - I found 'em all). I think the promotion was in May, a fact which has disappeared from the recent news summaries.

Do you then feel justified in your conviction to keep people from protecting themselves as they see fit

I'm not sure what you're saying here, unless you're thinking that I'm restricting people from taking steps to defend themselves by asking that we keep civil liberties in mind. If that's the case - under a very narrowly interpretation - yes, I feel justified. However, I don't think I am advocating steps that would unnecessarily expose Americans and others worldwide to danger. I think we can still catch the bad guys without catching the good guys.

So not all Muslims are terrorists, not even all Muslims who kill are Muslim terrorists; only Muslims who kill people for the sole reason that they are not Muslim are Muslim terrorists, just as someone who killed people simply because they weren't Christians would rightly be called a Christian terrorist.
You're assuming, however, that the stated goals and rationales of extremist groups (or for the lack of a central bureaucracy in these cases--the tenets of a meme complex) are one and the same as the motivations of the individuals.

This is something that often bothers me about entire conversations on this subject... the presumption that a religion can really affect people in this way. You mentioned the Crusades? The Inquisition? Is "religion" really the root cause of either of those things? Thirst for glory, military aggression, desire for territory, abuse of power, the need for control... lots of things seem to be much more definitive proximate causes of these historical events, even though "religion" takes the blame.

I frankly think both blaming religious zealotry for horrible violence and using it as a justification for it are the result of manipulation. It works politically, even though I suspect those who pull the strings are well aware that religious fervor alone isn't enough to drive people to do horrible things. Why do you think these"Muslim terrorists" you often hear about always seem to have so much else in common? They're men, often younger but not always, they're educated, they have computer skills, linguistic skills, and perhaps most importantly, relative isolation from the society they inhabit. Doesn't that raise any questions about your conclusion that religion is the cause?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, unless you're thinking that I'm restricting people from taking steps to defend themselves by asking that we keep civil liberties in mind

No I'm saying that laws are carefully drafted to avoid what you say is happening. And perhaps it is but it's not necessarily because of bad laws but because of bad people. Surely laws are made to be revised with the times. And maybe even inadequate at times. But the arguement seems to be that they don't even exist.

However, I don't think I am advocating steps that would unnecessarily expose Americans and others worldwide to danger.

And I'm sure the right thinks that they are keeping people from danger as well. How do you quantify it?


I think we can still catch the bad guys without catching the good guys.

So don't I.

The quantification's difficult if not impossible...so...that leaves a "hole" into which I think people will just stick their own opinion / interpretation.

Considering that there were apparently investigations done, it shows that perhaps the main problem isn't with people picking up on things.

Perhaps the main problem was people's assessments of the threat(s).

Things we don't know:
1. How many others have said similar things / been "picked up by the grid" and haven't done anything? Are the FBI and Army awash in "suspicious behavior" that they don't have the resources to investigate?

2. Why the investigations were dropped. Put simply, in hindsight, that was a mistake. But putting ourself in the position of the investigators, what did they see and not see? What caused them to think "no threat"? What was said between them? Where does free speech end and threat begin? These are all questions to ask.

I think you are correct Chris, and the Army has quite a bit to answer to. It seems, from reports linked here previously, that Hasan had some tendencies which raised concerns among his colleagues. Yet many of those concerns went unreported. Why? If they were reported and disregarded, why? If the FBI was / had been investigating him, why didn't they notify the investigative services with the Army to let them know that they were investigating Hasan and why. Why wasn't the Army kept appraised of the status of the FBI's investigations? And how was it that a man who worked in a psychiatry office and was clearly distressed didn't get help?

The Army has quite a bit to answer to.

Clearly something went wrong. I'm unwilling to go as far as some and say that we have to start profiling every Muslim.

I'm not sure anyone had advocated doing that here. However, part of any security program is to assess threats. While threats come in many shapes and sizes, there are some characteristics which tend to make one individual more of a risk than another.

When we talk about national security these days the biggest threats come from domestic terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, and cyber crimes. The IRA, last time I checked, wasn't all that interested in attacking the US in the states.

Like it or not, because there are groups which are known for their violent tendencies, profiling members of those groups is a legitamite function for those tasked with protecting us. If you belong to the KKK or frequent KKK web sites and meeting places, you'll probably be profiled and placed on a watch list. If you express anti-US sentiments, routinely and openly characterize the wars inIraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, advocate that you Muslinm brothers ought to take up arms against the American aggrressors in Iraq and Afghanistan, belong to the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers, and openly express reverence for the now deposed rather radical minister at that mosque, you might be considered a bit more of a threat than an 85 year old wheel-chair bound metal of honor recipient.

Because I can anticipate the uproar over what I've just posted, let me be clear. I don't think profiling someone based solely on the color of their skin or church they attend is acceptable. But it is, in my opinion, equally unacceptable to refuse to profile people based on whom they associate with out of overly cautious political correctness.

Regarding the policy of who is and is not armed on bases...out of my element to know why they think it's best to only allow MP's and active troops to have arms.

While this is out of my element as well, I believe that part of the reason arms are only permitted during trainign operations, amongst departing troops, and military police is because those arms are the property of the US Government, not the soldiers personal property.

And, here's my thoughts regarding jumping to conclusions: when the only piece of information we had was a last name and the shooting, it was premature to make a sweeping judgement. Just as it is premature to make a judgement based on a book and a shooting. But, now that more information has come out, I think that tentatively one can say that his own twisted interpretation of his religion played a role, but we cannot say that Islam itself condones it - I'd ask those who think that Islam is an inherently violent religion to show me where in the Koran it says it's OK to do something like this. I doubt you'll find it. Instead, what I expect you'd find is something akin to "treat your neighbor as you want to be treated" and other guidance which is completely at odds with his own twisted interpretation.


Again, I'm not sure anyone here has said that they believe Islam is an inherently violent religion.

Hasan's own twisted interpretation of the Koran is a version we've been seeing of late amongst a group of individuals who appear bent on violence.
There is an element of Islam - a radical, fundamentalist element - which does commit acts of unfathomable violence like stoning women, chopping off hands, using children as shields, and placing and detonating bombs on children and disabled people. The followers of this brand of Islam are strictly interpreting varous phrases in the Koran, just as followers of some more radical Christian sects strictly interpret various, rather violent, phrases in the Bible. Most Muslims I know choose to ignore or alternately interpret these disquieting phrasas, just as most Christians (myself included) choose to ignore or alternately interpret the more disquieting phrases in the Bible.

I'm not sure why people have difficultly grasping the difference between your run of the mill Muslim and a radical Muslim when we so easily grasp the difference between the run of hte mill Christian and the radical Christian. I am equally amazed that any mention of the word Muslim when a Muslim commits and act of violance is immediately met with charges of racism and intolerance when no one hesitates to jump on Christans when a radical Christian blows up an abortion mill.

I'm still waiting for investigations to finish, but, so far the information I've seen on places like CNN, Fox News, and reading articles on the internet is that the guy was trying to impress Al Qaeda. If the rumors are true he shouted "alluah Ackbar" before he started shooting, then that won't help matters any.

How/Why this guy was promoted after the problems - and red flags - from his last posting, is beyond me. The only answer I can come up with is political correctness got in the way of a review board and they promoted him anyway. I don't know for sure, of course - at least not until documents are released after the investigation - but that's what I'm getting from all this.

Flimsy - I read about what that woman Police Officer did, and I was proud. I have always thought that women should be allowed in front line combat roles. Modern weapons are a great equalizer. That Officer deserves a medal for what she did. She bought time for responders to treat the wounded, to remove them from the danger zone, and prevented this guy - sorry, his name has slipped my mind at the moment - from continuing his attack. Thereby saving numerous lives.

-Tibbetts

I think another thing to watch out for in the investigation, one which is fortunately easier to distinguish: Make sure we're critical of the army higher-ups without slamming the wonderful efforts of the soldiers. It seems like many did what they were supposed to do, and someone higher up the line made a really bad call (based on evidence that we don't know fully yet), and in the end people suffered and died for it.

I think another thing to watch out for in the investigation, one which is fortunately easier to distinguish: Make sure we're critical of the army higher-ups without slamming the wonderful efforts of the soldiers. It seems like many did what they were supposed to do, and someone higher up the line made a really bad call (based on evidence that we don't know fully yet), and in the end people suffered and died for it.

Exactly my point point, Chris. :tu: The officers on that review board need to be questioned, but it should be made clear to the rest of the Army that we are proud of them.

I remember not long after 9/11 - and many times since - I thanked an active duty Navy Chief Petty Officer home here in Maine on leave. He was shocked. He either hadn't heard anyone thank him before for serving, or hadn't heard it enough over his 20+ years of service. I thanked him, shook his hand, and he walked away. His back was a little straighter, his step a little springier...

Had to stop a bit as I was tearing up at the memory of that day and his reaction. I guess the point I am trying to make is that if we see Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen on the street, or in a store, we should all walk up to them and tell them, "Thank you." It will brighten their day, especially after something as tragic as what happened at Fort Hood.

