[ort888]

I'm not saying it wasn't a radical religious killing. It probably was. What I am saying is that in a free and open society, you can't do anything about it. You can't persecute someone based on their religion. Especially when 99.999 percent of American Muslims are normal, law-abiding citizens who would never in a million years do anything like this.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... How does one guy with 2 handguns kill 12 and 31 people at an army base?

And why does Texas allow body-armor piercing guns such as the 'cop-killer' gun used by Hasan to be sold?

Self defense? Hunting body-armored rhinos?

[k2director]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Okay, you convinced me. I hate Muslims now.

So what's my next course of action?

It's rude and vile that you suggest my message is about "hating Muslims." It's yet another form of denial--I want to acknowledge that Hasan's act was one of Islamic extremism, like September 11 or the Mumbai hotel massacre or the train bombings in Spain, or the bus bombings in London, or the murder of a Dutch filmmaker, or the attempted murder of political cartoonists, and you suggest that seeing things that way is bigotry.

By the way, now the Wall Street Journal is now reporting some interesting information based on new interviews with people who knew Hasan:

Fort Hood Suspect Asked for Advice About Fighting Muslims - WSJ.com

Some highlights of the article include the following:

A former classmate has said Maj. Hasan was a "vociferous opponent of the war" and "viewed the war against terror" as a "war against Islam." Dr. Val Finnell, who attended a master's in public health program in 2007-08 at Uniformed Services University with Maj. Hasan, said he told classmates he was "a Muslim first and an American second."

"In retrospect, I'm not surprised he did it," Dr. Finnell said. "I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were."

So now people are describing Hasan as seeing the war on terror as a "War on Islam", and seeing himself as a "Muslim first and an American second."
Yea, I'm sure this is really about the stresses of being an Army caregiver...

Besson: I'm not this 'Abe' or anybody but k2director. And this entire thread was to point out the denial coming from the American press (typically liberal) and American Left. Read my first post again. If you want to discuss how our society can react to Hasan's act of Islamic extremism, start your own thread. But have the guts to start it by acknowledging that this was an act of Islamic terror....

[hyteckit]

I say:

No gays, No Muslims, No Asians in the army.

Bring back the draft and only draft White Christians.

[besson3c]

Okay, so when are you going to answer the question k2director? Let's say we acknowledge that Muslims did this. WHAT THE **** DO WE DO?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Hmm... How does one guy with 2 handguns kill 12 and 31 people at an army base?

And why does Texas allow body-armor piercing guns such as the 'cop-killer' gun used by Hasan to be sold?

Self defense? Hunting body-armored rhinos?

Shooting unarmed people who are in what they consider a "safe" environment (remember Virginia Tech?) is no great accomplishment. It takes having several magazines loaded, and nobody around you that shoots back while you're firing or reloading. And it is strictly prohibited to carry weapons that aren't issued on any Army post, which leads to that sense everyone else had that they were all safe.

I don't know where you get your firearms information, (trusting the mainstream "news" media for it is a very bad choice) but the Five-Seven pistol is no more a "cop killer" than any other publicly available firearm. The 5.7mm ammunition available to the public is not the ammunition FN builds to defeat body armor. That ammunition is not marketed to civilians, in fact it is classified as "armor piercing" and illegal to manufacture or sell to civilians. Even law enforcement agencies have to jump through hoops to get it. The civilian-available 5.7mm ammunition fires a 35-40 grain, .22 caliber bullet, but that bullet has no more effect on body armor than a .22 Long Rifle bullet at the same velocity. The pistol itself is both very expensive and very hard to find.

Now, for the other issue. Active duty personnel on their home base in the US are AT HOME. They live there as well as work there. Do you wear body armor to take the bus to work? Nobody in the US military wears actual combat gear unless their mission requires it, and most of the time it does not, unless they're in a combat zone. In many ways an Army base is like a large college campus, with internal bus service, stores and dormitories, and places where work is done. Ft. Hood is huge. It is mind bogglingly huge. But most of it is vast areas for tank training or other field exercises, with the residential areas (people's whole families live there you know), grocery stores, office buildings, a hospital and multiple clinics, etc., all in a fairly small area.

