Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Fort Hood Gunman Still Alive, Acted Alone

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 5, 2009
Fort Hood aftermath
AP / Jack Plunkett

Sgt. Anthony Sills comforts his wife as they wait outside the Fort Hood Army Base near Killeen, Texas, on Thursday.

By the end of the day, some confusion about Thursday’s shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas had been cleared up. It turns out, according to later reports, that the military doctor shot at the scene, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was the only gunman involved in the attack and that he was still alive in its aftermath.  —KA

The New York Times:

The gunman, who was still alive after being shot four times, was identified by law enforcement authorities as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, who had been in the service since 1995. Major Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas.

Clad in a military uniform and firing an automatic pistol and another weapon, Major Hasan, a balding, chubby-faced man with heavy eyebrows, sprayed bullets inside a crowded medical processing center for soldiers returning from or about to be sent overseas, military officials said.

The victims, nearly all military personnel but including two civilians, were cut down in clusters, the officials said. Witnesses told military investigators that medics working at the center tore open the clothing of the dead and wounded to get at the wounds and administer first aid.

As the shooting unfolded, military police and civilian officers of the Department of the Army responded and returned the gunman’s fire, officials said, adding that Major Hasan was shot by a first-responder, who was herself wounded in the exchange.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By diamond, December 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

Not only is there no country to declare war on but there is no central government in Afghanistan. This is a tribal country. If you read Juan Cole’s article on Salon you see the true picture in Afghanistan: a US puppet, Hamid Karzai, the fraudulently elected President, presiding over an empty parliament because there is a dispute over allowing blatantly corrupt politicians back into the parliament. Afghanistan is a dark and disturbing farce. So was Fort Hood.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

DBM, November 29 at 9:46 pm


I agree with you up to the point where you declare the U.S. not at war.  This is not a war the world has ever seen before, however, a war nonetheless.

I don’t see the United States winning this war by enlarging and strengthening the police State your ideas would, necessarily, call for.

Why do you believe the international community would, or even should, recognize and abide by U.S. law?  Your ideas assume all “reasonable men” will agree with you.  History tells us this is highly unlikely.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 30, 2009 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, November 29 at 8:40 pm # - “Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1986.  Check me out on that.  It was a formal declaration.” 

Not to put too fine a point on it but I believe you may be referring to bin Laden’s Declaration of war in 1996?

-

At times I wish the Geneva Convention would apply to Al Qaeda types.  By and large for the very reasons you state.  Truth be told I see strong and reasoned arguments on both sides of the legal issue.

The biggest issue for me is the fact that these various and disparate, often opposing, groups and individuals you write of are never uniformed and overtly ensign-ed.  This, I believe, eliminates Geneva Convention rules and protections for the combatant.

The International Court too brings a good many problems with it.  In reality any case brought before the court will likely turn into an referendum on the conflict itself.  Not only are their alternative venues for that purpose but, chances are more than fair that some member(s) of the court will be involved with the opposition or effected party. 

None of this even begins to delve into the many issues of U.S. sovereignty.

I do at times wish it were as simple as you laid out.  You obviously put a great deal of thought into the matter.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 30, 2009 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

DBM, November 29 at 9:46 pm #

“No real war has been declared, not only because the Congress didn’t declare it, but because there is no country on which to declare the war.  To give a group like Al Qaeda this status is to give them a legitimacy that they do not in any way deserve”

A declaration of war by both sides or even one side is not required for a state of armed conflict to apply.  The articles of the Conventions consistently refer to “armed conflict” not declared war.  Also does not have to be between two nations.  Refers often to rebel forces and also infers that it applies between two factions of rebel forces.  Refers to applying during occupations or incursions of one nation to another.  Seems to be very, very broad with the intention to give protection to virtually anyone captured or detained during armed conflict, civlian or military. 

Has provisions for grave crimes, if I remember right under Article IV, such as those committed on 9/11.
But all we know for sure about KSM at this time is that he was a combatant captured during time of armed conflict. 

It is more an opportunity for the US to lock this guy up rather than having to go through a trial that has more risks than rewards associated with it. 

I have read the Geneva Conventions a couple of times now, and I am 99.9% convinced that it can be invoked as a reason to stick this guy away until it is more convenient to investigate everything that happened.  Right now, the US has way too much on its plate to stick this on the agenda also. 

That is my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

BTW - a post-war International Military Tribunal on neutral ground sounds awfully fair ... but somewhat unrealistic.

No real war has been declared, not only because the Congress didn’t declare it, but because there is no country on which to declare the war.  To give a group like Al Qaeda this status is to give them a legitimacy that they do not in any way deserve.

Therefore, there will be no “post-war” ... whose surrender would you deem to be the end-of-war?  Which city or country would have to submit? 

Interestingly, where ISN’T neutral ground?  The people murdered in the World Trade Centre came from over 100 countries.  There have been attacks in the U.K., Spain, Indonesia (aimed presumably at Australians) and India.  But the perpretrators are are not from any particular country which wouldn’t be neutral.

The whole affair does not fit the construct of a war at all.  I’m afraid that trying to make it fit is leading people to places which will prove even more problematic than the current state of affairs.  Under rules related to POWs for instance, the rights of the Al Qaeda prisoners have been seriously infringed in many ways.  It just adds another set of problems to untangle.

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Exactly She!

“Isn’t this Pakistani responsible for a major crime on American soil against American civilians?”

It would seem so!  And so the U.S. had every right to demand that all nations join in the manhunt, arrest the culprit and extradite him to the scene of his crime in order to confront him with his crimes and mete out justice.

Somewhere in this normal well-established process, the U.S. took a detour and invaded Tanzania ... oh sorry, Iraq ... whatever right?  Instead of enlisting foreign countries in the manhunt the foreign countries including all their citizens were lumped in with the criminals and attacked.  The culprits were not so much arrested, extradited and confronted in court as they were kidnapped, rendered, tortured and imprisoned for many years without trial.  Purely on the widely acknowledged International Human Right to a “speedy trial”, a strong defence could be made.

It is, as many commentators here have rightly pointed out a real problem ... thanks Cheney - “The Dark Side” has been such a wonderful experience.

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

Zx3,

You keep quoting the Geneva Convention’s definition of war:  “The Geneva convention applies when a state of armed conflict exists between two non-congruous political entities”.

political [puh-lit-i-kuhl] 
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics: political writers. 
2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a political party: a political campaign. 
3. exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.: a political machine; a political boss. 
4. of, pertaining to, or involving the state or its government: a political offense. 

Which state would that be that Al Qaeda represents?  And what is “war”?

war [wawr] 
–noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. 

It is not necessary to prove that Al Qaeda are a criminal gang whose only purpose is to peddle drugs or something to see them as criminals.  It is necessary that they be a state entity in order to declare war on them.

Let’s ignore the part of the Constitution which does not allow the President to declare war at all (ignoring the Constitution seems to be the norm).  Reagan declared War On Drugs.  Does that mean every drug offender is a POW?  There have been various people and institutions who have “declared war on” say hunger or child abuse or slavery or the Mafia.  Are all the people arrested in these efforts POW’s?

Of course not.  Al Qaeda are non-state operatives and are criminals.  They should be treated as such.  No more, no less.  Now, I agree with Ozark that the current state of affairs is a shemozzle.  It was always destined to be so when the government started acting outside its own laws.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 29, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

From your reasoning, DBM, I see that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the
apprehension of KSM.  However, DaveZx3, your argument still holds the best
water in my judgment.  Your litmus test DBM seems to be a first-rate way to see
things from a different perspective.  But I believe DaveZ gave amply good answers
to your questions.  If you have an antithetical reply, I would be most interested. 
And I agree this trial is and will be a nightmare for a long time.  And it will set a
precedent.  To my mind, DaveZ has the right idea as a post-war International
Military Tribunal on neutral ground.  Just one more question though?  Isn’t this
Pakistani responsible for a major crime on American soil against American
civilians?

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 29, 2009 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

It does not really matter where KSM was captured.  Al Qaeda declared war on
the US in 1986.  Check me out on that.  It was a formal declaration. 

The Geneva convention applies when a state of armed conflict exists between
two non-congruous political entities. 

I won’t bother to comment on what the US did prior to 9/11.  But after 9/11,
Bush declared a war on terrorism and mobilized the troops to carry on armed
conflict against terrorist organizations.  This included Al Qadeda, among
others, rightly or wrongly, armed conflict ensued between the US and its
perceived enemies, one of which was Al Qaeda, of whom KSM was a high
ranking member.  He was captured in whatever country, (it does not matter)
during in the middle of the hostilities while each side was killing each other, in
addition to anything else that got in the way. 

If it could be proven that Al Qaeda is only an organized crime ring whose only
real purpose is to peddle drugs or something, then Geneva convention rules do
not apply.  But that is not true.  They do have a political agenda, and they do
aspire to represent the aspirations of a very large group of like-minded
Muslims. 

The end of the story is that at the second of capture, KSM came under the
Geneva Convention.  He is to be held as a Prisoner of War until the end of
hostilities, and at that time. he will be released or, if suspected of crimes
beyond the scope of the armed conflict, he would be tried in a international
Military Tribunal.  (IMT) 

Why an IMT?  To not re-ignite hostilities between the factions who were at war,
but finally came to a settlement.  Why in a neutral country?  Same reason.
Why after hostilities are ended?  It is only then that true facts can be dug out. 
While hostilities are ensuing, who is going to give out information publicly? 

All this has been thought out so as to not enflame hostilities amongst factions
which are currently engaging in armed conflicts.  It seems to me to be pretty
straight forward and logical. 

Hold him as a POW and deal with him after we settled these problems that we
have gotten into.  We don’t enflame tensions, we don’t have to spend a ton of
money on a circus trial, and we can spend our time worrying about something
more important than watching this three ring circus. 

This is very logical, and I cannot help thinking that the reason the powers that
be are having this trial is for reasons other than logic.  I am waiting for their
agenda to unfold, as I am sure it will.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Reading the posts here with interest, i must say this is actually one of the more thoughtful blogs on truthdig. i will echo what some of you said and take issue with others. Hopefully I wont cause a downward spiral in the civility exhibited here so far.

Yes, who can know where this trial will lead? KSM can use it to put the US on trial. Its treatment of him upon capture would be a sweet opener for him. Then he can put US foreign policy on trial. It will be a trial of George Bush in a way. Maybe that is the payoff for Obama to do this.

I agree that a trial under US civil law is going to be extra wierd. If he is being tried as if he was an American citizen, he should complain that his US Constitutional rights were violated.

For example: Was KSM read his rights when he was captured by US soldiers? Was he told he had the right to remain silent?

And yes, all high level official talk saying “KSM is already guilty” sets up a mistrial. Is this really a civil trial? Its some sort of poorly planned hybrid.

Its a nightmare.

If this case is the policy of the future, one does wonder what the US soldiers are going to do with the next high level terrorist they capture.

Senator Lindsey Graham asked our Attorney General Eric Holder about this and Holder didnt know what to say. It is a little embarrassing to see the lack of foresight of this administration. If you havent seen it i can find it for you.

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

It is indeed a difficult complex set of issues.  I find it best, however, to try not to twist things to suit a pre-conceived position.  A good litmus test is to imagine positions reversed and see how things look.  So you ask

“The Geneva Convention notwithstanding, wasn’t the time when the defendants were captured during a time of war with Iraq?  Wouldn’t that qualify it to have been a capture during a time of war?”

Ok, let’s say that the Canada is at war with, I don’t know, Tanzania.  So, an American is arrested in a house in Kenya by joint Kenyan and Canadian intelligence services.  Is this man a Prisoner of War because Canada is at war with Tanzania?

I believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is of Pakistani heritage, was born in Kuwait, attended University in the U.S. and started his life of crime in the Philipinnes.  He did operate in Afghanistan (fighting the Soviets and later, obviously, was involved with Bin Laden in presumably criminal acts).  What exactly do any of these countries, or Mohammed’s life for that matter, have to do with Iraq?  How then could he be treated as a Prisoner of War after being arrested in Pakistan?

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Hey don’t believe me on the Bush Doctrine ... go to your heroic cavaliers at the American Enterprise Institute (the Cheney gang) http://www.aei.org/outlook/15845 ... the policies described there in 2003 sounded like someone driving off a cliff then.  In hindsight it proven be pretty much that:  Driving off a cliff.  An object lesson in how to increase problems through violence.

Regarding the trials of “KSM” and others ... this is exactly the problem with the policies of kidnap and torture.  I believe he has admitted to more crimes than Bonnie & Clyde and no doubt would have admitted to the murder of Marilyn Monroe to avoid drowning.  Now, there is likely to be a massive challenge in achieving a conviction in a proper court.  Worse than that, it will be much harder to get to the truth.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 29, 2009 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, I read your 2:27pm post with much interest.  I have a question:  The
Geneva Convention notwithstanding, wasn’t the time when the defendants were
captured during a time of war with Iraq?  Wouldn’t that qualify it to have been a
capture during a time of war?  There does seem to be something weird about
trying these men in an American court.  It seems you are right in that they
should be tried by an International Military Tribunal.  That would appear to
solve a myriad of problems. 

