Fort Hood stuff is happening!

[wolf]

Originally Posted by classicman

I heard he was identified himself as Pakistani on some Army documents and that was considered one of the "warning signs" we're hearing about.

I read "Palestinian." Early reports identified his family as being Jordanian, though.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by classicman

Me too - Why the hell wasn't something done sooner?

Because someone might get offended. Same reason Grandma Lindqvist gets strip searched at the airport.

[regular.joe]

We didn't do more because we live in a country and a society that does not kick in your door and search your stuff because you show "warning signs". It takes a bit more then that to get a warrent, and it should take more then that. Hell if we did kick in your door for showing some kind of warning sign, half the cellar would be on lock down tomorrow.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by classicman

... "He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University."

A lot of Christians and Jews think the same way, but our government gives them a chance to kill the baddies with societies thanks. It is an interesting dynamic. Using religion to prop up foreign policy is a dangerous business.

I'd say I'm a human first and an American second. It depends on what you see as universal. F'd up Moslems, Christians, Jews, or whatevers see their religion as universal so it trumps all else and justifies anything that suits their ends, just as super-patriots see their nation as the ultimate.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Assumption. I can never accept that we are responsible for others stupid decisions. It comes down to personal responsibility.

+1

[Cloud]

Hmm. We are all part of something bigger, and our actions have consequences that reach beyond ourselves. I.e., no man is an island.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Hmm. We are all part of something bigger, and our actions have consequences that reach beyond ourselves. I.e., no man is an island.

Agreed. I believe there are two different types of responsibility. The first type is simply being responsible for your own actions. When it comes down to it, if you make a bad decision, the responsibility is upon you and no one else. The second type is making rational decisions to prevent bad situations from arising. While I do not believe people should be held responsible for this, people, especially in leadership positions, should possess the insight to make rational, no emotional, decisions to prevent bad situations from happening. Basically being able to suck up your pride for the good of yourself and your surroundings.

Preventing mass shootings is extremely difficult if not impossible to prevent and psychopaths have no sense of responsibility so I don't think this is a great example.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Preventing mass shootings is extremely difficult if not impossible to prevent and psychopaths have no sense of responsibility so I don't think this is a great example.

Which makes the gun people's unstinting advocacy of concealed carriage of weapons both understandable and necessary.

And the bad Major was stopped by gunfire. The time to do that was as soon as possible.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) thinks bad majors are caused by guns -- nothing new there. Nobody of Sen. Schumer's religion should have anything to do with promoting an essential precondition to a genocide, but Schumer does and always has, having grown up in an environment where the full play of Americans' civil and human rights is disallowed: NYC under the Sullivan Laws. Skews his perceptions, leaving him a hoplophobic advocate for extra crime and more genocide. Fuuu-uuckk.

[classicman]

Fort Hood slayings prompt full Pentagon review

Worried that the Army may have missed red flags about the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre, the Pentagon probably will open an inquiry into how all the military services keep watch on other volatile soldiers hidden in their ranks, officials said Tuesday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants a unified probe that goes beyond the Army, but has not decided how far-reaching the inquiry would be or who would lead it, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Tuesday.

"There are issues that need to be looked at department-wide, and the focus at this point is trying to figure out some of these questions," Morrell said.

The Army's No. 2 officer bluntly said Tuesday that officials fear more people like Hasan may be undetected inside the armed forces.

"I think we always have to be concerned about that," Army Vice Chief of Staff Peter Chiarelli said as he outlined separate efforts to curb rising suicide rates in the Army. The service has been the combat force most affected by the stress of fighting two wars.

The Army has been preparing for its own examination of what went wrong in the Hasan case and ways to prevent a similar attack. That probe could stand alone or be part of a larger inquiry.

Link

Doesn't this imply that it may be some type of terrorism? A point that no one wants to admit may be a possibility.

Originally Posted by classicman

Fort Hood slayings prompt full Pentagon review

Link

Doesn't this imply that it may be some type of terrorism? A point that no one wants to admit may be a possibility.

IMO. it is political expedient to call it an act of terrorism, particularly if one wants to further politicize the act.

It doesnt meet the legal definition of terrorism under US law any more so that a radical anti-abortionist killing a doctor or even a mother killing her kids because she was "directed by God" to do so.

These are acts of emotionally unstable individuals who find a self-serving religious justification for their actions. They are not terrorists.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Though terrorists themselves aren't invariably the poster boys for good mental hygiene. There's rattle room either way.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Though terrorists themselves aren't invariably the poster boys for good mental hygiene. There's rattle room either way.

The big difference lies in strategy. Terrorists will kill people to try to shift the society's views and actions. Shooting sprees have no social strategy behind them. I do not see any strategy behind this shooting.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The big difference lies in strategy. Terrorists will kill people to try to shift the society's views and actions. Shooting sprees have no social strategy behind them. I do not see any strategy behind this shooting.

I agree.

Individuals acting on their own, rather than at the direction of a politically motivated organization are not terrorists. These individuals, in their own delusions, may believe they are supporting those organizations, but they are not "agents" of those organizations.

My greatest concern with calling all such acts "terrorism" is that its potentially gives the government more justification to act in response in ways that diminish the balance between individual rights and national security.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Easy solution... all military personnel must carry their weapons at all times, on and off duty.