Fort Hood stuff is happening!
I'm right near there, too!
They're saying there's more than one shooter; or at least, a primary shooter and helpers. Who would "help" with something like that?
There is a strange inconsistency in the reports about how many gunmen did it.
"Twelve people have been killed and at least 31 injured after a soldier went on a shooting rampage ".
"One shooter is dead and two suspects have been apprehended".
My first guess is that the two extras were NOT involved but were in questionable circumstances and so were nabbed as a precaution; I guess that someone who would do this would not allow themselves to be taken alive.
Mind you, the (alleged) shooter was army pyschiatrist Major Malik Nadal Hasan. Hmm, sounds Irish. Can never trust the damn Irish. :right:
Now stop that racism. Profiling is a horrible awful thing.
He was an American Psychiatrist or psychologist not sure which. They're all nuts anyway. That's why they go into that profession - to figure themselves out.
He was apparently unhappy that Obama didn't get the troops out fast enough. That's even more WTF???
Oooh. They're saying the guy's alive! So maybe we really will get some answers.
I'm kind of wondering about this statement in the news story:
Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Temple, Texas, posted an online appeal for blood as it began receving victims. "Due to the recent events on Fort Hood, we are in URGENT need of ALL blood types," it said.
Is 30 people who need blood an overload for a typical hospital?
Perhaps not, but its a good way to get people who normally wouldn't get off their ass to help a fellow human to do just that and to build up some reserves.
They're saying there's more than one shooter; or at least, a primary shooter and helpers. Who would "help" with something like that?
3 guesses, and if any of them don't yell Allah akbar when they're murdering someone, they're wrong.
the guy apparently didn't want to go to war and kill other Muslims.
so he stayed home and killed other human beings.
how does that make sense?
it doesn't unless he figured that by killing the ones he did he saved more from dying.
well, actually I didn't expect it to make sense; I just find it ironic. It was an insane and senseless act no matter how you look at it.
if killing shitloads of people made any sense at all... then I'd be willing to think about that.
I bet he was shizo and the little green men in his head told him to kill now rather than later. Can you imagine going to visit a schizo shrink? :eek:
I bet he was shizo and the little green men in his head told him to kill now rather than later. Can you imagine going to visit a schizo shrink? :eek:
Been there, seen that. The oral history of the nuthouse includes a doc who went catatonic in the chart room. Took several hours for anyone to notice he hadn't moved since morning meeting. They got him quietly hospitalized. He was schizophrenic, would go off his meds, go nuts, get hospitalized, get better, go back to work.
I admitted him a couple of times, and got blown away when I'd get a call about him from one of the local hospitals ... where he was working and was referring a patient to us.
Eventually he got too debilitated to work, lost his medical license and ended up in a group home. I know that he's dead, think he finally completed suicide.
So, yes, Virginia, there are crazy shrinks.
The Fort Hood guy was a shrink specializing in PTSD. How's that for a bite in the ass?
He was from a Jordanian family, was career military. That he was only a major said a lot about his military career, as does his transfer from Walter Reed to Fort Hood. I listened to an interview last night in which a former coworker, also a shrink, talked about Hasan making statements wsix or more months ago about how Muslims needed to rise up against the aggressor ... who was the aggressor? The U.S. Military. I have also seen the footage of his trip to the convenience store on the way to work ... he wasn't in uniform, military uniform, anyway ... he was wearing one of those flowing white cotton garments that you don't usually see even very traditional Muslim men wearing here in the U.S.
I thought that the reasoning behind everyone being as armed as they wanna be is that in cases like this others can take down the crazy psychopath before he takes down dozens of other people.
I don't know military, but wouldn't folks on an army base be armed? Aren't they lousy with arms?
Tragic.
The opposite, military bases are one of the places where guns are strictly controlled.
Which makes this incident another argument against gun control.
I dislike spending time in victim disarmament zones.
Funny coincidence ... Nidal Hasan did his undergrad at Virginia Tech.
He was from a Jordanian family,
Since posting I have read several accounts that indicated that while born in America, he identified himself as "Palestinian" on some documents.
I didn't know that, Bruce. I would have figured the opposite.
Thanks.
The brass saw Full Metal Jacket, too. :haha:
Funny coincidence ... Nidal Hasan did his undergrad at Virginia Tech.
I heard that today. Their PR must been going crazy. I hear a lot of other stuff has gone done there too.
I didn't know that, Bruce. I would have figured the opposite.
