Shootings at Fort Hood, TX

[Oberon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8345713.stm

:nope:

I hope they catch those bastards and put them on the row.

[SteamWake]

Just heard about this.... 7 dead :o

Strange strange story.

Now Obama is going to make some sort of statement... wth?

[SteamWake]

12 dead now 1 was a civilian police officer.

Other soldiers have been arrested.

One of the shooters dead.

There doing their best to avoid the 'terror' connection.

I dont know but it sure would seem like these guys knew what the hell they were doing.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

DAMN YOU!

I Just ran in here to make a joke involving this incident and Neal...

Now you ruined it... :nope:

[PeriscopeDepth]

.I dont know but it sure would seem like these guys knew what the hell they were doing.
They were probably US Army soldiers, hence the knowing what they were doing.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

DAMN YOU!

I Just ran in here to make a joke involving this incident and Neal...

Now you ruined it... :nope:


A joke about this is not appropriate.

[Thomen]

12 Dead, 31 wounded. CNN just released the name of the alleged shooter. Arab sounding name.. :cry:

Slain gunman identified as Maj. Malik Nadal HasanI seriously hope that it was not an (terrorist) attack, and just ( as sad as it is) someone who had a couple screws loose.

EDIT:

The surrounding hospitals are in desperate need of blood donations for the victims as it seems.

[SteamWake]

12 Dead, 31 wounded. CNN just released the name of the alleged shooter. Arab sounding name.. :cry:



I seriously hope that it was not an attack, and just ( as sad as it is) someone who had a couple screws loose.

Lets not jump the gun now hopefully we will get the facts soon enough.

My early impression was that it was an orginized effort so not only one screw loose.

But hell this may be a big drug thing or some other nefarious scenario.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

A joke about this is not appropriate.

Yeah, I didn't thought about that part.

I just saw the title and it reminded me of you.

Well, good thing I didn't, you're right.

:up:

[longam]

I can only hope the rest survive their wounds.

[SteamWake]

Turns out the 'primary shooter' was a freakin Major !

(not confirmed by the authoritys)

[Thomen]

Turns out the 'primary shooter' was a freakin Major !

(not confirmed by the authoritys)

Yep.. see my first post.

He was also a Mental Health Professional and was stationed at Walter Reed Army Hospital before being transferred to Ft Hood.

[Aramike]

I have a feeling that there's going to turn out to be a heavily complex story behind all of this.

Plus one can't help but notice the Arabic name of the shooter. Whether this is an incident of terror or not, you sure as hell know that there were plenty of people out there thinking "that figures" when they heard the shooter was a man named Nidal Malik Hasan. That will surely serve to, in some extent, plant the seeds of distrust in the minds of those serving with Arabic comrades.

[Oberon]

I have a feeling that there's going to turn out to be a heavily complex story behind all of this.

Plus one can't help but notice the Arabic name of the shooter. Whether this is an incident of terror or not, you sure as hell know that there were plenty of people out there thinking "that figures" when they heard the shooter was a man named Nidal Malik Hasan. That will surely serve to, in some extent, plant the seeds of distrust in the minds of those serving with Arabic comrades.

Aye, particularly so soon after what happened with our lads and that Afghan policeman. :nope:

[Aramike]

Apparantly the suspect is alive.

I suspect not for long, as military justice will likely put him down like the animal he is.

[Chad]

I missed Obama's speech about what happened, and after looking it up on YouTube, maybe I shouldn't have.

Read the comments:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwat ch%253Fv%253DT0hiw8iXdMM&h=f128f81415ac8486b1df707cf3f3b731&ref=nf

[Zachstar]

I seriously hope the shooter is not of Muslim faith. The last thing we need is another run of racism and hatred in this nation. This could be very very bad for relations.

[Aramike]

I seriously hope the shooter is not of Muslim faith. The last thing we need is another run of racism and hatred in this nation. This could be very very bad for relations.Looks like he is indeed Muslim.

Personally, I'm not particularly surprised or troubled by that fact, nor do I think Americans are. I think we're all pretty used to the concept of Muslim extremism by now.

[d@rk51d3]

Reports coming in, are that he loved being in the army........... He just didn't want to go and fight in it.

Was being shipped to Iraq in about 2 weeks, and didn't want to go.

[Onkel Neal]

Sounds like he just cracked up. But don't blame everyone else for his actions giving Islam a bad name.


A spokesman for Houston's chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations says officials are worried about a possible local backlash after the Fort Hood suspect was reported to be Muslim.

“There's always that fear,” said spokesman Kaleem Siddiqui, who expressed concern that “prejudices against Muslims could take hold.”
Siddiqui said the Muslim civil rights group wants to communicate that most Muslims are good citizens.

CAIR's national branch has strongly condemned the killings.

[ajrimmer42]

Very strange indeed, although the impression I got from the link in the first post was that he did it in a last attempt to get out of going to Iraq. Although he must have been somewhat mentally unstable to do something as unbelievable as that, If that was the reason then you'd have thought desertion would have been better :06:

[Aramike]

Very strange indeed, although the impression I got from the link in the first post was that he did it in a last attempt to get out of going to Iraq. Although he must have been somewhat mentally unstable to do something as unbelievable as that, If that was the reason then you'd have thought desertion would have been better :06:The problem is, quite frankly, that the so-called Muslim "moderates" have been quite lax at attempting to distance themselves from the extremists. When an incident like this occurs they are quick to point out that it wasn't them but frighteningly slow at any condemnation of ACTUAL extremism.

[Tribesman]

So it is a perpetual cycle that fulfills itself.

[Boris]

Very strange indeed, although the impression I got from the link in the first post was that he did it in a last attempt to get out of going to Iraq. Although he must have been somewhat mentally unstable to do something as unbelievable as that, If that was the reason then you'd have thought desertion would have been better :06:

I seriously hope it was an extremist attack, because if he killed a bunch of guys just to get out of the army... well that has to be the most selfish thing ever.

[Skybird]

My impression at this point is that we have seen a mental shortcut here, caused by the ongoing harassement, the wounds in returning soldiers that he has seen, his isolated family life (found no wife to marry), and his worst case scenario of being sent to oversea deployement, where his cultural background would collide with the reality at location and the role the military plays in that, and in causing those wounds on the wounded he has seen.

How you can find a comprimise between being a devout Musolim, and serving in the US military and in it's current wars, is beyond me. As I see it you must seriously distort yourself in order to get both under one hat. This guy probably was no extremist or religious fanatic, at least I conclude that by his biography at BBC, but his life must have put him under immense pressures that his "inner dam" now could no longer tame - and so it broke into pieces...

[baggygreen]

I seriously hope the shooter is not of Muslim faith. The last thing we need is another run of racism and hatred in this nation. This could be very very bad for relations.
hate to nitpick, but islam isn't a race, therefore any criticism of it, even if outright hate-speech, cannot possibly be racism.

the distinction is a big deal down under atm, so I just wanted to point that out.

You're right though, we've all had enough hatred.

problem is, whilst many on "our side" are willing to let things lie, the same can't be said of the extremists that are out there.

[Torplexed]

How you can find a comprimise between being a devout Musolim, and serving in the US military and in it's current wars, is beyond me. As I see it you must seriously distort yourself in order to get both under one hat.

You often find compromises and contradictions in how Muslims self-identify in nationality as well. On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at his former mosque in Silver Spring, Maryland, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, according to the imam at his mosque, Faizul Khan.

"I don't know why he listed Palestinian," Khan said, "He was not born in Palestine."

RIP for those who fell.
A fast recovery for the wounded.

[Skybird]

On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at his former mosque in Silver Spring, Maryland, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, according to the imam at his mosque, Faizul Khan.

"I don't know why he listed Palestinian," Khan said, "He was not born in Palestine."

RIP for those who fell.
A fast recovery for the wounded.

A desired feeling of identity diconnected from real identity in profane reality.

Beyond the above banal context of maybe confused-by-history national identity, IMO a general theme in Islam in special (supremacist demands to be seen as the superior culture and standard), and religion in general (the shift of life's focus from the present (life) to the future (afterlife). Regarding the rejection of history and present, in Egypt I met Palestinians who really got into emotionally excited, heated arguments when showing old keys to houses in their grandparent'S Palestine - houses that probably since decades did no more exist. Still they said they would one day return into "their houses", swinging their keys. It seems to be a ritual, this key-swinging, I'm not sure, but I read in two different books by different people that they also were confronted with key-swinging Palestinians.

[SS107.9MHz]

My impression at this point is that we have seen a mental shortcut here, caused by the ongoing harassement, the wounds in returning soldiers that he has seen, his isolated family life (found no wife to marry), and his worst case scenario of being sent to oversea deployement, where his cultural background would collide with the reality at location and the role the military plays in that, and in causing those wounds on the wounded he has seen.

