Why wasn't Hasan Investigated?
After reading about the horrific Ft. Hood shootings, I was rather puzzled when I read the following:
This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?
Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?
The public deserves an explanation.
Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.
Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed homicide bombings and other threats. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author.
One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates homicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.
"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."
They say an official investigation was not opened.
Hasan was working with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood after being transferred in July from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had worked for six years before recently receiving a poor review.
This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?
Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?
The public deserves an explanation.
Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.
Labels: mass murder, violence
posted by Helen at 4:39 AM
48 Comments:
The answer is pretty simple, if one is employed by the federal government, as long as that person is showing up to do their job it is almost impossible for the government to get rid of them.
Military is different from the Federal government.
It could be that they're still not taking mental health issues seriously enough. Or it's just one of those things that has to happen before proper safeguards are put into place.
The military insurance pays better for mental health than it does for physical health, so in that way, they are very attractive to mental health providers and can be picky about who they accept.
But then that is with civilians.
One of the interesting aspects of the case to me is how the killer's cousin is blaming the homicidal rage on being teased and harassed about being a Muslim.
People harass psychiatrists? I have never seen this at a VA or outside a VA. I think the cousin is lying through his teeth.
Trey
@ TMink
It would not be unheard of for a muzlim to lie; it is a part of the drill for them.
This whole thing is the result of a willful blindness on the part of many in America that insists that muzlims are just like everyone else. The are NOT. They are a part of a religio-political enterprise that is set on world domination. You may very well know some muzlims that seem like nice folks, don't act like terrorist, and certainly do not give any indications of wanting to overthrow the US government. However, if they subscribe to the Koran, and all muzlims do, it instructs them to conquer the entire world, by violence as needed, for izlam. Thus every muzlim, even your friend, is a potential enemy of America.
We simply cannot continue to embrace the snake, hold him close to our bosom, and then be surprise when he strikes; it is what snakes do. We may very well wake up dead as a result. Why do we insist on thinking that we can do this?
This is the fruit of this "all religions are equal" nonsense which is totally untrue. Until we wake up, come to our senses and criminalize izlam, we will have episodes like Ft. Hood happen over and over. It is unavoidable; what else could the man do? He was truly in a bind. Do you really think he would deploy to Afghanistan to fight against muzlims? Get real! He took what he saw as the only way out, but can we afford to allow this to happen repeatedly?
The final analysis: Just one more narcissistic psychotic asshole trying to make the world around him "feel" his pain.
People harass psychiatrists? I have never seen this at a VA or outside a VA. I think the cousin is lying through his teeth.
The military is one huge theocratic institution. If you've never seen people who aren't Christians being harassed it's because you either were never around someone in the military who wasn't a Christian or weren't paying attention. Soldiers, Marines, sailors, and, in my experience, to a lesser degree, airmen are typically, in my experience, a bunch of ultra-right-wing fanatics who don't take too kindly to people who are not like them (I once remarked on how great it would be if a terrorist had sneaked a nuclear weapon into Washington D.C. during a State of the Union address and was hounded by almost everyone in my shop who thought Bush was the second coming of Jesus and that the US government could never possibly do any wrong as long as warmongers were in charge).
That aside, what's wrong with the sentiment in that quote? Why is one person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason any more or less valid than another person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason when you don't agree with the reasoning? Who are you to pass judgment on a person's reasons for doing what he does (I would expect that you, as a self-professed conservative, would be against the idea of thought police)?
Dr. Helen has correctly asked the one question that everyone should be asking. Why did no one pay attention to the warning signs, to Hasan's sympathy with suicide bombers, to his declarations of sympathy with insurgents?
I agree that the reason must lie in a mistaken policy that cannot even bring itself to investigate a military officer who signaled clearly that he was going over to the other side.
Multiculturalism should not be used as an excuse to ignore treason.
J Bowen, I agree with you that there are a bunch of Bush-loving war mongers in the military who think that US of A can do no wrong. The military is the military, it's in the war business which lends itself as ground zero for these types. You kind of have to accept that going in. If you disagree with the policies of the military and the government then you figure out pretty fast it's best to keep your mouth shut or leave. Tolerance is not the miltary's strong suit these days.
Dr. D, I'm not sure this was his only way out. Mr. Hasan could have gone AWOL without too much trouble. I'm sure some Islamic country would have been willing to absorb him.
Unfortunately for Mr. Hasan, his worst nightmare is about to be realized. He killed 13 people and failed to die in the process.