Thanks.
Remember the new Iraqi soldiers that were murdered right after their graduation ceremony? They were unarmed per US SOP. A really bad idea.
I agree. If there is anyone I'd trust being armed it's our armed forces. They get some of the best training available.
Mr. Medley said Sergeant Munley was an advanced firearms instructor for the civilian force, which is used to assist the military police with policing the vast fort, where 150,000 soldiers and their families live and work.
Oh, I was wondering why they waited for civilian police to take this asshole down. :litebulb:
My daughter went to a birthday party at the bowling center at Fort Meyer last night. As a civilian getting onto the base, they were very serious about inspecting our car. I knew they would search the car, but I wasn't expecting that level of scrutiny. I was actually a little surprised afterwards that they let us through with a wrapped present, given how closely they looked at everything else. Pleased though.
They had a nice searching station. Under a big tent with enough staff to search 4 cars at a time. The line moved fairly quickly.
Pete's company developed some serious tech for vehicle searches. I don't know if or how it has been implemented but you may have been scanned much deeper than you realize.
Oh, I was wondering why they waited for civilian police to take this asshole down. :litebulb:
Due to the frequency of deployments almost all of the police duties of world wide posts has been taken over by private contractors.
Whole thing is further proof (to me, anyway) that the evils of organized religion far outweigh the benefits.
I always thought they had a contingent of MPs at each base, to handle order, if not security. But I'm surprised, I'm surprised, at them contracting that out, considering they've contracted everything else. :smack:
They all have MP's but many of them are deployed trying to teach the IP's of our two war front how to police their own countries.
Whole thing is further proof (to me, anyway) that the evils of organized religion far outweigh the benefits.
What do you about it though?
The only thing I, personally can do, is not participate, and refuse to support it. (thinks) . . . okay, and contribute to causes and social wellbeing for its own sake, and not for the sake of a religion
Thre are at least a couple of hundred thousand people working anonymously around the glob right now, this moment, fom religious organizations, religious affilitated organizations, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, of all sects and denominations.
One guy is crazy, conecting his religious beliefs with his insane actions....and that negates all the hard work of the religious? Or a less then 1-2% representation of a given relgious body takes violent action in the world, and that negates the millions upon millions of other people actually following the doctrines?
I'm not saying we should be religious, hell, I'm not. I'm saying that to condemn religion based on this guy, and others like him, is not fair to the good work done by religion in the world. It is in my not so humble opinion a very narrow view.
further proof, not sole proof. How about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Holocaust, the Bosnian genocide, just to name a few instances off the top of my head. Not to mention the continued subjugation of women in the name of all religions, the recent occurrences of the Iraq-American who ran over his daughter because she was too Westernized, the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard by a religious nut, the sexual victimization of people by clergy who are in positions of authority, 9/11 . . . and on and on.
I've come to the conclusion that the evil that has been done in religions' name outweighs the good. It may be a narrow belief, but it's mine.
Thre are at least a couple of hundred thousand people working anonymously around the glob right now, this moment, fom religious organizations, religious affilitated organizations, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, of all sects and denominations.
But aren't these organization and their works done for the purpose of proselytizing and recruitment of the neediest and most vulnerable? Recruitment which leads to greater numbers and thus, greater influence, which makes it easier to promote an agenda?
An agenda of feeding the needy? No, I don't thing that a churches agenda is to "target" the needy, because they are vulnerable, somehow tricking them into a life of faith and service to God. MWAHAHAHA!!! You are kidding right?
Not exactly where I thought this thread would go..but hey...it's interesting.
My point is this, it seems that many have done their home work on the genocide, and selfish works peice. Though, the Nazi regime, I don't think that was a religious body. Most people stop there, and never look into any good works accomplished or on what scale, and to what effect.
A small example: The International Council of Voluntary Agencies, based in Switzerland. There are 70 major charter members, commonly refered to around the world as Non Government Agencies. These 70 are among the largest NGO's operating in the world today. 22 of which are in thier title or openly affiliated or backed by religios bodies of varying faiths. Billions of private dollars poor into the third world through these agencies. India, Australia, Muslims, Christian, European...all trying to offset the huge amounts of misery in the world. It's a good thing.
I think most individual religious do good works, in the name of their respective gods. It's mostly the institutions and hierarchies that are responsible for codifying and perpetrating hateful acts. And the "holy" books--don't get me started on those! I'm not saying that nothing good has come of organized religion--just that, looking at history, more bad things have resulted than good.
ah, sorry, I've derailed the thread. Didn't really mean to!