How you can find a comprimise between being a devout Musolim, and serving in the US military and in it's current wars, is beyond me. As I see it you must seriously distort yourself in order to get both under one hat. This guy probably was no extremist or religious fanatic, at least I conclude that by his biography at BBC, but his life must have put him under immense pressures that his "inner dam" now could no longer tame - and so it broke into pieces...

It does seem like a unfortunate case of combined arrassment and stress meltdown due to his allocation to Iraq... THis has nothing to due with him being a muslim or a palestinian, at least in the assumption of "yeah is a muslim that made him due it"... It sems it's always more easy to find the reason we're confortable with than assessing the real reasons for what happened...

He was actually a therapist for wounded soldiers in Iraq before being comissioned there... He probably cracked after considering what he heard and what might happened to him... If he was suffering from a depression and in a delusional state he might have seen this as an act of mercy...It's messed up but it has happened before... We'll probably know more after he his questioned...

Above all, I want to send my condolences to the families of those slain today... I hope that they can cope with the loss.

PS: Skybird I can't see why a Muslim would be more unconfortable serving in the US Army than a Christian or a Jew for example... I think all these religions see Moses has a profit if aI'm not mistaken and that they must obey to the ten commandments, one of wich is "Thou shall not kill"... So I'd sy it's a level playing field here...

[Dimitrius07]

but his nationality as Palestinian


A dificult case :zzz:

[SS107.9MHz]

If one of his parents is from Palestine wouldn't he be palestianian in the same way as a guy who has a italan parent is an Italian and an American? Or is this another case?

[OneToughHerring]

Quite a few muslims serve in the US military but almost all of them make the wish that they will not be shipped to kill other muslims or even people from their native lands. If they will be made to act as interpreters they and their families will be under increased threat of assassasination. I can understand why they would feel stressed about going to war but the present situation means that the wars just continue ad infinitum and pretty much everyone in the US military/reserve/coast guard/national guard/whatever will have to rotate.

Tbh I'm surprised more of this kinds of things, soldiers going crazy and shooting other people, doesn't happen more, especially when faced with choice of going to war or courtmartial etc.

[Biggles]

I hope he will be judged by his deeds, not his color, faith, political views or anything else really. I bet he was a nice man, but what he did is inexcusable and he should be severely punished:nope:

My thoughts goes to the victims, dead and alive, and their families.

[Skybird]

It does seem like a unfortunate case of combined arrassment and stress meltdown due to his allocation to Iraq... THis has nothing to due with him being a muslim or a palestinian, at least in the assumption of "yeah is a muslim that made him due it"... It sems it's always more easy to find the reason we're confortable with than assessing the real reasons for what happened...

He was actually a therapist for wounded soldiers in Iraq before being comissioned there... He probably cracked after considering what he heard and what might happened to him... If he was suffering from a depression and in a delusional state he might have seen this as an act of mercy...It's messed up but it has happened before... We'll probably know more after he his questioned...

Above all, I want to send my condolences to the families of those slain today... I hope that they can cope with the loss.

PS: Skybird I can't see why a Muslim would be more unconfortable serving in the US Army than a Christian or a Jew for example... I think all these religions see Moses has a profit if aI'm not mistaken and that they must obey to the ten commandments, one of wich is "Thou shall not kill"... So I'd sy it's a level playing field here...

First, please read my very first post in here. I said clearly that I see this issue as a thing of "mental shortcircuit".

Second, I listed several things I see as contributing to the general pressure he must have felt. Amongst which maybe is what he has seen when treating wounded soldiers, like you indicate, too. Or better, what he heared, since he was a psychiatrist, not a surgeon, I always overlook this detail.

Third, the Muslim identity thing. It is probably not approriate to discuss that in this thread, and we already have been there three years ago when we talked about how the Air Force systematically has been undermined by Christian fundamentalists and group pressure is being inflicted on people to confess to this faith, we also found that that the military's priests have been taken over by christian fundamentalists for most, leaving little military priests left only for people of different faiths. there even have been court cases over this. It all also went through the media, which we also discussed. Add to this that Islam is an identity thing from A to Z which is hardly to be reduced to nationality, ethnics, race, etc. It surpasses the traditional legal definitions of what a citizen of a state, a member of a church etc is. Clear only is that Islam claims an identity for itself that is surpassing all these categories and claims to be superior and necessarily to be seen as dominant to these, and that it wants it mandatory to be seen that way. For such a superioristic selfunderstanding, western laws and constitutions and political understandings or categories of reason have no adequate categories to describe it or to thoroughly understand it, ands that is why we often find ourselves to be helpless in correctly describing (not to mention: resisting) it. We have nothing like this in current Western culture, if excluding Judaism here, which also is hard to be nailed down to ethnicity, confession, race, nationality. If somebody would ask me what makes being Jewish, I would need to pass.

Also, I don't know to what degree this man in Texas also is haunted like so many Palestinians by a past that nevertheless in principle necessarily must be meaningless to him, for he was born as an American. I wanted to show that many Palestinians tend to be very irrational about their status and fate when describing that key-waving experience, so did Torplexed.

If that Major, a "devout Muslim" they say, and having Palestinians roots, now needs to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, it may result necessarily in a conflict for him, because in both wars Muslims get killed, Muslims suffer, and no matter how you look at it, it often is by the hands of the American military. Western ratio of assuming that here is the army, there is the enemy, do not help you much, eventually. and let'S not foprget, claiming "victimship" - is a weapon in the propaganda war. For Islam, Islamic interest go first, always, it is God-wanted that way, and while it not only overrules Western laws in validity and importance (from an islamic perspective), it also means global Umma always and forever is a thousand times more important than the regulation of an Army you do service in, or the nation you live in, and it's laws and constitutions and different values. As part of taqja Muslims are allowed to temporarily submit to foreign rules and laws, and are told to do so. but it is not by conviction, but pragmatism to survive in the place without needing to leave it, it is also a temporary "loyalty" only that is to be cancelled once Islamic ruling has been established.

I see it as possible that this "identity conflict" has broken him, for it is an intrest conflict that is impossible to be solved. It can only be ignored, and rejected. But it still exists, and it cannot be solved. Every other way of thinking of it is just a foul compromise - to stay able to deny that this conflict exists. But it does. and in this case it interacted with other details from this man's life.

Somehow I do not think of this man as an "evil" guy, on the photos he maybe gives the impression of being a bit stupid (or not), but you see a man with friendly eyes - not the cold-hearted shark-eyes of a religious fanatic (look at photos of Ata, Bin Laden or anyone of this kind, and see the difference).

I think this man simply was desperate as a result of factors that have all fallen together since a longer time, and then something just clicked inside his head - and yesterday two trains entered his head's tunnel from both ends simultaneously.

[Jimbuna]

I hope he will be judged by his deeds, not his color, faith, political views or anything else really. I bet he was a nice man, but what he did is inexcusable and he should be severely punished:nope:

My thoughts goes to the victims, dead and alive, and their families.

I agree.....this is so terrbily tragic for so many people :nope:

[SS107.9MHz]

First, please read my very first post in here. I said clearly that I see this issue as a thing of "mental shortcircuit".
.


Yeah I know, I was agreeing with you, I'm sorry if the comment indicated otherwise, I didn't agree with you on one thing the religion question bit.

[Skybird]

One addtion to that "harassement". I am 100% it was not only about his Muslim identity, but about him being a "Klapsdoktor", a psychiatrist as well. I bet that in every army psychologists do have no easy stand with their comardes and a lot of jokes are made about them. It is a common thing with this professional branch, and not just in the military.

Nevertheless, different to psychologists who studypsychology at university, a psychiatrist must undergo a complete study of medicine at university. And that is no easy task, but one of the most difficulty studies you can do.

[SS107.9MHz]

Yes, but psychologists do spend about the same time studying psychology... which is a bit more time than a psychiatrist does! Well at least in Portugal they do...

Also it's a very different thing giving support and being the therapist for someone in a given situation, and being in the same situation... He probably could't handle it, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, evenprior to this unfortunate event.

[Skybird]

Yes, but psychologists do spend about the same time studying psychology... which is a bit more time than a psychiatrist does! Well at least in Portugal they do...
In Germany, too, but psychologists are no qualified medical specialists. That's why they are not allowed to subscribe drugs. Also, the difficulty of studying medicine and psychology - do not compare. In no way. Never. Compared to medicine, regarding learning quantities and workload, studying psychology is holidays. Medical students lack in statistical and methodological teaching, though - it's the one thing where psychology students really learn much more.

Psychiatrists' psychological tools of choice are pharmacy and classical psychoanalysis. Psychologists' psychological tools are all the rest. Psychiatrists are fully trained medical absolvents. Psychologists have just a rather basic oversight on physiology and neurophysiology - nothing of that qualifies them to subscribe according drugs and invasive therapies.

Both for doctors and psychologists, the permission to become practicing full therapist in psychotherapy is also an additional qualification. You cannot study psychotherapy at university, and you are no pychotherapist when having a diploma in medicine or psychology. For psychologists, there even is no academic grade of Dr. or Prof. They become Dr. phil. or Prof. phil instead.

