We are focusing on the wrong issues about the Ft. Hood Massacre.
Heeding the President's advice to not rush to judgment and form any hasty conclusions about that thing that happened in Ft. Hood, Texas a few days ago, I've waited until now to offer any comments about it. After all, when a self-professed jihadist guns down dozens of people — killing thirteen of them and sending scores of others to the hospital — all the while shouting Allahu Akbar, we don't want to come to any hasty conclusions about what was really going on.
Question #1:
In the months and weeks preceding that thing that happened at Ft. Hood last week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan exchanged numerous emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged Al Queda recruiter and the Imam linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers. These emails were intercepted by National Security Agency officials monitoring the communications of "overseas Islamic extremists." Despite these intercepts, no action was taken against Hasan.
This leads to the first question that demands an answer: Why hasn't George W. Bush been indicted for violating the civil rights of American citizens like Nidal Hasan by forcing Congress to adopt the Patriot Act which President Obama campaigned against, but hasn't yet gotten around to repealing?
Question #2:
Sgt. Mark Todd, one of the men who gunned down Hasan, told Good Morning America that it was "bystanders who pointed him and Sgt. Kimberly Munley in Hasan's direction as they responded to calls of shots being fired at Fort Hood last week."
This leads to the troubling second question that needs to be answered. Nidal was the only American of Islamo-fascist descent at the soldier readiness center where an alleged shooting was allegedly happening. Not only is this a clear case of racial and religious profiling, at no point was Hasan given an opportunity to peacefully surrender. Instead, these two anti-Muslim bigots opened fire on him, wounding him severely. When will these trigger happy "cowboys" be taken into custody themselves, and made to account for their reckless actions?
Question#3
According to news reports, Hasan had hoped that President Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had gotten into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported both of these wars. Because of this, Mr. Hasan became very depressed and prescribed himself an antidepressant, which as the Physicians Desk Reference states, can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, and hostility. At the very least, withdrawal from this drug can make a person very cranky, including being prone to crying spells and feeling achy all over.
Had the thugs who gunned down this US Army Major bothered to ask whether he was (a) taking medication — or conversely, withdrawing from medication he was taking and suffering an adverse reaction to it, and (b) taken even the briefest of moments to understand how disappointed Nidal Hasan might have been over the ongoing illegal, immoral wars being perpetrated against peaceful Islam, Nidal Hasan might not be lying in a hospital bed paralyzed from the waist down.
Moreover, if they were going to shoot this man who dared to exercise his First Amendment right to disagree with the ongoing war against peaceful Islam, the least they could have done was aimed a bit higher and killed him. Instead of watching his colostomy bag fill every day, he'd be enjoying the company of 72 virgins.
All of which leads to the third main question: Why haven't George W. Bush and Dick Cheney been prosecuted for war crimes? If they didn't unilaterally, without Congressional authorization, send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, Nidal Hasan would be enjoying life as a practicing member of the Religion of Peace, instead of lying in his own filth in a hospital bed as yet one more victim of this tragic, misguided chapter of American history.
Question #4:
It's no coincidence that that thing that happened at Ft. Hood occurred just down the road from one of the worst mass shootings in US history, the October 1991 massacre at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.
In the words of the President's friend, mentor, and personal travel agent Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, the cause of that thing that happened in Texas was not radical Islam's distorted view of reality, but gun ownership. Take away the military's guns, and you take away the root cause of the problem, according to Daley.
Which leads to question #4: When will Dick Cheney be prosecuted for shooting that guy in the face a few years ago when they went dove hunting together? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Question #5:
Finally, there's a question about what thing was that thing that happened in Texas?
"Terrorism" disappeared in January 2009 with the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States, replaced by the more appropriate nomenclature "man-made disasters." All this got me to thinking about the recent man-made disaster in Fort Hood.
The only thing we know for certain is that what happened at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist act, because if it was, that means an act of terrorism on US soil would have occurred under the Barack Obama Administration.
So, in light of this I pose my fifth and final question. If a man-made disaster was responsible for the deaths and injuries of dozens of innocent people, shouldn't we start an aggressive effort to make sure there are no further man-made disasters looming on the horizon?
I propose an immediate plan of action whereby special attention is given to all bridges, dams, automobiles, and other "man-made" things that could spell "disaster" if they fail or are misused properly. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens by making sure that man-made disasters do not occur, and aggressively monitoring our bridges, dams, and automobile driving habits is the one sure way to accomplish this goal.
I'm sure the grieving relatives of the 13 people killed at Ft. Hood, as well as the others who were gravely injured by the man-made disaster which Nidal Hasan was somehow associated with, will take great comfort in knowing that our government is ahead of the curve on important stuff like this. Hopefully, by placing proper emphasis on these things, instead of looking for Islamo-fascist straw-men behind every jihadist who shouts Allahu Akbar when shooting innocent people, we can begin focus on what's really important in life: passing new health care legislation and promoting cap and trade.
Oh . . . and giving the appropriate "shout out" to non-existent Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who aren't even in attendance at a political event before addressing the nation about a man-made disaster which, we all know, is George Bush's fault anyway.
Ninety percent of the mass shootings in the last 20 years, since the introduction of Prozac, have been related to the Prozac drugs and their clones, the SSRI antidepressants. All of the school shootings since 1997 have been documented as cases involving SSRI antidepressants.
The SSRIs are very subtle. They make you go insane and you don't realize this. Probably Hasan started on the antidepressants after 9/11. The Anthrax murderer was also on an SSRI antidepressant and becoming more insane every day – to the point where he was paranoid.
I am not trying to defend Hasan. I am trying to get people to realize what a dangerous thing it is to have one out of every 10 Americans taking a drug which can cause mania and psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, etc. Remember when we had one mass shooting a decade? Now we have two or three mass shootings every year. This is a National Tragedy.
If Hasan was on one of these SSRI or SNRI antidepressants, then we need to know this in order to SAVE PEOPLE FROM THE NEXT MASS SHOOTING. If he was not on an antidepressant, then he was just another Muslim radical terrorist who should receive the full penalty of the law!