An agenda of feeding the needy? No, I don't thing that a churches agenda is to "target" the needy, because they are vulnerable, somehow tricking them into a life of faith and service to God. MWAHAHAHA!!! You are kidding right?
Nope, not kidding. I think most of the major religions are always looking for more members. I think they actively attempt to convert those that receive their charities. I think they use their numbers to promote political agendas... like banning gay marriage in CA for example.
it's clear to me that WE also bear some culpability in this guy's meltdown. He may have gone off the deep end, but part of the stressors (reportedly) were the bigotry, overt and subtle, that he experienced as a Muslim.
He is American, we are American, and there should no place in America for religious intolerance. I may not be a fan of organized religion, but I absolutely support the right of US citizens to worship as they please.
I've come to the conclusion that the evil that has been done in religions' name outweighs the good. It may be a narrow belief, but it's mine.
Religion is a relationship between you and your god. Religious institutions are only consultants. Organizations that can advise and assist.
The minute a religious organization says you will be damned if you do not do what we say, then that religious organization is corrupt. The minute any religion imposes their beliefs on anyone else, that religion is corrupt. America was founded by groups fleeing religious tyranny. And yet we still have even in America religions that would force on others their beliefs - as if America was supposed to be a Christian nation or a nation formed in the graces of god.
Once the Catholic Church would not impose their teachings on the US government. Now the pope orders Catholic law makers to impose church doctrine in American laws. Therefore we have a serious problem. American principles are under attack from the Catholic Church (and other religions).
What his religion is should never need be discussed. It is being discussed because we have a problem - even with his peers.
A more serious failing, in my opinion, is that this chap was showing warning signs and no one noticed. Supervisor? Regular mental health check? Friends and colleagues?
in hindsight, there are always signs. I'm wondering about his reported desire to leave the army after 9/11. He couldn't disentangle himself in 8 years?
My daughter went to a birthday party at the bowling center at Fort Meyer last night. As a civilian getting onto the base, they were very serious about inspecting our car. I knew they would search the car, but I wasn't expecting that level of scrutiny. I was actually a little surprised afterwards that they let us through with a wrapped present, given how closely they looked at everything else. Pleased though.
They had a nice searching station. Under a big tent with enough staff to search 4 cars at a time. The line moved fairly quickly.
Next time, don't wear your turban. :p
It's a shame that the citizenry hasn't been disarmed - then we could just genocide their asses.:sniper::apistola::magnum::flamer:
A more serious failing, in my opinion, is that this chap was showing warning signs and no one noticed. Supervisor? Regular mental health check? Friends and colleagues?
We Americans don't do anything ahead of time. Do something about global warming? Nah. Maintain or replace old bridges, power grids, etc.? No way, that would cost too much. Develop really effective air travel safety policies on Sept 10, 2001? That would inconvenience travellers, cost to much, and besides, we'll just invade anybody who would dare attack us (what, that would cost more?).
No, we're reactionary here in the US of A.
it's clear to me that WE also bear some culpability in this guy's meltdown. He may have gone off the deep end, but part of the stressors (reportedly) were the bigotry, overt and subtle, that he experienced as a Muslim.
Calling shennanigans.
The guy was a shrink.
It's pretty much the cost of doing business in mental health that you will be insulted and berated through most of your day. You either find a way of dealing with it that doesn't involve shooting people (or yourself) or you find another field.
He is American, we are American, and there should no place in America for religious intolerance. I may not be a fan of organized religion, but I absolutely support the right of US citizens to worship as they please.
Dr. Hasan did not self-identify as an American.
While he has the right to worship as he pleases, he does not have the right to follow religious tenets such as:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
it's clear to me that WE also bear some culpability in this guy's meltdown. He may have gone off the deep end, but part of the stressors (reportedly) were the bigotry, overt and subtle, that he experienced as a Muslim.
Assumption. I can never accept that we are responsible for others stupid decisions. It comes down to personal responsibility.
Assumption. I can never accept that we are responsible for others stupid decisions. It comes down to personal responsibility.
That's right. If I poke you in the eye with a stick, and you hit me, YOU are the one who is going to jail for battery. :stickpoke
That's right. If I poke you in the eye with a stick, and you hit me, YOU are the one who is going to jail for battery. :stickpoke
Yea, but you will be in surgery getting your nose fixed.
