Alleged Fort Hood shooter paralyzed from waist down

[KJB]

I define myself as a religious conservative.

 

I'll let you know when I snap.

 

I'm sorry. Could you point to where I say that being a religious conservative makes you likely to snap?

 

This guy snapped because of the stresses of being a military psychiatrist who opposes the war possibly because of his religion, not the stresses of being a religious conservative.

[unsinkable]

I'm sorry. Could you point to where I say that being a religious conservative makes you likely to snap?

 

This guy snapped because of the stresses of being a military psychiatrist who opposes the war possibly because of his religion, not the stresses of being a religious conservative.

 

I wasn't quoting you...:confused:

 

ETA:

 

My point was that there are many religious conservatives that are labelled as such before they "snap."

[KJB]

Perhaps you are paranoid about being labelled paranoid?

 

If you admit to this, then you are indeed, paranoid.

 

:lol:

 

I've been called worse. :lol:

[KJB]

I wasn't quoting you...:confused:

 

ETA:

 

My point was that there are many religious conservatives that are labelled as such before they "snap."

 

sorry....I'm just paranoid. :D:lol::grouphug:

[unsinkable]

sorry....I'm just paranoid. :D:lol::grouphug:

 

No problem! :grouphug:

[Osmosis Mom]

I'm sorry. Could you point to where I say that being a religious conservative makes you likely to snap?

 

This guy snapped because of the stresses of being a military psychiatrist who opposes the war possibly because of his religion, not the stresses of being a religious conservative.

 

If this is your point of view, then we agree.

 

it is not lawful for one Muslim to kill another (or to kill innocent people, but if both sides are militant then this is different as long as they are not Muslims), so perhaps he just figured this out recently?? But then again, he was being deployed as a psychiatrist, not as someone in the field, so why the conflict now?

[asta]

Originally Posted by kjb

 

Why couldn't he have done the same thing as an enlisted soldier? I am not sure what you mean as enlisted soldiers not having the same freedom of movement as officers. In the military I am familiar with, anyone can buy and hide a handgun and show up at a populated area and start shooting. In fact, you can be a civilian and do this if you have base/post accesss. You don't need any special freedom of movement to accomplish this goal.

 

Enlisted soldiers are restricted in their movements. They are not allowed to simply move about a military installation of their own free will. They have to be in certain places, under supervision, at all times. When an enlisted soldier becomes a non-comissioned officer, their movements become less constricted, but that is also after they have been in the military for (usually) one term. This has been sped up a bit since the war, as it does with all wars, but the professionalism expected of NCOs in the US Military is considered the highest in the world.

 

A far as not having to deploy as a med student, there are other specialties where he would *NEVER* have to deploy such as a pediatric dentist.

 

That is incorrect. Firstly, docs who are *solely* pediatricians are contractors, not active duty. Active duty docs may have a primary specialty of peds, but they also have a secondary of internal medicine, general practice, etc. Secondly, all dentists deploy. A large number of dentists deploy with Special Forces to truly nasty places to provide dental care to underserved populations.

 

Further, there are other career fields that would offer him better access to military secrets if his plan was to be a double agent all along. It does not add up that he'd choose medicine.

 

Absolutely. Being a doctor was probably one of the worst things he ever could have chosen.

 

This guy is a doctor. His career was about helping people. He joined the military probably to fund his education not to find an opportunity to kill military members.

 

I disagree.

 

According to his aunt, he was trying to get out of the Army but was refused because of his commitment to pay back the military for paying for his education. I don't know how formal his efforts were, but I do know if he'd mentioned this he would have been told by superiors that getting out would be impossible. The demand for psychiatrists is just too high right now.

 

There is no evidence to support his aunt's claims. Demand is irrelevant. If he had walked into his superior's office and told him that he was going to kill every infidel and apostate in sight if he didn't get released from his contract, I'm betting they would have found a way to make sure he was no longer around anyone.

 

Many people are resentful and fearful. Many people have integrity and fulfill their obligations anyway. Also, I'm not sure who the private citizens doing tours in combat zones are?

 

Do some research. I know for fact that ER docs out of Atlanta were doing it because it helped them learn how to deal with gang violence trauma. It's the same concept as Medicins sans Frontiers.