I have spent 10 years documenting these cases and have put them online as of three years ago. The full media article is available on the Website http://www.SSRIstories.com/index.php where the journalist told in the article, usually, which SSRI or SNRI antidepressant the perpetrator was taking. Won't somebody please listen? SO MANY LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE.
Remember, too, that withdrawal is often more dangerous than continuing on the drug. Go to the cover page http://www.SSRIStories.com and read the full article on this phenomena. There are 51 school shootings/incidents now and over 25 workplace massacres – there are over 200 completed murder-suicides, etc.
I know that the 'five questions' in this article are speaking "tongue in cheek" but if we don't want any more of these mass shootings then we have to wake-up to the terrible tragedy that has befallen our nation because of the SSRIs. There are over 5,000 people dead just on SSRI Stories alone and I am only capturing the tip of the iceberg here.
One more item here. I admire, love and respect our soldiers and am heartbroken that there are now, as of the years 2008 and 2009, more suicides in the military than there are combat casualities.
The majority of the soldiers taking SSRI antidepressants are under the age of 24 and the FDA placed a Black Box warning regarding the increase in suicidal behavior of those on antidepressants who are aged 24 and under.
Today, a senator from Maryland wrote to the Secretary of Defense asking about the number of soldiers taking antidepressants in relation to the high number of suicides.
Here is the article as it appears on http://www.SSRIstories.com
Paragraph two reads: "Citing the rising number of suicides among active-duty soldiers in the U.S. Army, a senator wrote to the secretary of defense this week asking for the 'estimated number and percentage of troops since June 2005 who have been prescribed antidepressant medications while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan'.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/11/12/senator-asks-how-many-troops-are-on-antidepressants/
November 12, 2009, 10:11 AM ET
Senator Asks How Many Troops Are on Antidepressants
By Jacob Goldstein
For people in their late teens and early 20s, taking an antidepressant may actually increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, at least during initial treatment. So it’s important that those patients are carefully monitored.
Citing the rising number of suicides among active-duty soldiers in the U.S. Army, a senator wrote to the secretary of defense this week asking for the “estimated number and percentage of troops since June 2005 who have been prescribed antidepressant medications while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The letter is from Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat. He said Congress must:
examine the extent to which DoD is prescribing antidepressants to its service members, especially those deployed in-theatre, and the methods it is employing to ensure that sufficient observation periods are conducted by properly trained mental health providers. In short, my concern is how DoD is managing the sheer volume and manner by which antidepressant drugs are being administered to our service men and women overseas.
We called and emailed the Department of Defense to ask for a reply, but they didn’t immediately respond to our request. We’ll update this post when we hear back.
Anybody who thinks the Fort Hood massacre was about drugs needs to check their meds.
There were 14 murder victims, not 13. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/11/the-14th-murder-victim-of-the-fort-hood-jihadi-massacre/
Rosie,
I agree with a lot of what you said, except this: SSRI's are not subtle. They are powerful, pure and simple.
I have seen them save lives, and I have seen them ruin lives. Paradoxical reactions in already severely depressed people can be enough to put someone "over the edge." Patients who are given SSRI's are supposed to be very closely watched during the first few weeks or months. Regarding our terrorist in the story: "He who has himself for a physician has a fool for a patient."
It should be remembered that suicide is a violent act. Anyone near suicide is prone to deciding to take others out as well. He looks to me like a guy near suicide.
Should they be oulawed? I don't know. It is not known for certain exactly how they work, but they help some people. It's not known for certain how LSD works either, yet this man swore to his dying day that LSD therapy helped him achieve better psychological health. He was not known for being crazy.
http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000693.html
I am not advocating LSD.
By contrast, if a mechanical engineer wants to sell something that he's not sure how it works, I think there would be a few raised eyebrows.
In the 1970's, the medical community was abuzz about the evils of "anxiety." At the time, valium was the rage. Coincidence? Sure! Then they found out valium was addictive, and decided that depression was the underlying cause. Hence, the current love affair with antidepressants.
The medical community loves SSRI's; some patients do, and obviously the pharmaceutical companies do. So do HMO's. Freudian psychotherapy is long and expensive.
I not saying that this massacre was "about drugs" but if it turns out that the terrorist was was both (a) clinically depressed and (b) self-medicating, then it is reasonable to think medicine played some role in the tragedy.
There is no logical reason we can't consider the possiblity of criminal intent and mental illness working together. Just because someone has a diagnosable mental illness, doesn't mean he's not a world-class jerk as well.
It could be that the terrorist practiced malpractice on himself.
“There is no logical reason we can't consider the possiblity of criminal intent and mental illness working together. Just because someone has a diagnosable mental illness, doesn't mean he's not a world-class jerk as well. It could be that the terrorist practiced malpractice on himself.”
Ruminator, you’ve provided a classic example of the problem we have today. It evolves around the misuse or misunderstanding of language.
Terrorism is a political act. It involves criminal actions (since killing innocent people is against the law). But it is not a “criminal act” the way killing your spouse is a criminal act, or getting into a drunken brawl and hurting someone is a criminal act, or driving recklessly and killing someone is a criminal act.
Nor is it a sign of “mental illness”. Because someone has a distorted view of reality doesn’t necessarily equate to them being mentally ill, unless you want to characterize liberalism as a mental illness, in which case I may have to amend my remarks.
Killing Infidel like Hasan did because he was a member of the Army of God that requires Infidels to be killed is a terrorist act, just as Tim McVey committed a terrorist act in Oklahoma City, and the targeted killing of abortion doctors is a terrorist act, and SEIU thugs beating up Tea Party advocates is a terrorist act. To conflate these actions with ordinary “criminal” behavior or “mental illness” is to render a completely comprehensible act incomprehensible.
The reason we have trouble dealing with real world problems in a real world way is because many people — some with good intentions, others who just want to equivocate about the unequivocal — want to wish away the reality that evil does exist, and believe that all conflict is a matter of simple disagreements which can be settled with negotiation and a respect for other people’s point of views.
Political/Religious zealots do not compromise or see other points of view. And when their religion or belief system specifically calls for the forced conversion or death of non-believers, we need to recognize their actions for what they are, and not seek to explain them away with multicultural psychobabble.
