Support NeoGAF

[APF]

So he wanted to leave, but the military made him stay. Looks like the military dropped the ball here.

Don't comment on serious subjects when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[MrPliskin]

It really depends, I am an SF so you really are stuck in the USAF no matter what, unless you decide to break an law, even then its much harder now than it was 10 years ago to get out because of the wars.

What are you smoking? It's not "hard" to get out of any Branch of the Military, and you're never "stuck".

It's not much harder now than it was 10 years ago. There are dozens of "loop holes" that one can use to get out of the service if they want to. The wars haven't had any significant impact on people getting out of the military. In fact, the biggest impact they've had is dropping down requirements to get in.

Lastly, please stop using the word "an" incorrectly. It's driving me insane.

I really feel that a lot of people here are being blatantly disrepectful. I'm not talking about petty stuff, I'm talking about some seriously sickening accusations. There is a lot of ridicule of religion, race, generalizations...it's very unfortunate.

I'm glad to see that the loss of 13 lives was enough for people to show their true colors though. Keep up your anti-christian / anti-muslim / anti-middle eastern debates with the saftey of anonymity!

 

[APF]

Christians are doing just that; you are merely culturally deaf, dumb, and blind to it.

Not so fast, Christian soldiers

Boykin, the single person doing what you say in the above, is retired.

 

[zon]

I don't think this has anything to do with a religion as a whole. Blaming Islam for this seems to me like blaming The Program when kids were lying down in traffic after seeing it back in the 90s, or blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine. You can't look at one contributing factor to an overall dementia and then say that one factor is the sole reason for the action.

Marilyn Manson didn't cause Columbine-- two kids who had more problems than you could easily enumerate, and then were given guns, did.

Islam didn't cause this recent tragedy at Ft Hood-- a guy with serious psychological problems that went unchecked, and then was given a gun, did.

I don't see how issuing carte blanche mandates over an entire religion is going to help prevent the next wacko from doing this. You need to eliminate the wackos, because it seems to me that triggers for their rage are easily interchangeable.

Stop making sense! The ignorant morons need to spew their hate.

 

[empty vessel]

Boykin, the single person doing what you say in the above, is retired.

Read. Both articles, combined, have one passing reference to Boykin.

 

[APF]

Read. Both articles, combined, have one passing reference to Boykin.

Boykin, who is the only person who made that kind of statement in the LAT piece I quoted. As you say it's simply a "passing reference" I will accept that as you minimizing its importance, thereby putting its relevance even further in question.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Christians. The US is a predominantly Christian nation. Vietnam, Cambodia...

Bullshit. Vietnam and Cambodia don't happen without China in the mix. They don't happen without the vacuum left by France and Japan's collapsing power in the region either. That's a fucking FACT.

These were primarily secular conflicts. Unless you are trying to call France, Japan, China, Vietnam and Cambodia Christian countries...because they had far more manpower and both political and war machinery in the region then the US ever did at any point.

Add China's Cultural Revolution in, and you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[mckmas8808]

I always assumed that the 'War on Terror' was short-hand for 'A War on Islamic Terrorism'. I am yet to see a terrorist group pursued that are not Islamic. Given this, it would seem understandable that muslims in the army may find themselves under slightly more scrutiny than normal.

I don't think for one minute that muslims should not be allowed to join the military but I do think it is an acceptable question to debate. In essence, they are wearing the other teams colours, even if they're not a hooligan (sorry, soccer analogy). How do you clearly define somebodies allegiance?

This is what happens when you fight a war with no clearly defined enemy.

OMG! :lol

Jesus dude really?

 

[Ourobolus]

What are you smoking? It's not "hard" to get out of any Branch of the Military, and you're never "stuck".

It's not much harder now than it was 10 years ago. There are dozens of "loop holes" that one can use to get out of the service if they want to. The wars haven't had any significant impact on people getting out of the military. In fact, the biggest impact they've had is dropping down requirements to get in.

I'm glad to see that the loss of 13 lives was enough for people to show their true colors though. Keep up your anti-christian / anti-muslim / anti-middle eastern debates with the saftey of anonymity!

Yeah, it's pretty easy to get out of the military, regardless of the branch.
Also, you're not that anonymous here. I'm just glad he's not one of my Airmen.

 

[mckmas8808]

Nope, but Charles Krauthammer nailed it yesterday on Special Report (looking for the video). He basically said that the type of political correctness to be overly sensitive to certain groups (e.g Muslims) in the military has led to a culture where other soldiers did not want to bring to their superiors some things that caused them alarm because they did not want to be known as a bigot and branded for trying to draw attention to someone "just becuase he was a Muslim." It even went so far that the military supposedly knew he had been in contact with a radical imam in Yemen, and yet they did nothing about it. Not only is this lvel of political correctness dangerous, in this case it was deadly.

So political correctness was the issue and not the military wanting to force huge amounts of people to fight a war and needing to keep those available military personal numbers high?

 

[Freshmaker]

Boykin, who is the only person who made that kind of statement in the LAT piece I quoted. As you say it's simply a "passing reference" I will accept that as you minimizing its importance, thereby putting its relevance even further in question.

It was Boykin standing on a rooftop shouting "Allah sucks!" through a bullhorn?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

OT, but man am I glad I didn't join the AF back in 2004 to become a cop. One thing that held me back was the chance of going to Iraq.

Although I must admit that after finishing my intern with the secret service and finishing my degree, I'll probably end up joining the AF and try getting into intelligence........or I could try my luck as an NSA investigator.

 

[bob_arctor]

Nope, but Charles Krauthammer nailed it yesterday....

