At Least 7 Dead, 12 Wounded in Shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas

reply to post by mmiichael

This to me is strong circumstantial evidence of a Manchurian Candidate type conspiracy. It is said that Hassan received counseling during his internship at Walter Reed because of a number of unspecified problems and attitudes.

This is why decent constitutional loving Americans are speaking out not forsake our values when we most need them. One of the reasons why the War on Terror has not yielded the results people imagined it would and were sold on is that we have abandoned too many of our most prized and cherished principles to wage it.

In reality all this will do is breed more terrorism. While many Americans labor under the false assumption that Islam itself represents a danger and by extension all Muslims must too it is sending a very strong message to the Islamic peoples throughout the entire world that America itself represents a danger to Islam.

Some people who speak loudly and virulently on the imagined dangers of Islam and all Muslims under some delusional notion that this and violence can actually put an end to violence and terrorism are actually helping to create the conditions where misunderstandings and falsehoods flourish and potentially can lead to the type of violence they imagine highly prejudicial opinions and dramatic tirades will end.

America is always best served by never abandoning it’s more noble and loftier ideas. Doing so in the name of security does not make us more secure but less secure as the distinctions between what we represent and the so called ‘evil doers’ represent become virtually non-existent.

That’s why it’s important for true constitutional loving Americans and peace loving people everywhere to stand by these virtues and espouse them and encourage others to instead of yielding to base emotional temptations and manipulations but instead to show that resolve and conviction of principles that once upon a time made America a shining beacon of hope whose promise and light shown on every corner of the world.

Major Hassan is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a proper court of law or military tribunal.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again. I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned. It goes against everything we are taught since children about social order.

Which is where the "insanity" aspect comes in. No one is saying it was a sane thing to do, it's just that the source of the insanity is what is in question. In any event, a small amount of policy change can be demonstrated in the fact that those particular soldiers, cowardly cut down in their prime while unarmed, will not be going into the war theater. That would be in line with jihadist objectives.

And I'm not seeing a very coordinated effort towards any particular goal here. Only senseless killing. What goal do you think this guy was realistically trying to accomplish by shooting all these people?

See above. Co-ordination aspects are still being determined, and are thus somewhat fluid at this time.

Still doesn't make it sane, stable, or sensible.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So the question remains, what goal did this guy think he was going to accomplish by shooting all these people? How could this be a "coordinated effort" if it only stands to make all Muslims look bad?

I don't know any more about Major Hasan than what has been reported so far.

My impression is that he was an obviously conflicted person who had great difficulty forming relationships. A 39 year old man with a prestige profession earning a reported $100,000 a year should have no problem finding a wife or companionship. And he was said to be actively seeking such.

We know he was troubled by his imminent transfer to Afghanistan. All sorts of things can be speculated on this. Loathing to contribute to a war being engaged against fellow Muslims? Fear for his own safety as being perceived as a traitor working for the enemy in a Muslim country?

The big question mark is to what degree he had absorbed and accepted extremist Islamic ideological views that it was his duty as a Muslim to wreak destruction and cause deaths among the American military.

I reject the notion that he was some set-up patsy - a Manchurian Candidate. For one thing, I don't think if it were ever to happen it would be done this way. Too messy, too many loose ends. He could have been taken out before he got a chance to kill anyone, for one thing. No one would ever hear about it outside military ranks. And his words and actions in the months before show a consistent progression that can't be programmed easily. He might be made to kill, but not deliver a series of long impassioned speeches and running commentaries.

Life and human interractions are endlessly complex. The world doesn't operate as simply as popular fiction would have us believe.

That there are hundred of cases of Muslims who have chosen to die taking innocent people's lives as an ideological statement, in a dozen countries, informs us that there is a strong compelling belief system out there that many embrace through choice.

Fears are not of Muslim people and their faith, but of this growing ideology.


M



[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again. I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned. It goes against everything we are taught since children about social order.

Which is where the "insanity" aspect comes in.

Here are your own words from last page:

The mental state of the perpetrator is not the defining issue of terrorism, the co-ordinated effort to achieve a specific goal is.

I asked what specific goal you thought this man believed he could accomplish, and what was "coordinated" about this "effort," but now we've fallen back to the mental problems I have been pointing to as the PRIMARY cause of this incident all along. NOT his religion.