-Tibbetts

Apparently.

This (http://www.mywire.com/a/AFP/Fears-US-army-missed-warnings/13963207/?extId=10029) is the best article I could find that wasn't a blog ranting about this, that, or the other thing (liberal, conservative, or a few disgusting ones praising him - I found 'em all). I think the promotion was in May, a fact which has disappeared from the recent news summaries.


Actually, I posted an article mentioning his promotion and poor performance yesterday. Not a blog, either.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/fort_hood_shootings/Some_who_knew_Fort_Hood_suspect_doubted_his_loyalt y_stability.html

Tibbets - your post reminds me of the rather excellent commercial, where the vet walks through the airport and streets alone, until someone shakes his hand and goes "welcome home".

Trying to find it on youtube, but can't.

How/Why this guy was promoted after the problems - and red flags - from his last posting, is beyond me. The only answer I can come up with is political correctness got in the way of a review board and they promoted him anyway.

I'd put my money on general incompetence.

So I think there is a very legitimate reason to refer to someone as a Muslim terrorist and it is possible to do so without branding all Muslims as terrorists.Agreed. It just strikes me odd that so many people label someone as a Muslim terrorist the moment he's violent and Muslim. I assume that the past events scared the people, but I neither think it's fair nor helpful to create a more peaceful world if we label whole groups of people as enemies instantly. We don't call Christians Christian terrorists the moment they get violent. In such cases we consider that they had a mental illness, but got violent although they're Christian. It's hard to find any statements in this thread that claim he got violent although he was a Muslim, what actually came to my mind first. We rather immediately set a newspaper headline as 'Muslim officer killed...', even if we don't know yet whether his religion is any related to the killing or not. Again: I'm not saying it's likely that it isn't, but I believe this world were a better place if we didn't judge on people and their motivations that fast.

For the actual motivation of this sad event I agree with Chris. For now I get the impression someone higher up made a bad call in promoting someone who likely never was able to manage the job, unrelated to his religious believes. That's as human as it is tragic in this case.

Show me a Christian who killed, tortured, bombed innocent people simply because they weren't Christian (or weren't that person's sect of Christianity) and I'll call him a Christian terrorist.

The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. The European conquerors of the Indian subcontinent (especially South India).

When someone is motivated to kill people simply because they aren't of the same religious belief, they should be called a [insert religious belief] terrorist. (People who bomb abortion clinics or kill abortionists may be Christian, but they are killing based on behavior, not because the abortionists aren't Christian. Not that it makes it any better, but it isn't a reason to call them Christian terrorists, since they aren't killing because someone isn't a Christian, but because they are committing a certain behavior.)

But they are motivated by their faith. The fact that they are Christian and believe in a certain doctrine is the direct reason for their crime.

For that matter, I'm not convinced the sole reason for all Muslim terrorists to murder Westerners (or Russians - as was the case in Afghanistan, for example) is the Westerners' religion - they have plenty other reasons to hate the Western world and its politics which reasons are generally ignored by the media. It's very simplistic and in my opinion far from reality to claim the only reason Muslim terrorists murder Westerners is the latter's religion. Culture, recent history and the current reality (think about what the West has been doing in their countries for the last several decades) have a lot to do with this deepening hate, and I thin this also needs to be acknowledged. There are always two sides to a story, there should always be room and willingness for better understanding of motivation, and it's never as simple as it seems at first glance.

If the wackos who picket the military funerals and celebrate gay people's deaths started killing, I would call them Christian terrorists, because the reason for them killing someone would be simply that they didn't hold all the same beliefs as the nutjobs.

Well, the reason they bomb abortion clinic is basically the same - that the people performing and having abortions don't hold the same beliefs regarding abortion.

Also, I'd say it's not unheard of gay people being harrassed or even murdered for their sexual orientation.

(The Inquisition, Crusades and possibly the Salem Witch Trials might qualify, though that's iffy since they were actually part of the establishment, so they'd be more like Tyrants than terrorists.)

I don't understand what the difference is here. Result is: people murdered because they don't adhere to a religion's belief system. The distinction made here seems insignificant to me.

I'll give you another example: the Srebrenica massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre), done in an attempt to "eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims" as per the International Criminal Tribunal in Hague.

Agreed. It just strikes me odd that so many people label someone as a Muslim terrorist the moment he's violent and Muslim. I assume that the past events scared the people, but I neither think it's fair nor helpful to create a more peaceful world if we label whole groups of people as enemies instantly.

I totally agree. This BBC article on how the Muslim community in Bristol played a vital role in reporting and stopping a would-be suicide bomber before he had a chance to strike notes how the constant yoking of the word "Muslim" with "terrorist" in the media has played into the hands of radical terrorist groups trying to indoctrinate young Muslims and made the job of the vast majority of moderate Muslims, who want to stop these attacks, much harder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8144114.stm

Posted by Tibbetts
How/Why this guy was promoted after the problems - and red flags - from his last posting, is beyond me. The only answer I can come up with is political correctness got in the way of a review board and they promoted him anyway. I don't know for sure, of course - at least not until documents are released after the investigation - but that's what I'm getting from all this.

From what I've read (and it was in the Telegraph, so possibly not the most reliable source), his promotion was largely down to the fact that the US army had a desperate shortage of both psychiatrists and Arabic speakers, both of which are in high demand in this conflict, so couldn't afford to lose one, no matter how unsuitable/unsatisfactory he was in many ways. So not political correctness. EDIT: Sorry, I know I read this in the Telegraph but I can't find the article on their website.

The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. The European conquerors of the Indian subcontinent (especially South India).


I knew that would be the answer and considering that the Crusades and the Inquisition were centuries ago, I don't see how that is relevant at all.

And I agree that they weren't "terrorists" as much as tyrannical conquerors. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. And that difference does not condone either action, BTW, it's just stating a different way that evil was carried out. Evil can be carried out by an established gov't or by terrorists. Neither one is immune to evil.

For that matter, I'm not convinced the sole reason for all Muslim terrorists to murder Westerners (or Russians - as was the case in Afghanistan, for example) is the Westerners' religion - they have plenty other reasons to hate the Western world and its politics which reasons are generally ignored by the media. It's very simplistic and in my opinion far from reality to claim the only reason Muslim terrorists murder Westerners is the latter's religion. Culture, recent history and the current reality (think about what the West has been doing in their countries for the last several decades) have a lot to do with this deepening hate, and I thin this also needs to be acknowledged. There are always two sides to a story, there should always be room and willingness for better understanding of motivation, and it's never as simple as it seems at first glance.

I'm sorry but what other side to the story is there? Radical Muslims and actual leaders of Muslims nations call for the destruction of Israel, but what have they done for the Palestianian people other than turn their sons and daughters into martyrs. Some of these nations have money and they could do a lot to build up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, start businesses and give these people jobs. Instead the Palestianians have been on the dole from the UN for 60 years!

And I'm sorry, whatever has happened and whatever hand "Western civilization" has had in it does NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES give them the right to indiscriminately blow up innocent civilians in order to make a point. You know what the best revenge is: SUCCESS. Becoming successful working nations would be the best revenge of all instead of wallowing in some past wrongs. I see that many Indian Tribes in the U.S. do not do that - they are becoming self-reliant. I don't see Jewish people just rolling up in a ball and claiming that can't make it because of the Holocaust. And yes, many Muslims are successful and productive, etc. Then why the terrorism? Why do these people get convinced to give up their sons and daughters as matyrs instead of being mad at groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the gov't of Iran for continuing this violence instead of supplying actual help? And then when they voted they voted Hamas in? And the killing continues and the violence continues and the suicide bombings continue and why am I supposed to feel sorry for them? You make your bed, you lie in it. Next time the Palestianians should vote in strong moderates who will be more interested in making sure the Palestianians can form some kind of economy, build an infrastructure, educate their children in something other than just the Koran, and become part of the group of nations on this planet.

The American gov't has given so much money to so many countries to try and help them. All for naught.

Muslims who blow themselves up have been brainwashed to believe that the West is to blame for whatever problem they are having. They call us "infidels" - what do you think that means? And of course no one is condoning the murder of natives for not becoming Christians, but the funny thing is that hasn't happened in quite a while and I doubt you'd get the Catholic Church to agree to such a thing.

The terrorists aren't doing these things for any rational reason or any reason that will do anyone any good. How many times do we have to hear them say that they want Israel wiped off the map, that they want a worldwide caliphate where you (1) convert; (2) get treated like a second class citizen or (3) die. They are pushing for the recognition of Sharia law in European countries, a law that involves things like getting to kill your daughter because she talked to a boy that was not a relative. And other things that are antithetical to women's rights, whether one considers themselves a feminist or not.

Radical Muslims are not our friends, they don't want to be our friends and I seriously doubt they care if someone who is an infidel wants to be their friend. They have used mentally disabled people as suicide bombers. I'm sorry, but I have NO SYMPATHY FOR THAT. NONE. ZERO. ZIP.