This makes no sense whatsoever. He is incapable of such an act.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Time has a good story on this today:

Did the Army Ignore Red Flags Because of Hasan's Religion?
By Mark Thompson / Washington

As officials continue to investigate the alleged Fort Hood killer, it is looking increasingly likely that the Army missed several red flags in Major Nidal Malik Hasan's behavior. Many observers say it wouldn't be surprising if such signals had been missed, given that Hasan was a psychiatrist whom the Army desperately needed to help tend to the mental wounds of two wars. But at the same time, some members of the military are quietly discussing the more troubling possibility that the Army might have looked the other way precisely because Hasan was Muslim.

Army officials strongly deny any suggestion that Hasan's religion resulted in his being given special treatment. But one officer who attended the Pentagon's medical school with Hasan disagrees. "He was very vocal about being a Muslim first and holding Sharia law above the Constitution," this officer recalled. When fellow students asked, "How can you be an officer and hold to the Constitution?," the officer said, Hasan would "get visibly upset — sweaty and nervous — and had no good answers." This medical doctor would only speak anonymously because his commanders have ordered him not to talk about Hasan, he said.

This officer said he was so surprised when Hasan gave a talk about "the war on terror being a war on Islam" that he asked the lieutenant colonel running the course what Hasan's presentation had to do with health care. "I raised my hand and asked, `Why are you letting this go on — this has nothing to do with environmental health.' The course director said, `I'm just going to let him go.'" The topic of Hasan's presentation, the officer says, had been approved in advance by the lieutenant colonel.

The officer says he and another colleague complained to staff at the Uniformed University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, but got nowhere. "It was a systemic problem — the same thing was happening at Walter Reed," the Army Medical Center several miles away, where Hasan was working as a psychiatrist. (The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Hasan gave a similar presentation at Walter Reed in which he said Muslims should be released as conscientious objectors rather than being force into combat against fellow Muslims.) But "political correctness" inside the military, the officer asserts, insulated Hasan. "People are afraid to come forward and challenge somebody's ideology," he says, "because they're afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that can end careers."

A retired four-star officer says that, based on the evidence gleaned so far, it was Hasan's career that should have been cut short. "They could have given — him a dishonorable discharge and said what he's doing works against good order and discipline," said the general, who also requested anonymity. But rather than any preferential treatment given to Hasan because of his religion, "My guess is he fell through the cracks," the general said.

Whether he fell through the cracks or was cut slack because of concerns about appearing to impinge on his religious freedom will be a focus of the investigations now underway. "The Army was just under such pressure that they planned to send him to Afghanistan," says Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan Administration. But Korb says he's perplexed by reports that Hasan received poor evaluations and still got promoted. "That tells me the Army didn't do its job," he says — though he attributes it to the unrelenting demand to keep mental-health professionals on duty, rather than Hasan's religion.

But Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who now writes military books and a newspaper column, contends that Hasan's religion protected him from any punitive action by the Army, a view shared privately by many in uniform. While stressing "there shouldn't be witch hunts" against Muslims in uniform, Peters insists "this guy got a pass because he was a Muslim, despite the Army's claim that everybody's green and we're all the same."

Congress is already beginning to look into why an Army psychiatrist who reportedly had to be counseled against sharing his anti-war views with soldiers back from combat could have possibly been promoted in May. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said Monday that he will hold a hearing next week to see "whether the government missed warning signs that should have led to [Hasan's] expulsion" before he he killed 13 people on the Texas post last Thursday. Hasan's former classmate, for one, says he wasn't surprised to see Hasan's face flash across his television screen. "After the shock," he says, "the first thing that went through my mind was, hey, I remember everything this guy said."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1937334,00.html

Personally, I'm starting to believe that political correctness got in the way here. There were way too many warning signs that at the very least, this guy would have trouble following mission orders.

Can't say I blame people for letting Hasan slip through the cracks. Nobody wants to risk a career-ending discrimination complaint/lawsuit. It's much easier to let things go...until someone starts shooting, of course.

 

[Enosh]

Where would you place your nationality in importance to your identity?

... -.-
my identity is my nationality

What's wrong with that? My cultural beliefs mean more to me than my country. I'm always going to be a black man. Yet I can't always say the samething about me being an American.

and how exactly is your culture difrent from the culture of your country? What do black people do in the US that no other american does?

 

[Ourobolus]

Hasan should have been discharged long ago. The military isn't for everyone. The moment he started mixing his religious beliefs with his duty at work should have been the tip-off. I'm not saying you can't have religious beliefs and also work in the service (it's been fine for me so far), but the moment it starts to interfere with your ability to follow legal orders is when it becomes a problem.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed a (rank) in the (service) of the United States, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Hasan would have stated the second one, upon becoming an officer and upon earning each rank.

 

[adamsappel]

It really depends, I am an SF so you really are stuck in the USAF no matter what, unless you decide to break an law, even then its much harder now than it was 10 years ago to get out because of the wars.

So he wanted to leave, but the military made him stay. Looks like the military dropped the ball here.

"You know what I love? Sexual intercourse with other men!" Problem solved.

 

[mckmas8808]

Don't comment on serious subjects when you don't know what you're talking about.

So are you saying the military didn't drop the ball?

 

[mckmas8808]

Time has a good story on this today:



http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1937334,00.html

Personally, I'm starting to believe that political correctness got in the way here. There were way too many warning signs that at the very least, this guy would have trouble following mission orders.

Can't say I blame people for letting Hasan slip through the cracks. Nobody wants to risk a career-ending discrimination complaint/lawsuit. It's much easier to let things go...until someone starts shooting, of course.

