Fort Hood Massacre

[brian0918]

From this NPR report :“A key official on a [Walter Reed] review committee reportedly asked how it might look to terminate a key resident who happened to be a Muslim.”

If this isn’t ”political correctness,” nothing is.

Isn't that the exact same reason this guy was able to make it through his education and up the ranks - nobody wanted to drop him because he was Muslim and it would look bad?

[The Wrath]

I'm not the one for psychoanalizing Obama, but my best guess is that he in fact is horrified by the murders and is heading down there to pay his respects to the murdered. Another possibility is that he doesn't care either way, and is just going there for a political show.

Either way, your version of what his state of mind is like is baseless, emotionalist speculation.

For once, I agree with Jake. Where is the evidence that Obama sympathizes with crazed gunmen? Or Islamic terrorists? Whatever flaws Obama's foreign policy has, I don't think you can genuinely accuse him of sympathizing with the cause of Islamic terrorists. At worst, he just opposes America's involvement in the current military actions abroad.

[freestyle]

For once, I agree with Jake. Where is the evidence that Obama sympathizes with crazed gunmen? Or Islamic terrorists?

If you're going to ask that question then you'll need to provide an example of what you would accept as "evidence" enough of one's mindset. An example might be helpful to know what you consider acceptable for a statement about mindset to rise past "baseless". Depending on your standards, there may be mountains of evidence -- or none at all.

You're asking "where is the evidence" so I assume there is some type of evidence you would consider? Unless you would, in fact, only accept a conclusive verbal statement that specifically states something along the lines of "I sympathize with people who, for some particular reason or belief, commit terrorist acts."

Can the following statement be considered as a small part of evidence of mindset? (Not conclusive by any means, of course.)

Jake Tapper (ABC News): Philosophically, what separates an act of violence from an act of terrorism?

OBAMA: Well, look, we -- we have seen, in the past,

rampages of this sort.

And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be

acts of violence that are inexplicable

. Even within the extraordinary military that we have -- and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress -- there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks."

(my emphasis)

That statement just seems odd to me. Why try to obfuscate the fact that this was a terrorist act? It makes no sense to deny reality. Just more political calculating? I don't know.

I totally ignored the "guilt by association" claims during the campaign. I saw Obama as a rookie politician was pure political pragmatist and suppressed his ideology in favor of political expediency.. I didn't read his books, so at the time, I didn't have a feel for his true ideology is.

So if you say that someone's statement, which he based on friendly associations with a known terrorist bomber, is baseless, then I'd want to know what (if any) "evidence" is acceptable.

Maybe you're right based on your standard. I'd just want to know what that standard is. I'm not here to make a full case for where Obama's sympathies truly lie. I was only defending a poster who, I did not feel, made a "baseless" statement.

[2046]

I want to chaulk comments like that up to the fact that Obama worships at the altar of multiculturalism, but in the back of my mind I always think it's probably something far more evil.

[The Wrath]

If you're going to ask that question then you'll need to provide an example of what you would accept as "evidence" enough of one's mindset. An example might be helpful to know what you consider acceptable for a statement about mindset to rise past "baseless". Depending on your standards, there may be mountains of evidence -- or none at all.

You're asking "where is the evidence" so I assume there is some type of evidence you would consider? Unless you would, in fact, only accept a conclusive verbal statement that specifically states something along the lines of "I sympathize with people who, for some particular reason or belief, commit terrorist acts."

Can the following statement be considered as a small part of evidence of mindset? (Not conclusive by any means, of course.)

Jake Tapper (ABC News): Philosophically, what separates an act of violence from an act of terrorism?

OBAMA: Well, look, we -- we have seen, in the past,

rampages of this sort.

And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be

acts of violence that are inexplicable

. Even within the extraordinary military that we have -- and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress -- there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks."

(my emphasis)

That statement just seems odd to me. Why try to obfuscate the fact that this was a terrorist act? It makes no sense to deny reality. Just more political calculating? I don't know.

I totally ignored the "guilt by association" claims during the campaign. I saw Obama as a rookie politician was pure political pragmatist and suppressed his ideology in favor of political expediency.. I didn't read his books, so at the time, I didn't have a feel for his true ideology is.

So if you say that someone's statement, which he based on friendly associations with a known terrorist bomber, is baseless, then I'd want to know what (if any) "evidence" is acceptable.

Maybe you're right based on your standard. I'd just want to know what that standard is. I'm not here to make a full case for where Obama's sympathies truly lie. I was only defending a poster who, I did not feel, made a "baseless" statement.

Give me a break. Nothing in the quote you just provided could even possibly be taken as a sanction for this type of behavior, except by a mindless conspiracy nut. Judging by your posts in this thread, you fit the bill.

What would I take as evidence? How about Obama calling for jihad against the infidels? Or saying that it was "society's fault." Or saying that it was America's fault for fighting wars that forced him to choose between his country and his religion. I haven't heard of any comparable statements made by Obama.

