This was premeditated. This wasn't VBC again. That guy snapped, not this one. He was so damn calm when he was shooting. Methodical. And he was moving tactically. The Army really is diverse and we really do love all our own. We signed up to be shot at but not at home. Not unarmed. No one should ever see what the inside of that medical SRP building looked like. I suppose that's what VA Tech looked like. Except they didn't have soldiers coming from everywhere to tourniquet and compress and talk to the wounded while rounds are still coming out.
No one touched him...the shooter that is...other than to treat him. Though I told the medic (and I'm not proud of this) that was giving him plasma that there better not be anyone else who needed it because he should be the last one to be treated. But I had just finished holding a soldier who was critical (I counted three entry wounds) and talking to him about his children.... If the shooter had a grievance he should have taken it out on those responsible; he wasn't shooting people he knew (media reports to the contrary). He was just shooting anybody who happened to be present for SRP medical processing, mainly lower enlisted.
But please, no one use this politically! The Army is not "broken", PTSD doesn't turn people into killers, most Muslims aren't evil, and whether we should stay or go in Afghanistan has nothing to do with this. I'm babbling...sorry.
This guy was some form of lunatic or psychopath, and it seems pretty clear to me at this point that he was inspired by terrorists. But there's no evidence that he was a terrorist--that is, that he was hooked into some organized network. Lots of people do terrible things in the name of their religion--just ask George Tiller. Their acts are, as the Catholic Church says, "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance". But they are no more indictments of a community than the acts of that Korean kid who went crazy at Virginia Tech.
There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this. Gun control would not have stopped a commissioned officer from obtaining guns. Barack Obama had no power to stop this. Infectious PTSD is a lousy theory. And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd. Evil people do evil things. That's all.
Update whatever else you think of them, CAIR has issued an admirably forthright condemnation:
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/5/09) - A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group tonight condemned an attack on Fort Hood military base in Texas that left at least 12 people dead.In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:
"We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured."
Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a "fatwa," or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism.
At his last job, he refused to be photgraphed with women for group photos. Treacher says “Congrats on being shot by one, loser.”
As for CAIR, it's nice they condemn murder on behalf of Islam, but it feels like when the Catholic Church condemns a pedophile priest: 90% PR, 10% concern.
Nope, no warning sign there.
"Nope, no warning sign there."
And yet just look at the apologists coming out of the woodwork even here on this blog to make excuses for the Jihadists who are killing Americans left and right in this country.
The FBI is afraid to act. Holder is threatening CIA agents.
We've made a horrible, horrible mistake in letting this bunch run our country. We need to fix that mistake before it's too late. Before more people have to die.
The only "jihadists killing Americans left and right in this country" are Glenn Beck fans. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19544
Mr. Perkovic said Mr. Poplawski was opposed to “Zionist propaganda”
Yeah, because Glenn Beck is always going on about those Zionists.
Seriously, an anti-Semite from April is all you've got?
Yes, Holder threatening to prosecute CIA agents who broke the rules while interrogating suspects is the exact same thing as capitulating to the Jihadis. After all, those rules were written by that Liberal weenie, John Yoo.
I tell you, we might as well start paying jizya now.
"Holder threatening to prosecute CIA agents who broke the rules while interrogating suspects"
You mean, Holder choosing to reinvestigate CIA agents who had already been investigated and cleared. This is a type of double jeopardy. Why would Holder do this if not to send a chilling effect to all agents, that you can be investigated endlessly even when you follow the rules? It's a backdoor way to change the rules by stopping them from using even approved methods, if there's a chance that the actions could later be twisted and misused for partisan political purposes.
CAIR is getting better at this, it seems. It took them 5 months to condemn OBL for 911.
Well, in their defense, first we all had to figure out if fire could melt steel.
That's interesting because they still claim that fire cannot melt steel and that Israel was responsible for 9/11.
Actually one of the ironies of this is that stateside military bases are nearly gun free zones already. At least in the Air Force, the only armed personel will be on-duty security forces. Their normally found at the entrances, guarding high value assets, and on patrol like civilian LEOs. DOD currently has no policy to arm them off-duty like civilian PDs do. And CCW permits are not valid on military bases. So once a shooter enters a military base, he may actually have a lower chance of running into an armed individual than he would in downtown Boise ID.
It's getting awfully dangerous to spend time in a "gun free zone".
I have two words for you:
Lock.
Load.
Yep. Cause if any place is a "gun free zone", it's Fort Hood, Texas.
Did you even read the thread you are responding to?
Yeah, that was the case when I was in the Army Reserve too. All the weapons were locked up in the basement. During the run-up to the first Gulf War, we were told to be vigilant about terrorist reprisals in the U.S. (some of you may remember that this was a considered a threat back then), but the weapons stayed locked in the basement.