J. Bowen, thanks for your input about the military and Christian pressure. The soldiers I know do not pressure me because I am a Christian, but it makes perfect sense that I would miss that because they see no need to pressure me! Your perspective on that is welcome.
Later you wrote: "Why is one person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason any more or less valid than another person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason when you don't agree with the reasoning?"
Good question. For me, it comes down to good and evil. I am not a postmodernist who thinks that a person's perspective is all that matters. I believe that there is right and wrong and people, including me of course, who do wrong things are accountable for their actions no matter what their motivation or justification. He murdered over a dozen innocent bystanders. His motivation is irrelevent, is it not?
You also ask who am I to pass judgment, well, nobody. I take my cues about right and wrong from a higher authority. But lying is wrong. And the evidence that I see shows that the Psychiatrist was engaged in multiple behaviors indicating that he was unbalanced and likely hated America. And can any kind of harassment justify murder? My morality says no. I am comfortable enough with my perspective to share it plainly. I think part of the reason is because I am not a postmodernist.
As you check out the data, you can decide that for yourself, but I predict that more and more information will come out to indicate that the man was not harassed so much as given copious feedback that his behavior was unacceptable.
It is not uncommon for relatives of a criminal to make excuses for the criminal's behavior. And it is not uncommon for people who are sympathetic with terrorists to lie.
So those are some of the reasons that underlie my beliefs.
I hope we can enter into a reasonable and respectful discussion about this. What are your thoughts?
Trey
What sort of wussies have we become, that we even CONSIDER someone being verbally hassled in the military to be some -- ANY -- sort of justification for mass murder?
The guy was a Major in the Army with a doctorate. He's not some screwed-up freshman in college who can't stand a frat hazing.
@ Cham
"Unfortunately for Mr. Hasan, his worst nightmare is about to be realized. He killed 13 people and failed to die in the process."
Yes, poor thing, he will probably wind up paroled to the Bahamas or some other terrible spot, with only air conditioning, TV, and a luxury hotel with his bills paid for life as a result of this evil action. That is, after he gets absolutely first class care to recover from whatever wounds he has. He will suffer!!
It is a real shame that his brains were not blown out on the spot. Then he could get on to those 72 virgins, etc.
We really must outlaw izlam. It is bent on the destruction of America. We outlawed the communist party at one time, and izlam is a political party also. Why can't we do the same here?
Soldiers, Marines, sailors, and, in my experience, to a lesser degree, airmen are typically, in my experience, a bunch of ultra-right-wing fanatics who don't take too kindly to people who are not like them...
Never been my experienced. It doesn't describe Wesley Clark or Colin Powell. I currently have a nephew in West Point and know another soldier who just graduated. I know several who have served in Iraq/Afgahnistan, etc, etc. Your describe none of them.
I suspect you're more bigoted against military personnel than military personnel are against anybody. I know and have known many conservative, fundamentalist Christians now and over the years. They don't look at Muslims, or people of other religions, as people to be killed but as people to be saved. They see them as people to be converted through their own free will to Christianity.
Sure there are a few nuts but I'd be willing the bet the bell curve is a lot flatter for Muslims than Christians. I'm willing to bet that Hasan wasn't investigated because of being Muslim and the fear of being perceived as bigoted.
Again, it's important to remember that this guy was a major, not a recruit.
I'm sure there are many 18-year-old recruits who have never been around non-Christians in their lives, apart from maybe the Jewish kid in elementary school. I'm sure that, like any 18-year-olds, they don't have the most sophisticated views of the world and other people in it.
But this guy was a 39-year-old officer. That's a whole different story, and somehow I doubt he was subjected to more verbal "harassment" than any of his peers.
It's pretty clear that the area where he worked had a pretty strict PC code, even if it was unspoken. Higher-ranking officers are often political animals, or they wouldn't have been promoted to their ranks. Therefore, I would expect that truly out-of-the-ordinary harassment would have been squelched. Wouldn't you think that?
By any civilized standard, Islam is not a religion, but rather a death cult.
The libtards can say what they will about this guys motivation (and they will do so at length), but for the price of two pistols, he could have flown damn near anywhere in the world to avoid service and begin anew. Hell, for the price of the ammo, he could have gotten a bus to Canada. But he didn't. He CHOOSE to kill infidels, because that's what his 'religion' requires of him.
Islam needs to undergo a reformation by which it and its practitioners can 1) exist in the modern world, and 2) co-exist with other religions...