 

-- "Army Hospital Gets Civilian Aid; Filling Military Gap, Neurosurgeons Tend Wounded From Iraq" (The Washington Post April 25, 2005)

-- "Lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq: The Costly Benefits from the Battlefield for Emergency Medicine" (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 486-488) Civilian doctors are bringing their trauma experience to the field.

-- "Civilian doctor observes aeromedical evac flights to help train military medics" (618th Tanker Airlift Control Center Public Affairs)

 

It is absolutely 110% NOT the fault of the military that this guy lost it. It IS HIS OWN FAULT and he should be held accountable. He knew when he joined that he wasn't on our side. I think he thought he could stomach it until he'd fulfilled his commitment and could get out.

 

I agree.

 

He was playing the role for money, not for religion.

 

I disagree.

 

Anyway, it's a good discussion. I read the Forbes article and I found a lot of it interesting and true. However, the initial premise that he must have been either a religious Jihad guy OR a psycho is inaccurate.

 

IMO, he was both a religious conservative AND a man who needed psychiatric intervention. He wanted to use the system to pay for his life but he wasn't able to handle the commitment that choice entailed.

 

I also think it is an interesting discussion. I do not think he was able to handle the commitment of his life choice.

 

a

[Riverfront Headmistress]

Let the punishment fit the crime.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Osmosis Mom - you quoted just one of my posts which was specifically addressing whether someone has to be insane to act in that manner. Yes, the examples I gave were of Muslim extremists because the suspect himself tied himself to Muslim extremists.

 

If you looked just a little bit farther in the thread you would have seen the following post which makes it clear that I am talking about a subset of Muslims and not Muslims as a violent subset of all cultures.

 

But, Astrid, normal people can do this if they believe strongly enough in their ideals. It just so happened that his ideals are the same ones that normal people with an allegiance to certain Islamic beliefs hold. (Note I said certain Islamic beliefs, not all Islamic beliefs). It may seem insane to us because we don't believe that we should pursue our ideals at the expense of the lives of others but some do and have throughout history. Can mentally ill people buy into this stuff? Sure. But there isn't a one-to-one correspondence to killing for idealogical reasons and insanity.

[Renee in NC]

Enlisted soldiers are restricted in their movements. They are not allowed to simply move about a military installation of their own free will. They have to be in certain places, under supervision, at all times. When an enlisted soldier becomes a non-comissioned officer, their movements become less constricted, but that is also after they have been in the military for (usually) one term. This has been sped up a bit since the war, as it does with all wars, but the professionalism expected of NCOs in the US Military is considered the highest in the world.

 

When did this start? My dh was enlisted and was never restricted on post other than places you needed clearance to go. During duty hours they had to be certain places (just like any other job), but there was no one keeping him there. We were all over post for various things throughout his time there and never did anyone stop him or us and question why we were there. He could definitely move around of his own free will. If he had wanted to get a gun and find someplace where there were lots of people and shoot them, he could have easily.

 

This is not the first time a soldier has done this (it happened at Ft. Bragg and it happened in Iraq.)

[LizzyBee]

When did this start? My dh was enlisted and was never restricted on post other than places you needed clearance to go. During duty hours they had to be certain places (just like any other job), but there was no one keeping him there. We were all over post for various things throughout his time there and never did anyone stop him or us and question why we were there. He could definitely move around of his own free will. If he had wanted to get a gun and find someplace where there were lots of people and shoot them, he could have easily.

 

This is not the first time a soldier has done this (it happened at Ft. Bragg and it happened in Iraq.)

 

I was wondering the same thing. My xh was in the Army and then the Air Force. His movements were restricted when he was in boot camp, but not after that. Of course, when he was working in a secure area, there were certain places he couldn't go, but that applied to both officers and enlisted.

[lovemyboys]

I don't understand your question marks. My "if" is very clear. He has not been found guilty in a court of law (either military or regular). He is entitled to that under our Constitution. I have no doubts as to his guilt but, until he is given a trial, my "if" stands and for good reason.

 

Thanks for elaborating. Of course, as a US citizen, he's entitled to a trial. I saw your "if" as a question of possible non-responsibility for his actions.

 

It would be a sad day if a man so obviously guilty of these brutal crimes, regardless of his mental state or upbringing or other extenuating circumstances, wouldn't be found guilty in a court of law, either military or civilian.

[lovemyboys]

The UCMJ system is unlikely to actually put him to death. Only 5 people are on death row at Leavenworth and nobody has been put to death at Leavenworth since 1961.

