You don't exactly offer any penetrating insights in your initial post.
Edit: I"m not locking the thread or anything, I'm just commenting that there's not much to discuss. An army doctor, who was also apparently a devout muslim, went crazy and shot a bunch of people. It's water cooler conversation, "you hear about that?" "yeah, that sucks"
No, because the first reports I heard were that a lone shooter with two accomplices shot x people and killed y before being shot and killed himself, although he was already stable in intensive care and on the run. The shooter was a convert to Islam who had been in the faith all his life as a Pakistani from Palestine born in Virginia.
This is a case where speculation really isn't a good idea, but where there is little to do other than discuss the speculation of others and try to work out which facts hold up and which don't.
there are talks about how Prez Obama doesnt care about this issue because he doesnt want the public to know that this traitor Hasan, was a member of his transition team.
Anyone else think this whole matter screams "disgruntled postman/office worker"?
Actually, now I've started to wonder. There is at least one interesting topic of discussion.
I don't have time to comb the web for links right now, But here's a synopsis of what I'm thinking.
When this story first broke, there was kind of a subcurrent in that apparently a lot of major media sources that studiously failed to note that the shooter was islamic. (Newsbusters hit on this as some example of liberal bias, but I'm not really sure that it's that). Casey made a speech about "not jumping to conclusions," Then Biden (like 5 minutes later) sticks his foot in his mouth and calls it "an act of terrorism."
Even now there's a curious debate going on. There's some evidence that the shooter may have become involved with some radical islamic thinking, and some others (His grandfather in Palestine) swear that couldn't be true. The counter argument is that he showed signs of mental stress and defects that were recognizable. But though all of it, there seems to be a reluctance (except on the part of a certain subgroup who's using it for political hay) to use the word "Terrorism."
is it just because the guy was in the military? or because he was a psychologist? or something else entirely.
For it to be a terrorist act would require some sort of statement of motivation or intent. It's a horrific act, but without tying it to some goal or motive it doesn't really become terrorism. Seeing as the guy is alive, I don't doubt we are going to learn his intent eventually. Speculating on hearsay and rumour isn't really worth it.
I think the real reluctance is because people don't want to feed the assumption that any such act by an Islamic individual is based on the religion or Islamist terrorist groups. I'd argue it doesn't need wider involvement with a group or planning beyond the individual to be terrorism, but those tend to be assumed these days. As such, labeling it terrorism instantly leads most people to ask questions about infiltration into the military by terrorist groups and so the role of Muslims in the military. I doubt I need to mention the sorts of calls already being put out by the shrills.
I agree that it is dangerous to label this as Muslim terrorism/extremism esspecially as we actually have a way of finding out what drove this man to complete these acts. It seems that America is in danger of making Islam the new communism if we go down this road.
I do not understand why this is being marked "An Act of Terrorism". This man was a military officer who consciously decided that he would murder his fellow soldiers. I do not care about his religion, he actively petitioned to terrorist organizations, and pre-meditated his actions. That is treason.
an an/ən; when stressed æn/ [uhn; when stressed an] –indefinite article the form of a before an initial vowel sound (an arch; an honor) and sometimes, esp. in British English, before an initial unstressed syllable beginning with a silent or weakly pronounced h: an historian.
act  /ækt/ [akt] –noun 1. anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance: a heroic act.
of  /ʌv, ɒv; unstressed əv or, especially before consonants, ə/ [uhv, ov; unstressed uhv or, especially before consonants, uh] –preposition 3. (used to indicate cause, motive, occasion, or reason): to die of hunger.
ter⋅ror⋅ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Seeing as that source is pretty flimsy and seemingly political in nature ('senior lawmaker'), and even then the supposed leak doesn't match the headline ('CIA isn't clarifying and have been ordered to keep all their files for inspection' vs 'HE SPOKE TO TERRORISTS!!!'), I'm going to wait the days it takes to get a statement from the concious shooter.
Douchebag, noun, A jerk; a mean or rude person; An idiot, a dim-witted person; An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth, compounded by a low self-esteem.
i guess if the person was a christian, it would make front page news for you, wouldnt it? but since its a mUSlim.... you obviously dont care to talk about it....
For it to be a terrorist act would require some sort of statement of motivation or intent. It's a horrific act, but without tying it to some goal or motive it doesn't really become terrorism. Seeing as the guy is alive, I don't doubt we are going to learn his intent eventually. Speculating on hearsay and rumour isn't really worth it.
I think the real reluctance is because people don't want to feed the assumption that any such act by an Islamic individual is based on the religion or Islamist terrorist groups.
I think some more evidence is coming out, and I'm not sure we would get his motivation directly from him. At a certain point the best thing for him would be to clam up.
But the broader question is how much is enough?
What I'm getting at is that I think most terrorists (particularly those that engage in some sort of suicide or intended suicide act) aren't exactly normal psychologically anyway. A person with a healthy psychological profile would rarely decide to blow themselves up or go into a situation where they don't expect to come out alive without some serious motivation. If anything, I'd probably think that (Assuming they really have to recruit for this and people just don't volunteer) that Terrorist leaders would look for people with a certain psychological profile. There's a kind of person who could go through with a bombing and a kind of person who couldn't or would be so nervous/afraid/whatever that he'd screw it up.
So how much ideology is enough before we broach a line between considering something "just someone snapping" versus, some sort of act that might be called a terrorist attack.
and how much motivation is enough? If someone is unbalanced and snaps, but has also been deeply influenced by a certain ideology, is that a terrorist or is that just someone snapping?
To completely jump to a different path of argument. I don't think you need an organization to be considered a "terrorist." Timothy McVeigh would almost certainly be a terrorist, and although he associated with militia groups, he mostly conducted the act on his own.
