# Ft. Hood Shootings - Take 2



## LuxLuthor (Nov 10, 2009)

Empath said:


> Creation of a new thread on the topic will be permitted, but if so, let's leave out religious speculation. Referencing news source reports of religious incidentals is okay, but speculating, making claims that the actions are a result of a particular religious belief, and "educating" us on religions will need to be addressed in the Underground.
> 
> It's time to back up, and start over.



Since Empath's closing of the previous thread left the door open to a more factual discussion, I believe there is enough evidence that has come forth in recent days to now call this a pre-meditated act of Islamic terrorism. 

In particular this linked story from www.drudgereport.com to a Fox News story listing contents of a Powerpoint slide presentation that this Doctor of Terror gave while still at Walter Reed. Just reading the last few slides is enough, but his connection with the radical Iman from Virginia, now promoting such actions from his new location in Yemen is nearly conclusive.



> The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
> 
> "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
> 
> ...



IMHO, each of those supervisors, co-workers, and other Government officials who knew of his connections, statements, and actions also have blood on their hands.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 10, 2009)

After listening to multiple media sources and all the related conversation and commentary, I think I'm starting to grasp some of the key stumbling blocks that are causing some to avoid the label of "terrorism" regarding this event. A clarification:_

- One person alone can be a terrorist, and can create and execute a terrorist act._ A lot of commentary I've heard has specifically pointed out that there is no group or insurgent involvement with this event, and since there was just a "lone gunman" and no "plot" specifically created by multiple like-minded people, it therefore must not be terrorism. But no dictionary definition of the word notes anything about quantity - it merely needs to be an act of violence for political or religious goals. A good example would be Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing; despite the fact that he was essentially a lone attacker, it was clearly an attack to bring his political beliefs to the forefront; an act of terrorism.



LuxLuthor said:


> each of those supervisors, co-workers, and other Government officials who knew of his connections, statements, and actions also have blood on their hands.



I noted in the Underground that I wasn't sure how the Army would charge so many people that knew Hasan had serious problems; specifically in relation to the Powerpoint incident. I can't imagine how an entire room of medical professionals, expecting yet another presentation on health issues, would suddenly be lambasted for an hour about Jihad, while they all sat slack-jawed and incredulous, and yet not a soul mentioned anything to anyone.


----------



## SFG2Lman (Nov 10, 2009)

i disagree entirely that they have blood on their hands, had they said anything he would have run to the Inspector General and had them prosecuted under Equal Opportunities and continued about what he was planning. The only difference would be that they would have had career ending charges levied against them at least until now. I don't see this as anyone's fault but his, you can't suspect your family of things like this...doing so would be playing right into his hands. The fact is that there was not enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude he was anything other than strange. I mean, look what he has done and we still can't say what he is. How can a mere coworker make a statement that the FBI still can't make even after something like this takes place?

Yes its a shame that nothing was done sooner, but people slip through the cracks. We will never know exactly how many people DO get stopped and how many the FBI does put behind bars before its too late, but no one can get every single needle in the haystack...not without severely violating the rights we fight to protect.


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Nov 10, 2009)

Thanks for the 2nd evolution. Let's hope no one rushes in and starts name calling on this one. Well said about walking the fine line of protecting/infringing on the rights we take for granted. Hope things on Post start to return to a sense of normalcy soon.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 10, 2009)

Well I meant "have blood on their hands" in a perjorative way, rather than a strict legal manner. They will have to live with the result of their inactions. However with US House Rep Peter Hokstra, and US Senator Lieberman holding specific accountability hearings about governmental liability, it is likely that heads will roll, and careers will be ended.

I do not believe they would have been charged with anything under the Equal Opportunities Act or any other regulation, had they reported factual observations (the PP presentation slides) and statements/comments made by Hassan. 

I believe some of them did communicate within the chain of command, likely leading to his transfer to Ft. Hood. AKA -- one of the military's long standing modus operandi for dealing with "tough characters" is to transfer them to more arduous duty station.


----------



## tygger (Nov 10, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> - One person alone can be a terrorist, and can create and execute a terrorist act.[/I] A lot of commentary I've heard has specifically pointed out that there is no group or insurgent involvement with this event, and since there was just a "lone gunman" and no "plot" specifically created by multiple like-minded people, it therefore must not be terrorism. But no dictionary definition of the word notes anything about quantity - it merely needs to be an act of violence for political or religious goals. A good example would be Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing; despite the fact that he was essentially a lone attacker, it was clearly an attack to bring his political beliefs to the forefront; an act of terrorism.



Thats not quite correct. At least according to the US State Dept. definition. Promise I'm not picking at you StarHalo and I apologize for being a bit abrasive in the other thread, its just that IMO definitions must be paid attention to in order to deal correctly and effectively with issues like terrorism. If not, everything becomes an "exigent circumstance" and we run the risk of trampling the rule of law. 

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition



> The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.



with the added provision:



> 1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.




However, according to Glenn Greenwald this addendum to the definition of terrorism creates problems for US/NATO in afghanistan/pakistan.



> But if one accepts that broadened definition of "terrorism" -- that it includes violence that targets not only civilians but also combatants who are unarmed or not engaged in combat at the time of the attack -- it seems impossible to exclude from that term many of the acts in which the U.S. and our allies routinely engage. Indeed, a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan?




And from Jonah Goldberg at National Review:



> Much of the chatter over the weekend was whether or not the Fort Hood shooting can be classified a "terrorist attack." It seems to me this reveals one of the shortcomings of the language of the war on terror. I know there are all sorts of legalistic definitions about what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't. But it seems to me a case could be made that this was, variously, an act of war, an act of treason, or a war crime, but not an act of terrorism.
> 
> Terrorism is, by conventional definition, an attack on civilians intended to strike fear in the non-military population in order to advance a political or ideological agenda. Hasan didn't attack civilians, he attacked uniformed members of the U.S. Army in advance of their deployment to the frontlines. It was an evil act, but was it an act of terrorism?
> 
> Ultimately, if we're going to call the violent acts of Jihadis "terrorism" wherever and whenever they occur, then I guess I'm fine with calling it terrorism. But I can't help but think this illuminates some blind spots in the way we think about these questions.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRjMWY5MGNiMzQyNzM3Zjg0ZmJjYzA4NTMxYjEzYjg=


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 10, 2009)

It is obvious from things that I have read that his loyalty was somewhere other than the USA.

It is a shame, that in this day and age everyone has to fear lawsuits for racism.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 10, 2009)

*Not-Yet-Materialized Update:* You might recall in the original thread where I hypothesized about Hasan's work ethic based on the info we had at the time:



StarHalo said:


> You now have this man who is in a position that's supposed to tend to the mental heath of distraught American soldiers, who feels that these soldiers are evil and God-forsaken attackers, and shouldn't be meddling with the people and lands he identifies with.



This was clearly an exaggeration on my part, to help give insight into Hasan's mind and to illustrate what his daily life and duty entailed. 

Fast forward to tonight, where my radio news source featured their usual 7PM slot program hosted by a military veteran who frequently has inside/advance information that the national media picks up on a day or two later. Tonight's discussion was "hypothetical", for reasons which are most likely legal in nature, about some of the soldiers who were actually treated by Hasan as patients; About how there were many soldiers who went to him, and there is a common thread to all their stories, and they would be coming out to the media in the very near future..

One such "unofficial" story involves an anonymous enlisted man in 2007, who had returned from Iraq and was wounded. He was physically healed but was still psychologically troubled by what he had gone through, and so was before Hasan for treatment, which went something like this:

Hasan: "You should be dead, and your wife a widow and your sons orphans."
Enlisted: "Yeah, we had quite a few close calls, I'm very fortunate to still be here."
Hasan: "No, _you should be dead, and your wife a widow and your sons orphans._ For what you did."
Enlisted: "Excuse me?"
Hasan: "We're done here."

This particular conversation is not in any way an exaggeration or embellishment; it's a near-verbatim transcript of someone who actually went to Hasan for treatment. 

There's no way I would have thought of something that profoundly extreme and offensive when I was doing my re-creation of events; It would appear that where I thought I was exaggerating to give insight to Hasan's mind, I was actually far short and too gentle with the harsh reality.

But in any event, this is just a heads up to let you know what's coming down the news pipeline. It looks like this story is just warming up..


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 11, 2009)

Once you again start venturing into your speculative scenarios, it violates the thread guidelines. There is more than enough REAL and documented information so as to not inflame it with premature speculation and get the thread closed again. Maybe you can take this stuff to the underground forum?


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 11, 2009)

I'll edit my post so that it's a little less vague; It's not speculative - I'm using the phrase "hypothetical" to highlight that the information is pre-release and not "official", not yet distributed by the media. What I'm describing is removing my previous speculation with actual testimony, it's what you're going to see in news stories in the next 24-48 hours..


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Nov 11, 2009)

Take 3....here we come.
So far the real name caller has not shown up from the last thread.
Hopefully he has matured enough to stay out.:candle:

(insert favorite Deity here) bless you all.........


----------



## jahxman (Nov 11, 2009)

Starhalo, I will be curious to see the kind of patient reports coming out which you reference - because so far what you are saying contradicts the interviews I have seen with his former (non-muslim) patients, who all expressed bewilderment that Hasan could do this and that he had helped them a great deal with their PTSD and other post-deployment issues.

I would imagine that the psychiatrists treating men and women returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan hear some horrific stories, stories that the troops involved would probably never share with anyone else who was not bound to confidentiality. Of course, this does not excuse or even explain why Hasan did what he did. Why does anyone snap and go shoot a bunch of people? It happens, it happened the very next day in a non-military setting, but makes no sense to most of us.

It sounds to me like Hasan gave plenty of warning signs that he was not fit for duty; in a military strained for skilled resources like him this can happen, but I really hope there will be sane changes to prevent this in the future, and not knee-jerk backlash against anyone and everyone remotely connected to the Muslim faith.


----------



## Alaric Darconville (Nov 11, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> *Not-Yet-Materialized Update:*
> This was clearly an exaggeration on my part, to help give insight into Hasan's mind and to illustrate what his daily life and duty entailed.




How do you know Hasan's mind *so well*? Or are you just reverting to sensationalising things? This adds nothing of import to the discussion, and is getting tiresome.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 11, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> What I'm describing is removing my previous speculation with actual testimony, it's what you're going to see in news stories in the next 24-48 hours..