 

One of those is the soldier who threw a grenade into a tent full of his fellow soldiers. He's part way through the appeals process, I believe, but was sentenced to death originally.

[KJB]

When did this start? My dh was enlisted and was never restricted on post other than places you needed clearance to go. During duty hours they had to be certain places (just like any other job), but there was no one keeping him there. We were all over post for various things throughout his time there and never did anyone stop him or us and question why we were there. He could definitely move around of his own free will. If he had wanted to get a gun and find someplace where there were lots of people and shoot them, he could have easily.

 

This is not the first time a soldier has done this (it happened at Ft. Bragg and it happened in Iraq.)

 

Yep.

 

It's happened before and sadly will most likely happen again. The military is a stressful place to work, especially in wartime.

 

A civilian with base access could just as easily be the culprit. There is no special base access you acquire by being an officer who is a psychiatrist unless you count the hospital.

[Pink Fairy]

When did this start? My dh was enlisted and was never restricted on post other than places you needed clearance to go. During duty hours they had to be certain places (just like any other job), but there was no one keeping him there. We were all over post for various things throughout his time there and never did anyone stop him or us and question why we were there. He could definitely move around of his own free will. If he had wanted to get a gun and find someplace where there were lots of people and shoot them, he could have easily.

 

This is not the first time a soldier has done this (it happened at Ft. Bragg and it happened in Iraq.)

 

I had these same questions. My dh spent 4 years in the Army, I was in the AF for 9 years. We were both enlisted, and there were no restrictions on movement that would have kept us from doing what this man did.

[KJB]

Originally Posted by kjb

 

 

 

Enlisted soldiers are restricted in their movements. They are not allowed to simply move about a military installation of their own free will. They have to be in certain places, under supervision, at all times. When an enlisted soldier becomes a non-comissioned officer, their movements become less constricted, but that is also after they have been in the military for (usually) one term. This has been sped up a bit since the war, as it does with all wars, but the professionalism expected of NCOs in the US Military is considered the highest in the world.

 

This just isn't true. My dh has been in the military for 18 years. What you're stating as fact just isn't how it works.

 

 

That is incorrect. Firstly, docs who are *solely* pediatricians are contractors, not active duty. Active duty docs may have a primary specialty of peds, but they also have a secondary of internal medicine, general practice, etc. Secondly, all dentists deploy. A large number of dentists deploy with Special Forces to truly nasty places to provide dental care to underserved populations.

 

Again, this just isn't true. Some of what you say is kind of correct in that they will utilize physicians prior to residency after just an internship year, but there are peds trained by the af that just see kids. All docs are able to work as GMOs but it isn't preferred. I think the army may deploy peds.

 

There is no evidence to support his aunt's claims. Demand is irrelevant. If he had walked into his superior's office and told him that he was going to kill every infidel and apostate in sight if he didn't get released from his contract, I'm betting they would have found a way to make sure he was no longer around anyone.

 

There may be no evidence, but her claim just makes sense based on what I know about military docs.

 

Do some research. I know for fact that ER docs out of Atlanta were doing it because it helped them learn how to deal with gang violence trauma. It's the same concept as Medicins sans Frontiers.

 

-- "Army Hospital Gets Civilian Aid; Filling Military Gap, Neurosurgeons Tend Wounded From Iraq" (The Washington Post April 25, 2005)

-- "Lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq: The Costly Benefits from the Battlefield for Emergency Medicine" (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 486-488) Civilian doctors are bringing their trauma experience to the field.

-- "Civilian doctor observes aeromedical evac flights to help train military medics" (618th Tanker Airlift Control Center Public Affairs)

 

 

Civilian contractors are frequently hired to meet demand for military health care. I am not sure and haven't heard of any of them being in hot spot/war zones. I would be surprised if that were the case. Taking care of patients aerovac'd out to other hospitals isn't the same as being "on the battlefield".

 

 

I also think it is an interesting discussion. I do not think he was able to handle the commitment of his life choice.

 

a

 

Well, I debated rather or not to continue this, but then I figured what the heck. :D

 

This will be my last post on this topic. Thanks for the discussion. :thumbup1::gnorsi:

Edited November 15, 2009 by KJB

[Impish]

The argument that one must be insane to take a life doesn't wash...ESPECIALLY in the military. Its an expectation of every soldier, that they are both capable and willing to take a life if needed. Same as for police officers. Are all soldiers and police officers that have had to kill in the line of duty insane? Hardly.