And actually you would also go to jail after you got out of the hospital. :)
of course I'm just speculating, since we really don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure he did identify as an American--at least before 9/11. After that, apparently not.
And I still think that we as a society need to do a better job in not spreading bigotry and religious intolerance.
And I still think that we as a society need to do a better job in not spreading bigotry and religious intolerance.
Agreed. We certainly have come a long way in my lifetime.
of course I'm just speculating, since we really don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure he did identify as an American--at least before 9/11. After that, apparently not.
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.
And I still think that we as a society need to do a better job in not spreading bigotry and religious intolerance.
Agreed
I think you mean Palestinian, not Pakestani.
I just found this lil tidbit....
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.
Nice - way to go.
A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, "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."
Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan's statements.
"And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict," Finell told ABC News.
Link
Me too - Why the hell wasn't something done sooner?
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.
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.
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.
... "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.:borg:
Assumption. I can never accept that we are responsible for others stupid decisions. It comes down to personal responsibility.
+1
Hmm. We are all part of something bigger, and our actions have consequences that reach beyond ourselves. I.e., no man is an island.
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.
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.
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. :headshake
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.
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.
Though terrorists themselves aren't invariably the poster boys for good mental hygiene. There's rattle room either way.
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.
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.
Easy solution... all military personnel must carry their weapons at all times, on and off duty.
The fact that this man was in contact with known terrorists and had a real potential to be used/abused by them into thinking this may have been a "good thing" leads me to consider the alternative. All the investigations being done by the various agencies also makes it obvious that there may be something to it.
To try and make all the smoke just "go away" for political reasons before finding out the truth is even worse.
Its possible. But even if he was influenced by a terrorist group, unless there is a larger strategy behind the killings, I think it should still not be labeled as a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is some aggressive behavior by a group trying to influence a society by the use of fear.
If he was trying to scare the military personal, it seems that he has miserably failed. The only success I see from this, from the terrorist perspective, is that many are now trying to discriminate against Muslims because of this, polarizing Muslims, and making them choose from being loyal to a society that treats them as second class citizens or fighting against them (that is Al Qaeda's grand stategy IMO). But that still is a massive stretch.
A terrorist attack is some aggressive behavior by a group trying to influence a society by the use of fear.
Which is precisely what I consider this to have been. "Group" is not necessary to the definition, you will note on reflection -- Sirhan Sirhan and the late Timmy McVeigh come to mind.
And among the punditocracy:
Obama's Wakeup Call?Which is precisely what I consider this to have been. "Group" is not necessary to the definition, you will note on reflection -- Sirhan Sirhan and the late Timmy McVeigh come to mind.
And among the punditocracy: Obama's Wakeup Call?
"Group" is certainly necessary in the definition of a terrorist act under US law, as is a political motivation or intent to intimidate or coerce.
MCVeigh was not tried as a terrorist, but as a mass murderer. He acted alone (or with one co-conspirator) and there was no evidence of it being a political act.
And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?
As you said, ". . .political motivation or attempt to intimidate or coerce." I'd count a large explosion as intimidating, particularly so if it's downtown. And would it necessarily have to be thought out in any organized or complete fashion before the guy starts building his car bomb or dragging his footlocker full of guns and ammo to the top of that Texas tower?
Trying him for mass murder simply indicates that we don't have or take political prisoners in our system. This will likely also be pointed out in the upcoming KSM-et-alia trial if that attempt to try POW's ever gets going. I don't see the good in that, except perhaps the negative result of showing an entire generation that the law-enforcement paradigm should not substitute for the war-fighting paradigm.
And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?
As you said, ". . .political motivation or attempt to intimidate or coerce." I'd count a large explosion as intimidating, particularly so if it's downtown. And would it necessarily have to be thought out in any organized or complete fashion before the guy starts building his car bomb or dragging his footlocker full of guns and ammo to the top of that Texas tower?
Trying him for mass murder simply indicates that we don't have or take political prisoners in our system. This will likely also be pointed out in the upcoming KSM-et-alia trial if that attempt to try POW's ever gets going. I don't see the good in that, except perhaps the negative result of showing an entire generation that the law-enforcement paradigm should not substitute for the war-fighting paradigm.
There was no threat of further action, no claim that the bombing was in response to......or demands for the US government to...(pick one - release prisoners, withdrawal US troops from anywhere, end its support of Israel, or even more localized demands like providing better health care and/or jobs to homeless vets,....).