If it's the truth, hopefully we will see it soon. Sometimes the truth, or at least all of it, has trouble making it's way out of certain media establishments. 

So far, things are looking pretty bad on the part of supervisors. I wouldn't personally say that they have blood on their hands since Hasan is fully responsible for his own actions but I agree with Lux that when you have a guy linked to some really strange speech, who wants out of the military, they ought to have just granted his wish. That's not to say that the guy couldn't have gone and shot up another group of people but it seems that some serious warning signs were not treated more seriously, possibly due to PC fears. 




> *Razorback
> *It is a shame, that in this day and age everyone has to fear lawsuits for racism.



That is a real shame and unfortunately this type of illogical thinking is only gaining strength.


----------



## Lightraven (Nov 11, 2009)

Starhalo is referring to a local radio program in Los Angeles hosted by U.S. Army Reserve infantry officer and veteran of Iraq, first lieutenant Bryan Suits.

I heard this particular show and Starhalo is repeating it very closely. The enlisted soldier, according to Bryan Suits, told the shooter he would report him to the Inspector General. Hasan supposedly replied, "I don't care." The enlisted soldier then filed his complaint with IG, but was discharged shortly after (honorably, I presume) and never heard back.

It was as infuriating to me as anything I've heard yet. Any psychiatrist telling a soldier (apparently more than one) that his wife should be a widow and kids should be orphans for his "crimes" should be removed from the Army and escorted under guard off the post. The FBI should covertly install a wiretap on his phone and while the attack may still have gone forward, he should not have been allowed on a military base to empty trash cans, let alone been a major counselling soldiers. 

My first terrorist training in 1995 was a short block (2 hours?) by an FBI agent. I was disappointed that the entire 2 hours was spent DEFINING terrorism. No wonder this country is so stupid about it. Hey, it doesn't really matter if Fort Hood was "terrorism", "caniballism" or 100 "accidental discharges" in a row, these people are dead and injured.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 11, 2009)

Lightraven said:


> Starhalo is referring to a local radio program in Los Angeles hosted by U.S. Army Reserve infantry officer and veteran of Iraq, first lieutenant Bryan Suits.



And anyone who'd like to hear the clip, click here and skip to about 2:30, the segment is only a few minutes in length: http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/m...m640.com&SITE_ID=616&STATION_ID=KFI-AM&TRACK=


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 11, 2009)

Lightraven said:


> Starhalo is referring to a local radio program in Los Angeles hosted by U.S. Army Reserve infantry officer and veteran of Iraq, first lieutenant Bryan Suits. blah blah blah



With respect to you and Starhalo, this is hearsay, speculative, and unnecessarily inflammatory, and I wish you guys would do this in an Underground Forum thread. *If it continues here, then I would ask Empath to either delete your posts, or lock this thread also.*

Until such time that there is a series of actual written reports or clear evidence to back up speculative sources, then with respect, I would appreciate it if you kept your hearsay comments to yourself. It insults the honor and memory of those who were killed to toss out premature, speculative scenarios for your own self-agrandisement.

I can speculate based upon a radio source that interviewed a former Apollo 14 astronaut who is absolutely certain that he has seen UFO's and little green men, which is being covered up. Or other actual eye witnesses that called into a radio show that verifies absolutely that Elvis is still alive.

Patriot, I clarified what I meant by "blood on their hands," in my second post.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 11, 2009)

Sgt. Kimberly Munley (pictured with Defense Secretary Robert Gates) is out of the hospital and even made an appearance on Oprah today.



LuxLuthor said:


> Until such time that there is a series of actual written reports or clear evidence to back up speculative sources, then with respect, I would appreciate it if you kept your hearsay comments to yourself.



1LT Suits was more specific this evening, noting that _soldiers who were treated by Hasan are personally contacting him_, and he has an open invite to other soldiers to send in their stories, as he is collecting them for release.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> 1LT Suits was more specific this evening, noting that _soldiers who were treated by Hasan are personally contacting him_, and he has an open invite to other soldiers to send in their stories, as he is collecting them for release.


What part of speculative, unverified source crap do you not understand?

I have it on good authority that the radio announcer has now interviewed over a thousand people who all swear they have seen Elvis alive in the last week, and their signed affidavits and photographs will be forthcoming for an official release on the King.

PM sent to Empath to please close this thread.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 12, 2009)

Great picture Star. I don't even know Kimberly but I somehow find myself really proud of her. She's a real hero in my book. What a brave soldier to have persevered in such an unreal circumstance.


----------



## SFG2Lman (Nov 12, 2009)

easy luxluthor, hes only trying to provide more information, everything, and i mean everything, excepting what came out of General Cone's mouth is speculation, even the most reliable news station is speculating, the truth lies somewhere between the overly PC and the overly prejudice, of course we know nothing about what actually went through his head but hearing all sides and taking everything with a grain of salt is the media consumer's job, the decision is ours, but even speculative information can be helpful (negatively or positively) in making educated choices about what we think happened


----------



## Patriot (Nov 12, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> 1LT Suits was more specific this evening, noting that _soldiers who were treated by Hasan are personally contacting him_, and he has an open invite to other soldiers to send in their stories, as he is collecting them for release.





All little snapshots in a large colage. I think part of the uncovering process involves having to examine with objectivity. Some of us will toss out what we don't perceive to be valid, others will add this to the cumulative case in an effort to build their ideas. Regarding the source, I don't have a problem with it and recognize that some don't even consider Fox or CNN verified sources since they believe everything is a conspiracy. We probably need a little leeway in the area of sources. Just my 1 cent. As long as the name callers remain in hibernation we should be ok. 

I'm enjoying this thread bwt. It's nice to have a "real" topic instead of talking about barbecues or something.


----------



## Empath (Nov 12, 2009)

While the discussion involves a topic of religion, particularly in an extremist fashion, attempting to hold the discussion to a particular level of acceptability is very difficult. Under a certain level is of little practical value to the topic, and above a certain level it gets into areas that could be offensive to many of our members. We have members from all over the world, and of all types of religious persuasion. No doubt none would want what they hold sacred to be unfairly challenged as root cause or even contributive toward mass murder and mayhem.

Can I determine with any accuracy when or if comments that seem necessary to the discussion goes too far? Perhaps to a limited extent, though functionally, likely not. 

Lux, the topic is important enough that your creation of a 2nd thread is likely appreciated by many. Your efforts of responsibility in holding it to a perceived limit is admirable and appreciated. To do so would likely prove frustrating.

So, what are our choices? We could close it now, or we could let it go until it becomes apparent that it is beyond acceptable.

I'd be inclined at this time to ask our participants to consider the directions the thread takes, and it's effect on others outside our own spheres of belief and preferences. If it becomes clear that it is upsetting to some, or if common sense shows it beyond proper consideration, then it will be closed immediately.

I'd still recommend the areas of potential friction be addressed on a thread in the Underground. The Underground was designed with just such a situation in mind.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 12, 2009)

Empath said:


> I'd be inclined at this time to ask our participants to consider the directions the thread takes, and it's effect on others outside our own spheres of belief and preferences.



I think you were clear enough in the first thread to avoid _religious_ speculation. I would agree that some of the polarizing and debate-prone aspects of religious matters should be relegated to the Underground. However, as a straightforward collection of information as provided by the media, and reconstruction of events and interpretation free of unnecessary religious and cultural accusation, these threads have done well to provide a broad range of sources and data, and should continue to do so.

I would be entirely comfortable with this thread being viewed by any person, including those persons involved directly or indirectly to the actual event. We should strive to keep it that way.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2009)

Empath, thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

My objections have nothing to do with being politically correct about this murdering "Dr. Terror." Rather, once you open the door to anyone making comments, and that being interpreted as accurate by a radio show...it puts this whole conversation and documentation one step above trashy National Enquirer fiction. People can find supposed sources on this topic all over the map, and present them in patterns of heresay to put forth whatever theory you want.

Having supposed Hassan patients (servicemembers) calling in and reporting whatever--without certified affidavits, or at the very least, written proof of an actual visit appointment, all of which are protected under patient confidentiality is an insult to finding out the facts of what happened.

Someone even from that base could be sufficiently enraged to call and pretend to be a Hassan patient--report that he forced them to undergo aggressive anal probes, or that he screamed alien chants until they had blood dripping from their eyes, or that he shoved bamboo splinters under their fingernails, or told them their mother wears army boots, or he wishes they had died in a previous tour--all of which are totally useless and can be collected and made to say whatever the radio presenter (or StarHalo) has on their agenda, such as telling all of us a fantasy reconstruction story about what they think was really going on the shooter's mind.

However, if and when there is credible documented backup evidence, then new source information can be useful at establishing what actually happened, and how the ball was dropped. 

The existence of his PowerPoint presentation slides content, the direct interviews by credible authorities of the victims and witnesses of the shooting, the existence of internet and phone records communicating with his Virginia Iman now in Yemen, direct quotes from clearly identified co-workers and residency training supervisors are examples of valid evidence that allows a proper understanding.

I have no loyalty to this monster or any regard for his relationship to anyone or anything that contributed to such atrocities. I do care about what *actual *pieces of the puzzle can be gleaned, since this can happen again.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 12, 2009)

I got to watch the aforementioned episode of Oprah; 5'2" Sgt "Mighty Mouse" Munley seemed in good spirits and was eager to get back to work. Oprah made only a few indirect questions about the specifics of what went on, but Munley noted that at the time the call came in, she was cleaning and refueling her squad car for a shift change. Upon arriving, there was quite a bit of confusion on the scene, with most bystanders pointing in the direction of where the attack was taking place. After going up a nearby hill, armed only with her service pistol, she encountered gunfire and engaged Hasan. There weren't many more details beyond that, aside from mentioning her injuries in passing - she was first grazed on a knuckle on her right hand, and one round struck her leg squarely. She noted that she was completely conscious and aware for the entire event, and had to focus on her breathing to avoid going into shock.

Sgt Mark Todd, who responded at the same time as Munley, was also there. Todd, who was not injured, carried on after Munley and was ultimately able to remove the gun from the now-fallen Hasan's hand; immediately after, he and several other officers began CPR and life-saving measures on Hasan. He noted it was the first time in his 25 years of police service that he had ever used his sidearm in the field.


----------



## Empath (Nov 12, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> ......once you open the door to anyone making comments, and that being interpreted as accurate by a radio show...it puts this whole conversation and documentation one step above trashy National Enquirer fiction. People can find supposed sources on this topic all over the map, and present them in patterns of heresay to put forth whatever theory you want.