 

He was engaged in his own personal war. He should be tried as a traitor.

 

I still think an 'oops' in the hospital would be the quietest and most cost efficient way of dealing with him. There's no doubt as to his guilt.

[lovemyboys]

OK, so obviously we are only discussing the sub-group of Muslim attackers here. OK. Probably most acts of violence is done by us Muslims, right??

 

 

Sadly, Nadia, most of the terrorist acts that have occurred on US soil in the last 10 years have been carried out/attempted by Islamic extremists waging jihad on America.

 

Does that mean I stereotype my Muslim neighbors or homeschooling friends? No. Nor do I think most Americans do.

 

Sometimes I wish we would hear from Muslim leaders living in the US, speaking out against these acts of violence and terrorism. Just as many Christian leaders spoke out against the man who gunned down Dr. Tiller. Most Christians, even those who are adamantly pro-life, don't condone killing an abortionist in cold blood.

 

And, I imagine you and other believing Muslims are saddened by those acts committed under the guise of your religion, just as Christians and other true believers would be. Throughout history, actually.

[Kate in Arabia]

Sometimes I wish we would hear from Muslim leaders living in the US, speaking out against these acts of violence and terrorism.

They are speaking. No one is listening. No one wants to listen. They'd rather hear the rantings of extremists, much more titillating.

[Renee in NC]

They are speaking. No one is listening. No one wants to listen. They'd rather hear the rantings of extremists, much more titillating.

 

I thought I read somewhere that the shooter's imam contacted someone at the Army post because of the red flags he was seeing?

Edited November 15, 2009 by Renee in FL

[Kate in Arabia]

iman (is that the right word?)

imam = leader of prayer (from /a/ /m/ /m/; to lead, or to lead in prayer)

iman = faith, belief (from /a/ /m/ /n/; to be faithful, or to be safe)

 

fyi ;)

[Renee in NC]

imam = leader of prayer (from /a/ /m/ /m/; to lead, or to lead in prayer)

iman = faith, belief (from /a/ /m/ /n/; to be faithful, or to be safe)

 

fyi ;)

 

Thank you! Fixed it!

[lovemyboys]

They are speaking. No one is listening. No one wants to listen. They'd rather hear the rantings of extremists, much more titillating.

 

You're right. I have been amazed and encouraged by all the courageous women who are writing books and speaking out at conferences and on tv (Fox, CNN).

 

We live in a large metropolitan area and I rarely see things on the local news from area religious leaders...like a regional bishop might speak out if there was something involving a Catholic, for instance. That's what I was referring to.

 

It may also go back to what Nadia was talking about when she said that the communities tend to be more insular. That may account for reluctance to speak out in criticism as well.

[asta]

They are speaking. No one is listening. No one wants to listen. They'd rather hear the rantings of extremists, much more titillating.

 

Whom? CAIR?

 

 

a

[Kate in Arabia]

Whom?

 

Responses from national groups:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601752.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/06/american-muslim-groups-condemn-fort-hood-shooting/

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/muslims.fort.hood/index.html

 

..among others. Virtually every Muslim American group I know of has issued a statement.

 

 

Responses from local people/groups:

Indiana: http://www.indystar.com/article/20091106/NEWS/911060387

Texas: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/110609dnmetmuslimslocal.4058c10.html

Arkansas: http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Local-Muslims-react-to-Ft-Hood-shooting/L8ioy40FIUa5qzYpFQLJ2A.cspx?rss=315

California: http://www.kesq.com/global/story.asp?s=11460797

 

These are just a few examples; you can google search Local Muslims [state name] Fort Hood shootings and find plenty more.

 

In particular I would like to quote this article quoting some Muslim veterans:

 

Nasif Majeed flew more than a hundred Air Force combat missions over North Vietnam. He's a proud American veteran. He's also a Muslim American. And sometimes people ask if those two things conflict when his country is at war against other Muslims.

 

"No, I don't see any conflict when you're fighting against . . .what are they fighting against? I don't see them fighting against Muslims. Muslims don't harm innocent people," said Majeed. He and half a dozen other Charlotte-area Muslim veterans at the commemoration at Mosque of the Witness said they constantly struggle to separate their peaceful religious beliefs from those of Muslims with extreme political or religious ideology.