As an American citizen I detest the idea of trying these people in a American
court first of all because it doesn’t seem right since they were part of a militant
Islamist effort to destroy America and then with the grotesque circus of the
media fanning the fires of hysteria not only among Americans but worse as you
indicated among the Islamists creating more membership in militant Islamism. 
Unlike you I do not know what to believe and I would guess most Americans do
not either.  How any truth of the matter can be obtained is a fantasy.  There
does not seem to be any way for the public, you or I, to affect the already set
in motion trial to happen as put forth by the government.  Blog commentary is
on the whole useless rhetoric and only gives an outlet to the frustrated to vent
their angst and doesn’t even pass within hearing distance of those with power
to do anything.

The whole scenario presented by Holden defies even modest rationality.  To try
these criminals, and they obviously are criminal, in a common American court
is truly peculiar because he already said they would be found guilty.  That is a
prejudgment and ought to nullify the trial before it even starts.  It is baffling to
say the least.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 29, 2009 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, November 29 at 10:13 am

“They all better be careful. Holding this trial is like letting a cobra loose in the living room: No one quite knows where it will squirm to, and when it will turn up to strike — only that if it does, the bite will be lethal”

Your statement above, as true as it is, is why I am starting to believe heavily in some very large agendas being player out here.  I don’t know what exactly they are yet, though I could speculate, but would hold off until things start to unfold. 

If world peace and safety of the American public was the primary concern, no one would attempt to bring off a trial like this.  It can only act to incite certain elements of the radical Muslim world and some elements of the American pro-war group. 

There are so many loose ends to the legal handling of these defendants, that agenda people could tie this up in court for months while they brought all the dirty laundry of each side, infuriating the various factions with each motion.

The safest thing would have been to declare these people POW’s, which they technically are, and then they could be held until the end of hostilities and either released or tried by IMT such as the WWII criminals were. 

I realize some are afraid of the POW concept, because it recognizes that a state of war exists.  But by Geneva convention standards, a state of war does exist as armed conflict between two non-congruous entities.  This exists no matter how we try to deny it. 

The Geneva Convention applies, and we would be much better off if we would apply it.  It would allow us to resolve the hostilities first, which should be the first priority anyway.  Trials at this stage will not resolve, but rather incite.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 29, 2009 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

DBM,

You desire to employ the American legal system to prosecute a war.  You cavalierly use the term “the Bush doctrine” when, in reality, it was both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, ultimately adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which decided the war’s direction and how combatants were to be handled.  Most of which, by the by, is now being employed by a second president from a second political party.  It’s now a misnomer to keep using the term, “the Bush doctrine”.

Two points about the strange decision to bring the 9/11 terrorists to New York:

One, Senator Grassley’s point about federal attorneys and their past advocacy for detainees is worth listening to. I’ll leave it to Andy McCarthy to ascertain the legal ramifications of Grassley’s concern that there are lawyers in Eric Holder’s Justice Department who (a) may be involved in the decision-making that brings the terrorist combatant KSM and others to civil trials in New York, and (b) not so long ago either were pro bono attorneys working on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees or were employed by firms who provided such subsidized legal work for those at Gitmo.

If any of that were found to be accurate, it would obviously present serious conflict-of-interest problems. But more important than the legal ramifications would be the political consequences.

I don’t think the American people would take well to the idea that government prosecutors of the terrorists who had a hand in the murder of 3,000 Americans are, in some way, connected in the past with defense work on behalf of those very terrorists. That would be radioactive in political terms.

Two, we are now watching a very Orwellian development, as ACLU lawyers, civil libertarians, and liberal Obama-administration prosecutors all jostle to outbid one another in pretrial chest-pounding — boasting about the overwhelming evidence that will seal the fate of KSM. Our “don’t rush to judgment” president has also weighed in and assured the country that the “suspect” will be tried and convicted in federal court, before being executed. (Obama had better be careful: There may be one or two ACLU attorneys out there who are not quite on the administration bus and, in customary fashion, may use all that “pretrial” prejudicial publicity as grounds for moving the case to, say, San Francisco, or perhaps as the basis for some sort of pretrial dismissal motion.)

Apparently, the party line is something like this:

(1) We will try the terrorist detainees to show the world the singular strength of our justice system (and embarrass the prior administration).

(2) Since, according to President Obama, KSM is already guilty and WILL be put to death, we will convict and execute him to prove to the right wing that we are responsible in meting out death sentences to mass murderers of Americans (it seems jurisprudence need not apply?).

(3) But if by chance KSM and others take advantage of the system (in the fashion that many of us have made quite lucrative past legal careers doing), it won’t matter, because in just this one exceptional case we will fudge a bit, and in Old West fashion either ensure his conviction and execution or, if he is acquitted, find an extralegal way to keep him incarcerated (in Guantanamo?).

In other words, liberal barristers are now rushing to judgment, in essence admitting that we will have show trials — public disclosures of all the evils of the Bush-Cheney era, but not to the point of imperiling the pre-established verdict, or, failing that, the pre-established perpetual detention. (I don’t think the excuse that “KSM got off because we had to uncover the Cheney waterboarding” will quite work this time.)

They all better be careful. Holding this trial is like letting a cobra loose in the living room: No one quite knows where it will squirm to, and when it will turn up to strike — only that if it does, the bite will be lethal.

Report this

By DBM, November 29, 2009 at 12:12 am Link to this comment

Exactly Go Right!

We so often agree while coming from different angles.  My point is that the definition of Terrorism is slippery ... almost meaningless as you say.  In my view a crime is a crime is a crime.  When a criminal is being detained or harboured by a foreign country the normal course of action is extradition (and pressure of various kinds).  When we start labelling people “terrorists” and making up special rules for them we get into dangerous territory.  Under the Bush doctrine, not only terrorists were subject to justice but also the countries that harbour them or support them are also fair game.  Not only that, but countries which are deemed to have the potential or likelihood of doing so in the future are subject to pre-emtive justice.  Bush also said “You’re either with us or against us” so neutrals are presumably in the firing line as well.  Then when dealing with the individuals, kidnapping, murder, torture and detention without trial are all just fine.

Now I see many scared people or just simple people on the blogs and in the press who say “But these people are our enemies ... they get what’s coming.”.  But using such ridiculously loose definitions of “terrorists” and “rogue states” to define enemies means facing up to an enormously large portion of the world’s population when many of them would probably not have much direct interest in the U.S. at all.  Couple this with the search for terrorists within “the Homeland” and you make a difficult problem (violent crimes) into an intractable challenge.  The Bush Doctrine policies (which seem to be largely still in place under Obama) have created enemies faster than they have neutralised them.  I exect that they will continue to do so.

I can see a time in the future when people look back on this era with the same disdain as the McCarthy Communist witch hunts.  It is not co-incidental that some extreme neo-cons have tried to restore McCarthy’s reputation in the last few years.  The fear mongering, the circumvention of legal protections, the victimisation of small powerless nations, the use of the Communist (or now Terrorist) scare as an excuse for economically useful wars (“Banana Republic” anyone?) ... it’s all happening again.  It led to a lot of unintended consequences and blowback the first time around ... unfortunately it is very likely to do so again.

Now organised terrorism does pose a special threat.  Crimes committed by those inspired by organised terrorists are another special threat.  In my opinion they have a lot more in common with Hate Crimes than with acts of war.  I would suggest that that is a far better model to address them with.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 28, 2009 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment

DBM,

“The use of deadly force on civilian populations with the intent of achieving political ends through fear and intimidation.” 

I can’t seem to agree with this as the definitive definition of terrorism.  On the one hand it’s ambiguous while at the same time narrow in focus.

Example: A great many boat, airline and bus hijackings are designed with political goals in mind.  In a great many of these cases no deadly force is applied and, many times, not directed toward civilians at all.  A form of terrorism nonetheless.

The definition you offer, depending on one’s perspective, could easily apply to over a hundred nations on earth.  Does that not diminish or broaden the term so widely that it’s meaning is, well, almost meaningless?

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

The people who knocked your towers down and emptied your coffers are one and the same. Until America stops facing out and going forth to attack some imaginary/ created enemy and does not face in and deal with the enemies within, the fascists who have hijacked your democracy (the real hijackers)and bankrupted you, who have denied your children proper health care and education and denied their parents health care, a job with a living wage and safe working conditions, thereby doubly disadvantaging all of them, no progress can be made.

As I always say : if war’s the answer what the hell is the question? The question is does America move into the 21st century or stay in the 19th? The weapons are 21st century but the thinking is 19th century: in fact it’s medieval.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

diamond says, “Hasn’t asked for a discharge? They’ve arrested her haven’t
they?”
  These are two different and separate arguments and are not related
the way you try to force them to be.  She got pregnant after she became a
soldier. That in itself is questionable in terms of her responsible behavior.  She
did have an arrangement with her mother.  The mother reneged.  That does not
nullify her service contract with the Army.  She could have asked for a
discharge but opted not to.  Opted means she decided to stay in the Army.  She
was arrested because she is disobeying an order of her military superiors.  That
is a military infraction.  Sort of like a felony in the civil world.  Are you so
ignorant of military law?  Also there is a question of her morality.  I do not
believe children ought to be abandoned by their parents.  She ought to ask for
a discharge.  Or maybe even find the child’s father, if that is even possible, to
help solve the problem.  What a question. Ask the child’s father.  The child was
not born of a virgin.

Your argument about the children of Iraq and now Afghanistan has significant
value and they are the horrid effect of war.  As a mother who loves children, I
wish with all my heart that children were not victims of war.  But the fact is they
always are…in every war.  Whether the wars are righteous or not is another
argument even though I thought the war in Iraq was not and thought it illegal,
or at least the law skirted by Bush and Cheney to do what they had planned in
confiscating Iraqi oil fields, but that is minimized these days by everyone and
their mother.  Far as Afghanistan goes, I don’t know if there is any cogent
reason.  It would have been the right place 8 years ago when there was
intelligence that al Qaeda was located there.  Now that they have moved into
Pakistan, that now ought to be the focus, but al Qaeda and the Taliban are
related in their membership in the militant Brotherhood and the Taliban is
intent on becoming the ruling organization in Afghanistan.  It is a miserable
entanglement with a history that is not easily solved.  Assigning blame is an
unending story.  I do not have the expertise to make any decision whether
there is any well-founded reason to be in the Middle East.  Those reasons are
not discussed much.  Only the progress of the war is discussed.  At any rate,
the USA is not there as an imperialist, to acquire land and resources, but their
prime mission are to bring the murderers of over 1100 Americans to justice. 
You may disagree with me but that is the way I see it.  People disagree. 

When it comes to the health care reform question, that is where we have major
agreement.  It is deplorable, but as I said there are reasons why it is that way. 
We could go over the influence of the corporate insurance companies, the
influence of the corporate pharmaceuticals, and the influence of those
politicians who are in their pocket.  To say there isn’t leaves the problem
unsolvable.  To identify the ‘why’ allows for justifiable argument and legitimate
protest.  It can then be soundly challenged on the points where they can be
identified.  There is strenuous argument occurring in Congress or maybe you
have not been keeping up.  There are four senators who are jeopardizing the
progress of the bill.  Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas.  These senators
need to be pressured by the voters in their states to listen to the needs of their
constituents.  A total of all four of those states puts it at over a million who are
not covered by health insurance.  And these senators can sleep at night when
they go home?  When in Washington, I believe politicians have little care about
their own states but care more about their bravado.

Report this

By DBM, November 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

There is some discussion in here as to whether this crime was “terrorism” or not.  I posited that it was given a definition: 

“The use of deadly force on civilian populations with the intent of achieving political ends through fear and intimidation.” 

If Hasan’s aim was to cause fear and intimidation then it was terrorism.  That is not to say that he was in any way related to a terrorist group.  Nothing to that effect has been proven.

That thought over, I may was well throw this one out to get you thinking ... if that simple definition is “terrorism” then Hasan WAS a member of such a group, the U.S. Military.  Oh Oh No, I know you can’t think that.  Yes, most of the victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been civilian.  Yes, they are being waged to achieve some political ends.  Yes, no-one gave much thought to “winning hearts and minds” until fear and intimidation started to look ineffective.  But that cannot be, can it?  So, do we have to add a proviso to the definition of terrorism?  Let’s say:

“The use of deadly force by non-government actors on civilian populations with the intent of achieving political ends through fear and intimidation.”