Fortunately, about half the guys in my unit were in the NYPD in their day jobs, so they were packing anyway. But the Ft. Hood troops weren't as lucky.
It always struck me as odd, and sad, how American soldiers (except for exceptions like MPs) weren't trusted to bear arms at home. Unlike in countries like, say, Switzerland or Israel, where pretty much every able-bodied man is in the reserves and takes his rifle home with him. Not a whole lot of random shootings by Israelis or Swiss.
Yes, sad indeed.
While wanting to "feel safe" is an understandable emotion, objective safety is rarely enhanced by distrusting one's fellow citizens (or soldiers). The disarming of America is slowly being reversed, yet too many still equate guns with barbarism. Clearly they have not spent much time in Switzerland.
"An armed society is a polite society."
I doubt that Switzerland is a polite society *because* it is an armed society.
Too bad that being a psychiatrist doesn't give you any insight into your own mental health. I would have hoped that as he became more agitated over the situation he was in, he would have resigned or gotten help.
Now we'll either have to put up with "God is great, I have no remorse" or "I went insane and I'm sorry" from him. Better if he had died.
I sometimes feel like a lot of the people involved in psychiatry are themselves a little nuts themselves.
The college I work for had a female psych grad student kill another female psych grad student in some sort of bizarre lesbian love triangle a few years ago. I know, totally anecdotal...
al Queda is designed to be exactly what Megan just described ... an unorganized non-network of like-minded individuals all acting cohesively toward a common goal.
They're. Fucking. Terrorists.
"an unorganized non-network of like-minded individuals all acting cohesively toward a common goal."
Sounds a little like libertarians, except for the cohesive part.
Hey! We can be cohesive, often for minutes at a time!
Yes, because libertarians are well-known for our love of mass murder.
Barack Hussein Obama has released terrorists back into the wild, placing them on vacation on the beautiful Pacific island of Palau.
Is there any question who's side he's on?
He wants to let them all go at Gitmo, and he's stalling on taking the fight to them in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think he's made his intentions quite clear. He's criminally, incompetently unable to protect us at home and not even trying to protect us abroad.
We must impeach him.
Barack Obama released those Uighurs because they were found not guilty of terrorism or being unlawful combatants. They were sent to Palau because nowhere else would take them. What is your preferred solution, indefinitely detain anyone ever suspected of terrorism?
If they were lily white innocents, why did Barack Obama not send them to Chicago?
Because of cowards like you.
Seems to me Barack Obama is the coward. He paid a $200 million bribe to send them half a world away from his children.
Most of the Uyghurs were members or supporters of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.
Ever heard of Tora Bora?
Eighteen of the Uyghurs fled when their camp was bombed as part of the United States air bombing campaign of Afghanistan in 2001.
Enemy. Combatants. Caught on the field of battle.
Terrorists.
And Obama let them go.
Ah, that means the Pentagon was committing treason when it declared them No Longer Enemy Combatants in 2003? This shooting was all Bush's fault, you say?
If you're talking about the handful of Uighurs that are to went to Palau/Bermuda, they were picked up in Pakistan by bounty hunters and sold to US forces as enemy combatants. They were also cleared for release in 2004, under the BUSH administration.
We must impeach him
Yup. There's definitely lots of votes in both chambers for that.
Here's a stat for you, movertype: I was doing some googling the other day. I might have missed one, but according to my cursory research, since at least 1900, an incumbent US president has never failed to win reelection if the economy has been expanding for at least 24 months by election time. This expansion will be about forty months old in November of 2012. Four more years, baby.
"Yup. There's definitely lots of votes in both chambers for that."
2010 looms. I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of votes then to take care of the business at hand.
Patience.
LOL. You say that as 10.2% unemployment hits for the first time in 26 years. I don't see Obama being re-elected with 12% unemployment!
You say that as 10.2% unemployment hits for the first time in 26 years.
The last time it hit that level was...about 20 months before Reagan won e a landslide reelection.
I don't see Obama being re-elected with 12% unemployment!
I don't either. I do see him easily being reelected with the, oh, 7.5% (my guess) rate we'll be dealing with in the autumn of 2012.
It's anybody's guess what will transpire with the miderms (I'm predicting run-of-the-mill, typical incumbent losses -- ie., 15-20 House seats, and a net loss of two or three in the Senate). But Obama's reelection prospects for 2012 are excellent. Even gloomy economists -- the kind of people loudly bitching about insufficient stimulus -- Dean Baker comes to mind - expect the unemployment rate to have peaked -- and to have begun drifting downwards -- by next spring. And next spring, if I had to remind you, is two and a half years before Obama faces the electorate.
Yea right, We'll all be running to put our fate in the hands of Sarah Palin and Rush. This place is like la la land. Have you folks been right about anything in the last ten years?
Isn't it a bit rich to talk about how people were moved out of a Caribbean island into a tropical paradise? And yes, innocents get released from custody - that's usually how this stuff works.