If a mentally unstable Muslim goes on a rampage and shoots and kills random people and has absolutely no chance in hell of effecting a policy change, while simultaneously over a billion Muslims live peacefully, what possesses you to tie this back into a Muslim thing rather than just another crazy shooter that killed random people to no effect other than just to kill them?

reply to post by bsbray11


Giving away personal effects the day prior , being on camera in a store going through his normal routine , Then yelling "ALLAHU AKBAR" before shooting people.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nor is there any reason to believe shooting a bunch of soldiers to death is going to result in any sort of policy change whatsoever except to crack down on that sort of thing from ever happening again. I can't see how anyone would do this and seriously believe they would get their way as far as any policy change is concerned. It goes against everything we are taught since children about social order.

Which is where the "insanity" aspect comes in.

Here are your own words from last page:

The mental state of the perpetrator is not the defining issue of terrorism, the co-ordinated effort to achieve a specific goal is.

I asked what specific goal you thought this man believed he could accomplish, and what was "coordinated" about this "effort," but now we've fallen back to the mental problems I have been pointing to as the PRIMARY cause of this incident all along. NOT his religion.

If a mentally unstable Muslim goes on a rampage and shoots and kills random people and has absolutely no chance in hell of effecting a policy change, while simultaneously over a billion Muslims live peacefully, what possesses you to tie this back into a Muslim thing rather than just another crazy shooter that killed random people to no effect other than just to kill them?

you seem to have ignored these posts, which answer your questions:

Originally posted by nenothtu

In the matter of Mr. Hassan, the goal of his actions has not been adequately aired as yet. Yes, he may have shouted "Allahu Akbar", but the question remains, was his religion the CAUSE of that, or was it a convenient excuse for his actions? Mr. Hassan is the only one who can answer that, regardless of the speculations being put forth.

Originally posted by nenothtu

I'm not saying it WASN'T terrorism, or that it WAS. I'm saying the investigation should proceed to determine root causes, and net effects. All indications so far are that it was a "single combat" variety of terrorism event, precipitated by an increasingly radicalized mind. Even his co-workers noted the increasing radicalization, and no action was taken, probably out of misguided "political correctness".

A more effective, and more proactive approach, in my opinion, would have been to pull him out of any duty stations, and evaluate his mental state. If done early enough in the process, valuable insight could have been gained into the radicalization process, and this tragedy could have been averted regardless of insights gained.

Originally posted by nenothtu
... No one is saying it was a sane thing to do, it's just that the source of the insanity is what is in question. In any event, a small amount of policy change can be demonstrated in the fact that those particular soldiers, cowardly cut down in their prime while unarmed, will not be going into the war theater. That would be in line with jihadist objectives.

And I'm not seeing a very coordinated effort towards any particular goal here. Only senseless killing. What goal do you think this guy was realistically trying to accomplish by shooting all these people?

See above. Co-ordination aspects are still being determined, and are thus somewhat fluid at this time.

Still doesn't make it sane, stable, or sensible.

I fail to see how an obvious instability negates the possibility of a jihadist action. Matter of fact, it seems to me it could bolster it, and make the perpetrator more malleable in the hands of radicalizing elements.

In short, the two - mental instability and jihadist mindset - are not incompatible.

The precipitating factor(s) are what need to be identified and addressed, in order to head off any future occurrences of this nature.

Just standing back and yelling "it's 'cause he was nuts!" or "it's 'cause he was a muslim!" will get one shot in the head by a jihadist (or possibly even his opposite number) while attempting to argue non-salient points and not looking at the larger picture. Being a jihadist and being mentally unstable are not mutually exclusive.

Simply being a muslim doesn't even enter the equation, since being islamic doesn't automatically make one a jihadist.

Being insane could.

[edit on 2009/11/14 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


So you can't give me a goal yet you're going to claim that this guy had a specific and coordinated goal that this shooting was somehow supposed to accomplish, and therefore was a "terrorist" on a jihad, as opposed to just admitting that he was deranged and letting it be at that?


Mental instability doesn't mean he couldn't have thought he was on a jihad. He could have thought he was Muhammad himself! It just means the guy was nuts. So who cares what his religion was, there is no reason to believe his religion is what MADE him crazy, because over a billion people also belong to this same religion without these results.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Giving away personal effects the day prior , being on camera in a store going through his normal routine , Then yelling "ALLAHU AKBAR" before shooting people.

Wow this must be the first Soldier ever to give away items and give up his home before being deployed over seas!

The unnamed corporal who is attributed to have heard the alleged shooter say "Allak Akbar" also said, he thinks he said it, but wasn't entirely sure.

Amazingly enough there are no penalties for perjury or false testimony to tabloid journalists, there are how ever serious ones when giving sworn testimony in a court of law.

The rush to judge this man and denying him his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law won't bring back any of the victims to this crime, but it might in fact allow some of the other potential perpetrators to go without being caught or charged too.

The same media that is claiming he said this and said that, is also the same media that said there were three shooters in 2 locations and one of them was killed.

Who knows what the real story is, that's what trials are for.

Should this man be tried for his alleged crimes? Absolutely.

Should be be judged until he has his day in court and all the facts are presented under sworn oath? Absolutely not, well not by Americans who love the Constitution anyway.

The bottom line folks.
Love him or leave him-- the Major is a citizen of MY country.
I will stand in front of his jail and tell you foreign lynch mob idiots to stand down. This is an affair for Americans to deal with on American soil by you guessed it. Americans and their Constitution. He allegedly killed Americans not Israeli's, not Muslims or munchkin's. No one has said to date--- he allegedly killed Afro / Americans, He allegedly killed Jewish/ Americans. Americans will take care of this. All others take care of your own selves.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Wow this must be the first Soldier ever to give away items and give up his home before being deployed over seas!

The unnamed corporal who is attributed to have heard the alleged shooter say "Allak Akbar" also said, he thinks he said it, but wasn't entirely sure.

Amazingly enough there are no penalties for perjury or false testimony to tabloid journalists, there are how ever serious ones when giving sworn testimony in a court of law.

The rush to judge this man and denying him his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law won't bring back any of the victims to this crime, but it might in fact allow some of the other potential perpetrators to go without being caught or charged too.

The same media that is claiming he said this and said that, is also the same media that said there were three shooters in 2 locations and one of them was killed.

Who knows what the real story is, that's what trials are for.

Wow! What a load of malarkey. Major Hasan wasn't going anywhere November 6th, the day after he gave away his worldly possessions. He was slated for deployment but no date had been set. It could have been many weeks in the future, maybe months.

There are severe penalties for libel in the press. The reason why they employ dedicated legal personnel. Common work arounds are reporting rumours as such, innuendo, dot connected associations, blendings of ascertained facts with speculation. Just like on this forum. But the press cannot state something happened that did not without risking expensive consequences. There are hundreds if not thousands of cases involving libel claims at various stages of legal resolution at any given time. Rarely reported but common knowledge to anyone who has worked in the media.

The usual appeal to lying by the MSM is an empty appeal to denial. Conspiracists, unless they go to locations, interview participants, and examine primary documents, are completely dependent on what the media reports. They just pick what confirms their predetermined biased theories and claim what conflicts is just MSM lies. An active component of journalism and investigative reporting is tracking inconsistencies and falsehoods. Little of importance escapes deep scrutiny.

No one has prejudged Major Hasan or deprived him of his constitutional rights. As someone charged with a serious crime (presumably by now) anyone can discuss the circumstances and offer comments. It's a free country.

As his 'alleged' crime was done in full view of a large number of people (not all military personnel) a fairly detailed consistent reporting of events will emerge. A fair amount has already been reported.

The two or 3 shooters thing is very typical of rushed on the spot reporting relying on crowd talk and scuttelbutt. The military has acknowledged when two men were seen running from the scene it was first thought they were trying to escape. Major Hasan was unconscious and presumed dead at one point. All these mistakes were sorted out within a day or so. Lag time of print and broadcast kept them visible even after they were corrected.

There doesn't appear to be much wiggle room for denial that Major Hasan shot and killed a dozen people and injured others in the process. Many details emerged point to extended planning behind it.

I note the word 'alleged' is used here more than I've seen it on this forum in a years. Major Hasan seem to have commanded a special consideration rarely given to other 'alleged' perpetrators.

Endless spins can be put on this tragic event. The courts will deliver a formal verdict. For most what happened seems fairly apparent.


M

[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

There is one here Proto and bsbray that at times his posts seem logical if read quickly.
But when you re read them for clarity they seem quite convoluted.
He is more like the good/ cop bad cop wrapped into one. When it comes to the Major.
There are two Muslim haters he parries off of, to set his agenda .
Which is disorientation and a major fear of (holy war). And a covert anti Muslim agenda also.
You are welcome. No need to reply.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So you can't give me a goal yet you're going to claim that this guy had a specific and coordinated goal that this shooting was somehow supposed to accomplish, and therefore was a "terrorist" on a jihad, as opposed to just admitting that he was deranged and letting it be at that?

I can, and HAVE, given you a POSSIBLE "goal". Not any special reason I can think of to post the same thing again, for the 3rd time.

I have not claimed he HAD a specific goal, only that it is a possibility. Neither have I claimed it was co-ordinated. I said specifically that any co-ordination was still being investigated, to be determined yet.

It IS trending TOWARDS his having been a jihadist, but as I've repeatedly said, and evidently must repeat yet again, the root cause has not yet been determined, and never will be if folks keep running in their own trenches, and refusing to look at the larger picture.

Unfortunately, I will NEVER just "let it be at that" when "that" happens to involve preconceived, pre-packaged notions from others on how they "think" it is. I don't generally tow the party line on much of anything without engaging in thought of my own.

Mental instability doesn't mean he couldn't have thought he was on a jihad. He could have thought he was Muhammad himself! It just means the guy was nuts. So who cares what his religion was, there is no reason to believe his religion is what MADE him crazy, because over a billion people also belong to this same religion without these results.

THINKING you are on jihad is the essence of BEING on jihad. That does nothing to address why one would WANT to be on jihad in the first place.

It cannot be discounted that a radically fundamentalist interpretation of islam provided the avenue for outlet of his anti-social tendencies, whether as "cause" or as "excuse". To reject that factor out of hand in your approach to the problem means that you will be lacking critical foundational structure in developing a valid overview of the problem, and so will never reach a valid solution.

It's really not much different from JJay55's "kill 'em all and let allah sort 'em out" approach. Both are one-sided, limited in vision, and lack critical factors for an effective answer to the problem at hand.

I have never so much as insinuated the islam is what MADE him crazy. A particular interpretation of it IS, however what he elected to use as an outlet for that insanity.

Personally, I'm leaning towards declaring wahabbism and all related disciplines to be "political philosophies" rather than religious ones. "Islam", however, is still a religious philosophy. As such, when someone else's POLITICS may be used as an excuse to X me out, they may find a really big "road closed ahead" sign when they start down that road, sane or not, muslim or not, christian or not, etc.

If they start down that road anyhow, I have no scruples whatsoever about ambushing them.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
There is one here Proto and bsbray that at times his posts seem logical if read quickly.
But when you re read them for clarity they seem quite convoluted.
He is more like the good/ cop bad cop wrapped into one. When it comes to the Major.
There are two Muslim haters he parries off of, to set his agenda .
Which is disorientation and a major fear of (holy war). And a covert anti Muslim agenda also.
You are welcome. No need to reply.

I'm guessing here you're referring to me. You can "good cop/bad cop" me all you like, and it won't change the fact that I'm looking for balance, not a runaway agenda to either "side". The end of that line will be nothing more than more death and destruction, whichever "side" you choose to place yourself on.

The "Major" is no longer a major in my mind. He deserves none of the respect accorded to the title.

I'm also guessing the "logical" part of my posts you see are only the parts that agree with YOUR agenda. I've noticed tendencies in that direction myself.

If you feel "disoriented", read closer. There are no inconsistencies.

I have no "fear of a holy war". Been right smack dab in the middle of them. War is war, holy or unholy. It's never pretty, and contains NO "glory", regardless of whether your there for king, country, or your particular "god". That only matters in the mind of the fighters, which is why I say the root causes and effects of this MUST be determined, without prejudice either way, if you have a hope in hell of preventing future occurrences like this one.

Anti-muslim agenda? Not a chance in hell. You may have misread some of my posts to fit your own preconceived notions. There are muslims alive today who would take strenuous exception to your characterization of me as being "anti-muslim". One in particular still shares the Eid al-fitr goat with me, every year. Of course he was on the ground there, too, and knows precisely what I will and will not stand for.

Anti-jihadist? You betcha. But just as JJay55 does, you appear to have trouble keeping the two separate in your own mind.

I'll come right out and say it - very few things in this world are "all or none".

[edit on 2009/11/14 by nenothtu]

reply to post by mmiichael

Wow! What a load of malarkey. Major Hasan wasn't going anywhere November 6th, the day after he gave away his worldly possessions. He was slated for deployment but no date had been set. It could have been many weeks in the future, maybe months.

Clearly he was going somewhere or he wouldn’t have given away his possessions.

Could it have been a premonition or some ominous portents that caused this man to give away all his worldly possessions in the same spirit seven wealthy European Knights did all those centuries ago at the Abbey of Seborga upon that windswept Holy Roman mountaintop in exchange to be dubbed the Poor Knights of Christ before their battle field exploits would earn them the immortal distinction of being redubbed the Knights Templar, later to become the Scottish Rites Masons?

You know Michael I had hoped to leave the Masonic angles of this deep dark winding conspiracy out of it for now. Nothing brings out the Thread Killers like mentioning Rome’s Knights having something to do with it.

Clearly though they do as you have led me to inform you just what such behavior means in it’s ritualistic roots!

What was so important about these events that even the Masons would be at its dark sinister heart core?

I shudder to think it. Alas I am sure it shall come to me in time.

Once again you have missed all the signs! Nothing and I do mean nothing is ever what it appears on the surface.

Thank goodness you have me around to catch these all important elements required at getting to the bottom of an important conspiracy!

Clearly there is so much more to this intriguing case than meets the eye.


[edit on 14/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Yes, Major Hasan could be the innocent victim of some vast high tech driven NWO conspiracy. The Science Fiction-Fantasy theorists will be moving on this, for sure. So far absolutely nothing indicate anything remotely like it.

And we should remember there has been a many other Muslims who have killed people in public places in the past few years. The most successful, the 19 hijackers on 9/11, were trained and prepared for months before their mission. Israel, Pakistan, Britain, and other countries have seen successful and aborted attempts as well.

Though his professional profile is unique, the pattern and behaviour is not unusual. His interfacing, apparently normally, with colleagues, patients, neighbours, etc - pretty much precludes some fantastic brainwashed zombie mind control scenario. He wrote articles, filed reports, gave lectures, contacted organizations online, spent time with extremist sympathetic Imams. All pretty much points to an otherwise functional person ultimately carrying out an agenda.

He killed his fellow American soldiers willingly and knowingly - from all indications. 'Allegedly'. I don't think there's any way of avoiding the basic facts in this tragedy.

And let's not forget we are talking about someone who chose to join and remain an active member of the US Armed Forces. An articulate educated man trained in psychiatry, be interesting to hear what he has to say for himself.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by mmiichael]

It’s no wonder that leaders can so easily manipulate entire populations through propaganda when the masses seem so incapable of reason.

Only ignorance of the history of Anglo-American ‘interests’ meddling in the Middle East leaves us blind to understand the only possible motive apart from insanity to have driven the Major, is as his being a Muslim.
But I don’t believe ignorance of this history is the cause of the Muslim Blame I see here, people here know better.
It’s just the arrogance of those who are fearful of the possibility of seeing the empire fall, and are willing to conceal any rational agenda a ‘terrist’ might have.
So removed are these ‘deniers’ from humanity itself, unable to show concern for the suffering of others at a distance from themselves, that they can’t understand how someone could possibly even care about foreigners. They convince themselves that not ‘humanity’ but only ‘Islam’ would enrage people who perceive injustice.
They have such difficulty in understanding that someone would feel any commonality with distant people it’s no wonder that they view innocent children or adults as mere collateral damage.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have not claimed he HAD a specific goal, only that it is a possibility. Neither have I claimed it was co-ordinated. I said specifically that any co-ordination was still being investigated, to be determined yet.

So you're saying it's only a possibility that he's a terrorist.

I appreciate you being at least that candid, but it's still perfectly clear to me that any individual who decides to go out and shoot so many people to death is deviating from the norm. Including a deviation from normal behavior for Muslims.

reply to post by nenothtu


Dude, stop using my name and making up things I never said to try to prove your point. We all see right through you.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The reason is this: terrorism is, by definition, a co-ordinated effort by a group, however loosely co-ordinated, to employ violent action in order to influence a government's policy, or an accepted social structure.

Ok, so maybe if you understand first what terrorism is..."premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." then you would understand that terrorism isn't patriotism as you defined.
Baby steps.

Originally posted by phoneyid
Only ignorance of the history of Anglo-American ‘interests’ meddling in the Middle East leaves us blind to understand the only possible motive apart from insanity to have driven the Major,

Taking the "victim" route and blaming and apologizing for the action of the Ft Hood shooter is common.