That too, is a concern for me. I'm not a big fan of the Art Bell sort of sensationalism as a journalistic style. Then too, I have to recognize that we aren't a journalistic news source. We're only discussing the situation among ourselves; meaning we can respond that we find a particular source questionable. I'm more interested in the respectable social interaction, fairness to one another, and the 'Cafe' type laid-back atmosphere.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 12, 2009)

A press briefing just wrapped up at Fort Hood a few minutes ago; not much new info to share aside from Hasan being officially charged with 13 counts of murder. The spokesperson noted that Hasan is legally not allowed to speak with the press while he is receiving medical treatment. 

Only one of the wounded still remains in ICU, and all the wounded are said to be in stable condition.

A spokesman for the Army's Criminal Division urged patience and said that there was no estimated time on how long the investigation would take due to the magnitude and scale of the crime scene, which covers not just the Readiness Center, but four other buildings and two parking lots, and the several hundred cars in the general area. He also implied that there were only "two police officers" who engaged Hasan, which would point to Munley and Todd.

Also of note: President Obama has ordered a full review of all the federal intelligence data/communications collected in regards to Hasan. I predict that this will be a dead end -- Since the feds found nothing they could act on, we can deduce that there was nothing in those conversations that indicated an imminent or even possible attack; it was most likely the same anti-Western sentiment found in any extreme-leaning establishment, so would exactly could be done? A charge of "Talking Somewhat Like Someone Who Might Eventually Be A Terrorist"? A Breech Of Conduct charge wouldn't be appropriate, as it's usually reserved for more extensive violations, like blatant adultery (plus charging someone for a non-threatening conversation with a spiritual guide would be very politically questionable.) The transcripts will eventually be released, and they will probably be rather caustic, and will re-ignite the usual polarizing cultural/religious issues, but in the end, it will just be extremist proselytizing and echo-chambering between two men that wouldn't fall under any criminal charge.

And a new question: Hasan made roughly $90,000 a year, was not paying/repaying for schooling, was not married or involved, and lived in a $300-a-month apartment -- where did the money go?


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 12, 2009)

Patriot said:


> That is a real shame and unfortunately this type of illogical thinking is only gaining strength.



Continuing along this thought, I know a young man who is a University lecturer.

Recently, he had a debate with one of his students over a topic (he is a chemistry lecturer)
He eventually lead to points in the discussion that she could no longer disagree with or disprove, and therefore she was 'defeated' in their debate.

One week later, he was on review by the Uni for racism.

Turns out that she was a different race to him, and didn't like the fact that she lost the discussion and entered a formal complaint that he was racist...

He had over 8 witnesses, a couple of whom were the same race as the accusing female, to back up his side of the story.

Yet his job is still on the line, and he is still under review.

The world sometimes :shrug:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2009)

Reported on Fox News tonight and shown acual image of actual business cards Hassan had printed up with no mention of his military credentials, and underneath his name the letters: "SoA (SWT)" which stands for "Soldier of Allah" & "Subhanahu Wa Ta'all," which means "glory to God."

Also in that Fox News story is another slide show link of his sparse, one room apartment, & minimal contents. He apparently likes spartan white. Most curious of all are some self-prescribed prescription bottles-Tesalon for cough suppression, but another for Combivir to treat HIV. Please tell me he did expose the emergency and hospital workers to HIV on top of everything else. It can be used for medical workers as a prevention to exposure of HIV in needles, but a shrink is not going to be drawing blood.

There is further an item in this same article with questions about Hassan sending money to someone in Pakistan: 



> Meanwhile, authorities say they're looking at whether Hasan was sending money to Pakistan --and if so, why. The Virginia-born soldier is the son of Palestinian immigrants, was raised in the United States and has some relatives still living in the West Bank.
> 
> Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told the Morning News that sources "outside of the [intelligence] community" have information about Hasan's possible ties to Pakistan, which is battling a large Islamist insurgency movement.
> 
> ...


There are even stronger criticisms of Hassan by his supervisors and peers during his training. They will have to live with the results of their hesitancy to act on his case.

Meanwhile this is likely the penultimate example of the hand-wringing obsession of the typical politically correct leaders:


> Following the tragic mass-murder of Americans at the Fort Hood, Texas military installation at the hands of a suspected radical Jihadist, Homeland Security Secretary *Janet Napolitano's first priority was to reassure the world that U.S. authorities were taking measures to quell anti-Islam sentiments after last week's mass-murder *by a Muslim serving as U.S. Army psychiatrist.


I agree with groups asking for her resignation on heels of her earlier incompetence, but she is merely a product of the whole "P.C.' mentality.



> When Napolitano released a report saying that returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan should be watched as they could become domestic conservative terrorists, according to MoveForwardAmerica.org, the FBI went so far as to film the recent tea party protests of loyal Americans because of warnings that conservatives could become terrorist threats.
> Napolitano approved release of a report that implied a variety of groups, including veterans, pro life activists, and supporters of gun rights, could be potential anti-government terrorists. She also said that the 9/11 terrorists entered the country from Canada, when in fact they came from overseas.
> "With her ignorance about Islamic terrorism, no wonder she is wasting time examining our troops, anti-tax, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment and other conservative groups," stated Move Forward America.
> 
> ...


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 12, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> ...it puts this whole conversation and documentation one step above trashy National Enquirer fiction. People can find supposed sources on this topic all over the map, and present them in patterns of heresay to put forth whatever theory you want.
> 
> ...all of which are totally useless and can be collected and made to say whatever the radio presenter (or StarHalo) has on their agenda





LuxLuthor said:


> according to MoveForwardAmerica.org, the FBI went so far as to film the recent tea party protests of loyal Americans because of warnings that conservatives could become terrorist threats.



According to Wikipedia, in an undisputed entry:

_Move America Forward is a conservative political action group based in California that grew out of the campaign to recall California Governor Gray Davis. Move America Forward seeks to advance many conservative causes by lobbying of politicians at the local, state, and federal levels, through media campaigns and with grass-roots activism. Their tactics have often been confrontational and have sparked controversy.

Move America Forward has referred to those politicians who wish to pull all troops out of Iraq as "cheese-eating surrender monkey". The organization later stated that the term was also intended as an insult to France.

Move America Forward's leader Melanie Morgan and her supporters regularly characterize those who challenge them or oppose the war as "communists" or "far-left". She also regularly invokes free speech and free press — despite Move America Forward's stated aim of "restrict[ing] liberal and activist media". After having appeared once, Producers for PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer claimed she would never be on the program again._

You hassle me endlessly in your own thread that you're willing to have closed to just restrict sources, and then you post an article from a We-Support-The-Teabaggers/Liberals-Are-Commies "news source"? 

Are you serious?!


----------



## jtr1962 (Nov 12, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> And a new question: Hasan made roughly $90,000 a year, was not paying/repaying for schooling, was not married or involved, and lived in a $300-a-month apartment -- where did the money go?


Well, I've known people (mostly neighbor's kids) who have made six figures, lived with their parents not paying rent, and who not only had zero savings, but also five or six figures of credit card debt. Spending the money on cars, gadgets, clothes, gifts, eating all three meals out, etc., it's not at all hard to go through a good salary with little to show for it. Maybe he had some out of control buying obsession? That's actually more common than people like to admit. You buy a lot of junk you don't need, your house gets crowded, you give most of it away or sell it for a fraction of what you paid, and then repeat ad nauseum.

Sadly, we may never know the true motives here for this horrible event. IMO he just snapped under pressure, probably chose the wrong career to begin with. In the final analysis that's usually the real reason mass killings like this occur. And unfortunately, it's also really hard to spot someone who is at the breaking point to prevent things like this from occurring again.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 13, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> Blah Blah Blah....Are you serious?!



Got stung there a bit did you, and biting back? Of course I'm serious. I quoted www.examiner.com and the essence of those details, no matter who they quoted within the article are well substantiated. I made no endorsement or link to "moveamericaforward.com" which I have never heard of before. This was simply one of the first links that came up on a google search of Napolitano's buffoonery, and I recognized the accuracy of the facts presented. I did not link a call in radio file which you seem to consider a valuable & accurate source and contribution to the facts at Ft. Hood....what did you say....the confirmations will be forthcoming in 24-48 hours? That window had passed. Where's the beef?

Not that your sidebar conversation has anything to do with your Ft. Hood Shooting "Inside the mind of Hassan" and call in radio show unfounded speculatations, but if you question the details referenced about Napolitano's earlier actions, at least take the time to find out that they are well documented.

In case you believe Fox News is also a jaded news source, here is the Washington Post story making it clear, including her notifying law enforcement to be on alert.

In case you believe Fox News and The Washington Post are jaded news sources, here is her non-apology "apology" that got her deeper into her own incompetence on the official Department of Homeland Security's website.

Perhaps you specifically doubt the veracity of the FBI filming ordinary Tea Party Americans who are peacefully exercising their First Ammendment rights, that you also feel the need to insult them with your vulgur sexual innuendo of "Tea Baggers"? Although it may be challenging, do some research first. Where do you find statements at the www.examiner.com source I linked that says liberals are commies?

I could do the same thing regarding her outrageous statements that inflamed Canadian officials, but I have already made it clear the difference between factual events with evidence, and "inside the mind" speculations and hearsay self-agrandisements which gives no benefit to finding out what actually happened at Ft. Hood.


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Nov 13, 2009)

Let's put this way, this guys knew exactly what he was doing and basically manipulated the system to work for him since he worked for the U.S military. *Trust me. this is just a test run of their future guerrilla warfare here in the U.S and they are checking on how the current administration will react to crisis like this so they will be better prepared next time. Also as part of the PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE that strikes FEAR among the mass population in the same time.*


----------



## SFG2Lman (Nov 13, 2009)

HELL LIGHT said:


> Let's put this way, this guys knew exactly what he was doing and basically manipulated the system to work for him since he worked for the U.S military. *Trust me. this is just a test run of their future guerrilla warfare here in the U.S and they are checking on how the current administration will react to crisis like this so they will be better prepared next time. Also as part of the PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE that strikes FEAR among the mass population in the same time.*



dude! i thought you were banned for being a douche on the CPFMP...i guess 2 separate fora...but now you should definitely be banned here as well


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 13, 2009)

Hell Light, seeing more and more of Hassan's connections to known Al Qaeda and other Islamic Terrorist websites, as well as his own statements and actions, I agree they will see this Ft. Hood instance as a new way to recruit and wreak terror from within the USA. That is why it is so important to examine all the connections and facts to discern what has been unique about Hassan, and not paint innocent Islamic followers with this broad brush.