Ok, that covers not only the U.S. Military but the CIA, any other “black-ops” groups we don’t know about and possibly even mercenaries if you want to stretch it.  But if that is the case, and it is generally applied, then if the Mumbai attacks were connected to the Pakistani ISI then they would not be terrorist acts, just “commando” raids!  The “commando” raids by groups supported and funded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would NOT be terrorist attacks either!  A suicide bomber associated with the Palestinian Hamas regime would be a government black ops fighter not a terrorist.

You see it’s all very slippery stuff try to think it through objectively.  You can simply say “Anything done in my name for my benefit is good.  Anything done against me or my country is a heinous act of terror and aggression.”  But didn’t one of the Founding Fathers say that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”?  A more nuanced answer is required.

None of this may seem very important until it is your towers that are being knocked down or your government coffers that are being emptied.  Even if none of it seemed critical to you 10 years ago, it is now an imperative.  There need to be damn good reasons to create inflict violence on a military scale.  It is very very costly in treasure, blood and the creation of future enemies. 

Perhaps a little off topic, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Report this

By DBM, November 23, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Diamond,

I understood what you were saying and lumped the military in with the term “government”.  My point is that this assumption of a conspiracy just doesn’t pass a common sense analysis.  You say that the military has done this to pressure Obama into going deeper into the Afghan War.  Well, put yourself in Obama’s position.  You have all those pressures I talked about, his advisors, the military industrial complex, Congress under the sway of the Military Industrial complex.  You can add to that a childish “I don’t want to lose if I can win” position which is easy to grasp and to communicate.  This gets plenty of play by the media and the various pressure groups. 

Now, some nutter in Texas goes on a rampage on a Military site killing and injuring people.  How exactly is that going to change your position on the Afghan War Mr President?  It just doesn’t make sense.  Is there going to be some huge public opinion upswell saying “An American-Palestinian killed people in Texas ... let’s go get those Afghans!!”??  I mean sure, the last administration was able to twist 9/11 into a reason to attack unrelated countries but that took a sustained period of co-ordinated lying and innuendo to mislead a majority.  But as a gut reaction, how do you expect people to connect these dots in a way which works in the way you say it would?

I think it could be more directly fargued that this is yet another indication of the enormous stress that American Armed Forces are under and a good argument for reducing military adventurism rather than expanding it.  Sadly, however, it seems that the only brake on the military machine will be when there is no more money to spend.  Given the demonstrated priorities of the Washington establishment that will be after all domestic government services are defunded to failing, all superannuation and health fund “trusts” have been spent and there is no one in the world willing to lend the government another cent.

If only there was a way to separate the military from the U.S. Government so that they could find other customers with the means to pay ... Oh wait!!  Blackwater ... just a start ... ?

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

Hasn’t asked for a discharge? They’ve arrested her haven’t they? And given her child to Protective Services? But in one way I agree with you. Why should we carry on over one American child being removed from its mother so she can be put in harm’s way in a futile, unwinnable war that makes no sense to anyone except the Pentagon and the CIA? Look what they’ve done to the children of Iraq and Afghanistan who in many cases have had all of their families removed. Permanently. And at least this child still has all its limbs. A lot of the children in Iraq and Afghanistan are not so lucky, thanks to being collateral damage in America’s oil wars.

As for the so called health care system: it’s so deplorably bad that the Coen brothers should make a movie about it. They could do it as a noir, the crime being murder. And the case of Hasan, in spite of your huffing and puffing, doesn’t smell right. Something rotten in the State of Texas and I’m not talking about that stinker, George W. Bush.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps you ‘mull’ things over, diamond, but I do not.  We do live in a gem of a
country.  If you disagree, well you disagree and you can say what country is better
then go there.  The woman sent to Afghanistan signed up to be in the army and
did not have her arm broken to do so.  There are thousands of women in the
military.  While I sympathize that a single mother must leave her 11-month old
child, it also has to be asked how long Hutchinson has been in the Army.  She was
posted in Georgia in February 2008.  So this single mom was in the army when
she got pregnant, was pregnant, then had the baby.  US Army Specialist
Hutchinson has not requested a discharge.  Hmmm.  That is an interesting fact. 
Her mother is reneging her assignment to care for the child.  Actually the
government is being responsible by finding and paying for child care.  There is
more to this story than can be discussed here.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

A classic defense is a screaming offense.  Military intelligence conspiracy, what
a shmuck!  “it clearly is:” And your evidence is?  The only one delusional is
inert inorganic carbon-based.  I realize that diamonds are the hardest material
known, it would also refer to a hardest-headed human known to mankind. 
Contact LifeGem.com and your human body could be turned into a synthetic
diamond.  If you raise your hands above your head you can imagine they are
radar antennas.  Then imagine the great joy and happiness you will feel when
you have channeled The Conspiracy.  How many psychics do you consult? And
what foreign soil do you work for?  Where is your birth certificate? 

While the state was broken under GWB and DC that doesn’t mean it is a
permanently failed state nor was it failed before the evil twins.  If you don’t like
it here, move is the standard suggestion.  America will solve its problems
democratically via a representative government.  Conspiracy theorists always
have a brain-farting blowhard mouth but nothing to back it up.

There is an answer to why the US does not provide “decent” health care for its
citizens (by the way that implies that it does provide health care that might be
indecent, but provides nonetheless) so your comment is lacking in precision. 
There is health care called Medicare for seniors so your comment is also
inaccurate.  You ask a series of questions each of which can be explained but
not to either your or my satisfaction.  If they were worth the effort I would do
so.  That doesn’t mean, however, that they are inanswerable, it just means we
don’t like the answers.  Don’t presume to hypothesize what I think is a success
or not.  You are not qualified to do so.  And obviously you are not qualified to
make any definitive statement since you only opinionate and screech that I am
delusional rather than offer anything that can be verified.  The real delusioned
one (you) thus is reduced to calling the critic (ahem….me) names.

The military charged Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan with 13 counts of
premeditated murder on Thursday.  That should have been 13 live humans and
1 unborn.  It was reported that lawmakers (in the plural) call the shootings
terrorism when in fact it was only the irresponsible mouth of Senator Joseph
Lieberman that made the comment.  No other politician is on record of saying
that.  It is still my delusional opinion that this was the act of a lone disgruntled
man and not an organized terrorist attack by those who wish harm to America
and Americans.  We shall see.

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Ozarkmichael there’s nothing as dangerous as someone with half the truth - unless it’s someone who thinks they know everything there is to know. The war in Afghanistan will end and the war on terror will eventually be revealed for the hoax it always was. The smart people already know it ‘s a hoax: the others believe anything they’re told and buy into the hate and fear.

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

And by the way shenonymous while you’re mulling over what a perfect gem of a country you live in you might like to read this story on Salon: ‘Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan.’ The lunacy of sending mothers into battle was always obvious to me. In France this woman wouldn’t be in the army because she would have a decent education, a job with decent wages, publicly funded healthcare and publicly funded childcare. Although if you wanted to stretch a point you could say protective services is publicly funded.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 23, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

DBM, I never noticed you much before, but your last post was well done even if i dont agree with parts of it.

I would like to focus on the definitions of Jihad and the Fort Hood terror attack.

Arabian Sinbad said: The phrase “Holy War” does not exist in the Qur’an or any Islamic reference. There is nothing holy about war when mentioned in the Qur’an; only necessary and hated undertaking in defense of the faith and its adherents’ lives and its lands.

Jihad, that necessary and hated undertaking, is described very nicely in the slideshow which Nidal Hasan gave. You have seen these slides I hope, Arabian Sinbad?

Hasan explained the defensive aspect of Jihad. You would be proud of him.

He explained the Lesser and Greater Jihad, which would be cited approvingly by yourself, I am sure.

But then he also explains that Muslims are obligated to wage offensive jihad against unbelievers. He quoted the Qu’ranic call for offensive war until the opponent:“pays the tax in acknowledgment of Islamic superiority and they are in a state of subjection” That is from the Qur’an 9:29.

He quoted Qur’an, and he shot people with a hearty A"llahu Akbar” on his lips.
Yes, it looks like a terror attack.
Yes it looks like some sort of Jihad.

Notice there isnt a peep about it in Truthdig. Mostly attacks against those of us who would like to understand what happened. As if we are the ones associating Jihad with violence.

Nidal Hasan is the one who associated Jihad with killing people. Not just in his slide-show, but in his life. Muhammed defined Jihad, his followers refined it, and Hasan brings it to our attention by practicing it.

Bury your head in the sand if you must, but your attack on someone who tries to define Jihad(however imperfectly) as stupid,ignorant, medieval and bigoted only serves to block everyone from understanding Jihad. Frankly, this prevents us from spotting the Jihadist and stopping him.

Which is exactly what happened. The slideshow doesnt lie, Arabian Sinbad. I did not make those slides, you cannot blame me for them.

Go look at them yourself. A Muslim made them. He showed them in public and no one did anything.

Why? Because no one wants to be called stupid,ignorant, medieval and bigoted by people like you.

Think about that, Arabian Sinbad.

Report this

By diamond, November 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

DBM I didn’t say it was a government conspiracy. I said it was a military intelligence conspiracy and it clearly is: the timing of it, the religion of the patsy chosen, the fact that they want Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, the fact that public opinion is turning against the war in Afghanistan all make it next to impossible that any of it was a coincidence. I never suggested for one minute that Obama was involved or knew anything about it. In fact, it’s aimed at him and aimed at pressuring him the same way the Pentagon and military intelligence pressured John Kennedy when he wanted to end the war in Vietnam. We know how that ended.

And shenonymous, stop kidding yourself. America has a higher rate of infant mortality than Cuba. Cuba, which has been starved and blockaded by America for decades. Did you ever ask yourself why this Emerald City you believe in can’t even provide decent health care for its citizens? Why it can, however, spend billions on the oil to move it’s equipment around Iraq, a country it illegally invaded and has now occupied and is also doing the same in Afghanistan? I’m afraid waving migration charts around won’t help you cover up America’s incredible incompetence and dysfunction as a state. Bush and Cheney didn’t break America, it was already broken: all they did was break it some more, to the point where every institution, military and civilian, was corrupted and the economy was so out of control and so bankrupt it fell apart. Maybe to you this is success and a model for others to follow but if that’s the case then the psychosis and delusions they ascribe to Major Hasan seem to have descended on you.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2009 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

Your description of Major Hasan’s sole act of terroristic insanity is probably
true, but we have nothing yet to make any firm conclusion.  He is now able to
talk and I have no doubt he will be interrogated without sympathy to try to get
to his reason for his murderous acts.  It is irrelevant if your definition of
terrorism goes beyond his behavior and only goes to diminish what he did. 
Why he did it would decide if it was terrorism or simple insanity even if that
insanity were instigated by his religious beliefs, or by other reasons.  I agree
that to find out his reasons is the imperative and that will give a program for
prevention of similar acts.  It is premature to indict the US for any basis for
murderous acts by singularly motivated individuals.

Only in the attempt to keep a window on reality, the fanciful wish that the
collective called “Americans” to “understand the responsibility that comes with
being the largest military power in history,” is somewhat of a mental mirage. 
The incessant use of the inclusive pronoun “they” to slip a veil of 100%
numerical support for one’s own unsupported theory is to say the least
intended crazymaking, or at the least fuzzy thinkingmaking.  The gimmick of
the politician to be sure, and those who have no real argument.

My examination of world opinion comes to different conclusions than DBM’s. 
One piece of evidence is that more people are trying to immigrate to the US
than any other country in the world.  If you need statistics I can provide them.
see
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=14861526

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/mobility/
will also show much information on Table A (pdf document see bottom of this
page.

Also page 3 starts some charts of migration in the world of the pdf document
at the UNDP document Human Development Research Paper 2009/04
Migration and Gender Empowerment: Recent Trends and Emerging Issues
Now it seems logical that if they didn’t have a high opinion of the United States
I doubt they would want to come here to live.  Maybe I’m wrong?

Report this

By DBM, November 23, 2009 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

Ok,  I’m kind of back after some time away and have read this thread with a lot of interest.

I stand by the last exchange with Zx3 where we arrived at a place of agreement despite coming from different places.  I think Shenonymous arrived at the same place through yet another route. 

Interestingly, though, I was very impressed with Diamond’s “I’ve never seen a country with such a death wish” update on 10 November.  I was even more impressed with the good comeback to the predictable “You’re anti-American” accusation which was to ask about why it is necessary to protect “the bully” in the same way as the victims.  I too am occassionally accused of anti-Americanism but I wish no ill on any Americans.  I just wish they could understand the responsibility that comes with being the largest military power in history.  I wish they could see that their leaders are too often engaging in conquests of aquisition and punishment for perceived misbehaviour.  I wish they could understand how extraordinary the garrisoning of the world looks to the rest of the world ... how Imperial and arrogant.  Then perhaps there would be far fewer people who ask the amazed question “why do they hate us?” when there is blowback.  But all this takes us off topic somewhat ...