 

They also said religious insensitivity is a problem inside the military. Statesville Vietnam veteran Salahuddin Hasan recalls a phone call he got from his son who was serving in the Persian Gulf.

 

"He was in tears," said Hasan. "He said, 'Daddy, what am I going to do?' He was loading bombs on airplanes, that was his job. He said 'We got bombs here that say vile things about Mohammed written on the bombs and I gotta help load these bombs. I said, 'That ain't our law. You can't kill God, son. You gave your word to your country. Stand up and be a man.'"

 

http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cfm?action=display&id=5601

 

Of course, this probably won't get much play on national news.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Kate in Arabia

[asta]

Thank you for the links.

 

 

a

[Nestof3]

Here's an update:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575242,00.html

[mommytobees]

I just don't think he was a stable guy, you know? I think he had lots of issues that were overlooked or minimized by the military. I"m not minimizing what he did, but it sounds like it really didn't come as that big a surprise to some folks who had dealth with him in the past, and I think some responsibility. It seems to me that somewhere in this guy's past, SOMEONE should have intervened and either forced him to get some counseling himself or stripped him of his post/position/whatever the military calls it. No, you can't control everyone's actions. But if there is a long trail of red flags waving furiously, it seems like someone would have taken a bit more heed prior to now. Please understand I"m not defending what he did, but I do think that the tragedy here doesn't lie only with those who were his victims.

 

Now, those are just my personal, random thoughts. I fully realize that 99% of you will vehemently disagree with me.

 

Flame suit on!

astrid

 

::delurking::

 

No flame here, but I can't say I agree either.

 

If you take a close look at the military system you will find that certain populations in the military have a higher rate of unstable people. Please understand, I am NOT giving a generalization. There are GOOD men and women in the military, but certain populations (career paths) in the military have a higher percentage of mental illness. It is hard to determine whom is going to break and whom is not. Hindsight is often 20/20.

 

Now, let us take a look at what this man did. He took out a weapon and shot to kill military men and women. Yes, I am sure there is some kind of mental illness there. I don't doubt it. I also do not doubt that other murders going on shooting sprees were mentally ill. Could "we" look back at these other shooter's histories and say, "Someone should have done ______." Yes, often times we can.

 

Someone missed it. Someone missed the last tell-tale sign that something was going to happen.

 

I will agree that there are times when mental illness should "excuse" crimes or result in a lesser punishment. But, at what stage does the punishment fit the crime?

 

This military man committed a crime on military soil and under military jurisdiction. I believe he HAS to be tried under military justice.

 

Kris, going back to lurking

[mommytobees]

Originally Posted by kjb

 

 

Enlisted soldiers are restricted in their movements. They are not allowed to simply move about a military installation of their own free will. They have to be in certain places, under supervision, at all times. When an enlisted soldier becomes a non-comissioned officer, their movements become less constricted, but that is also after they have been in the military for (usually) one term. This has been sped up a bit since the war, as it does with all wars, but the professionalism expected of NCOs in the US Military is considered the highest in the world.

 

::delurking, again::

 

Um, wow! This is incorrect!!

 

Other than basic aka boot camp, enlisted soldiers (non-com's or below) are adults, not children. Certain areas and certain ranks have lifestyle restrictions, either physical or economical, but they are in no way "under supervision, at all times". All rates have specific security restrictions.

 

 

That is incorrect. Firstly, docs who are *solely* pediatricians are contractors, not active duty. Active duty docs may have a primary specialty of peds, but they also have a secondary of internal medicine, general practice, etc. Secondly, all dentists deploy. A large number of dentists deploy with Special Forces to truly nasty places to provide dental care to underserved populations.

 

Over the past several years I've known several active duty physicians who were ONLY Ped's doctors. They did not deploy to war zones, they were stationed at hospitals. Several have gone on to sub-Ped's specialities. I make a point of getting to know my children's doctors.

 

Kris

[Mrs Mungo]

::delurking, again::

 

Um, wow! This is incorrect!!

 

Other than basic aka boot camp, enlisted soldiers (non-com's or below) are adults, not children. Certain areas and certain ranks have lifestyle restrictions, either physical or economical, but they are in no way "under supervision, at all times". All rates have specific security restrictions.

 

I agree.

