CNN.com / MSNBC: Shootings, multiple deaths reported at Fort Hood (MET; Merged)

[NavyDave]

The guy is a terrorist period. Whats funny is how people want to think that all Islamic terrorists are supposed to be uneducated slobbering idiots wanting 20 plus virgins in the afterlife, when there has been evidence to the contrary for years.

Then we have liberals trying to once again use moral relativism to equate radical muslims (that are even here in the Saudi Arabia Mosque in Maryland saying the same thing at a 7-11) to guys commenting about illegal aliens who have murdered,stole, raped kids, etc and get away with a slap on the wrist to commit more crimes instead of kicking them out of the country, until a cable news channel out those giving a light sentence.

[NavyDave]

The terrorist is awake and is talking to investigators. Darn shame he did not have the same painful death as those that he murdered.

The good thing is that there is no way this terrorist is getting life imprisonment for this even with all of the spineless snivelers outside of Texas and on this board who do.

[Heisenberg]

NavyDave your act is so tired. Get some new material and get back to us.

[NavyDave]

NavyDave your act is so tired.

Only to those who deal with theory and not reality and facts on this subject.

[GoSkins561]

It's almost certainly the distinct minority, although I am guessing that you feel otherwise.

You can always find wingnuts who say stupid things, but that doesn't give you license to paint with a brush as broad as a Buick. For example, some people think illegal immigrants should be shot (see below link). There has been violence against people suspected of being illegal immigrants. But, I'm not going to say that every person who screams and yells about illegal immigration is some murdering nutjob.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/11/immigration-new-hampshire-protest/

How many mosques actually teach that Muslims should not side with Christians and fight Muslims? I saw the article that DJTJ posted, good for them, otoh I have read a couple articles suggesting Muslims should not fight other Muslims.

[twa]

Blaming the CIA ignores the TRUE culprit...himself, and is indeed defending him ... and your link has an extraneous back-slash at the end of it so it doesn't work. Here is the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

Heh..touche'

Me and laptops,thanks for the correction

[Madison Redskin]

Only to those who deal with theory and not reality and facts on this subject.

You deal with "reality and facts?" That's pretty hilarious.

[Destino]

The guy is a terrorist period. Whats funny is how people want to think that all Islamic terrorists are supposed to be uneducated slobbering idiots wanting 20 plus virgins in the afterlife, when there has been evidence to the contrary for years. of the country, until a cable news channel out those giving a light sentence.

Matching your routine to the case at hand would do much to increase your credibility. Claiming "uneducated" in a thread commenting on a doctor in the US armed forces committing mass murder is not a great argument.

I think you might be right, this person may very well be the definition of a terrorist. What I want to know is if he was part of the terrorists we are fighting or if he's a wannabe that acted alone, possibly suffering from a mental break. I think the military is interested in the same thing.

[ljs]

I have no doubt this shooting was more about the guy going nuts under the strain of his job and an unstable mind to begin wiht, and not an act of terrorism.

I read your posts and it almost seems like you are defending this guy- maybe you aren't, but it comes off that way.

Are you ignoring all of the statements he made about going to war? About Muslims fighting other Muslims? About how our guys derserved it when talking about American troops being killed by suicide bombers?

Its total bs to say he went nuts under the strain of his job. What strain? My uncle is a Psychiatrist, and has been for nearly 30 years-working with some of the most ****ed up people you could imagine. He hasn't gone out and shot anyone over it. You don't get PTSD from treating people.

Hasan is a Muslim who did not agree with the United States going to war against Muslims. He did not support it, he made numerous statements against it. He may have not been directed to do this by Al Qaeda, but he sure as hell did this b/c of his religious beliefs. Call me what you want, but that part is obvious.

[Madison Redskin]

I read your posts and it almost seems like you are defending this guy- maybe you aren't, but it comes off that way.

Are you ignoring all of the statements he made about going to war? About Muslims fighting other Muslims? About how our guys derserved it when talking about American troops being killed by suicide bombers?

Its total bs to say he went nuts under the strain of his job. What strain? My uncle is a Psychiatrist, and has been for nearly 30 years-working with some of the most ****ed up people you could imagine. He hasn't gone out and shot anyone over it. You don't get PTSD from treating people.

Hasan is a Muslim who did not agree with the United States going to war against Muslims. He did not support it, he made numerous statements against it. He may have not been directed to do this by Al Qaeda, but he sure as hell did this b/c of his religious beliefs. Call me what you want, but that part is obvious.

Hasan clearly had serious trouble with U.S. foreign policy, appeared to harbor sympathy for Al Qaeda, and, IMO, is a terrorist. However, perfectly sane and rational people don't walk around blasting 50 unarmed people.

[herrmag]

Matching your routine to the case at hand would do much to increase your credibility. Claiming "uneducated" in a thread commenting on a doctor in the US armed forces committing mass murder is not a great argument.