Back on the topic, I find it extremely hard to jump to the conclusions Diamond has about a government conspiracy at Fort Hood.  As Zx3 has effectively showed this doesn’t pass the common sense test if for no other reason than that it is too hard to draw a connection between this incident and pressure on Obama.  The President is under enormous “pressure” from the right-wing press (which to my biased eyes is pretty much all of it) and from the military industrial complex (who he has named as his key advisors).  He is also under “pressure” because the Democrats in Congress are far more subject to direct military industrial complex pressure than he is and will not rally around him if he opposes anything which could increase military spending. 

So to Major Hasan ... again in different ways Zx3 and I have arrived at similar places but this time perhaps drawn different conclusions.  From the available facts his attack does appear to have been religiously or nationalistically motivated.  What has been done to the Palestinians with strong U.S. support (like vetoing or abstaining from every relevant U.N. Resolution) is horrendous.  It bears no resemblance to the hardships of Katrina refugees as difficult and long lasting as those have been.  There has not been any relevant indication that his attack was planned by or commissioned by any group terrorist or otherwise.

Is it then “terrorism”?  I think so. But my definition of terrorism, the use of deadly force on civilian populations with the intent of achieving political ends through fear and intimidation, would extend to a lot of acts which some here would object to (and yes, the U.S. has most definitely been guilty of this at various stages of its history—some very recent).  Perhaps a good topic for some further discussion!

The difference in our positions at this stage is that Zx3 seems to believe that indicates an imperative to “defend” the U.S. from this sort of violence.  My inference would be more along the lines of the need to become more aware of the reasons used to justify this violence and to address the reasons.  As challenging and indirect as that may sound, I think it is going to be the only way both in the long and short terms to prevent further violent acts.  You might characterise that as soft politically correct and unrealistic.  I put it to you that it is unrealistic to believe that there is any effective shortcut to a solution.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, November 22, 2009 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

Another crime by the US military for the purpose of comparison with the shooting at Fort Hood!

CNN Special Investigative Unit just aired today a piece under the title “Killings at the Canal.” This is a story of high crimes committed by three highly decorated American Sergeants in Iraq in 2007, who after capturing four Iraqis, blindfolded them, tied their hands behind their backs, shot them cowardly execution style and dumped their bodies in a canal never to be recovered to be given a burial.

This crime remained hushed and kept secret for 9 months till the conscience of one of the soldiers who witnessed this crime bothered him and came forward to report this savage crime, thus forcing the army to investigate what it would have preferred to keep covered. One of the major actors in this crime was a purple-heart recipient who ironically was a medic, named Sgt. Leahy.

Add this to the previously uncovered crimes of US soldiers at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison and the possibly hundreds of other similar crimes which went uncovered, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, then compare this to the alleged crime of Major Hasan at Fort Hood, then, if you’re not drugged by your false glories, you should be in a position to do a comparison between the two crimes. In Hasan’s case, he allegedly went on his rampage facing his victims, who were neither blindfolded nor their hands were tied behind their backs.

Another point of comparison is that the Fort Hood victims were all given a dignified burial and a lot of media coverage, whereas the Iraqi victims were never recovered to be given a burial. Moreover, the Fort Hood victims were about to be shipped to Iraq to kill native Iraqis who are defending their country from a brutal and savage occupation, whereas the Iraqis were on the soil of their homeland, not preparing to deploy, and most likely they were helpless victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on the soil of their homeland.

I invite the evil bigots on these Truthdig’s threads to dare have a sober moment from their hatred and bigotry and proceed to make a comparison between the two crimes, and further compare the Fort Hood’s one to this latest savagery and the many more left uncovered by the merchants of death in the US political-military-industrial complex!!!

Report this

By diamond, November 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous did you read a single word I wrote? How do I know their modus operandi? Read the post. Dave is putting the same old arguments. I’m sick of talking to people who say “They wouldn’t kill their own people”. These people, even when confronted with rock solid facts just let their eyes go blank and say “No. They wouldn’t do that” because they’re too afraid to believe it. Well sorry, they would do it have done it and are still doing it and getting away with it because people like you and Dave are too simple minded to face facts.

It’s now indisputable that weaponized anthrax was sent in the anthrax letters and that it came from a CIA bio warfare lab.  It was sent to scare senators into voting for the Patriot Act and to scare the general populace and soften them up for the push to go to war. Am I supposed to believe that the Fascists who did that wouldn’t blow up some buildings: even when my own commonsense and the law of gravity tells me that is what must have happened?
Well to hell with that. I trust my own commonsense and reason more than I trust Judy Woodruff or some spy she chooses to interview.

The scenario you’re creating regarding the media is not what happened. Where do you think the media gets its information from? It gets it from people who create the story and put it out there. People who want to promote a particular version of events and to create a particular image of the person who is supposed to have committed the crime. The media weren’t there, they only know what they’ve been fed and Hasan has been demonized from day one.

They also tried to create a story about the heroic and presumably Christian woman bringing down the evil Muslim man. It was a lie but so what? The truth is whatever they say it is. It’s standard practice: control the message and you control what people believe. Well, not with me. I don’t believe a single word the mainstream media says about anything. They are puppets who do what they’re told and only ask questions they’ve been told to ask. There was nothing random about the lies that flooded the media after this event. There was no hysteria abroad, except on Fox News, but you expect that from them. They want you to be afraid of Muslims so you don’t think about the fact that America’s in the grip of a Fascist tyranny which reaches from the foot soldiers in the media, the army, the think tanks, the universities and the corporations all the way up to a small group of rich, powerful and politically connected Fascists. They are your government: I don’t trust them and neither should you.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 22, 2009 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

By Arabian Sinbad, November 22 at 10:49 am #

“How stupid,ignorant, medieval and bigoted to equate “Jihad” with “Holy war!” For your enlightenment, the “Holy War” is a legacy of the Medieval European”

My sincere apologies.  I used the westernized definition of jihad, which was wrong to do. 

In interpreting the Qur’an, which is no easy task, and I am not inclined to want to misinterpret, I should have used the better words “struggle” or “strive” as the meaning of jihad. 

Although, I am not even sure the word “jihad” is in the Qur’an, at least spelled in that fashion.  But a word with the meaning of “struggle” or “strive” or “fight” certainly with a connotation at least on occasion, to mean combatant struggle, as in verses 9-29 and 9-5 below.

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. (9:29)

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers [Islamic prayers five times a day] and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. (9:5)

Like the books of Christianity and Judaism, and some others, when certain words are taken literally, radical elements will be encouraged to carry out acts similar to that carried out by Major Hasan.

This is not to make any judgements about Major Hasan, only to say that it appears that he carried out a lone act which could possibly have been influenced by writing such as that in verse 9-5. 

I then stated that, in my opinion, this is not terrorism, but an act possibly carried out by a man influenced by words of a religious context.  Though I do not condone it, it does not stoop to the much lower crime of random, indescriminate terrorism.

It is like the Christian who shoots the abortion doctor.  It is an illegal act of murder.  But influenced by religion, he sees it as just.  Illegal none-the-less, but just in the eyes of the man taking religious text literally.

I am not any kind of zionist, Christian or otherwise.  I do not believe that war solves any problems.  I do not believe in religions trying to subdue or conquer other religions, or nations trying to subdue or conquer other nations for any reason.  I do believe a nation has a right to self defense and defense of their culture and their religion.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, November 22, 2009 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

By DaveZx3, November 22 at 4:00 am #

“It is not terrorism, it is the Holy War.”
==========================================
How stupid,ignorant, medieval and bigoted to equate “Jihad” with “Holy war!” For your enlightenment, the “Holy War” is a legacy of the Medieval European Crusades; it originated there and continues to be promoted by evil, bigoted people like yourself. The phrase “Holy War” does not exist in the Qur’an or any Islamic reference. There is nothing holy about war when mentioned in the Qur’an; only necessary and hated undertaking in defense of the faith and its adherents’ lives and its lands.

I challenge you to cite one reference from the Qur’an where the phrase “Holy War” is mentioned. I know in advance that you will continue to spin this issue indefinitely!

You are no David man; you’re just a Zionist or Christian Zionist nut!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 22, 2009 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

diamond says “I know their modus operandi.”
Maybe diamond could tell us all how he knows “their modus operandi?”

There is more than one way to speculate about events, it is classic that people
see what they want to.  And they fill in the blanks with their own perverted
imagination.  Only this time the news media who are always dog-hungry to
break the news vomited all over themselves, again, in reporting all the events
erroneously then had to cover their idiot asses when the truth started coming
out.  I was watching the news when the event happened.  It was incredulous
how they were deliriously tripping over their own tongues reporting in total
ignorance the events as they happened, making it up as the minutes passed. 
They are the Asshole League and people are so primed to react to anything they
hear that their brains are numbed against thinking carefully.  The media are
still trying to fan the bonfires over this incident.

It is plain and stupid to conjecture that a conspiracy was a moving force by
either side:  Jihadi Islamists or American Military fanatics.  Only a fool cannot
see that it can go either way depending on what your particular pet frenzy is.  It
is just plain stupidity.  It is hysteria.  But hysteria isn’t owned by any particular
militant extremist club. This is how fiction gets written and there are thousands
of books written by more fertile minds than these conspiracy theorists are
flaming. And that there are two of them with completely opposite suspicions
that have been generated by “interested,” and by my calculation unbalanced,
parties are proof.

Report this

By diamond, November 22, 2009 at 1:39 am Link to this comment

Davezx3 they wanted to go to war so bad that they blew up the Twin Towers, killed 3,000 Americans and others, got Colin Powell and others to lie to the United Nations about how Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons which he was planning to use in 15 minutes time, sent weaponized anthrax from a CIA bio warfare lab (experts have substantiated this)to Democrat senators and news anchors they didn’t approve of (I think 5 people died and 22 were hospitalized) then attempted to frame two men for their own crime: Steven Hatfill, who took the FBI to court and got $6 million in damages because they had ruined his life and his career and Bruce Ivins who they also attempted to frame and eventually drove to his death with exactly the same kind or lies, rumours and innuendo they are now using against Major Hasan. My suspicions don’t come out of nowhere.  I know their modus operandi.

Who do you think these people are? Choir boys? They’ve killed 1,000,000 Iraqis and made between 4 and 5 million Iraqis into refugees and they’re in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan. There’s a line in Macbeth where Macbeth talks about crossing a river of blood and being so steeped in blood that to continue or go back makes no difference. If you think these people have any respect for human life, whether American or foreign, military or civilian then I don’t know where you’ve been. They’re running true to form: this kind of vicious stupidity is exactly how they behaved right towards the end of the Vietnam war. The thought of losing a war makes them wet their pants and they’ll do anything to avoid having to face the fact that a war is, in fact, lost. They always want to go on fighting and throwing the taxpayers’ money down a hole. It’s how they’re made- and let’s face it , sacrifices have to be made so they can go on fighting a lost war. Not sacrifices made by them you understand, the ‘honour’ of being sacrificed falls to others.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 22, 2009 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

diamond, November 21 at 5:34 pm

“As for THEIR motive I would think that’s pretty clear. They want to pressure Obama into sending more troops to Afghanistan and what better way to put pressure on him than to allegedly have all these soldiers killed and wounded by a Muslim”

You say this in a matter-of-fact way that indicates you think this is the way the American defense system actually works. 

They want to go to war so bad that they are willing to kill 13 innocent soldiers, destroy 1 Muslim major, wound 39 others, plus put the lives of untold more in jeopardy, including private citizes and police officers.

At the same time, drive a stake into the heart of American/Muslim relations, discredit the Army for promoting this guy to major, and not being on the ball enough to see this coming even after much evidence that it was brewing, according to the story. 

They conspire to do all this and somehow keep it all a secret.  So not only are they absolutely evil, they are also incredibly stupid for thinking they could keep it a secret, and also for thinking that an American Muslim career army guy flipping out is an excuse for the president to send troops to Afghanistan.  As though what?  Troops in Afghanistan will prevent what?

Jihad has been brewing for over 1000 years.  It should be no surprise when some of the Islamic faith actually take their holy book literally and do what it says.  Jihad is called for in the Koran.  It is the book that the Islamic faith is based on. 

If even 1% of the Islamic faithful take their book seriously, we should expect a Major Hasan incident every few weeks.  Thanks to the influence of moderate Islam it does not happen that often.  But they will forever be plagued by the writing in that book.  It will cause more than a few to go off the deep end. 

It is not terrorism, it is the Holy War.