As we have learned more details, there should now be no hesitation on the part of our leaders and officials to hesitate calling an Islamic terrorist an Islamic Terrorist, or to dismiss this event as a criminal law enforcement action, or a simple case of a person with mental illness who snapped. There is already too long of a string of events and actions that take it beyond a psychiatric disease. No doubt that will be an attempted legal defense at trial, however.


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Nov 13, 2009)

SFG2Lman said:


> dude! i thought you were banned for being a douche on the CPFMP...i guess 2 separate fora...but now you should definitely be banned here as well


 
*Is this a surprise to you???*

*BTW:Not in support of his terrorist act but this guy is very, very cunning and studied how the legal system works in this country before he strike. Basically he a role model of the future terrorist operation that will strike U.S in the near future.*

*And yes I am still on CPFMP otherwise how can I take care of business???*


----------



## Empath (Nov 13, 2009)

Hell Light, don't participate any further in this thread.

I consider the thread topic important. I also consider it very near to our limits. Your very presence in it risks it. It will take a special effort on everyone's part to hold the thread to the limits. Your part, is to remain out of the thread.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 13, 2009)

Thank you Lux for the links. I bumped into the business cards either yesterday or late last night sometime but forgot to post the picture. That's pretty blatant though huh. :ironic:


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 13, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Not that your sidebar conversation has anything to do with your Ft. Hood Shooting "Inside the mind of Hassan"



The title of the thread is Ft. Hood Shootings..

I'm having a sidebar because you harangued me and the thread in general as you felt the news sources might just be about others' tangential and unrelated agendas. 

Then you made a post using a source borne of your tangential and unrelated agendas which you specifically highlighted.

I pointed this out, and your response was to provide more links to the tangential and unrelated agendas.

My interest is and has been the integrity and on-topic diversity of the thread; I felt your overbearing and near-fanatical drive for only "trusted" sources, as defined by you, was generally unprofessional and put a burden on the thread. But attempting to discuss it is clearly only making it worse, so I will let it slide, in the interest of what is otherwise a very good thread.

We return you to Fort Hood..


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 13, 2009)

Starhalo, since this is not the Underground, I will endeavor to keep this in line and respectful--as both of us know we should. As Empath said this is a serious and important discussion. My only issue has been trying to separate what we know as facts from speculation and theoretical fiction, even if plausible. I believe unsubstantiated opinions cloud "the truth," and inflame passions more than they already are.

I will also admit that having served 4 years in the US Navy, and having lost some very close friends in the 9/11 attack, that this shooting is extremely poignant in that it is looking more and more like it could have been prevented. To me it feels like an unhealed wound has been ripped open all over again. I cannot imagine what the families and servicemembers close to the tragedy are feeling as they learn more about this Doctor Terror's history.

My purpose in bringing up the "politically correct/Napolitano" issue is because the failure to take preventive actions against Hassan to some degree increasingly appears to be at the root of this horror, and we need to back off everything being "P.C." for the greater good of detecting, reporting, and stopping more of these events from happening.

In any case we should all be on the same page when terrorism happens to anyone, anywhere in the world, so I apologize if my trying to seek clarity of events resulted in being overbearing or obnoxious.


----------



## Empath (Nov 13, 2009)

Lupara, your efforts to discuss the "truth" of Islam and offering links to controversial political leanings is not what this thread is about.

Such is what we urge you to take to the Underground. Your posts were removed here. Feel free to express the opinions there.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 13, 2009)

News updates seems to have slowed quite a bit. I suppose it's probably only natural that things become a more secretive as the investigation progresses. 




*New posters to this thread, please* *read the entire thread before posting here. *


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 13, 2009)

His lawyers report that Hasan appears to be paralyzed from the waist down, with severe pain in his hands. 

More of his classmates are coming forward with stories. From CNN:

His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia [Islamic] law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," the source says Hasan responded.
The incident was corroborated by another doctor who was present.
The source also recalled an instance in which Hasan was asked if the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant document, to which Hasan replied, "No, not particularly."

Even though Hasan earned his medical degree and residency, some of his fellow students believed that he "didn't have the intellect" to be in the program and was not academically rigorous in his coursework.
Hasan "was not fit to be in the military, let alone in the mental health profession," this classmate told CNN. "No one in class would ever have referred a patient to him, or trusted him with anything."
The first classmate echoed this sentiment.
Hasan was "coddled, accommodated and pushed through that masters of public health despite substandard performance," the classmate said. He was "put in the fellowship program because they didn't know what to do with him."


----------



## McGizmo (Nov 13, 2009)

Although it is just my opinion and some would disagree, Hasan failed humanity as a human being. I don't accept the teachings of the radical jihad and whether he was a true believer or just confused beyond reason is beside the point. He did what he did and is accountable for it. Some of the information being provided here in the thread is probably no better than hearsay but it seems to have enough ring of truth to be plausible at the very least. If this information provides a profile or map for warning signs, then what? Is it reasonable to hope to avoid a similar situation in the future and if yes, at what cost?

In addition to questioning responsibilities and accountabilities, this incident also provides opportunities. I can only hope for the best to come from it but I have my doubts. 

I view Hasan as a cancer in humanity and I don't consider him an isolated instance, unfortunately.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 13, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> If this information provides a profile or map for warning signs, then what? Is it reasonable to hope to avoid a similar situation in the future and if yes, at what cost?



Therein lies the rub - picture yourself as an NSA agent who has before you transcripts of all of Hasan's communications, his profile, surveillance data, a giant file composed of everything gathered about Hasan for many years. The profile probably goes something like this: _Overweight loner, goes along to get along in career, standoffish extremist views, otherwise benign. _All his communications with questionable subjects are just both parties agreeing with one another about the usual anti-Western sentiments. His coworkers dislike him but his superiors give positive reviews. In a society that measures contribution monetarily, he's done very well as a professional. 

There's nothing criminal in any of it, he's just another little dog with a big bark who never bites, and it's been that way for many years. So now what?

The response that keeps coming up is "That definitely should have raised some red flags," but the fact that you have the data is the raised red flag, Hasan is a large collection of red flags that's being observed 24/7. The potential problem has been acknowledged, it's under intense non-stop scrutiny. But all this is doing is turning up more of the same data; he's still spouting extremist views, still on his career track that should be damaged by his behavior but isn't.

And this cycle drags on for years, until he finally does something that goes completely against his profile, something that's wildly unpredictable in what was an otherwise very predictable subject, a boring subject, who suddenly commits the greatest act of violence on a military base in American history.

So if you were an NSA agent on November 4th, with the entire file for Hasan's life on your desk, what would you, could you, have done?


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Nov 13, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> So if you were an NSA agent on November 4th, with the entire file for Hasan's life on your desk, what would you, could you, have done?


 
I would have documented everything in triplicate, informed my supervisor, share the information with any other intelligence agency that would be interested. I would continue to do so on a regular basis so I could have the satisfaction of the "I told you so" moment. 
Read up on the Hawala System- the informal way used to move money by a vast number of Muslims to impeded tracking.
We all still remeber that the CIA provided funding, training and equipment to the Mujahadeen and OBL during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan don't we?


----------



## Patriot (Nov 13, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> The response that keeps coming up is "That definitely should have raised some red flags," but the fact that you have the data is the raised red flag, Hasan is a large collection of red flags that's being observed 24/7. The potential problem has been acknowledged, it's under intense non-stop scrutiny. But all this is doing is turning up more of the same data; he's still spouting extremist views, still on his career track that should be damaged by his behavior but isn't.
> 
> And this cycle drags on for years, until he finally does something that goes completely against his profile, something that's wildly unpredictable in what was an otherwise very predictable subject, a boring subject, who suddenly commits the greatest act of violence on a military base in American history.
> 
> So if you were an NSA agent on November 4th, with the entire file for Hasan's life on your desk, what would you, could you, have done?





Admittedly, probably little or nothing as an NSA guy but that's not the only authoritative party that a red flag would have come up for. It's possible that had he no longer been in the military this crime wouldn't have happened. I just don't understand the PC politics in our military or why it's exists. You're supposed to be part of a team in the armed forces. If you're not going to be part of the team or your ideology goes against what the job entails, get out! .... and push those out who aren't team players. Hasan wasn't a team player. 

Regarding whether or not he hauled off and "did something against his profile" or not, I'm not so sure. I say, where there's a will, there's a way. He had obviously been harboring these feelings for a long time. What are signs of levels of progression to the next step that would be abnormal for his profile? Radical business cards, extremist contacts, hateful speech directed to troops? At some point he jumped the gap from opposing viewpoint to hateful outward verbal expressions. Then from hateful expression to an act of violence. I would maintain that he showed many of the characteristics which lead up to the first violent act. His first violent act just happened to involve murder and he may have figured, 'why just stop with one?'

As Lux stated in the other thread, those involved with him professionally bear some of the responsibility whether directly or indirectly. If it was indirectly in that superiors were constrained by a bunch of PC red tape then we ought to be looking at the way we handle business at the military admin level. If his superiors just turned a blind eye because they didn't want to deal with him, then I think they should probably be dealt with as any employee who fails to do their job.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 14, 2009)

Empath,

Will take your advice. I should have posted that "link" in the underground. Please allow me to clarify: I see it as the responsibility of all inquiring minds to inform ourselves of the truth of these matters, objectively; pleasant or unpleasant. That was my only intent; and not to push some imagined political agenda with some "controversial" link. Point taken though, and I appreciate the that moderating is hard work sometimes; didn't intend to cause you any grief there.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 15, 2009)

Possible answer to my NSA question you didn't think of: Officials above Hasan at Walter Reed were actively scheming for ways to get him kicked out of the Army; one idea was Army Regulation 600-9, a 57-page rule dictating height-to-weight and body fat guidelines - they were going to get him discharged for being fat. But a higher committee noted that you must give the subject the opportunity to lose the weight, and Hasan, with all the resources of an Army officer plus a pharmacist, undoubtedly would have. So the idea was dumped.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 16, 2009)

Reminder: 
9/11 - Flight 93: Last words from cockpit; "Allahu Akbar !"

Nidal Hasan - Last words before murdering 13 and wounding twice that many; "Allahu Akbar !"

Am I missing something?