If there's so many warning signs like you and stated then wouldn't that be even more reason to let him go? Why make him stay, when he asked to leave? What political correctness made the Army "not" let him go like he wanted?

 

[APF]

It was Boykin standing on a rooftop shouting "Allah sucks!" through a bullhorn?

I'm sorry, could you quote that part from the article I posted in response to?

So are you saying the military didn't drop the ball?

I do somewhat agree, but not for the reason you say. AFAIK when you join the military you have a contract whose terms you're obligated to fulfill. You can't just leave because you suddenly remember you're religious.

 

[Freshmaker]

I'm sorry, could you quote that part from the article I posted in response to?

There were two articles linked, and you threw them both out 'cause of Boykin. The second article is far more damning.

 

[APF]

There were two articles linked, and you threw them both out 'cause of Boykin. The second article is far more damning.

I was only discussing the first one. I didn't have the opportunity to read the other one (12 pages), so I did not discuss it. I thought I made this quite clear.

 

[SmokyDave]

OMG! :lol

Jesus dude really?

I apologise, it was a poorly phrased analogy so let me try and clarify. In using the term I inferred nothing other than a belief in Islam which crosses all racial/social/cultural boundaries, much like playing soccer. The soccer field was supposed to represent the battlefield in order to establish that not everyone that believes in Islam plays soccer which in this clumsy analogy represented terrorism. Because the two got fudged together it came out badly and I'd un-type it if I could.

As I say it was a poor turn of phrase and I can't stop you being offended but I wanted you to be offended for the right reasons.

 

[Flink]

Lastly, please stop using the word "an" incorrectly. It's driving me insane.

I don't think he's using "an" incorrectly. It's used before words or letters that have a vowel sound. In the above, he used it before "SF." If he's pronouncing the "S" like "es," an "an" would be appropriate.

http://www.karlonia.com/2008/07/05/english-grammar-lesson-a-an/

"The actual rule is that a is used before a consonant sound and an before a vowel sound — these do not always match up with the letter itself! For example, one of the most common mistakes I have been seeing recently is the use of “a hour” instead of “an hour”. The latter is correct because the word hour actually begins with an o (vowel) sound; the h is silent. Conversely, we would say “a Ouija board” instead of “an Ouija board” because Ouija is pronounced with a w (consonant) sound.

This rule also extends to acronyms. For example, I have lost count of the number of times that I have cringed whenever I see someone write “a HYIP” on a forum or blog. This should be written “an HYIP” because the letter H is pronounced with an a (vowel) sound. However, if we were to write the acronym out we would write “a High Yield Investment Program” because the consonant h sound is now being pronounced as part of the word high. "

 

[Pristine_Condition]

If there's so many warning signs like you and stated then wouldn't that be even more reason to let him go? Why make him stay, when he asked to leave? What political correctness made the Army "not" let him go like he wanted?

Did you even read the story? WTF are you talking about?

Read the story before asking stupidly obvious questions next time. The answers are there in the article if you read it.

I'm talking about individuals within the Army not wanting to point out Hasan's behavior, attitudes, ect. and not standing up to him when he used meetings inappropriately as a political/religious soapbox. That's most likely where political correctness comes in. I'm talking about individuals probably not being willing to put their names on reports. That's why I said "people" instead of "the Army." If you read the article, you'd have seen the quote of an Army officer who actually worked with Hasan who stated, "People are afraid to come forward and challenge somebody's ideology, because they're afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that can end careers."

Individuals have to be willing to write a report on someone's actions. Individuals have to file a complaint and be willing to sign their name to that complaint. That becomes uncomfortable when it is someone expressing their religious beliefs. Remember, these are by-and-large all college-educated officers here, with all the sensitivities that that entails. Nobody wants to be called a bigot for reporting something that in peacetime would probably be respected as free speech. And absolutely nobody wants to get involved in a lawsuit. So maybe they write the report differently to whitewash the religious concerns out and simply say the guy "doesn't stay on topic in meetings" or maybe they don't bother to file a report at all.

Obviously, the more Hasan expressed these ideals, with no consequences, or even worse, with Hasan actually getting a PROMOTION, the harder it became for anyone to step forward. And when someone did come forward and challenge Hasan using a meeting as a religious/political soapbox, they were told by those in charge to let it go by the program director and told that his topic was approved by the officer in charge.

These were individual actions and decisions, probably largely made in deference to a highly-litigious society that usually tends to punish even the hint of bigotry.

Political correctness didn't make the ARMY make the decision to keep Hasan necessarily. That could have likely been an institutional decision made by someone in an office somewhere who never met Hasan. Those people would have to rely on reports from the people who worked with him. If those reports aren't there because people are afraid to submit a report against him and be called an anti-Muslim bigot, nothing is going to happen.

Again, if you had read the article, this is another one of your questions that would have been answered. The Lawrence Korb quote spells it out for you. The Army as an institution is under great pressure to retain people, especially highly-trained, skilled, or educated people. Lots of people try to get out of the Army when it comes time to be deployed to a war zone. The Army can't just let people go when they ask to leave because don't want to go to a war zone. That's asinine.

 

[Ourobolus]

I don't think he's using "an" incorrectly. It's used before words or letters that have a vowel sound. In the above, he used it before "SF." If he's pronouncing the "S" like "es," an "an" would be appropriate.

http://www.karlonia.com/2008/07/05/english-grammar-lesson-a-an/

"The actual rule is that a is used before a consonant sound and an before a vowel sound — these do not always match up with the letter itself! For example, one of the most common mistakes I have been seeing recently is the use of “a hour” instead of “an hour”. The latter is correct because the word hour actually begins with an o (vowel) sound; the h is silent. Conversely, we would say “a Ouija board” instead of “an Ouija board” because Ouija is pronounced with a w (consonant) sound.

