Quadsville

Posted by: sikpuppy on November 14, 2009 12:38AM CST Pretty sraight shooting if you ask me. I had almost forgot about those other attacks, so I find myself agreeing with the man.

Posted by: Chowdogz on November 14, 2009 8:16AM CST I too agree with you, but I have to admit to being confused about how this country would go about banning a "religion", a certain faith or a particular part of a religion. Of course, we in America enjoy freedom of religion and I don't need to tell you that is one of the main precepts this country was founded on. But I myself have considered the idea that the Muslim faith and the practice of it should be banned here but then with our constitution stating clearly that it can't be done (I believe) what do we do? Well, all I can think of is that we have to use our criminal justice system to punish those that would commit crimes against our citizens just like we would against anyone else who committed a crime. Isn't that what's going to happen to this Major Hasan? And then again, just how do you go about banning a particular faith in America? Do we arrest those we "suspect" are practicing only the "violent" part of the Muslim religion? Or do we arrest all of them and then try to sort them out in the court system? The laws in this country are all about "personal responsibility". If you break the rules, you are suppose to have to pay the piper. Major Hasan will certainly, IMHO, pay the piper.... In this country, it doesn't have a thing to do with "political correctness" but it has everything to do with "personal responsibility". You can't "ban" Muslims no matter if they are extremists or not! You can't take a religion and persecute it to oblivion. But you can insist that the toes of those that would murder or conspire to murder innocents be held to the fire. If they break the law thenthat's when the police, FBI and the courts take over. How would we prevent the banning of the extreme part of the Muslim faith from becoming a modern day witch hunt? Don't get me wrong, I don't support these misguided and ignorant animals but what does this country do if it is going to follow its own constitution? I'm knowe I've probablly simplified this issue here beyond recognition but these are the questions that keep going through my head.

Posted by: Haley on November 14, 2009 9:01AM CST I agree with everything you said sikpuppy. I said awhile back on a different blog here that this PC society we live in now is out of control. People don't want to raise a flag about anything that concerns a person who is a minority, or of a different religion, in fear that they will be called a racist, or get sued. I believe Hasan stayed in the military, and wasn't thrown out, because he was a Muslim. They had evidence and plenty of reason to get rid of the guy but they tiptoed around the issue because of PC. It had to take 14 people, (one woman was pregnant), paid the price for it. This could have been avoided, but people were to scared to say anything.

Posted by: Sweet Old Thing on November 14, 2009 9:15AM CST Pup, good post. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until the facts came out.

Posted by: Wheezy on November 14, 2009 9:15AM CST Here's another take on the "PC" thing that seems to make some sense: "My own view is that the U.S. media, when a violent act is linked to religion—any religion—always downplay any influence that might have been exerted by an extremist interpretation of that religion. When a devout extreme-right evangelical Protestant or Catholic shoots an abortion doctor, church officials and anti-abortion groups are always quick to say that the murderer had nothing to do with Christianity. In similar fashion, spokesmen for moderate Muslims say that anyone who commits violence in the name of Islam is “misinterpreting” the Koran. In all of the texts of western monotheistic religions, there are numerous passages that can be used to justify violence—if one is inclined to do so. I see no contradiction between the idea that someone like Hasan is both a religious fanatic and mentally disturbed. I’d say that to the extent that the media have downplayed the role of religion, they’re being “religiously correct”—not politically correct. And religious correctness in the United States demands that you reject the idea that certain expressions of religion are, in fact, a sign of mental illness."

Posted by: Gene Boyd on November 14, 2009 10:41AM CST America needs too wake up, the enemy is here! You have to racial profile when it comes to the security of our country period. The self destruct humans have not started to blow them selves and others up, but mark my word they will sooner or later.

Posted by: Old School on November 14, 2009 12:52PM CST Wheazy, I agree with your last post. I hate to say this, but to me just in a few short years the people that use to be just good religious people are beginning to turn more to what you would call the White power skinhead mentality.