Oh wow.
NPR:
Guess he didn't get that memo from CAIR.
Did the FBI have a file on Nidal Malik (or he was on some watch list)? I thought I heard this on the radio this morning - but did not hear anything additional.
They had an extensive file on him, as you will soon discover.
But FBI agents are too scared to arrest Jihadists who haven't acted yet for fear of the damage that they might do to their career. It's been made clear to them in a thousand unwritten memos.
Obama, through Attorney General Eric Holder, has threatened to arrest CIA agents who acted legally with the President's authority. What do you think goes through the mind of a lowly FBI agent when their President is making such threats to loyal Americans just trying to do their job to protect the country?
Do you ever get tired of being so wrong? Holder will prosecute only those who violated then-President Bush's guidelines outlined by Yoo and Bybee, regardless of actual legality. Anyone who acted in good faith is off the hook. The CIA agents in question weren't "loyal Americans just trying to do their job to protect their country." They were agents of the US who were violating all guidelines for behavior available to them. You can't just give everyone agent free reign to do whatever they want as long as they claim it was necessary.
Unless they're New Black Panthers, of course.
"Holder will prosecute only those who violated then-President Bush's guidelines"
That makes no sense, since these agents have already been investigated and cleared. Holder's double-jeopardy type reinvestigation is to scare them and harm them by running up their legal bills.
I'm pretty sure it's not a "memo" if it's unwritten. You mean to say "rule"?
"Barack Obama had no power to stop this."
Barack Obama has released terrorists. What effect do you think that has on FBI agents who might have preemtively arrested this man, but for the damage inane political correctness would do to their careers?
FBI agents are too scared to arrest obvious terrorists in our midst - even those who they have been monitoring for six months like this one. Even ones who are clearly writing Jihad sentiments on the internet and being monitored doing it.
And it is directly because Barack Obama is letting terrorists loose. He sets the tone.
Barack Obama has the duty to stop this. If he can't, he should resign or be impeached.
You say some pretty wild things on occasion. May you should be preemptively arrested.
Please, movertyperguy, do go on and tell us which terrorists, specifically, Barack Obama ordered released. Perhaps he did release some convicted terrorists, or people still suspected of links to terror, but I have never heard of this. Enlighten us, please.
18 terrorists caught in Afghanistan training with the Taliban.
He sent them to Palau - not Chicago.
He paid Palau a $200 million bribe to take them off his hands.
He remains the only United States president to ever release a terrorist back into the wild.
I'm sorry, so you want who you call terrorists to be released into Chicago? Dude, you're crazy. Please move forward with your impeachment from your van with the loudspeakers on top.
Well, actually Bush released 5 of these same Uighurs, captured at the same Tora Bora in 2006 and sent them to Albania. Should we retroactively impeach him too?
I mean of course they were released in Albania in 2006. They were captured along with the other Uighurs in 2001.
Nah, Clinton released the Puerto Rican bombers.
I posted this earlier over at chez Althouse:
Remember The Case of the Flying Imams?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024838.php
Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan awarded them an undisclosed settlement after the indignity of a 5 hour interrogation following their ...
... "religious expression."
Is it really any wonder that US officials turn a blind eye to provocative actions and or statements by Muslims.
I've seen the settlement ... they got nothing but an apology from the airline.
No monetary damages.
Thank Allah!
"He was so damn calm when he was shooting. Methodical. And he was moving tactically."
He could still have been utterly insane. Not all lunatics are laughing maniacally like the Joker. They can be quite intelligent and methodical (especially the really OCD types). And all soldiers know how to move tactically. It's part of the training which. like all military training, is so ingrained as to be instinctual.
You don't know anything about the military.
He was a psychiatrist. That meant he received little/no tactical training from the US military.
He didn't even get the amount of training most desk-jockey military officers get.
I'm not saying he trained in a jihadi program...video games can give you the idea of tactical movements, as can military publications. But the idea that all soldiers are trained to the point of instinctual tactical movement is ridiculous.
Are you movetyperguy's other account?
I spent 3 years in the Army, and a year in the DC Guard. I have more military experience than most members of Congress, and our last President.
Army physicians get close to ZERO tactical arms training. The husband of the last army physician I hung out with bought her a Beretta of the same type that she was to be issued when she went to Iraq and had her take the civilian CCW class at the local range because he was afraid she was going to shoot herself. I'm lead to understand that you can wangle yourself into some schools if you're so inclined but as for being assigned to tactical training, not so much.
I'm not blaming all this on President Obama, am I?
Psychiatrists are not line officers. They don't go through training before commissioning. If you look only at the training they get from the military, they would barely know which end of the gun to point downrange. If they understood what downrange meant. (now, if they learned it on their own, that's different. The point is: they don't get trained for combat).
That includes Chaplains, all medical officers, nurses, and JAG.
Non-combat arms troops don't get a whole lot of training, either.