[ETR3(SS)]

I am so utterly disgusted by this latest news. First let me say that I don't give a damn if this guy was Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. When entering the US Military you swear to obey ALL orders of those appointed over you. He was commissioned an officer in US Army and that gives him certain abilities that the enlisted do not get. Namely, at any point, he can choose to resign his commission and cease to be an officer of the US Army. Instead this dirtbag chose to shoot up a base and kill his fellow countrymen. What kind of sick twisted individual would refuse to deploy to a combat zone to possibly kill the enemy, but has no problem slaughtering his fellow countrymen?

Also this guy was NOT a combatant. The odds of him getting hurt or killed are very slim. I highly doubt the Army is desperate enough for officers that it would send this guy out to a Regimental command.

I am so utterly tired of hearing about these guys that don't want to go. If you don't want to go, you shouldn't have joined. What did they think the Army does, or any other branch for that matter, go around giving out candy canes to impoverished children? And would somebody please find me an instance of a woman refusing to deploy? I am completely against women in the military, but it's beginning to seem like they are the only "men" in the service.

[SS107.9MHz]

In Germany, too, but psychologists are no qualified medical specialists. That's why they are not allowed to subscribe drugs. Also, the difficulty of studying medicine and psychology - do not compare. In no way. Never. Compared to medicine, regarding learning quantities and workload, studying psychology is holidays. Medical students lack in statistical and methodological teaching, though - it's the one thing where psychology students really learn much more.

Psychiatrists' psychological tools of choice are pharmacy and classical psychoanalysis. Psychologists' psychological tools are all the rest. Psychiatrists are fully trained medical absolvents. Psychologists have just a rather basic oversight on physiology and neurophysiology - nothing of that qualifies them to subscribe according drugs and invasive therapies.

Both for doctors and psychologists, the permission to become practicing full therapist in psychotherapy is also an additional qualification. You cannot study psychotherapy at university, and you are no pychotherapist when having a diploma in medicine or psychology. For psychologists, there even is no academic grade of Dr. or Prof. They become Dr. phil. or Prof. phil instead.

Yes, we don't prescribe medication, and we do have only basic the knowledge of neuroanatomy, and a bit more on neropsysiology, and lots more in neuropsychology (all different things), but that's because psychologist don't need those tools, our modus operandi is a ewhole other business. Post traumatic stress doesn't go away with medication and psychoanalysis (some would argue it doesn't go away at all) I can assure you that... I'm not saying that medicine is an easier degree than Psychology, by all means, wath I'm saying is that Psychiatrist have a shalower psychology than Clinical Psychologists, in a broad sense, and paying due care that every case is a singular one, and experience is the main variable in taking care of clinical cases.

Sorry for the Hijack!

[Skybird]

Yes and no to all that, but who cares. All I can say is that I do not value all what psychology claims worth to be valued - I heared, saw and read too much babbling in psychology, and it has become too much an opportunistic movement only, busy with securing it's own influence and power in society and it's own control. My advise is to make pragmatic use of what psychology has to offer in good and which is beyond doubt, but beyond that: don't make it a dogma. It its no solid, hard science, but a pseudo-science. It should be seen as having more in common with creative arts and philosophy, than with the idea of hard science.

Yes, thread-hijack, but without bad intentions by anybody. Has happened often before, will happen often again in the future. This is Spar... I mean, this is GT!

[Tribesman]

When entering the US Military you swear to obey ALL orders of those appointed over you.
No you don't.

He was commissioned an officer in US Army and that gives him certain abilities that the enlisted do not get. Namely, at any point, he can choose to resign his commission and cease to be an officer of the US Army.
No. He was a medical officer who recieved his medical education from the military, as such even though he was a commissioned officer he cannot resign it until they get their moneys worth. Which means a fixed minimum period of service after graduation followed by a fixed minimum period as a reserve.
After all medical education is expensive and even though the US government heavily subsidises all US medical students, military medical students get fully funded education and get paid while they learn.


Apparently according to his family he had offered to pay back his education costs in an attempt to be able quit his job, but was turned down.

[Skybird]

I can understand the military nopt accepting his offer. If you volunteer, you cannot later demand to be allowed to handpick the missions yourself you are willing to embark on. If really that alone is his problem, he hasn't thought about this scenario intense enough before joining the army, or, as they say, the reports of the wounded returning and what he saw in psychological problems in them has horrified him.

They also said he lived an isolated life, having been unable to find a family life and a wife, although he desired that very much. with the isolation he seem to have met in the military as well, and the daily harassment that also is referred to, he must have been under pressure, with religion being his only relief valve, apparently - that may explain why during his amok run he now gets reported to have shouted "Allahu Akhbar".

I really hope this does not turn out to show some Islamic wacko going mad over religious motives only. It would confirm every cliche you could think of about Muslims in vital or critical Western services. Forming hostile attitudes on the basis of cliches only would not do any good to anyone.

[Tribesman]

I can understand the military nopt accepting his offer.
Yes, but since they were also reporting that his performance was getting worse it does raise questions about the wisdom in keeping someone under contract when they don't want to still be there (or in this case shifting them to somewhere they really don't want to go).

[Skybird]

that also would be a precedent the military cannot afford. Else everybody about being sent to somewhere he does not want to go, suddenly and mysteriously would show a drastic decline in his performance. ;) Very bad for discipline, hierachical structure and reliability of the whole organisation the army is.

But possible that the quota of deserters would fall to zero accordingly. :D

[Tribesman]

Else everybody about being sent to somewhere he does not want to go, suddenly and mysteriously would show a drastic decline in his performance.
Josef Svejk or John Yossarian?

[SteamWake]

This isnt the first time a soldier of muslim background went off the deep end.

Remember the hand gernade in the tent thing in Bagdad?

Now every soldier of middle eastern descent will be under (even more) scrutiniy.

[Skybird]

Damn, according to this piece by the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347586.stm

it seems to be more like the interest conflict between his Muslim identity and being sent to a war against "his Muslim brothers" in Iraq, like I outlined earlier:


His relatives said he had become disillusioned with US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and strongly opposed his own imminent deployment to Afghanistan.
(...)
Kamran Memon of the organisation Muslims For a Safe America says the subject splits America's Muslim community down the middle.

"Those at one end of the spectrum say we should have nothing to do with the US armed forces as they are involved in wars with our fellow Muslims abroad," he told the BBC.

BTW, what place is it now he was about to be sent to - Iraq or Afghanistan? In some news I read this, in other I read that.

[ETR3(SS)]

No you don't.


No. He was a medical officer who recieved his medical education from the military, as such even though he was a commissioned officer he cannot resign it until they get their moneys worth. Which means a fixed minimum period of service after graduation followed by a fixed minimum period as a reserve.
After all medical education is expensive and even though the US government heavily subsidises all US medical students, military medical students get fully funded education and get paid while they learn.


Apparently according to his family he had offered to pay back his education costs in an attempt to be able quit his job, but was turned down.Please cite your source on this. Particularly the part about not having to obey the orders of those appointed over you.

[Platapus]

Please cite your source on this. Particularly the part about not having to obey the orders of those appointed over you.

A military member is obligated to obey legal orders, not just any order.

There is Article 90 of the UCMJ

Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.


It is also reiterated in Article 92 of the UCMJ


Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.



http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm


In both articles, the emphasis is on lawful order. Not any order and not all orders.



The Nuremberg Principles, specifically Principle IV states


The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


While the Nuremberg Principles have not been per se incorporated in to federal or military law, Army Field Manual 27-10 section 509 is clear


...it must be borne in mind that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders..


The tricky part is determining whether an order is legal or not. Military orders are to be presumed legal unless there is contrary evidence.


This is a complicated topic. If this interests you grab a copy of


"International Human Right to Conscientious Objection to Military Service and Individual Duties to Disobey Manifestly Illegal Orders" by Hitomi Takemura

[Tribesman]

Thank you Platypus.
Though as the statement ETR made was about swearing on entry then you could have gone for the enlistment oath which says nothing about "ALL orders".
Then again as this murderer was an officer the oath of office would have been the relevant thing which doesn't mention orders at all, let alone "ALL orders".

[Skybird]

The tricky part is determining whether an order is legal or not. Military orders are to be presumed legal unless there is contrary evidence.

the tricky part also lies in the passage saying

... provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Jurists can play two-handed ping-pong on two tables simultaneously with this: first oin the issue of what is moral and what not, and second on the question that the moral choice indeed was available/existent.

So much fun and entertainment hidden in just these three letters:
R O E

[Aramike]

There's one little problem being overlooked here: if one disobeys orders, one has to prove that they knew, factually, BEFOREHAND, that said order was illegal.

In the case of this major, he could certainly ATTEMPT to argue that he BELIEVED his orders to be illegal, but ultimately it is unlikely that ANY court would agree with him, and therefore he would be guilty of disobeying a LEGAL order.