There was no strategy to use the bombing to further any political goals, either personally or of an organization.
It was an act of an angry or emotionally unstable man (men).
And the evidence embodied in his picking a government target doesn't factor into it? I think it does. McVeigh was known for political thinking, however warped and mishandled and misconceived -- too weird for the militia, remember? -- and his motivation so far as we can determine was entirely political. He wanted to blow up lots of U.S. government in order to accomplish some, um, change of behavior on its part. Politics by disreputable means?
Just because the motivation was political doesn't mean it is equivalent to something like the 9/11 attacks. For example, let say we have a kid who gets bullied a lot at school, so he breaks down, gets a gun, and shoots up the school. Then, another kid with the same situation, finds his three biggest bullies, hangs them in front of the school, and says anyone else who bullies will get the same fate. Both had the same cause and motivation but the second had an actual strategy to change the social setup of the school using fear. There is a clear difference and the second is much more dangerous because it attempts to control others.
I did not see any strategy related to McVeigh even if the attack was political in nature. Same with the Fort Hoot shootings. Al Qeada wants to US to keep attacking Islamic countries, forcing pro-Western Muslims to choose between those two identities, causing a war between the west and Islam. That is much more dangerous then anything McVeigh did or what happened at Fort Hood.
Its possible. But even if he was influenced by a terrorist group, unless there is a larger strategy behind the killings,...
The only success I see from this, from the terrorist perspective, is that SOME MAY BE trying to discriminate against Muslims because of this, polarizing Muslims, and making them choose from being loyal to a society that treats them as second class citizens or fighting against them (that is Al Qaeda's grand stategy IMO). But that still is a massive stretch.
I don't see that as such a stretch. . . Would you have even considered the coordinated attacks including 9/11 as a "massive stretch?" If not, then you are in the very small minority.
I don't see that as such a stretch. . . Would you have even considered the coordinated attacks including 9/11 as a "massive stretch?" If not, then you are in the very small minority.
I worded that badly. Of course some people are going to discriminate against Muslims because of this. But, I believe it is a stretch that the attack was made for the strategy of getting non-Islamic westerners to discriminate against Muslims. There are other and much more effective methods. Random shoot ups are rarely strategic. Bombs, gas, etc, work much better.
no no no - The radicals may have seen this as an opportunity to gather more support for their cause and help unite their brethren in America.
I don't think this had much, if anything to do with discrimination.
Maj. Hasan, . . .was shot several times during the incident and remains under intensive medical care. His lawyer said doctors have determined Maj. Hasan will remain paralyzed from his chest down and incontinent for the rest of his life.
judgment from on high? Maybe Allah is paying attention after all.
Al Qaeda wants to US to keep attacking Islamic countries, forcing pro-Western Muslims to choose between those two identities, causing a war between the west and Islam.
Which "forcing" doesn't seem to be a matter of much moment to the pro-Western Muslims in question.
Frankly, where's the downside in making anti-Westernism extinct by shortening its practitioners' lifespans? Can anti-Westernism endure a thousand years of pruning? I doubt it. The arrogant anti-globalist, woman-abusing Islamofascists cry out for divine punishment. Let´s punish, and punish, and punish, until it is no longer fashionable in any circle to remain stupid. Let us provide our death-loving opponents with a glut. Show the world their unprofitability.
They're actually doing a pretty fair job of this already. The working definition of a terrorist is somebody whose ideas are so unpopular he can only press them by violence. The terrs are spending more time and explosives blowing their co-religionists up than anything else. In the name, apparently, of scaring off the West.
What happens to those guys if the West doesn't scare, but comes a-hunting?
A rope and a lamppost, I think.
cry out for divine punishment. Let´s punish, and punish, and punish
At last, your god-delusion is exposed ;)
Seriously, in reply to
Frankly, where's the downside ...
The downside is for every extremeist we kill, two of his cousins swing from sympathiser to activist, and five of his neighbours swing from neutral to sympathiser. Just like fighting the Hydra, cutting the heads off one at a time doesn't get you anywhere.
But that begs the question, does the homicide bomber recruit more supporters by;
1-us killing him,
2-him successfully killing others?
If the return from both courses of action (averaged across many homicide bombers) is more than 1.0 new recruits, we're losing.
One way to get that rate of regeneration down is by keeping impressionable youngsters out of reach of persuasive extremists. That means providing secular schools in important areas - not just Pakistan and Afghanistan, but eg Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia; and putting pressure on to close down the most extreme madrassas.