----------



## SFG2Lman (Nov 16, 2009)

first a little tidbit, NSA NEVER under any circumstances spies on americans, thats FBI territory, and second, hindsight is always 20/20 we have the obvious outcome now, but the cold hard truth is that in the military people bounce around so much that building a profile with enough data to prosecute, is impossible, because its just that, hearsay, and even if we had kicked him out of the military, he would have undoubtedly committed the same act against civilians instead of us who have volunteered our lives for the country, 

the sad fact is that the military has become so PC that it has hamstrung itself, we have to win wars "nicely" and win the hearts and minds while we're at it. That being said, one can't kick him out for his views, the constitution guarantees that. And violating that would be more of a tragedy than what happened at Ft. Hood because all we fight for would then be meaningless.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 16, 2009)

SFG2Lman,
Well put; it's the Constitution that is being attacked. 
PC does nothing but constrain and confuse people, (they're uncertain what to do); therefore leadership is needed to spell it out and point the way. 
Thanks for the clear thinking there SFG2Lman.


----------



## McGizmo (Nov 16, 2009)

SFG2Lman said:


> ......and even if we had kicked him out of the military, he would have undoubtedly committed the same act against civilians instead of us who have volunteered our lives for the country,
> 
> ....



Perhaps you are right in this comment. At one point as the information was coming forth I considered the possibility that Hasan, because of his religious beliefs, felt he was being forced to engage an enemy which he felt was not his enemy. His ultimate response was to escalate his involvement and respond as he did and against those he held accountable for his predicament. He had the option of taking out his jihad against civilians but chose to loose it on the base instead. Is there any significance in this? I don't know. :shrug:

With giving stuff to neighbors as he did, there seemed to be some humanity left in him that went beyond recognizing only those of his ilk as having any "value". Were all non Muslims his enemy or was he more focused than that?

I am glad that some people have him figured out. I know I will never understand someone like him or fathom their crimes against humanity. If he considered the US military as his enemy, that is something I might at least understand but certainly not agree with. I will never understand how someone can embrace some higher being and then take human life, supposedly on their behalf.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 16, 2009)

SFG2Lman said:


> first a little tidbit, NSA NEVER under any circumstances spies on americans



In San Francisco in 2002, some technicians at AT&T were notified that the NSA was coming to do interviews for a special project that would take place at the Folsom Street building location. The Folsom building is one of several "internet switching stations" in the US featuring a giant fiber-optic backbone through which nearly all international internet traffic flows. On a tour of the building in 2003, one technician pointed out a particular door on the sixth floor, noting, "That's the new secret room and only one guy is allowed in there." Though the techs knew it wasn't right, there were cutbacks going on and no one wanted to put their job in jeopardy, so nothing was said about it beyond that. Some time later, technician Mark Klein was under floor panels on the seventh floor troubleshooting the network/cables, when he noticed a splitter on the main network line - someone had deliberately installed a connection that was making a copy of every single bit of international internet data, and running it down to a room on the sixth floor - the "one guy" room. A technician Klein was taking over a job for had schematics and parts lists for what was in the room, most notably several racks of high-speed communications analysis computers that could pick out red-flagged keywords and make a note of them. All international internet communications going through AT&T's Folsom branch were under 24/7 full-spectrum surveillance in this one room. 

Klein noted that one of the "employees" who worked in the room at one time showed him some keys hanging from a chain under his shirt, "And he started saying 'this one is for San Diego' and 'this one is for Seattle..'"

Because of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006, this is all now a matter of public record; you can search for "AT&T spying", "611 Folsom Street", "Room 641A", etc.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 16, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> He had the option of taking out his jihad against civilians but chose to loose it on the base instead. Is there any significance in this?



His religious beliefs state that you can only die a martyr if you are killed in war against the enemy - so just killing random people isn't an option if you want to be righteous, it must be against enemy soldiers in battle. This is probably why he opted for mere firearms and not something more immediately destructive, so God would consider it a "fair fight", and give Hasan a hero's welcome to heaven.


----------



## McGizmo (Nov 16, 2009)

Thanks for the insight StarHalo. It seems that Hasan's motivation then was not the same as those involved in 9/11 or perhaps he limited his perception of who the enemy was compared to those terrorists involved in 9/11. This might be thin ice so please don't bother venturing out on it on my behalf.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 16, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> It seems that Hasan's motivation then was not the same as those involved in 9/11 or perhaps he limited his perception of who the enemy was compared to those terrorists involved in 9/11.



You have the general gist of it; the 9/11 attackers viewed themselves as soldiers in a war with the US as a whole, so a full-scale military-type strike on locations critical to the enemy (and the enemy's morale) was ideal. Though there would be collateral damage, the importance of the attack to their side would be so great that martyrdom would be guaranteed.


----------



## jahxman (Nov 16, 2009)

LUPARA said:


> SFG2Lman,
> Well put; it's the Constitution that is being attacked.
> PC does nothing but constrain and confuse people, (they're uncertain what to do); therefore leadership is needed to spell it out and point the way.
> Thanks for the clear thinking there SFG2Lman.


 
Just lost me there Lupara - SFG2Lman's point about the constitution was that it guarantees the right of freedom of expression, and Hasan's statements and beliefs by themselves couldn't be used to boot him because of it.

I didn't read anything in SFG2Lman's post about the constitution being attacked. This nosensical statement and your earlier post seem likely to derail this discussion and get this thread closed as well, something I'd like to avoid.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 16, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I know I will never understand someone like him or fathom their crimes against humanity...I will never understand how someone can embrace some higher being and then take human life, supposedly on their behalf.



This is true and seems bewildering until you look back through history and see how many millions of followers commit unspeakable atrociites in the name of religion, political regime, power, money, or inspired by a charismatic leader. Many of them are devoutly religious and able to compartmentalize their abuses.


----------



## Empath (Nov 16, 2009)

Let's try to remember that discussing the application of Islamic religion as "reason" for the attack is Underground material, and is unfair to the international and diverse religious background of CPF. Those that may feel a justification in disagreeing, may not feel free to expand on the conflict you're introducing.

The extremist nature of Hasan's reasoning can be reasonably rationalized. The non-extremist application of the massive number of practicing Islamics' beliefs should be done in a setting that permits proper and strong rebuttal.


----------



## Greg G (Nov 16, 2009)

SFG2Lman said:


> .....and even if we had kicked him out of the military, he would have undoubtedly committed the same act against civilians instead of us who have volunteered our lives for the country,
> 
> That being said, one can't kick him out for his views, the constitution guarantees that. And violating that would be more of a tragedy than what happened at Ft. Hood because all we fight for would then be meaningless.


 

If Hasan had staged his massacre in a civilian Texas setting his shooting rampage would likely have been a short one. 

Our Constitution is a social contract designed to alleviate the inconveniences that exist in nature, not permit them to play out. What Hasan engaged in first was sedition, and then treason. Any constitution that allows members of a social contract to have their right to life taken away by a member claiming First Amendment rights amounts to nothing but lawlessness. 

There must be a balance. 

Time to start enforcing the Smith act again. The SCOTUS may overturn some of the convictions, but at lest it will hinder people like Hasan who want to harm fellow citizens.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 16, 2009)

Empath said:


> Let's try to remember that discussing the application of Islamic religion as "reason" for the attack is Underground material



I didn't mention any specific religion.


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Nov 16, 2009)

I am amazed this thread has lasted this long.
Empath- do you consider theory and or consipracy theories off limits and subject to removal by yourself on the grounds of speculation?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 16, 2009)

RAGE CAGE said:


> I am amazed this thread has lasted this long.
> Empath- do you consider theory and or consipracy theories off limits and subject to removal by yourself on the grounds of speculation?



You thinking maybe the Romulins are involved? (They are a shifty bunch) 


A bit of levity.


----------



## Empath (Nov 17, 2009)

"Theory and or conspiracy theories" is rather general for a rule.

I wouldn't want people feeling like they needed to submit posts for our approval.

Discuss the topic as you would among casual friends, but keep in mind the makeup of your friends. Your friends are from all nations, all religions, all sort of political leanings, all races, varied lifestyle preferences and made up of differences I can't even think of at the time. You need to be able to relax in the Cafe, and so do they.

Handled skillfully, the range of commentary can be very large.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 17, 2009)

Jawman,

I'm not trying to derail the thread; and my understanding of Sgt's post was the same as yours. I did post in a hurry and just re-read it and I agree it's a little tangental. 

I disagree with Starhalo's take on why Hasan did the deed. 

Hasan is guaranteed a fair trial; s let's see how it all works out.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 17, 2009)

LUPARA said:


> I disagree with Starhalo's take on why Hasan did the deed.



All your posts thus far seem to agree with my hypothesis, how exactly do you disagree?


----------



## baterija (Nov 18, 2009)

SFG2Lman said:


> That being said, one can't kick him out for his views, the constitution guarantees that. And violating that would be more of a tragedy than what happened at Ft. Hood because all we fight for would then be meaningless.



Except the UCMJ and regulation does limit constitutional rights guaranteed to other citizens. These limits have withstood challenges in court and the case law has developed what is sometimes called the Judicial Doctrine of Military Deference. Free speech, free practice of religion, privacy rights, the right of assembly, and the right to petition are all limited to some extent. One of those important lessons from my old drill sergeant - we preserve democracy, we don't practice it.

Not only are the First Amendment rights of all military members limited to some extent, the freedom speech of commissioned officers is more limited than that of enlisted members. Two articles of the UCMJ, which limit free speech, apply to officers but not enlisted - Articles 88 and 133.

Article 88 of the UCMJ states:


> “Any commissioned officer who uses *contemptuous words* against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


Article 88 is pretty clear in the type of speech that is prohibited. The provisions are limited but do impact what would normally be considered free speech. Actual prosecution at court martial is extremely rare. There has been exactly 1 conviction of an Article 88 offense since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950. It was against an officer wearing civilian clothes and carrying as sign calling President Johnson a fascist at a peace rally. He was off duty, didn't organize the rally, and did not identify himself as being a military officer during it. He was convicted and sentenced to forfeiture of pay and allowances, dismissal, and 2 years confinement at hard labor. The sentence was reduced to 1 year, and he only served 3 months before being paroled. *That's still 3 months of hard labor for carrying a sign in a political march. * The Supreme Court ruled that this did not count as protected speech under the First Amendment and rejected his appeal.