This rule also extends to acronyms. For example, I have lost count of the number of times that I have cringed whenever I see someone write “a HYIP” on a forum or blog. This should be written “an HYIP” because the letter H is pronounced with an a (vowel) sound. However, if we were to write the acronym out we would write “a High Yield Investment Program” because the consonant h sound is now being pronounced as part of the word high. "

While I'm not TOO picky about grammar, I will agree with you here. HOWEVER---

It really depends, I am an SF so you really are stuck in the USAF no matter what, unless you decide to break an law, even then its much harder now than it was 10 years ago to get out because of the wars.

 

[Flink]

Haha, yeah. True on that one.

 

[skrew]

I am an SF in the USAF, I spend more time with the army than I do my own branch, you do realize the USAF has ground Combat troops also do you not? As to holding people accountable, when did i ever say not to hold whites accountable, hell the imman that killed his fellow Soldiers at camp liberty was white, he was a convert. this is not an race issue because there are both whites and other races that perform similar acts, the difference is that none of them do so because of an idealogy.

Yea, still not a soldier... and definitely not an soldier.

Well too be honest there really haven't been any, there have been like a few attacks in the past 20 years by soldiers with racial over tones, but very few have been even been linked to active participation in any group. I just went through an anti-terrorism Course held by the Pentagon about an year ago, and the actual incidents of attacks by military members that belong to extremist Right wing groups is surprisingly very, very law. As too setting an precedent, they do set up an precedent that the only religiously motivated attacks have been by Muslims. Sadly all this has done is created an rift, because the things I am posting here are also the things being briefed in the Military right now by Unit commanders, and already I have seen Muslim Soldiers being questioned in my Unit.

Again, you don't have muslim soldiers in your super duper airforce SF unit. I can't speak for the airforce, but the army isn't having its commanders brief and question muslim soldiers. And the reason is fairly obvious, we are not going to destroy unit cohesion based on the conduct of a few muslim soldiers.

Gen. Casey said he has instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for that reaction to the killings at the Texas post.

The general said that while what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, "I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."

"And it's not just about Muslims," he said. "We have a very diverse Army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength. So again, we need to be very careful with that."

The other reason is even more obvious to anyone in the military. You don't have to disclose your religious preference in the military. What are you going to do, verify everyone's religion, and then question the suspected muslims?

I really hope you aren't a non commissioned officer in the airforce.

 

[mckmas8808]

I do somewhat agree, but not for the reason you say. AFAIK when you join the military you have a contract whose terms you're obligated to fulfill. You can't just leave because you suddenly remember you're religious.

I understand that. But in hindsight, wouldn't it have been better if the Army just at least didn't send Major Hassan to Afghanistan? Couldn't they assign him to some different location in the country at least?

 

[Ourobolus]

Yea, still not a soldier... and definitely not an soldier.

Again, you don't have muslim soldiers in your super duper airforce SF unit. I can't speak for the airforce, but the army isn't having its commanders brief and question muslim soldiers. And the reason is fairly obvious, we are not going to destroy unit cohesion based on the conduct of a few muslim soldiers.

The other reason is even more obvious to anyone in the military. You don't have to disclose your religious preference in the military. What are you going to do, verify everyone's religion, and then question the suspected muslims?

I really hope you aren't a non commissioned officer in the airforce.

I'll chime in here...
Just because someone isn't a soldier doesn't mean they are integral to some aspect of the military. Airmen and Seamen are both necessary. I think you'd at least find it hard to find a forward-deployed soldier who isn't thankful for the saving graces of the AF.

As for point #2, Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Zoroastrian/etc religions aren't going to destroy unit cohesion because no one cares what religion you are. When I ask my men to do something, they need to do it because they need to fucking do it. I don't care what religion my people are - this may sound harsh - but if they have problems with it, I'm more than happy to get rid of them and find someone else.

Like I mentioned before, religion isn't a factor into the military. It's clearly there because people form the cohesive unit that is the military, but the people that sign up need to realize that they are signing up for a task that is far greater than one's individual beliefs. I'm a Christian, and the 5th commandment is "thou shalt not kill," but dammit, if someone is firing a weapon at me, I'm going to destroy him.

However, I do agree with you on disclosing your religion. It's irrelevant to the mission.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125..._MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop#articleTabs=article

The Pentagon said it was never notified by U.S. intelligence agencies that they had intercepted emails between the alleged Fort Hood shooter and an extremist imam until after last week's bloody assaults, raising new questions about whether the government could have helped prevent the attack.

A top defense official said federal investigators didn't tell the Pentagon they were looking into months of contacts between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki. The imam knew three of the Sept. 11 hijackers and hailed Maj. Hasan as a "hero" after the shooting last week at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead.

Based on what we know now, neither the United States Army nor any other organization within the Department of Defense knew of Maj. Hasan's contacts with any Muslim extremists," the official said.

The Pentagon comments fueled a growing dispute among various branches of the government about whether Maj. Hasan should have been more deeply investigated before he allegedly walked into a crowded soldier-readiness center at Fort Hood and opened fire.

A person familiar with the matter said a Pentagon worker on a terrorism task force overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was told about the intercepted emails several months ago. But members of terror task forces aren't allowed to share such information with their agencies, unless they get permission from the FBI, which leads the task forces.