And, sorry, but you're wrong when you say it was an act of terrorism. I'm not usually one to be a Nazi about using proper definitions, but it irritates me when people use the most derogatory term they can think of, just to underline their disdain for whoever they happen to be speaking against. See my previous posts regarding use of the word "savage," if you need another example. So, here it goes...terrorism is by definition committed against civilians. Call it evil if you wish. But calling it terrorism is factually incorrect, and I strongly suspect that neither you nor anyone else would be using that word had it been a Christian who yelled out "In the name of Christ" before he opened fire.

Was he an Islamic radical? The answer to that question is muddled, at best. Admittedly, some of the evidence is pretty damning. But some of it just doesn't add up...why would he spend enough time in the Great Satan's military to achieve the rank of major, if he were an Islamic radical? It also looks like there was a good chance that he was mentally ill.

[SD26]

So, here it goes...terrorism is by definition committed against civilians. Call it evil if you wish. But calling it terrorism is factually incorrect...

The State Department defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Noncombatants includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time.

Was he a terrorist? I really don't care. He's a murderer, and the UCMJ is in swing. No need for any other "enhancements". Let the system work.

Edited November 15, 2009 by SD26

[Skieski]

Shouting "Allah Akbar" while you kill over a dozen people does make you crazy, a terrorist, a Muslim and hence, a crazy Muslim terrorist.

With all due respect, the ramifications of the subject are too many to make such a statement. I do agree in the crazy part though.

[SD26]

With all due respect, the ramifications of the subject are too many to make such a statement. I do agree in the crazy part though.

Crazy is too much.

This was a determined course of action that he initiated himself. There were "warnings", but certainly not all individuals that do the things he did prior to the act at Ft Hood end up killing others.

If we are supporters of individual rights, our focus should be on the soldiers, individuals that are generally recognized as state uniformed persons that can carry arms, being disarmed by government for the protection of others.

[freestyle]

Give me a break. Nothing in the quote you just provided could even possibly be taken as a sanction for this type of behavior, except by a mindless conspiracy nut. Judging by your posts in this thread, you fit the bill.

What would I take as evidence? How about Obama calling for jihad against the infidels? Or saying that it was "society's fault." Or saying that it was America's fault for fighting wars that forced him to choose between his country and his religion. I haven't heard of any comparable statements made by Obama.

And, sorry, but you're wrong when you say it was an act of terrorism. I'm not usually one to be a Nazi about using proper definitions, but it irritates me when people use the most derogatory term they can think of, just to underline their disdain for whoever they happen to be speaking against. See my previous posts regarding use of the word "savage," if you need another example. So, here it goes...terrorism is by definition committed against civilians. Call it evil if you wish. But calling it terrorism is factually incorrect, and I strongly suspect that neither you nor anyone else would be using that word had it been a Christian who yelled out "In the name of Christ" before he opened fire.

Was he an Islamic radical? The answer to that question is muddled, at best. Admittedly, some of the evidence is pretty damning. But some of it just doesn't add up...why would he spend enough time in the Great Satan's military to achieve the rank of major, if he were an Islamic radical? It also looks like there was a good chance that he was mentally ill.

Give me a break. Stop being emotional and re-read. I didn't claim that quote was proof of anything. I asked you a question. And then you get personal and call me a conspiracy nut? Please practice some discipline.

And thank you. You have just told me that you would take evidence of Obama's mindset by his public call for jihad. That most definitely has not happened.

You also said if he said it was "society's fault" you might take that as some evidence of mindset and/or if he blamed America for fighting unjust wars you might consider that. From the front page of this website: "The suspicions about Obama's anti-Americanism will linger." (link (3/19/08)) That was about the time I became aware that this suspicion was out there. Since then, people who hold this suspicion have pointed to a number of Obama actions and quotes. You can read the criticisms from his Cairo speech, and you can read the criticisms of this latest decision to bring the 9/11 planner (KSM) to New York to try in civil court. Again, I have made no claim that there is some sort of definitive proof that Obama sympathizes with the plight of terrorists. I only supported someone, who proposed that thought, against the claim that the idea was baseless. That link refers to the association with his alleged anti-American former reverend. In fact, that is the same "basis" used in the post above that Jake took issue with.

As for your terrorism definition, one of the dead was a civilian, as well as a number of the injured. So I guess, technically, you are wrong by your own definition. Nevertheless, I totally reject your limited definition of terrorism as attacks committed on civilians alone. We can't just make up definitions. Neither "terror" or "ism" can get you there, so I'd be interested in where you came to this belief. There is, however, quite a bit of debate about how to define terrorism and I do understand that. But EVADING the fact that this was terrorism is such a level of denial and mental gymnastics that I could never find idealogical common ground with a person that took that view.

And why would you "strongly suspect" that I would think an act of terrorism is NOT an act of terrorism depending on what nutty religious yell the killer shouts out?!? The politically motivated killing of innocent people (and in this case, all non-combatants) in mass, with the intent of causing fear, terror, or affecting political change through random violence, is fine with me to call terrorism.