[CaptainHaplo]

The facts as we know them - that this guy killed 12 people and injured 30+, demonstrate he didn't look at his orders as illegal and thus was simply "refusing to obey" them. So regardless of whether he could have used that reasoning to keep from deploying is irrelevant.

Instead of doing such a thing - which given his training and tasking - he wouldn't have been on the firing line "killing his muslim brothers" anyway - and he would know that, he decided to go kill innocent people.

Now I am NOT a psychoanalyst of any sort, but common sense dictates that this wasn't about being put in combat against other muslims, because that wouldn't have happened had he deployed.

Which leaves us with very few other possibilities. It could be related to his views of the war on terror and his religion, it could be the stress of the impending deployment (since deploying at any time is stressful), the concerns over his job performance, or any other outside factors. It is very likely it was a combination of these things, and I suspect that he had no thought that he would actually survive and be taken into custody. The one key here is that other people have these same stresses, they face the same challenges, and yet they don't go shooting innocent people. So what is different between most of those folks and this guy? Could it be the reality, as much as some FEAR discussing it, that he follows a religion that by its very nature is violently opposed to our way of life as a country and society? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 2+2 people.

As for him resigning his commission, I would ask for a link to the fact he tried - but since the comment "he tried and was refused" came from someone who never can provide any proof of his claims, I won't waste my time. I will note though that it is in every officer's contract that any specialized training they undergo but do not repay via serving out their time IS required to be payed back. So to say he COULDN'T or wasn't allowed is bullocks.

Its sad people are just too scared to look at the facts as they are, and be willing to admit that his religious views likely had a major impact on this whole situation. Political correctness proven to have gone to far.

[Aramike]

Could it be the reality, as much as some FEAR discussing it, that he follows a religion that by its very nature is violently opposed to our way of life as a country and society? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 2+2 people.Its sad people are just too scared to look at the facts as they are, and be willing to admit that his religious views likely had a major impact on this whole situation. Political correctness proven to have gone to far. I agree with you, Haplo. Really, I do. But I think you're presenting the argument the wrong way.

See, there have been many individuals throughout history that have performed such barbaric acts. For this example, let's look at Timothy McVeigh. He was certainly not a Muslim extremist, and he certainly cost far more than the incident at Fort Hood.

The thing is that, the more we try to define these issues as a Islamic-oriented phenomenom, the more we lose perspective. PEOPLE in general will commit these crimes.

Ultimately, like it or not, the motivation of this crime seems to be akin to a workplace shooting, or massacre. It sort of reminds me of the origins of the phrase "Going Postal". Okay, fine - the guy was a devout Muslim. Okay, also fine - that probably led to an emboldening of "character" that allowed him to just randomly kill so many people.

In the end, though, how is that different from a right-wing extremist that is so entrenched in their person, albeit misguided, view of the US Constitution that they think that murdering a few people is okay so long as it supports their cause?

Really, it doesn't.

Yet, like I said, I agree with you in principle. But the issue needs to be examined differently. It's really not about whether or not Islam caused THIS issue, due to that so many heinous crimes have occurred with no Islamic connection at all. The REAL issue is the question of whether or not Islam actually ENCOURAGES an increase in these types of crimes.

In fact, that's where we'll agree. Yes, the Muslim faith, while not really ever being an exclusive factor, is seemingly far more influential regarding these types of crimes than other factors. It has seemingly become the lowest common denominator.

[Skybird]

Instead of doing such a thing - which given his training and tasking - he wouldn't have been on the firing line "killing his muslim brothers" anyway - and he would know that,
(...)
but common sense dictates that this wasn't about being put in combat against other muslims, because that wouldn't have happened had he deployed.

I think you see it "too German" here - too well-ordered, too well-structured. It is not about being the one pulling the trigger in the trenches, it is about contributing by your work to the overall effort and inside that one organisation that makes people pulling triggers and killing "his Muslim brothers". Being in the army, he is part of it, even if not firing a weapon, but just "repairing" the tools of combat - soldiers.

he decided to go kill innocent people.

That is the question - was it planned in advance, prepared in advance, since he decided it long before, or did the safeties in his brain suddenly plop out? Which could also have been the case one or two days in advance already. You can loose your mind and then "survive" in that state for several hours, sometimes days, using the time to prepare. But that is not the same like preparing due to a rational decision made ,ong time in advance. Was it a decision by him with his safties still in place, or was it a decision he made because his safeties plopped out?

Which leaves us with very few other possibilities. It could be related to his views of the war on terror and his religion, it could be the stress of the impending deployment (since deploying at any time is stressful), the concerns over his job performance, or any other outside factors. It is very likely it was a combination of these things, and I suspect that he had no thought that he would actually survive and be taken into custody. The one key here is that other people have these same stresses, they face the same challenges, and yet they don't go shooting innocent people. So what is different between most of those folks and this guy? Could it be the reality, as much as some FEAR discussing it, that he follows a religion that by its very nature is violently opposed to our way of life as a country and society? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 2+2 people.

Absolutely, it could be his religion causing his mental stress or assisting it. It could also be mental stress that made him seeking refuge in his religion, as some kind of relief valve. It could be a mixtiure of these and other mentioned factors: loneliness, harassment over being Muslim and being a psycho-doctor.

Aramike is right, these things must be examined, therefore.

As for him resigning his commission, I would ask for a link to the fact he tried - but since the comment "he tried and was refused" came from someone who never can provide any proof of his claims, I won't waste my time. I will note though that it is in every officer's contract that any specialized training they undergo but do not repay via serving out their time IS required to be payed back. So to say he COULDN'T or wasn't allowed is bullocks.

That does not mean they are free to leave the service earlier. It means that if other factors influence the situation so that they must leave early - due to misconduct and a dishonourable discharge for example, maybe also due to accidents and wounds suffered - they have to pay back what they had not given back in service time. Your conclusion is premature, I think. The comments on him having tried to leave but having been rejected, according to the media base both on comments from his family environment, and "witnesses". There is some cinfusion about it, actually, like there is confusion on whether he had to go to Iraq, or Afghanistan, media reports both.

There is a world beyond links. ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

I am not trying to state that his faith made him do it. However, it seems people are trying to find any reason whatsoever so that the reality of his faith being a proponent of violence against those we consider innocent isn't considered or part of the equation.

Sky - the "link" comment was not in regards to you, and the mere fact you have conflicting reports makes me go back to what I know from my own time serving. As an officer, you can resign your commission at any time. If you do so, you are responsible to pay back the US government for a certain percentage of your training. This has always been the case - and what I think is being missed here is the possibility that he tried to resign, was told what it was going to "cost" him that he would have to repay once he was in the civilian sector, making it something he didn't see a way of doing. IF he tried to resign, then it was likely the debt he would have that made him decide not to do so, not that he wasn't "allowed" to.

As for being "too german" - I had to laugh. I am 50% german, so I have an excuse. Though I do understand what you meant, my point is that he was "supporting" the war effort regardless of where he was. The reality of being overseas vs a home station is little - it doesn't matter where your doing the job he did, because he was working with the people that DID pull the trigger. Where that office physically is located really doesn't matter.

Aramike, we totally agree. If I made it seem that his religioun is the only reason this occurred, then I failed to make myself clear. I do think there are a number of factors that created this tragedy.

What I take issue with is what you noted - that his religion IS likely a factor and it seems that people are doing all they can to avoid looking at it.

For example - CNN and FOX both have reported that this man saw the war on terror AS a war on Islam. CNN also, suprisingly, went so far as to note that he is reported to have jumped onto a table as he shot people, yelling "God is Great" (Allahu Akbar) as well as he cleaned out his apartment before the rampage, giving neighbors a copy of the Quran right before he went to out to go kill soldiers.

Did this guy just "slip a cog"? If so, then he did it with remarkable self control. He uses the internet at 5AM, pays a neighbor to clean his apartment after clearing it out, goes to the local market for coffee and hashbrowns, drives onto the post, and then starts shooting people. Did he kill civilians outside the post? No... HE INTENTIONALLY SELECTED TARGETS THAT WERE HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE SOLDIERS!

He was "harrassed".... his neighbor keyed his car - did he go shoot the person who harrassed him? No. If this violence was in response to such things, the people who did it would have been the targett. Did he shoot the other officers who were his "peers" and who are said to have treated him with disrespect over his beliefs and descent? No... he didn't. He went to a spot where most of the people there were soldiers preparing to deploy overseas to continue the fight against terror.

Anyone think that's coincidence?

The facts are there, and even media outlets I have great issues with are reporting them. You have to read whole articles to the very end to find the facts buried, but they are there.

But we have to avoid discussing what role religion played. We have to reach for other reasons, like he slipped a cog, or it was in response to harrassment, or it was because the military wouldn't let him resign, when the FACTS just don't come near fitting those arguements.

It is the blatant refusal or intentional minimizing of the answers that fit the facts the best because they are not politically correct or convienent that I am frustrated over.

Were there other factors besides religion. I am sure there were. There are always "other factors". But the energetic efforts to look at any and all other factors just to avoid the one the facts point to as a strong factor is what is absolutely pitiful.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I am going to simply say this how it is.