Getting upset about this incident is good-because it helps us deal with the emotions the incident raises. I have acquaintances at Ft. Hood, including the husband of a classmate of mine, and this is a very upsetting situation quite beyond the horror of the basic event. But getting the facts straight is very important. Relying on supposition, sensationalist "news," and stories you hear from others who are probably no better informed about the whole thing, is a very bad thing; it can lead you to make decisions that are neither just nor effective.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so when are you going to answer the question k2director? Let's say we acknowledge that Muslims did this. WHAT THE **** DO WE DO?

No gays, No Muslims, No Asians in the army.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so when are you going to answer the question k2director? Let's say we acknowledge that Muslims did this. WHAT THE **** DO WE DO?

Start your own thread and I guarantee I will participate....
Just make sure you acknowledge this is an Islamic act of terror when you do....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Besson: I'm not this 'Abe' or anybody but k2director.

Yeah, well Mojo2 and Aberdeenwriter used to wear that they weren't Abe either. I'm suspicious. Prove that you aren't Abe.

[ghporter]

Let's keep this discussion on track, and not about who might be pretending to be someone they are not.

Officially there is zero evidence that there is any relationship between k2director and any of abe's handles. Continue the discussion without any more personal jibes or "posts about members," or action will be taken.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, well Mojo2 and Aberdeenwriter used to wear that they weren't Abe either. I'm suspicious. Prove that you aren't Abe.

Prove *you're* not Mojo2 or Aberdeenwriter or Abe. I'm suspicious....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Prove *you're* not Mojo2 or Aberdeenwriter or Abe. I'm suspicious....

Originally Posted by ghporter

Let's keep this discussion on track, and not about who might be pretending to be someone they are not.

k2director, since we're not allowed to create threads about other members this means that the only way we can settle this is if you create a thread about yourself explaining how you aren't Abe. I will follow suit.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Start your own thread and I guarantee I will participate....
Just make sure you acknowledge this is an Islamic act of terror when you do....

Why? I don't need convincing that there is nothing we can do. I'm just trying to figure out what your goals are here and what you hope to accomplish.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so when are you going to answer the question k2director? Let's say we acknowledge that Muslims did this. WHAT THE **** DO WE DO?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No gays, No Muslims, No Asians in the army.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Start your own thread and I guarantee I will participate....
Just make sure you acknowledge this is an Islamic act of terror when you do....

First, we don't know anything material about anyone other than Hassan, therefore we can't say "Muslims did this." We can say that Hassan, a Muslim, shot a lot of people, but so far there are not enough publicly available facts to say more than that.

Second, excluding persons from government service due to their "race" or religion violates the law. Back in 1946 or so, Harry Truman issued an Executive Order that forced the Army to integrate persons of African decent into regular Army units, rather than have them segregated into "black-only" units. There is no turning back. America has always been about religious freedom and freedom especially from religious persecution. To assert that Muslims are inherently bad and that they should not be allowed to serve violates the Constitution. In short, this is a dumb idea that reflects a lack of thought, or a sensational statement intended to incite heated discussion-either way it's not useful in a reasoned discourse.

Finally, why should the act of a single person (as far as we know at this time) be considered an act of "Islamic terror?" How is this different from any other "suicide by cop" act, where a nutcase decided to go out in a blaze of gunfire through (cowardly) forcing police officers to stop his violence by killing or seriously wounding him? To assume that a person who seems to have been scared silly of going overseas into a combat zone took action because of his religion is to make a very grave logical error. Until and unless more legitimate and valid facts surface, all we can actually say is that this guy "lost it" and shot up a bunch of people. Did he terrorize people? Yes he did, including thousands of families on Ft. Hood, as well as their extended families all over the world. But did he commit a "terrorist act?" I don't think so at this time. That it might be related to his religion more than his fear of deploying is a possibility I will accept, but I will not accept that this is the only possibility unless there is a whole lot of evidence to show that this possibility is actually the case.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But if it is a nutty religious motivation- what is it that makes you reluctant to face it?