I think you might be right, this person may very well be the definition of a terrorist. What I want to know is if he was part of the terrorists we are fighting or if he's a wannabe that acted alone, possibly suffering from a mental break. I think the military is interested in the same thing.

While I agree with your sentiment, are you suggesting that the outcome of his future be different based upon his reasoning for his act? Just curious, and I mean that I'm honestly curious, not casting anticipation of your response.

[GoSkins561]

I read your posts and it almost seems like you are defending this guy- maybe you aren't, but it comes off that way.

Are you ignoring all of the statements he made about going to war? About Muslims fighting other Muslims? About how our guys derserved it when talking about American troops being killed by suicide bombers?

Its total bs to say he went nuts under the strain of his job. What strain? My uncle is a Psychiatrist, and has been for nearly 30 years-working with some of the most ****ed up people you could imagine. He hasn't gone out and shot anyone over it. You don't get PTSD from treating people.

Hasan is a Muslim who did not agree with the United States going to war against Muslims. He did not support it, he made numerous statements against it. He may have not been directed to do this by Al Qaeda, but he sure as hell did this b/c of his religious beliefs. Call me what you want, but that part is obvious.

I get that same feeling when I read JMS' posts in threads where Muslims/Terrorism are the topic.

[NavyDave]

You deal with "reality and facts?" That's pretty hilarious.

Yep and its funny how everything I've said has been backed up on Gasp the Washington post, Fox 5, NBC 4 and the dreadful FNC.

[NavyDave]

However, perfectly sane and rational people don't walk around blasting 50 unarmed people.

So does that mean DC Snipers Muhammad and Malvo shouldn't be executed tonight/ serve a life sentence because they weren't rational in their actions?

Lets ignore that they also planned on killing a cop and using IEDs at the police oficer's funeral to take out more cops attending.

Yeah instead of justice lets waste time trying to analyze why they did it. :doh:

[Madison Redskin]

Yep and its funny how everything I've said has been backed up on Gasp the Washington post, Fox 5, NBC 4 and the dreadful FNC.

They rail against homosexuals, sodomites, feminists, etc. like you? Your rants about 95% of the population is what I was referring to.

[Madison Redskin]

Yeah instead of justice lets waste time trying to analyze why they did it. :doh:

This thread is slowing the wheels of justice? LOL.

[Toe Jam]

Obama: "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts...The killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

Have you ever heard a President reference hell as a form of punishment?

[ljs]

Obama: "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts...The killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

Have you ever heard a President reference hell as a form of punishment?

he never did mention hell. but yeah- where's the separation of church and state!!!

[renaissance]

Obama: "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts...The killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

Have you ever heard a President reference hell as a form of punishment?

he never did mention hell. but yeah- where's the separation of church and state!!!

He mentions the next world it in the context of a religion justifying actions so I say no biggie

[Predicto]

Yeah instead of justice lets waste time trying to analyze why they did it. :doh:

Trying to "analyze why they do it" is a very useful thing.

I know that all you ever care about is vengeance, but some of us find a value in understanding why things happen and trying to make sure that they happen less often in the future, if possible.

[Destino]

Yeah instead of justice lets waste time trying to analyze why they did it. :doh:

It doesn't matter if it's wrong or right as long as it feels good. Finding out why is crucial in preventing it but that doesn't feel as good as giving in to blood lust does it?

[Ghost of]

I think you might be right, this person may very well be the definition of a terrorist. What I want to know is if he was part of the terrorists we are fighting or if he's a wannabe that acted alone, possibly suffering from a mental break. I think the military is interested in the same thing.

The problem I think goes back to one of my original points (but let me expand a bit): How can we truly establish that someone has had a mental break? Does it matter? For instance, did the guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum qualify as a lone terrorist? I think so. because he had a certain sociopolitical agenda in committing the murder (and where he went.) Now that doesn't mean he wasn't mentally unhealthy but should that disqualify his act from the realm of terroristic activity?

Think of Zarqawi. That man could possibly be deemed more sadistic and psychopathic than Bin Laden. He reveled not only in the violence but in excruciatingly cruel and arbitrary forms of punishment and murder as a form of dominion over other human beings. Is that a sane person? Would it matter if he were a BIT touched in the head?

I've heard people call Hitler crazy. But I think where we get in trouble is separating out personality disorders, which are not manifestations of a physically-centered mental illness, from actual diseases of the brain which affect cognition and perception, etc etc.

Hitler wasn't crazy. Neither was Dahmer, actually. But both had sociopathic tendencies and serious mental issues---probably as this doctor did. That does not mean we should spend too much time exploring the mental health aspect of a case that is more clearly an act of solo terrorism. Same thing with McVeigh. I'm sure you can study people who engage in acts of mass or serial murder and find a host of problems (though you can find problems in us non-murderers too!) but that doesn't render them ultimately non-rational actors.

