34
   

At least seven killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

 
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You're suffering from selection bias.

This guy had a funny name, and happens to be Muslim, so it sticks with you and reinforces your prejudice.

There are one and a half billion Muslims, of which a tiny fraction go on shooting sprees.

Not too long ago, I was hearing about bombs in Ireland.

A day or two after the Ft. Hood shooting, there was another shooting in Florida, and the day after that some guy took people hostage up North. Are you scrutinizing their lives, too?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:33 pm
@engineer,
"They" deigned to address his Islamist beliefs when they had no choice but to. The UK media and FOX were eating their journalistic lunch.

What though was their first impulse?

If it had been: "This is wild and crazy **** and no one can draw a conclusion on the same day as the bastard went on a killing spree", I would be far less outraged, but that isn't the story we got from the mainstream, liberal media. Right off the bat, they leapt to their preferred explanation: Veterans are damaged goods and so it only follows that someone exploring their psyches will be damaged. The Major's religious beliefs were entirely immaterial.

If a "balanced picture" is emerging in the MSM (and I would argue that it is not) then it is only because they have been forced to acknowledge the facts other sources have developed.

For this entire week I have, on a daily basis, reviewed

1) National Review
2) The New Republic
3) The Nation
4) FOX News
5) CNN News
6) The NY Times

Only #1 and #2 have run a story on this topic every day.

If the others covered the story it was to criticize Islamaphobic fools like me for jumping to conclusions.

This is a fact and if you're really sincere in your claim that the liberal media is presenting an objective view of the incident, I am happy to do the research in these sources' archives to prove you wrong, as long as you attempt the same to prove me wrong.

The liberal, mainstream media's coverage of this story, while utterly infuriating, is merely a reflection of the truly dangerous forces of thought at work in this country.

Only an idiot (similar to the ones who continue to insist Iran is seeking nuclear power for peaceful, civilian purposes) would argue that there is not clear and obvious evidence that Hasan is a jihadist.

How much evidence do we need to tell us this guy was a terrorist act waiting to happen?

The truly depressing reality is that everyone who came into contact with Hasan knew or confidently suspected that he was an Islamist and capable of grave acts, and yet the System let him flow on through to his murderous rampage.

Why?

Morons at the switch? Perhaps.

More likely it was intelligent people whose decision making was crippled by the oppression of PC Thought.

Why would anyone not report, to their superiors, someone who did what Hasan did when he was asked to speak before his colleagues on technical matters? Instead of boring them all with tech-talk, he scared them all with talk about beheading infidels; pour boiling oil down their throats and sending them off to the fires of hell.

Why would anyone not report such an extreme experience?

There is only one answer: They were afraid that by so doing they would suffer a greater personal penalty.

This sort of fear isn't foolishly manufactured; it is developed through organizational messages, approved by the Top.

If this doesn't scare the pants off of every American, it should.

Does anyone believe the Military is more concerned with PC than the rest of our government?

If the Militaries concern for PC was fetid enough to allow this murderous jihadist to execute is extremist intentions, what can we expect from the DOJ, Homeland Security, and the White House?

Again I ask:

Wasn’t 9/11 enough? Do we need an even more horrendous event to set us straight?

Aren’t 13 dead and 30 wounded, horrific enough? What is the magic calculus that will allow us to accept the threat of the Islamists: Seven or more co-conspirators killing 1,000 or more innocents?

What is this absurd comfort with the “lone wolf” scenario? Here in Dallas a, presumably, “lone wolf” terrorist proved he was willing and able to push a button that could easily have killed thousands. Thank God, the Feds were wise to him, but there is no doubt, what-so-ever, that if he had aligned himself with fellow jihadists, instead of the FBI, he would have blown up a major office building in Dallas.

Are you that sanguine that the FBI is going to catch all of these miscreants before they can actually strike?

They didn’t catch Hasan.

He chose to be a martyr for Islam through minimal death and destruction: 43 dead and wounded. What if he had grander plans and found a way to kill thousands?

Couldn’t happen because that would take planning and he was a spontaneous nut!