What happened at Fort Hood here in Texas...

...was a premeditated act of terrorism committed by YET ANOTHER muslim extremist.

[Tribesman]

As for him resigning his commission, I would ask for a link to the fact he tried - but since the comment "he tried and was refused" came from someone who never can provide any proof of his claims, I won't waste my time
You really should learn when to keep quiet.
Either that or learn English.
Here you go, nice and simple, what do these words mean.....
Apparently according to his family...?

Have a clue.......For example - CNN and FOX both have reported
Errrrrrr ...... could it be that one of those sources which is called FOX did interviews with the family and broadcast them?
Could it really be that those claims made by the family and broadcast by FOX are still unconfirmed by the military and as such currently appear to be claims according to his family?
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 2+2
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Skybird]

I am not trying to state that his faith made him do it. However, it seems people are trying to find any reason whatsoever so that the reality of his faith being a proponent of violence against those we consider innocent isn't considered or part of the equation.

Really? I cannot see that. Both Aramike and me, for example, are aware of the nature of the Islamic ideology. However, we do not take it for granted that this explains it all what happened. What'S wrong with having a closer look and not just taking the first apparently obvious idea as truth for what really happened, and why? Conclusion, how tempting it may be, is no proof. You certainly will not assume anymore that I have a neutral or positive attitude towards Islam. I named it the worst cultural desaster in the history of mankind, remember? But still I want the event being examined with a wider mind on possible scenarios.

As an officer, you can resign your commission at any time. If you do so, you are responsible to pay back the US government for a certain percentage of your training. This has always been the case - and what I think is being missed here is the possibility that he tried to resign, was told what it was going to "cost" him that he would have to repay once he was in the civilian sector, making it something he didn't see a way of doing. IF he tried to resign, then it was likely the debt he would have that made him decide not to do so, not that he wasn't "allowed" to.

You miss one thing there - they say that he asked them to let him leave and that he offered them to pay back all the investements they made to him, and that he offered that by himself - but they refused. And remember when Bush some years ago called back reservists and called for more and repeated tours of enlsited soldiers and officers - the antipathy was great to that, many did not have any sympathy at all for it - but had no other choice than to stay for longer in the military than their contract said, with their regular service time being expanded beyond the time in their treaties due to some smallprint. Obviously they just were not free to leave anytime they like, and obviously those who preferred to desert did so because they could not leave by other means. I find it difficult to believe your claim that you just could leave any time you want. You would have waves of people leaving every time the military becomes unpopular or gets enggaged in operations. No military can afford to allow that.

Do not mistaken me, you do not walk around in a traditional prayer dress if relgion does not have a strong meaning to you, and that Islam is anything but tolerant pacifism, is clear. I'm sure it plays one or another role here. The question that is to be examined is: what role. And one does not do the attempt to raise more public resistance to Islam any good service when attacking somebody for being motivated by islam when he did soemthing bad - and then it turns out that islam did not play the dimonant role, and other factors were more important. then YOU suddenly are in the block and get criticised for being driven by "prejudices" and anti-Islamic "hate". If this Major is to be accused of hvaing been driven by motives linked to or dominated or caused by Islam, then we better make sure that this accusation can be illustrated beyond doubt and hear-say, and the accusation being as water-tight as possible. Else symoathy will shift in favour for the poor victim that Islam has been turned into - by us evil people thinking bad of it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman - I know it drives you nuts if you can't have the last word, but the reality is you have never been one to debate, but rather make claims without providing sources. Therefore, I as well as others find you simply a windbag. The reality that you cannot understand the difference between documented fact - a link to where the military has admitted he made the attempt and was refused, vs "someone claims", especially when that "someone" is a family member of the accused, demonstrates again a marked lack of discernment. Speak all you want, just know that your lack of substance in arguements has been noted, so your viewpoints without a source are summarily dismissed. I prefer to have discussions based on fact, not mindless anti-american dribble in response to a well defined and sourced point of view. Therefore, go ahead and post your inevitable tirade that attempts to minimize the people in the discussion rather than debate the documented reality. I am sure you will understand if I don't waste my time on it.

Skybird - the only folks to make the claim that he attempted to resign have been his family members. Had an attempt been made, there would be documentation to that effect, and to date none has been made public. It would be against the SOP of the Army to refuse to allow such a resignation of an officer. It is also fair to say that any statements by the family must be corroborated, just as any other, instead of taken as gospel without verification. The family has been quoted as saying he was trying to avoid a deployment - but then said he was to be deployed to the wrong place. This indicates their statements are at the least, ill - informed. They also indicated he was in the process of securing legal assistance in the fight to free himself from his military obligation. Given that would have been with a lawyer who was familiar with military law, that lawyer is nowhere to be seen either, is he?

What we have is an after the fact claim by his family, that cannot at this time be substantiated. Add in the actions he committed, the malice aforethought, and the targets he chose, one must be willing to say that the pieces paint a certain picture, or be willing to push aside facts in the interest of political correctness.

Is Islam the source and fault? No. Is it a prominent piece of the puzzle as the facts are known currently? Yes. I am more than willing to say that there are other factors here, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

As for your involuntary extension arguement, I know a bit about that having worn a green suit for many years. *Yes, when I was in, the main BDU sets were green.*

In every contract there is wording that allows, under certain circumstances, for a recall back to active duty, or an extension thereof. There is however, a large difference in the way the contract for a enlisted man, noncom or warrant officer, compared to a commissioned officer.

Any commissioned officer has the right and privelege of resigning that commission. There are stipulations as to how it must be done, and there are repercussions for doing it, as has been discussed regarding repayment of costs for training. An enlisted member of the military, or a warrant officer, has no such right or ability. The only time that a resignation can be refused is under field conditions, and even then it cannot be denied, only postponed, until such time that it can be forwarded to higher command to be handled. A regimental commander cannot just turn to a company commander and say oh you want to resign before this big battle where you might get killed? Ok. What he can do is decide if the person is required on the battlefield, and based on that decision, relegate him to the rear for processing, or require him to fulfil his duty under field conditions, and then MUST, as conditions permit, move the man to the rear to have his resignation processed.

A resignation is not just raising your hand and saying "ok I don't want to play anymore, I am going to pack my stuff and go home". IF a resignation was attempted, if the unit was not under field conditions, it could not legally been refused. I am not saying it didn't happen, but I am saying that the facts as we know them do NOT support the spin that is trying to be created. IF a resignation was attempted, was it before or after deployment orders? If before, then there would have been no reason to refuse it. If after, then it would appear someone higher up the chain personally violated the SOP by saying no -IF it happened. Again - IF it did, then the officer had several options for recourse that DID NOT INVOLVE KILLING 13 INNOCENT PEOPLE!

So far there have been multiple "what if" scenarios bandied about.

#1 "He wasn't allowed to resign".
Well, there is no documentation showing he tried as yet, if he had been told no there were numerous ways to correct that error that would have KEPT him from having to deploy had he chosen to use them. So to claim someone gave him an answer he didn't like so he decided to go shoot a bunch of soldiers getting ready to deploy doesn't add up. If anything, he would have shot whoever told him no....

#2 "He was harrassed because of his religion and ethnicity."
OK, again we find no official documentation to that effect. There are avenues to bring attention and fix such things, but once again, they were apparently not used. The man's actions - targetting soldiers about to deploy, instead of the man who keyed his car, or his colleagues who supposedly harrassed him, again do no lend any credence to this arguement. If someone is bullying you, and you can take revenge, you don't choose a third party to do so on. Just doesn't match the facts.

#3 "He just went crazy and snapped."
A man who just loses his hold on sanity doesn't clear out his apartment, pay a neighbor to clean the place, hand out Quran's to the people he knows, head toward work, stop for some coffee and a hashbrown, then drive onto a post to the ONE PLACE where he knows soldiers going overseas to fight the war on terror are going to be just to go in and shoot the place up. Someone who loses hold on sanity doesn't care who their targets are, after all, they have "lost it". Had he lost it, he would have just shot up the neighbors, the convenience store clerk and whoever he came across on post. He didn't. He specifically TARGETED members of the military. So the "slipped a cog" view doesn't hold water any better than the others.

The facts, and I will stipulate that we have an incomplete view of them, point fairly strongly to a specific set of reasons why this occured.

Out of political correctness, the last thing people want to talk about is what those reasons are. Just as you said Skybird:

"Else symoathy will shift in favour for the poor victim that Islam has been turned into - by us evil people thinking bad of it.

Well forgive me, but I am done with "politically correct" at this point. 13 of my brothers and sisters, countrymen both in and out of uniform are DEAD. 30 some people are injured, some in ways that will never have hope of healing, and you think I should be "politically correct". Sorry, not happening. Political correctness will kill us all, just as surely as it has had a role, however minor or major it turns out to be, in the deaths of those we have just recently lost.

[ETR3(SS)]

A military member is obligated to obey legal orders, not just any order. Upon review of my enlistment papers I found the following.

