Fort Hood Shooting

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by ladykrystyna

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.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

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.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

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 and realize what those soldiers were going through and how they managed to care for and save one another.

[ladykrystyna]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[Den_muggle]

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.

[flimseycauldron]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Den_muggle

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.

[leah49]

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.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by leah49

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.

[leah49]

Did he get a poor performance review and a promotion?

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Chris

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!

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by leah49

Did he get a poor performance review and a promotion?

Apparently.

This 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.

Originally Posted by Flimsey

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.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Den_muggle

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?

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

Originally Posted by Chris

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

So don't I.

[Chris]

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

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

[Tibbetts]

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

[Chris]

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.