Josef Svejk or John Yossarian?

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.

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:

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.

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


It is also reiterated in Article 92 of the UCMJ


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punit...es/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



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



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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

You really should learn when to keep quiet.
Either that or learn English.
Here you go, nice and simple, what do these words mean.....
...?

Have a clue.......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?
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har: