12 Dead, 31 Wounded @ FT HOOD

[Flash]

No one's saying we shouldn't let the judicial system run its course. In fact, most of us can't wait for this guy to receive his justice. What is lamentable is the fact that so many weren't willing to look at the seemingly blatant signs and make a call, simply for fear of offending a group.

If you think that is why some of us reject the rush to judgement then you are dead wrong. The reason many of us here urge caution when trying to decipher this guy's motives or connections is that we really don't have a lot of clues right now. The people who know the best are the police and law enforcement who are investigating this, not members of a random internet forum.

The problem with relying on the earliest info, whether it be eyewitness reports or leaks from law enforcement, is that those reports are often inaccurate or just plain wrong. I find it a bit ironic that we are good at following correct procedure around here about mishaps and casualties but when it comes to an incident like this we seem to forget why it is a bad idea to rely on conjecture/rumors/leaks. Law enforcement investigations often have the same rules and customs, especially one like this.

A perfect example of relying on the early rumor/innuendo/leak is that the CIA is denying earlier reports that it has info relevant to the case and is refusing to share with others. And from what little I have seen it is not even clear if they had anything on him in the first place. The FBI will get all the info they need, Congress will too eventually, all they have to do is ask their CIA colleagues sitting next to them.

Calling the guy a terrorist doesn't change the fact that he killed 12 people. It does speak to his motivation, which will take the prosecution of justice down a far different track than "just some crazy who snapped."

Whatever label you want to stick on him, that is the important thing.

 

[exhelodrvr]

There is nothing wrong with rational discussion of issues like this, to include "best guesses" of causal factors based on available information.

 

[Mumbles]

If you think that is why some of us reject the rush to judgement then you are dead wrong. The reason many of us here urge caution when trying to decipher this guy's motives or connections is that we really don't have a lot of clues right now. The people who know the best are the police and law enforcement who are investigating this, not members of a random internet forum.

The problem with relying on the earliest info, whether it be eyewitness reports or leaks from law enforcement, is that those reports are often inaccurate or just plain wrong. I find it a bit ironic that we are good at following correct procedure around here about mishaps and casualties but when it comes to an incident like this we seem to forget why it is a bad idea to rely on conjecture/rumors/leaks. Law enforcement investigations often have the same rules and customs, especially one like this.

A perfect example of relying on the early rumor/innuendo/leak is that the CIA is denying earlier reports that it has info relevant to the case and is refusing to share with others. And from what little I have seen it is not even clear if they had anything on him in the first place. The FBI will get all the info they need, Congress will too eventually, all they have to do is ask their CIA colleagues sitting next to them.



Whatever label you want to stick on him, that is the important thing.

OK Flash,
I know you love playing the devil's advocate sometimes, you've told me as much. But you can't actually be serious about this. The evidence is in spades.

 

[scoolbubba]

What are you talking about here? Seriously.
You might have a good link on the warning signs (argumentative, poor fitreps) and what the Army did (or didn't do) each time; if so I would like to see it. I'm guessing a crummy fitrep will not get you booted out, nor will being a crummy doctor, but people want to say it is only because he was a Muslim.

Here's one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8345944.stm

Here's another one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

How bout this one:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...od-hasan7-2009nov07,0,4710653.story?track=rss


Good enough?

 

[jtmedli]

I hate to take this "intellectual," but, at this stage of the game, I very much doubt this guy would have killed anyone if he wasn't having the mental and social issues he seems to have had. Hell, seems to me (at this stage of the game), none of the extremism he tended towards recently would have even come up if he weren't a depressed loon. If he is a terrorist, I'll bet he became one because he was not right in the head (not that it "matters"; although it may matter to courts, I dunno, but I will bet that is how it plays out).

We can say, "it was his religion," or "it was his mental state." (cue: Islam = mental disease jokes) Ultimately, it HAS to be a little of both / everything about this dude and his life.

I agree...overall the guy was just balls crazy.

 

[ChuckMK23]

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/09/press-stupidity-on-guns/

 

[Mos]

Anybody want to claim this guy still isn't a terrorist after Mumble's post?

As more evidence somes in, the guy is looking more and more like a duck and I'll confidently call him a duck. I, and I don't think anyone else, was saying he's not a duck. Why is it that those of you that think differently say that we're jumping to conclusions about his motivations when you're pretty much doing the same thing? We're just entertaining different theories about what drove this guy. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. It doesn't diminish the horror of the well-established fact that he committed an evil act by killing or hurting dozens of people. Moreover, why do our motivations for entertaining a theory other than that he was a raving Muslim extremist HAVE to be for political correctness? Personally, I'm not taking the approach that I take to be PC, I'm just trying to understand the truth to the best of my ability.

 

[Brett327]

As more evidence somes in, the guy is looking more and more like a duck and I'll confidently call him a duck. I, and I don't think anyone else, was saying he's not a duck. Why is it that those of you that think differently say that we're jumping to conclusions about his motivations when you're pretty much doing the same thing? We're just entertaining different theories about what drove this guy. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. It doesn't diminish the horror of the well-established fact that he committed an evil act by killing or hurting dozens of people. Moreover, why do our motivations for entertaining a theory other than that he was a raving Muslim extremist HAVE to be for political correctness? Personally, I'm not taking the approach that I take to be PC, I'm just trying to understand the truth to the best of my ability.