8 weeks of basic plus an AIT FTX isn't going to get you trained to the point where any tactical actions are ingrained.
Now, if you deploy, you get tactical training...at most it is 3-4 weeks. NOT enough to get it ingrained by any means.
Someone who has come back from a 15-month deployment probably would instinctually move tactically.
But clearly: not a psychiatrist from Walter Reed. Not from Army training.
I'm sorry I denigrated your time in service. I still can't believe your time in service led you to say that "all soldiers know how to move tactically. It's part of the training which, like all military training, is so ingrained as to be instinctual."
That's just flat-out, 100%, demonstrably wrong.
I think it is understandable for me, currently serving in Iraq (which you had no way to know, either), with 7+ years time each as enlisted and officer, to conclude on the basis of such an obviously wrong statement to conclude that you didn't understand the military.
I withdraw the judgment of your military knowledge, but maintain that quite a few soldiers don't know how to move tactically, much less do it instinctually, and insist that anyone who has served 3 years on active duty *should* have known that.
Nice to see our POTUS is taking this all very seriously:
Finally, a President we can be proud of!
His nonchalance at the whole affair was quite sickening.
Fucking stopping to give shout-outs and fist-bumps to his buddies.
And then, oh yeah a bunch of soldiers died. Moment of silence. Then more shout-outs.
Guy is fucking tone deaf.
It was completely bazaar.
Here is the live CNN feed.
You can watch it for yourself. I've never seen a President so tone deaf in all my life. Making jokes and doing shout-outs before announcing a mass murder of US servicemen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_N1MMll4Xk&feature=player_embedded
Unbelieveable.
Ask George Tiller what? Are you saying George Tiller's religion caused him to perform abortions?
Because the only other possible interpretation is a horrible, gutless, Politically Correct false equivalency, and I expect better of you than that, Megan.
Movetyperguy-Please knock it off. I'm no big fan of BO, but its a stretch to pin this guy on his terrorism policies and call for impeachment. This guy was never imprisoned as a terrorist suspect, so your argument makes no sense. Lets reserve calls for impeachment for criminal matters.
The real failure here seems to be the military establishments security policy at stateside bases. Basically DOD relies almost exclusively on security at the gate to defend the base. Well that involves checking ID cards and doing occasional vehicle searches. So if a guy gets an ID card and heads through the gate at a shift change when he's unlikely to be searched, then he's home free to shoot the place up. Only difference between base and civilian world is he's much less likely to get out alive because they'll lock the gate. But if he's a typical nutcase shooter or jihadi terrorist, or a little bit of both, he doesn't care to much about the last part.
"This guy was never imprisoned as a terrorist suspect, so your argument makes no sense."
That is precisely my point - he was never imprisoned as a suspect when he should have been. Barack Obama's FBI has plenty of evidence over the last six months demonstrating that Mr. Hasan was, and that he remains, a terrorist threat to our country.
And yet, Barack Obama's FBI didn't arrest the self-professed Jihadi.
They're scared to.
They are afraid that Eric Holder will have their careers terminated if they act on these threats.
Jesus Mover you are simply nuts. I mean timecube black helicopter nuts. You realize that there have been numerous terrorist arrests under Obama's FBI. Your attempt to pin this on Obama is simply delusional. No wonder you can't find a job. People try to avoid hiring black helicopter nuts.
Your attempt to pin this on Obama is simply delusional.
NBC News Chicago disagrees with your assessment. They are harshly critical of President Obama today, and with good reason.
"All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic."
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
Are they black helicopter nuts too? Is NBC News nuts?
CBSNews disagrees with your assessment. Is CBS News nuts?
They report that the FBI has known that Hasan was a radical Jihadi discussing suicide bombings in internet postings for the past six months ... yet Barack Obama's FBI refused to act on that knowledge for some reason.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/05/national/main5542704.shtml
Perhaps they feared Eric Holder would arrest them if they acted preemtively?
Mover, your first quote about falling down on the job is referring to the fact that they didn't prep him on the proper tone to take in the first televised comment. They let him appear callous and uncaring.
That has nothing to do with preventing the virtually unpreventable.
This is not President Obama's fault.
It is the shooter's fault.
Replying to Nathan:
That's a funny statement, if true. It is like Obama is incapable of appearing to care unless David Axelrod properly sets the TelePrompTer to the "caring" setting. I mean seriously - bunch of YOUR troops are dead - sure you're probably short on info, but you can't fake a somber tone?
@Holdfast,
Well, that's what handlers do. They remind you of how you should come across at certain times.
It is one of the horrible things about our current political system.
I didn't vote for President Obama, and wouldn't ever vote for him for any office.
But the in-context quote does not indicate that the shooting should be blamed on President Obama, especially not in the manner movertypeguy is attempting to establish.
I'm as partisan-conservative as the next guy. But I believe in fighting fair and honestly.