So everything is leading to the FBI screwing up royally

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I understand that. But in hindsight, wouldn't it have been better if the Army just at least didn't send Major Hassan to Afghanistan? Couldn't they assign him to some different location in the country at least?

Being Muslim shouldn't be a "get out of duty free" card, just like it shouldn't mean automatic interviews and suspicion. No special treatment, one way or another. The army doesn't dole out assignments according to personal preference, nor should it.

That said, having known that Hassan tried to contact fucking Al Qaeda, I think in light of that knowledge, more should have been done than just a reassignment.

 

[methos75]

Yea, still not a soldier... and definitely not an soldier.

Again, you don't have muslim soldiers in your super duper airforce SF unit. I can't speak for the airforce, but the army isn't having its commanders brief and question muslim soldiers. And the reason is fairly obvious, we are not going to destroy unit cohesion based on the conduct of a few muslim soldiers.



The other reason is even more obvious to anyone in the military. You don't have to disclose your religious preference in the military. What are you going to do, verify everyone's religion, and then question the suspected muslims?

I really hope you aren't a non commissioned officer in the airforce.

I might be an Airman, but I still deploy with the Army and I am still in the mix front line with you guys. The branch I belong too is irrevelent, because I am still doing an soldier's job regardless of the fact that I am in the AF, we are not all REMFs you know?

 

[mckmas8808]

Did you even read the story? WTF are you talking about?

Read the story before asking stupidly obvious questions next time. The answers are there in the article if you read it.

I'm talking about individuals within the Army not wanting to point out Hasan's behavior, attitudes, ect. and not standing up to him when he used meetings inappropriately as a political/religious soapbox. That's most likely where political correctness comes in. I'm talking about individuals probably not being willing to put their names on reports. That's why I said "people" instead of "the Army." If you read the article, you'd have seen the quote of an Army officer who actually worked with Hasan who stated, "People are afraid to come forward and challenge somebody's ideology, because they're afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that can end careers."

Individuals have to be willing to write a report on someone's actions. Individuals have to file a complaint and be willing to sign their name to that complaint. That becomes uncomfortable when it is someone expressing their religious beliefs. Remember, these are by-and-large all college-educated officers here, with all the sensitivities that that entails. Nobody wants to be called a bigot for reporting something that in peacetime would probably be respected as free speech. And absolutely nobody wants to get involved in a lawsuit. So maybe they write the report differently to whitewash the religious concerns out and simply say the guy "doesn't stay on topic in meetings" or maybe they don't bother to file a report at all.

Obviously, the more Hasan expressed these ideals, with no consequences, or even worse, with Hasan actually getting a PROMOTION, the harder it became for anyone to step forward. And when someone did come forward and challenge Hasan using a meeting as a religious/political soapbox, they were told by those in charge to let it go by the program director and told that his topic was approved by the officer in charge.

These were individual actions and decisions, probably largely made in deference to a highly-litigious society that usually tends to punish even the hint of bigotry.

Political correctness didn't make the ARMY make the decision to keep Hasan necessarily. That could have likely been an institutional decision made by someone in an office somewhere who never met Hasan. Those people would have to rely on reports from the people who worked with him. If those reports aren't there because people are afraid to submit a report against him and be called an anti-Muslim bigot, nothing is going to happen.

Again, if you had read the article, this is another one of your questions that would have been answered. The Lawrence Korb quote spells it out for you. The Army as an institution is under great pressure to retain people, especially highly-trained, skilled, or educated people. Lots of people try to get out of the Army when it comes time to be deployed to a war zone. The Army can't just let people go when they ask to leave because don't want to go to a war zone. That's asinine.

Yes I read what they stated. To me it shows just what people don't understand when it comes to equal oppurtunity stuff that's job related. Just because you are black doesn't mean you can sleep on the job. Just because you are a woman doesn't mean you can call men out of their names and disrespect them, and just because you are muslim doesn't mean that you can say the things that Hassan was saying and at least not be talked to by a higher up offical.

It's sad that people feel that you can't report anything that a minority says, unless they are gay. Then hey it's free game to tell on them in 2.3 seconds. It kills me that if you're gay nobody seems to give a crap about ratting you out. And that program director that was mentioned made a mistake in hindsight.

But none of this excuses the many soliders that sat idle by not saying anything. If you are a solider I'd expect you to report things that Hasan was saying. Especially when he gave that hour or so presentation on something that wasn't even related to Medical Science. At what point does the individual do what he or she thinks is the right thing to do?

And if the Army isn't going to let a manic "not" fight in a war that he personally hates with every fiber in his or her body then I guess we will just have to expect more of these attacks sadly. Because there's no other way that I can think of to stop them.

 

[mckmas8808]

Being Muslim shouldn't be a "get out of duty free" card, just like it shouldn't mean automatic interviews and suspicion. No special treatment, one way or another. The army doesn't dole out assignments according to personal preference, nor should it.

That said, having known that Hassan tried to contact fucking Al Qaeda, I think in light of that knowledge, more should have been done than just a reassignment.

Yes that's the point that I was trying to make. At what point (if any) does the Army say "okay this guy is too fucking looney to fight with a gun in his hand"?

 

[skrew]

I'll chime in here...
Just because someone isn't a soldier doesn't mean they are integral to some aspect of the military. Airmen and Seamen are both necessary. I think you'd at least find it hard to find a forward-deployed soldier who isn't thankful for the saving graces of the AF.

I never said the USAF wasn't an integral part of our warfighting efforts, but have some fucking pride in your service. I would never call myself a marine, airman or sailor.