Yes, terrorism and mental illness can go hand in hand. It is just a National Tragedy that the mental illness is being caused by a medication which is used to alleviate the symptoms of depression. Scientists have known since the late 1950's that antidepressants could cause psychosis and mania. They just never dreamed that antidepressants would be given out like candy to the general public.
Here is a case that happened at Edgewater Technology computer company in Massachusetts. Read what the expert said about the Prozac.
http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=383
Paragraphs 11 through 13 read: "Dr. Joseph said McDermott told him that he had increased his dosage of Prozac by Dec. 1, first from 70 milligrams per day to 140 milligrams, and then to 210 milligrams. Joseph said McDermott increased the dosage without his doctor's permission or advice.
Although Prozac is an antidepressant, potential side effects include restlessness, agitation, psychosis, rage, anger and violence, Joseph said.
"I would offer the opinion that it's very possible that Prozac is the final piece of the puzzle that explains the level of rage and anger that allowed the killings to occur," said Joseph, an attending psychiatrist at McLean Hospital and an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/office_shootings.htm
Prosecutors try to shake psychiatrist's testimony about office gunman
By Denise Lavoie, Associated Press, 04/18/02
Michael McDermott
(Globe Staff / John Blanding)
TODAY'S GLOBE
CAMBRIDGE — Prosecutors on Thursday tried to shake the testimony of a psychiatrist who said a man who killed seven co-workers was mentally ill and unable to understand right from wrong when he went on a shooting rampage.
>terrorism and mental illness can go hand in hand.
Glad to know that all Mohammed Atta or Nidal Hasan needed was an adjustment in their daily medication. A fanatical religious-political agenda was just a minor detail in an otherwise avoidable tragedy that could have been avoided with a responsible drug policy.
This is why we’ll never be safe from real threats to our security. As long as single issue ideologues view every action through the prism of their own pet issues, and refuse to look at the real world in a real way, we’ll be treated to other forms of “terrorism is a mental illness” insanity (no pun intended).
Note to file: Killing your co-workers in a shooting rampage is not a form of terrorism. It's a crime (murder) that may be due to a diminished mental capacity (with or without drugs involved). Or, it may simply due to the fact that the shooter is an a**hole. Citing it as an explanation of the link between terrorism and mental illness is just plain nuts.
This is why the school shootings continue to happen – there was one in Germany recently where the 16 year old on Prozac killed 16 classmates – but these kind of incidents are allowed to continue because nobody "gets it".
I am not saying that Hasan was not a terrorist. We don't even know if he was on an antidepressant. I am just pointing out that people who are driven insane by the antidepressants, which they took for depression which is a condition that is not noted for its violent acts, -those people will direct that antidepressant induced violence toward that which they believe is interferring with their beliefs or desires.
This is why the mass shootings have been going on for 20 years. Nobody understands it. But SSRI Stories has 3,400 cases with the full media article available which NAMES the antidepressant. It makes Pharma really happy that nobody "gets it".
Whether or not Hasan was taking an antidepressant may never be known because even his defense attorney probably won't understand it. A National Tragedy.
Rosiecree; I'm sure you're a nice lady, but no one cares what you think about the subject of antidepressants and mass murder in an article about terrorism.
If you want to proselytize on your single issue, write an article of your own instead of cluttering up the comment section of my essay with inanities that have nothing to do with the subject.
If you think that Hasan did what he did because he took antidepressants and not because he was a religious fanatic terrorist shouting Allahu Akbar while he slaughtered innocent people, say it. We’ll all have a good laugh, and then you can go away.
If you don’t, then drop the subject. As a military man I‘m sure he wore boxers instead of brief’s too, but “hanging testicles” is not an explanation for his actions any more than taking Prozac is.
I think Hasan did what he did because he was a religious fanatic terrorist who was tipped over the age, possibly by antidepressants.
Before the introduction of Prozac in Dec. 1987, a little less than one percent of the population was diagnosed with bipolar disorder – also known as manic depression. Now, with everyone on antidepressants, the percent of the population who is diagnosed with bipolar disorder has risen to close to 7%. This is almost one out of every 14 people.
If you are lucky and you are unipolar, then you probably won't kill someone on an antidepressant. but if you have a "latent" tendecy toward bipolar, then you could be in big trouble. I think Hasan could have had this tendency.
Here is a case of a woman in Louisianna who shot her 11 year old daughter to death and was given probation because the Prozac, according to the experts, brought out a "latent" tendency toward bipolar disorder, which she didn't even know she had.
What's more, the doctors said if she had never taken the Prozac, then her "bipolarism" would NEVER have manifested itself. Now I am out of here— you are too closed minded.
http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=1153
Paragraph 14 reads: "Higgins said Pinckard's doctors believe the Prozac she was taking before the shooting caused her behavior; it acted as a catalyst for a hidden bipolar condition".
Last paragraph reads: "Higgins said Pinckard's psychiatrists testified that if she had not taken Prozac, her condition may never have manifested itself.
http ://www.thetowntalk.com/html/1B1F2639-6036-415A-AC2E-53C8CE2976AB.shtml
Woman who killed daughter released on probation
Julia Robb
Posted on July 11, 2003
File Photo
Paula Pinckard: had been "the all-American housewife," attorney says.
COLFAX — In March 2000, Paula Pinckard shot her 11-year-old daughter Aubrey to death before shooting herself in their Rock Hill home.
I'm going with the hanging testicals theory myself, since the only criterion seems to be what we think might have possibly may have happened, and I can tell you from personal experience that a dangling testicle is not something to be taken lightly in any theory about the cause-effect relationship between abusing it and a proclivity for male violence.
Phil,
Did you know that a lot of people kill people while on antidepressants?
This just in: People on antidepressants kill people.
MM: I'm still focused on protecting my testicles.
If you don't, no one will.
MM: That's the real tragic lesson of Ft. Hood. If we, as a society, only paid more attention to dangling testicles, a tragedy like that might possibly have been averted. But sadly, to paraphrase another great mind on this subject, “Whether or not Hasan [was wearing a protective cup] may never be known because even his defense attorney probably won't understand it. A National Tragedy.”