Non-judicial punishment under Article 15 (which will kill an officers career), letters of reprimand, and the "opportunity" to be resign/retire are more common however. A good example is the case of Air Force MG Campbell who gained some notoriety for his characterization of President Clinton. We'll leave the exact phrase out of a family friendly forum. MG Campbell was reprimanded, fined $7,000, and forced to retire.

Article 133 states:


> “Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


Prosecutions related to political speech under this Article are also rare. It is used more for "moral character" type violations. The last successful prosecution for political speech, that of CPT Howard Levy, charged him with making "“intemperate, defamatory, provoking, disloyal, contemptuous and disrespectful” statements under this article. Expressing his view about the war in Vietnam, and the Special Forces soldiers he refused to train, also earned him a forfeiture, dismissal, and confinement.

Article 134 applies to every service member. It's the general article which covers everything else not specifically spelled out in the other punitive articles that affects good order and discipline. Some items that are charged under Article 134 are spelled out by Executive Order. One of those is "Disloyal Statements." CPT Levy was also convicted under Article 134 for the same statements.

DOD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces” also limits free speech. While encouraging political participation it also spells out a list of political activities that are not allowed to members of the armed forces. Failure to comply can result in charges under Article 92 for disobeying lawful orders and regulations. There is also guidance on internet postings/blogging. Again violating that guidance leads back to Article 92.

I won't Monday morning quarterback/command and comment on what MAJ Hasan's chain of command could have or should have done based on the information available to them. They most certainly did have the power to discipline and/or dismiss him from service based on things that would be considered free speech when said by civilians. He retained the right to his views when he raised his right hand and swore to protect the Constitution. *He just gave up some of his rights to actually express his views. *


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Nov 18, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> You thinking maybe the Romulins are involved? (They are a shifty bunch)
> 
> 
> A bit of levity.


 
How did you know that- did you mind meld the monitor again? They are a sneaky lot- always cloaking into the neutral zone and federation territory.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 19, 2009)

One of Hassan's Emails to the al quaeda cleric terrorist:*I can't wait to join you in the after life.*
​ Also now financial records of him donating $20-30K/year to terrorist charities. This removes any lingering doubts I may have had about some small degree of mental illness.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 20, 2009)

Greg G said:


> If Hasan had staged his massacre in a civilian Texas setting his shooting rampage would likely have been a short one.


 
I was instantly reminded of the Luby's Cafeteria Massacre back in 1991. Took place in Texas. Shortly afterwards, the media began running stories regarding how easy it is to buy a firearm in Texas. 

Those stories came to a screeching halt when it was discovered that one of the customers in the cafeteria had a handgun in the glovebox of her car, in the parking lot. She left it there because, at the time, it would have been illegal for her to bring her gun into a public establishment. Being a law-abiding citizen, she followed the law ... And lost her parents in the massacre.


----------



## Greg G (Nov 20, 2009)

Our state legislature passed a carry law after the Killeen incident. A little late. 

Maybe the military will allow officers to carry their sidearms on base at all times in the future.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 21, 2009)

LuxLuther,

Couple what you said with the profiling that the Israelis use in order to identify a potential individual Jihadist "attacker". I think you'll find that Hasan fits the profiles to a T in the way he prepared for the attack. Funny that none of that was mentioned by the MSM; ignored by our military; yet it's common knowledge in places where problems like this are a daily concern. Sorry; I can't post a link.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 22, 2009)

Yes, it is a shame. Especially for those families of the killed and wounded. There is much we should learn from Israeli security, but we have already moved back to a 9/10 reality regarding the war with terrorism. 

Unfortunately, it will take another cataclysmic attack to destroy the dangerous ACLU approach to terrorism. I fear the severity of the next one, but al quaeda is quite clear that 9/11 did not even come close to achieving their goal.


----------



## Empath (Nov 22, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Unfortunately, it will take another cataclysmic attack to destroy the dangerous ACLU approach to terrorism. I fear the severity of the next one, but al quaeda is quite clear that 9/11 did not even come close to achieving their goal.



No doubt such opinion is based upon many facets you're observing in current climate and events. It is stretching to far more than a discussion of Ft. Hood. It's also something that should require elaboration beyond the function of the Cafe.

Let's try to remember what should be conducted in the Underground. It seems like a fine line we're permitting here, I know. But, let's try to hold the discussion to topics that won't suddenly become too difficult to manage.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 22, 2009)

Empath said:


> No doubt such opinion is based upon many facets you're observing in current climate and events. It is stretching to far more than a discussion of Ft. Hood. It's also something that should require elaboration beyond the function of the Cafe.
> 
> Let's try to remember what should be conducted in the Underground. It seems like a fine line we're permitting here, I know. But, let's try to hold the discussion to topics that won't suddenly become too difficult to manage.



You are exactly right. Sorry. It is so easy to drift over the line. Every day I hear about the latest Hassan development, I immediately go to my honored time in the Navy, and the friends killed in the twin towers. Probably best for me to bow out of this thread, it is just always too personal and upsetting for me.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 24, 2009)

Was this shooter involved with Homeland security?

page 29 of this PDF file.....
http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/policy/HSPIPTTFProceedingsReport.pdf


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 25, 2009)

If he was, I wouldn't be surprised. Have you seen their latest ad.?

"Wanted: Leadership opening in Dept. of Homeland Security. Looking for someone who actually knows what the Hell they're doing."

Starting salary: Depends on level of national fear at time of hiring.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 25, 2009)

It's the same name and the title seems to be correct. I was just wondering if this might have been one of the reasons that Congressmen weren't briefed before the press leak. Kinda weird if he is indeed an advisor to this administration's Homeland Security team.


----------



## Empath (Nov 26, 2009)

Lupara, another of yours has been removed. The tangential topic you raise can be a very interesting topic, but it's a topic for the Underground. Please feel free to post your thoughts there.


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Nov 28, 2009)

Patriot said:


> It's the same name and the title seems to be correct. I was just wondering if this might have been one of the reasons that Congressmen weren't briefed before the press leak. Kinda weird if he is indeed an advisor to this administration's Homeland Security team.


 

*Let's put this way, he was a conference participant but not necessary part of the team. Trust me, as long as you have the proper credential you can be in any kind of conference that would have the name of "PRESIDENTIAL" on it including the anti-terrorist task force conference!! *


----------



## Patriot (Nov 28, 2009)

HELL LIGHT said:


> *Let's put this way, he was a conference participant but not necessary part of the team. Trust me, as long as you have the proper credential you can be in any kind of conference that would have the name of "PRESIDENTIAL" on it including the anti-terrorist task force conference!! *




So, he had the credentials and attended the conference. Still very interesting considering the conference topic and his eventual actions.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 28, 2009)

Obviously; even if you have the IM-proper credentials, you can get into a "presedential" event; like the couple now in the media limelight for crashing the WH T'giving party. If this story is really true: then the implications for security are horrendous. 
The "proper credentials"? No screening, no background checks, nothing? Seems like a very laissez-faire casual approach to me and I have a hard time getting my mind around it. Now, if THIS post gets moved to the underground; then I'm definitely up for the CPF slow-learner award!!!


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 28, 2009)

Credentials don't matter. Other than airports, everyone has gone back to a Pre-9/11 mentality. :scowl:


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Nov 28, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Credentials don't matter. Other than airports, everyone has gone back to a Pre-9/11 mentality. :scowl:


 

Now you know what the reality is all about!!


----------



## Empath (Nov 28, 2009)

Empath said:


> Hell Light, don't participate any further in this thread.
> 
> I consider the thread topic important. I also consider it very near to our limits. Your very presence in it risks it. It will take a special effort on everyone's part to hold the thread to the limits. Your part, is to remain out of the thread.



For failure to comply with administrative directive, posting privileges have been suspended for a couple of months.


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 8, 2012)

Mr. Hasan appeared before a judge for a pre-trial hearing today, wearing his uniform and a rather large five-week beard relating to his religious beliefs; the judge declared this to be inappropriate dress for a courtroom, and has rescheduled the hearing for June 8th.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jun 8, 2012)

I've just read the entire thread and wanted to thank Empath for allowing (moderating) it to remain open. I'd also like to state how much I respect the members who've shared their thoughts with much self-control. Thank you Gentlemen! 

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 9, 2012)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> I've just read the entire thread



The first thread is more comprehensive.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 10, 2012)

He's not the only one who should be up on charges. It still amazes me that this individual was known for his rather extreme views, yet no one kept an eye on him. After the shooting, it was learned that Mr. Hasan was open and very honest about his feelings during his military career. He'd tell everyone willing to listen exactly what his views are. This wasn't some guy who just randomly snapped one day. Yet, instead of keeping an eye on him; he was promoted up through the ranks. Even reaching his final rank before the shooting approximately 5 years sooner than the average. Yet, by all accounts, he wasn't an extraordinary leader. Something just isn't right with this entire thing.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 6, 2013)

Mr. Hasan's trial began today, three years and nine months after the shooting; he has plead not guilty and is representing himself, and has stated openly in court, "the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter."


----------



## cland72 (Aug 6, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> Mr. Hasan's trial began today, three years and nine months after the shooting; he has plead not guilty and is representing himself, and has stated openly in court, "the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter."



He's going to get convicted, and I'm torn on whether I hope he gets the death penalty, or is forced to live out his days in a cell, bound to a wheelchair.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 6, 2013)

Even over a year later, I still stand by my last post above.

Looks like we're not going to get the answers needed. Seriously, who were the the lazy, brain-dead commanders who kept promoting this guy? How does an openly America-hating, unremarkable individual get to that rank (years ahead of the average amount usually required)? Makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## dano (Aug 7, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> He's not the only one who should be up on charges. It still amazes me that this individual was known for his rather extreme views, yet no one kept an eye on him. After the shooting, it was learned that Mr. Hasan was open and very honest about his feelings during his military career. He'd tell everyone willing to listen exactly what his views are. This wasn't some guy who just randomly snapped one day. Yet, instead of keeping an eye on him; he was promoted up through the ranks. Even reaching his final rank before the shooting approximately 5 years sooner than the average. Yet, by all accounts, he wasn't an extraordinary leader. Something just isn't right with this entire thing.



Fear of being labeled as an anti-muslim or islmaphobe, so those in charge let him be.


----------



## cland72 (Aug 7, 2013)

dano said:


> Fear of being labeled as an anti-muslim or islmaphobe, so those in charge let him be.



Yep. 

Our country (and government especially) has become scared to death of appearing "intolerant" to someone's lifestyle, color, religion, or sexual preference.