I totally agree. This BBC article on how the Muslim community in Bristol played a vital role in reporting and stopping a would-be suicide bomber before he had a chance to strike notes how the constant yoking of the word "Muslim" with "terrorist" in the media has played into the hands of radical terrorist groups trying to indoctrinate young Muslims and made the job of the vast majority of moderate Muslims, who want to stop these attacks, much harder.

Frankly, I'm not buying it. These people don't need a reason to do what they do. And I think they are using that as an excuse, again, to gain the sympathy of those who readily give it and to continue to undermine our countries.

Agreed. It just strikes me odd that so many people label someone as a Muslim terrorist the moment he's violent and Muslim. I assume that the past events scared the people, but I neither think it's fair nor helpful to create a more peaceful world if we label whole groups of people as enemies instantly. We don't call Christians Christian terrorists the moment they get violent. In such cases we consider that they had a mental illness, but got violent although they're Christian. It's hard to find any statements in this thread that claim he got violent although he was a Muslim, what actually came to my mind first. We rather immediately set a newspaper headline as 'Muslim officer killed...', even if we don't know yet whether his religion is any related to the killing or not. Again: I'm not saying it's likely that it isn't, but I believe this world were a better place if we didn't judge on people and their motivations that fast.

If the guy was a "sleeper", why would he have waited until he left Walter Reed to act and why would he have been so random? As a field grade officer he could have done real serious damage pretty readily, so why this type of action? I ask this only to question the "terrorist" idea. If he were motivated to use terror to do damage, he might qualify for the world's dumbest criminals given how things went, IMO.

I think he might simply have been conflicted, had issues with his circumstances that escalated after getting orders to go overseas and snapped. This is more a suicide attempt from appearances than a well planned terrorist act, IMO. The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work.

If the correspondance and evaluation showed the doctor to be passive, which is the initial indication I get from reporting, then it wasn't necessarily incompetance or failure. Even his relatives seem completely shocked. As for his promotion, that is probably a by-product of need and availability. The rank of major is pretty common for medical professionals, it isn't really a command rank, but a slotted one. If he were passed over, he might have been forced out and become a personel loss.

I am curious if there was anything that was definitive that showed a potential for overt violence or a shooting spree in what evidence there is. If there was a mistake, it would require missing the obvious, not inability to foresee the future.

For the actual motivation of this sad event I agree with Chris. For now I get the impression someone higher up made a bad call in promoting someone who likely never was able to manage the job, unrelated to his religious believes. That's as human as it is tragic in this case.

There is no glut of professionals, especially mental health professionals, in the military. Even marginally capable people are better than no people and if there is a qualified and available person, it isn't easy to justify firing him or releasing him intentionally, unless there is serious cause. Is there serious cause of that ilk prior to the shootings? What is that cause? I ask only because if the fingers will point at the military review, what in that review was realisticly indicative of cause for dismissal? As difficult as it is, think about it from a pre-shooting spree point of view and ask if the information was really conclusive or strong enough to support the action suggested.

Unless more has come to be known, the shooter would have had a pretty good discrimination case if he had been dismissed on what was known.

It is very helpful to understand the motives that the coward Hasan had for murdering those people in cold blood. In this way, the authorities can identify and weed out similar cases before such a thing happens again.

As for Hasan, let him have his illusion of virgins and his paradise. I hope that it is decided that he will be helped to get there soon.

If the guy was a "sleeper", why would he have waited until he left Walter Reed to act and why would he have been so random? As a field grade officer he could have done real serious damage pretty readily, so why this type of action? I ask this only to question the "terrorist" idea. If he were motivated to use terror to do damage, he might qualify for the world's dumbest criminals given how things went, IMO.True. Sleepers aren't easy to detect, but I still wouldn't check on all Muslims to whether they're sleepers. I know that wasn't said in this thread, but I sometimes wonder what the consequence is, if we explain a shooter's motivation with being Muslim right when such a case happened. Again, I'm not saying it isn't open for speculation whether his motivation was religious, but I don't think anyone can know just now while it seems (from what people post here) that US media already worded things quite clearly from the start. To me that looks xenophobe, no matter if I understand where the fear comes from. This is btw a difference to my neck of the wood where media mainly talks about a 'shooter', not a 'Muslim shooter'. I don't think it's overly PC, but just normal standard in a democracy with an effective and trustful law system to not judge on a killer before the case is fully investigated.

I am curious if there was anything that was definitive that showed a potential for overt violence or a shooting spree in what evidence there is. If there was a mistake, it would require missing the obvious, not inability to foresee the future.
I have no idea of the details since they're not shared with the public, but in a guess I would say there was probably nothing that really showed potential for overt violence. Investigators try to get into the minds of amok shooters for so long now, but still we're hardly able to detect them before they snap. My good hope is that we learn more and one day enough to perhaps detect such profiles earlier. By now it seems to me that many amok cases are a lot of different, what likely makes the investigation and future prevention measures difficult.


I ask only because if the fingers will point at the military review, what in that review was realisticly indicative of cause for dismissal? As difficult as it is, think about it from a pre-shooting spree point of view and ask if the information was really conclusive or strong enough to support the action suggested.You have a point. Pre-shooting nobody probably could have had a guess what could happen - I was more under the impression that he wasn't the right one for a leader function already, but coming from a totally different system I can't really judge on that.

I think he might simply have been conflicted, had issues with his circumstances that escalated after getting orders to go overseas and snapped. This is more a suicide attempt from appearances than a well planned terrorist act, IMO. The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work.
That's the impression I get of it too. In this case I see more resemblance with the school shootings we've had not only in the US but in Germany and Finland recently than with any act of organised terrorism I'm aware of.

True. Sleepers aren't easy to detect, but I still wouldn't check on all Muslims to whether they're sleepers. I know that wasn't said in this thread, but I sometimes wonder what the consequence is, if we explain a shooter's motivation with being Muslim right when such a case happened. Again, I'm not saying it isn't open for speculation whether his motivation was religious, but I don't think anyone can know just now while it seems (from what people post here) that US media already worded things quite clearly from the start. To me that looks xenophobe, no matter if I understand where the fear comes from. This is btw a difference to my neck of the wood where media mainly talks about a 'shooter', not a 'Muslim shooter'. I don't think it's overly PC, but just normal standard in a democracy with an effective and trustful law system to not judge on a killer before the case is fully investigated.

No one is convicting anyone of anything, but speculation is almost automatic, isn't it? We are involved in a 2 front war because of radical muslim factions and it seems a muslim soldier just shot up a military complex and the fact that he is muslim doesn't seem noteworthy? Specifying that he is muslim isn't necessarily accusing motive, but it would be almost irresponsible and dishonest not to mention a factor of potential importance of that type in reporting, wouldn't it? I mean, it isn't as if that is either an insignificant or inconsequencial detail, is it?

As for judging on this killer, he won't be judged on his religion regardless. His having been witnessed commiting the crimes will probably be the primary point on which he is judged. He will be judged on his murderous acts, his motive can only mitigate his outcome, not add to it. It would take more than his faith to legally assert terrorism, if it is ever accused legally at all, which I doubt.

Of course the media here doesn't actually try the case of law, so what description they choose to use is legally irrelevent, the massive evidence that he is a mass murderer will be presented at trial unless there is a guilty plea. That he is Muslim can't be used as an indication of guilt, only motive if that is explored with the massive physical evidence available.

I have no idea of the details since they're not shared with the public, but in a guess I would say there was probably nothing that really showed potential for overt violence. Investigators try to get into the minds of amok shooters for so long now, but still we're hardly able to detect them before they snap. My good hope is that we learn more and one day enough to perhaps detect such profiles earlier. By now it seems to me that many amok cases are a lot of different, what likely makes the investigation and future prevention measures difficult.

That is the difficulty with any such criminal spree. It is much too difficult at current to pre-determine who is even capable of such an act. You are correct that there seems no hard and fast rule for pre-diagnosing these people or any way to judge what might set them off. Sadly we seem to only be able to put such clues togeather in hindsight, pretty ineffective to prevent things.


You have a point. Pre-shooting nobody probably could have had a guess what could happen - I was more under the impression that he wasn't the right one for a leader function already, but coming from a totally different system I can't really judge on that.

As a medical specialist, he really wouldn't have much direct command authority, at most a staff which would have SOPs to dictate most activities. I think this lack of responsibility makes retaining a mediocre professional favorable to forcing them to be discharged. While he may have had some performance issues, it seems none would disqualify him professionally and they must have appeared to be managable by higher commanders during operations.

As a medical specialist, he really wouldn't have much direct command authority, at most a staff which would have SOPs to dictate most activities. I think this lack of responsibility makes retaining a mediocre professional favorable to forcing them to be discharged. While he may have had some performance issues, it seems none would disqualify him professionally and they must have appeared to be managable by higher commanders during operations.That's true - thanks for clarifying that for me. I didn't think about the fact that the medicals often have higher ranks, but without being in charge of commanding (army) people. It's similar here.

I'd put my money on general incompetence.

That could definitely be part of it. Wouldn't suprise me at all if it was.