Posted by: srm on November 14, 2009 1:43PM CST That colonel is a f'n idiot. Shall I find all the shootings that WHITE christian soldiers commit when returning from combat? Does that then mean we are under attack from a demented christian conspiracy group? You know what, I don't care anymore. Anybody that falls under the sway of the giant fraud known as the christian religion is going to look at anything a Muslim does as evidence of terrorism and conspiracy. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented that this was the work of a mentally ill individual. It doesn't matter that he was psychotic. All that matters to you people is that he's Muslim and that fits your narrative of terrorism. I see far too many people who are joining the pant pissing brigade in this country. Mention the word Muslim to the people in this brigade and an instant puddle forms at their feet. Is that the way you people want to live your lives? Afraid of your own damn shadow? Grow a set and open your eyes to the fact that a fictional Muslim conspiracy isn't going to overthrow our republic. Our politicians, with your consent, are doing that perfectly all by themselves.

Posted by: John Moeller on November 14, 2009 6:59PM CST Great post, It takes more than one cute little quip to make a great point, post, or comment and you DID say your piece clearly. The Ft Hood incedent was not about religion as far as I can understnd the news accounts. I read and hear that a the shooter was a problem that was not being resolved for the "peace of mind" of the people in his unit and those he came into contact with. To fix the problem they found a way to send him down the road for anorher unit to deal with. This was an Army breach of security responsibility. Much like sending a vial of nitro glycerin across the desert tied to the back of a jack rabbitt....guess what?

Posted by: North2Alaska on November 14, 2009 7:50PM CST I have to wonder about how much of this is being miss-reported. Did you watch any of the videos of the soldiers after the shooting? When you watch the video, he said "the assailant stood up yelled Allahu Akbar in Arabic" and then the reporter asked him again if he was sure that was what he heard he said "I believe so, sir." He even looked like he wasn't sure. Then later in the CNN story he was quoted saying: "I was sitting in about the second row back when the assailant stood up and yelled 'Allahu akbar' in Arabic and he opened fire," Foster said Monday on CNN's "American Morning. "Foster, 21, said he wasn't clear about whether the gunman said those exact words, noting that "with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things."

Posted by: Galen on November 14, 2009 7:51PM CST smr: I hope that you continue to care! You are one of few sane, intelligent voices left here! In response to an incident engineered by a bunch of Saudi Arabians, our military slaughters hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people and it is all right because we did it and we are the saints, the Christians and these infidels have no right to pis#d off about our barbarism? It is never; never OK to kill innocent people!!! I wish that I could adequately express my contempt for this bigotry. Screw you JTM and the rest you murdering, moronic idiots that buy this conspiracy crap. It has nauseated me to read your crap. It reminds me of the murderous vile that dominated the German media after they lost WW1!

Posted by: sikpuppy on November 15, 2009 12:18AM CST smr,Galen---You guys know me, I don't lean left or right. THIS ACT was against my brothers-in-arms in a place of safety. This was instigated by a guy that never should have slipped through the security procedures. What this shows me...regular background check-ups aren't what they used to be. And Galen, conspiracy doesn't lie in everything that happens to kill American lives. In fact, I'm still trying to figure out a single person conspiracy to murder soldiers at a outbound check-out point. I thought conspiracy meant more than one?

Posted by: John Moeller on November 15, 2009 12:18AM CST Galen, I think your beginning to be a head case....try banging yours on the wall, perhaps it will talk back.

Posted by: Galen on November 15, 2009 1:54AM CST JTM: You, the prime regressive vacancy of the whole forum have the hubris to call someone else, whose only cause has been to end the hate and war, a "head case"? But hey, is that not the way it always goes? And sikpuppy, nowhere did I say it was a conspiracy; in fact, I argue against the idea. Maybe you two would do well to examine your own sanity and stability; it likely could stand some tune-ups. People who abide this warring and slaughter are far far more dangerous to the rest of us than people who oppose it.

Posted by: srm on November 15, 2009 10:07AM CST sikpuppy: I know you're not partisan like that. I agree Hasan should've never slipped through the cracks as there were signs of mental illness going back years. But, this letter you posted is written by someone who feels we're at war with Islam. And it's his duty to be on the winning side. So anything Muslim to this loon is an automatic Muslim conspiracy. Yet it's funny he never sees the same thing in regards to Christianity. Wow, I just googled this moron's name. He's running for Congress in Florida! Yikes. That's a scary thought that he could be in Washington spewing his thoughts on a more national stage.