Indeed!
Some other questions…
It has been commented in the MSM that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was suffering from heightened stress over the US military's positions in Iraq & Afghanistan coupled with his deployment orders to the 'sharp end'. Bearing that in mind; these questions immediately come to mind:
• If this officer felt so strongly against military policy in Iraq & Afghanistan, why did he not exercise his option to resign from the service?
• Is it possible to find a more 'target-rich' environment than a graduation ceremony?
• If this 'stress' is actually diagnosed to exist in Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan; what would its medical name be? Is there such a thing as "Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome"?
• Does the US military still hang convicted murders?
• Even if convicted at military courts-martial; would the current Commander-in-Chief have the 'huevos' to signature the execution order?
• Since it is almost a certainty that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's sentence will be reduced from execution to life without parole; will he serve the sentence in Leavenworth or Gitmo?
P
A classmate of mine of mine in an exchange of e-mails offered the following advice:
"I THINK IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE AS THE WAR ON TERROR GOES ON AND AMERICAN MUSLIMS PERCEIVE IT AS A WAR ON ISLAM.
RRR"
(Solid caps his)
My response to the group.
Guys
I’m not so much concerned that the American Muslims will perceive “it” as a war on them as I am that the terrorists will perceive that it’s no longer a war on them as terrorists or, more important, a war on terrorism.
PS I’m also concerned that the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese & other malefactors of great hegemony, to paraphrase TR, have the same perception with this great peace-at-all-costs guy in the WH. The One is not a serious person when it comes to foreign policy. Except when it comes to serious apologies for AmeriKKKa.
PPS It’s hard to take seriously a guy like RRR who doesn’t know what the “Shift” key is for on his keyboard.
S/Inwood
Now, P, I'm also concerned with my testicles! And The lack thereof on the part of The One.
Inwood
As someone noted: It's always the same crap inane headlines after these attacks:
"Muslims fear backlash"
"Islam not the problem, says Imam X …"
"Muslims experience bigotry & hate"
Remember it's always the 99% of Muslims who give the other 1% a bad name.
I would add that I'm tired of the following headlines
"psych Drugs made Him Do It"
"Shooter Had Been Protesting Unjust/Illegal American Wars"
"Many Soldiers & Vets Suffer Mental Illnesses"
And I want the following initial headline after these attacks:
"Americans Fear This Muslim Terrorist Attack.”
Bill: It's actually PPTSP "Pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome". And it may be real.
I get it every time I anticipate what a liberal is going to say in the guise of offering a supposedly intelegent, coherent thought that pertains to the actual world in which we live, instead of a fantasy version of it.
Inwood: You and I may have stumbled onto a great truth here: the importance of testicles (or lack thereof) in decision making.
OK, let me express a PC piety with reservations: We do not need to condemn all Muslims & Islam based solely on the ravings of some Muslims, albeit of a critical mass of Muslims, which, even though such ravings are not supposed to represent Islam, have seemingly captured Muslim opinion.
Nevertheless, after any attack upon us by an avowed Muslim, we do need to stop the robotic hommage to Muslims & Islam &, more important, we need to consider all possibilities without worrying that the PC Police will then rush to judgment & see us as Islamophobic, racist, & bigoted.
If it is Islamophobic, racist, & bigoted to make a sweeping, general condemnation of Islam or its adherents, then the mirror image of that, that is, a sweeping, general exoneration of Islam & Muslims for crimes committed in the name of Islamic supremacy, is equally racist or bigoted, as well as Islamophilic.
And preventing future such incidents as the one in Ft. Hood requires a systemic change in the priorities reiterated by the Army Chief of Staff, which apparently result in creating inordinate & unacceptable fear in fellow officers of "appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier". Officers & Men, as well as The Brightest People & the MSM, need to understand the difference between on the one hand necessary & appropriate commonsense awareness of danger & the importance of reacting swiftly to such danger & on the other hand unnecessary & inappropriate mindless paranoia.
Phillip, Inwood & Mountain Man
Watch out! You may be next in the 'box'
P
Besides Rush’s snarky "PPTSD" (Pre-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) people more nuanced than him (or you or I) had invented a PC diagnosis for this, er, unfortunate occurrence: "Secondary PTSD" or "PTSD By Proxy".
As a lawyer I never wanted to kill others as a result of hearing my clients alleged injustices, but, hey, my life is boring & maybe….
Also, NRO has come up with two un-PC catchphrases:
Better Screwed than Rude
&
Going Muslim
Obviously, the former is a play on “better red than dead” & the latter a play on “Going Postal”.
Inwood
Bill
Ah but will I be in the box or in the box by proxy?
Or will I just have my testicles in a (lock)box?
Inwood
Phil:
Question #6 might be: Why are soldiers allowed to carry a loaded weapon on an Army base? Army bases, as well as Marine Corps. bases, should be “firearm free zones” – much like college campuses or government administration buildings. Blaming the NRA isn’t good enough, and maybe it’s true the NRA is on anti-depressants, but common sense tells us there’s no room for loaded firearms in “Today’s Army”.
And clearly the ban on weapons must pertain to all soldiers regardless of ethnic or religious persuasion – it’s not right to single out certain individuals as likely to misuse firearms. The DOD can easily find a suitable “virtual” firearm should any of our soldiers want or need training in deliberate violence – the folks at X-Box or PlayStation could probably help with a suitable substitute.
Pat: Sadly, it's only a matter of time before the line here between insanity and reality is blurred, and something like this is seriously suggested.
Pat
I understand your satire & the irony of it all, but my understanding as of 40+ years ago when I was in the Army, & I assume SOP as of today, is that the average soldier doesn't have a weapon except when in a combat training area or on parade & has no ammo when just on parade.
Hassam was probably assigned a sidearm but it would have been locked up in the armory 'til he was on parade or in combat. The same with all the other soldiers who were just there shuffling papers.