From what I've read (and it was in the Telegraph, so possibly not the most reliable source), his promotion was largely down to the fact that the US army had a desperate shortage of both psychiatrists and Arabic speakers, both of which are in high demand in this conflict, so couldn't afford to lose one, no matter how unsuitable/unsatisfactory he was in many ways. So not political correctness. EDIT: Sorry, I know I read this in the Telegraph but I can't find the article on their website.

I was thinking that could be part of it as well. Basically, for me, it seems that multiple avenues were at work here; political correctness, the need for Arabic speakers and psychiatrists, and the failure of a review board to do its job. It's all speculation, of course, as we have yet to see the data the investigation brings forth.


-Tibbetts

I knew that would be the answer and considering that the Crusades and the Inquisition were centuries ago, I don't see how that is relevant at all.

Srebrenica happened less than two decades ago (1992). I did mention that, too. I also mentioned people who bomb abortion clinics, and those who murdered George Tiller. They do it because their religious beliefs (Christianity) says abortion is wrong, don't they?

And I agree that they weren't "terrorists" as much as tyrannical conquerors. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Oh I can see the difference. I don't see the significance of that difference in this context. As you said yourself, it's still "evil being carried out", and it's definitely with religious sponsoring in both cases.

...
I think he might simply have been conflicted, had issues with his circumstances that escalated after getting orders to go overseas and snapped. This is more a suicide attempt from appearances than a well planned terrorist act, IMO. The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work. ...


That's the kind of interpretation I was trying to suggest (clearly far too clumsily) earlier on in this thread. It's good to see it explained much better and more concisely, too.... :tu:

I also think you are right on the mark concerning the general long-term consequences of this.

And I would add not just for ethnic minority/Muslim members of the armed forces, but for the armed forces and all their men and women restoring trust will be essential. I hope that an enquiry will be able to explain very clearly what happened that this man could be in that particular place, armed, and in that state of mind (whatever that was exactly) at that time. Whether they publish those results or not, it'll be crucial that the armed forces as a whole are confident about their vetting processes.

That's the impression I get of it too. In this case I see more resemblance with the school shootings we've had not only in the US but in Germany and Finland recently than with any act of organised terrorism I'm aware of.

I agree with you and Lupe. I think the guy just cracked. This shooting has more in common with the dozen or so white American Christians who reached the end of their tethers and murdered their wives, even their children, before turning the gun on themselves.

Having been director of a shelter program for victims of domestic violence and their children for over ten years, I think I can say, with some knowledge, that this shooting was nothing like a man who "snaps" and kills his family, then himself. Those incidents are usually the culmination of a series of previous abusive acts. The murder of a spouse is the ultimate act of power and control, which is what domestic abuse (physical and/or emotional) is about. The suicide is a way of avoiding legal and social consequences.

If the Ft. Hood shooter just wanted to avoid getting deployed, he could have shot himself in the foot or something along those lines. He would have faced Court Martial, then proabably jail time and a dishonorable discharge. But, instead, he chose to strike out against other members of the military that he knew would be vulnerable and available. He had plenty of time to turn the gun on himself if he just wanted to commit suicide. If he wanted to commit "Suicide-By-Cop" (have someone in authority kill him), he could have just aimed at one of the security personnel and waited for them to shoot him.

Instead, he seemed determined to take out as many soldiers as he could as quickly as he could.

Also, if this was supposed to be caused by the stress of his counseling duties, do we now have to worry about psychiatrists and psychologists "snapping" and shooting up their offices now?

Having been director of a shelter program for victims of domestic violence and their children for over ten years, I think I can say, with some knowledge, that this shooting was nothing like a man who "snaps" and kills his family, then himself. Those incidents are usually the culmination of a series of previous abusive acts. The murder of a spouse is the ultimate act of power and control, which is what domestic abuse (physical and/or emotional) is about. The suicide is a way of avoiding legal and social consequences.

These mass killings were not the result of a history of domestic violence. One man, who hid losing his job from his family for months, suddenly cracked and came home and killed them all. Then he killed himself. The suddenness and randomness of these latest mass familial murders is key, I think. Richard Poplowski killed three police officers, allegedly because he believed President Obama was going to take away his guns. There were several other assassins (Roeder and von Brunn come to mine) who were dismissed as lone wolves by some.

I just read a story today that breaks my heart. A Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa. He made the mistake of asking Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce for directions. Bruce allegedly beat him with a tire iron because he suspected the priest of being an Islamic terrorist. This one may end up being a hate crime because the reservist told 911 that "an Arabic man tried to rob him." Police arrested him for "aggravated battery with a deadly weapon" and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/tampa-police-marine-reservist-attacked-greek-priest-he-mistook-for/1050707)

If this doesn't give us a clue that we need to tone down the hateful rhetoric, I don't know what could.

Well, I haven't seen any hateful rhetoric here just yet...

Let's keep the discussion focused on the Fort Hood shootings, instead of various other ones. It's fine to compare, but not to have it be entirely on another shooting / etc.

Personally, there's nothing that can excuse the shootings. They may be able to be explained, but explaining and excusing are two wildly different things. In other words, he may have an explanation, but the explanation (no matter what it is) is ****.

These mass killings were not the result of a history of domestic violence. One man, who hid losing his job from his family for months, suddenly cracked and came home and killed them all. Then he killed himself. The suddenness and randomness of these latest mass familial murders is key, I think. Richard Poplowski killed three police officers, allegedly because he believed President Obama was going to take away his guns. There were several other assassins (Roeder and von Brunn come to mine) who were dismissed as lone wolves by some.

I just read a story today that breaks my heart. A Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa. He made the mistake of asking Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce for directions. Bruce allegedly beat him with a tire iron because he suspected the priest of being an Islamic terrorist. This one may end up being a hate crime because the reservist told 911 that "an Arabic man tried to rob him." Police arrested him for "aggravated battery with a deadly weapon" and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/tampa-police-marine-reservist-attacked-greek-priest-he-mistook-for/1050707)

If this doesn't give us a clue that we need to tone down the hateful rhetoric, I don't know what could.

As for the first incident, that was not caused by "hateful rhetoric" and, I don't know whether there were any previous incidents of domestic abuse in that family or not. The fact that this man kept his job loss a secret from his family for months hints that the problems there went pretty deep. His loss of self-esteem and a fear of feeling like a failure in the eyes of his family might have been a trigger, or, it could have been something else. But, I don't think "hateful rhetoric" was the cause.

You stated that Poplowski was afraid his guns were going to be taken away. But, did he yell "God is great" before he shot them?

Roeder and von Brunn "were dismissed as lone wolves by some". How many times have we heard the phrase "loner" in relation to people who go out commit terrible crimes: John Wayne Gacey, Richard Speck, David Richard Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, and so on.

As for the Marine Reservist story: as much as I admire and respect the military, this is unacceptable and he should be punished to the full extent of the law. It is a heartbreaking thing to have happened.

I haven't heard or seen any "hateful rhetoric" on this thread. IMO, anyone who condemns an entire religion for the acts of zealots is wrong.

(Sorry, Chris. I already had this posted before I saw your note. I'll stay on subject from here on.)

If this doesn't give us a clue that we need to tone down the hateful rhetoric, I don't know what could.

What hateful rhetoric?

What hateful rhetoric?

If you think I'm going to requote it after Chris' in-thread, you're wrong.

If you think I'm going to requote it after Chris' in-thread, you're wrong.

Though I should point out that you should never have mentioned them in the first place.

Further digressions to owls instead of in the threads, please.

Like others I also see nothing here that indicates a terrorist attack. People went on killing sprees for less reasons and being unhappy with your Employer and being deployed into a war country (possibly against ones will, not sure here) is IMO reason enough.

Now I feel sorry for other Muslims working in Armys who have to face even more discrimination and prejudices now, because one man who's parents happend to be Palestines decided to kill some random soldiers.

Here's President Obama's speech at Fort Hood yesterday.

I liked his speech. I thought it was respectful and kind and hopeful. I'm sure there are folks who will nit pick it to death, but I thought it was a good speech. I think it's difficult for Presidents to be the one we all turn to for salvation, if you will, after horrible events. They {the Presidents} have to be respectful of the dead and injured and their families, condemning of the aggressors without being too angry, and give us all hope that all will be well tomorrow. That's a difficult task, and I think The President did a good job at that in his comments at Ft Hood.

Like others I also see nothing here that indicates a terrorist attack. People went on killing sprees for less reasons and being unhappy with your Employer and being deployed into a war country (possibly against ones will, not sure here) is IMO reason enough.

I don't think it was an organized attack orchestrated by some loosely affiliated group or groups, but I'm not sure it can be lumped in as a mere worker gone bonkers event either. I say that for no other reason than the plethora of information linked by previous posters on the sentiments and beliefs Hasan openly expressed on many occasions.

I know I've said it before, but the military has quite a bit to answer to.

Thus far the only evidence that Hasan was mistreated because of his faith is his families statement after the shootings. At least from what has been released thus far, Hasan never reported any of his colleagues for harassing him because of his faith.