Men-In-Black-types still have a role to play, not in preemptively killing bombers, but in neutralising those who recruit the bombers, build the bombs, provide the money.
. . . or by killing ALL of them.
[COLOR="White"]Just kidding[/COLOR]
[COLOR="White"]Just kidding[/COLOR]
Why?:D
One way to get that rate of regeneration down is by keeping impressionable youngsters out of reach of persuasive extremists. That means providing secular schools in important areas - not just Pakistan and Afghanistan, but eg Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia; and putting pressure on to close down the most extreme madrassas.
Yes, the most effective strategy will be polarizing the extremist minority from the moderate majority. If a separation can occur, then citizens will start blaming the extremists instead of, or along with, the west. If a separation is not there, most, if not all, blame will be shown towards the west.
Itdoesn't take much.
Remember Salman Rushdie? Indian (or was it Pakistani) born British citizen, British publishing company, but whose flags got burned in the whacky protests?
One thing I learned in my student days is that protests and especially the slogans are very rarely well thought through.
The downside is for every extremeist we kill, two of his cousins swing from sympathiser to activist, and five of his neighbours swing from neutral to sympathiser. Just like fighting the Hydra, cutting the heads off one at a time doesn't get you anywhere.
Actually, no. And in any case, what of it? They die too -- two more well directed bullets, two fascists made into good fascists. And everyone around them says of them, "Those guys were complete idiots." Fundamentally simple, is it not? Particularly if you assume the supply of fascists is finite, which is my supposition and I've not seen much to contradict it, if anything at all. What needs to happen is that those who decide to assail the Leviathan get dealt a short lifespan, with no profit and no chance to breed others like themselves.
Insurgencies get ground down by holistic measures -- I'd like you to stop thinking I don't understand that. We who fight the insurgents also work on their societies, to undermine any feelings of grievance or any improper understanding of globalization's progress. Agitators, representatives of undemocratic social orders, try to stir their youth up to attack us. Yet their success is limited, and much of the blowing up is of coreligionist Muslims -- getting blown up for the offense of not subscribing to the terr's brand of thinking.
Cultures are tough things; they are not broken nor wiped away by widened trade, nor the freest flow of finances, security, people, goods, and ideas. The agitators generally couch their rabblerousings in terms of defending the purity of their culture, but this "defense" is not of the culture but of the privileges of the élite. Political liberty and highly secure property rights are essential building blocks -- our troubles come from places lacking in one or both, not from other parts of the world that have figured these out.
Education of girls and women will be important in this -- so important that anybody attacking a girls' school should be hunted down and dismembered in public, perhaps by insertion of a rectumful of Semtex (250 grammes ought to do; a kilo is overkill and bad for surrounding plate glass) and a blasting cap. We should show the anticivilized, anti-wealth, antidemocracy opposition that the world will no longer indulge their illegitimacy, but will move not to merely kill, but to vaporize it.
Hanging from a lamppost is just as public, just as effective, and less noisy too. Or borrow a gas station and string 'em up by the heels there, as was done with Mussolini.
Your problem, Zen, is that your present position is one of moral cowardice in the face of terroristic antiglobalist fanatical factions, and insufficient belief in the inherent worth of the liberal democracy those factions attack. I don't have that problem, and I'm here to tell you you don't need it, but can live a better life without it. Take a life-lesson, and review your values and your soul. It is not itself evil to battle to destroy evil.
So, how'd that work for you in Nam?
Sectarianism is on the rise again in Ireland.
Apologists say that it's because the process of creating a united Ireland is too slow, and because the economy is in recession.
No.
Sorry.
Really. NO.
Some people like to kill.
They will wear a religion in order to do so.
Bullied? Jobless? Feel undermined? Part of a minority?
KILL EVERYONE!
I suppose we're supposed to be grateful that so far only those in the Armed Forces or Police are being targeted. Unlike at the height of the Troubles, when they were blowing up English shopping streets. And had American funding.
Fort Hood was a tragedy. And shame on him for not realising it fed the flames of Islamophobia. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Except he wouldn't feel that now, would he?
But it had as much to do with the Koran as IRA attacks had to do with the Bible.
I believe in neither, but I do recognise that without organised religion, human beings would find another reason to hate and maim and kill.
And had American funding
Money from Irish living in the US, money from Irish-Americans, and likely from Irish living in Europe. American funding, no.:headshake
So, how'd that work for you in Nam?