I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is what I had in mind when I made my original post about "ALL orders." You are correct in saying that a military member is obligated to obey legal orders, not just any order. But, what officer in his right mind would issue an unlawful order? Not to mention the burden of proof required at that moment of it being an unlawful order.

CaptainHaplo, I believe you and I are on the same page here, not only for this topic but this thread as well. Thank you for wording the argument much better than I could have.:up:

[Tribesman]

Its quite simple Haplo , if you have a problem with reading English then that is your problem.
not mindless anti-american dribble
Wow imaginary posts you find young padawan:rotfl2:
So it not just problems with English you have, its problems with reality too.

The reality that you cannot understand the difference between documented fact -
Would you like the last english lesson repeated again?
:har::har::har::har::har:

[Freiwillige]

He was screaming "Alla Akbar", God is great in Palestinian.

He was an extremist who once defended suicide bombers.

He was concerned about fighting other Islamic peoples.





Yep another damn Islamic nut. And thanks to the western worlds liberal policy's, our backyard is full of em.

[Skybird]

Well forgive me, but I am done with "politically correct" at this point. 13 of my brothers and sisters, countrymen both in and out of uniform are DEAD. 30 some people are injured, some in ways that will never have hope of healing, and you think I should be "politically correct". Sorry, not happening. Political correctness will kill us all, just as surely as it has had a role, however minor or major it turns out to be, in the deaths of those we have just recently lost.

I am not trying to be politically correct, Haplo, I am done with that PC garbage brigade as much as you are. But that is not what it is about - but it is about avoiding to give the pro-Islamic crowd the argument to label resistance to Islam and questioning it's compatability with Western key characteristics and values as Islamophobia, hate-crime and irrational prejudice. That'S why I want the case against this amok runner, if his faith has something to do with his motivation, to be watertight.

You may not care for political correctness, but you should care for not weakening opposition and - in a social, civilisational meaning - "fighting spirit" against growing Islamic influence and cultural land-taking. Too much damage to that cause already is beign done by leaving the field to Rightiwngers and Neonazis claiming the fight against Islam their own. It gets discredited that way - because it is being given a neonazistic face, resulting all opposition to Islam being called "racist" and "neonazistic".

Is that what you want? And before you answer: "I don't care, I have had by share of experince with Islam", the follow up question: do you think easing your emotional status of the moment, and this present moment alone, is worth to weaken the already difficult opposition to Islam in general? You say you have been a serviceman. Then you have learned the importance of discipline, patience, and holding your fire until the right moment to open fire arrived, without giving away your position prematurely. So, act by that stuff you've learned. It's effective.

If that man is a religious extremist - and the FBI says there is growing indication for that - that'S what he will be called then. But not before it is shown and proven. Else irrational crowd opinion will turn <once again> against those calling Islam to be responsible for it - and that is what I am a bit tired of. I just overread a German comment arguing in favour of why Islam cannot have anythign to do with events like in Fort Hood, and that in the wake of it "the hour of the Islamophobes has come again".

Oh my...

Thinking one can decide while being in a state of emotion, is wrong. One gets decided.

[Onkel Neal]

Upon review of my enlistment papers I found the following.

This is what I had in mind when I made my original post about "ALL orders." You are correct in saying that a military member is obligated to obey legal orders, not just any order. But, what officer in his right mind would issue an unlawful order? Not to mention the burden of proof required at that moment of it being an unlawful order.

CaptainHaplo, I believe you and I are on the same page here, not only for this topic but this thread as well. Thank you for wording the argument much better than I could have.:up:

I think everyone knew what you meant, mate. :yep: I think someone wanted to take your statement and interpret it more literally than you expected it to be taken.

[Subnuts]

He was screaming "Alla Akbar", God is great in Palestinian.


Are you sure that's not how it's said in Mexican? :yawn:

[antikristuseke]

I think everyone knew what you meant, mate. :yep: I think someone wanted to take your statement and interpret it more literally than you expected it to be taken.

While that is possible, the first I read his post I thought, "Hang on, this is either BS or things are very different in the States but here a soldier is only required to follow lawful orders."
But most are not quite as literal minded as I am, I suppose.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am unaware that he ever defended suicide bombers.... If they blew themselves into tiny bits, what was he defending? He wasn't a lawyer. I suspect you meant he defended the rational and "reasoning" of suicide bombing? I am not aware of that, would be interested to see that information.

As for a water-tight case....

In America the standard is not irrefutable proof, but reasonable doubt. Though the military court he will face has even less standards for evidence and a stricter interpretation of innocent or guilt, I am using the civilian model.

There is more than merely REASONABLE doubt on every other set of arguements that have been put forth to explain this. Thus, when you remove all other options, your left with the one that fits the facts. That is where I am coming from.

Oh and Skybird - regarding "waiting till you see the whites of their eyes" before firing.... There are times when tactically that is necessary, but its often better to fire from range, force the enemy's head down, and give yourself time to reposition or hold your enemy in place so outside forces can flank.... or my personal favorite, drop napalm.

:yeah:

I see your point, and it is valid, I just think the time for restraint in pointing out the cancers within has passed.

[Skybird]

This is about winning the public opinion war against Islam, Haplo, and that is an irrational thing, and you also fight against people's inborn phlegmatism. Giving evidence to pro-islamic sympathiser's claim that resistance to Islam is xenophobia and racism only and is based on prejeudice (how ironic of them), must be avoided. Proving them right makes it more difficult in the future. so again ma advise: no early salvos, only open fire when you have a clear target identified and within destruction range. Symbolic acts only do not help us at all, but makes it even more difficult.

I wonder if the man's religious background will play any role at court, may it be civilian or military, at all. He will not be sentenced for what motivated him, but for the outcome his actions resulted in, or am I wrong?

[CaptainHaplo]

In the US, both motivating factors as well as the acts themselves are considered in civilian courts. Motivations are slightly less important in military cases, but they still are considered.

This guy will undergo a military trial, and it will not be a public spectacle. In 6 months or so there will be a small footnote in the news about it more than likely.

But yes, his religion will be a factor.

Note that this is now being linked directly to his religious views. If a "independant democrat" senator - aka Joe Lieberman, can call it a terrorist attack, its safe to say enough links have been found. I may disagree with Joe on a number of policy issues, but he is not one to go off half baked.

[Skybird]

If that is what it turns out to be: well, for once I behaved a bit defensive in favour of Islam - and immediately got punished for that! ::D

[Tribesman]

I am unaware that he ever defended suicide bombers.... If they blew themselves into tiny bits, what was he defending? He wasn't a lawyer. I suspect you meant he defended the rational and "reasoning" of suicide bombing? I am not aware of that, would be interested to see that information.

It is reported that he was under investigation by the FBI for some writings on the internet where he(alledgedly)compared suicide bombers with Kamikaze actions and with soldiers sacrificing their lives for their comrades.

I think everyone knew what you meant, mate.
No, as that cannot have been what was meant.
Obeying orders is obeying orders.
Following the UCMJ is following the UCMJ.
Keeping the oath of enlistment/commission is keeping the oath.

Writing "ALL orders" changes the statement entirely and makes it incorrect especially as it is definitive and the caps lock puts the focus on the "ALL".

If it was what was meant then ETR wouldn't have come back with .....Please cite your source on this. Particularly the part about not having to obey the orders of those appointed over you.

[Schroeder]

He was screaming "Alla Akbar", God is great in Palestinian.


Hm, I wasn't aware that the Palestinians have their own language....;)

[SteamWake]

Well it seems like our homeland security cant find a common language either.


U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.


Now your going to try to tell me that no one dropped the ball on this one?

Heres an opinion piece

In retrospect, the signs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's growing anger over the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem unmistakable

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BRD8GO1.html

[Freiwillige]

Hassan has argued with his colleges that Islamic law trumps the U.S. constitution.

[Platapus]

Hm, I wasn't aware that the Palestinians have their own language....;)

Well, they kinda do. But it is more a dialect than a separate language

Palestinian Arabic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Arabic

[nikimcbee]

If that is what it turns out to be: well, for once I behaved a bit defensive in favour of Islam - and immediately got punished for that! ::D
Now you must be some sort of Fifth columnist for radical islam. I didn't see that one coming.


Why is the West so afraid of taking on (radical) islam? If this was any other religion, we'd be taking names and kicking their ass. We really need to start pushing these bullies back. And the most frustrating part is how politically divided we are over the subject.:nope: Radical islam is a cancer and needs to be treated accordingly. And change needs to start in their own house, the rest of islam needs to purge this ilk out of the religion.


But we don't want to offend them:shifty::nope:. We can do this non-violently, hit them in the wallet, seize their assets.

[nikimcbee]

In the US, both motivating factors as well as the acts themselves are considered in civilian courts. Motivations are slightly less important in military cases, but they still are considered.

This guy will undergo a military trial, and it will not be a public spectacle. In 6 months or so there will be a small footnote in the news about it more than likely.