 

Over the past several years I've known several active duty physicians who were ONLY Ped's doctors. They did not deploy to war zones, they were stationed at hospitals. Several have gone on to sub-Ped's specialities. I make a point of getting to know my children's doctors.

 

Kris

 

I am going to disagree with this. Just because you know some who weren't deployed doesn't mean that they are never deployed. My son's pediatric pulmonologist (who worked at Tripler) was recently deployed, for example. We have a pediatric periodontist friend who was deployed a while back and just did regular dentistry while he was downrange. It happens all the time.

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Mrs Mungo]

Isn't it just lovely?? :glare: I love how we support that type of islam extremism.

 

Do you also love how we support other types of extremism? Again, this guy is an American, born and raised. Making it an us v. them argument doesn't do anyone any favors.

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[asta]

Here's an update:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575242,00.html

 

This article makes clear that his motives were ideological, not due to any mental illness.

 

Continuing to argue the mental illness angle is a time waster.

 

 

a

[asta]

I think that those who are arguing that movements are not restricted on a military installation have perhaps not spent much time on an Army installation?

 

On Army installations, enlisted soldiers have physical training formations at 0600, PT, (both supervised) go shower and put on their uniforms, eat breakfast (at home or at the barracks - unsupervised or supervised), return for formation at 0900, go to their jobs (supervised), have noon formation (supervised), break for lunch at either the mess hall (supervised) or off post (unsupervised), return for formation at 1300 (supervised), return to their job (supervised), have final formation sometime between 1600 and 1700 (supervised) and are released for the day.

 

Now, some jobs have less supervision than others. An admin clerk who has to run paperwork all over post has less direct supervision than a motorpool guy who is in a bay all day. A lab tech who is running through several floors of a hospital and to different clinics has less supervision than an intel analyst who is confined to a secure room in a secure facility.

 

But "freedom" of movement? On a "normal" Army post? Huh uh. That is reserved for officers and senior NCOs.

 

 

a

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that those who are arguing that movements are not restricted on a military installation have perhaps not spent much time on an Army installation?

 

I've spent years of my life on Army installations

 

On Army installations, enlisted soldiers have physical training formations at 0600, PT, (both supervised)

 

Not all units have organized PT or formations. My husband's current unit does not, for example. They only have a handful of junior enlisted soldiers and they work in shifts.

 

go shower and put on their uniforms, eat breakfast (at home or at the barracks - unsupervised or supervised), return for formation at 0900, go to their jobs (supervised), have noon formation (supervised), break for lunch at either the mess hall (supervised) or off post (unsupervised), return for formation at 1300 (supervised), return to their job (supervised), have final formation sometime between 1600 and 1700 (supervised) and are released for the day.

 

I've almost never seen units in which they do before/after lunch formations. Their movements just are not so restricted that they couldn't claim they were leaving work to go somewhere else (sick call, an appointment, whatever) for a day.

 

Now, some jobs have less supervision than others. An admin clerk who has to run paperwork all over post has less direct supervision than a motorpool guy who is in a bay all day. A lab tech who is running through several floors of a hospital and to different clinics has less supervision than an intel analyst who is confined to a secure room in a secure facility.

 

Sure, true, some jobs have more supervision than others. It depends upon the post, the unit, the job.

 

But "freedom" of movement? On a "normal" Army post? Huh uh. That is reserved for officers and senior NCOs.

 

It really depends on what you mean by that. If you mean "could not possibly have accessed the deployment center in order to shoot it up" then I say you're wrong. Any soldier could walk in there at any time. Even if the soldier in question simply didn't show up for formation, they might send his platoon sergeant to his house/the barracks to check on him but it's not like they'd put an APB out on him.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm weary of our media and our country seeming to care more about the person who committed the crime than the victims themselves. We've psychoanalyzed this guy to death when it seems quite clear it was a religion-motivated situation.

 

Extremism is a *political* motivation, not a religious motivation, imo.

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, when a name like "Islam" is attached to the word extremism, then yes, it is actually religiously motivated. Having "SOA" after his name on his business card is rather a red flag, IMO. It didn't say "Servant of a (insert political group here)."

 

I think we're all adult enough to know that it's okay to say it was religiously motivated and not be flaming the entire religion. I hope we haven't gone so off the the PC/anti-discrimination deep end that we can't just call this what it is!! I'm not so sure anymore...