As for point #2, Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Zoroastrian/etc religions aren't going to destroy unit cohesion because no one cares what religion you are. When I ask my men to do something, they need to do it because they need to fucking do it. I don't care what religion my people are - this may sound harsh - but if they have problems with it, I'm more than happy to get rid of them and find someone else.

No, my point was witch hunting against a specific religion will destroy unit cohesion. How are you going to have good order and discipline when soldiers are having their loyalty question based on religion. How are you going to successfully lead troops as a muslim team/squad leader, when your command will question your loyalty and commitment based on your religion. You can't, as a leader, ask soldiers under fire to put themselves at risk when those same soldiers know your command thinks you might be a traitor.

 

[Ourobolus]

I never said the USAF wasn't an integral part of our warfighting efforts, but have some fucking pride in your service. I would never call myself a marine, airman or sailor.

I never said you did...agreed. However, regardless of what you call yourself, each faction of the US military (should) maintains the same degree of professionalism and devotion as the others.

No, my point was witch hunting against a specific religion will destroy unit cohesion. How are you going to have good order and discipline when soldiers are having their loyalty question based on religion. How are you going to successfully lead troops as a muslim team/squad leader, when your command will question your loyalty and commitment based on your religion. You can't, as a leader, ask soldiers under fire to put themselves at risk when those same soldiers know your command thinks you might be a traitor.

Again, I agree. I'm not going to go up to my Airmen and ask them personal details about their lives (including religion, relationship status, etc.), because it has the potential to affect the mission. As an officer, we need to view these people as people first, but also as interchangeable second. Let me clarify that last sentence by saying that we want people that will do the job - if they aren't capable, we'll find someone else (since I know 300 NeoGAFers will claim that I want them to die) to do the job, and find some way to get the others out of the service, while finding someone that will do the work the country has specified.

 

[Chrono]

Crusade has a colloquial meaning. Their use of the term was not purposeful--or at least if you wish to believe it was, it was also quickly corrected.

This is basic common sense that everybody should be capable of.

The irony here is that many of the people shouting he said CRUSADE are the same ones defending and re-interpreting the vilest of comments by the likes of Ahmadinejad. Comments that are common in Iran for 30 years too, I wonder how would the world react if the Bush bused students out of schools to step on and burn Iranians flags and chant death to Iran. And if that's not enough, the crusade ones have an explanation (perhaps some should look into what real crusade or jihad wars looked like) but the ones spouted by Ahmadinejad don't have anything except support or excuses from his muslim and progressive supporters/followers.

Speaking of Iran, whatever happened to the crusader there? You'd think a christian army butchering muslims would attack the only official theocracy in the middle east that's been doing nothing but spewing hatred for 30 years. Something seems off here. Sort of like the corporate interests that control the US and make money off war, for some reason they couldn't get a their war despite 9/11, Iranian support of militas in Iraq that actually killed Americans, staunch anti-Israeli support, hezbollah and some hamas support, all in 30 years of animosity and a republican cabinet that doesn't see anything but war as a solution. I mean if you control the US and have dictatorial powers, if I remember correctly chomsky said the US system is very much like the dictatorship in Iran, and you still couldn't get that war that "runs the US economy" and all that money that goes with it, how miserable of a failure would you be? I say the next time they meet in their secret mansion, they gotta hold new elections for world-controlling corporate cabal, cuz this one sucks.

So political correctness was the issue and not the military wanting to force huge amounts of people to fight a war and needing to keep those available military personal numbers high?

I heard that they put a gun to his head after they dragged him from his home and ordered him to convert to christianity and serve in the military.

 

[i_am_ben]

what a clusterfuck of a thread.

 

[mckmas8808]

I heard that they put a gun to his head after they dragged him from his home and ordered him to convert to christianity and serve in the military.

So are you saying that letting a guy that has views that Hasan had shouldn't matter? Those same people should go to war to fight when they themselves hate that war effort? Should the military not care how angry Hasan felt about going to war and what it represented in his own mind?

After reading the stuff that has come out, should the Army still not care about those things and just send his ass to a war zone anyway?

 

[Woodsy]

So are you saying that letting a guy that has views that Hasan had shouldn't matter? Those same people should go to war to fight when they themselves hate that war effort? Should the military not care how angry Hasan felt about going to war and what it represented in his own mind?

After reading the stuff that has come out, should the Army still not care about those things and just send his ass to a war zone anyway?

Yes, on all accounts. There is a reason the military is a volunteer force - by volunteering for the military, you are giving up the right to pick and choose what "wars" you take on and are agreeing to be sent wherever the military sends you. You cannot operate a military by giving soldiers "outs" by not sending individuals to any place they "don't want to go" - it would be analogous to letting the inmates run the asylum.

Given the choice to go an fight in Afghanistan or just chilling on a base with their family in the US, how many soldiers do you think you make the choice to go if they knew choosing not to go came with no consequences? Fortunately we have enough brave soldiers that make the commitment and then follow through on the duty they commited to.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, on all accounts. There is a reason the military is a volunteer force - by volunteering for the military, you are giving up the right to pick and choose what "wars" you take on and are agreeing to be sent wherever the military sends you. You cannot operate a military by giving soldiers "outs" by not sending individuals to any place they "don't want to go" - it would be analogous to letting the inmates run the asylum.

Given the choice to go an fight in Afghanistan or just chilling on a base with their family in the US, how many soldiers do you think you make the choice to go if they knew choosing not to go came with no consequences? Fortunately we have enough brave soldiers that make the commitment and then follow through on the duty they commited to.

Okay and that's an good honest answer. So what's the solution to this problem?

When someone is basically begging to be released and not fight a war and also indirectly says "Hey guys you will pay if you send people like me to war. Death will be on your heads". What do you think the military should do in that situation?

