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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

Would you like the last english lesson repeated again?
:har::har::har::har::har:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 .....

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