 

I disagree that it's being "PC" to call something what it is. I think it's dangerous to call extremism a religion. It isn't. It's motivated by politics. It has nothing to do with an actual religion. We must separate the two in people's minds or we'll never win the war against terrorism. That's the truth.

[stripe]

Whom? CAIR?

 

 

a

"I often see the question: Why don't the "good" Muslims condemn terrorism? Well, very often they do just that."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/06/american-muslim-groups-condemn-fort-hood-shooting/

 

CAIR

(video available)

Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said, “We reiterate the American Muslim community’s condemnation of this cowardly attack. Right now, we call on all Americans to assist those who are responding to this atrocity. We must ensure that the wounded are treated and the families of those who were murdered have an opportunity to mourn.â€

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26133&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26135&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

 

ISNA:

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) today announced the launch of a special fund for the benefit of the families of the victims of the senseless Ft. Hood attacks that killed 13 soldiers and injured over 30 others. Recognizing the important sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, we feel it is imperative for all Americans to join hands in supporting those affected by this tragic incident.

 

The fund is a collaborative effort involving national Muslim organizations and mosques. The national organizations that have already endorsed the fund include American Arab Anti Defamation Committee (ADC), Freedom and Justice Foundation, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Islamic Relief USA.

 

Several Islamic centers, particularly Islamic centers based in Texas, have also endorsed the fund and agreed to raise money for the fund, including Islamic Society of Greater Houston (ISGH) - Houston, TX., Dallas Central Mosque - Richardson, TX, Islamic Association of Carrollton -Carrollton, TX, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) - Dulles, VA, Islamic Center of Irving - Irving, TX, Islamic Center of Southern California - Los Angeles, CA.

http://www.forthoodfamilyfund.com

 

MPAC:

Muslim Public Affairs Council "and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence." We are in contact with law enforcement and U.S. federal government officials to gain more facts from this tragic incident and work together in dealing its aftermath.

"Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones," said Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati. "We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans."

(video available)

http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=957

 

MAS:

MAS Freedom (MASF), on behalf of and as the civic and human rights advocacy entity of the Muslim American Society (MAS), joins the chorus of American Muslim voices nationwide in condemnation of the tragic attack perpetrated against U.S. military personnel at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, where soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving 13 persons dead and 30 wounded on November 5, 2009.

 

"As an organization and as Muslim American's, we stand in condemnation of Thursday's assault in the strongest terms possible," echoed MAS Freedom Executive Director, Mahdi Bray Thursday evening at a press conference in Washington, D.C.

 

Bray added, "Indeed this is a national tragedy and our American family is in mourning. Like any family in a time of crisis and tragedy, we will not turn on each other, but rather, toward each other as a source of strength and comfort."

 

 

The Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, the largest mosque in the United States, issued a statement saying that it "condemns the atrocious attacks on Fort Hood military base in Texas. This inexcusable act of violence must not be tolerated, and the perpetrators should be held accountable for their crime.

"Islam in no way accepts such violence and terror," the statement continued. "Islam is a peaceful religion with great reverence for human life."

 

Mary Rose Oakar, the former congresswoman and the president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) called Thursday's attack "absolutely deplorable."

"ADC has been consistent and on record in condemning any attacks aimed at innocents, no matter who the victims are or the perpetrator may be," Oakar said. "Such violence in morally reprehensible and has nothing to do with any religion, race, ethnicity or national origin.

"ADC also calls upon law enforcement agencies to provide immediate protection for all mosques, community centers, schools and any locations that may be identified or misidentify with being Arab, Muslim, South Asian or Sikh as a clear backlash already has started," Oakar said.

Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military:

At a time of deep sorrow in the midst of this horrific tragedy, our thoughts are first and foremost with the Fort Hood shooting victims and their families. One can only imagine the unspeakable pain and loss they are and will be dealing with in the weeks, months and years to come.

It is unfortunate that whatever demons possessed Nidal Hasan, that he chose to deal with his problems in this way.

http://www.apaam.org/

 

American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council

condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others. We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We join the Community of Fort Hood, Texas in their mourning.

http://www.amafandvac.org/cms/

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Mrs Mungo]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think that's white-washing it.

 

And I think what you're saying about Islam is the same thing Bill Maher says about all religion. Religion doesn't cause anyone to kill. Politics causes people to kill, even when they use religion as an excuse.

[LizzyBee]

I think that those who are arguing that movements are not restricted on a military installation have perhaps not spent much time on an Army installation?