And yeah -- the evidence is extremely damning. Almost, you could say, impossible to ignore. Maybe he was mentally ill? Umm... Yeah, I think so. I think all terrorists are mentally ill. You have to be to take self sacrifice, or religious altruism or self-immolation to that extreme. Don't ya think? Mentally ill does not mean "not a terrorist".

Edited November 15, 2009 by freestyle

[The Wrath]

I think all terrorists are mentally ill. You have to be to take self sacrifice, or religious altruism or self-immolation to that extreme. Don't ya think? Mentally ill does not mean "not a terrorist".

You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Mental illness is not a requirement for self-immolation, and I challenge you to find a single psychological study that will argue such. Willingness to commit self-immolation or suicide terrorism is, if nothing else, a demonstration of the malleability of the human mind, such that people can be brainwashed into committing such acts. If it were mental illness, then we should expect to see similar rates of such behavior across all societies, since "mental illness" is not something under our conscious control, but is caused by a number of deterministic factors. The facts are otherwise. It isn't even true across different eras of the same culture. Last time I checked, Japan didn't still have kamikaze pilots or people committing sepukku.

The argument that terrorists must be crazy is essentially a circular argument...it's the same as saying that all people who commit suicide are crazy. You say "terrorists are crazy." When asked how you know, you say "because they commit acts of self-immolation." When asked why that makes them crazy, you say "because self-immolation is crazy." You are ignoring the cultural context. Within certain cultures suicide terrorism is not necessarily irrational. Before anyone accuses me of saying that suicide terrorism isn't irrational, what I mean is that--given a strong religious belief as a starting point--if you believe that eternal paradise awaits you for blowing yourself up, then (within the context of that belief) blowing yourself up is not an irrational decision. What you have is an irrational starting point, but the train of thought that leads from that starting point to the ultimate result can be entirely rational...and it can be done by a sane person.

I recommend the US govt study "Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why" for a more detailed discussion on why mental illness does not go hand-in-hand with terrorism.

[freestyle]

.. Willingness to commit self-immolation or suicide terrorism is, if nothing else, a demonstration of the malleability of the human mind, such that people can be brainwashed into committing such acts. ...

So you're saying it is a mental "weakness" of the individual then. I agree with that. I simply was saying that it is a sick mind that will do these things. An irrational mind. I was not intending to convey that lawyers could successfully argue for clinical insanity or anything. The point I made was that being "mentally ill" does not mean one cannot be a terrorist as well.

When asked how you know, you say "because they commit acts of self-immolation. When asked why that makes them crazy, you say "because self-immolation is crazy."

I have made no such statements for you to quote. And I do not make gigantic leaps to conclusions as those quotes suggest. There is no way I would confine clinically "crazy" to self-immolation.

...what I mean is that--given a strong religious belief as a starting point--if you believe that eternal paradise awaits you for blowing yourself up, then (within the context of that belief) blowing yourself up is not an irrational decision. What you have is an irrational starting point, but the train of thought that leads from that starting point to the ultimate result can be entirely rational...and it can be done by a sane person.

Now that is just "crazy" relativism. (irony intended) - An irrational and insane starting point cannot serve as a foundation for an entirely rational train of thought. Clinically "sane" or not, there's usually going to be a rationalization in there somewhere. Don't all of us here agree that an individual imposing violent force on other individuals not in self defense is objectively NOT rational?

I guess you and I would really have to agree to definition of "a sane person" before going much further. I have trouble associating sanity with any human being that, say, intentionally straps explosives to himself and blows up random masses of men, women and children.

[whYNOT]

Wouldn't "mixed evils" answer a lot of what has been put forward here?

We are all aware of the fundamental irrationality that accompanies the deist - it's just that by some process of rationalization, most avoid having to follow through on the basic premises of their religion, and can evade being consistent. Islam, by its violent extremism, is the most glaring example.

To view this killer as an outright terrorist, would have to lead one to the conclusion that he was a 'sleeper', put in place many years ago, in order to carry out this attack. Nobody believes this, do they?

What seems more likely is that he is mentally unstable/clinically insane, and consumed by hatred of fellow soldiers, and snapping finally at the prospect of being transferred to the war zone, as well as being goaded on some cynical brutish Muslim cleric, he went back to his roots - his lifelong brainwashing from the koran. The insanely 'logical' conclusion, meant death to the infidel.

My speculation can't really scratch the surface of what happens when you combine a horrifically irrational religion, with one irrational person. How do you make sense of non-sense?

[freestyle]

How do you make sense of non-sense?

I would offer that you do this by stating the obvious. He's a crazy terrorist. I just see no reason sugar coat it.

P.S. I don't think you have to come to the conclusion that if he is a terrorist he had to be a sleeper put in place many years ago. The radicalization of Muslims is a known occurrence. Remember, in June of 2009 we had a shooting in Little Rock Arkansas at a military recruiting base. It was committed by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American convert to Islam.

And in addition to the rest of obvious evidence in this latest attack, Malik Hasan reportedly also had business cards with SoA (Soldier of Allah) on them (I still can't believe this. But it points to both crazy and terrorist on one card). Before this is all done, he may even admit that this was jihad.