Report this

By diamond, November 21, 2009 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

‘Dreyfus was charged with treason, not murder.  He actually committed no crime, and was eventually acquitted and served honorably in the French Artillery.’ DaveZx3

Yes, it was treason not murder (these crimes are comparable in severity and punishment anyway) but the fact that Dreyfus committed no crime and was framed by his peers for political reasons is my point. And you haven’t addressed any of the other inconsistencies, such as the string of falsehoods that came out of Fort Hood and the fact that Hasan is a Major and yet is portrayed by the Zwerdlings of this world as an incompetent nutcase and a terrible psychiatrist while his patients give a picture of a completely different person. Why was he promoted to the rank of Major if he was so incompetent and so flawed and mentally unstable?It doesn’t add up. Take away this manufactured tale of mental instability and you have no motive and they need to have a motive, don’t they? So they have to create one. There is simply no reason why the relaxed and smiling man buying his coffee in the takeaway shop that you see on CCTV footage the same day this happened would go on a rampage. So they have to create what they call a scenario to explain what happened. I don’t claim Hasan ‘went along with it’. Who knows what went on that day? My point is no one is asking vital questions about what happened, content to believe it was what they’re told it was. Content to be led off into questions about counseling staff who are stressed and such nonsense. All I know is that they and their media mouthpieces have told four or five big lies so far and I’m still counting. What the Dreyfus case proves is that military institutions are capable of such behaviour and always have been.

As for THEIR motive I would think that’s pretty clear. They want to pressure Obama into sending more troops to Afghanistan and what better way to put pressure on him than to allegedly have all these soldiers killed and wounded by a Muslim? It was an attempt to get the public behind the disastrous war in Afghanistan. In those terms it is as big a failure as the war itself and if Hasan is innocent it has destroyed a man’s life for the basest and most cynical reasons imaginable.

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, November 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

Except when it called friendly fire,far away from outside witnesses,  already forgotten Pat Tillman? The cover up that reached all the way to the Washington? Ya I would say that they are a close knit group.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 21, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

“It reminds me most strongly of the Dreyfus case in France where an officer was framed by fellow officers purely and simply because of his religion. Dreyfus was a Jew not a Muslim but he was also framed for murder”

Dreyfus was charged with treason, not murder.  He actually committed no crime, and was eventually acquitted and served honorably in the French Artillery. 

There is no comparison between the two cases, Dreyfus and Hasan, except the two had a religion.

Are you insinuating that Army brass somehow came up with a plan to frame Hasan by forcing him to enter a processing center with two handguns and fire at fellow soldiers, so others could fire back and kill him, but it backfired and he lived?

If brass needed Hasan to die, there would have been much better ways to do it. 

But your supposition is absolutely false that Army brass would endanger the lives of dozens of soldiers to carry out such a dumb-ass stunt as this.  This is one of the most closely knit communities that there is.  Sure they have some problems, but they don’t kill each other. 

It is absolutely inconceivable that such a totally absurd thing would be conceived.  What would be the point in carrying out such a stupid plan?  And how do you get Hasan to go along with it?

Report this

By diamond, November 21, 2009 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

I saw an incredible interview yesterday on McNeil Lehrer. This character called Zwerdling (who is military intelligence or I’ll eat my hat) went through a fabricated narrative in which he swore up hill and down dale that Major Hasan is psychotic, a real whack job with a shocking record. Never once did he refer to him as Major Hasan, even though that’s his rank. Why? Because :
1. He would have to admit that he was talking about an American officer who had reached the rank of major. and
2. how then to explain how this psychotic,  malfunctioning mess who was a ‘terrible psychiatrist’ achieved this rank.

Even leaving this fabricated fiction to one side there are still numerous problems with what went on that day at Fort Hood.


(a) They announced Major Hasan’s death. Was it because he was supposed to die and someone stuffed up? My guess is yes, ja, oui, da and jawohl.

(b) The original reports said there were ‘three shooters’ but that was changed to ‘lone shooter’ even though two men were arrested at the crime scene. No one knows their names. No one knows who they worked for or what their role was. No one knows why they were arrested and no one knows why they were released. There’s even a rumour that one other man is still being held besides Major Hasan but once again no one knows his name or why he’s being held.

(c) The fancifully embellished tale of Ms. Munley’s heroic activities which turned out to be just one more lie. She was simply caught in the crossfire and shot. Now someone else (a male) has been put forward as the ‘lone shooter’ who brought Major Hasan down. But this time no heroics have been mentioned.

Judy Woodruff who conducted this interview should hang her head in shame. This was a pathetic, scripted interview. Even by the pathetic standards of the mainstream media it was pathetic. Spyboy got to talk on and on selling his wares while Judy flapped her gums about how terrible it all was and did her best to turn it into a staff counseling issue. Others want to turn it into a terrorist attack but that’s not what it reminds me of. It reminds me most strongly of the Dreyfus case in France where an officer was framed by fellow officers purely and simply because of his religion. Dreyfus was a Jew not a Muslim but he was also framed for murder. I think Hasan could have avoided all this unpleasantness if he had chosen parents who weren’t Palestinian.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

I see I was too hasty in posting my sentiments about Senator Lieberman on this
forum when it was meant for another.  I will post it there and apologize for my
too hurried actions here.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 16, 2009 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 16 at 10:38 am

Yes, I did detect that you were not very far from my thinking on a lot of subjects, as I read a number of your posts on various threads.  Not that I was looking for them, but you do comment on a lot of areas that I have an interest in also.

Regarding the “Martha/Thomas” element who advocate tearing America apart.  I will be right behind you when you do battle against this element.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2009 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

2.
What is so stunning is the fact that the military in the United States is a
volunteer military.  To my wonderment that fact has not been expressed very
much .  The fact that there are men who might be Muslim sign up for military
duty when a war is being waged in the Middle East is somewhat odd.  But it
happens.  War in the Middle East is over a decade old.  America’s ties to Israel is
over six decades.  Hasan, it was reported by his family, became more devout a
Muslim upon his mother’s death.  That was nine years ago.  Nine years ago the
second war in Iraq erupted.  There was a history of war with Iraq.  He made a
feeble move to leave the service and was denied.  A more strenuous effort he
could have made!  It is not without precedence that men have left the military. 
One is not conscripted to be in the military in the US.

If the person has a RESERVE commission, they can resign it after all their
obligations are served unless we are at war. If they choose to stay in they are
on “indefinite” status and stay in for up to 20 years when they have to retire.

If the person has a REGULAR commission, they can ask to be released after
their obligations are served but they can be denied if the Secretary of their
service branch feels they need to remain. They also are indefinite as far as
service. The advantage of being Regular is you can serve beyond 20 years and
you get priority for assignments and schools.

Enlisted people enlist for a four year tour. They can get out at the end of each
four year tour but not during it except under special circumstances. After five
tours, they hit 20 years and can retire. Or they can keep going with more four
year tours.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83497,00.html

See the following story about resigning during wartime:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/27/politics/washingtonpost/main5
424093.shtml
I believe that Hasan’s violent derangement was, and I have no doubt it was, a
jihad in the way of Allah.  All the hard evidence dug up about Hasan points to
it.  How much is considered proof will be decided by a court.  A military court.

It wasn’t so much that Lieberman said what most Rightists would like to say
about the frenzied attacker at Ft. Hood.  And now because of Lieberman they
have been given leave to make flagrantly false statements. 


BTW:  To piss off another group:  The comparison to the Jewish rabbi is just
laughable.  Anytime there is the remotest hint that Israel or the Jews can be
included in the discussion the anti-Jewish vultures are ready to open their
beaks and the Zionists ready to bite back.  Another 100-years war?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2009 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Two parts
1.
I reviewed the 50-slide show.  And if a slide-by-slide lecture is motivated, by
all means be our guest.  Truthdiggers have nothing better to do anyway.

The point is, about Lieberman’s comments, there is no evidence it was other
than a lone individual’s jihad.  There is not even any circumstantial evidence it
was more than that.  And much as I would like it to be one since I have my own
views and have in the past voiced them on TD about the militant Islamists, I do
not believe it was a conspiracy.  Undoubtedly, in my mind, Nidal Hasan was
inspired by his submission to the emotional Islamism that exists in the world
today.  It is based on the reported information that has been dribbling out.
 
What is the issue is Lieberman’s behavior. 

Not all Republicans are alike in the degree of self-interest and it was not
always a characteristic of Republicans to be so corporate centered without a
shred of care about the general public.  But that day seems to have faded into
history.  For if there are those Republicans who do have some sense of human
value for all, they diminish it in their blind support of the party rhetoric.

The left have only marginal justification in their reaction to Rightists’ united
efforts to undermine anything that even borders on liberal programs.  The left
becomes touched immediately by an insanity of their own in defensive mode. 
They become the attackers, often as senseless as the other side’s.

This forum is about Lieberman’s underhanded tactic to align himself for
political status.  He is a self-serving grandstander and has shown it in his often
seductive flirting with Republican lockstep positions such as health care reform. 
I claim he is a whore for the Republicans and the Republicans rejoice when he
climbs their soap box.  They will take any political slut for their program.  It is
all right that the Republicans rejoice, it is their opposition and right to do so. 
They should do so! But it is utterly irresponsible that Lieberman uses his quasi
Independent status in the Senate to further his visibility in the news. 

If one were to read Lieberman’s statements it is easily seen that he doesn’t say
anything worthwhile.  He makes an inflammatory accusation without giving any
evidence except his conjecture from what was shown on television.  Something
akin to what TDers do on the forums.  That there was a conspiracy for that
attack is downright dippy.  Calling for a full-out probe is caustic.  For if it was
an Islamist plot, it was the stupidest attack conceivable.  That a lone gunman
gunned down 13 people, and not to be forgotten, 1 unborn child, is not stupid
but was preplanned by him.  That only 13 people and 1 unborn child was
gunned down does not make a successful terrorist attack on the United States. 
It is a matter of logistics and sense.  There is no evidence it was anything more
than a one-man jihad.

While Hasan’s attack is without question an act of terrorism, there is nothing
that gives evidence he was an instrument of a jihad outside of his own mind. 
And there is nothing that has not been as drummed in the news as much as his
berserk attack except possibly the death of Michael Jackson.  Every second of
his arraignment, the moment-by-moment media watch at the hospital of his
recovery, and the constant speculation upon speculation by innocuous
reportage including interviews of the ants that crawled around the ground
during the attack and their mothers.  We were amazed at the tiny microphones
used.  It is simply a burlesque.  Mr. Lieberman is noted for jumping at the
chance to send his visage onto the media screen.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 16, 2009 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

At the following truthdig article the discussion also continues.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20091109_lieberman_jumps_to_conclusions_about_fort_hood_shooting/

Hasan did an important slide presentation.

Those slides, which i brought to on the thread, will be very important whether the Truthdiggers realize it or not. So far very little interest expressed.

I am thinking of reviewing the slides for everyone anyway.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 16, 2009 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

Good Morning DaveZx3.  I read your impassioned but articulate comments to
me and I was surprised at how exactly I agreed with you!  You and I are on the
same side.  I happen to be left-leaning, a liberal, though I’ve been accused for
keeping a rational centrist view of being a criminal shill for the Right-Wing
Extremist, etc., etc., by rabid over-the-edge leftists who take every
opportunity to criticize America, and if they had the opportunity I would be
hanged!  Such is their fraudulently Christian views.

Why do I implicate self-styled Christian speakers?  Check out the copiously
biblical quotings of the regular TD participants, over-the-Left-edge socialist
MarthaA and her consort (twin?)(alter ego?) ThomasG that dots a plethora of
TD forums both who advocate tearing America apart.  I, and a few others, have
been intensely and strenuously doing battle with that element for weeks and
weeks.  You have presented a view that countercriticizes in both directions
where insanity is the ruling principle and with that I completely concur.  There
are other things we disagree on but this is not one of them.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 16, 2009 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, November 15 at 7:41 pm

“Checking out his link to the NEFA Foundation, it is ludicrously obvious this is a radical private investigative machine, whose sole purpose is to ferret out what they think are terrorists and
terrorist activities”.

I posted the NEFA Foundation link in an error in judgement.  I was looking for a link to the Muslim Brotherhood statements, and came across that NEFA site right off, and mistakenly posted it because it did carry the Muslim Brotherhood statement of war against America, (which I already knew to exist, because it used to be right on their own site)

NEFA is a foundation which seeks justice for 9/11 victims.  I saw nothing wrong with their basic premise or any problems in linking to their site, but should have found a better site.

I am not a right wing lunatic or left wing lunatic.  I realize that US private and public sector leadership commits serious errors and possible crimes.  I do not condone it, but I realize that this phenomenon does not exist only in America.  It is world-wide, and if anyone needs examples, I have about a million.

I live in America. I would like to see America continue to exist as a sovereign nation and continue to try and work out its problems.  I am pro-American.

Americans who blame America for everything are naive and careless.  All the world’s ills are not our fault.  We get to elect new leadership regularly, yet we complain that we have no good leadership.  The fault for that is squarely upon the electorate. (Of the people, by the people and for the people)

How can you never clean up your house and then complain that you have a dirty house?  Left blames the right - right blames the left.  But the real fault comes from intolerant, one-sided, self-serving minds on the left and the right who seek to divide the people for their own political motivations.