 

...

 

But "freedom" of movement? On a "normal" Army post? Huh uh. That is reserved for officers and senior NCOs.

 

 

a

 

See, I was thinking the same thing about you, that you don't really know how the Army works. :)

[asta]

See, I was thinking the same thing about you, that you don't really know how the Army works. :)

 

I'm an Army vet and my husband has been in the Army for 23 years.

 

Ya'll are smoking crack.

 

 

a

[Laurie4b]

I'm weary of our media and our country seeming to care more about the person who committed the crime than the victims themselves. We've psychoanalyzed this guy to death when it seems quite clear it was a religion-motivated situation.

 

IMO, we won't learn a thing from this, as a nation, until political correctness stops being our god. I really don't see how we, as a nation, would even do anything constructive with the information if we did pay tons more attention to their mental well-being. It's quite obvious people alerted officials and nothing was done with the information. Nobody seems to have the guts to take things further beforehand, and those that do get crucified in the public square. Those are my opinions on the matter.

 

From what has been shared thus far in the media, it would seem that fear of violating political correctness kept people with concerns from speaking up.

 

I also agree that we focus too much on the personal circumstances of mass murderers, making copycatting very appealing.

 

Where I disagree with you is that I think that we have possible reason to think that there might be mental illness in the equation. I've read that it has come out that previous supervisors questioned whether he might be psychotic. I worked a couple years with schizophrenics (who have periods ,at least, when they are psychotic) and it is very common for both religion and military stuff to get woven into the psychotic thinking. Where I worked, it was always Christian religion because that was the religion that these folks had grown up with. They might say that God (or Satan) was telling them to do xyz, or their crazy world was colored with God-talk. I don't know how to describe this exactly, but I'll try. If this was a visual instead of an abstraction, psychosis would look like a tangled maze. Into the maze is "pasted" content that might differ from psychotic person to psychotic person, but the maze part would look pretty much alike. It gets "painted" with religious (and quite often military) content.

 

In some fairly recent examples of Christian-colored psychosis, you had a mother with post-partum psychosis drown her children to protect them from hell , or another stoned hers because God was testing her like Abraham. OTOH, it was not psychosis colored with bits of Christian teaching, but Christian informed (but twisted) thinking that led to the murder of abortionist Tiller. We've heard nothing about mental illness in that case. Though the supermajority of Christians would disagree that he correctly applied Christian teaching, the shooter acted logically within his own application of his belief system and shot an abortionist to protect unborn children from the abortionist. What we don't yet know is whether Hasan was the first type of killer or the second. To me, it makes a difference. What was wrong was that fears of p.c. retaliation kept mental health professionals from further exploring what was going on.

[Pink Fairy]

I'm an Army vet and my husband has been in the Army for 23 years.

 

Ya'll are smoking crack.

 

 

a

 

Just because we experience/d something different? Maybe consider that you could actually be (gasp) wrong.

[asta]

Just because we experience/d something different? Maybe consider that you could actually be (gasp) wrong.

 

No.

 

Just a lot of years, a lot of installations, and a lot of experiences.

 

Could a confident E-2 walk into ________ without anyone questioning him/her on Ft. Hood when they were really supposed to be _______? Of course they could. How about if they were acting rather... strangely? Would they still be left to go about their business?

 

Would it be a heck of a lot easier if that same E-2 were an 0-4? We all know it would. And we all know that even a non-confident 0-4, who happened to be behaving a bit "off" wouldn't be questioned.

 

That is the reality of a rank based system.

 

Gasp.

[Mrs Mungo]

No.

 

Just a lot of years, a lot of installations, and a lot of experiences.

 

Could a confident E-2 walk into ________ without anyone questioning him/her on Ft. Hood when they were really supposed to be _______? Of course they could. How about if they were acting rather... strangely? Would they still be left to go about their business?

 

Would it be a heck of a lot easier if that same E-2 were an 0-4? We all know it would. And we all know that even a non-confident 0-4, who happened to be behaving a bit "off" wouldn't be questioned.

 

That is the reality of a rank based system.

 

Gasp.

 

Here's the question (with no sarcasm):

 

Is the freedom of movement SO much greater for an O-4 than for an E-3 that it makes logical sense to go to *medical school* instead of enlisting if you went into the military to do harm? The answer to *that* question is no, imo.