I'm more than willing to accept that his actions were religiously motivated, when I don't have to jump to conclusions to do so.

it's plenty obvious how nutty religion can make people.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

To assume that a person who seems to have been scared silly of going overseas into a combat zone took action because of his religion is to make a very grave logical error. Until and unless more legitimate and valid facts surface, all we can actually say is that this guy "lost it" and shot up a bunch of people.

I think you need to catch up with the details of this case as they've been reported. We know a lot more than "He was simply scared of being posted to a war zone....any war zone....and he lost it."

As for this being an act of Islamic terror:

Imagine a Muslim who thinks that his identity as a Muslim (as opposed to his identity as some other group....be it Blue Collar workers, academics, whites, blacks, Yankees fans, etc.) compels him to walk into a group of Jews, Christians or Hindus and blow them up. Would you call that an act of Islamic terror? I would, and so does the rest of the world.

That's exactly what Hasan did. He wasn't afraid of war in general. He wasn't afraid of being posted to any old war zone. He was a devout Muslim (one who became more devout and extreme over the years, according to people who knew him) who thought America's presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was a war against his religion...not against some faction in Iraq or Afganistan, but a war against Islam.

He had become increasingly uncomfortable with his role in the military that was prosecuting that war against his religion.

He had tried to get out of the military due to his discomfort with its war against Islam.

On the eve of Hasan being sent over to directly participate in that war against his religion--after many attempts to avoid it--he gave away his belongings, arranged his affairs, and went into the military office, yelling "Allahu Akbar" and murdering the people he thought were instruments of the U.S.'s war against his religion.

You guys can drag your feet all day long. Why don't you start questioning whether the 9/11 terrorists were really acting out of a sense of duty as Muslims. Maybe they were just frustrated actors...

[k2director]

The NY Times coverage is particularly sickening. Here's the box on their front page dedicated to Fort Hood coverage:



We have two stories about the painful toll on military therapists and soldier's minds snapping, one story about the victims, and then of course an admonition from Obama not to jump to conclusions.

Then, not one but FOUR editorials in the Times are again about Hasan snapping due to the strains of being a military psychologist, as if any psychologist in the military could have snapped and murdered 13 soldiers he was supposed to be helping:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/op...erbert.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/op...07sat1.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/op...leland.html?hp
Combat Stress and the Fort Hood Gunman - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

Nowhere of any prominence can you find the Times wondering if this could be a sane act by a man who simply chose to follow his religious beliefs at the expense of his country. NOWHERE.

HERE'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU ALL: If you believe that I'm jumping to conclusions about Hasan's motivations, then shouldn't you also say the same thing about the New York Times? What evidence is there to justify that Hasan snapped as a result of some kind of Post Traumatic Stress? What could possibly justify four editorials and a front page almost entirely dedicated to pretending this was some psychotic break??

[BadKosh]

But The Americans go as Americans not Christians, while Muslims come here because of their faith.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Superseded by the two.

1) Love God, believe in Christ.
2) Be excellent to each other.

Which is basically the gist of the ten anyway (stealing your neighbours crap or loving up his wife ain't being excellent to him).

This is historical nonsense. The rabbis before Jesus already taught that the two commandments (love God, love your neighbour) were a "summary" of the 10 Commandments, and they also believed that the 10 Commandments were really a summary of the entire Torah. Jesus wasn't superceding anything, he was following the rabbis' lead.

Besides, Love God and believe in Christ are two separate rules. (Obviously.) And when Jesus was challenged in the Temple for the "greatest commandment," "believe in Christ" wasn't one of his answers.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by k2director 

If you believe that I'm jumping to conclusions about Hasan's motivations, then shouldn't you also say the same thing about the New York Times?

Absolutely. At this point, *anyone* who claims to know his motivations is lying to both themselves and everyone else.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is historical nonsense. The rabbis before Jesus already taught that the two commandments (love God, love your neighbour) were a "summary" of the 10 Commandments, and they also believed that the 10 Commandments were really a summary of the entire Torah. Jesus wasn't superceding anything, he was following the rabbis' lead.

Besides, Love God and believe in Christ are two separate rules. (Obviously.) And when Jesus was challenged in the Temple for the "greatest commandment," "believe in Christ" wasn't one of his answers.

If you say so.