Posted by: reuther on November 15, 2009 7:30PM CST If you get the print edition, on the editorial page you saw a cartoon that is worth a thousand words. In two frames the identical figure is holding a smoking handgun in each hand (looks like a revolver in the left and a 9mm in the right). The title is "Second Amendment Field Guide" and Frame A is captioned to describe the shooter as "just your typical violent, rage-filled, random mass-shooter that we apparently have to abide as the price of our precious right to bear arms." Frame B bears this caption: "Terrorist," and attributed to the shooter in Frame B are the words "Allahu Akbar!" The terrorist bought his arms off-base I believe. No one on the base was allowed to carry arms. Does that indicate that even the military has better sense than to allow concealed arms in a sub-set of the population trained in the use of arms? I don't know. I know that I stood pier watch more than once with an unloaded M-1 back in the 60s. No matter. The point is that this was another rage shooting perpetrated by a mentally-imbalanced man bearing legally-acquired arms. Similar to the assassination of the doctor in the church in Kansas by virtue of religious motive. Just a different religion and different religious issue. I agree with the retired officer's contention that the folks on the base deserve to be safe from the horrors of war.

Posted by: John Moeller on November 15, 2009 11:29PM CST Chowdogz: “In this country, it doesn't have a thing to do with "political correctness" but it has everything to do with "personal responsibility.” This I agree with, and I believe all religious leaders should adhere to the “Personal Responsibility Factor” over and above any cooperate advantage in any sovereign nation. Every body seems to want to be part of the winning team, however many are clueless as to where the leader is leading them. Today we had a mini Lutheran Worship Service as the German / American Heritage Center as part of a program about a Men‘s Group. How glad I am that my ancestors came here a long time before Hitler reared his evil head, but even then as Americans we can forgive the atrocities presented in the name of that nation and we can move on in harmony of worldy purpose.

Posted by: sikpuppy on November 16, 2009 9:05AM CST SRM---Go back, READ and INTERPET what the Colonel said. He's not saying the U.S. should stamp out the religion, he's saying that the Saudi's are building 80% of the Mosques and that radical Imans are put in charge. That's his entire point. This isn't the first time the Saudi's have been implicated in funding terrorist or subversive activities. There isn't anything political or any conspiracy being discussed in this statement. The Colonel is simply stating that this attack should've never happened and exactly where the subversive attitudes are being instigated from. Honestly, you want to look at conspiracy....Is the Saudi oil so important that the U.S. does a little too much leaning backwards to appease their interests? And we do the same thing for Israel, except something other than oil is involved. And the Israelis aren't innocent in killings and murders in Arab states. It's all a vicious cycle and we're caught right in the middle.

Posted by: reuther on November 16, 2009 9:25AM CST I agree that we can forgive the atrocities, because if we want to claim the virtues as a birthright, we are called on to accept the sins as ours by birthright too, IMO. So we are forgiving ourselves as Germans when forgiveness should be asked of the Jews, also IMO. And it wasn't only the Germans but also other nations who were willing accomplices if not persecutors in their own right (The book "Neighbors" is a must read for an understanding of the readiness with which people turned on one another). I've never been to the Center. Davenport's history is rich in German influence. Lots of socialists, too. ;-)

Posted by: srm on November 16, 2009 11:24AM CST Sikpuppy: The statement is entirely political. This man is running for Congress. If he wasn't running for Congress I can guarantee that no statement would've been forthcoming from this man. This statement on the shootings is being used to sow fear in the population in order to help him get elected. "...typical liberal approach..." "Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic..." Not political? This letter reeks of politics. "...Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism." "This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack. "He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar” "Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack..." Paragraph after paragraph has instances, as cited above, of him portraying this as an Islamic jihadist attack. Every piece of evidence so far is the exact opposite of what this political creature is portraying in his letter. Therefore, the only purpose this statement serves is to whip up his residents into voting for him in 2010. Nothing more, nothing less. As I've said many times before, if he was so concerned about terrorism he wouldn't limit his statements to only including Muslim terrorism. He'd include christian and jewish terrorism. I'd be willing to be, though, that he didn't put out a statement in regards to Scott Tiller. That would anger his potential voter base too much.