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120313570

Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?

"Put it this way," says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. "Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole."

In documents reviewed by NPR and conversations with medical officials at Walter Reed and USUHS, new details have emerged regarding serious concerns that officials raised about Hasan during his time at both institutions.

Hasan spent six years as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed, beginning in 2003, and he had a fellowship at USUHS until shortly before he went to Fort Hood in the summer of 2009. A committee of officials from both places regularly meets once a month to discuss pressing topics surrounding the psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who train and work at the institutions.

 

[Furcas]

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/new..._ibn_warraq_in_response_to_fort_hood_tragedy/

Denying Reality, or the Heavy Cost of Political Correctness

By Ibn Warraq


In the wake of the murder of 13 and the wounding of 38 soldiers at Fort Hood on November 5, media analysts, politicians, and other sundry experts scrambled to present the accused perpetrator of the acts, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, as a victim. In so doing they served, knowingly or otherwise, as apologists for radical Islam. From CNN to the New York Times, NPR to the Washington Post, the killings were presented as a result of racism. They were attributed to fear of deployment in Afghanistan and harassment from other soldiers. Cited were Major Hasan’s supposed maladjustment to his life and his sense of not belonging, pre-traumatic stress disorder, and various personal and mental problems. All these explanations are variations on what I have called “the Root Cause Fallacy,” which has been committed time and again since the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The Root Cause Fallacy was designed to deflect attention away from Islam, in effect to exonerate Islam, which, we are told, is never to blame for acts of violence. On this view we must not hold a great world religion of peace responsible when individuals of that faith resort to force. We must dig deeper: the real cause is poverty, U.S. foreign policy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Western colonialism and exploitation, marital problems of individuals, and so on. The present “psychological” interpretations in the case of Major Hasan are just the latest example of the Root Cause Fallacy at work.

The Australian tells us that the mindset of Major Hasan remains a “mystery,” yet his Jihadist intentions are there on the surface for everyone not paralyzed by political correctness to see. According to CNN (Nov. 7), on the morning of the shootings Hasan gave copies of the Koran to his neighbors. According to the Associated Press (Nov. 6), soldiers reported that Hasan shouted out “Allahu Akbar” [God is Great] – the war cry of all Jihadis – before firing off over a hundred rounds with two pistols in a center where some 300 unarmed soldiers had lined up for vaccines and eye tests. NPR informs us that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues. The Associated Press (Nov. 11) adds that classmates who studied with Hasan from in that postgraduate program reported Hasan making a presentation during their studies "that justified suicide bombing" and spewed "anti-American propaganda," denouncing the war on terror as "a war against Islam." Classmate Val Finnell and another student complained about Hasan, shocked that someone with "this type of vile ideology" would be allowed to wear an officer’s uniform. But, importantly, no one filed a formal complaint about Hasan’s views and comments for fear of appearing discriminatory -- in other words, out of political correctness. According to The Telegraph (Nov. 6), Army colleagues reported that Major Hasan had condemned U.S. foreign policy, that he clearly declared that Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans, that he expressed happiness when a U.S. soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment center in Arkansas in June, and that he said people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square. It has been widely reported that Major Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia Falls during the time that Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based al-Qaeda preacher with extensive terrorist connections, was its main preacher. Awlaki even praised Major Hasan as a hero on November 9, four days after the Fort Hood attacks. The Times of London revealed (Nov. 10) that Major Hasan had been in direct correspondence with Awlaki, in connection with which Hasan had already been under investigation by the F.B.I. Almost every news source has reported that Major Hasan was also under investigation by federal law enforcement officials for his postings to an internet site speaking favorably of suicide bombing.

Fortunately, not all in the media were hamstrung by political correctness. Here is Ralph Peters in the New York Post (Nov. 6): “On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim U.S. Army officer shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam. What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting. This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.”

There was a laudable concern among Americans about a possible “backlash” against all American Muslims. What backlash? Even following the September 11 attacks with their 2,976 victims, Americans behaved with exemplary restraint. They behaved in a civilized manner in the face of barbarism.

It is time to abandon apologetics, and political correctness. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are implicated in the horrendous events of September 11, 2001 -- or of November 5, 2009. However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with 9/11 or the Fort Hood massacre is willfully to ignore the obvious. To leave Islam out of the equation means to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam, the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Osama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. Without Islam, the West will go on being incapable of understanding our terrorist enemies, and hence will be incapable to deal with them. Without Islam, neither is it possible to comprehend the barbarism of the Taliban, the position of women and non-Muslims in Islamic countries, or -- now-- the murders attributed to Major Hasan.

We are confronted, after all, with Islamic terrorists; and we must take the Islamic component seriously. Westerners in general and Americans in particular no longer seem able to grasp the passionate religious convictions of Islamic terrorists. It is this passionate conviction, directed against the West and against non-Muslims in general, that drives them. They are truly, and literally, God-intoxicated fanatics. If we refuse to understand that, we cannot understand them.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Koran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims.” That is how it is described in no lesser source than the Dictionary of Islam, so we should not pretend surprise if Islamic terrorists see their mission in such terms.

In the wake of the Fort Hood Massacre, America’s armed forces, the F.B.I., C.I.A., Department of Homeland Security and other counter-terrorist bodies face some difficult decisions about Muslims employed in their services. After all, the view Major Hasan expressed – that Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces should not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anyplace where they might have to kill fellow Muslims – is precisely in keeping with fatwas issued by such Muslim leaders as Ali Gum’a, the mufti of Egypt, which forbade Muslim soldiers to take part in the so-called War on Terror.