Until that happens, expect these events to become more frequent until the cost to Islam is too great for the killings to continue. (and by 'until the cost is too great' I mean unless we [infidels] _make_ the cost too great for them to continue.)
How likely are these conditions?
The lack of a central authority in Islam makes reformation only infinitesimally likely. (just ain't gonna happen)
Chairman Zero will most certainly NOT make this attack or any other attack costly to Islam. (just ain't gonna happen)
Conclusion: expect the killings to continue. Expect them to happen to civilians. Expect them to happen in numbers greater than this. (See Israel)
For how long? Until we elect leadership SERIOUS about protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic...
Our 'leaders' can spout pablum about 'winning hearts and minds'. But if you've ever picked up a history book, you'd know: You win a war by making the war so costly to the enemy, that they either lose the will to fight back, or they lose the ability to fight back...
That's what war is.
I'm more than willing to leave the religion out of what caused this for the time being. Unless we find out that Hasan was being influenced by a radical religious group I will put the blame squarely on his shoulders. George Sodini of Pittsburgh killed 3 women because he couldn't get a date. Anthony Sowell, local crackhead and rapist of Cleveland, is suspected of killing 11 people. There have been several men recently who have killed their entire families due to pending separations and financial issues. There are students that kill because they feel they've been bullied.
There are many different reasons why people become mass killers. Mr. Hasan didn't want to be deployed. Am I in shock and awe over what happened? Absolutely not.
Cham, if he had not yelled "God is great" before going on the murderous rampage I would be willing to leave the religion out of it too.
Trey
"I once remarked on how great it would be if a terrorist had sneaked a nuclear weapon into Washington D.C. during a State of the Union address" - J. Bowen
Yes, clearly the only reason you received pushback on this remark is because the people who heard it were all fanatic warmongering Bush-worshipping Christianists.
Normal, rational, peace-loving Americans would have applauded the idea of a nuclear strike on the U.S. capitol.
General Cham: “Tolerance is not the miltary's strong suit these days.”
On the contrary, tolerance is the military's greatest weakness these days. It is tolerance that gives us guys like Hassan.
"I'm more than willing to leave the religion out of what caused this for the time being."
I suppose we'd need someone well versed in the history of WWII to be _absolutely_ sure, but I don't remember ever reading about any 1940's Italian-Americans going ape-sh!t and killing a bunch of people rather than be shipped off to Sicily to fight the Catholics of the Axis...
Maybe I'm stupid, but I can't get my head around the statements made he has PTSD. I thought the p stood for post.
He shouted Alluah Akbar / Allah Akbar.(now the spelling is even beginning to vary) Don't know about you folks, but that's pretty much a dead giveaway as far as Joe and Mary's baby boy is concerned.
br549: ” “He shouted Alluah Akbar / Allah Akbar...”
I think that roughly translates as: “Damn your intolerance!” or something along those lines.
Yes, here is how "intolerant" all us rightwing theocratic Christian Fundamentalist military fanatics are about muslims (two of which were my superior officers at the time of 9/11 -- I managed not to kill either one of them some how):
" A Muslim veteran affairs organization says it has not received reports of harassment from Islamic soldiers, contrary to claims by a relative of the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base.
Abdul-Rashid Abdullah, deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com that the nonprofit group has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed "simply because he was Muslim.""
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572588,00.html
This reminds me of the refrain after 9/11, "Why didn't somebody connect the dots?" Now it's 8 years later, and everybody knows that the most dangerous terrorists these days are Islamists, yet they're able to hide behind political correctness now just as then.
They don't need any cells or secret organization when they can preach hatred and jihad openly and just let the seeds sprout wherever they may.
We are becoming like domestic cattle released into the wild. We no longer have the instincts or caution to protect ourselves.
The Feds didn't want to ruffle any PC feathers and harass a muslim (and a 'person of color') I can just hear it.... "...We better make sure we have all of our facts straight, before we act."
Were this a soldier posting white supremacist crap on, say, the stormfont forums--how wonderful hearing about the deaths of 'persons of color'--the Army CID, FBI, and other agencies would be on him, like a duck on a June-bug.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Helen: "Why wasn't Hasan Investigated?"
Are you serious? Have you heard about Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Well, this is the religious version of the same kind of BS.
Obviously, he wasn't investigated because he was Muslim. Had he been a Christian and thumbing a bible all over the place they would have dealt with him quickly.
