Shooting at Fort Hood TX

Originally posted by Peter Parker So... if he was a psychiatrist, what exactly was he representationally shooting people with?

This is interesting. A letter written by one of the people there.

Exactly -- the point here is a that he was a broken individual.  The question is whether he was broken by the system he's a part of, or by other things.  I'm sure the Army is working on figuring that out right now.

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise Originally posted by ParielIsBack Exactly -- the point here is a that he was a broken individual.  The question is whether he was broken by the system he's a part of, or by other things.  I'm sure the Army is working on figuring that out right now.         He wasn't "broken" he was an MUSLIM EXTREMIST. They are set on killing infedels, period.   This wasn't a mentally unstable individual, he planned this out, to keep these soldiers from killing his "brothers" in iraq, and afghanistan.   Most muslims aren't like this, but a large segment is, and how do you know which is which?...

Edited by __sneaky__ - 07 November 2009 at 7:08pm

Edited to show what I was responding to.

Sneaky addressed some of my points, most notably the McVeigh one.

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise Originally posted by ParielIsBack Exactly -- the point here is a that he was a broken individual.  The question is whether he was broken by the system he's a part of, or by other things.  I'm sure the Army is working on figuring that out right now.         He wasn't "broken" he was an MUSLIM EXTREMIST. They are set on killing infedels, period.   This wasn't a mentally unstable individual, he planned this out, to keep these soldiers from killing his "brothers" in iraq, and afghanistan.   Most muslims aren't like this, but a large segment is, and how do you know which is which?...

Frankly, strapping a bomb on their chest, or taking pretty much any route available to these extremists in confronting the massive military and technological superiority of the United States should show just how unhinged they are.

If you really think that there was nothing mentally wrong with this man, well, so be it.  But normal people don't end up at the conclusion he ended up with.

Also, planning doesn't imply any sort of mental stability.  Where would you put Timothy McVeigh on the mental stability chart? I hope for your sake it's not in the middle.

Also, saying that a large segment of Muslims are like this is simply untrue.  The vast majority of Muslims oppose violent extremism, and if you're talking about only Muslims within the US, that number is virtually 100%.  Teenage Muslims are being turned into extremists by Israel and our wars in the Middle East, but the teachings of Muslim extremists aren't turning Islam into a great bastion of anti-Western aggression.  For that matter, we might be.

Also, if that was his plan, he seems to have failed, considering many of these men and women would likely never have fired a weapon in anger during their deployment.


Edited by ParielIsBack - 07 November 2009 at 7:17pm

I thought about this topic quite a bit, made up my mind, and decided to stay out of it.  However, since McVeigh was mentioned (he was one of the things I thought about) here (for what it's worth) is my opinion:

It was terrorism.

Not in the the technical definition of terrorism, which is seriously misused in regards to incidents on U.S. soil, but in the generally accepted usage by the press and public in general.

Consider this; technically terrorism is not necessarily about the killing, it is about spreading fear in order to enact change.  (Hence, the "terror" in the title.)  However, general usage regarding domestic attacks by the media and the populace have applied the term terrorism to incidents ranging from abortion clinic bombings to the Oklahoma city bombing when in reality such incidents (being more about the actual killing) are not technically terrorism.  Thus the media, and to a certain extent we the people, have redefined what is meant by this term. 

To segue off-topic for a minute, McVeigh was not a member or an organized cell and he was not interested in spreading fear; most sources list revenge against/hatred for the government as his motives.  In a similar vein, most of the abortion clinic-related murderers are inspired more by a desire to "murder murderers" as opposed to creating fear. 

My point is that the above examples are considered terrorism by the populace and generally so named by the media.  It is only hypocrisy, political correctness and perhaps a bit of fear* that is keeping the same from happening in this instance.

Now does this mean that the shooter was part of a cell of some kind?  No it doesn't; all indications are that he acted on his own which is something that should worry us more.  Reports are he was native-born and lived here is entire life; furthermore, his family does not seem to share his views.  This is domestic terrorism in the truest sense and it should scare the hell out of us because of that.  This isn't an insidious foreign influence, this is someone who developed his beliefs (or was converted to them) right here.  It could be any of our neighbors and it doesn't necessarily have to be someone of the Islamic faith.

FE said one thing that I agree with but feel that I have to expand upon:  He said that whether we want to acknowledge it or not we are at war with Islam.  While we may not consider ourselves to be so, a good portion of its followers definitely consider themselves to be at war with us.  If you're in a bar fight with someone taking swings at you and are denying that you are in a fight rather than reacting to reality things will probably not turn out well for you in the long run.  Furthermore, you are in a fight, you're just not defending yourself.  More important that whether or not we are at war with Islam however is the fact that Islam is at war with itself and the radicals seem to be winning.  This does not bode well for those in the world who value such things as equal rights and religious freedom.

*Interesting off-topic point; one of the makers of  "2012" was quoted as saying that they didn't destroy Muslim landmarks in the movie because of a fear of fatwa.

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise   NEW YORK —  A New York City bicycle cabbie who mocked the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl and posted a prayer on the Web calling for the murder of Jews is now sending a "Get Well Soon" message to the suspected Fort Hood gunman, the New York Post reported. Yousef al-Khattab, 41, a radical Muslim in the borough of Queens who runs RevolutionMuslim.com, claims on the site that the soldiers massacred at the Texas base deserved to be massacred, and he insists the victims are in "eternal hellfire." As for the suspected gunman — Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — Al-Khattab hails him as a hero. "An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack," al-Khattab wrote on the site. "Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you." Al-Khattab, a Jewish-born New Jersey native formerly named Joseph Cohen, converted to Islam in 2004. Known by the FBI for posting radical messages online, al-Khattab claims that the 13 murdered and 38 wounded soldiers at Fort Hood were "terrorists" who deserved to die. "These people are soldiers in a volunteer army," al-Khattab told the Post. "They expect to see combat. They know the danger." "Rest assured the slain terrorists at Ft. Hood are in the eternal hellfire," al-Khattab writes online. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572998,00.html

Radical muslims are glad American soldiers died?  No way!

In other news, America is apparently full of both Muslims who love America, and Muslims who hate America.

This tactic seems to be working well for me soooo...

Edited by __sneaky__ - 08 November 2009 at 6:10pm

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." -Ayman al-Zawahiri "We'll defend out prophet not just with our voices but with our blood. Muslims must continue to demonstrate until an apology is made." -Hassan Nasrallah The point is, just because one person says something does not mean that person represents their whole group, sneaky.

I'm thinking somebody didn't understand what I meant. I, in no way think that one person ever represents the entire group's feelings/opinions as a whole. I put that up for FE's enjoyment because his post implied that Muslims are glad the shooting took place. While some of them are, I'm sure. I'm also very sure that many of them are disturbed by it.