Nathan - I'm not holding Obama responsible for the attack, though I suppose you could argue that Holder is creating an "atmosphere" at Justice which might discourage too much scrutiny of this sort of character - but then Nadel's conversion to the Jihad side of the force appears to have occurred long before Obama took office.
My point is that apparently the Commander in Chief needs to be told that it is not appropriate to joke and do "shout outs" just prior to speaking about the death of a dozen military members. For this purpose the cause of the deaths is irrelevant - Sudden Jihad Syndrome, chopper crash, German Measles, whatever. A dozen of HIS troops are dead and Obama is busy joking and confusing the nation's highest medal for bravery with some sort Congressional "thanks for coming out" award. But because the TelePrompTer was not set to the "Caring" setting, it is ok for Obama to act like a buffoon? Seriously?
The article points a communication failure and it's an OPINION piece. So yes you and the opinion piece author at a Fox affiliate are NUTS.
Robert A. George is a conservative pundit, and this is an Op-Ed article.
Don't be ridiculous. It's far easier to criminalize politics than to actually, you know, compete for votes based on your policies and ideas. Fuck elections. And when impeachment doesn't work, there's always the option of staging a coup:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php
The problem I'm having with Megan's statement that this isn't terrorism is that radical Islam is a movement, not an organization. A certain chunk of Muslims, hopefully small, believes that it is meritorious to do stuff like this. So individuals can do this, not because they're insane, but because _it's the right thing to do_. Very hard to stop them, because they don't really need any kind of an organization behind them. Although, as in this case, the individual may have made his views clear in the past, so hopefully someone should have noticed.
I don't see how you can compare this to lunatic Christians, unless you can find me a movement of Christians who still wants to run the Inquisition.
What a contrast between the sensible post and the disgusting comment section.
Fat chance, buddy.
Holder is threatening CIA agents. Is that not political?
When the President of the United States allows his Attorney General to threaten to prosecute our intelligence community for doing their jobs, that chills their actions.
It's why he does it. He doesn't want the Jihadists arrested.
Then why is he arresting jihadists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22terror.html
As the article notes, we've had five major arrests in the last five months, which is a step up from 2008.
Rly? Five whole arrests!!Eleventy!!
Outstanding.
I'm sure the 50 people bleeding on the floor at Ft. Hood wouldn't be saying: "Heckuva job Brownie."
That's right Mover he doesn't want to seem like he tough on terror. Holder is threatening people who conducted extensive torture sessions. Which apparently you don't know is against the law. How do you explain Obama's arrests of a terrorist cell in Detroit? Maybe he forgot to send the memo out to that FBI office? Hindsight is 20/20.
"Which apparently you don't know is against the law."
If it was against the law, why hasn't Holder arrested anyone?
Why is he only dangling the threat? Why not action?
It is because he wants to chill the agents behavior so they won't arrest the radical jihadists who are already behind our wire. The known threats already in this country and committing the first terrorists acts on American soil since 9/11.
On Barack Obama's watch.
He failed to protect us. Which is his primary duty. We must replace him.
Holder is threatening people who conducted extensive torture sessions.
What? He's threatening dominatrixes?
This must not stand!
I know the first thing I do when I want to keep things nonpolitical is fire off an email to Mother Jones.
YES THERE IS! Had the enlisted men been carrying firearms, likely more people would be alive today.
Come on. She's talking about gun control for civilians, not military policies concerning guns on bases.
Bush failed to protect us, too, in vastly more disastrous fashion anything you can accuse Obama of. We allowed him to govern us for eight years.
Yep, I remember when the Sudan offered to turn over OBL and Bush turned him down. Oh wait...
I could not agree more with Megan. This is the lone action of a disturbed individual and should in no way be used as a political weapon against the great, noble, inherently-peaceful religion that is Islam.
Doing so would be just as wrong as using the half-dozen or so honor killings that happen in the US every year to tar Islam or suggesting that the lone wacko recently arrested after driving to NYC with intent of setting off massive bombs was somehow inspired by the ancient, godly religion of Islam. And certainly the very few terror plots that have been born out of isolated mosques are no indication that there is any inclination towards that sort of thing in the ancient & accepting religion of Islam.
We must realize that when people who happen to be of a Muslim background attack others in ways that seem to be in keeping with the interpretations of Islam promoted by some of its most esteemed clerics, such as the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, this should in no way influence our thinking about the pacifist, holy religion of Islam.
Always, in these cases, the true danger of which we must be ever viligant is the looming, massively-violent, bigoted retaliation against the decent, inspired religion of Islam by the evil redneck fascists who make up the vast, vast majority of our population.
The penchant of white Americans towards deranged acts of violence against peace-loving Muslims in response to these isolated incidents that in no way reflect on the sanctified character of the great religion of Islam are well-known and well-documented.
