Reply With Quote
Who knows maybe Hasan in thirty years will hold a fundraiser for a future President.
It does not bother you 13 are dead and many more hurt because of this radical muslim. Real nice there buddy.
Who knows maybe Hasan in thirty years will hold a fundraiser for a future President.
Nah, you're the one who can't read.
I said posts.
with an S.
That means more than one post.
Straw man.
I never said I was not bothered by this.
Real nice there buddy.
Are you a Christian? Do you puit God before country?
I know you won't answer.
No he won't.
You're an idiot.
According to jack, the man holding this sign needs to be investigated and definitely never allowed into the armed forces.
There were definite reasons to investigate Hasan, but just saying he put God before country isn't one of them -- unless you believe in double standards.
Very good article.
Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were con uous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic iden y, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.
The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.
To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of cir stances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.
As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.
Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a subs ute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychiatrist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.
By Sunday morning, Gen. George Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, confronted questions put to him by ABC's George Stephanopolous—among them the matter of the complaints about Maj. Hasan's anti-American tirades that were made by fellow students in military classes, as well as other danger signs ignored by officials when they were reported, apparently for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.
The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."
To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the su ious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.
Nice edit.
I still haven't blamed the left for this atrocity. I just don't like how they're whitewashing it.
It wasn't an edit. You quoted the plural.
Nice try.
Or ghost write a book for him.
This is an opinion piece? Oh wait, that's all conservatives need. Never mind..
Did you find the post(s) where I implicate the left for the killings at Ford Hood?
You guys will never miss a chance to try to tie this to Obama, will you?
Did you not mention political correctness as a factor is his not being investigated?
There's nothing wrong with op-eds. Do you have a specific problem with the arguments made? Or are you just babbling?
who's whitewashing--there's a difference between waiting for facts and equivocating
Well, the political correctness was in place during the Bush years -- this guy was sending out red flags since 2007. So, I could just as easily blame the right.
But, if you've been paying attention, what's really to blame is an individual's adherence to a twisted, evil form of Islam.
Am I being too vague?
amazing how much more conclusive some of the posters on this forum are. perhaps they should turn over all the evidence they have to the FBI and military so as to speed along their investigations.
CNN and MSNBC were discussing PTSD before the shooter was even identified. Did they wait for facts?
Were they discussing possibilities, or were they saying that a the shooting was caused by PTSD? If they were assuming PTSD, then I agree with you that it was bad journalism. I think that at first nobody really knew any specifics about the shooter's iden y at all, so I doubt CNN and MSNBC would go out on a limb and commit to the shooting being caused by PTSD.
You are wrong again, pussy.
I have told you this before, I am not religious. My country comes first.
You have to know you are very annoying. We all know this is just a game to you. You take peoples opinions and try to break them down in order to support your boy Obama. You hide behind this fact. You will say anything to anyone to get them to play your game.
I will speak for myself, I will answer your dumbass questions if I want to. You being a little whinny is besides the point.
I think we need to gather up all the muslims in the world and nuke them
You should never ever post a pic of yourself again. You are one ugly looking .
Spoken like a true imbecile.
no . nice gosselin hair, illusional
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