I'm guessing that as each new supervisor learned about who Hasan really was, he/she promoted him to get rid of him, since they couldn't try to get him discharged or brought up on charges, lest they be accused of discrimination.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 7, 2013)

dano said:


> Fear of being labeled as an anti-muslim or islmaphobe, so those in charge let him be.



That's part of it. But letting him be doesn't explain the string of promotions, one after the other, until he reached that rank. One superior officer after another giving him what he didn't earn. Seriously, setting aside his openly hostile views toward America and the military, his career was truly unremarkable. Letting him be is one thing, promoting him in such a manner is something else entirely.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 7, 2013)

cland72 said:


> I'm guessing that as each new supervisor learned about who Hasan really was, he/she promoted him to get rid of him, since they couldn't try to get him discharged or brought up on charges, lest they be accused of discrimination.



Hate to say it, but that sounds about right. Quite a few officers whom he served under deserve dishonorable discharges.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Aug 11, 2013)

Why does it now take the U.S. military longer to prosecute a case of “workplace violence” than it did to win World War Two? 

Mark Steyn 

Know Thine Enemy


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 19, 2013)

The judge in the case has denied a significant portion of the evidence of Hasan's early militant/extremist behavior; the aforementioned PowerPoint presentation and his attempts to get discharged will not be included in the trial.


----------



## alpg88 (Aug 19, 2013)

am I the only one who sees this as an act of treason????


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 19, 2013)

Nope. Not the only one.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 19, 2013)

Well it was a terrorist act, but the terminology is irrelevent; once you're before a military tribunal for anything more serious than a bar fight, you're never going to see the outdoors again..


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 20, 2013)

The prosecution in the case has rested; of the roughly 90 witnesses called to the stand, Hasan questioned only three. Tomorrow he begins his defense, which he has the option of waiving.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 21, 2013)

Hasan has indeed waived his defense with no witnesses and no testimony. Tomorrow is closing statements and jury instructions.


----------



## cland72 (Aug 21, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> Hasan has indeed waived his defense with no witnesses and no testimony. Tomorrow is closing statements and jury instructions.



I'm just glad they didn't decide to declare a mistrial or re-try him for his lack of effort on his defense case. Should be a no brainer.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 21, 2013)

cland72 said:


> I'm just glad they didn't decide to declare a mistrial or re-try him for his lack of effort on his defense case. Should be a no brainer.



Should be. But I've seen too much legal BS in general to think this whole thing is basically over.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Aug 22, 2013)

The only reason it's even close to being over is because Hasan wants it to be. I think he's weary of life in a wheelchair, and is looking forward to his heavenly reward. 

How long will it take the politicians to reclassify his actions? That's an entirely different matter. :shakehead

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 23, 2013)

The jury declares Hasan guilty on all counts across the board after seven hours of deliberation. Monday will be sentencing; the jury will have to unanimously decide on the death penalty for it to be assigned, which will then require approval by the President, and appeals will be allowed, meaning the process could take decades. The last American soldier to be executed was in 1961.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 23, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> The jury declares Hasan guilty on all counts across the board after seven hours of deliberation.



Took 'em 7 hours? ... Why am I not surprised that such a ridiculously open & shut case took 'em 7 fricking hours. :ironic:


----------



## cland72 (Aug 23, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> Took 'em 7 hours? ... Why am I not surprised that such a ridiculously open & shut case took 'em 7 fricking hours. :ironic:



My tinfoil is on, but I wonder if they were TOLD to take that long, so it didn't look as bad as reality indicates. Meaning, taking some extra time made it look like they actually deliberated, as opposed to them taking 5 minutes to decide to hang the guy.

Here's hoping he declines the lengthy appeal process.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 23, 2013)

Bear in mind that this is a military tribunal, the judge and jury are all high-ranking officers. Most military trials are very unforgiving, hence my statement above about never seeing the outdoors again (which has again proven true.) Since the jury is all officers, they were most likely meticulous in reviewing each of the 45 counts with accompanying discussion and paperwork, so it was probably only seven hours because Hasan didn't offer any material to provide counterpoints. 

I'd wager there will be no attempt at appeals, so this will provide a test case for how fast a soldier can actually be executed after his trial; I'd give it a few years.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 24, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> I'd wager there will be no attempt at appeals, so this will provide a test case for how fast a soldier can actually be executed after his trial; I'd give it a few years.


Unfortunately, lethal injection is currently the sole method of execution. Hanging would actually be more appropriate in this particular case.

I would be surprised if he gets executed before dying of natural causes in prison. I could see some well-meaning lawyers tying the case up in appeals for decades on the grounds of his poor defense.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 28, 2013)

The jury unanimously votes for the death penalty, this concludes the trial. Hasan will join five other US soldiers on death row.


----------



## cland72 (Aug 28, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> The jury unanimously votes for the death penalty, this concludes the trial. Hasan will join five other US soldiers on death row.



Nice.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 28, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> The jury unanimously votes for the death penalty, this concludes the trial. Hasan will join five other US soldiers on death row.



Appropriate. 

(Still bothers me that all the so-called superior officers who kept promoting him won't face any sort of inquiry or discipline for what they did.)


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Sep 4, 2013)

Also appropriate, he has been forcibly shaved in prison. Apparently the officals at Fort Leavenworth don't have any political ambitions. 

~ C.G.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 2, 2014)

Well here we go again..

All Ft. hood personnel are asked to shelter in place, SWAT and 21 ambulances have been called in on an active shooter situation, which appears to be taking place in the medical facility. Early indications are eight wounded.

Update: 1 dead, shooter is trapped in the building.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 2, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Well here we go again..


 


> FBI agents, military police and local authorities in the Kansas City, Missouri, area are desperately trying to prevent a mass murder. They are searching for Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, who signed up to join the Army in February. Hassan was kicked out last week when authorities discovered his plans to wage a "Fort Hood-inspired jihad" against U.S. soldiers.
> 
> You may recall that Major Nidal Hasan murdered 14 people and wounded more than 30 others during a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Incredibly, the Obama Administration refuses to call the attack what it was -- radical Islamic terrorism -- and labeled the incident "workplace violence."
> 
> ...



 Next Image: Muhammad Abdullah Hassan Facebook


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 2, 2014)

Shooter is reported as "neutralized", possibly self-inflicted.

Update: Justice Dept. memo confirms death by self-inflicted wound.

Update: Early indications are shooter was 24 year-old soldier who had some sort of disagreement with another soldier; it is being handled as a workplace violence incident and not terrorism.

TuneIn/IHeartRadio users: Tune to KLIF 570, KRLD 1080 for live local updates.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 2, 2014)

More B.S. as usual.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 2, 2014)

Casualty count increased to 4.

Soldiers walking across the facility report hearing a burst of four rounds, then two more bursts.

Update: Shooter is identified as 34 year old Ivan Lopez, a soldier who drove trucks on the base.

Update: This is a news stock image of a Spc. Ivan Lopez at Ft. Hood taking part in an instructional class for the Warrior Transition Brigade, described on the Fort Hood website: "The Fort Hood Warrior Transition Brigade provides command and control, primary care and case management for Soldiers in transition to establish conditions for healing and to promote the timely return to the force or transition to continue serving the Nation as a Veteran in their community.":







Military police holding down the Fort:





Update: Well the news conference at Ft Hood was remarkably informative, they gave out more information than all the news outlets combined have had all day (excepting the shooter's name, because the next of kin has not yet been notified.) Highlights:

- Lopez spent four months in Iraq in 2011, he was undergoing the process to diagnose PTSD due to a self-reported brain injury.

- He was using only a S&W .45 semi-auto pistol, which was recently purchased and was not registered for use on base.

- Lopez initially opened fire in a building, left that building and got into a gray Toyota Camry, fired from the vehicle while driving to a second building.

- A female MP engaged Lopez in a parking lot, and got him to raise his hands. He then reached into his jacket and produced his pistol, shooting himself. He died in the parking lot.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 3, 2014)

The military guy who has a radio show offered an interesting motive for the shooting: The shooter was only a corporal after many years of service (a rank usually achieved after ~24 mos,) and was most likely about to be booted without pension due to cutbacks and his low rank. He was only undergoing the process of diagnosing if he had PTSD, was not actually diagnosed or in any other form of care (he was on medication, but it was Ambien) - he self-reported this injury only after having served in Iraq as a base truck driver, never having seen combat or having a medical professional write up a report there. His family was not aware that he was claiming PTSD. Taken altogether, this would indicate that he was attempting to get a medical/injury payout from the military before he had to leave, and perhaps it was finding out that there would be no diagnosis or money forthcoming that spurred him to action. It was originally reported that the medical center was one of the shooting scenes, what are the odds that some of the victims are the medical professionals that finally turned him down..


----------



## Jumpmaster (Apr 3, 2014)

Not trying to pick nits, but the guy was a specialist...not a corporal. They are the same pay grade (E4), but they are NOT the same rank.

A corporal is an NCO (noncommissioned officer). A specialist is not an NCO...promotion to *specialist* is pretty much automatic after around 24mos., but promotion to corporal is not as it is a leadership position. 

Because of this, specialists will often jokingly refer to themselves as PV4 (Private-E4).

Again, not trying to be pedantic, but it is an important distinction.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 7, 2014)

A neuropsych doctoral student working through the Dallas VA is assisting Fort Hood survivors and is conducting research there; discussing patient info that is now public, they post:



> Posted by: Kelly R.
> 
> Ivan Lopez had a similar problem--one he was actually much angrier about--last November 2013 when his mother died. He had to fight to get leave for her funeral.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Apr 8, 2014)

This is definitely a sad situation, made worse that history is repeating itself. We now have a pattern, an example of what happens when you disarm military bases. I don't want to take away from the gravity of the situation and how terrible and tragic this situation was, but is it possible to have a civil discussion about allowing our armed forces to be armed so this doesn't happen again? It just seems the media is staying clear of the obvious solution and gravitating toward the mental health issues of the shooter in order to advance an agenda of taking gun rights away from anyone with mental health issues (which is a lot more than most people think).


----------



## Steve K (Apr 9, 2014)

Speaking from my own experience in the military, at least on US bases in peacetime, no one was allowed to be armed unless as part of one's duty. i.e. MP's were armed, and I was armed if on guard duty. Otherwise, no arms. 

If the problem is that mentally ill people are shooting people, then it seems like the solution is to help the mentally ill back to health, as opposed to asking people to be armed and be ready to kill someone firing a weapon. 