[ghporter]

Considering the huge workload and the absence of support for the mental health professionals themselves, it really is possible that any given psychiatrist might crack-particularly one with relatively little real experience, such as someone who (er hem) just finished his fellowship recently and has done so much of his training treating Soldiers who have serious problems related to this particular theater of combat. Father confessors have their senior priests and bishops, but who does a shrink let his own hair down with? Frankly, the Army doesn't provide anyone for them to seek counseling from formally, so they get it from their team-assuming they're team players, of course.

And while a lot of information has been developed through the current investigation, it is hardly a "cut and dried" conclusion that Hassan did what he did for any specific reason. I personally believe that he had a major problem dealing with the possibility of being in a majority Islamic country and having to treat non-Islamic soldiers whose job it is to fight against truly radical Islamists. That's pretty dicey for anyone, especially a devout Muslim. But until the guy actually can answer questions (he's been taken off a ventilator now, and seems to be on the road to recovery), everything about "what he was thinking" and "why he did it" is still speculation-which may be well educated guesses, or may be wildly off target.

[Big Mac]

I think it's perfectly clear why he did what he did. Shouting Allahu Akbar while he was firing on helpless people tells us enough just by itself.

Not being capable of recognizing this for what it is equals Political Correctness run amuck. And so is considering excuses for this terrorist pig, which I'm a bit dismayed to see even a patriot like Glenn doing.

[Chuckit]

There's no evidence that this guy was ever a terrorist. Calling an attack by a soldier on other soldiers on a military base with perfectly normal weapons "terrorism" is something else running amok.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Stereotypes and generalizations are useful tools, when they allow us to take a course of action to short-cut lengthy deliberations. In other words, they are an imperfect heuristic, that can allow for faster decision making and taking action, at the cost of decreased accuracy.

In this case, pigeon-holing the perpetrator as "standard Islamo-fascist jihadist case closed" leads us to no course of action, it doesn't help us apprehend the attacker (we already have him), it doesn't even predict that he has information about an ongoing conspiracy, nor does it suggest any method to prevent future similar attacks. All it leads us to do is to stop following other leads. Useless. On the other hand, keeping an open mind and "not jumping to conclusions" leads us to investigate other possible causes of the attack, and it at least has the possibility of uncovering other factors (related to terrorism or not) that actually might be preventable in the future.

This isn't a matter of PC agitators being "incapable of recognizing" anything. They've already recognized the obvious possibility and realized that it is a dead end and moved on. We can always come back to it later, it's not going anywhere. If anything, this is a matter of the "shut up and blame Islam" contingent being incapable of considering other possibilities besides the first one that popped into their head.

[k2director]

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Die N*gg*r Die!"...

I guess, according to your logic, it would be jumping to conclusions to suppose that man was a racist, or his act was racially motivated. If anything, this is a matter of the "shut up and blame racism" contingent being incapable of considering other possibilities besides the first one that popped into their head.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Die N*gg*r Die!"...

I guess, according to your logic, it would be jumping to conclusions to suppose that man was a racist, or his act was racially motivated. If anything, this is a matter of the "shut up and blame racism" contingent being incapable of considering other possibilities besides the first one that popped into their head.

I believe that equating religious statements to racist statements is disingenuous. Is it a religious act when a Christian soldier prays while attempting to fend off an attack? I don't think so, and I don't think that shouting "Allahu akbar" is solely and exclusively the catchphrase of extremist jihadists. (I'd also point out that even the term "jihad" may be misapplied-both by the popular press and by certain Muslim extremists-as in many Muslim groups the idea of jihad is the personal conflict between living as a Muslim and living in a secular world.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by k2director 

[*]And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Die N*gg*r Die!"...

Incorrect analogy. The shooter here was screaming "God is great!", not "Die infidel die!".

[Wiskedjak]

Nobody is saying this wasn't a terrorist act. But, until we know for sure, it's best not to jump to conclusions that will be used to incite certain members of the population to violence against other Americans who happen to be Muslim.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Die N*gg*r Die!"...

I guess, according to your logic, it would be jumping to conclusions to suppose that man was a racist, or his act was racially motivated. If anything, this is a matter of the "shut up and blame racism" contingent being incapable of considering other possibilities besides the first one that popped into their head.