We must take care to guard against an uprising of the ignorant savages populating middle-America who would gladly take out their feeble-minded, misguided vengance on the great & good religion of Islam over these meaningless abberations perpetrated by disturbed individuals. And, of course, with each additional odd, one-of-a-kind, only seemingly Muslim-related incident of this kind, our guard against the fervid underbelly of America must grow stronger.
It should also be noted that some Iranian clerics do not view America as the Great Satan or believe that the Iranian people should be denied democracy and governed theocratically. To judge all Iranian clerics by the actions of a few misguided extremists who happen to be in charge of the country would be the worst kind of prejudice.
Most Iranians are peaceful and want nuclear energy for only peaceful uses, so there's no reason to worry about Iran building nuclear weapons.
It's time to extend an open hand.
I find your view fascinating, and would be interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
Actually, this comment appeared far less over the top than your usually fare, probably because this is EXACTLY what many talking heads have been saying, even on the dreaded Fox News.
1. He is not a lunatic; he is a terrorist.
2. He is not psychotic; his attack was idelogical.
3. He is not suffering from PTSD; he is a Muslim extremist.
4. Why should not we jump to conclusions; why should we not reach conclusions based on the facts at hand?
5. Why is it only acceptable to speculate if such speculation meets someone elses criteria of what is politically correct?
4. When there is a continuing pattern of Muslims assassinating innocent Americans, why is it wrong to conclude (1) that to some Muslims, this is a religious war, (2) that we cannot determine who those Muslims are or to what extent theyy represent a silent majority of Muslims and (3) why we should not be suspicious of all Muslims?
His brethren inside the US government need to be taken out as well.
One of fellow Muslims figured out he was a dangerous extremist (and to his credit, tried to bring him around):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-07/major-hasans-hidden-militancy/full/
Why should be expect moderate Muslims to stand up to these guys when the US Government coddles these extremists - talk about sending a mixed message!
I blame Obama for not foreseeing that troops would need body armor before deploying to Fort Hood.
I do too. The enemy is behind our wire, and Barack Obama is not taking the threat seriously.
He's too busy denigrating America on world tours, playing golf with his male buddies and sweating out sessions of midnight basketball.
From Orlando today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602294.html
Your thinly veiled sarcasm aside, I think that "meaningless aberrations by disturbed individuals" is exactly the way to interpret these actions.
Yeah, it's not like the Washington Post has ever spun something favorably for the President.
"And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd."
Really? Isn't that how the US responded to the efforts of a few psychopaths on 09/11/2001?
When were you born? 9/12/2001?
I'm with Stewie. A few thousand people are killed, and everyone loses all perspective.
I mean, 10,000 people a year die in car crashes, yet no one is talking about bombing Ford or Chrysler.
These man-caused disasters should be met with hugs and comforting, not bullets and bombs.
Really, I have to take issue with the whole "man-caused disasters" phrase.
First off, it's sexist, because it presumes that only men can cause disasters.
Secondly, it implicitly sides with a single frame of reference by using a negative word. Perhaps, when considered from a different point of view, it wasn't a "disaster". Perhaps it was an "opportunity", or merely an "event".
And then there's the complexity of determining the true "cause" of any event; was it a senseless act of violence, or the results of generations of oppression? Rather than get bogged down in the details, one should perhaps say "committed" or "initiated"
Therefore in future, these acts of violence would more accurately be referred to as a "person initiated events" or "stuff that happened that we're not willing to make any moral judgments about" or "we're not sure why, but we're apologizing, would you please stop blowing stuff up and/or murdering people".
I see that the dateline on the CAIR statement is 11-5 or yesterday. They were quoted as saying they were afraid Hasan's actions might cause some negative incidents toward Muslims. The statement that you quote is responsible. The action of this Hasan, killing fellow soldiers when both he and they have signed up to defend the US as directed through the chain of command, while accepting the benefits of military service is infantile. However else it might be categorized such actions, the earlier quote of CAIR and Hasan's murders, the 9/11 attacks, suggests that the Muslim religion tends to lead to an infantile view of the world.
Yes, apparently he believed girls have cooties so he wouldn't be in pictures with them.
The guy can be a terrorist without being directly affiliated with a known terrorist organization. Clearly he as a sympathizer and acted on those beliefs, a distinction without a difference. I don't understand the hesitancy to call this what it is.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
It almost sounds as if they consider Americans and Islam to be different groups, with no overlap. Do they mean relations between Americans and Muslims who are not American citizens? In that case they have nothing to say in this situation as the shooter was an American citizen. Or do they deal with relations between Muslims, both American citizens and not, with the "rest" of America? Or are they solely concerned with American Muslims relation to the rest of Americans?
Why is there no Council for Medical Professionals-American Relations. There are Medical Professionals in America and in many other countries. What about the clash of interest of the Medical community and America? Catholic-American Relations? The deep gash between Catholic interests and American interests. Transgendered-American Relations? And of course African American-American Relations, where Obama gets to sit on both sides of the table.