But yes, his religion will be a factor.

Note that this is now being linked directly to his religious views. If a "independant democrat" senator - aka Joe Lieberman, can call it a terrorist attack, its safe to say enough links have been found. I may disagree with Joe on a number of policy issues, but he is not one to go off half baked.

What is the punishment for fratricide in the military? Is there one? If it is death, do you think the US military would actually execute a muslim for his crimes? Where are the Russian prison brigades when you need them. I say, deploy his ass to Iraq~Afghanistan and have him clear minefields:woot:.

[Skybird]

Now you must be some sort of Fifth columnist for radical islam. I didn't see that one coming.


Why is the West so afraid of taking on (radical) islam? If this was any other religion, we'd be taking names and kicking their ass. We really need to start pushing these bullies back. And the most frustrating part is how politically divided we are over the subject.:nope: Radical islam is a cancer and needs to be treated accordingly. And change needs to start in their own house, the rest of islam needs to purge this ilk out of the religion.


But we don't want to offend them:shifty::nope:. We can do this non-violently, hit them in the wallet, seize their assets.
Three arguments against it.
1. Oil.
2. PC
3. 70 years of peace causing havoc in people's mind. Most people take peace and freedom for granted. They are not aware of that it needs to be earned, fought for, defended. They also think it is negotiable, can be traded for benefits in return, quantified. They do not see the value in it, like we usually are also not aware of the value of breathing air. Just when we cannot breath - then we see all too sudden what we are missing.

[PeriscopeDepth]

What is the punishment for fratricide in the military? Is there one? If it is death, do you think the US military would actually execute a muslim for his crimes?
I think this guy will get what he deserves by military justice. Death.

PD

[Platapus]

I think this guy will get what he deserves by military justice. Death.

PD

Death comes slowly in the military court system.

Currently we have 9 men on Death Row and the last execution was 13 Apr 61 (before many of us on this board were born). The death penalty was reinstated in the Military in 1984.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

Hasan, if convicted, will probably die in prison of old age/health issues before getting executed.

[SteamWake]

Death comes slowly in the military court system.

Currently we have 9 men on Death Row and the last execution was 13 Apr 61 (before many of us on this board were born). The death penalty was reinstated in the Military in 1984.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

Hasan, if convicted, will probably die in prison of old age/health issues before getting executed.

I'm afraid he's right.

The guy has hooked up with a lawyer already and is only speaking to his doctor and his lawyer. Which is his right.

But you can see the handwrighting on the wall with the way everyone has reacted to this. The media in particular.

The hesitation to call a terrorist act for what it is disturbs me.

All the signs were there. People dident speak for fear of retaliation in there 'standing' seeming 'insinative'.

Now look where we are.

[Tribesman]

The hesitation to call a terrorist act for what it is disturbs me.

Was it terrorism though?

[Platapus]

Well defining terrorism is a lot like defining art. We know it when we see it but trying to finitely describe it in words everyone can agree on is harder.

Even the US Government can't decide on one and only one definition of terrorism/terrorist.

What is the difference between a terrorist attack and some guy off his nut killing people?

Unless it can be demonstrated that Hasan was part of a larger group, with some sort of political/social agenda it might be harder to pin "terrorist" on him.

Was the jerk who had 13 dead women in his house a terrorist? Was Bundy a terrorist? Albert DeSalvo?

I hope that the word "terrorist" is not being applied simply because he was a Muslim. :nope:

A man can be a Muslim and be a nut job killer without being a terrorist just like a man can be a Christian and be a nut job killer without being a terrorist.

Personally, I don't care whether Hasan was a terrorist or just a nut job. He committed a crime (many crimes) and he needs to be tried as a criminal and given a criminal's sentence.

As long as he is in prison, hopefully on death row, you can call him the Easter Bunny for all I care. All I care is that he either dies quickly or slowly in prison for his crimes.

[Platapus]

I would like to know how this guy was able to afford a FN Five Seven and the ammo. Looking about a $1,000-1,200 for the gun and about $0.40 per round!! Figuring that he did not reload the .357 and people are saying he shot 100 rounds (five mags), that is about $40 just in ammo for the 5.7.

Pretty expensive way to go nuts.

Looks like the 5.7 round did its job though. :nope:

A nice weapon. Too bad this a-hole has to besmirch its reputation like that. :down:

I believe this is the first time the 5.7 has been used to kill someone in the US. Mexico has experienced several 5.7 deaths though.

[ETR3(SS)]

I would like to know how this guy was able to afford a FN Five Seven and the ammo. Looking about a $1,000-1,200 for the gun and about $0.40 per round!! Figuring that he did not reload the .357 and people are saying he shot 100 rounds (five mags), that is about $40 just in ammo for the 5.7.

Pretty expensive way to go nuts.

Looks like the 5.7 round did its job though. :nope:

A nice weapon. Too bad this a-hole has to besmirch its reputation like that. :down:

I believe this is the first time the 5.7 has been used to kill someone in the US. Mexico has experienced several 5.7 deaths though.
He is/was a Major. Depending upon how long he was in for, he was making at least $4k a month, before taxes and any special pay(s). I think that more than covers the cost.

[SteamWake]

I would like to know how this guy was able to afford a FN Five Seven and the ammo. Looking about a $1,000-1,200 for the gun and about $0.40 per round!! Figuring that he did not reload the .357 and people are saying he shot 100 rounds (five mags), that is about $40 just in ammo for the 5.7.

Pretty expensive way to go nuts.

Looks like the 5.7 round did its job though. :nope:

A nice weapon. Too bad this a-hole has to besmirch its reputation like that. :down:

I believe this is the first time the 5.7 has been used to kill someone in the US. Mexico has experienced several 5.7 deaths though.

This post is just so bizzare on so many levels.

[Aramike]

This post is just so bizzare on so many levels.Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...

The guy's willing to shoot so many people, and there's a concern with the cost of such an attack, even though its a trivial amount that a McDonalds cashier could easily secure? :06:

[Platapus]

The point was that I would have expected some nut job to just go out and buy a 9mm as that is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) calibre handgun.

But to choose an exotic weapon like the 5.7, I find interesting.

Be interesting to find out if Hasan was an avid shooter or whether he bought this weapon specifically for this shooting....and why?

[SteamWake]

whether he bought this weapon specifically for this shooting....and why?

You actually have to ask why?

[Platapus]

You actually have to ask why?

Well... without knowing the reason, yeah I guess I need to ask.

[Happy Times]

No suprise that Subsims rabid anti-americans and politically correct useful fools are downplaying this incident.

There is a large amount of info on the shooter, clearly pointing this to be an terrorist act.
He acted based on his conviction, as he understood his religion, this act set him free and purified him in his mind.
I was in Egypt at the time of the incident and the locals also seemed pleased with his act.

Faced with good arguments and facts i can correct my wiews accordingly.
But with Islam as a ideology and the threat it poses to our culture, my wiews have only strenghtened during the past 10 years.

RIP to the victims and their families.

[Tribesman]

There is a large amount of info on the shooter, clearly pointing this to be an terrorist act.

What is terrorism?

He acted based on his conviction, as he understood his religion, this act set him free and purified him in his mind.

What took him so long then?

[Tribesman]

There is a large amount of info on the shooter, clearly pointing this to be an terrorist act.

What is terrorism?

He acted based on his conviction, as he understood his religion, this act set him free and purified him in his mind.

What took him so long then?

[Skybird]

Western nation's laws and interntional treaties as well as special literature on terrorism list over 130 definitions of terrorism. Engage in that debate, and you move in circles until the end of the decade.

[CaptainHaplo]

But Skybird, when certain people can't argue the reality of a situation, they fall back on talking points and circular reasoning as a way of trying to avoid a serious debate. That was the whole point of the questions....

AKA - don't feed trolls.

[Skybird]

I know, Haplo - and that is what I wanted to illustrate. Trying to exactly define terrorism where authors, juristic experts and governments fail to acchieve an international consensus since loooong time is most likely a distraction from the real discussion here. You could at best list some characteristics that most of the time most people agree upon, but still have too many differences left as that you could talk of a generally agreed consensus. European governments do not even agree in full on the legal definitions used by the EU, although one would assume that the EU definitions had been formed by these national governments.

Also, plenty of opportunism in accepting this part of the defintion, but not that part, as representative for "terrorism".

The only real danger here is that the absence of any consensus enables factions to maske use of the opportunity to push their agenda and interest and trying to prevent opposition to it by declaring their own attempt as "fighting terrorism". In fact this has taken place massively in the years since 2001, from America over Europe to Russia and China. even north Korea claimed to "fight terrorism".

Having a consensus on the meaning of "terrorism" would be nice, but the only thing we know for sure is that we do not have it, and probably never will - which holds its own risks that we possibly cannot avoid. Therefore we need to find a balance between pragmatism and theory that all in all works well enough. Means that works if not in most cases so then in a sufficient majority of cases.