The gunman wasn't screaming personal attacks. Yeah. bad example.

[k2director]

Again, the level of denial here is sickening.

Yes, "Allahu Akbar" is a general religious saying in Islam, and is used by peaceful people in all kinds of situations. Because of that, you try to suggest the most asinine theory -- that Hasan might not have been using "Allahu Akbar" in a violent religious extremist context, even though pretty much every islamic terror act I've read about, including 9/11, has featured the murderous wackos yelling "Allahu Akbar" before destroying a plane, blowing up a bus, or a group of civilians, or cutting off an infidel's head.

By your logic, Hasan could simply have been saying "Allahu Akbar" as he started murdering those people because the time was 1:30pm, and Hasan *always* said "Allahu Akbar" at 1:30pm. Yes, he could have simply been honoring his daily routine, and it was simply a coincidence that his murderous act and his "Allahu Akbar" observance fell at the same moment in time. Pure coincidence.

On the other hand, if you can agree with the **common sense** interpretation that Hasan was using "Allahu Akbar" in relation to his murdering infidels--as many Islamic terrorists have done historically--then my analogy makes PERFECT sense. Both "Allahu Akbar" and "Die N*gg*r Die!" both speak to the core of the gunman's motives.

But to help the "Political Correctness or Death" community here at MacNN, let me modify my analogy a tiny bit, and see what you think....

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Sieg Heil!!"... (which means "Hail Victory" and has *never* been the exclusive domain of racists...and even racists, when using it, have not used it exclusively when committing violent acts)

Would it be jumping to conclusions to say this man's motivation was racism?? If you can say it's reasonable to assume "racism" at the heart of the white man's act, it's equally reasonable to assume "islamic extremism" was at the heart of Hasan's act...

[ghporter]

Interestingly, I just read an interview with the officer that actually dropped Hassan. He said the guy was silent, merely aiming his gun at people and firing-not yelling anything at all. Maybe this whole "yelling 'Allah akbar!'" issue is without any merit at all.

While it is indeed reasonable to consider the possibility that Hassan's actions were those of a violent religious extremist, it's also logically necessary to consider that his actions were merely those of a violent person. Otherwise you behave as if you were inherently distrustful of all Muslims, which is not logical nor a valid argument for any of your points.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Would it be jumping to conclusions to say this man's motivation was racism?? If you can say it's reasonable to assume "racism" at the heart of the white man's act, it's equally reasonable to assume "islamic extremism" was at the heart of Hasan's act...

At this point, *any* conclusion is a jump. Why are you unwilling to wait for the investigation to complete?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Die N*gg*r Die!"...

I guess, according to your logic, it would be jumping to conclusions to suppose that man was a racist, or his act was racially motivated. If anything, this is a matter of the "shut up and blame racism" contingent being incapable of considering other possibilities besides the first one that popped into their head.

Yes, absolutely it would be. The crime should be investigated. Using bigotry as a scapegoat only serves to cut your investigation short. At the very least, you have to consider the possibility that the staging as a hate crime is an intentional misdirection.

In both scenarios, the possibility that it is simply a hate crime is obvious, but also fruitless. Considering more traditional motivations is more challenging, but it offers more potential to actually improve the situation.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Calling an attack by a soldier on other soldiers on a military base with perfectly normal weapons "terrorism" is something else running amok.

These were unarmed, undeployed soldiers and civilians on the military base. And for the record, a number of law makers agree with me on this that it was terrorism.

[Uncle Skeleton]

...and law makers never bend the truth or overstate their case...

[ghporter]

Was the Va Tech attack an "act of terror?" I thought all concurred that it was a whack-job student who went off the deep end a long time before the attack, and knowing that guns were not allowed on campus enabled him to victimize a known unarmed population. Let's see, Army regs prohibit non-issued firearms on post (with very specific exceptions that don't have anything to do with this case), many people recognized that Hassan was unbalanced or at least unstable, and he took advantage of an unarmed crowd to victimize them. The difference is that Cho wasn't Muslim and Hassan is...