Posted by: sikpuppy on November 16, 2009 11:37AM CST srm--Okay, you see the political side where as I see the warning, it's just a matter of schematics. Your probably right, even though Obama told everyone not to use this attack as a political tool. What I see is facts backing other facts, that our military is a target of itself because of radical fundamentalist beliefs.

Posted by: John Moeller on November 16, 2009 12:27PM CST How great is our internet in America...I just Googled the name and came up with the following "The police officer insisted that he did not know anything about planned attacks and was loyal to the United States Army. However, when the detainee didn't talk, Lieutenant Colonel West fired his 9mm pistol close to the man's head and at this point, the man, according to some newspaper accounts, gave information about a planned ambush, resulting in its being thwarted. According to West, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of command on October 4, 2003. " ..... yes folks I now remember commenting on the Colonel's style of interrigation....proper or not, it seems the warning shot provided security that was needed in that moment of time. I applauded his actions then, and after this refresher story of his charater I stiill find no fault in his thinking.

Posted by: srm on November 16, 2009 12:31PM CST Our military is a target because of our foreign policy both because of radical religious beliefs but also because of the undue strain and stress heaped upon our soldiers. They develop PTSD because of the combat brought upon by our disastrous foreign policy and often the military ignores their pleas for help. These soldiers are seen as weak if they report these issues. Contractors are fired for bringing these issues up. In the end, some people just snap. Some kill wives and children. Others take more public routes. While Hasan never served in combat, he was mentally ill. That is something the military has a hard time dealing with because of their culture. If something good comes out of this, I hope it's a more open mind towards all forms of mental illness exhibited by our men and women in uniform no matter the cause.

Posted by: reuther on November 16, 2009 2:23PM CST I am offended by the logical leap that the officer asks us to make from a series of unrelated isolated incidents perpetrated by like-minded individuals to the theory that the individuals are part of a conspiracy. I do not doubt that some imams preach hatred of infidels, but I am reminded of the rhetoric that is aimed at gullible members of a certain special-interest group that thrives on floods of donations that follow conspiracy-theory mailings to members. One especially flagrant breach of honesty was put forward by a fellow named Neal Knox who suggested that the assassinations of the Kennedys and King were carried out in order to incite the public against private ownership of guns. He even suggested that the school-yard shooting in California where a VietNam veteran opened fire on kids on a playground was part of the same conspiracy. "Is it possible that some of those incident were created for the pupose of disarming the people of the free world? With drugs and evil intent, it's possible. Rampant paranoia on my part? Maybe. But there are far too many coincidences to ignore," wrote the former officer in this organization. Do you see the similarity in technique, the "reasoning" of Knox and that of the officer? Inidividuals of the same mind set, the perpetrators, yes. A conspiracy in the sense in which the word is correctly used, I doubt it. It simplifies the situation and makes it manageable in certain minds who want the world to be less complex than it is - no offense to any one who buys into it.

Posted by: reuther on November 16, 2009 8:23PM CST Rethinking some of this based on an article in this week's Time magazine.

Posted by: reuther on November 17, 2009 7:54AM CST The blog doesn't mention "conspiracy," just "terrorism." According to the article I read, the evidence points thus far to this shooting as an act of terrorism, as it was an act undertaken to protest or influence policy. The shooter has a history of outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At a public-health event he was allowed to give a power-point presentation declaring the war on terrorism a war on Islam. It appears there was, given the evidence thus far acquired, a reluctance to intervene in the case based on a fear of being called to task for religious bias. He was a brilliant student, but himself in need of the counselling he was trained to offer, and he attracted the concern of colleagues long before he acted out deep-seated ideas that must be called religious. Concerns about political correctness as they affect policy in the military are a homeland-security issue, according to the author of the article in Time magazine.

Posted by: reuther on November 17, 2009 7:56AM CST No "conspiracy," though, but rather, it appears, an individual acting outside the chain of command that is a feature of a conspiracy.

Posted by: reuther on November 17, 2009 9:57AM CST Frank Rich says some cogent things in his column of Sunday's NYTimes, too. It's hard to know what to think.