I spent 26 years in the US Army. I am not a Christian nor did I hide that fact. I was never pressured or harrassed by CHristians nor did I witness any such thing.
I don't deny that it has happened; I've seen the investigations. But I doubt it is so horrible as being portrayed by J Bowen.
I do know of athiests, muslims and "wiccans" who were merely jerks looking for something to bitch about, so "oppression" by "X-tians" was as good a whine as anything. Or they were extrememly thin skinned and unable to take peer pressure of the religious sort. Or both.
We used to tell one muslim guy who tried to play the "oppressed Muslim" card that we didn't care about his religion, its just that he was an asshole.
But peer pressure is hardly anywhere near what happened at Fort Hood. Trying to equivocate between to two types of events is pathetic and disgusting.
This guy should NOT have been in uniform, unless it was an orange jump suit at GITMO.
(I once remarked on how great it would be if a terrorist had sneaked a nuclear weapon into Washington D.C. during a State of the Union address and was hounded by almost everyone in my shop who thought Bush was the second coming of Jesus and that the US government could never possibly do any wrong as long as warmongers were in charge).
I would have hounded you too and I'm not a Christian nor did I care much for Bush. I would have hounded you for being a disloyal shit violating your oath by supporting and calling for an act of war on the nation and the death of the President. I would have recommended charges under Article 94 and 134 for Courts Martial.
As an atheist I can say that there is something which is being overlooked in all of these discussions and that is that all religions are not equal. It is possible for a person to act as Christ acted and be a decent and useful individual. It is NOT possible to act as Mohammed did and be anything other than violently insane and a threat to any society in which you live.
To the extent that Muslims do not take their teachings seriously they are perfectly fine... just like the adherents of any other religion. But when they embrace the tenets that are uniquely Muslim then they will engage in crimes and atrocities.
Islamism needs to be viewed exactly as Nazism is. It needs to be discouraged and there needs to be a social sanction for its practice.
Christianity is on at least version 3.0 now with the advancement from Judaism and up through the Reformation etc... Entire books of the bible were thrown out early on and the teachings about the meaning of the worst verses in the reminder have been softened.
Islam has declared this sort of thing forbidden. My understanding is that only certain scholars are allowed to make such pronouncements and they officially declared an end to the anointing of that type of scholar long ago.
Finally, it is a shame that the killer at Ft. Hood bought into all of the left-wing and Islamist propaganda. Had he made it to Afghanistan he would have found what the Code Pink idiots found... that the people there are desperate for us to stay and win.
Why anyone would find this surprising given the atrocities committed by the Taliban (and their philosophy in general)is something historians will look back upon in wonder.
Oh, and Rusty at the Jawa Report mentioned that the killer had been wearing his white Shaheed garments and giving away his possessions before the assault. Even if he were crazy it is best not to give templates to insane behavior to people already prone to acting in such a manner. An insane prophet is likely to attract insane adherents. This much at least seems obvious.
@ J Bowen "That aside, what's wrong with the sentiment in that quote? Why is one person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason any more or less valid than another person's belief that he's doing something for a noble reason when you don't agree with the reasoning? Who are you to pass judgment on a person's reasons for doing what he does (I would expect that you, as a self-professed conservative, would be against the idea of thought police)?"
Who are they, who would I be to pass such judgement? An individual who owes their best judgement to society, that's who.
I say that in the spirit of our having sunk to the extent that the obvious must be restated as a moral duty. Disagreement on that point is evidence of a philosophical divide which I find pointless to try to bridge. I'll be satisfied entire with veritas at length being first past the post enough, that what is true reigns and rules.
"Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health?"
Duh!
Why was Major Hasan not investigated you ask. Investigation isn't the real problem, getting rid of a bad apple is the major problem. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult. Enlisted men and civil servants enjoy VERY strong legal protections. Commissioned officers enjoy even stronger ones. Unless you can obtain a criminal conviction (virtually impossible) there is nothing you can do about a bad officer.
In the real military, rather than banging your head against the wall trying to throw someone out of the service, you get the bastard transferred somewhere out of your hair. I heard Major Hasan was recently transferred to Ft Hood after 6 years duty at Walter Reed.
I'd love to see Major Hasan's Officer Effectiveness Reports(OER). Regulations require superior officers to write an OER on every officer under their command once a year. I'd also like to know how he made major. Used to be, unless you had outstanding OER's, you stalled out at captain. In USAF they had an "up or out" policy. If you didn't make major after a decent time in grade as captain, you were out of the service. "Released from extended active duty" was the phrase used for reserve officers.