The concept that "lawmakers" have some sort of divine wealth of knowledge is pretty sad. Remember that no one was too surprised to hear the (false) Internet rumor that Alabama's state lawmakers passed a measure to make pi equal exactly 3... Legislators, state and federal, are usually lawyers (the better ones are attorneys), whose job it is to craft reality to suit their or their clients' purposes. To take a legislator's opinion on the root cause of an event while the investigation is ongoing is to be ready to buy anything Vince sells after he pitches Sham-Wow.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by k2director 

On the other hand, if you can agree with the **common sense** interpretation that Hasan was using "Allahu Akbar" in relation to his murdering infidels--as many Islamic terrorists have done historically--then my analogy makes PERFECT sense. Both "Allahu Akbar" and "Die N*gg*r Die!" both speak to the core of the gunman's motives.

But to help the "Political Correctness or Death" community here at MacNN, let me modify my analogy a tiny bit, and see what you think....

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

• A white man...
• Who's been overheard by colleagues at work saying he's disturbed by having a black president...
• And been investigated by the FBI for posting sympathetic messages on neo-nazi web sites (although nothing's been proven yet!)...
• And on the eve of Obama taking office, he shoots the President while screaming "Sieg Heil!!"... (which means "Hail Victory" and has *never* been the exclusive domain of racists...and even racists, when using it, have not used it exclusively when committing violent acts)

Would it be jumping to conclusions to say this man's motivation was racism?? If you can say it's reasonable to assume "racism" at the heart of the white man's act, it's equally reasonable to assume "islamic extremism" was at the heart of Hasan's act...

So Hasan is religious and the White guy is a racist.

Are you implying that Islam is a evil religion and White folks are a evil race?
Are you implying that Islam is the motivation for the killings and the whiteness of someone's skin is the motivation for the killing as well?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Was the Va Tech attack an "act of terror?" I thought all concurred that it was a whack-job student who went off the deep end a long time before the attack, and knowing that guns were not allowed on campus enabled him to victimize a known unarmed population. Let's see, Army regs prohibit non-issued firearms on post (with very specific exceptions that don't have anything to do with this case), many people recognized that Hassan was unbalanced or at least unstable, and he took advantage of an unarmed crowd to victimize them. The difference is that Cho wasn't Muslim and Hassan is...

The concept that "lawmakers" have some sort of divine wealth of knowledge is pretty sad. Remember that no one was too surprised to hear the (false) Internet rumor that Alabama's state lawmakers passed a measure to make pi equal exactly 3... Legislators, state and federal, are usually lawyers (the better ones are attorneys), whose job it is to craft reality to suit their or their clients' purposes. To take a legislator's opinion on the root cause of an event while the investigation is ongoing is to be ready to buy anything Vince sells after he pitches Sham-Wow.

He was a Muslim disgruntled with having to aid a war effort against his coreligionists. He made statements that Muslim suicide bombers who try to murder as many people as possible are heroes in the same way that soldiers who dive on grenades to save as many lives as possible are heroes. While in a position in which he was supposed to provide comfort to those suffering from the after-effects of war, he was apparently telling vulnerable, damaged soldiers that they should convert to Islam to solve their problems.

I'm not saying there wasn't something amiss with Major Hasan psychologically. What I am saying is that choosing to willfully deny the obvious Islamic component to this terrorist attack (and I do believe it is properly called terrorism based on everything we know) is PC stupidity.

[hyteckit]

Hmm....

Damn, have to include No White Folks in the Army as well.

Timothy McVeigh
Army Sgt. John M. Russell

No Gays, No Asians, No White Folks, No Muslims in the army.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm not saying there wasn't something amiss with Major Hasan psychologically. What I am saying is that choosing to willfully deny the obvious Islamic component to this terrorist attack (and I do believe it is properly called terrorism based on everything we know) is PC stupidity.

You are, however, jumping to the conclusion that his attack was primarily motivated by his religion when this may not be the case. I am recommending patience because it is possible we will find out enough from the perpetrator himself to be able to conclusively determine this one way or another.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What I am saying is that choosing to willfully deny the obvious Islamic component ... is PC stupidity.

