Ft. Hood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Is there such thing as being 'overly-cautious' with the consequence 13 dead and 50 wounded?

The death toll at Fort Hood is always misreported at 13. It is actually 14 dead when you include Pvt. Francheska Velez’s unborn baby. Velez was on maternity leave when she stopped at Ft. Hood, where she AND her unborn child were murdered by Hasan. Hasan should be prosecuted under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci (Peterson) and Conner’s law, but unfortunately when he was charged today one charge was missing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My take on how Islam influenced these cases

Once again, none of this is meant to condone either set of actions. But it does say a lot about the role of Islam. It looks to me that Islam in these cases is not primarily a motivator to Jihad. Instead, non-Muslim soldiers view the Muslim faith with suspicion which causes a rift between Muslim troops and their peers. And secondly, it creates a moral dilemma on participation in the war.

Just to continue this line of discussion, Forbes is currently running a post titled "Going Muslim" in which the author compares Hasan's actions to the stereotypical postal worker going on a rampage (leading to the coining of the term "Going Postal").

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/08/fort-hood-nidal-malik-hasan-muslims-opinions-columnists-tunku-varadarajan.html

The author, correctly in my view, compares the work-related stresses that led to both the postal rampages and Hasan's attack. But, then, he inexplicably veers to this statement:

"The difference between 'going postal,' in the conventional sense, and 'going Muslim,' in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological 'snapping' point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage--the camouflage of integration--in an act of revelatory catharsis."

I think there are many in this thread that would agree with this statement.

However, this is an example of where I see prejudice trumping reason. The "snapping" of a postal worker, or indeed just about any non-Muslim person, is an accepted part of our reality in the US. However, a Muslim is presumed to have made a rational decision and the possibility of a similar "snapping" is not even available for consideration.

Hasan is a loaner, a misfit on many levels. Unmarried (and apparently unhappily so) at the age of 39. Failing at his job which subjects him to constant exposure to the suffering of war. He hears daily of the trauma that has been visited upon his patients, and likely (and probably more importantly) hears of the violence delivered by those patients to others (others with whom he may well feel a bond). He apparently suffers harassment both on and off the job. A psychological "snapping" is very much believable and far more likely than the idea that Hasan suddenly made a religious/political decision.

If this had been a religious/political act, I would have expected some sort of last will and testament explaining his actions, or another form of a political statement. In the case above of Akbar, his diary fulfilled that purpose. Perhaps something similar will surface in the Hasan case, but so far it hasn't.

The starting question may not be did he do it because he is Muslim (anyway, you have turned this into a sort of chicken and the egg thing...he's psychotic so he believes; he believes so he's psychotic etc.).

The BIG question in the aftermath of his murder of 14 people (thank you PP for that) is: was Hasan not investigated fully before hand for his odd behaviors because he is Muslim? The Post Editorial today quotes a meeting in which his review board speculated on whether he was psychotic, and then wondered aloud whether "the termination of a doctor who happened to be Muslim created a appearance problem"?. That concern seems pretty normal in today's PC work world. That it held the day over common-sense is terrifying. Have people decided that the occasional mass slaughter is the price we pay for fully unimpeded civil liberties and diversity sensitivity that defies logic in the clear light of day? Have we forgotten that living in a society involves giving up a smidge of individual freedom for the greater good of the group (otherwise known as government; not anarchy)? Of course, it is not the price any of us have had to pay. Just some 19 year old soldiers and 60 year old doctors and an unborn baby.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The starting question may not be did he do it because he is Muslim (anyway, you have turned this into a sort of chicken and the egg thing...he's psychotic so he believes; he believes so he's psychotic etc.).

The BIG question in the aftermath of his murder of 14 people (thank you PP for that) is: was Hasan not investigated fully before hand for his odd behaviors because he is Muslim? The Post Editorial today quotes a meeting in which his review board speculated on whether he was psychotic, and then wondered aloud whether "the termination of a doctor who happened to be Muslim created a appearance problem"?. That concern seems pretty normal in today's PC work world. That it held the day over common-sense is terrifying. Have people decided that the occasional mass slaughter is the price we pay for fully unimpeded civil liberties and diversity sensitivity that defies logic in the clear light of day? Have we forgotten that living in a society involves giving up a smidge of individual freedom for the greater good of the group (otherwise known as government; not anarchy)? Of course, it is not the price any of us have had to pay. Just some 19 year old soldiers and 60 year old doctors and an unborn baby.

It seems the "BIG" question for you is "who is to blame?" and to the extent that you can blame political correctness, the better. That suggests a political motive on your part. I would prefer that the "BIG" question be "how do we prevent this type of attack in the future?" Understanding Hasan's true motive will be much more useful in that regard. Exploiting this tragedy for your own political ends will do nothing for prevention.