Dstarr, I take it you served in the pre-9/11 Army like I did. back then it was indeed difficult be be promoted above captain. When I came out on the major's list in 1991, the selection rate was 60 percent. For lieutenant colonels that year the rate was 50 percent.
Things have changed. An active-duty Lt. Col. this year told me the selection rate to that rank is now 90 percent. As for major, it's almost 100 percent. That's because the Army is too small for its missions and they are desperate to retain officers whose service obligation expires about when they have enough time to be considered for promotion.
As for doctors the rule is very simple. You serve your time and you will absolutely get promoted. The Army is extremely short of physicians.
The guy who shot up the offices in Orlando had been let go from his job. The guy who shot up the immigrant center in Binghamton, NY had also been let go from his job. There is an advantage private businesses have over the military. When someone mentions they enjoy guns but also is upset and angry about their life in general, the coworkers have the option to go to Human Resources to express their concern. The angry employees can be laid-off/fired/let-go. Many personnel in the military have guns as it is part of the job, so that doesn't raise a flag, plus the fact that there isn't a hire-fire at will policy with the military. One is stuck with the coworkers they get, no matter how questionable their behavior.
There is absolutely no way to tell when one ticking time bombs is going to go off, if at all. The difference between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen is often only 10 seconds. The only way you can protect yourself is to stay out of crowded places and be extra cognizant of disgruntled angry people who really like guns.
I think PC had a lot less to do with Hasan getting a pass than you think, Helen. One, it's not yet been established that the virulent internet postings credited to his name were done by him and not another man of the same name. Your husband linked that the name is not a rare one.
All the dots that seem so clear today (and I don't think they are really all that clear even now) would have been incredibly disconnected, hence unconnected, when they appeared one at a time over many months or even years.
It's like someone telling you every few weeks a single digit until you have, say, 12 of them. Then when you read about the Yankees beating the Phillies in the World series you see that the digits are actually the scores of each of the six games. But you could not know that until after the fact.
From accounts of those who knew him, including other military Muslims, Hasan's radicalism was a fairly recent phenomenon and was not obviously virulent or potentially lethal.
I think the main reason Hasan got a pass was simply that the Army is extremely short of doctors. I wrote much more about that on my own blog, "Political correctness was not why Hasan was retained."
George, thanks for your comments. I am pleased and instilled with hope that the Christians you have met have been decent people. You made my day. I hope yours is fantastic.
Trey
J. Bowen:
I once remarked on how great it would be if a terrorist had sneaked a nuclear weapon into Washington D.C. during a State of the Union address and was hounded by almost everyone in my shop ...
You should have been more than hounded -- you should have been reported.
Normal, rational, peace-loving Americans would have applauded the idea of a nuclear strike on the U.S. capitol.
Ok, I'm sorry. I simply can't stop laughing at this one. I'm in the middle of writing three papers for three different classes and simply must stop for a moment to comment on this.
Are you talking about the normal, peace-loving Americans who love the idea of killing a bunch of brown people in far-off countries? Are you talking about those normal, "peace-loving" Americans? Because they represent the majority of Americans. Americans are, and always have been, a bunch of warmongers. Americans simply can't go a single decade without killing someone (I think there might have been a single 10-year stretch once in American history where Americans weren't frolicking about the globe killing large numbers of people, but I just can't think of it right now). You give far too much credit to Americans. Americans are by and large just a bunch of savages. Crack open a history book once in a while. Watch the evening news. Discover Google.
JB: “...can't go a single decade without killing someone...”
That pretty much describes all of humanity. Peace is not the natural human default setting. Your peaceful, noble savages ("brown people") delight in slaughtering each other of their own volition.
I disagree with george. Most Muslims are peaceful and devout people, but there are many threads in Islam, just as there are in Christianity and politics.
The biggest problem I see in Islam is the mixture of politics with faith, precisely why we have the First Amendment. The founders saw a difference between churches and religion,, because they had seen so much bitter battling between Catholics and Protestants and the results of having the Puritans in power in England.
Islam hasn't learned that lesson yet, and there is a poisonous strain that has been spread by the wealth of the Saudis and other oil-rich countries. Instead of all this PC pretense that we must be more tolerant of this jihad nonsense, we should be letting them all know that the First Amendment doesn't protect sedition, treason or calls to atrocity and any any of their imams who want to preach that kind of stuff will be prosecuted or deported. We should have put Hasan under investigation. The fact that he wasn't part of a cell or conspiracy makes no difference.