If Hasan reported that he was being mistreated because of his faith, then why did the Army allow that to continue? That sort of behavior is unacceptable and the Army ought to have undertaken efforts to educate it's people and reprimand people who mistreat any other person because of their faith or ethnicity.

If he did not report the mistreatment, assuming it occurred at all, why didn't he report it? Has the Army created a culture where soldiers are worried about reporting their colleagues for offensive and unacceptable comments?

Additionally, it appears that there were a bunch of big green flashing neon signs that Hasan was on the edge. His more than 1 hour presentation at a medical conference at Walter Reed appearing to justify honor killings should have raised red flags. His repeated attempts to convert patients and colleagues, despite being reprimanded for doing so, should have raised red flags. Why weren't those flags raised? Were Hasan's actions brushed aside or tolerated because he was Muslim and his colleagues feared offending him or other Muslims? Or, has the Army created an environment where soldiers and civilian employees fear reporting questionable behavior by their colleagues?

Now I feel sorry for other Muslims working in Armys who have to face even more discrimination and prejudices now, because one man who's parents happend to be Palestines decided to kill some random soldiers.

There is no evidence that Muslims working in the Army have faced discrimination and prejudice. When we talk about jumping to conclusions, this is one conclusion we seem to have jumped to easily, without any concrete evidence indicating that it is in fact true.

Other than one comment by Hasan's cousin, who didn't even know Hasan was being deployed to Afghanistan, there has been nothing to indicate that Hasan was being mistreated because of his faith. Fellow Muslim Army employees have mentioned concerns about Hasan's behavior and the beliefs he expressed, but none have mentioned that they are / were routinely harassed because of their faith. Assuming that Hasan decided to attempt to murder more than 40 people because he was being harassed at work isn't a safe assumption to make.

Furthermore, if Hasan was being harassed by his colleagues, wouldn't he have struck out at them instead of random soldiers filing out paperwork at the administrative processing center? In virtually every instance we've seen where a person was harassed and snapped, that person has struck out against the people which they believe harmed them. But Hasan didn't go after the people he had contact with every day, he went after strangers.

That doesn't add up.

faith is his families statement after the shootings. At least from what has been released thus far, Hasan never reported any of his colleagues for harassing him because of his faith.

And comments by a neighbour about an attack which was put in the hands of the local police.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

There is no evidence that Muslims working in the Army have faced discrimination and prejudice.

I'll refer you back to OldLupin: "The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work."

Guys like Michael Monsoor who was born in the US of Lebanese parents and was awarded a Bronze Star, Silver Star and Medal of Honor (post humous).

ETA: Nidal has been charged with murder. No terrorism related charges.

ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/13/2741469.htm?section=justin)

There is no evidence that Muslims working in the Army have faced discrimination and prejudice. When we talk about jumping to conclusions, this is one conclusion we seem to have jumped to easily, without any concrete evidence indicating that it is in fact true.

My own experience with the military suggests a lot of abuse cases are initially dealt with off the record. In other words, grown men sort their problems out like grown men. Maybe OldLupin can expand on his experiences or awareness.

The Army where I am takes steps to get around the problem by anonymous surveying of soldiers so they can grab a picture of behaviour issues without compromising individuals and making matters worse. Where specific issues arise, measures are taken to educate and promote different attitudes. This can seem annoying and a waste of time, but in the absence of a disciplinary approach, inaction is not possible.

I think prejudice in the Army over skin colour, ethnicity & general background stuff is going to occur, but it's how you say it and how you take it. In the British Army, Prince Harry was caught on camera referring to a fellow Muslim officer as "our little Paki friend" and a "rag head". The first comment is an insulting one towards Pakistani people and the second is often used to describe the Taliban. But the officer on the receiving end of the jibes wasn't in the least bit offended. However the wider implications of using the term 'Paki' are far reaching in British society and its generally a big No-No these days.

But it shows there are levels of differing tolerations and attitudes. It's not possible to quantify offensive behaviour in the military without establishing a context first. Over-reacting to a comment, or a nickname that is established and said non-offensively could impact unit cohesion and cause un-necessary tensions. The military in other words, has a different structure of acceptable conduct, at least that's how I've come to see it.

And comments by a neighbour about an attack which was put in the hands of the local police.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

An attack? Someone keyed his car (based solely on the unconfirmed statements of a neighbor) and you call that an attack? I got keyed several weeks ago - was I the victim of an attack?

I'll refer you back to OldLupin: "The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work."

Like I have said several times now - the Army has some difficult questions it needs to answer. Are soldiers routinely harassed because of their faith? Are disquieting behaviors exhibited by certain populations disregarded because of concerns about causing offense? These are questions the Army needs to answer.

ETA: Nidal has been charged with murder. No terrorism related charges.

I remind you that it is still early in the investigation and further charges might be forthcoming. No charges have been filed yet for the 30 more people whom he injured but survived.

I liked his speech. I thought it was respectful and kind and hopeful. I'm sure there are folks who will nit pick it to death, but I thought it was a good speech. I think it's difficult for Presidents to be the one we all turn to for salvation, if you will, after horrible events. They {the Presidents} have to be respectful of the dead and injured and their families, condemning of the aggressors without being too angry, and give us all hope that all will be well tomorrow. That's a difficult task, and I think The President did a good job at that in his comments at Ft Hood. I haven't heard his speech. I'll have to go listen to it. What is you said is true. We look toward the President in times like these. We have to remember he's human, too, and feels the same emotions we do. He may want to look to someone else like we look to him, but he's the head.

[QUOTE=monster_mom;5453621]Like I have said several times now - the Army has some difficult questions it needs to answer. Are soldiers routinely harassed because of their faith? /QUOTE]

You made a demonstrably false statement: "no evidence that Muslims working in the Army have faced discrimination and prejudice"

Soooooo...demonstrate it...

My own experience with the military suggests a lot of abuse cases are initially dealt with off the record. In other words, grown men sort their problems out like grown men. Maybe OldLupin can expand on his experiences or awareness.

Most are handled "in house" and generally there is a certain insensitivity that is common in militay environment. On the flip side, there is usually less offense taken personally with generic comments. The old, "Arabs are ..." usually includes the similarly common retraction "not SGT. Muhamad, though, you know what I mean the extremist nuts." . The abstract comments are highly discouraged and most commands use terrorist group names or factional identifications exclusively to minimize generalizations.

Of course a very vocal and visible opposition to the war or to having Muslims fight in it would facilitate more criticism than the typical good performance of most Muslim soldiers. That is what in this case is unique. From what I have seen and read, this officer actually was very outspoken, critical of the country and actually had a power point to explain why Muslim soldiers shouldn't be used in this war. The appearance of split loyalty and deliberate attempts to avoid deployment were probably larger factors for criticism than being Muslim. Those are things anyone should expect to get some hazing for.

Again, in the politically incorrect dialect of the military, he was a big pansy and a coward trying to get out of his commitment while other Muslim soldiers were facing horror and serving with great honor. That is the perception many probably had and that is not going to endear anyone in the military. He was fine in garrison duty for years, but when he was called on for active service in the field, he balked.

In military circles, being affraid under fire is no crime and being affraid to go equally accepted, but actively trying to get out of going when called is criminally cowardly and this guy appearantly was trying that which would definitely get him some snubs and deliberately rude treatment. This wasn't his first rodeo, he had to know what would come with overt attempts to get out of deployment, especially on a base where most have had multiple deployments.


The Army where I am takes steps to get around the problem by anonymous surveying of soldiers so they can grab a picture of behaviour issues without compromising individuals and making matters worse. Where specific issues arise, measures are taken to educate and promote different attitudes. This can seem annoying and a waste of time, but in the absence of a disciplinary approach, inaction is not possible.

Agreed, understanding is critical and acceptance equally so. Muslim soldiers had to have had a long period of discomfort and this only renews that unfortunately. One day in Hell is longer than a season in the sun though. Many have been tested by fire so there is no question as to their loyalties and more than a small chance that any questions riased by an outsider would recieve rude answers by squad and platoon mates or worse.



I think prejudice in the Army over skin colour, ethnicity & general background stuff is going to occur, but it's how you say it and how you take it. In the British Army, Prince Harry was caught on camera referring to a fellow Muslim officer as "our little Paki friend" and a "rag head". The first comment is an insulting one towards Pakistani people and the second is often used to describe the Taliban. But the officer on the receiving end of the jibes wasn't in the least bit offended. However the wider implications of using the term 'Paki' are far reaching in British society and its generally a big No-No these days.

Great example of the difference between "brothers" and "others". I can call my brother a ..., but if you do it I'll break your jaw. Guys knowing that about each other breeds comfort. The great irony is how angry Prince Harry probably would have been had a media member or someone else had said the exact same things about a fellow officer, not to mention how little patience the officer would have been likely to have.


But it shows there are levels of differing tolerations and attitudes. It's not possible to quantify offensive behaviour in the military without establishing a context first. Over-reacting to a comment, or a nickname that is established and said non-offensively could impact unit cohesion and cause un-necessary tensions. The military in other words, has a different structure of acceptable conduct, at least that's how I've come to see it.