Your compatriots were there too, may I remind you. The First Australian Task Force, SAS, some arty, armour, and support units.
Now didn't they amount to some improvement over yourself? Shall I need to continue being so blunt?
Hey, Communism is dead in Vietnam except as a sort of state religion, and is there no reason to hope this too will go the way of the Sumerian pantheon also? (That's the way I want it.) Should this be counted as failure on America's part and the West's?
Democracy and liberty keep getting vindicated, even among the schlubs who fight for slavery. Yes, it's damned fortunate these guys figured it out for themselves after busily wasting all those lives for all that time -- but it would have been even more fortunate had they been denied the opportunity to waste people for not wanting to be enslaved, right?
You should notice that the decline of communism had nothing to do with being bombed to buggery, but rather has followed 30-odd years of relative peace.
You should also be aware that the point about killing bad guys simply creating more bad guys is iterative.
And if your barbaric proposal of anally raping terrorists with explosive devices were adopted, that would swing damn near every human, decent or otherwise, into strong anti-Americanism. Remember Abu Graib?
Don't lecture me about goals. I don't want the talleban or anyone like them in charge of anything any more than you do. It is just that your methods of achieving the goals are hopeless; futile and counterproductive.
I just thought it'd be the right time to point out that Australia still wins as far as the most people killed in one sitting by a loony with a gun.
You should notice that the decline of communism had nothing to do with being bombed to buggery, but rather has followed 30-odd years of relative peace.
You should also be aware that the point about killing bad guys simply creating more bad guys is iterative.
And if your barbaric proposal of anally raping terrorists with explosive devices were adopted, that would swing damn near every human, decent or otherwise, into strong anti-Americanism. Remember Abu Graib?
Don't lecture me about goals. I don't want the talleban or anyone like them in charge of anything any more than you do. It is just that your methods of achieving the goals are hopeless; futile and counterproductive.
Which is why the latest plans for a troop surge, ala Iraq, will not work IMHO.
Don't lecture me about goals. I don't want the talleban or anyone like them in charge of anything any more than you do. It is just that your methods of achieving the goals are hopeless; futile and counterproductive.
I think the US is thinking much more long-term then we realize. The Middle East and Central Asia is going to be a very large battleground in the future because it is the vacuum between China, India, Russia, the EU, and US. China is already making strategic long term moves in Central Asia (old Soviet -stans) and parts of Pakistan. Holding Afghanistan and even Iraq would be very strategic move for the US and I am leaning more towards that as the reasons we are currently occupying these countries.
Your argument still holds though. But I am more and more curious on whether our long term goal is to completely pacify Afghanistan or just pacify them enough to be able to set up our bases there.
Which is why the latest plans for a troop surge, ala Iraq, will not work IMHO.
Nothing initiated by Obama or a Democrat will work, IYHO.
The Democratic Presidential record for the last two generations is pretty hard to argue with, Spexx. Martial victory just isn't in these guys, not since Kennedy, and actual military victory under a Democratic President hasn't happened since Truman's first term.
So if it's important to anybody to destroy undemocratic regimes, it's important to keep Democrats out of the Oval Office and install war winners there instead. Bush isn't getting a lot of credit, but he seems to have laid the proper groundwork, sufficient to The Continuing Crisis.
Don't lecture me about goals. I don't want the talleban or anyone like them in charge of anything any more than you do. It is just that your methods of achieving the goals are hopeless; futile and counterproductive.
And your methods are... invisible. You cannot bring yourself to actually fight the people who are fighting you. Dead oppressors cannot oppress anything but the nose. I don't believe you should discount that.
Abu Ghraib is something nobody in the Muslim world seems to give two cents about. They do know something about getting tortured, you know... and they could see there was nary a bruise, let along a burn or scrape, on anyone in the pictures. Reaction, thus, has been very properly muted. You're more excited about it than they seem to be -- so who is more discombobulated by Abu Ghraib? Them -- or you?
Excuses and rationalizations by agitators, serving their inexplicit agendas, are another matter -- but a matter that is not only invisible on the ground, but doesn't even seem on the horizon.
I don't see that we'd even notice if our foes worked up any greater hatred for us than they already have. In any case, their hatred seems very generalized, as busy as they are blowing up those coreligionists who don't subscribe to their particular mindset, and who are getting killed for the unpardonable offense of being more sensible than the terrs. Longterm, terrorism always collapses, failing. It usually starts with a governmental sponsor, and part of the counterinsurgency campaign is to pry the sponsor away from the terrorists. This is one of those "root causes" that get so vaguely mentioned by people wishing to appear wise. Part of the job is to uproot that cause.