People read what I type but they hear left-wing talking point and feel compelled to spout their own right wing talking points. Nobody is actually reading and understanding the majority of what is being posted here. More words have been put in more posters mouths in this thread than any in recent memory. It a shame, really, because a lot of good points have been made on both sides that have been completely glossed over in the rush to shout their rebuttal. People ought to stop stereotyping on both sides.

Some points to consider:
- Wanting to wait for the facts doesn't mean the guy can't have terrorist motives. Shouldn't we be absolutely sure, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not an attorney, but none of the "evidence" for terrorism I've seen in this thread would meet a prosecutorial burden in court. "But, your Honor...he said Allah-u-Akbar." You'd be disbarred for making that kind of argument.
- Wanting to wait for the facts doesn't mean I sympathize with the perp.
- Wanting to wait for the facts doesn't mean I'm afraid of offending other Muslims or have some kind of PC agenda - nothing could be further from the truth.
- We spend so much time on here railing against the media, how it's biased and how often it just plain gets things wrong...so, why are we so eager to accept what they have to say on this issue? Why don't we apply the same skepticism to the reporting in this case? If you buy that premise, why are we so willing to make conclusions based on the reporting?

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

The guy was a muslim-infidel-hater, if I may ... and as such, he did exactly what he wanted to do.

Some of you people need to come to grips w/ the realization that there's just some evil people out there that mean to do us harm ... they're not 'crazy' ... they're not 'discriminated against' ... they're not 'bedwetters' ... they're not the lazy-eyed kid on the playground that always got picked last when choosing sides for dodge ball ...

They are just evil people ... evil resides w/in them ...

Some of you people also need to learn how to look at reality and form conclusions and be able to take action. Some of you will never get it as you're too bound up in the 'process' and your self-imposed impression that you're an intellectual -- and I hope you're never confronted w/ violence and evil or have to make spot decisions when things are moving fast in combat or in an emergency -- 'cause you won't make the cut.

But thank God for the 'rest' of the U.S. military ... and this is NOT directed @ anyone specific ... it's a general comment based on this thread and others over the years ...

It just means you probably got picked last for dodge ball ...

 

[squorch2]

This thread has been depressing... in the words of my friend, "why would you read something like that?" As Brett said, people are mostly talking over each other rather than listening to each other and making responses based on the stated points. I don't think people on here are as right-wing or as left-wing as their counterparts suggest and I know that something like this stirs up a great deal of latent emotional responses that overwhelm the rational ones. That being said, here's what I can see:

1) Guy was mentally unstable.
2) Lots of people missed that he was mentally unstable.
3) Guy was Muslim.
4) Guy committed a terrorist act.
5) 3 and 4 have NOTHING to do with each other. It'd have been a terrorist act if he was blonde-haired, blue-eyed and Southern Baptist; or ginger and atheist, for that matter.
6) Lots of investigations are ongoing and the Army COC has let it be known that they are worried about backlashes against Muslim service members.
7) It seems that this thread could do with some time off from the most heated people - inclusive of left and right.

 

[Bevo16]

3 & 4 have everything to do with each other.

Actually, the entire world calls those things "Cause and Effect".

I doubt you can hear me with your head in the sand, but I figured that I would put it out there anyway.

 

[Random8145]

6) Lots of investigations are ongoing and the Army COC has let it be known that they are worried about backlashes against Muslim service members.

The thing is, most terrorist attacks done on this country in recent years have been done by Muslim extremists. And there hasn't been retaliation or backlashes against Muslims. 9/11 didn't create any even.

I understand that people don't want to rush to judgement, but at the same time, I mean the guy has a Middle Eastern name, is Muslim, and had very negative views about the U.S. waging war in the Middle East, apparently tried to contact members of al-qaeda (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-...l-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873), so then he goes and shoots a bunch of soldiers, shouting "Allah-Akbar" apparently in the process, and everyone is tripping over themselves to say, "He is not a terrorist, he is a just a guy who happened to be Muslim who was a nut..." well maybe, but then again, I say COME ON.

What I wonder, though just speculating, is could this be a result of the sort of "coming down" on the intelligence community that has happened under Barack Obama? For example, I wonder if this would have happened under George W. Bush, or if this would have just been another one of the "attempted terrorism attacks" that was foiled during the Bush years...? (They say apparently soldiers were aware of this guy's views and the intelligence community, but they believe PC kept them silent).

If so, I wonder if this is the first in what could be more terrorist attacks that will result in the future?

 

[Fog]

Bevo/R8145:
Better watch out. The PC Police gonna be on you like stink on do-do. By the way, I agree w/ both of you.

 

[CUPike11]

The thing is, most terrorist attacks done on this country in recent years have been done by Muslim extremists. And there hasn't been retaliation or backlashes against Muslims. 9/11 didn't create any even.

Umm, i'm not sure where you were, but there was most certainly backlash from 9/11 against muslims. I remember a story of a man in Arizona who shot a muslim just because of how he dressed.

Do a google search of "9/11 Muslim Backlash" and you'll find several stories from 2001 up to present about fear and worry and anxiety and even some about stuff that actually happened against the muslim community.

 

[CWJones411]

This thread needs more euphemisms.

How about Muslim Extremist? Does that work for the sensitive crowd?