In the past, the imposition of too much PC has the unwanted effect of resentment. Trust me, if a soldier offends another soldier, they are big boys and they will usually handle it among themselves without needing any outside intervention. Of course this isn't always the case, but it is usually, in my experience, safe to assume that if comes to the point of reporting, that is when attention is needed. I mean, it has to get pretty bad before most will report. It happens, no doubt, but usually within a squad or platoon, there is a lot of social controls in place that limit how far anyone goes with anything potentially hurtful.

Being too persistent or over the top generally gets a lot of people backlashing on you, a pretty uncomfortable position. No one wants to be seen as an a-hole or a jerk. We all expected guys to man up and have thick skins, but none of us appreciated deliberately hurting someone. If something really bothered a guy, we made a point to avoid it. That said, we prided ourselves on walking on water, eating bullets and uh, expelling ice cream, none of us were too sensative about words, especially from each other.

Well, except words like "coward", "liar", "lazy" or "fake". Those are words meant to hurt and they should.

My statement was not patently false, unless you choose to misrepresent what I said. For the record, my response was to something Tenshi had posted. Tenshi said, "Now I feel sorry for other Muslims working in Armys who have to face even more discrimination and prejudices now, because one man who's parents happend to be Palestines decided to kill some random soldiers."

To which I responded, "There is no evidence that Muslims working in the Army have faced discrimination and prejudice. When we talk about jumping to conclusions, this is one conclusion we seem to have jumped to easily, without any concrete evidence indicating that it is in fact true.

Other than one comment by Hasan's cousin, who didn't even know Hasan was being deployed to Afghanistan, there has been nothing to indicate that Hasan was being mistreated because of his faith. Fellow Muslim Army employees have mentioned concerns about Hasan's behavior and the beliefs he expressed, but none have mentioned that they are / were routinely harassed because of their faith. Assuming that Hasan decided to attempt to murder more than 40 people because he was being harassed at work isn't a safe assumption to make. "

We seem to be quite zealous in jumping to the conclusion that Hasan and every other Muslim serving in the US armed services is routinely harassed and assaulted because of their faith, yet we haven't seen any evidence, in the form of reports of harassment or reprimands of perpetrators, to indicate that such behaviors are common and not dealt with by the chain of command. I have to wonder why jumping to that conclusion is acceptable yet concluding that Hasan's faith may have had something to do with his actions, when the preponderance of evidence suggests that faith may well have been a motivator for Hasan, is wrong.

I read an article today which seems to affirm much of what I've been saying. It was written by a person with a rather intimate view of life inside the Army as he's currently stationed at Fort Bragg.

You can read his article here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/12/why_i_am_angry.html)

Soooooo...demonstrate it...

I left that to OldLupin (who speaks from some military experience): "The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work."

I left that to OldLupin (who speaks from some military experience): "The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work."

The fear in this is more that a witchhunt mentality becomes common. The standard has been pretty tollerant of dissention and diverse religous faith and for the most part at the unit level, Muslim soldiers are treated mostly in a manner that befits their performance. In other words, if you are good you are respected, if you aren't you aren't. Religous faith means little under fire, well except as a good brace and crutch to avoid panic.

It is the posibility that everyone will suddenly blame military command for not seeing this man as dangerous that will cause a potential overreaction. The military usually acts out of necessity and if there is an appearant need to review a group then it will be done.

Let's face it, if this turns out to be percieved as military dereliction, the remaining force will be over-scrutinized to ensure that it "never happens again". The end result being personel records being poured over and minimal contact with anyone even remotely connected to anything will force review boards and investigation. In that eventuality, even the guys in the units will be paranoid. CID coming down is stressful and creates suspicions that may well be unfounded. Once that door is opened however, there is a lingering effect that can be unpleasant for everybody.

I left that to OldLupin (who speaks from some military experience): "The real downside is, people are now blaming the military command and that will increase scrutiny on other officers of Arab and Persian origin who already face some hazing, despite doing wonderful and necessary work."

Which is hearsay, no matter how credible (which I do not doubt).

My point was you slammed monster_mom for her statement concerning evidence (or lack thereof). There currently is no evidence. There is possibility that such might occur...I do not dispute that part. But that is not evidence.

The DoD (http://www.dla.mil/do/NoFear.asp) has lots of statistics about discrimination and harassment in the forces.

Can you please move over to owls now with this dispute about who proved what, and who said what?

While it is not recommendable to claim that another member's statement is patently false without presenting solid proof for it being false in the very same post , it's also rather risky to state that no evidence exists when it's very hard to know where such evidence unnoticed by the media may be filed.

Back to topic.
The stats linked to in Wab's last post seem to indicate that harassment based on religion and national origin indeed exists. But having no personal experience of the armed forces of the US I leave drawing conclusions from those stats to those who have.

My 2 Knuts on harassment of Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military:

I concur with what Old Lupin said:

The standard has been pretty tollerant of dissention and diverse religous faith and for the most part at the unit level, Muslim soldiers are treated mostly in a manner that befits their performance. In other words, if you are good you are respected, if you aren't you aren't.

My husband serves in the Army Reserve and just got back from a 2nd tour in Iraq. My understanding from what my husband says is that unit cohesiveness is very important, especially in battle. The military will not work well if it lets such prejudice and resentment to fester to the point where soldiers lives will be on the line because Johnny doesn't want to be in the same unit with Mohammed. Or vice versa. Or because someone is black or white or Hispanic or Asian or whatever. My husband's drill sgt had a great line to succintly explain it, but I can't share it on this family board. :D But as crude as it was, it got straight to the point and was imbued with TRUTH.

Anyway, while I'm sure, as elsewhere, there are people who are truly bigoted both in civilian life and in the military, it is my understanding that such things are not allowed to stand for the safety and health of units. My husband says that such things are not generally tolerated. He's a Captain and I know for darn sure he would NOT tolerate it at all.

And I concur with Old Lupin's assessment as well - people take care of things themselves at first and only severe harassment gets reported.

If Muslims in the military were getting so harassed as to warrant national attention, believe me, the MSM would give it attention. I've heard almost nothing about it.

And I also agree with Texan muggle - mostly people on this board are talking about "possible" harassment, not actual harassment, of Muslims because of this. While it's certainly something to be aware of, I don't think it needs to be blown out of proportion. IMHO, it has a ring of "disrespect" to it. Disrespect for our Soldiers, Marines, and Seamen and Airmen, as well as disrespect for the American people.

There was some backlash after 9/11, but it was short lived and the thugs doing it were just that, thugs, and not representative of America. Look how many Americans flooded the internet with support for the Iranian people during their protests many months ago. If we were really that bigoted as a group, would we care what was going on over there? Doubtful.

If one sees how the soldiers try to help the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, how they love to hand out toys and candy to the children, etc., one would be loathe to assume the worst of our soldiers, even if a there are a few bad apples. Some of the photos and stories my husband brought back from his 2 tours brought tears to my eyes. Bigoted people don't usually do nice things for the people they hate.

One other little anecdote from the past: my husband heard this story years ago in the CA National Guard from someone who served in Vietnam with a white guy and a black guy. Apparently, the white guy was quite the racist. But in a fire fight, when the chips were down, that bigoted white guy took a bullet and died for the black guy. THAT is unit cohesiveness and that's how the military generally works.

I think it's borderline defamation to sensationalize the possibility of "backlash" while downplaying the extremist and terrorist nature of Hasan. There appears to be, at this time, no evidence of any real harassment of Hasan based on the fact that he was a Muslim. Keying of a Muslim's car does NOT automatically mean that the car was keyed BECAUSE he was a Muslim. The driver side mirror of my old Honda was bashed in with a baseball bat many years ago. I didn't assume that someone did it because I was a woman.

He tried to convert fellow soldiers who came to him for counsel, the Power Point presentation, the business card, and so many other things that have been posted here over and over again. The man was an extremist nut. I don't know how he got to that point, and frankly I don't care. Not interested.

Plenty of people live horrible lives and manage not to become mass murderers. To even show interest in the journey, other than for purposes of investigation and to have a complete file, only serves to give legitimacy to what he did.

There is NO excuse for mass murdering people. NONE.

I have a question for Lupe. How does what you've so patiently and eloquently explained here relate to Hasan's Army experience? He has never been in a combat zone, has he? Never been a part of a "cohesive" combat unit?

My husband (Korea) and brother (Vietnam) told me non-combat zone deployments were much worse insofar as racial and ethnic hazing were concerned. For myself, I remember the 18 months we spent stateside in El Paso, Texas as the worse time of my life, and for just those reasons.

He tried to convert fellow soldiers who came to him for counsel, the Power Point presentation, the business card, and so many other things that have been posted here over and over again. The man was an extremist nut. I don't know how he got to that point, and frankly I don't care. Not interested.

Plenty of people live horrible lives and manage not to become mass murderers.

But not many people who have happy lives become mass murderers.

To even show interest in the journey, other than for purposes of investigation and to have a complete file, only serves to give legitimacy to what he did.