Right.

We don’t need to round up and intern every Muslim in America.

We don’t even need to monitor the communications and activities of every Muslim in America.

We do need, when we find evidence of a jihadist, to put aside PC concerns and devote our attention to saving American lives (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim).

Muslims died in the World Trade Towers on 9/11 and Hasan could have and would have just as easily shot Muslim members of the Army as any of the infidels he sought to exterminate.

Wake up.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:39 pm
@DrewDad,
Dream on
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:43 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
it was to criticize Islamaphobic fools like me

At least you recognize yourself....
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:13 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
it was to criticize Islamaphobic fools like me

At least you recognize yourself....


Oh my God, what a devastating retort!

I don't think I will ever be able to show my face in this forum again.

DrewDad the A2k Assassin!


Was your reply really supposed to be clever?

Obviously you think so.

I bet you get a lot of mileage out of:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"You're the idiot."

"At least you recognize yourself..."






DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Now you're whining like an Islamaphobic fool.

I didn't strike a nerve, did I?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If he thought the people he was killing were trying to kill him
That wont have him found not guilty but it will be mitigating circumstances when handing down a sentence. Depending on the severity of the mental illness he might be found not fit to plea because his fantasy world is so bizarre he may not even know where he is but he could still be criminally liable for murder, it is just the charges are never pressed and he spends the rest of his life in a psychiatric ward.
Quote:
if he thought the bullets he was firing were simply cosmetically marking them as bad guys
That would have you found not guilty of murder on grounds of insanity.
In general, if you know it is a human being and you know you are taking their life, you have murdered. Proving in a court of law that someone didnt know they were human, or didnt know they were alive, or didnt know his actions would kill them is a heavy burden on the defence and in practice is very difficult. Even if the defence does prove it, he is going to spend a very long time in psychiatric wards and it will be very difficult to prove he is no longer a danger and should be freed.

I'll put my money on...
Quote:
He was exultant, flooded with endorphins triggered by religious ecstasy and an overwhelming intoxication of raw power.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:43 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
A day or two after the Ft. Hood shooting, there was another shooting in Florida, and the day after that some guy took people hostage up North. Are you scrutinizing their lives, too?

He isn't.

What exactly does Finn suggest we do?

All I hear is that we should not be PC? What does that mean in terms of actions? Why is this left for us to interpret?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:53 pm
@DrewDad,
If I hear of a Christian fundamentalist killing a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, I blame religion.
If I hear of a Jewish fundamentalist who shoots people in a mosque, I blame religion.
If I hear of Muslim findamentalists flying into the Twin Towers, I blame religion.

It is time we prosecuted the Preacher/Priest/Imam/Rabbi who prey on the vulnerable to do their dirty work.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 12:16 am
@Ionus,
Sure. But not to forget that some killers do their killing for their own, weird & incomprehensible personal reasons. Which only they "get".
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 12:48 am
@msolga,
We are in agreement.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 12:56 am
@Ionus,
Actually, I'm of the opinion that most (all?) of the perpetrators of these mass killings are quite mad. Whether motivated by (their perception of) religion, politics, or whatever ... It doesn't make any difference to me whether the killings occur in Pakistan or Fort Worth, USA. They are seriously out of step with what makes ordinary people tick. They are on another planet altogether.
I don't know that it's possible (try as we may) for ordinary people to comprehend the motivations of the people who do these things.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 01:10 am
@msolga,
Pick any topic and you will find people who are...
Quote:
seriously out of step with what makes ordinary people tick.
I dont think we are supposed to comprehend their motives any more than they comprehended they were committing the ultimate evil. I do not want to comprehend murder from a whole person view point. Dissect the motives into little bits and analyse it, sure, but that is as close as I want to go to understanding. Still a long way away, really.
Quote:
I don't know that it's possible (try as we may) for ordinary people to comprehend the motivations of the people who do these things.
We agree again.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 01:17 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I dont think we are supposed to comprehend their motives any more than they comprehended they were committing the ultimate evil. I do not want to comprehend murder from a whole person view point. Dissect the motives into little bits and analyse it, sure, but that is as close as I want to go to understanding. Still a long way away, really.