It appears that many people probably dropped the ball with regard to Hasan. By all accounts, doing something about him was not an easy process. According to other accounts, sensitivity about Islam was also an issue. I'd submit that in hindsight, if you are one of those people who dropped the ball, blaming your actions on political correctness rather than an unwillingness to undertake a difficult process might make a lot of sense. Would you rather admit that you were lazy or politically correct? Either way, people who shipped Hasan of to Ft. Hood so that he would be someone else's problem are not overly competent. On that issue, I don't think we have any disagreement.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The starting question may not be did he do it because he is Muslim (anyway, you have turned this into a sort of chicken and the egg thing...he's psychotic so he believes; he believes so he's psychotic etc.).

The BIG question in the aftermath of his murder of 14 people (thank you PP for that) is: was Hasan not investigated fully before hand for his odd behaviors because he is Muslim? The Post Editorial today quotes a meeting in which his review board speculated on whether he was psychotic, and then wondered aloud whether "the termination of a doctor who happened to be Muslim created a appearance problem"?. That concern seems pretty normal in today's PC work world. That it held the day over common-sense is terrifying. Have people decided that the occasional mass slaughter is the price we pay for fully unimpeded civil liberties and diversity sensitivity that defies logic in the clear light of day? Have we forgotten that living in a society involves giving up a smidge of individual freedom for the greater good of the group (otherwise known as government; not anarchy)? Of course, it is not the price any of us have had to pay. Just some 19 year old soldiers and 60 year old doctors and an unborn baby.

It seems the "BIG" question for you is "who is to blame?" and to the extent that you can blame political correctness, the better. That suggests a political motive on your part. I would prefer that the "BIG" question be "how do we prevent this type of attack in the future?" Understanding Hasan's true motive will be much more useful in that regard. Exploiting this tragedy for your own political ends will do nothing for prevention.

It appears that many people probably dropped the ball with regard to Hasan. By all accounts, doing something about him was not an easy process. According to other accounts, sensitivity about Islam was also an issue. I'd submit that in hindsight, if you are one of those people who dropped the ball, blaming your actions on political correctness rather than an unwillingness to undertake a difficult process might make a lot of sense. Would you rather admit that you were lazy or politically correct? Either way, people who shipped Hasan of to Ft. Hood so that he would be someone else's problem are not overly competent. On that issue, I don't think we have any disagreement.

Maybe. And maybe a culture of over political correctness caused the dropping of the ball--and examining and questioning that could lead to preventing this type of attack in the future. How do you blame the actions on political correctness in hindsight when they were talking about it at the time of decision making on Hasan: "Would it appear bad if we terminated a doctor who happened to be a Muslim?" is the language of political correctness and fear of a perceived misstep causing a grievance.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe. And maybe a culture of over political correctness caused the dropping of the ball--and examining and questioning that could lead to preventing this type of attack in the future. How do you blame the actions on political correctness in hindsight when they were talking about it at the time of decision making on Hasan: "Would it appear bad if we terminated a doctor who happened to be a Muslim?" is the language of political correctness and fear of a perceived misstep causing a grievance.

That's what they say they were saying. But, how do we know? It's equally possible they were saying "you fill out the forms." "No, you fill out the forms." These are questions that will be answered as a result of an investigation. It is premature to answer them now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The starting question may not be did he do it because he is Muslim (anyway, you have turned this into a sort of chicken and the egg thing...he's psychotic so he believes; he believes so he's psychotic etc.).

The BIG question in the aftermath of his murder of 14 people (thank you PP for that) is: was Hasan not investigated fully before hand for his odd behaviors because he is Muslim? The Post Editorial today quotes a meeting in which his review board speculated on whether he was psychotic, and then wondered aloud whether "the termination of a doctor who happened to be Muslim created a appearance problem"?. That concern seems pretty normal in today's PC work world. That it held the day over common-sense is terrifying. Have people decided that the occasional mass slaughter is the price we pay for fully unimpeded civil liberties and diversity sensitivity that defies logic in the clear light of day? Have we forgotten that living in a society involves giving up a smidge of individual freedom for the greater good of the group (otherwise known as government; not anarchy)? Of course, it is not the price any of us have had to pay. Just some 19 year old soldiers and 60 year old doctors and an unborn baby.

It seems the "BIG" question for you is "who is to blame?" and to the extent that you can blame political correctness, the better. That suggests a political motive on your part. I would prefer that the "BIG" question be "how do we prevent this type of attack in the future?" Understanding Hasan's true motive will be much more useful in that regard. Exploiting this tragedy for your own political ends will do nothing for prevention.