No, he was not a lunatic or a psychopath.
His actions were goal-oriented and rational. In exchange for his own life and a few dozen bullets, he killed thirteen soldiers of the force he (logically) saw as a deadly enemy of people he (plausibly) identified with. He wounded thirty more. He's inflicted damage to the morale of that enemy, both military and civilian. There will be resources consumed in security reviews and rechecks of procedures for looking for early warning signs.
Traitor, yes. Terrorist, yes. Evil, yes. But also rational and effective in pursuing those evil traitorous ends through terrorist means.
Psychopaths can be perfectly cold blooded and rational--indeed, that's what makes them terrifying.
Yes, some psychopaths can be cold blooded and rational.
Interestingly, so can jihadists. The available facts overwhelmingly support the notion that he is a jihadist, not a psychopath. New facts may change that conclusion...but I would not want to bet a whole of money on it.
@ Lunatic:
His actions were goal-oriented and rational.
Insane assumptions, processed in a logical
way, result in irrational actions.
Interesting question for the court-martial;
Is he legally insane ?
Does he know, and respect, the difference
between right and wrong, as he defines
those terms ?
More generally, if members of a group are
_statistically_ more likely to be a danger
to themselves or others, should they be
excluded from the military, or from society ?
Anyone care to quantify the probability
of events such as the one at Ft. hood,
and the extent of the damage they do ?
Some of you have lost your minds over this issue.
This guy had serious issues. Who knows what was wrong with him. I suspect that he suffered from serious depression, and was suicidal. Except that he murdered a whole lot of folks first. It's quite possible that he had jihadi beliefs that caused him to carry out his depression in this fashion, that he felt the need to take out so many people with him.
That said, the idea that it's "always" Muslims is lunacy and is really nothing but veiled hatred. Somebody said that McVeigh is always the one example trotted out. Well, I've got a lot more for you. All of the following people committed crimes on the same order of magnitude, and none were Muslim:
The serial killer in Cleveland.
Va Tech killings
The guy in Pittsburgh who laid a trap for the cops and killed several of them before getting shot.
Columbine. The 1980s postal shootings (the origin of the phrase "going postal").
Baruch Goldstein, the Brooklyn Jew who opened fire in Hebron and killed 23 Palestinians.
The guy who opened fire on the LIRR a decade or so ago
The Unabomber
The Anthrax guy
Just off the top of my head. And this doesn't even go back that far.
The question isn't whether it's always Muslims, but whether there are systems in place that encourage psychopaths to manifest their tendencies in violent ways.
Think of it as a set of smaller and smaller groups.
All people > psychopaths with violent tendencies > psychopaths with violent tendencies who actually go out and kill a bunch of people.
To cross the line from just having violent thoughts to actually engaging in violent acts, even "evil" or psychopathic people generally develop a rationale for their behavior.
And the problem is that the extremist version of Islam is one that seems to encourage crossing that line.
If you want a gratuitous insult hurled at your political enemies, one might consider it similar to the situation where the Catholic priesthood appeared to create an environment that attracted and eased the path of pedophiles to actually abusing people.
That doesn't make the Catholic church evil, but the reality of the situation puts the responsibility on it to prevent abuse and direct those sickos into situations where they both won't and can't act on their impulses.
There's a saying: All serial killers are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are serial killers...
Psychiatrists believe that one out of every ten people is a psychopath and something like three in ten of those will commit actual physical violence as a result.
The rest learn to live with, and hide their condition, but they remain just as dangerous because they have no conscience.
They will lie, cheat, steal...etc and either blame everything on someone else, or simply ignore the threat of any consequences because they believe they're better than everyone else.
In other words, most of them are politicians.
And I'm not even joking.
False equivalencies.
He identified with an ideology that considers the US military to be an enemy that must be killed to save Muslims.
There is no evidence of issues, depression, or suicidal thoughts. There is plenty of evidence of jihadic intent.
This wasn't random, it was premeditated. He attacked the assembly area for deployments for a specific, understandable reason.
Dan asks: "
When were you born? 9/12/2001?
"
May of 1956. Why? What's your point? That I was not around to have witnessed the tragedy of that day? A couple of friends and former co-workers at the Pentagon died that day. I'm well aware of what a shitty day that was for many people.
As Tall Dave was trying to point out - since 2001 over 300,000 people have died on US highways. Why is the ongoing tragedy caused by incompetent and/or drunk drivers not one we try to address seriously? Why do so many of us just accept the 40,000+ highway deaths each year as well..."acceptable losses"?
Yet a handful of psycho jihadis score a hit which prompts great panic in us with the result of great loss to our liberty and our treasury and the loss (so far...) of more than 4000 brave US soldiers and tens of thousand innocent Iraqis and Afganis.