If America has enemies, and you voice anti-American rhetoric, it is the same as voicing pro-enemy rhetoric.  This is a type of treason in that it allows any enemy to see the US as weak and divided.  It encourages an enemy to persevere in the battle and kill more Americans. 

When Bush was in power the left crucified him, and now that Obama is in power the right is crucifying him.  To any enemy or potential enemy looking in, the US is a weak, indecisive, divided nation. 

The real questions are: 

Does America have real enemies seeking her destruction?

Who are they? 

What side are you on?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 15, 2009 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

diamond, my question about both sides having the truth was somewhat
rhetorical.  When I stated “Because it is the reality,” I meant each side perceives
their truth as the real truth.  While there may be an abstract truth, some
universal truth, it would only be the model for truth and not ever be THE
TRUTH.  If there is any truth, it is local truth and how it is manifested in
experience.  I thank you and appreciate your comments, though, as I think you
have it right about how truth can be manifested in experience.  And your
resident ‘why’ question is good advice that ought to be kept packed in one’s
briefcase of reality checking out.

DaveZx3’s comments provides accusations that must be taken into account. 
Nevertheless they must all be verifiable and references are not provided.  Even
the first-hand report by a Marine is only hearsay.  But most who post here
don’t provide references, only give opinions.  Checking out his link to the NEFA
Foundation, it is ludicrously obvious this is a radical private investigative
machine, whose sole purpose is to ferret out what they think are terrorists and
terrorist activities.  They are usurping the government’s function.  In spite of
some of their members testifying in various court trials, and regular news
media interviews, they are self-styled counterterrorists and they are remindful
of Blackwater privateer soldiers.

It is not that these people do not find what they are looking for, but there is no
control that what they find is not interpreted incorrectly to suit their own
purposes.  There is no verification for what they claim.  It seems until NEFA is
interviewed by Charlie Rose, they are an independent fringe group who are
funded by private wealth.  By the way I can’t find anywhere what NEFA stands
for?  Nefa?  What is a Nefa?  Seems like DaveZx3 is onto something though
when he asked someone if he is an anti-American?  Seems there are several on
board the TD forum who could qualify, every forum.

Report this

By diamond, November 15, 2009 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous both sides can’t have the truth.If both sides can have the truth then there’s no such thing as reality and no such thing as right and wrong and once you get into that area, where there’s no such thing as right and wrong but only ideology you’re in Pol Pot territory. You’re putting forward neo con ideology as in ‘The truth is whatever we say it is’. Well, no, the truth is not whatever someone says it is.  If you see a wall, it’s a wall and if you don’t think it’s a wall try walking through it. A string of lies have been told about the Fort Hood shootings, the most ambitious being the one about the heroic policewoman who was in fact just plain shot. You need to ask yourself the question newshounds, when there were actually newshounds, used to ask themselves constantly : ‘Whys are these bastards lying to me?”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

I have just finished reading all the comments made on this forum. 
OzarkMichael, you make an important point that the questions about Hasan are
not being asked on Truthdig.  Almost all of the commenters, but not all, make
a preconditioned ready response reactively anti-American to confront what is
perceived as anti-Muslim sentiment, but not any real anti-Muslim sentiment
has been expressed.  I don’t see anything OM said as anti-Muslim.  Militant
Islamists cannot be denied, for if they are denied then there is something
wrong with the perception-of-the-world machinery. He did make accusations
of that brand of Islamists.  “The truth is this was Jihad, an act of terrorism done
for the sake of Mohammed’s Koran and Mohammed’s Ummah. Its a simple
fact.”  Where are the references?  The news media gave quite a bit of mileage to
whether anti-Muslim sentiment would be set off like a nuclear reaction in the
American public.  The reality is that the only nuclear reaction that was ignited
was by the news media.  They are the most irresponsible segment of depravity
in human interaction.

There is a small picture jihad carried out by whacked out individuals acting
alone who have been indoctrinated by militant Islam, then there is the big
picture jihad that is perpetrated by Osama bin Laden and militant Islamist
company.  It is a war between the Jews/Christians and the Islamists.  To deny
that is an essential insanity.  Hasan is symptomatic of the small picture jihad. 
The war in Afghanistan is the big picture.  By all the truth that can be parsed
out of all the blurted and bludgeoned news reports Hasan acted alone.  So
while perhaps not a conspiracy, his act “represents” the bigger picture to which
OzarkMichael appears to be reacting.  As a Christian he is feeling the
aggression that is a fact from the Islamists.  He cannot be blamed any more for
that than the peaceful Muslims are feeling threatened because their religious
affiliation makes them suspect.  The Islamist agenda manifests in individuals
going over the edge, ala Louise, that is a reality.  We ought to expect it.  This is
a war not only in Afghanistan.  It is bigger.  It is between these religions. There
are Western soldiers going over the edge and mindlessly killing Muslims as
well. 

The Islamists say there is a conspiracy to exterminate and annihilate them, in
like fashion as does the West (it is not only the United States and that is a fact). 
There is truth on both sides.  But how could both sides have the truth?  Because
it is the reality.

As more and more news, believable or not, comes out about Hasan’s
affiliations, there is more and more suspicion to think there was more behind
his eruption than a lone vigilante acting on his own.  However, things never are
as they are perceived, meaning reality is not as it is reported!

However, and paraphrasing OzarkMichael, on Nov 11 at 12:54 pm, he says,
“Instead of the facts, America can only recite propaganda, spewing convoluted
reasons why the attack happened. America blames Bush for this, or the CIA, or
the Judeo-Christian ethic, etc, etc.” This is not true either.  Just because
there is not a groundswell of lower income Americans who champions Bush, et
al does not mean that “All of America,” blames Bush, et al.  Maybe OM means
only those Americans who count?  America is replete of those who do not
believe the propaganda in the class of those who do not count.  Do take a
nationwide poll, please. 

It is the fallacy of inclusion that is perpetrated over and over by the
commenters on TD on both sides of the dispute.  “The all and the weeze,” does
not represent the all and the weeze! 

DBM at the various posts I’ve run across here, shows a rational mind on this
forum attempting to see the truth instead of resorting to emotionalism.  It is
refreshing.

Report this

By diamond, November 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

You know what my proof is: Davezx3? When my brain tells me that something is somewhere in between impossible and improbable then it probably is. And why would they hesitate to kill 13 people when they’ve killed a million in Iraq and 3,000 on 9/11? The mistake you’re making is that you think they give a damn. They don’t. Human life means nothing to them: all they care about is money and power, and war gives them both.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

diamond, November 11 at 8:07 pm

“This attack at Ford Hood was a black op and Hasan was supposed to die but didn’t. It was meant to stir up public outrage ans strengthen the case for staying in Afghanistan but Hasan is still alive and he won’t be found guilty in any court case that’s not rigged but a lot of stuff has now got to be covered up. That’s why the press is not talking about it”

A conspiracy theory already, and the case is less than a week old. 

How do they get everyone to keep the secret?  How did they get Hasan to go in with the guns and do his thing?  How do they get all these things done? 

And the last question:  Do you really think 13 people were murdered to gain support for continuing the war in Afghanistan? 

If you have any proof at all about these things, I would think that you should produce them or desist from posting such outrageous conspiracy theories.

If you want to talk about stirred up public outrage, what about the following: 

http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood in the US) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Report this

By diamond, November 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately Ozark Michael you’re wrong. This attack at Ford Hood was a black op and Hasan was supposed to die but didn’t. It was meant to stir up public outrage ans strengthen the case for staying in Afghanistan but Hasan is still alive and he won’t be found guilty in any court case that’s not rigged but a lot of stuff has now got to be covered up. That’s why the press is not talking about it. You may recall that a man called Steven Hatfill took the FBI to court after they had destroyed his name and his career by accusing him of sending the anthrax letters. He got $6 million in compensation. Use your common sense: how could a psychiatrist who wasn’t even trained for battle burst in and shoot two handed like Billy the Kid killing and wounding so many in such a short time? And who were the two arrested and released? The whole story stinks. The BBC in Britain has no credibility at all and is very gung ho on staying in Afghanistan and from what I can see is lying at a pace not seen since 9/11.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 11, 2009 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

diamond said: I’ve never seen a country with such a death wish.

So true. How else to explain the American news coverage on this story?

The first words in the Amercain press were, “This has nothing to do with religion.”

And they have not reported the full story since. The only place we are finding out the truth about the terrorist is from the British newspapers. They keep breaking the facts that Obama and the American Press has been hiding from us.

Instead of the facts, America can only recite propaganda, spewing convoluted reasons why the attack happened. America blames Bush for this, or the CIA, or the Judeo Christian ethic, etc, etc.

The truth is this was Jihad, an act of terrorism done for the sake of Mohammed’s Koran and Mohammed’s Ummah. Its a simple fact. Why cant anyone admit that?

I will tell you why. We cannot call things by their proper name because we have a death wish. Read the first 10 posts here and the death wish says, “Its all our fault. We dont deserve to live.”

as diamond said: I’ve never seen a country with such a death wish.

So true!

Report this

By diamond, November 10, 2009 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Davezx3 are you seriously suggesting that America needs to be defended? The only thing America needs to be defended from is itself. I’ve never seen a country with such a death wish. Strangely enough I don’t feel obligated to defend the bully (I leave that to Fox and other such cretins)I feel obligated to defend the bully’s victims who stretch from one side of the world to the other,many of them only children, burned with phosphorous bombs and permanently maimed with America’s landmines.

The landmines alone are a war crime but the rest of the war crimes would fill a hefty book. America’s landmines have been scattered around the third world like confetti but America gives the least foreign aid of any country in the world as a percentage of GDP, once you take Israel out of the equation, because Israel gets billions of taxpayer dollars every year and every weapon of mass destruction their hearts desire. By and large America’s gifts to the third world have been bombs, invasions, the overthrow of elected governments, proxy wars such as the one fought by the Mujuheddin against the Soviet Union or the one fought by Saddam Hussein against Iran at the cost of over a million lives. You say there are lunatics in very country: of course there are. But do those lunatics have nuclear weapons, an enormous military machine, a stranglehold on the world economy, a stranglehold on the world’s media,and a veto in the United Nations which means crimes against Muslims are never even condemned let alone acted on? I think you’ll find they don’t. And don’t believe that nonsense that they hate you for your freedoms: they hate you because from where they’re standing, you’re hateful- and have been for many decades. If the day ever comes when America behaves like a responsible global citizen instead of an oil-addicted megalomaniac and stops treating its own citizens like serfs in some medieval kingdom I’ll sing America’s praises from the rooftops. As George W. Bush said about his prospective win in the election in Florida ‘You can count on it’.

Report this

By johannes, November 10, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

You see Diamond, it is not possible to come to an discusion with you, if you want to write and think together, you have to reed wath the other part in an contact is writing to you, other wise its an one way history, and thats just the whole problem with the modern beliefers of the Islam, they don’t discus, they don’t listen to wath other people have to say, but oppress the other thinkers or if you like religions, see wath they have donne with the Christians, or the Cops, and other old ways of thinking, no I know lots of Moslims who disapprove and condem this so called Moslims, what they say is this fundalistic dogmatic Moslims are send by the devil to destroy the Islam fait, it are the 4 riders on the horses from the apocalyps, you know what this word means apocalyps it means raising the veil, and that is what will happen, in other words the darker site of Islam will be unmask, and put in the full light of love, and it will fading slowly.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 10, 2009 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

diamond, November 10 at 7:18 pm

We could argue about the relative lunacy of everyone on your list, but did you leave out the fact that lunatics live all over the world, not just in America, because you are anti-American? 

I am not being a smart-ass, I am just asking.  I think that incompetence, bad judgment, conflicts of interests, even racketeering are tame compared to the statements coming from the Muslim Brotherhood.

I am not justifying all those things I listed, they are wrong, but they seem to exist to some extent everywhere. 

But does anyone have the right to exterminate a people over this list?  That is the question that I would like answered?  Does anyone have the right to state unequivocally that their goal is the extermination of a people? 

If you or anyone else has any evidence that any group or nation or individual has attempted the extermination of a people due to political or religious reasons, then that group or nation or individual needs to condemned immediately and brought to trial or judgement at some level.

And I would be right behind the effort, whether it was Dick Cheney, Benjamin Netanyahu (sp) or anyone else.

Report this

By diamond, November 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Davezx3 you’re right. There is no negotiating with madmen. That’s why I would never attempt to negotiate with Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman and the CIA or for that matter the Pentagon, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Unocal, the health insurance industry, the arms corporations Bill O’Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, Mossad, the FSB and Ayn Randian free market economists. It came as no surprise to me to read that a stock broker on Wall Street claimed that Wall Street was doing ‘God’s work’. The devil must have had a good laugh at that one.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

diamond, November 10 at 6:20 pm

“To create the illusion of a terrorist threat in America so that the war in Afghanistan can continue”.