Zen, our troubles stem entirely from undemocratic social orders. Their circles of power are going to be anti-American regardless, viewing the democratic ruleset (such as America powerfully and successfully exemplifies) as a threat to their privileged positions. And it is that -- as far as that goes. What such autocrats and oligarchs miss is the mass prosperity the democratic/free-markets ruleset always engenders, and they miss perceiving a chance to ride this wave to success.
All this is quite independent of what their subject populations think, and aren't allowed to mention. This is a point that gives the world's Core States much to be optimistic about, especially in the long run. Some figure that the effective road to democratization is economic opportunity, development, freedom, and that this shall lead to more distribution of political power in accord with the broadening of economic power.
You're trying harder than the case merits to make me out some kind of sadistic simpleton. I am neither, so I will lecture you on goals, inasmuch as you're not formulating anything much and I am willing to at least try. You could at least try studying on counterinsurgencies. Australia was instrumental in conducting one in Indonesia, postwar.
I think the US is thinking much more long-term then we realize. . . But I am more and more curious on whether our long term goal is to completely pacify Afghanistan or just pacify them enough to be able to set up our bases there.
The longterm goal we should pursue will be taking Afghanistan out of the Non-Integrating Gap states. This is a longterm goal indeed, as there are few countries less promising for this kind of development, in its extreme political disunity (not fully appreciated by the nation states trying to deal with it) and its extreme want of institutions of security -- they feud, and that is a fair litmus test. The place is less a nation than it is a reservation for assorted non-nationalized tribes. Initial progress is only going to be piecemeal. For actual signs of true success, look for enlarging and diversifying economies, first local, then regional, only finally national. When there are more ways to make real money than growing poppies for the opium trade, guess what.
whoa, battle of the tl;dr wingnut
I dunno, guise. He's got a low UID buuuuuut . . . I like the dopey fartsy granola side of the cellar bettar. I can't get that uptight.
Tuba, I suggest you avoid the politcs and current events fora until you've got your bearings a bit. Homebase and Nothingland are good fun. Mostly.
It's ok, I can handle it.
I just wanted to let you know I thought it was lame.
Bush isn't getting a lot of credit, but he seems to have laid the proper groundwork, sufficient to The Continuing Crisis.
Yes, he did a wonderful job of laying the groundwork for continuing crisis.
My goodness!
I was so hungry for a solid basis for my Crisis Groundwork that I voted for Rove for Prezidink.
The Democratic Presidential record for the last two generations is pretty hard to argue with, Spexx. Martial victory just isn't in these guys, not since Kennedy, and actual military victory under a Democratic President hasn't happened since Truman's first term.
Man did we ever kick ass in Grenada!
Hey, no need to play the ace if the two will do it, Griff -- whattaya want already, the Apocalypse? I'm as happy with it as any antitotalitarian person of freedom should be. Shut the Cubans up nicely, as I recall, and that's just how I want them until Raúl dies or leaves office and takes the Bad Religion of Communism with him. He's too old, too set in his ways, and too Third World Despot to pull a Gorbachev/Yel'tsyn and yank the lid right off.
It's ok, I can handle it.
.
[SIZE="5"]
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]
j/k, it just fitted so well.
Yeah some of these goats have been butting heads for so long there isn't much left to say outside neiner neiner neiner!
Hey, no need to play the ace if the two will do it, Griff -- whattaya want already, the Apocalypse?
Actually, that was the last time the Republicans won a war. The previous being the time they took down the Republic for good or ill.
I dunno; I keep seeing Republican Presidents thinking at least somewhat Libertarian. Reagan, despite his measure of statism, does come to mind. The Donkey Party? Not even close. Tens of lightyears out.
Cuba is down there at the bottom of the list below abortion and faggots as far as things that actually affect my life so much I need to complain about it.
I have no idea how these distant and nebulous concepts inspire so many blowhards.
Cuba is down there at the bottom of the list below abortion and faggots as far as things that actually affect my life so much I need to complain about it.
.
WOW. Nice disgusting language. I hope you were referring to cigarettes.
No sorry, I dearly hope to see equal rights for all of Dorothy's friends in my lifetime.
I was lampooning the ridiculous right. I will stop now. And gather a bundle of sticks to use for kindling.