But surely this is what all the intensive media coverage has been about? To try to comprehend the motivation for such acts?
I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to understand the mind of a person who does such things. Say nothing of the people who do such things in groups, in a coordinated way. Nothing can "clarify" the issues for me. There is nothing rational about such acts.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 01:30 am
@msolga,
My worry is they want us to forgive and somehow blame ourselves.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 01:34 am
@Ionus,
Really?

"They"?

Could you explain what you mean in some more detail?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 02:00 am
@msolga,
"They" being people who are the first to come up with a reason for such evil, and they never find the missing X quality is evil.

They find all manner of possible causes, ones that prey on our shock and horror. There is a strong social tendency to be a part of the group. If the group is emphasising being lovely...Save the whale ( a rather fat repulsive creature)... then there is elbowing to be more lovely than the person next to you. Not only do I want to save the whale, but I also want to save the shark...beat THAT!! Try talking to people if they want to save the whale and you dont...they can not understand because group identity is a form of brainwashing.

This results in the media, motivated by money and not the truth, running around in front of the group, and saying "follow me" whilst being mindful of any direction change so they can race over to there, quickly abandoning any previous position taken. No-one holds the media to account where it hurts - finances.

People wanted to know what happened, and understandably so...but the media mix facts with theories. Some news organisations have worked out their market - they actually get more money if they lie.

The most obvious example of this is the JFK assasination. Most people believed the official version till a "documentary" was made as a re-enactment of the most bizarre possibilities. Overnight most people changed viewpoints but the facts had not changed, only their presentation method and emphasis.

There is also some "Stockholm Syndrome"in all of us.

The main component of 'they' is the media, but it can be religion or any organised group who has an interest in hiding the true facts, even if it is done coincidentally.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 02:35 am
@Ionus,
So (in the case of the media, anyway) you believe it's a case of giving the people what they want, catering to pre-existing prejudices? And I guess, depending on whatever the political persuasion of each media outlet might to be, giving the story a particular ideological interpretation?
But I still don't see how this leads to forgiving & blaming ourselves for what happened ....



(Hey, be careful what you say about whales, mate! ;
They are the complete opposite to "fat repulsive creatures" to many of us! You are treading on dangerous ground here! Wink )
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 03:32 am
@msolga,
It is the same reason there were videos of Vietnam on every nightly news in the 60's. What possible good could have been served by that ? Any attempt at analysis can bog down in excessive detail, but emotions will thrive on excessive detail. Muslims will emphasise details that down play his religion. Anti-Muslims will "up play" his religion. Anti-gun people will emphasise his access to guns, whilst gun supporters will emphasise their own spin. There are many other pieces this can be broken into for analysis, but most are simply pre-concieved prejudices. The media does not make money if they say it is highly probable he is evil, lets wait till we get more facts. They exploit the situation, by constantly finding new ways to assuage guilt or make us cringe. None of what they say is a proper analysis. It is based on how to make money.

My worry is the end result is that we will forgive evil and blame ouselves indirectly, through excuses for him that suggest collective guilt, such as PTSD, Muslim bashing, respect for the military, respect for professionals, availablity of firearms, and ostracising people from our group. Whilst analysis when the facts are known may indeed suggest improvement in these areas, we are not to blame collectively or individually.

He is evil and made an evil choice. The only possible excuse he may have is that he did not know he was taking human life, a degree of insanity that is extremely rare. It is more common for people to be found not capable of standing trial even though they would be found guilty of murder because they had enough sanity to know they were murdering people.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 03:35 am
@msolga,
By the way, I always mention whales to get people to realise it is dumb to hate a creature...whilst hoping they realise it is also dumb to love a creature. For myself, I have offspring so I dont need defacto ones and I certainly dont need to run with a group.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Another Fort Hood Shooting - Discussion by edgarblythe
Another Fort Hood Terror Plot Thwarted? - Discussion by tsarstepan
Ft Hood development - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 03:01:44