Read from the following website and say again that there is an illusion of a terrorist threat in America.  Tell the 9/11 victims there is the illusion of a terrorist threat in America.  Tell the authorities who have arrested 61 home-grown suspects in the past ten months for plotting terrorist attacks that there is the illusion of a terrorist threat in America.  And tell the Fort Hood victims that their tragedy was an illusion. 

America nor Israel have stated anything like the following in relation to their conflicts with any other country. 

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood in the US) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf

It is hard to negotiate with people that have these ideas, and the ideas of the Iranian Madman.  If Israel or America or any other country would have uttered words like Ahmadinejad uttered about the annihilation of Israel it would have been denounced worldwide.  Yet Ahmadinejad is still free to make his bombs. 

The Palestinians have a legitimate problem, but there were more people displaced by Katrina than there were in Palestine.  The problem does not rise to the level of the annihilation of Israel.  Nor does it rise to the level of the terrorists training in America to destroy from within. 

It is all being blown out of proportion so the Anti-God element can rid the world of the Jews once and for all, and take the largest Christian population with them also.  It is as they put it, “Jihad” religious war.  Moslems against Jews and Christians.

If it were as simple as giving in to the settlement issues, the Israelis would certainly do it.  It is a small price to pay for the security to live for a while longer.  But Israel knows the true nature of the conflict.  They fully understand the goal is to annihilate them at all costs.  And so does the US. 

There is no negotiating with madmen.

Report this

By diamond, November 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

My point, Johannes, is that if you want to talk about making war and creating hate you can’t leave America out of the picture. And you can’t leave Israel out of the picture either . The people in Hamas and Hezbollah didn’t wake up one day in a really bad mood and say ‘Let’s go out and kill people’. They see themselves as patriots involved in defending their people. They don’t exist in an historical vacuum.

By concentrating only on Islam and Muslims, and demonizing them in the process, you’re ignoring the Christian and Jewish factors that created the present disaster. You can expect, for example, that the character assassination of Major Hasan in the mainstream media will play heavily on the fact that his parents are Palestinian. This is, of course,  the reason they chose him as their scapegoat. To create the illusion of a terrorist threat in America so that the war in Afghanistan can continue. They know that only a minority of Americans now support either of their occupations and they know that a similar mood prevailed when they had to pull out of Vietnam. What happened in Fort Hood is not about religion- it’s about America’s obsession with invading countries (and lying about why they did it) and the arms corporations and oil corporations desire for ever increasing market share. To people like these Hasan is collateral damage. It’s not helpful to take the line that essentially says that Muslims are evil - because they’re evil. Or to adopt the fall back position that says they wouldn’t be evil if they were only more like us. What a paradise we could create if everyone was only more like us! America’s foray into the Middle East is about creating a global monoculture ruled by the military and surveillance. This effort is the real enemy, not Islam.

Report this

By johannes, November 10, 2009 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

To Diamond

I know very well what the humanity has donne and will do now and again.

Thats not my point, my point is on this moment that most Moslims leth them selfs by used, for something thats not written in their holy book, thats to say intolerant against other ways of thinking.

If I reed old books about Islamists like Ibn Battutah, you geth an whole other picture of the Islam and his beliefers, or about the people who created the Alhambra in Andalusia, no the Islam is in hands from non beliefers who use it for what I do not know, creating hate and making war.

But as you stand up for your idèes, so do I for mine, I want to keep my freedom of thinking and living, as I hope you will have as well.

Report this

By diamond, November 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Johannes, everything I said is true. Historically true, not just my opinion. You act as if what I’ve said is somehow eccentric or mistaken. You know as well as I do that Europe’s history on violence and warfare is absolutely shocking. Cast your mind back to the peasant’s war in which parts of Germany were reduced to a moonscape as Protestant armies swept through carrying out all kinds of atrocities. And this was for centuries the norm in Europe, as one kind of religious orthodoxy after the other was used as an excuse for slaughter. The kind of things you are now saying about the Muslims were at one time said about the Jews. We know how it ended. In slaughter. Now these things are routinely said about Muslims and it should come as no surprise to anyone that it has ended in warfare and slaughter. You need to take responsibility for the things you say. Words are weapons. And you’re very quick to say no one can be blamed for these historical wrongs,  but then you’re also only too happy to blame all Muslims for anything and everything any Muslim has ever said or done. That’s called prejudice and you seem to be furtively advocating collective punishment which is not only unjust but illegal under international law.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 9, 2009 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

While the mainstream media is busy downplaying the shooter’s religion, just think if an O’Reilly or Goldberg book was found in his home or, God forbid, there was a talk station pre-set on his car radio or he once knew a guy who had a cousin who attended a tea party.  There would be endless, mindless speculation and convoluted banner headlines about [how] the evil right-wing is sowing hatred and inspiring death.

You see the media don’t want to jump to any conclusions in this case, especially when they’re politically incorrect conclusions.  But they’d jump to conclusions, wouldn’t they, if a white guy with a crew cut and overalls from the rural south walked into a local NAACP office and shot up the place.  They’d conclude the guy was a racist.  And they’d almost certainly be right.  With the Fort Hood story there was sound reason to suspect the killer’s religion played a part in the massacre, and all we got was drivel about how stressed out soldiers are these days.

Report this

By johannes, November 9, 2009 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

Well I will answer you out of politeness, your wordstream is not educative nor on a fundation of knowing or awareness of our human history.

You can not blame enyone of things happened, its all under the cloak of the zeitgeist now.

What people allways do if they want to be justified, they start to generalize the facs and people.

What I sayd before the Islam is not my cup of thèe, and I will fight them with all my power, its not possible to live to gether while they can not and will not tolerate people with an other way of thinking, they keep quiet and unseen, till the moment they have sufficient support.

Report this

By diamond, November 8, 2009 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

No problem, AS. More light and less heat is my motto.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, November 8, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

By diamond, November 8 at 7:26 pm #
====================================
Diamond, thank you for your enlightened posts and your commitment to truth against the falsehoods, bigotry and racism of some posters on these threads. You’re indeed a beacon of light in a sea of darkness. May you be given long life and good health to continue your campaign against bigotry, racism and ignorance!

Report this

By diamond, November 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

Johannes you in Europe are the ones who killed the Jews and started the mad, sad story that led eventually to the political theatre of 9/11 and the war on terror of which this black op in Texas is part. Why didn’t Britain let the Jewish refugees have Surrey? Why didn’t the Germans give them part of Germany? The Russians and the Poles are also notorious for their anti-semitism during WWII. Russia could have given the Jewish refugees some of their land.It seems to me that Muslims have become the scapegoats for Europe’s murderous ethnic cleansing during WWII. All the more ironic that you describe the Muslims as violent, under the historical circumstances that description could equally well be applied to the whole of Europe because Europe’s entire history is a history of bloodshed and injustice and endless religious conflict. I don’t think Jesus would approve of your racism and intolerance. He was a Palestinian too, you know.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Garo said: Religious zealot and ideologue commenters have shown their true colors of biases and bigotry as they started immediately the easy practice of finger-pointing. They have sounded so empty to me as they have used the comment,” We all know “. What the f**k they mean by “all”? I certainly have not given them my permission to include me in their,“all”.

I should never assume that people like you know anything. From your comments we can all be sure you dont know a thing about the incident.

As far as biases and finger-pointing is concerned, there was a spate of it from the people you admire. They blamed Bush, the FBI, the Judeo Christian ethic, etc. All with no evidence whatsover. All of that is pure bias on their part.

Do not refer to me as a bigot when I am only stating the facts: This was a terrorist act, Jihad in the way of Allah. This is undoubtably what the killer was thinking before and during his murder spree.

He yelled “Allah Akbar!” just so his victims would know what their attacker was killing them for.

I take him at his word. If you want to defend him, go right ahead.

Report this

By Garo, November 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Shrapnel,November 7 at 12:00 am.

Shrapnel has written the following comments:

“What I find absolutely astonishing in all the verbiege published since the guns went off yesterday,is the way almost everyone accepts the story of a Muslim psychiatrist killing thirteen and wounding thirty-one with a couple of handguns. The story is so patently false you would have to be a small child to believe it.

Like puppets on strings,the neaderthals beat their chests and demand more blood from the Jihadis and justify the ongoing slaughter of civilians in illegal wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were started based on a pack of lies. You all know that. Do you think,perhaps,our noble leaders would take advantage of their total control of the crime scene to fabricate a scenario that support their ongoing aggression. Wake up people. You are being lied to.AGAIN.”
 
Shrapnel,

Please accept my apology for overlooking your sensible and thoughtful post as you have expressed it in the foregoing Re referred to above. I must say that it is one of the most thoughtful I have read so far. Thank you.

If human history is any guide for understanding the abhorrent phenomenon and criminal act of terrorism,it has been very clear to me from the very beginning that it belongs to the principle known as the “PRINCIPLE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT”. Once the cause is uprooted,the effect disappears. The human history repeatedly confirms and reconfirms what I have just stated. No one needs to take my words for that. Just ask the experiences of the following colonial powers:

~ Ask the French colonial’s rule in Algeria and Vietnam.

~ Ask the British Empire’s colonial rule in mandated Palestine,Aden(Yemen),Afghanistan,Iraq and large parts of Africa.

~ Ask the Italian colonial’s rule in Libya and Ethiopia.

No need to mention our own ongoing experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are the most reliable witnesses of them all. Failure to recognize this self-explanatory fact is sheer blindness;and may God help all of us.

Thank you again,Shrapnel,for your most thoughtful post.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

I have come to find out that 10 out of 14 US Army Muslim Chaplains have had training in a Maryland Mosque operated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The psychiatrist that killed and injured 42 people at Ford Hood was trained there as well. 

The following website has some information about a lawsuit brought against the Muslim Brotherhood by the US Justice Dept in the wake of 9/11.  The quote under the URL is taken straight out of documents provided as evidence by the federal prosecutors. 

http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaikhwan1007.pdf

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood in the US) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

I know this is not news to everyone, but is the first time that I have looked into this personally.

Report this

By johannes, November 8, 2009 at 3:09 am Link to this comment

To Diamond,

We in Europe have and had much more contact with the Moslims, in the latest hundreds of years, not to say that we do know every thing bether as other countrys.

The Islam is a wapon to conquer, its not something wath will bring light and love, their are books enough to prove my point of view.

Maby you chould reed some books from John le Carrè, about the dirty thinking in espionage, about mols etc.

The whole USA political climat is impregnated and saturated with oil power, good friends with the Saudies meens Islamist in your army.

I know the Islam, I know some Moslims, well its not my cup of theè, but go ahead let you spin in their net.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 8, 2009 at 1:35 am Link to this comment

DBM, November 8 at 4:31 am

I too am puzzled by the Chinese presence at the Mexcican border.  You can google it and come up with quite a bit of evidence.  My evidence was first-hand, coming from a Marine stationed in the area.
China has been given a foothold in Central America, and may be doing what nations do, probe the borders of potential enemies when given the chance.

Regarding plants, the term, I think, has to include so-called home grown terrorism or espionage.  Wherein
citizens of every type might be recruited or exploited due to their religous, political or ideological persuasions.  The word plant can be discarded if misleading, but the idea is that citizens and others can be recruited into causes and groups which have an intent to harm or kill Americans.

I am not singling out Muslims, but the psychiatrist major brought attention to them by his actions.  I have since learned that 10 of the 14 Muslim Chaplains in the US Army graduated from a school operated by the International Brotherhood of Muslims, which is located, I believe in Virginia somewhere.  The United States is the only western country who has not designated this organization as a terrorist organization.  Due in part to the fact that contained within their creed are the words “Jihad is our way”  They are accused of prosyletizing in the US ARmy, as you will find that the Major psychiatrist was also, with a number of complaints against him to that effect. 

My point is that an enemy is present among us, invisible to some extent.  Not only some radical Muslims, but right wing nuts, left wing nuts, you name it.  The enemy is radicalism which encourages violence and murder to further their cause.  We are very naive not to suspect that more horrible events will happen.

Report this

By DBM, November 8, 2009 at 12:31 am Link to this comment

Zx3, that was very measured and reasonable response.  My apologies if I sounded like I was lumping you in with the Birther / Teabagger set! 

I *am* a little puzzled by the foreign incursion angle (especially that they would be Chinese operating thousands of miles from home and from a staunch ally of the U.S. - Mexico).  Perhaps I’m naive but it just doesn’t pass the common sense test for me.  I also think that while “plants” are for real, they are not people like this guy.  I can see a “plant” being a terrorist living under a cover for a few months or even years before carrying out an attack.  Take, for example, the Mumbai attacks earlier this year.  Some of those guys lived in a fishing village for some time leading superficially ordinary lives, then carried out the attack. 