But some armed MPs should be around these places in case some terrorist like The Maj would want to do what he did so that they could've taken him out before he was able to shoot so long & hit so many while everybody was waiting for the non-Army cops to arrive. Or, even better so that he wouldn’t have tried this in the first place based on a risk/reward analysis.
What happens in an announced “gun free zone” is that only the bad guys have guns, whether this is in a college campus or army administrative area. It seems counter-intuitive in the army area, but it’s counter-intelligent or counter commonsense anywhere.
Inwood:
Yes, you're correct but these types of tragedies bring out the fearful among us in their loud and fretful numbers. Americans are a nation of pacifists ruled by a matriarchal coalition of behind the scenes cultural leaders – I know you would never assume that from our entertainment and contact sports, but I believe there is ample evidence for such an assumption.
And the term "gun violence" may be misleading – many Americans are frightened by any type of violence – it's just difficult to go on a beserk rampage killing or wounding 40 or so people with a butcher knife or a framing hammer. But it's the naked violence Americans are frightened by, not the type of weapon used.
"Gun free zones" are a cry for attention from the fearful among us, they see the violence in the news, they want someone to comfort them, to ease the nagging fear the violence creates in their minds – and, for them, such fears aren't easily suppressed.
Phil is correct with his insight that this strays over the line into insanity at times – but the folks suggesting "gun control" always see it as perfectly rational solution. Women (the rule setters and self-appointed defenders of life in a matriarchal society) tend to favor gun control over men, but more so because they seek emotional comfort and to be reassured they and any of their offspring will be protected from violence – and not because they truly believe it will stop future violence from occurring.
Being a cultural leader and trend setter in our society doesn't sit well with voicing a plaintive cry for help or a naked appeal for comforting, so gun control is suggested by the fearful among us as a rational sounding method for addressing their fears and a socially acceptable means for attacting attention and sympathy. Many Americans want authority figures to possess firearms and to be highly proficient with them – it's the violence the fearful in this country want eliminated, not the guns.
Re: Banning weapons from military bases.
It's a pie-in-the-sky idea. This is my experience as a member of the military:
The military keeps its small arms locked up unless there is a need to issue them.
However, there is the issue of weapons privately-owned by individual members. If they live on base, they are required to turn them in to security for lock-up and must be checked out. An officer usually has his own private quarters, so there is no guarantee he will check in his weapons. Those who live off-base can keep their weapons at home all the time and not even inform the command.
In view of this, it is real easy for someone to bring his own personal firearms on base and start shooting; writing a regulation to ban them disarms only the honest who want to remain honest, and that's a fact.
The only way such a ban could be even partially successful is to institute "random" searches of quarters and vehicles entering a base [yes, military members do have some rights, believe it or not]. In theory, they could search every room in every house, but how far can you realistically go? Do you look in every drawer in every room of every house, or do you pick every Nth one and thoroughly search them?
To remain "random", every Nth car is searched where N is a constant dependent on traffic volume. [I have seen small values of N cause these searches tie up traffic for many blocks outside the gates.] The greater the value of N, the less chance of catching someone. The same goes for on-base housing.
Note: "Random" is in quotes because the method is not truly mathematically random because it is a constant to prevent the security guards from using personal preferences and biases. I have actually seen them pull over good-looking women because … well, they like to get a better look at good-looking women.
Pat
Reread what I wrote & then what sedonaman wrote.
We basically agree with you that it's absurd that the Army has to call on the non-military police to stop this attack, too late for the 14 dead & the whatever number wounded. But you can't suggest that all soldiers be armed with ammo in their weapons outside a combat zone.
What was needed was a couple of MPs in that place with fully-loaded weapons, so that guys like This Major, who had thought through his actions, would have had to incorporate into his planning a different cost/benefit analysis.
Back to basics. If one works in the USPO, then one has to report the actions of a guy who may be "Going Postal". If one works in the Military or for General motors, General Electric, or Acme Brick & one is working with a guy who may be "Going Muslim"….
Reporting the actions of someone who may be about to "go Muslim" is a good idea; along with that type of monitoring, if they display volatile or hostile temperament or proclivity for political violence, why wouldn't they be blood or urine tested for powerful psychoactive drugs that could exacerbate the situation?
It is amazing the lengths some people will go to 'explain' the actions of a self-professed jihadist who shouts Allahu Akbar when slaughtering people as something that is "exacerbated" by drugs, as if that state of mind is somehow lacking as a sufficient explanation.
It's all traced back to a liberal multiculturalist world view where people are believed to be essentially the same – with just varying degrees of different opinions — and that if we just somehow take the time to reason with and understand the jihadists, they’ll recognize that we have a legitimate point of view too, and neither party means the other any harm.
This is a puerile, sophomoric view of reality. Believe it or not, there are some people with religious and/or political views who do not believe in compromise, and further believe that those who are not part of their group don’t deserve to live. Fanatical jihadists believes this about Infidels, Nazis believed this about Jews, the “Ethnic Cleansers” believed it, the neo-Nazis of today who kill Jewish schoolchildren believe it, and on and on. There was no need to invoke any mention of drugs to explain their behavior.
Inwood, I read what you wrote but pardon my failure to catch on – what exactly is your point …. is it a procedural distinction over gun control on Army bases? Armed MP's would have helped – as opposed to armed civilian police officers like Kimberly Munley? I'm not sure of the difference or if there actually is one? Sgt. Munley took three bullets in the process but brought down Hasan while he was roaming about looking for additional victims.
Keeping weapons locked up until needed – yes, that's also done in the civilian world, including National Guard armories, but someone in authority has to decide to issue the weapons and also the ammunition – unloaded rifles aren't much of a deterrent as two state governors found out during the race riots in the 60's. Who would have issued the weapons to the MP's (hopefully issuing the cartridges as well)? Would the MP's be authorized to use deadley force? Which general officer would make that decision and under what political conditions defined by the civilian controllers of the Army?
Does gun control on an Army base serve a purpose other than range safety? How exactly did that work in this instance? And why was this situation in a "gun free zone" any different from a terrorist murdering folks on a college campus? Or in a crowded McDonalds at lunch hour?