Surely it is worthwhile to analyse the "journey" that people go on to reach the point where they commit mass murder (whether for ideological or personal reasons), so that we can step in and help others before they get to that point? And that's not "excusing" anything Hasan did, it's just pragmatics.

To show interest in the journey is how security forces and psychiatrists fine tune their analysis and possibly prevent these things happening.

To show interest in the journey is how security forces and psychiatrists fine tune their analysis and possibly prevent these things happening.

And you can see what a fabulous job they do at that, considering it was one of them that just murdered a large number of people. I would think that the psychiatric profession would know better than to just brush off concerns about violence from a colleague, but, as it appears such concerns were merely brushed off in Hasan's case, clearly that's not the case.

I have to wonder if we've become a nation of do nothing people. Are we so afraid of offending someone that we don't do or say anything when we see people behaving inappropriately?

While quite minor, the Principal at my kids school won't let the kids in the doors until the first bell rings. She physically locks the doors to keep the kids out. The kids are forced to stand in lines and wait until first bell. Because the teachers aren't outside supervising, many parents stand in the lines and wait with the kids.

The other day a small group of kids were pushing and shoving in line. One kept poking other kids with his umbrella which had one of those points on the top. All the parents in line just stood there and watched the kids tackle one another and stab other kids with their umbrellas. I finally used my soccer coach voice and told the kids to cut it out or I'd take them to see the Principal. The kids stopped and got back in line and behaved until the bell rang. But all of the other parents just stood there and did nothing.

Have we really become a nation of do nothing people?

It will be interesting to see what the review of who knew what, and when, and why things weren't followed up turns up. Particularly interesting are the questions of:

What was contained in the email exchange between Hasan and the cleric?

Why isn't there a mechanism in place for the Army and FBI to exchange information? Or if there is, why wasn't it used?

How much of the information that's coming out now regarding his opinions was actually communicated to superiors, and how high up the line did it go? In other words, everyone is talking now - and it's painting a damning picture. But were they talking then, or is this an "in retrospect" thing. I refuse to lay any blame to anyone who didn't say something, since these type of things often unfortunately take hindsight to see clearly, but knowing what was actually said is critical to identifying mistakes and correcting them.

Why was he promoted to major after a poor performance review?

How many similar reports are there out there of people in the armed services communicating with radical clerics or being vocal about views that can be extremist? In other words, are the investigators overworked, or are they dealing every day with reports of this type so that any given one doesn't end up looking "that bad" (for true lack of a better term), etc? It ends up in hindsight being a horrible mistake, but was there for instance 10 worse cases that got investigated first, and we the people just don't hear about them?

Was he ever on a "terror watch list"? And, (separately), is it appropriate to think about passing a law prohibiting those on the terror watch lists from obtaining guns, or is the watch list itself so likely to contain innocent names that it's impinging on the second amendment rights of people? (this is the position of the NRA) Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/terror.guns/) to story that shows people on the watch list can buy guns. Article is dated June 22, 2009, so it doesn't contain any bias resulting from Ft Hood.

What harassment, if any, did Hasan face? I fully believe you Lupe and LadyK that most of the stuff is dealt with "in-house", and furthermore, I would think mechanisms are in place that could have been invoked had he faced more severe harassment. But we need a complete picture of him, and this is part of the complete picture. Nothing will ever excuse or condone his actions. One can attempt to rationalize or explain it, but there are so many jerks, *******s, bigots, etc out there vs the number of people who do what Hasan did that it shows, to me, that even if he was harassed mercilessly it still doesn't give a valid reason for him to go do this.

Within the Muslim communities that he was associated with, there seems to have been near-universal condemnation of the actions he took. And some even note that they spoke up, if I recall correctly. A good investigation, in my mind, will establish exactly what was said and to who by people within the Muslim community - and this could establish either that they should have said more or that they should have been listened to more, or both. Or neither.

In this sort of investigation, there's a lot of blame that can go around. I hope that people recognize that the blame likely doesn't go all the way up to the Presidents involved, since I'm 99.999% sure that neither Bush nor Obama knew this guy's name prior to the shooting. And, I'd be willing to bet a LOT of money that both would 100% agree that as a whole the Army is doing a great job in tough circumstances now, and the soul-searching that needs to go on now to see what could be improved is going to be hard. I hope that this investigation can be apolitical, and whatever was missed and can be fixed I hope will be fixed.

To me, a good investigation should focus both on the individual case and the greater context of investigating extremism in the Army and other services in general. The former can hopefully identify why this specific case was mishandled and who is and isn't to blame. The latter can identify areas to improve and ways in which to prevent future attacks. And, a good investigation will give specific areas to improve instead of general statements which sound good and which place blame but don't end up fixing the problems.

It will be interesting to see what the review of who knew what, and when, and why things weren't followed up turns up. Particularly interesting are the questions of:

What was contained in the email exchange between Hasan and the cleric?

Why isn't there a mechanism in place for the Army and FBI to exchange information? Or if there is, why wasn't it used?


I think these are great questions, Chris, and probably just the tip of the iceberg. If the FBI was monitoring Hasan, why didn't they report that to the Army? Clearly something in our "threat assessment" arena broke down which enabled the events at Fort Hood.

How much of the information that's coming out now regarding his opinions was actually communicated to superiors, and how high up the line did it go? In other words, everyone is talking now - and it's painting a damning picture. But were they talking then, or is this an "in retrospect" thing. I refuse to lay any blame to anyone who didn't say something, since these type of things often unfortunately take hindsight to see clearly, but knowing what was actually said is critical to identifying mistakes and correcting them.

I agree that we need to know which of his behavior were and were not reported, but I do blame his colleagues if they didn't say anything. One colleague was reported as stating that a group of military psychiatrists expressed concern to one another that Hasan might be one of those guys who flips out and shoots everyone after his presentation at Walter Reed. In my opinion, they have an obligation, as mental health professionals, to report such behavior. The Army, as an organization where soldiers suffering from PTSD is a major concern, has an obligation to provide some mechanism for reporting concerns, even casual ones, about a colleague who appears to be exhibiting concerning behavior.

Why was he promoted to major after a poor performance review?

Good question.

How many similar reports are there out there of people in the armed services communicating with radical clerics or being vocal about views that can be extremist? In other words, are the investigators overworked, or are they dealing every day with reports of this type so that any given one doesn't end up looking "that bad" (for true lack of a better term), etc? It ends up in hindsight being a horrible mistake, but was there for instance 10 worse cases that got investigated first, and we the people just don't hear about them?

More good questions.

Was he ever on a "terror watch list"? And, (separately), is it appropriate to think about passing a law prohibiting those on the terror watch lists from obtaining guns, or is the watch list itself so likely to contain innocent names that it's impinging on the second amendment rights of people? (this is the position of the NRA) Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/terror.guns/) to story that shows people on the watch list can buy guns. Article is dated June 22, 2009, so it doesn't contain any bias resulting from Ft Hood.

Good question about whether he was even on a watch list.

As for prohibiting anyone on a watch list from purchasing a gun, I'm not sure that would be legal. Under the Constitution you are innocent until proven guilty and the only way rights can be taken away from you is if you are convicted of a crime. Or instance, people who commit felonies are prohibited from purchasing guns and child molesters, in some states, are prohibited from living within a set distance of any facility which would be reasonably expected to have large numbers of children present (like schools, day care centers, or parks).

Being on a "terror watch list" doesn't mean you've been convicted of committing a crime - just that law enforcement officials are concerned that you might commit a crime in the future. Because you've never committed a crime, there really is no legal mechanism by which to prohibit you from purchasing a gun.

What harassment, if any, did Hasan face?

Yep. And if he faced harassment which was not resolved off the record, did he report it? If so, then what was done about it? If not, why not?

To me, a good investigation should focus both on the individual case and the greater context of investigating extremism in the Army and other services in general. The former can hopefully identify why this specific case was mishandled and who is and isn't to blame. The latter can identify areas to improve and ways in which to prevent future attacks. And, a good investigation will give specific areas to improve instead of general statements which sound good and which place blame but don't end up fixing the problems.

To me there are two sides to the investigation. The first is the criminal case against Hasan which, in my opinion, should be dealt with by the FBI and military and local law enforcement according to established procedures for criminal investigations.

The second is the greater issue of the environment in the Army and our "anti-terrorism threat assessment" community, which needs to be addressed by our elected leaders.

To me these are separate investigations into totally different issues. The criminal case against Hasan needs to be dealt with in accordance with the law. The larger issue of Army policies and intelligence shortfalls needs to be dealt with by our elected leaders.

I know Obama's ordered a review, and if Congress decides they want a review, too, a few suggestions off the top of my head for who'd be good at leading the review:

If it's an "outside review", then my first choice (as it is for any outside review at a high level) would have been Sandra Day O'Conner. With her husband dying this week, I think that she probably wouldn't be available, so I think that Chuck Hagel and maybe Max Cleburn would be good choices (note: I have no idea if those two got along when they were in the Senate).

