Probe of Ft. Hood murders

I said that PC allowed Hassan to go on a killing spree? Where did I say that? I imagine Hassan would have done what he did PC or not. What I said is that PC probably caused the authorities to be more reluctant to intervene. It is certainly causing the legal system to say what is plain to everyone. Luckily events are beginning to enforce honesty.

But isn't it obvious what happened? There were red flags all over the place regarding Major Hassan. And no one did anything about it for fear of getting into trouble. It was political correctness that prevented anyone from investigating Hassan.

Murdered is sort of a charged word; isn't it???Do you think that when a peron goes into the military with the expectation that he will be taught to kill and then he goes to kills because of political consideration blown way out of hand, that it is not murder??? There is choice, and death results......People must, as individuals, choose war, choose the route to war and its prosecution...Certainly the soldier is taught at some point that he must obey, and that he is not a free individual, but, as might have been said in another age: He is bound by his own will... And bound so he learns to kill and turns his arms against his fellow man and takes their lives without a fair trial of the facts...Where is the man who could go there to our middle eastern wars who would not hep to kill even without firing a shot... Just as with the Iraqis who we held reponsible for our hatred of Saddam, that we killed them without limit, and destroyed their homes and economy, and abused their honor and pride... Do we think we are better than they when the whole affair is played out in miniture???We killed a lot of them, and one of them killed a lot of us... Are you saying it is not fair... Mostly it is sickening, and since all of it has been the result of stupid human tricks with the truth -leading to catastrophe, it is also criminal, and negligent, and beyond acceptance...We cannot blame fate, and should not excuse either side; but stand apart from those people...

He gave a talk and said that the Iraqis and Afgans were right to rise up against their enemies. He said many other things too. Read about it. If those were not red flags what would be? He may be just a "rogue nuthob". That remains to be seen. But someone can be a nutjob (but not just a nut job) and a terrorist at the same time. Witness all those suicide-bombers.

I imagine many soldiers, Muslim or otherwise, express misgivings about the validity of these wars. Doesn't seem like a 'red flag' to me, unless you're implying that a soldier who has an opinion conflicting with the official line is worthy of investigation. Or, you're suggesting that these opinions coupled with the fact he was Muslim merited an investigation?

That's what I am suggesting.

Which one? That any soldier who has an opinion conflicting with the official line should be investigated? Or, that these opinions coupled with the fact he was Muslim merited an investigation?

Both. But it would depend on how that opinion was expressed.

So joining the army means forfeiting the right to have an opinion?

Sure thing old chap.

Any US or UK army personnel with the right to freely exercise the basic human rights espoused by the propaganda division of the government they serve would be disastrous for morale.

I mean, I'm happy to see that we're showering other countries in toxic substances that, were they placed in our societies, we would decry as a terrorist dirty bomb.

But that's only because I can manage the sort of philosophical stiff upper lip of the heirs to a colonial power who spent the 19th century committing genocide.

The average USAF Jonnie might have qualms about the fact that the actions he commits will mean Iraqi women in 302,009CE will still be birthing kids with exposed spines or skulls like pumpkins.

It might sap their morale.

They need to learn to shut up and get with the program.

Acts of terrorism are caused generally when there are no other alternatives, ie, when one cannot enter the political arena and are left with no other choice then to resort to violence, I'm not condoning violence but terrorism is usaully resorted to when there are no other choices left, so why did this person kill 13 people? Is is because he disagrees with the US involvement in the East or was he just nuts and wanted to kill people?

That's yet to be found out. But whatever the cause of what he did, he murdered a lot of people, and badly wounded many more. And the facts, so far, point to terrorism. Of course he had another choice. He didn't have to kill anyone. What do you mean he had no choice? Suppose someone hits you hard in the face, and breaks your nose, and excuses himself by saying, "I had no choice, I was very angry". What sort of excuse is that?

kenneth, referring to the above quote and also in answer to your previous question directed at me as to what i meant by my last post to you when i said you had sorted out the truth:

in the above quote the truth you have stated is that the man killed a number of people and wounded others and he had a choice in what he did (assuming here we are not going to get into the freewill argument). your saying the facts point to terrorism is incorrect as far as i have seen so far. there is nothing at all in the incident to even remotely relate to terrorism other than the fact that it is terrifying that anyone can be caught in the crossfire of incidents like this in america today.

as i understood it you posted this in order to learn the reactions of other people and compare them to yours, and that is fair. but i hope as the thread progresses, you will come to incorporate some of our ideas and see this issue and others in a wider circle.

to me, american society seems to breed people who become unsatisfied with their lot and are unable to cope, thereby turning their anger outward on whoever is in the range of their rifle. (and i am also a gun control freak)

personally i despise the army, the concept of army, defense, war, etc-i am a pacifist. but the army exists, and within it at least we could try to maintain some sanity. were there no counselors to speak to soldiers who are dissatisfied or having emotional issues? he could have been evaluated, possibly helped, and if not at least removed to a job where he would not have a weapon.

I hope (and expect) that further investigation will tell us whether Hasan had terrorist connections which motivated his crime.

to add to your hope, my wish is that the conditions of army life and its effects on the soldiers be fully investigated and the men and women given better emotional support and psychological care.

this is a major problem in india, where troops are sent to border areas for extended periods (over a year) without any family of course, and there have been a great number of soldiers who ultimately turn their guns on their companions. it is not (my personal opinion) out of hatred for them, as in the american school massacres where bullied students are irrationally responding, but cases of people whose living conditions are so inhumane and unnatural that they mentally snap and more or less explode psychologically, while anyone near them becomes a victim.

i also believe this sort of thing is definitely related to the 'ragging' issues, becoming a problem here, and the bully syndrome in america. this is all to me symptoms of a condition that results from either unnaturally extreme living conditions (which could break any well balanced person's sense) or cases of people who are more sensitive and unable to cope with the circumstances around them.

That's yet to be found out. But whatever the cause of what he did, he murdered a lot of people, and badly wounded many more. And the facts, so far, point to terrorism. Of course he had another choice. He didn't have to kill anyone. What do you mean he had no choice? Suppose someone hits you hard in the face, and breaks your nose, and excuses himself by saying, "I had no choice, I was very angry". What sort of excuse is that?

Well I wouldn't use that as an example because if a person is angry then they do have a choice to talk it through where as terrorists such as in Northen Ireland don't have that option.
Thanks.

Terrorists in Northern ireland are largely represented by legitimate political parties, and have been since the Good Friday Agreement signed over a decade ago.

That's yet to be found out. But whatever the cause of what he did, he murdered a lot of people, and badly wounded many more. And the facts, so far, point to terrorism. Of course he had another choice. He didn't have to kill anyone. What do you mean he had no choice? Suppose someone hits you hard in the face, and breaks your nose, and excuses himself by saying, "I had no choice, I was very angry". What sort of excuse is that?

Well I wouldn't use that as an example because if a person is angry then they do have a choice to talk it through where as terrorists such as in Northen Ireland don't have that option.
Thanks.

The fact points to desparation and frustration... He tried to express his reservations; but his country would not listen because the bureaucracy would not listen...What do you call all of the Americans who cannot face the stress or the facts of what they have done??? Are their suicides acts of terror, or the result of their international terror we spread by way of achieving our political and economic goals...There is no way around the fact that if any other country would have done what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we would have been universally condemned as aggressors, and our leaders hunted down and tried as war criminals...