An armed MP or two would have forced Hasan to change his plans. Do you really think so? Consider this – Hasan could have planted a bomb and been well away from the scene, or he could have taken a few shots and then tried to escape – which unarmed soldier would have stopped him and with what?
Hasan was committed to dying if necessary. As a terrorist, isn't killing soldiers unimpeded on an Army base pretty terrifying to the civilian population at large? If you can take out trained soldiers within a govt. reservation, then you could do practically anything – I believe that message was delivered loud and clear – and wouldn't the underlying emphasis be "your bumbling military isn't capable of defending themselves, let alone you civilians". Think a terrorist would have wanted to deliver such a message, even at the cost of his own life?
Wasn't Hasan's goal to spread terror and wasn't he highly successful at it? The military failed in so many different ways with Hasan, the Army is very fortunate he didn't kill another 20 soldiers and also very fortunate an armed female police officer was there to stop him – if "Today's Army" didn't unwittingly facilitate Hasan's goal of spreading terror, I'm not sure how else we would characterize it.
Finally, if your point is that in an ideal, theoretical world, soldiers are manly men, and manly women also, and would have easily killed Hasan, then I'd have to respectfully remind you it isn't an ideal, theoretical world where that happened, it's a world where Hasan can and did massacre unarmed soldiers with ease – maybe we should ask how exactly that is possible.
You're misquoting me, or misunderstanding my thought process. I don't believe this terrorist meant no harm. Plenty of people mean harm, but lack the nerve to act decisively on their intentions. They go home and kick the dog, or post diatribes online, or joing the Young Spartacists League, for instance. This may go on for years. But if they are taking a substance that disinhibits, or changes how they act and think, then the danger that their antisocial thoughts presents is more likely to result in action.
The question "what made this guy finally snap" is a legitimate one. Leave no stone unturned in the prevention of tragedy.
I have had antidepressant medication, and the effect of having your feelings and thoughts altered at the fundamental biochemical stage is indescribable.
Here's what's bothering you, probably. It bothers me too. Just suppose that it's possible that a guy who wants to do a Tim McVeigh type thing, and doesn't find the nerve until one day when his doctor has prescribed, for example, effexor, finds that he is aggressive (although the drug is supposed to calm you, but sometimes does the opposite.)
Now he commits the act. He is no less guilty, because of the medicine. But how would the law look at it? I don't know! Don't ask me. I don't want to weaken laws that are meant to stop dangerous people.
On the other hand, drunk driving is not considered excusable because your were drunk. In fact, much the opposite! The drunkenness, and the poor driving, are both offenses.
If a doctor that gives you medicine that might hurt you, and doesn't keep an eye on things, he might be negligent. But if you are prescribing medicine for yourself that is supposed to require another physician to monitor the situation, you are the negligent one. This is what Hasan may have done.
What annoys you is the political implications of the discussion. You as a scholar/writer are trying to improve the world by challenging errant thought processes, in your public forum. Good luck to you. You're a good sort.
I'm not trying to change the world, I'm only trying to understand it. Saying more than one factor could have contributed to a terrorist action is like saying there could be two reasons you're car is running crappy (gummed-up spark plugs together with moisture in the fuel lines.) Mechanics and physicians are not thinking multiculturally.
incidentially Hasan seem like a guy who morphed into a jihadist, and had inner conflict along the way. But then so did bin Laden. His family does not want to be associated with him.
Knowing the enemy is what I'm interested in. It's not the same as sympathizing with him, and I would resent any such accusations, if there were any.
By the way, I'm not paying for this site, and will not be offended if my posts are blocked in the future. Let someone else have a turn.
When I said "challenging errant thought processes" I should have said "challenging erroneous thought processes."
Inwood:
Re: "What was needed was a couple of MPs in that place with fully-loaded weapons, … ."
I'm not sure what you mean here. This would require 20-20 foresight, or 1/2 of the military to guard the other 1/2.
Speculating on a possible drug that Hasan may have possibly taken if he actually took that possible drug and possibly had an adverse reaction which possibly may have enhanced his otherwise perfectly clear jihadist sentiments when he murdered 13 people and wounded dozens of other by shouting Allahu Akbar because the people he was slaughtering were Infidels (he didn't open fire in a Mosque because of this possible psychotic, drug induced breakdown)is the textbook example of what I described as sophistic, silly reasoning to explain an otherwise obvious action.
On the other hand, I guess it's equally possible that his GI-issued shorts left him with dangling testicles which, once bumped, sent him into a banged testicle-induced rage that temporarily blinded his reasoning ability and "enhanced" his desire to slaughter 13 people and wound countless others while shouting Allahu Akbar — the jihadist/Allahu Akbar/Death to Infidels/Army of God thing just one of many factors we should consider in searching for a true understiong of what exactly happened that day.
Life is such a mystery. It's a wonder we can ever figure anything out.
PS: Why would anyone block you ruminator? It's not a crime to be stupid. Plenty of regularly-contributing liberals to this site are, and their comments are not blocked. You get blocked for violating IC rules, among them making racist attacks and excessive use of profanity.
Another great example of not understanding the world you actually live in.
I don't know what IC's policy is for blocking comments, nor am I concerned. Whatever it is, they may identify it publicly, or not, at their discretion. I appreciate the opportunity to have had some input.
"Another great example of not understanding the world you actually live in."
-Dr. Jackson
"I was born not knowing, and have had only a little time to change that here and there."
-Richard Feinmann
ruminator: When you raise a silly issue that your comments might somehow be "blocked" because, well — what? Because you disagree with me? — expect to be ridiculed, just as you will be for making a silly observation that because something might have somehow maybe possibly happened, we should consider it a potential element in an otherwise obvious explanation.
This is supposed to be a website where people do more than simply express their feelings and offer abstract hypotheticals to explain real world actions. If all you are able to do is quote Feinmann — who was attempting to produce a mathematical model of the functioning of the universe, and was content with making any progress at all — as an excuse for offering silly observations about Hasan’s actions, then expect to be ridiculed about this as well.
Not every assertion can be proven. But if your contribution carries no more intellectual weight than my dangling testicles hypothesis, then you really don’t have anything of substance to offer to this discussion.