No one has said it's not a component, all anyone has said is that we don't know if it was a component. "Don't jump to conclusions" doesn't mean we know your conclusion is wrong, it only means we don't know your conclusion is right. There is nothing wrong with a plea to not jump to conclusions, until after all the evidence is in. If they keep saying that after all the evidence is in, then you'll be right.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. I took the red pill 21 years ago when one of the f'ers blew a friend of mine out of the sky.

or when one of them murdered my best friend's daughter while she was riding the bus home from school. Most Muslims that I know are good, decent people, but radical Islam needs to be crushed now.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Let's say we have a government employee who is:

Heck, you don't even have to do a "let's say..."

Let's say you have average Americans attending rallies to tell their government they are Taxed Enough Already, and don't want the government involved in yet another massive ponzi scheme, rather to reform ITSELF and it's crazy tax and spend habits first. Now sit back and watch the "Don't Jump To Conclusions Coalition" go nuts with every accusation and warped 'conclusion' in the book from racist to nazi. Everything BUT what the people themselves state as their reasons for attending the rallies.

But a guy shooting up a military base yelling "Allahu Akbar"? Don't even speculate that it could be religiously motivated! In fact, make up all kinds of **** like it being stress. Heck, even make up a stress syndrome even if one has to do so from straight out of the onion!

And by all means, just pretend there's absolutely no record of recent events to go by.

Foiled plan to Shoot up Fort Dix
"During the investigation undercover agents found that the group had plans to kill American soldiers in the name of Allah."

(Nice to know that had they pulled it off, we could just chalk it up to stress)

Foiled Plan to attack synagogue and shoot down warplane
"They wanted to kill people, they wanted to do significant damage," Kelly said. "They all have criminal records. They stated they wanted to commit Jihad (and) made very anti-Semitic statements."

(Sounds stress related to me.)

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad tells why he shot soldiers
"Muhammad also told officers that he would have killed more soldiers if they had been on the parking lot. Muhammad also told police he was a practicing Muslim, and that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."

(Ah, more stress)

Terror Plot against Shopping Mall
"charged with conspiring with two other men in a terror plot to kill two prominent U.S. politicians and carry out a holy war by attacking shoppers in U.S. malls and American troops in Iraq."

(Clearly stress)

Foiled Plot to attack Marines at Quantico

"Prosecutors say Daniel Boyd, a drywall contractor and the father of suspects Zakariya and Dylan, was the ringleader of the aspiring terrorist group. In lengthy speeches at his home south of Raleigh, he decried the U.S. military, discussed the honor of martyrdom and bemoaned the struggle of Muslims, according to audio tapes played during a detention hearing in August."

(Stress related, I'm sure.)

FBI Foils WMD Plot in Dallas
"The 19 year old man, Mosam Maher Husein Smadi who is a Jordanian citizen, was arrested by the F.B.I. and charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He told agents he wanted to commit "violent jihad".

Or maybe it was all just stress. Don't jump to any conclusions. No indicators what-so-ever that radical Islamic beliefs lead people to do messed up stuff like kill soldiers while shouting Allahu Akbar.

[Chuckit]

As Skeleton said, the idea that it might be motivated by religion has occurred to everyone. It's just some people stop thinking at that point and others keep on.

[Big Mac]

Occam's razor, Chuckit. We haven't stopped thinking. We just choose not to ignore the truth that's right in front of us. We aren't frightened of being truthful about radical Islam.

[Wiskedjak]

The funny thing about Occam's Razor is that *everyone* thinks *their* explanation is the simplest.

Motivated by religion and motivated by war seem equally simple to me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Occam's razor, Chuckit. We haven't stopped thinking. We just choose not to ignore the truth that's right in front of us. We aren't frightened of being truthful about radical Islam.

Simplifying human behavior to "religion did it" is a violation of Occam's razor in my book. Radical Islam may be a threat, but this guy wasn't until this point. I'm pretty sure this guy has been a Muslim for quite some time, and it's not like there's an obvious strategic reason for him to attack now. I don't see how your "He's a Muslim, they're violent *shrug*" explanation adequately explains the situation.

[Big Mac]

But that's not the explanation we're giving.

[hyteckit]

I think we should ban Muslims from buying guns.