It appears that many people probably dropped the ball with regard to Hasan. By all accounts, doing something about him was not an easy process. According to other accounts, sensitivity about Islam was also an issue. I'd submit that in hindsight, if you are one of those people who dropped the ball, blaming your actions on political correctness rather than an unwillingness to undertake a difficult process might make a lot of sense. Would you rather admit that you were lazy or politically correct? Either way, people who shipped Hasan of to Ft. Hood so that he would be someone else's problem are not overly competent. On that issue, I don't think we have any disagreement.

Maybe. And maybe a culture of over political correctness caused the dropping of the ball--and examining and questioning that could lead to preventing this type of attack in the future. How do you blame the actions on political correctness in hindsight when they were talking about it at the time of decision making on Hasan: "Would it appear bad if we terminated a doctor who happened to be a Muslim?" is the language of political correctness and fear of a perceived misstep causing a grievance.

I'm sorry, but have you heard how they talk about muslims in the military? The number of unrepeatable names they call them? The stereotypes that go unrebuted? Do you think anyone gets thrown in the brig for calling someone a sand n***er? I can't even write the word it's so freaking repulsive and they use it all the time.

Of the many shortcomings of the military, political correctness is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

I am referring to PC when it comes to official actions-like sanctioning a colleague and preventing a heinous terrorist attach. Certainly no one on this REVIEW BOARD was using such language-- and they certainly appear to have been worrying about even the appearance of some kind of 'singling out' or discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe. And maybe a culture of over political correctness caused the dropping of the ball--and examining and questioning that could lead to preventing this type of attack in the future. How do you blame the actions on political correctness in hindsight when they were talking about it at the time of decision making on Hasan: "Would it appear bad if we terminated a doctor who happened to be a Muslim?" is the language of political correctness and fear of a perceived misstep causing a grievance.

This is only anecdotal of course, but I've generally found in life that those who are fearful of taking legitimate action against a minority tend to be more prejudiced than most. When people have fully explored different cultures, etc., they seem more willing to hold people accountable for true misbehavior, regardless of ethnicity/sex/religion/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
...
This is only anecdotal of course, but I've generally found in life that those who are fearful of taking legitimate action against a minority tend to be more prejudiced than most. When people have fully explored different cultures, etc., they seem more willing to hold people accountable for true misbehavior, regardless of ethnicity/sex/religion/etc.

It may be a bit nit-picky to point it out, but the pivotal word here is "legitimate". Of course we'd all take what we consider to be legitimate action -- but people disagree on what is legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

Isn't the Daily Telegraph in the UK comparable to the National Enquirer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't the Klansmen those guys who burned the crosses? What's that all about if not religion?

I think Jeff's point is that people consider them White Supremacists, not Christian Extremists. They don't go around trying to find out which ministers they have been talking to, to see if they are part of a Christian anti-government conspiracy. We all know that the Klan is a group that adopts Christianity as part of the justification for what they do, but in fact it is bigotry and economic rivalry with blacks that really motivates them. So we don't cover it as a radical religious movement. We cover it as a hate group. And to the extent that religion is discussed, we always consider them to be a group that distorts religion for their hateful purposes.

interesting reference to the "Christian" KKK. They are never referenced as violent "Christians" and we don't emphasize the violent acts perpetrated in the name of Christianity. They're just the freak show of America who are also incidentally "Christian".

Somehow, we can't apply the same logic to people committing violent acts who, incidentally, are Muslim. But we, the public and media, "investigate" the inherent violence of Islam. We're just ignorant on the whole thing.

When there are a few bad apples in the barrel, we shine the floodlights on the whole bunch and show what a terrible example they are.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

Isn't the Daily Telegraph in the UK comparable to the National Enquirer?

No, the Daily Telegraph is aligned with the Conservative Party and has a bit of a shady past due to it's previous ownership by Conrad Black. However, the paper is very popular in the UK and one of the better newspapers. However, almost all British newspapers are known to be susceptible (perhaps willingly) to plants by foreign intelligence services. It is very common for stories to be planted in the British press as a way to get them into the US press (which reports on the British stories). Since this sensationalistic account doesn't seem to have jumped the Atlantic, I'd guess that most US reporters (or at least editors) are on to the game (which makes me even more suspicious of the times they have played along).

[Anonymous]

I am not so happy about Obama's comments on the issue of accountability. Wow! Who is good at predicting postal behavior??? Like someone is a specialist in this kind of thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not so happy about Obama's comments on the issue of accountability. Wow! Who is good at predicting postal behavior??? Like someone is a specialist in this kind of thing?

He said "If", and it is right for him to investigate to see whether any warning signs were ignored. We should learn from mistakes, so if we made some let's not repeat them.

[Anonymous]

I'm not so happy with much the President says.