So yeah...Meghan's statement is false.
@ Brain Fertilizer Bomb :)
Jihadist or psychopath ?
Rational or logical ?
Ignore what is said, and
judge by what is done.
When attempting to distinguish
between sane and insane, the
motivation matters; The same
action can be performed for
good or bad reasons.
Christians, or at any rate Catholics,
make the distinction between suicide
and self-sacrifice in terms of motivation,
just as the shooter did; In his case, there
was no good (sane) reason for what he did;
Whether attempting to enter Paradise, or
avoid an unpleasant future, or save the
lives of fellow Jihadists, who were strangers
to him, his motivation was not sane.
That's a little bit like saying: There is no reason to murder anyone, so anyone who does so must be insane.
Would you say all murderers should go free since murdering one's fellow human is clearly not the act of a sane, well-adjusted individual?
I'm sorry, I cannot accept the "He went nuts" theory. He had other options, and chose not to take them. His choices have consequences for the individuals he shot, and their families. His choices and following actions make it clear he cannot co-exist with other law-abiding citizens. He should be punished for his choices, and his punishment should be an example that deters others from making the same choices.
If we are going to be honest about things, we'll note that a particularly extreme brand of a particular religion appears to draw in and direct the behavior of random psychopaths toward shooting up (blowing up, crashing into, etc.) crowds of innocent people.
There are other extremist religious groups and other random psychopaths, but none of the former have quite the leadership, institutional framework and set of philosophical justifications to encourage the random psychopaths it comes across to engage in acts of mass violence.
Why should psycho and jihadi terrorist be mutually exclusive diagnoses? Looking at the last 8 years, I see lots of overlap - the head-sawing of Berg and Pearl especially come to mind.
I understand that journalists don't want to provide the spark that gets a mosque torched, but you cannot cover for Muslim extremists forever. To continue to do so, to push the debate and questions out of the legitimate sphere of discussion will only lead to the rise of a US version of the BNP.
So if a Christian shoots up an abortion clinic we need to spend weeks trying to determine if he was just a loony (probable - who shoots up innocent people other than loonies) or a political actor?
Christian => voiced ainti abortion speach => expressed that abortionists should die => shot up abortion clinic = we know his motive
Muslum => voiced ainti US military speach => expressed that non muslums should die => shot up a US military base = what in the world could have caused this?
There is a difference between a motive and a cause.
We know what McVeigh was trying to do in the OKC bombings. We know he was motivated by right-wing political thought. Does that mean right-wing ideology *caused* that, or that an unstable individual latched onto an ideology as he cratered over the edge?
Charles Manson talked a lot about the coming race war. Does that mean either MLK or Malcolm X were responsible?
Sorry, muzzybelly, you made a significant logical error.
McVeigh showed no compassion and no empathy when he set off his bombs.
That makes him a liberal.
The reference with McVeigh contrasts exactly the point. Ideology exists withing a support system. Amongst "right wing political thought" there isn't much support for going out and mass murdering people. Which explains why there's relatively few McVeighs and no one lauding him. There an unstable individual latched onto an ideology that generally doesn't want him latched onto them.
Extremist Muslim communities, on the other hand, seems to create mutually reinforcing ideological attachments that encourage the already unstable to violence like moths to a flame.
Exactly. In the news media the Christian would be held responsible as the cause of his evil actions. Perhaps there would be an insinuation that all Christians are responsible in some small way, what with their hate speach against doctors and clinics. The Muslum's actions would be viewed as caused by the war in Iraq, exposure to trama of returning solders and the discrimination he experienced in the Army.
To anyone who takes Islam seriously, the First Amendment is an unnaceptable restriction. In fact, the entire US Constitution is a blasphemous substitute for the only acceptable basis for political power - shariah. Islam and allegiance to the US Constitution are flatly incompatible, and there is no one alive who truly practices both. All Muslims have sworn, over and over and over again, to overthrow the Constitution of the United States by force.
But Megan is right, it's not political. To a Muslim, politics is deciding how to divide up the infidels' wives, daughters, and other posessions. Killing infidels is simply a necessary prelude to politics - and a sacred duty. Don't take my word for it. It's all right there in the Koran.
jerome your bombastic post is funny
If you think Muslims killing infidels is funny, you're going to love the next decade or so. Once the Iranian nukes come online, there's a good chance you'll die laughing.
It is true that most people who go into Psychiatry are a little off, but I think it highly unlikely that a genuine psychopath would have not been filtered out by the people running a psychiatry school. Rather the extremist version of Islam he became attached to deliberately tries to inculcate the traits of a psychopath(arrogance, aggressiveness, total lack of empathy) into its followers.
There are political implications to this act. The murders at Columbine led to a change in the way police respond to gunmen and how teachers respond to potentially violent children. This terrorist act should lead to a change in how the government responds to Muslim extremists on the payroll.