You can't top this one for a really interesting theory about the motive behind a mass murder. I had thought that John Allen Muhammed "went Muslim" until I read this.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/30/disaster-of-the-senate/#comment-80255
sedonaman
C’mon, you understand that it has never been Army policy to have all soldiers armed with loaded weapons at all times.
Hell, some loony could start shooting in the midst of soldiers marching in the St Paddy's Parade on 5th Ave. But hopefully some armed NYC cop would stop him from shooting 44 victims, killing 13.
The fact that this was done on an Army post seems counter-intuitive, but what would you do now from 20/20 hindsight?
What would I do?
After the systemic change in PC Afirmative Action/multi culti nonsense was stopped as I noted above in my #22, of course.
Apparently, this was an announced “gun free zone” & this concept was taken so literally that there were no, repeat no, armed MPs to stop what turned out to be a mass slaughter. I'm saying that I would put some armed MPs somewhere in a large Army Administration area where lots of people gather who can be easily slaughtered or a slaughter on this level will happen again.
Furthermore, in such Army Administrative areas, the Army Brass might consider screening as is done in airports so that the Federal Marshalls or other authorized people can get on planes with weapons but not the ordinary guy.
You can't be sarcastic about that, now can you?
And, yes, some loon could start shooting in Times Sq at civilians at Midnight on New Year's Eve, but again some armed cops, as we now have, would keep the total down to less than 44.
And some loons have gone postal in Post Offices & elsewhere where there are no good guys with guns. It just seems incongruous on an Army base.
Pat
I think that I've just answered your comments & straw-man arguments here also.
My point to you was that your original satire or parody @ #26 about a ban on weapons for all soldiers in all places, with The DOD finding a suitable “virtual” firearm from the folks at X-Box or PlayStation who could probably help just misses the mark on this thread & loses its force as satire because it covers too much ground. I suggest that the insanity here that you’re attempting to remodel through your satire should be the Army making the administrative area gun free, even as far as MPs are concerned. And that that is beyond parody or satire.
I don't doubt that some peaceniks would disarm the entire army, but that's another issue. (These same peaceniks don't want the police disarmed if it means that they themselves will be robbed & killed.)
And, no, I’m not talking about an ideal world, thank you, or about the race riots of the ‘60s where, for instance in Newark NJ, some soldiers were given real ammo & used it. Try to stay focused & you will understand how to write satire & answer what someone has said. And I did say that it’s more important, most important to stop the systemic PC that allows these terrorists to remain in the Army (or in the college or McDonalds where one works, so no need to lectur me on that.)
And as I noted to sedonaman, as you repeat, anyone anywhere can plant a bomb or start shooting. But the point is to keep the casualties down when this happens & to prevent someone from making as big a statement as this terrorist Maj did. And, if he knew that he’d have been stopped early on, he might not have done this at all.
OOPS, make that "lecture"
"Puerile?" Phil, did you get that word from me? (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/03/politics-101/#comments, comment #23)?
It's my new favorite word, and Ozzie_M was the perfect opportunity.
No, Mountain Man, oddly enough I think you fellas stole it from me:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/07/words-to-live-by/
From Comment #77:
Dr. Jackson contended, rather improbably:
————-Actually, I've viewed the entire exchange with Raymond and Ozzie as a practical illustration of many of the points I was making. It's why I encourage some of these things go on as long as I do.——————–
And Ozzie replied:
Ah, so I see that I am a part of a demonstration project. Thanks for 'encouraging it go go on', Dr. Jackson.
Unfortunately, I believe that you unintentionally reveal something quite different.
You persistently claim that Liberal thought processes are unduly emotional, yet you have elevated furious personal invective and name-calling tirades to a kind of Performance Art. You make rather crude and venomous accusations, and then when someone pushes back even a little, you immediately descend into THE MOST PUERILE AND REPETITIVE ATTACKS.
These are your name-calling eruptions from just a couple of recent threads:
—————————————————————–
**I comment on ideas and reasoning, not individuals.****
——-Dr. Phil Jackson
—————————————————————–
(CAPS helpfully added by Ozzie)
You're a PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL, and a FRAUD.
you're not trustworthy.
…may be a PSEUDO-INTELLECUAL FRAUD. But you're not even up to that level.
a FOOL, FRAUD, or a TROLL
the person is a LIGHTWEIGHT
My LIGHTWEIGHT response time
My thirty seconds LIGHTWEIGHT response quota is up
My LIGHTWEIGHT response time quota is now up.
————I think we're all safe in assuming that Ozzie is a male, but maybe the better question to ask is WHAT GRADE HE’S IN. It's possible I'm holding him to an unrealistic standard if his HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES haven't prepared him adequately to think about and debate real world issues.———–
———–In this case, labeling the things he says as "stupid" would be an error, because no one would expect a YOUNG, PREPUBESCENT KID to know better.————–
————- What an IDIOT. I wrote 60,000 words on terrorism and abortion …..and insisted on debating issues I never raised instead of citing points I actually made…. What an IDIOT.————
——-What an IDIOT. Remember the original point Raymond made…they must not exist. What an IDIOT.——–
——-NUTCASES on the far Right —– LUNATIC Left… LOONEY Liberal——
I would call them “stupid”; not just a difference of opinion.
This is the worst kind of stupidity —
it’s rather stupid to conclude that
Even the profoundly stupid who enter these discussions don’t say things like
This is a blatantly stupid proposition given
my head can only take so much stupidity and sophomoric reasoning
As for pure stupidity in reasoning, I think examples speak well for themselves
And then when the stupidity of that position
So yeah, your position is pretty stupid
the person under discussion exhibits stupid reasoning
Civility for civility's sake is, well, rather stupid
the only thing left is to let the stupidity continue to speak for itself.
You made a stupid, blanket statement
you want me to bail you out of your stupidity
Can you imagine the stupidity of asking
It's one thing to hold a stupid position. But I don't understand the strategy of deflecting attention from the first stupid statement by introducing other egregiously stupid statements into the mix.