Nothing in this guy's history indicates that he's anything other than all the other Sudden Lone Jihadis we've had in this country. As I also pointed out, we do not concern ourselves with Amish, Quakers, Hindus or Buddhists committing these acts, in spite of forming a rather large segment of the populace themselves--yet they are not represented in these cases in nearly the same frequency as Muslims---probably because there is something at the heart of Islam as a faith which renders it more susceptible to interpretations (correct ones, in my opinion) that violence against non-believers and apostates is not only sanctioned but demanded.

In fairness, without centuries of Talmudic scholarship and commentary, there is a fair amount of the same genocidal bloodlust exhibited in the Old Testament but Jews long ago discarded that as a central doctrine of their religion.

That's not to say acts of terrible evil are the sole province of any one group or ideology---there were honorable Nazis, there are terrible and awful Christians, fairly docile Communists, etc. It's just that certain ideological superstructures lend themselves more easily to these types of acts.

Another example of recent terrorism would be that guy in Seattle. A guy who people said wanted to be a cop, he actually is right out of a story of mine---someone who was rejected (though I don't know if he was, actually) and turned against the thing he wanted most. This was a guy who was motivated by his desire to fight a political battle with violence. I have to say, I'm more sympathetic to anti-police sentiment than Islamist beliefs but to kill a cop just sitting there is beyond the moral pale.

Now, that guy may have had mental issues but he was a guy who got deep into the political beliefs of a couple of mentor figures, probably was frustrated or pre-empted in some way by other events in his life and just saw things never changing and felt the allure of revolutionary and cathartic violence. I'm sure this is the case for many criminals, killers and pirates. Doesn't mean they are mentally ill or that we should look FIRST to the mental causes rather than to the ideological structures as prime motivators.

[Ghost of]

I know that all you ever care about is vengeance, but some of us find a value in understanding why things happen and trying to make sure that they happen less often in the future, if possible.

Except that we probably know why he did it, it's the same reason why this keeps happening and the reason why Serbs did not up and kill people in mass shootings during the bombing campaign during the Kosovo conflict. Or why other groups don't have the same representation in these "outbursts of violence."

It's not even the case here that we can say this guy was in "deep cover" and we want to figure out how to interpret warning signs for people who seem fairly reasonable. This guy was an out and out fundamentalist. The "Gadfly" moderate at that mosque in VA said as much "he was a typical fundamentalist Muslim" and said that he tried to change him but failed, as he happens to with a number of Salafists he encounters.

This is like asking why a neo-Nazi guns down Jews at a cultural center, why some people think it's a good thing to deliberately blow up a pet market with children as a political/religious statement, etc. Because the ideology has been taken in the direction of dehumanization of the "Other" and that only a "cleansing" quasi-religious of this group from the area will achieve the goals of that ideology (be it a political or religious utopia, conquest, successful rejection of another culture's diffusion into one's own, etc)

We have a pretty good amount of scholarship on this subject. Nadal isn't going to teach us much more, other than specifics like networks, which mosques may or may not be involved in conveying these messages, etc.

Now, if you want to get into doctrinal specifics and find out ways in which you can short-circuit these things, go ahead but you're not going to prevent them, except by seeing warning signs that are terribly obvious, ignoring PC blindness and acting on it. But you won't magically "cure" people of these actions because you can diagnose why people tend to act out in this way for whatever reason.

The problem is, the later teachings of Muhammad abrogate his earlier (much more peaceful and conciliatory) messages and you will need massive civilizational/cultural change over many, many years or a cataclysm which hurls that ideological spectrum into the 21st century.

[Perky72]

Hasan clearly had serious trouble with U.S. foreign policy, appeared to harbor sympathy for Al Qaeda, and, IMO, is a terrorist. However, perfectly sane and rational people don't walk around blasting 50 unarmed people.

I agree with Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin, the guy could've been sane and rational. Insanity isn't only defined as "people with a different morality than the mainstream", nor is it defined based on actions. It's mental, and hopefully enough of a burden to prove that this scumbag doesn't get to claim psychosis.

Terrorism's definition is largely mental too, I'm not ready to call him one. His motivations/intent could've been purely selfish rather than to advance a social/political agenda or to intimidate others. This is the domestic terrorism definition in US Federal Code; there's an international definition too but I'll just post the former:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation

of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

( appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by

intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass

destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of

the United States.

He could well be a terrorist, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. The reaction of people to acts doesn't define it, only the intent (or apparent intent) behind the acts.

...

As for justice vs. understanding, it takes awhile for anyone sentenced to die to actually die, unfortunately. But this means we can easily do both. Those responsible for making sure he pays for this crime, hopefully with his life, can do theirs 100%; those who're responsbile for finding out why this happened and if there's proactive steps we can take to prevent it in the future can also do that job 100%. It's not an either-or decision.

[Ghost of]

In a few posts (here and in the Around the NFL) I've come to respect the opinions and the carriage of Perky. Welcome aboard, my friend. May all of our future disagreements carry the memory of this acknowledgment of your contributions!