When Muslim soldiers or agents or operatives feel that their primary allegiance is to Islam and not the United States, can we safely allow their service to continue? It is an agonizing question, but one we must confront; however, we cannot properly confront this question while we struggle to pretend that Islam itself is not part of the dispute.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Fort Hood Hero Story Questioned

At Fort Hood, Witness Credits Second Officer

Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley has been applauded as a hero across the nation for shooting down Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during the bloody rampage at Fort Hood last week. The account of heroism, given by the authorities, attracted the attention of newspapers, the networks and television talk shows.

But the story of how the petite police officer and the accused gunman went down in an exchange of gunfire does not agree with the account of an eyewitness who had gone to the base’s processing center, where the shooting occurred, to conduct business before being deployed.

The witness, who asked not to be identified, said Major Hasan wheeled on Sergeant Munley as she rounded the corner of a building and shot her, putting her on the ground. Then Major Hasan turned his back on her and started putting another magazine into his semiautomatic pistol.

It was at that moment that Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, a veteran police officer, rounded another corner of the building, found Major Hasan fumbling with his weapon and shot him.

How the authorities came to issue the original version of the story, which made Sergeant Munley a national hero for several days and obscured Sergeant Todd’s role, remains unclear. (Military officials also said for several hours after the shooting that Major Hasan had been killed, although he had survived.)

Six days after the deadly shooting rampage at a center where soldiers were preparing for deployment, the military has yet to put out a full account of what happened.

The confusion over what happened and the quickness of the military to label someone a hero seemed reminiscent of the case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch in 2003, when the Army initially reported Private Lynch had been captured in Iraq after a Rambo-like performance in which she emptied her weapon and was wounded in battle. It was later learned she had been badly hurt in a vehicle accident during an ambush and was being well cared for by the Iraqis.

On Friday, the day after the Fort Hood shooting, Mr. Medley said Sergeant Munley had encountered Major Hasan, pistol in hand, chasing down a bleeding soldier. It was 1:27 p.m. She fired at him, he turned, they rushed at each other firing and both fell, Mr. Medley said.

“He turned and charged her rapidly firing, and she did what she was trained to do,” Mr. Medley said that day. He added, “She is absolutely a hero.”

Several hours later, at a late-night news conference on the post, Colonel Rossi expanded upon the story slightly in speaking to reporters. He said Sergeant Todd had arrived at the scene in the middle of the gunfight and had also fired his weapon.

The eyewitness, however, offered a different account. He said he was walking in a roadway between the main building, known as the Sportsdome, and five smaller buildings. Major Hasan was headed toward the main building, the witness said, when Sergeant Munley came around the corner of a smaller building. Major Hasan wheeled on her and shot her several times, the witness said. It was unclear whether she squeezed off a shot or not, but she fell over backward, disabled with wounds in her legs and one of her wrists, the witness said.

Major Hasan then turned his back on her and began to shove another magazine into his pistol. He did not appear wounded, the witness said. A few seconds later, Sergeant Todd came around another corner of the same building. He raised his weapon and fired several times at Major Hasan, who pitched over backward and stopped moving.

“He shot her, turned away from her and was reloading, when he was shot,” said the witness, who was nearby.

Ms. Todd said her husband did not seem upset in the wake of shooting Major Hasan.

“He say’s he’s O.K.,” she said. “And I have to take him at his word.”

 

[Woodsy]

Krauthammer nails it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2009111209824.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Medicalizing mass murder

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 13, 2009

What a surprise -- that someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" (the "God is great" jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre playing down Nidal Hasan's religious beliefs.

"I cringe that he's a Muslim. . . . I think he's probably just a nut case," said Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, who National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. His business card had his name, his profession, his medical degrees and his occupational identity. U.S. Army? No. "SoA" -- Soldier of Allah. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army's treatment of Hasan's previous behavior. NPR's Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising grand rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital -- attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I've been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia -- as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan's. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers -- consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This "really freaked a lot of doctors out," reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. "The psychiatrist," reported Zwerdling, "said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague's religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn't cry "Allahu Akbar" as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."

Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.

 

[methos75]

Okay and that's an good honest answer. So what's the solution to this problem?

When someone is basically begging to be released and not fight a war and also indirectly says "Hey guys you will pay if you send people like me to war. Death will be on your heads". What do you think the military should do in that situation?

The answer is simple, by the UCMJ that is clearly failure to obey orders and dereliction of Duty on top of an Implied threat, when you Join the Military you are volunteering to be placed under the auspices of the UCMJ so in these cases simply Court martial them and place them in Military Prison where they belong. Its that simple.

 

[bob_arctor]

Krauthammer nails it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2009111209824.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Wait, the "popular story" was that he snapped from the tragic stories he heard from returning soldiers? I missed that. Who was perpetuating that particular speculation?

 

[mckmas8808]

Krauthammer nails it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2009111209824.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

He doesn't fucking nail shit. He's wrong on several accounts. Some of you guys just want to hate all muslims. You want a reason to treat Muslims worse than the average person in America.

Some people that worked with him thought he was mentally unstable. Yet you and Krathammer want to blame the religion and not blame the man. Just admit that you don't like muslims and their religion that they believe.

 

[eznark]

He doesn't fucking nail shit. He's wrong on several accounts. Some of you guys just want to hate all muslims. You want a reason to treat Muslims worse than the average person in America.

Some people that worked with him thought he was mentally unstable. Yet you and Krathammer want to blame the religion and not blame the man. Just admit that you don't like muslims and their religion that they believe.

You aren't this lazy or unintelligent.