…..doubles down on his stupid remarks
Comment by Ozzie_M | April 11, 2009
————————————————
So, there you go. You guys can't even come up with original insults.
Oz
MM: I got it from an Adam's family movie, meaning “lacking in maturity or seriousness.”
I thought it was a great word to use when the person making the comment was not an idiot, but actually trying to make what he thought was a serious point.
Inwood:
Re: "…it has never been Army policy to have all soldiers armed with loaded weapons at all times."
I didn't say what the Army policy was, is, or should be; I merely pointed out the problems with enforcing a "gun-free" zone for military installations. I have seen what happens when the military attempts to do this sort of thing. Schools have been gun-free zones for years, but that didn’t prevent the Columbine massacre or Cho from shooting up VA Tech.
Your idea of stationing MPs at areas of large congregations won’t work either because, to work, it depends on a potential perpetrator’s fear of adverse consequences for himself, i.e., deterrence. But these people obviously don’t fear even death. Hasan gave in his website the example of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades. He also said, “If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.” What do these mean? That the Hasans of the world know they are on a suicide mission and expect to be killed. That’s their stated concept of martyrdom, their ticket to paradise.
sedonaman
I don’t know why you & Pat are attacking me. I claim victimhood!
Look, you replied to my suggestion that "gun-free zone" should not preclude a few MPs at hand with loaded weapons, by saying that this would mean that I'd need "1/2 of the military to guard the other 1/2", which I feel was a trivializing, reductio ad absurdum argument, which I didn't appreciate.
I agree with you (who doesn't?) that these guys want a big show & "are on a suicide mission and expect to be killed". But the murdering Major couldn't have shot his 100 victims because the civilian cops got there & stopped him at 44. I suggest that MPs at hand with loaded weapons would have cut the number to perhaps 4, leaving him with little Media coverage & without his "strategic victory".
But, again, we're arguing the wrong argument. Four dead is four too many &, in any event, as I know, even without you & Pat challenging me, there are bombs & other fun things that give these terrorist murderers more bang for their buck, to coin a phrase. Screening would help against that stuff as it does at airports. I don't think that we can screen at Yankee Stadium or The Mall of America or at the St Paddy’s Day Parade, or every venue, as if this were a police state, but a shooting at an Army Post or Fort just somehow doesn't seem quite right, no?
So as I said back in #22 ([] added): "… preventing future such incidents [gun, bomb, whatever] as the one in Ft. Hood requires a systemic change in the [PC] priorities reiterated by the Army Chief of Staff, which apparently result in creating inordinate & unacceptable fear in fellow officers of "appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier". Officers & Men, as well as The Brightest People & the MSM, need to understand the difference between on the one hand necessary & appropriate commonsense awareness of danger & the importance of reacting swiftly to such danger & on the other hand unnecessary & inappropriate mindless paranoia."
Between you & me, I'll even go for some paranoia.
Inwood:
First of all, I’m not attacking you. Did I call you names? I am merely criticizing your ideas. Sheesh!
Re: “Look, you replied to my suggestion that ‘gun-free zone’ should not preclude a few MPs at hand with loaded weapons, by saying that this would mean that I'd need ‘1/2 of the military to guard the other 1/2’, which I feel was a trivializing, reductio ad absurdum argument, which I didn't appreciate.”
Look, this is what you originally said: “What was needed was a couple of MPs in that place with fully-loaded weapons, so that guys like This Major, who had thought through his actions, would have had to incorporate into his planning a different cost/benefit analysis.” I replied, “I'm not sure what you mean here. This would require 20-20 foresight, or 1/2 of the military to guard the other 1/2.” This should have been taken as an invitation to explain your idea in more detail because you [the rhetorical “you”] would have to know in advance where “that place” is going to be in order to station the “couple of MPs” so they would be effective. This is what you said: “But the murdering Major couldn't have shot his 100 victims because the civilian cops got there and stopped him at 44. I suggest that MPs at hand with loaded weapons would have cut the number to perhaps 4…” which is true, but you don’t explain how to know in advance where a terrorist is going to start shooting, hence the requirement for 20-20 foresight. Short of 20-20 foresight, you would have to expand the MPs to the point where there would be one MP to guard each non-MP, hence 1/2 of the military to guard the other 1/2.
I mostly agree with the rest of what you said.
The main issue that Phil has brought up, in my opinion, is a, well, killer argument: the systemic PC wussiness of the Top Brass when it comes to obvious terrorists within their midst. The same for the top brass in Pat S's Post Office, in General Electric, in General Dynamics, in The Mall of America, in Yankee Stadium for the Worls Series, at The Super Bowl or at PS 52.
But yet oh once more you want to attack my ideas & somehow separate them from me. Talk about thinking outside the box!
So, you again trivialize my answer about MPs in "Gun-free zones."
Eons ago, I was a soldier in administration in Ft Dix, NJ, an open post. None of us soldiers was armed, though we each had an M-1 in some building which I used to guard the Water Filtration Plant at night (unloaded, no less) during The Cuban Missile crisis when the combat-ready soldiers were doing they were supposed to do. Some loony tune could've gone postal or gone Muslim (no one did either in those days) in our office during the day or one of those times when we assembled in one of the Post's theaters for some lecture or when we went to the Post movie & we wouldn't have called the Wrightstown Police; we'd have called the MPs.
There's an old Navy story about the officer candidate who's being quizzed by his instructor about what he'd do if storms arose.
First Q: what if a storm arose on the stern? First A: I'd drop an anchor on the Stern.
Second Q: what if another storm arose on the Bow? Second answer: I'd drop another anchor on the Bow!
Third Q: what if another storm arose on the Starboard?
Third answer: I'd drop another anchor on the Starboard.
Fourth Q: what if another storm arose on the Port side? Forth answer: I'd drop another anchor on the Port side.
Fifth Question: where are you getting all these anchors? Fifth answer: same place you're getting all these storms!
C'mon.
No matter how you snigger at my ideas, it doesn't play well when the Army has to call on the civilian police from outside its gun-free zone to bring in a gun to the gun-free zone to kill the terrorist who is ignoring the gun-free zone as he shoots 44 people.