[Tribesman]

Western nation's laws and interntional treaties as well as special literature on terrorism list over 130 definitions of terrorism.
Exactly, which is why it makes no sense for someone to say
clearly pointing this to be an terrorist act.

Trying to exactly define terrorism where authors, juristic experts and governments fail to acchieve an international consensus since loooong time is most likely a distraction from the real discussion here.
Other way round, calling it terrorism is a distraction as that term is increasingly meaningless.

when certain people can't argue the reality of a situation
They make a strawman and ask people to prove the truth of something that was never claimed in the first place.:up:

[Skybird]

On ecan grab a handful of sand in a fist, see it disappearing between the fingers - and opening the hand with just a few grains of sand left, you still have no dobt that it sand you are talking about.

If that murderer did not ran amok due to shortcircuiting, but was ideologically motivated to do the deed (and it more and more seems to be the case), then it was a terrorist attack linked to and caused by the ideological content of the islamic message (with the Quran being in explicit defence of using tactics of terror and fear black on white, i just want to remind of that). It is islamic terror then, with him being an Islamic terrorist.

[Tribesman]

On ecan grab a handful of sand in a fist, see it disappearing between the fingers - and opening the hand with just a few grains of sand left, you still have no dobt that it sand you are talking about.

The problem is when people take a grain of sand and say it is a whole desert.

BTW, your thing about Islam(though you do have a thing about all religions), your take on the scripture is very common. Lots of islamic nuts take it that way, if you go to somewhere like Gates of Vienna or Jihadwatch they will have the same take on it, lots of publications use the translations of a very reknowned French/Jewish scholar to demonstrate the "explicit" message. They will use passage after passage of his work to illustrate it, yet they never seem to bother with his actual study on that particular issue though.
Which is that the only way it can be used to justify such actions is if it is taken out of context and misinterpreted.

[Skybird]

I've red the better part of the Quran except the last quarter where it becaame so very bad that I could not stand it any longer, and plenty of secondary literature on it and the Hadith and Sharia, and history, some of it considered academic standard works. I was part in confronting Islam at court and preventing a local grow of islamic influence on the basis of fraud and lies here in my city, I confronted islamic speakers at "information desks" in the pedestrian zones and raised support on the scene and so chased them away on two occasions, and I remember quite some comments and arguments I was given in a most natural manner when being in islamic countries for quite some months (15, all in all) and local residents in places told me what they were thinking about life and the world, and the West and the role of Islam in it all.

So go on, tell me about "misunderstanding" Islam. I do something more usefull meanwhile, I go to sleep.

[Aramike]

I'll say this: for better or for worse, Skybird seems to have the basic grasp of the tenets of Islam. I tend to agree with most of his views on religion in general, actually - except for perhaps the manner in which they are presented. Ironically, though, he's not bogged down by the biased views of your typical anti-religious liberal - am I the only one that finds it odd that people so accustomed to bashing any form of Christianity seem to often FEAR any affront to Islam, even though the beliefs of Muslims fly far more in the face of your average liberal's ideals?

That's why, agree with him or not, I typically respect Skybird's position because - most of the time - it seems well thought out rather than arbitrary. That being said, everyone knows I don't always agree. However, on Islam I do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - Liberals hate Xtianity because it is the dominant religion here in the US. Thus, its moralistic teachings are a threat to some of the desires of liberalism. Islam on the other hand, is a religion that is NOT highly relevant in the same way. It is unable to push any moralistic views within the political climate here. Therefore, its not a threat to their agenda at this time.

Yes, if they paid attention, they would realize its a far greater threat, but most true liberals have on blinders. It is the obstacle in front of their nose they see, never looking down the road.

[Tribesman]

Aramike - Liberals hate Xtianity because it is the dominant religion here in the US.
Actually people laugh at those who make a big issue of their claimed religion as they are usually the worst possible examples of that particular religion.
It works equally with the very vocal elements of all three abrahamic faiths.
The louder and more frequently they rant about their particular faith the more likely it is that they are a really bad example of what that actual faith is.

[Onkel Neal]

I'll say this: for better or for worse, Skybird seems to have the basic grasp of the tenets of Islam. I tend to agree with most of his views on religion in general, actually - except for perhaps the manner in which they are presented. Ironically, though, he's not bogged down by the biased views of your typical anti-religious liberal - am I the only one that finds it odd that people so accustomed to bashing any form of Christianity seem to often FEAR any affront to Islam, even though the beliefs of Muslims fly far more in the face of your average liberal's ideals?




I found this funny, the director of the new disaster flick 2012:

The director's heart is probably not with them, though — not after he's blown away a Buddhist monastery, the Sistine Chapel and the giant Jesus statue overlooking Rio de Janeiro. (Not that Emmerich holds nothing sacred. In an online interview (http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/5-best-things-2012s-direc.php), he's quoted as saying that he'd wanted to wipe out a sacred Islamic shrine, too, but then thought ... maybe not: "You can [let] Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with an Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa. So I kind of left it out."

These bold outspoken types are always mum when it comes to Islam. :arrgh!:

[OneToughHerring]

These bold outspoken types are always mum when it comes to Islam. :arrgh!:

Roland Emmerich is more like a moron then a "outspoken type". Kinda like Michael Bay, which explains why someone like you would put so much weight on his opinion.

[nikimcbee]

These bold outspoken types are always mum when it comes to Islam. :arrgh!:

Whimps. When was the last time hollywood made fun of islam anyway? Remember when apple had that cube thingy that all the muslims freaked out over?:haha:

[Freiwillige]

The reality is that you can make fun of anybody's religion except the chosen ones or Muslims.

That is the reality. the chosen ones of faith will take all offense of anything against their religion and Muslims will take an extreme against any question of theirs.

But Christianity, Buddhism, asatru etc. is fair game in anybody's books.

This is the world in which we have painted ourselves.

[SteamWake]

Right ... so who dident see this comming?

FORT WORTH, (http://get.lingospot.com/link/?@li2=11750&is_lhid=1&key=SVKEJENJ&ps_id=OmMUq3FtfC&q=QQ:lqOTqjptCQ:PP[@PPA_ORJJOAGAOBDIVOqptJ:pnCBOqmj_J:pnCPO4aJm8CPAAR A:GSSBKVV&site_id=breitbart.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftopics.breitbart.com%2FFORT%2BWOR TH%2F&url_key=_TaCUO0CGB{7{:U[DK&v=1&~boot=1259174538593)Texas (http://topics.breitbart.com/Texas/) (AP) - An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an (http://get.lingospot.com/link/?@li2=11750&is_lhid=1&key=SVKEJENJ&ps_id=OmMUq3FtfC&q=QQ:lqOTqjptCQ:PP[@PPA_ORJJOAGAOBDIVOqptJ:pnCBOqmj_J:pnCPO4aJm8CPAAR A:GSSBKVV&site_id=breitbart.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftopics.breitbart.com%2FFORT%2BWOR TH%2F&url_key=_TaCUO0CGB{7{:U[DK&v=1&~boot=1259174538593)insanity defense (http://topics.breitbart.com/insanity+defense/) at his military trial, his attorney said Monday.
(http://get.lingospot.com/link/?@li2=11750&is_lhid=1&key=SVKEJENJ&ps_id=OmMUq3FtfC&q=QQ:lqOTqjptCQ:PP[@PPA_ORJJOAGAOBDIVOqptJ:pnCBOqmj_J:pnCPO4aJm8CPAAR A:GSSBKVV&site_id=breitbart.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftopics.breitbart.com%2FFORT%2BWOR TH%2F&url_key=_TaCUO0CGB{7{:U[DK&v=1&~boot=1259174538593)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C5JJHO0&show_article=1

[Platapus]

He can try, but getting off on the Insanity defense is not all that easy.

But hey, what does he have to lose by trying?

[SteamWake]

He can try, but getting off on the Insanity defense is not all that easy.

But hey, what does he have to lose by trying?

Right after all he is a professional.

[Jimbuna]

He can try, but getting off on the Insanity defense is not all that easy.

But hey, what does he have to lose by trying?

Possibly his life....do they still have the death penalty? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Yes but the military has not executed anyone since the 60's

[Jimbuna]

Perhaps it's about time there ws a change of policy.

Provided he is convicted of course.

[Platapus]

Well we have nine already on military death row. Hasan will make 10, but as I previously posted, he will probably die of old age on death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

[Jimbuna]

A good informative link http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

I'm not implying or assuming anything but I notice they are all male and the majority are black.

[OneToughHerring]

A good informative link http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

I'm not implying or assuming anything but I notice they are all male and the majority are black.

I've posted a link to that page once before when discussing the death penalty. Lots of really strange and alarming stuff on that page. Like for example:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill-victim

But hey, the US really digs the death penalty.

[Platapus]

A good informative link http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

I'm not implying or assuming anything but I notice they are all male and the majority are black.


Then if you are not implying or assuming anything, why bring attention to it?

[Jimbuna]

Then if you are not implying or assuming anything, why bring attention to it?

Because that was the detail that immediately 'stood out'.