If the review were led by current Senators, then McCain, Lugar or Graham on the Republican side and maybe Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin, or Jim Webb on the Democratic side would be good choices.

And, I think that this should be handled within the standard military justice system, too.

I don't like McCain in that mix. The others are A-OK with me.

So what exactly are they planning to "review"? And isn't involving high ranked politicans in this a bit too much. I don't know but IMO is this a too exaggerated. Like mentioned before I see no difference between this and previous killing sprees, nothing that indicates for me that a big investigation and more is needed.


Assuming that he did get money from Pakistan and had contact via email to Mr. X (who's name I forgot) and everything was a planned act and supported by a terrorist organisation. So they managed to get him inside the base at a quite high position. Then why waiting so long for to attack and why not choosing more significant targets? The victims seem very random, of no great importance.

So what exactly are they planning to "review"? And isn't involving high ranked politicans in this a bit too much. I don't know but IMO is this a too exaggerated. Like mentioned before I see no difference between this and previous killing sprees, nothing that indicates for me that a big investigation and more is needed.

The biggest distinction is that Hasan was, and still is, an active duty member of the armed services who attacked his fellow soldiers and appears to have been under investigation by the FBI as a possible terrorist. That the Army was, apparently, clueless of the investigation of Hasan and was moving to deploy him overseas should be of great concern to all of us.

Assuming that he did get money from Pakistan and had contact via email to Mr. X (who's name I forgot) and everything was a planned act and supported by a terrorist organisation. So they managed to get him inside the base at a quite high position. Then why waiting so long for to attack and why not choosing more significant targets? The victims seem very random, of no great importance.

Didn't Hasan sent money to Pakistan, not the other way around? So far as I've read there is no evidence that the attack was part of a larger effort or coordinated by outside entities. Evidence to that effect may be gathered, but thus far it appears that Hasan was the motivating force behind his own actions.

I think it's borderline defamation to sensationalize the possibility of "backlash" while downplaying the extremist and terrorist nature of Hasan. There appears to be, at this time, no evidence of any real harassment of Hasan based on the fact that he was a Muslim. Keying of a Muslim's car does NOT automatically mean that the car was keyed BECAUSE he was a Muslim. The driver side mirror of my old Honda was bashed in with a baseball bat many years ago. I didn't assume that someone did it because I was a woman.
So you've determined that not enough focus has been given to his extremist Muslim ideology, and then proceed to argue that he couldn't have been mistreated for being a Muslim? I see that as a logical inconsistency.

He tried to convert fellow soldiers who came to him for counsel, the Power Point presentation, the business card, and so many other things that have been posted here over and over again. The man was an extremist nut. I don't know how he got to that point, and frankly I don't care. Not interested.
Trying to convert fellow soldiers doesn't make someone a nut.

Plenty of people live horrible lives and manage not to become mass murderers. To even show interest in the journey, other than for purposes of investigation and to have a complete file, only serves to give legitimacy to what he did.

There is NO excuse for mass murdering people. NONE.
What legitimacy? Is scrutiny going to convince us all that murdering people was a good idea? I doubt it, so why do you feel we shouldn't all take a hard look at what happened here?

The biggest distinction is that Hasan was, and still is, an active duty member of the armed services who attacked his fellow soldiers and appears to have been under investigation by the FBI as a possible terrorist. That the Army was, apparently, clueless of the investigation of Hasan and was moving to deploy him overseas should be of great concern to all of us.
I somehow doubt that they were clueless about him. I thought they knew for a long time that he had contact with a "radical clerk".

__________

US media on Fort Hood shooting (bbc) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347361.stm)

"Given that this country has been engaged in a war on Islamist terror for most of this decade, it's natural to focus on the killer's religion. ("I wish his name was Smith," an unidentified Army officer's wife told ABC News, and who wouldn't agree?) Be careful here, and let the FBI and military investigators do their careful and deliberate work. If there was any sort of conspiracy, they will find it - but don't assume the worst."

___________

I have the feeling that if it indeed was a Mr Smith, that people wouldn't dig that deep.




Didn't Hasan sent money to Pakistan, not the other way around? So far as I've read there is no evidence that the attack was part of a larger effort or coordinated by outside entities. Evidence to that effect may be gathered, but thus far it appears that Hasan was the motivating force behind his own actions.
I probably missread then, but in this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting) article it says that it could have been both ways. Money was wired between Pakistan and him, but they are not sure which way.

Many people have stated that he was unsatisfied with the way he was treated and that he even considered leaving the army.

So you've determined that not enough focus has been given to his extremist Muslim ideology, and then proceed to argue that he couldn't have been mistreated for being a Muslim? I see that as a logical inconsistency.

That's not what LK said. LK said there is no evidence that Hasan was mistreated by his colleagues because he was Muslim.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he was mistreated?

Based on the evidence presented thus far, it appears that Hasan was abusing his position as a psychiatrist and an officer. He preached to and attempted to convert his patients and colleagues. That's highly unprofessional and unethical for a practicing physician and should not have been tolerated by the Army.

Were a Christian physician to attempt to convert his Jewish patients, that physician would be censured, severely reprimanded, and possibly face demotion for his / her behavior. Hasan was put on probation and promoted. I can't help but wonder whether Hasan was given preferential treatment by the Army because he was Muslim.

Trying to convert fellow soldiers doesn't make someone a nut.

But murdering 13 (14) people and attempting to murder 40 others does. It also violates the code of conduct and standards of behavior for a physician.

If a person wants spiritual counseling he / she will got to religious institution and seek out that counseling. People don't go to their Army psychiatrist for spiritual salvation or conversion.

I have the feeling that if it indeed was a Mr Smith, that people wouldn't dig that deep.

I disagree. The authorities looked very closely at the Virginia Tech shooter - they even contacted his high school teachers and classmates. His ethnicity had nothing to do with the depth of their investigation.

Like it or not, we have to acknowledge that there are some practicing Muslims who believe that violence is an acceptable means of ridding the world of any non-believers, and some of those "radicals" have committed large scale acts of horrible violence against innocent people. Looking closely at Hasan's faith and what role it may or may not have played in motivating his actions is a reasonable and expected part of this investigation.

Were a neo-Nazi to get into a car accident and injure a Jewish person, the authorities would have cause, in my opinion, to see if the accident really wasn't an accident and if that person's ideology might have caused him / her to strike out.

We already have evidence that Hasan's faith was in conflict, in his mind, with the position he'd willingly signed up for. We know that he was in contact with people known to have links to terrorists and that he was exhibiting some rather disturbing behaviors.

Even without these "markers" the authorities would be looking at Hasan's faith to see what role it might have played in motivating his actions. Considering the breadth of evidence that Hasan's faith did play a role, the authorities would be negligent not to look closer.

I probably missread then, but in this article it says that it could have been both ways. Money was wired between Pakistan and him, but they are not sure which way.

I don't think you misread - I think it is rather confusing. At this point I'm not sure who gave money to whom. :)

Many people have stated that he was unsatisfied with the way he was treated and that he even considered leaving the army.

He was dissatisfied with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He, reportedly, felt that those wars were wars against Islam and was not at all happy with being deployed to those countries. From what I've gathered, it wasn't the people he associated with who gave him pause, but rather the wars the country was prosecuting and he was supporting {through a job he volunteered for I might add} which did.

Mom, I'm not getting something. You asked Canis why he came "to the conclusion that he (Hasan) was mistreated." Then you posted the same kind of hypotheticals about a Neo-Nazi and a Christian physician in imagined scenarios with a Jew, as though they were givens, no less.

I think there is abundant evidence that Muslim-Americans face discrimination in the U.S.

I think there is abundant evidence that Muslim-Americans face discrimination in the U.S.Maybe, but that doesn't prove that this particular individual (Hasan)had to face it. The investigation has to take into account that possibility as well as the one in in Mom's example.

Investigators can't take things for granted either way. They have to look at all possibilities.

To jump in a bit more on Alastor's point, not only do they have to look at all possibilities, they have to look at them objectively. Right now to all of us sitting on the sidelines it's easy to go "well, obviously it's X, Y, or Z". I've seen that sort of posting from people on both sides of the issue. But, until we have answers to the laundry list of questions I posed earlier, I don't think that we can conclusively prove anything. I'll freely acknowledge that right now it looks bad, and there's a lot of accountability that's going to be thrown around, but the actual content of the back-and-forth as well as just how much did the people who are talking now about how dangerous everyone thought Hasan was actually was passed up the line are rather key details - details which remain somewhat murky. Proper investigations should uncover most of this.

Also, semi-aside: to define whether or not this was a terrorist act, one must first decide on a definition of terrorism.

I knew I should have left the last sentence unsaid. It really wasn't the point I wanted to make; instead it was Mom interjecting "examples" that are little more than changing the names and faces of the same argument she was rejecting.

Like both of you, I'm interested in seeing how this case plays out. Speculation? Less so.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111309dnentcharges.4179b70.html

I have been hearing about this story for days. I think it is more important then ever now to look into everything this man did and who he was connected with.

I am not ready to label him a terrorist yet...but I do want to know more.