To completely jump to a different path of argument. I don't think you need an organization to be considered a "terrorist." Timothy McVeigh would almost certainly be a terrorist, and although he associated with militia groups, he mostly conducted the act on his own.
I'm thinking more of the results of branding the act terrorism. People instantly think of the major terrorist groups (AQ) and cells of agents. Already people are talking about infiltrations into the military as a results of this.
The Fort Hood killer escaped scrutiny because of an obsession with ‘diversity’ shared by government officials and fostered by elite media like the New York Times.
Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. (He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
Our government’s obsession with “diversity” created the climate in which officers were afraid to report his suspicious behavior. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, “a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint,” reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, “repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers,” was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking “about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.” But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The lesson of the Fort Hood shootings is that applying politically-correct double standards, rather than treating people equally, can be lethal. (Dorothy Rabinowitz has an excellent column on related themes in today’s Wall Street Journal.)
In a desire to curry favor with the liberal Congress that funds it (and the Obama Administration), the military has increasingly adopted politically-correct policies that abandon equal treatment. One example is racial preferences in admissions to the military academies, imposed in the name of “diversity.” (In practice, “diversity” seems to mean crude “racial proportionality”: it is harder for Asians to be admitted to the academies than for whites and Hispanics, and harder for whites and Hispanics to be admitted than for African-Americans. Such preferences are of dubious legality under Supreme Court precedent.)
In this climate of political correctness and double standards, it is understandable that officers were afraid to file complaints about Hasan, for fear that they would incur the wrath of the “diversity” police.
Even now, the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, denies that the military failed to pick up the obvious warning signs about Hasan, and he is more concerned that the shootings will undermine the army’s commitment to “diversity,” than he is about the tragedy itself. He claims that a backlash against diversity would be an even “worse” tragedy than the one that took place at Fort Hood. He remains wedded to a “zero tolerance” policy against criticism of “diversity,” i.e., double standards. He seems more concerned that “diversity” will become a “casualty” of such shootings than that American soldiers will.
President Obama’s initial response to the tragedy was embarrassing, even for some liberal journalists. Obama’s initial remarks about the tragedy came buried in the middle of a speech laced with “wildly disconnected” ramblings about an unrelated topic, starting with a “joking shout-out.” Even the liberal Boston Globe chided the president for a speech lacking in ”empathy” for the victims.
In an absurd display of political correctness, early media reports chose to harp on the false claim that the killer had PTSD (which he didn’t: he never even served overseas) or the unsupported claim that he had been subjected to harassment (support groups for Muslim soldiers say they have received no recent reports of harassment). They also jumped to conclusions in denying that the shooter’s motives had anything to do with his extreme religious beliefs or “any related political causes.”
My beef isn’t with Christians, evangelical or otherwise. It’s with the notion that all Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent.
And yet, it’s on record that when the abortionist Tiller was murdered, Olberman wasted no time in labeling it a “terrorist” action. See Newsbusters for the evidence. And he has yet to label this action as “terrorist.” Hemming and hawing from libs on this issue of Islam isn’t hiding it, it’s only exposing it. You’re not fooling anyone.
Oh, and of course no one believes that if a fundamentalist Christian did something similar, the MSM would refrain from leaping to judgments on Christianity or his faith. Their entire purpose is basically to destroy Christianity, as it’s part of their general attack on Western Civ.
Those two posters are among the most ridiculous on that blog, but I've seen those exact comments echoed elsewhere. Along with some that were more extreme.
Perhaps we need to remove possible/probable Arab/Muslim sympathizers from the military. I know it sounds racist/discriminatory, but as you can see, it may be at least worth discussing.
As a soldier myself, I know I would have felt safer not having Muslim soldiers next to me. We had a medic who refused to fight when we went, so they made him an interpreter, guy gave me the creeps every fucking day. I honestly have to say I expected him to make a move, and everyday I was on my guard when he was around.
You should probably also not let Jewish people serve because of the situation in Israel, also let's just get rid of the homosexuals rather than the don't ask don't tell policy to make sure they don't give other soldiers the creeps, then you'd have to get rid of anyone with an ethnic origin America is currently fighting against, and just in cast they hold a grudge anyone who America has ever fought against, so anyone with a British, French, Iraqi, German, Japanese, Chinese, Italian, African, Vietnamese and anyone else I have mentioned, just in case.
Would that make you feel less creeped out?
Seriously, your own prejudice and ignorance of Arab and Muslim culture is no reason to remove them from your military. What sort of message does that send to other nations or people of ethnic background in the American military?
Incidentally, the guy who "gave you the creeps" obviously didn't end up turning on you and killing you so it turns out that you are just a massive racist. You were prejudiced against somebody for no reason other than their religious beliefs and that is offensive. I would rather a Muslim be trained in the American military than an ignorant moron like you.
Totally agree with you, bro. Saying that so that frenchyMcNoBaths can't say "You're Welsh so contextually your opinion doesn't matter." Not that it is likely that he even knows what "context" means, but...
Seriously, man. That's a little more than fucked up. You may want to do a little self-evaluation on your priorities. There's a difference between expressing your opinion and spouting verbal diarrhea, and unfortunately, that line is far closer than it should be.
Sorry, just expressing the way I felt in combat. When someone refuses to fight because of their nationality yet they are part of the US ARMY, makes you second guess their motives.
conscientious objectors don't carry weapons bud. No he just refused to do patrols. We were infantry medics. It was our job to enter houses, clear them, do patrols, everything the regular 11B soldier does, we were only medics when someone was sick or injured. We are all soldiers. This one immigrated from Egypt, joined the Army during time of War, and then didn't want to do his job. Made me nervous. Just as nervous as any one of those armed Iraqi nationals we were training.