Your peaceful, noble savages ("brown people") delight in slaughtering each other of their own volition.
Without a doubt. However, Americans take special joy in killing brown people. If it's white people that we're killing, it's bound to have been after long deliberation and after some politicians and bureaucrats missed (whether intentionally, as some believe, or unintentionally) some very clear warning signs that those other white people were going to bring the fight to Americans. If it's brown people, though...well...Americans just never seem to run out of reasons to make their lives miserable.
And I guess I should have used the word "colored" instead since Americans have no compunctions about killing "red" people or "yellow" people either.
In fact, I guess I shouldn't be making any distinctions about the kinds of people that Americans love to kill. Americans just love to kill everyone. We just can't get enough carnage. If killing others will make it easier for us to buy and sell goods, then by gosh, we're just going to have to see some heads exploded, arms ripped off, and guts spilled out all over the ground so we can buy and sell our wares. And if it doesn't, well, then we just ignore whatever it is that those others are doing (like treating certain ethnic groups worse than the worst-treated livestock).
The point is, it's disgusting and laughable (in a sick kind of way) to call Americans peace-loving. Perhaps normal, as most peoples throughout history have proven to be no less savage than Americans, but definitely not peace-loving. It's an insult to the icons of peace out there (the Ghandis and Thoreaus of the world) to call Americans peace-loving.
JB: “If killing others will make it easier for us to buy and sell goods, then by gosh, we're just going to have to see some heads exploded, arms ripped off, and guts spilled out all over the ground so we can buy and sell our wares.”
Oh, right, that eeeeevil capitalism.
I think a substantial number of Americans just want to be left the hell alone and want to avoid conflict, but not to the point of sniveling pacifism.
Gandhi was an asshole.
However, Americans take special joy in killing brown people.
What a complete load of shit. Are Afghans brown people? Iraqis, Japanese, Germans?
* * *
While nobody could have predicted exactly what Hasan did, many did speak their concerns about him.
Likewise, while 9/11 itself may not have been predicted, had the US required that cockpit doors simply be kept locked during flight no matter what (something Israel has long done) 9/11 simply wouldn't have happened. (I was one of those who vocalized concern about cockpit doors, especially after being on a late night flight where the pilots left the door wide open.)
No, we can't stop all bad things, but we can often mitigate them.
I'm sorry for pointing out that your suggestion that terrorists should nuke the U.S. capitol was out of line and would have gotten pushback from any Americans (as opposed to just the fanatic warmongering Bush-worshipping Christianists you were talking to).
Your rational, evidence-based argument of how America routinely commits genocide, regularly launches pointless wars against people because of their different skin color, and is always willing to kill people to improve sales figures has convinced me of the rightness of your position:
the American people truly want terrorists to nuke D.C.
AC245: “Your rational, evidence-based argument of how America routinely commits genocide, regularly launches pointless wars against people because of their different skin color, and is always willing to kill people to improve sales figures...”
If we really were this ruthless, bloodthirsty, warmongering Christian theocracy, the so-called “Global War on Terror” would have been over by now.
The truth is we are a ponderous, gullible, squeamish, politically correct, fractured bureaucracy that is very reluctant to actually conduct a proper war, and our enemies understand this very well.
J Bowen spews the typical left wing blather created by the KGB back in the 50s and thinks he is being profound. How special that he is just another parrot and advocate for agents of the most murderous ideology of the 20th century.
Educated to the point of stupidity. All that education just to repeat propaganda talking points from a dead totalitarian regime.
You do realise where your arguements originated don't you? T least have the guts and intellectual honesty to acknowledge your intellectual forebears.
Ghandi advocated surrender to the Nazis and their atrocities. So much for his and your pathetic "pacifism". Still feel comfortable quoting Ghandi? I wouldn't.
Pacifists are parasites, living off the sacrifices of men and women better than themselves, all so they can revile their sacrifices by claiming to be for "peace" when they are for surrendering to the first thug who comes along so they can make sure they live comfortably. Except when there's an Army big enough to protect them from the consequences of their idiot ideology, then they go about braying about the supposed "enlighted" views they hold, all the while relying on folks like me to kill the ones who would happily enslave them, only to infer that I'm the moral retard because I protected them from their ignorance and moral stupidity.
They live in "peace". Only because others protect them.
apparently this guy was giving away his possessions just prior to the shootings...
...suicide by soldiers?
Post a Comment
<< Home