It seems like there might be a problem with instructing individuals to kill anyone they see shooting at others. If I see someone shooting at someone else, and start shooting at that person, what prevents the next person from shooting at me? The lack of any communications and control among the people authorized to take action means that it could just turn into chaos. The advantage of having an organized group such as the police, MP's, etc., going after a gunman means that they know who each other is, and can work in a coordinated fashion.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 9, 2014)

Steve,

Aren't solders trained to recognize the enemy before they shoot them? Wouldn't solders be the last to just start killing anyone because he was shooting at someone. Ivan Lopez killed three people and wounded 16 more. I think most everyone had a pretty damn good idea who the bad guy was.

I agree, ideally we want to treat the mentally ill, but when they start shooting people the first priority has to be to make them stop.

~ Chance


----------



## cland72 (Apr 9, 2014)

Steve K said:


> If the problem is that mentally ill people are shooting people, then it seems like the solution is to help the mentally ill back to health, as opposed to asking people to be armed and be ready to kill someone firing a weapon.



That all goes out the window the second someone pulls a gun and start shooting. We can only be so proactive with regards to mental health. At some point we need to make sure we're properly equipped to be reactive at a moments notice, if and when it comes to that.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 9, 2014)

Not saying the guy was even remotely justified in what he did. It just amazes me that the Army honestly couldn't give him proper leave time to attend his mother's funeral?? Willing to bet there were other specialists on base who could "fill in" (for lack of a better term). I mean, come on....


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 9, 2014)

cland72 said:


> *That all goes out the window the second someone pulls a gun* and start shooting. We can only be so proactive with regards to mental health. At some point we need to make sure we're properly equipped to be reactive at a moments notice, if and when it comes to that.



......or two knifes. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/09/video-knife-wielding-student-wounds-20-at-pa-high-school/


----------



## Steve K (Apr 9, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Steve,
> 
> Aren't solders trained to recognize the enemy before they shoot them? Wouldn't solders be the last to just start killing anyone because he was shooting at someone. Ivan Lopez killed three people and wounded 16 more. I think most everyone had a pretty damn good idea who the bad guy was.



There's a reason why people wear uniforms... it's nice to be able to quickly identify the friendly folks from the bad guys. 
Also, most military operations are composed of large groups acting in a coordinated fashion. In situations where small groups are operating, they are still coordinated with each other, knowing where each other is. This is how you avoid friendly fire incidents.

People who see the original incident might know who did it, but anyone who didn't see it might not know who was the bad guy, and who wa the friendly force returning fire. All they would see would be two people shooting at each other.



Chauncey Gardiner said:


> I agree, ideally we want to treat the mentally ill, but when they start shooting people the first priority has to be to make them stop.
> 
> ~ Chance



Agreed, but my argument is that the people maintaining security shouldn't be untrained people who just happen to be walking by. There should be trained people who are coordinating with the local authorities. Maybe follow the model of people trained for CPR? Have a number of people trained for this sort of incident; have them armed and equipped with a radio so they can call the police or MP's. If you had 5% of the people trained in this way, you'd have someone properly equipped and trained in any group of 20 people. 

I recall a story about the shooting of Gabby Giffords in Tucson. Apparently a couple of the folks in the crowd were armed. I recall an interview with one of those armed folks after the incident. My memory is fuzzy, but I recall him saying that he didn't see the event, but got down, got out his gun, and was looking for who did it. He saw someone with a gun and was about to shoot, but hesitated. It turned out that the person with the gun was another armed person that wasn't the shooter. It's that sort of chaos that could be worse than the original event, and the reason that I think if a person wants to be allowed to respond to such an event, they should be trained and coordinated with the local authorities.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 9, 2014)

Steve,

You'll get no argument from me that training for combat is the same as training to carry out security. Apples and oranges. 

However, the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. No? 

~ Chance


----------



## Steve K (Apr 9, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> However, the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. No?
> 
> ~ Chance



maybe it's my training as an engineer, but I rarely assume that complex problems have simple solutions. 

There are a few aspects of the problem that should be considered. If the problem is that a person with a mental illness is shooting at people, then how many ways are there to keep that from happening? It seems that any of the elements could be removed in order to prevent the incident... remove the mental illness, remove the gun, or remove the people. The last option seems like it can't be done, so the first two options are certainly candidates.

Once the shooting has occurred, then what is the goal? To stop further shootings. Lethal force may or may not be required, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is the only way. You have to assume that there may be many innocent bystanders, so you can't just start firing a weapon at random. Even the type of weapon matters. You'll need something that won't go through the targeted person and then through more people. 

anyway... I just have a small, small familiarity with some of these issues. The problem is best solved by people with experience and training in the subject, not random folks on the internet.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Apr 9, 2014)

If the argument is that only well trained, well informed people should be able to carry a gun in these gun free zones such as Fort Hood or even Sandy Hook Elementary School or the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, then why can't our country be in agreement to at least allow that. Here we have a military base in Texas. It's hard not to find someone who owns a gun and knows how to use it in Texas. On top of that, this is a military base, where everyone should be getting training on how to use firearms correctly. This should be the best place in the country to start allowing trained people to protect now soft targets. What we shouldn't do is pass laws putting people on an ever expanding list of citizens not allowed to ever excercise their second amendment rights again. Once you go down the road of someone deciding which people are entitled to their rights, your destination looks a bit like Nazi Germany or China under the leadership of Chairman Mao.


----------



## cland72 (Apr 9, 2014)

Steve K said:


> maybe it's my training as an engineer, but I rarely assume that complex problems have simple solutions.



There are really two problems here, tied to the same issue: a simple problem, and a complex one. 

Simple problem: guy starts shooting/stabbing/otherwise hurting innocent people
Simple solution: stop the threat immediately (i.e., allow the good guys to be armed whenever possible)

Complex problem: identifying and addressing mental health issues before they manifest into violent actions
Complex solution: IMO, actually listen to reports from family and friends that a person is a danger, or unstable, and get them treatment/attention ASAP. For every shooting that's occurred in the last few years, we always find out, after the fact, that the shooter had exhibited plenty of warning signs.


----------



## cland72 (Apr 9, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> ......or two knifes. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/09/video-knife-wielding-student-wounds-20-at-pa-high-school/



Excellent evidence to support the idea that it's not the guns we should be trying to regulate, and that bad people will do bad things regardless of the implement used.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 9, 2014)

Steve K said:


> maybe it's my training as an engineer, but I rarely assume that complex problems have simple solutions.



OK engineer, someone is shooting at you and your family......what's your complex solution? Who do you want to help, and how long are you willing to wait for the properly trained person to arrive? Don't spend too much time overthinking it or you and your loved ones will be dead.

Sometimes, it is just that simple.

~ Chance


----------



## Steve K (Apr 9, 2014)

I've already outlined my plan... have plenty of trained people. 
What part of my plan didn't you like?


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 10, 2014)

One is reminded of the famous Mike Tyson quote:

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

I hope you never have to try to implement yours, Steve.

~ Chance


----------



## Steve K (Apr 10, 2014)

Since we are talking about Ft. Hood, and my recommendation involved training of people, etc., and I don't work at Ft. Hood, I don't suppose I ever will have to implement it.


----------



## flashfan (Apr 10, 2014)

Until Lopez started shooting, wouldn't he have been considered a good guy? So wouldn't he have been allowed to carry weapons on base if all service people could be armed?

My guess is that there are scores of others in the service that suffer from some form of mental illness, temporary or long-term, work or personal-related, and if they too, are allowed to carry weapons on base, I think we would see a lot more shootings. 

There are both advantages and disadvantages to arming people, so which one outweighs the other? By the way, does anyone know _why_ firearms were banned on base in the first place?

Caveat: I did NOT read all of the responses, so I apologize if I'm being redundant.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 10, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> OK engineer, someone is shooting at you and your family......what's your complex solution? Who do you want to help, and how long are you willing to wait for the properly trained person to arrive? Don't spend too much time overthinking it or you and your loved ones will be dead.
> 
> Sometimes, it is just that simple.
> 
> ~ Chance





Steve K said:


> I've already outlined my plan... have plenty of trained people.
> What part of my plan didn't you like?





Chauncey Gardiner said:


> One is reminded of the famous Mike Tyson quote:
> 
> "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
> 
> ...





Steve K said:


> Since we are talking about Ft. Hood, and my recommendation involved training of people, etc., and I don't work at Ft. Hood, I don't suppose I ever will have to implement it.



No, the question I asked was about you and yours.

~ Chance


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 10, 2014)

flashfan said:


> Until Lopez started shooting, wouldn't he have been considered a good guy? So wouldn't he have been allowed to carry weapons on base if all service people could be armed?


 

Yes, considered a "good guy" but no, not "allowed" to carry weapons on base. Mr. Lopez was undergoing medical treatment and was reportedly on a ‘cocktail’ of drugs, including antidepressants and Ambien. 




flashfan said:


> My guess is that there are scores of others in the service that suffer from some form of mental illness, temporary or long-term, work or personal-related, and if they too, are allowed to carry weapons on base, I think we would see a lot more shootings.


 

That's the problem. They are allowed to carry weapons. Not legally, but carry them they do. 





flashfan said:


> There  are both advantages and disadvantages to arming people, so which one outweighs the other? By the way, does anyone know _why_ firearms were banned on base in the first place?
> 
> Caveat: I did NOT read all of the responses, so I apologize if I'm being redundant.




The advantage would be, innocent people wouldn't be defenseless. 

~ Chance


----------



## Empath (Apr 10, 2014)

Empath said:


> So, what are our choices? We could close it now, or we could let it go until it becomes apparent that it is beyond acceptable.
> 
> I'd be inclined at this time to ask our participants to consider the directions the thread takes, and it's effect on others outside our own spheres of belief and preferences. If it becomes clear that it is upsetting to some, or if common sense shows it beyond proper consideration, then it will be closed immediately.
> 
> I'd still recommend the areas of potential friction be addressed on a thread in the Underground. The Underground was designed with just such a situation in mind.



The difficulty in discussing a hot topic that many feel strongly on, and the requirements of a casual friendly forum such as the Cafe, is that the two aren't compatible. When you have members that hold their opinion to themselves, due to conflict with others' with strongly entrenched opinions that don't seem to mind pushing their opinions on the more compliant members, then it simply isn't fair. That is the domain of our Underground board. It's time to take the discussion there, where the highly charged topic has already been approached.

The topic is closed here. Please feel free to take it to our Underground board.


----------