More information has come out about Hasan has come out since this thread started and it seems that he was born in the U.S., educated in the military and was a career military man. It seems that he was conflicted by his Palestinian heritage and U.S. foreign policy though that doesn’t explain going completely off-the-rails as he obviously did.  However, to be a “plant” for his entire life like that also doesn’t pass the common sense test.  It has proven much easier to have people in the country for briefer periods taking flying lessons and making plans than to maintain a double existence for an entire lifetime.

Regarding Obama, I suspect we feel a bit the same way but for different reasons.  As far as I can see his intelligence and determination, though initially encouraging, have not led to any progress on what he represented in most people’s minds.  Rather than deal with Washington as an Outsider, he has surrounded himself with the same money-men and military advisors who created the problems.  I fear that there is no chance for a way out of his “must-succeed-at-all-costs” situation while Goldman Sachs and the Military Industrial complex hold sway.

Report this

By Garo, November 7, 2009 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have just finished reading all published posts on this forum. Some notes:

# Religious zealot and ideologue commenters have shown their true colors of biases and bigotry as they started immediately the easy practice of finger-pointing. They have sounded so empty to me as they have used the comment,” We all know “. What the f**k they mean by “all”? I certainly have not given them my permission to include me in their,“all”. How
about some common courtesy based on your own Christian teachings? How about it,hah?

# The following posts have made most sense to me:(They are listed below according to date and time they were published):

By Arabian Sinbad,November 6 at 3:11 pm:

The Sinbad’s systematic logic has made a lot of sense to me. An Impressive structural analysis based upon conditionings and orientations.

By Diamond,November 6 at 4:24 pm:

Whether one believes in the “Conspiracy Theory” or not,one may find,as I have,that the skeptisim as expressed by diamond is quite appealing and,indeed,makes sense. Therefore,ruling out completely the possibility of a “SET-UP” is foolish. I will keep my mind wide opened.

By DBM,November at 6:28 pm:

It is obvious to me that DBM has rejected the comments/posts he had read. It has also been obvious to me that DBM has refused to allow himself or herself to jump into a conclusion and start finger-pointing,as some morons have done so,on this thread. Such a rejection and such a refusal,under the circumstances,is really an indicative of a profound human decency that resides within the make-up of DBM. A hell of a good citizenship,indeed.

Can one expect an honest and a clean-cut and transparent investigation in the offing, about the shooting? I just do not know at this time. Only the future will tell. One can only hope so.

Report this

By diamond, November 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Montanawildhawk war is not a constant state of mankind - it’s a choice like any other. Sweden last had a war in 1814. That means they haven’t had a war with anyone whatsoever for 195 years. America chooses to be at war and when there is no likely enemy they create one as they did in 2001. The Russians did the same in 1999 when the FSB bombed buildings in Moscow so that they could have a war with Chechnya. Without war how could the CIA and the Pentagon possibly justify the huge amount of taxpayer dollars that go into their bloated budgets every year? Money that is taken away from the genuine needs of the American people so that it can fund war and war profiteering. The truth is there is no nation on earth that could attack America but the military and political elites don’t want to talk about that. It’s bad for business.


Johannes you don’t seem to understand the game of smoke and mirrors that is the war on terror at all. The truth is, American Muslims have been model citizens and refused to be provoked into attacking Americans or America in the so-called homeland since the war on terror started. So much so that sting operations and entrapment and manufacturing of evidence has been the only way the FBI has been able to keep the idea of homegrown terror alive and in the media at all. This incident at Fort Hood has black op written all over it. The fact that Hasan’s death was announced and then retracted is a red flag, the fact that multiple shooters were announced and then retracted is a red flag, the fact that this man had no history of violence and was a psychiatrist treating men with war trauma is a red flag (why would he shoot soldiers, the people he had dedicated his working life to helping?)the fact that so many were hit by gunfire is a red flag indicating more than one shooter. The whole story doesn’t add up and your anti-Muslim racism does you no credit at all. You may be intellectually challenged enough or prejudiced enough to accept the dud story playing in the media but I’m not.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

DBM, November 7 at 9:15 am #

“What on earth would China want with military action in the U.S.?  If they want the U.S. they’ll just foreclose on what is owed to them”.

China is the world’s new superpower, ever growing and expanding in whatever way they see fit. 

Regarding the southern border, it does seem that the incursions are not as plentiful over recent years, or just that I have not asked about them.  They do not make the news.  I will have to check back into that issue to see what is going on.

No argument here from the bad business practices?  I guess being in debt does have its good side.  As long as we owe them, they will hope we do well, hopefully.  Of course the time will come when the dollar is so useless that we will lose that leverage.  At that point, we are like the gambler that owes the bookie a bundle, and gets his knees broken and whatever possessions he has taken. 

I am not an alarmist, just an ex-analyst who looks into all angles. 

I have no ill will towards Obama.  He won, fair and square.  I was initially encouraged by his intelligence and what looked like determination.  He has a strong familly and seems to be a very decent father, and husband.  Not crazy about his politics. 

In a way it is too bad that our first non-white president had to come in at a time when Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln, all three combined, would have a hard time solving our problems.  He is in a must-succeed-at-all-costs, situation, which will add a lot of stress to an alrady overwhelming responsibility.

Report this

By DBM, November 7, 2009 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

What on earth would China want with military action in the U.S.?  If they want the U.S. they’ll just foreclose on what is owed to them.

The only catch for the Chinese is that they’re deep into some bad business practices:  For years they’ve been lending the U.S. money so that Americans were still able to buy Chinese goods.  Imagine running your own business that way ... lending money to customers so they can buy your goods!  The last thing they want is an American collapse.

As for the “plants”:
Next thing you’ll be saying that someone would import a muslim Kenyan and keep the whole thing under wraps for 40 years before taking the White House ...

Report this

By johannes, November 7, 2009 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Their are 10 000 Moslim USA soldiers, yuo must be real naîf for not to say stupid to leth that happen.

Reeding the commontairs on other American sites, they are allready very far in their recruting of non Moslim American youngpeople, wath a shame, a little bit later on they want the Sharia law, as where they push for in England.

We are fighting them, and our alies leth them come in by the back door, maby waths happened now is an eye opener, its not something very bright to exame all incoming tourists, and leth your frontiers in the south open, and even have them in your army, its crazy.

How many soldiers are all ready killed by a shot in their back.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 3:17 am Link to this comment

DBM, November 7 at 4:16 am #

I said:  “Chinese recon patrols penetrate our southern border out of Mexico.  Terrorists train and recruit all over this country. 

Chinese have been penetrating the southern border for years, mostly as illegal imimigrants.  They have also been discovered dressed as Mexican military, and on at least one occasion, in Chinese military uniforms.  These incidents, suppressed by US and Mexican governments, are confirmed by US Border Patrol agents and US Marines called to back up the agents.  Firefights had been reported on at least a couple of occasions.  It is impossible to ascertain the exact nature of the Chinese insertions.  And it certainly seems to have faded out over the past few years.  At one time about 5 years ago, it was verified that the Chinese military had large troop buildups in Mexico right across the border.  Most of my information came from US Marines stationed in the area.  There are lots of unverified accountings across the net. 

A US Government report confirmed that there were approx 35 Jihad training camps on US Soil.  I don’t have the specific report, but it is available if you want to search for it.  I personally went to observe a location in North Carolina as I passed through that state a while back.  There were signs and everything. 

Not saying the Major was part of a conspiracy, per se, but his actions had most of the components of a traditional Jihadist attack.  I was not commenting on his name or nationality, just his methods.  But I am not afraid to call a Jihadist a Jihadist.  It is not an alarmist stance, but just an observation based on the facts as they have come out. 

Plants are very useful insurgency and counterinsurgency methods.  The process has been explained by ex-Soviet spies who came over under the guise of student exchanges, and were allowed to live in America for years by their Soviet masters until they were called upon for their mission. It is well known and documented.

Report this

By DBM, November 7, 2009 at 12:16 am Link to this comment

Zx3 you worry me ...

There are few people in this discussion trying to see this as a terrorist act because the guy has an Arabic name.  I wonder as to the motivation for that sort of thing but you specifically give a couple of hints:

“Chinese recon patrols penetrate our southern border out of Mexico.  Terrorists train and recruit all over this country.  What do you think tomorrow holds?”  and “His actions reflect to me, the actions of a “plant”. Someone who is recruited but left to proceed with his life as is.  At the time allotted, he springs to action and commits his act of war.  Jihadists resort to plants, and it is just another brand of their terrorism.”

Wow!  You’ve had the frighteners put on you!  I’m sure if you vote conservative and militaristic you’ll feel safer from all those Chinese recon patrols and the sleepers or “plants” that have been living next door just waiting for a key moment to go all terrorist ...

I’m not saying you’re paranoid, just that you’ve been misinformed for a reason.  Let me know when you meet one of those Chinese recons personally ok?

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 7, 2009 at 12:14 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 7 at 3:49 am

Thanks for saying what we all know.  “The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism”.

Yes, indeed it was.  Carried out by one individual perhaps, but Jihadist terror none-the-less.  Very similar to a suicide bombing. 

Arabian Sinbad is correctly identifying the participants of the evolving world war. 

It is the Jihadist Muslim terrorist extremists VERSUS wacko-Christian-Zionist zealots.  The main battle will be fought in Jezreel, and there will be many nations present.  It will be extremely ugly and devastating.

It is time to start acknowledging these things and finding solutions.  It is more important than global warming, it is more important than the economy.  Where is the voice of the peacemaker, and who should police the aggressor(s)?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 6, 2009 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

Louise does a quote chop on me: “Jihad ... Islamic terrorism. ... it is so predictable that I could set my watch by it…”

of course what i actually said was: “The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism.

There. I said what we all know is true.

Lets see what happens next, although it is so predictable that I could set my watch by it…”

What was so ‘predictable’ in my quote was the Leftist reaction. I expected to be called Islamophobic and in so mnay words thats what happened.

Notice that Louise never refutes what I say, never takes facts into consideration. She just does a quote chop and thats about it.

Let me try a quote chop on Louise.

Here is what Louise ‘said’:  “I… Don’t think…. Don’t even pretend to”

Louise, we all knew that without you telling us. Please keep posting anyway. And good luck with that cliff up ahead, my Leftist Lemming.

Quick! Tuck your nose in behind Arabian Sinbad, who leads the charge with this remark:

Christian-Zionist zealots like you OzarMichel, who pretend to know much about Islam, there will always be Muslim reactionaries whose mottoes will be, “Nothing blunts steal but steal.”

Please take note that we have another entry into the “real” motivation for Jihad list. The real motivation for Jihad is because an infidel like me notices the Jihad and is unafraid to say outloud…

The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, November 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

By OzarkMichael, November 6 at 10:55 pm #

“The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, I sadly understand that as long as there are wackos-Christian-Zionist zealots like you OzarMichel, who pretend to know much about Islam, there will always be Muslim reactionaries whose mottoes will be, “Nothing blunts steal but steal.”

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 6, 2009 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

Louise, November 7 at 1:54 am

“he just didn’t want to go. Now someone who knew how to handle anger, and had someone close to share their frustration with might have dealt with their problem in a more rational way. But maybe not”.

If a career military major and psychiatrist does not know how to handle anger, then psychiatry is a farce and military training a double farce. (good subjects for another story)

The guy was well trained and competent.  It was not a matter of him “handling his problem in a more rational way” 

His actions reflect to me, the actions of a “plant”.
Someone who is recruited but left to proceed with his life as is.  At the time allotted, he springs to action and commits his act of war.  Jihadists resort to plants, and it is just another brand of their terrorism. 

Might not be what happened at Fort Hood, but it has all the characteristics.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 6, 2009 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

gerard, November 6 at 7:44 pm #

“Re:  “conscientious objection” as “the way the major should have done it.”  Nine out of ten average people have never heard of conscientious objection, or if they have, think it is a way of cheating.  Why do you think it is kept a deep-dyed secret?  Maybe because more people would use it?”

I only bring “conscientious objection” up because it would have had to be an understood concept of a psychiatrist helping soldiers.  Even though he may try to discourage it as a military professional, he had to have known of the concept. 

Also, achieving legal “conscientious objection” status is one thing, but insisting beyond being legal is also an option.  You just go to jail and lose your job.  Still, to someone who just does not want to go, it is worth it. 

My gut feeling is that the major absolutely knew how to go about “not going”.  He chose another path which was not at all related to “conscientious objection”.  He chose to go to war, and he chose the side of those who did not give him his paycheck and training.  He chose to kill those he had lived with for many years.  He expected to die, so he is no different than the suicide bomber. 

IF the killer had been in a different occupation, walked in with bombs strapped to his body and yelled “Allah Akbar” and detonated himself, would we declare that an act of terrorism & war?  YES. This incident only differs by slight degrees. 

This incident should be put in the category of war and terrorism.  Those who died shold be categorized as Killed In Action (KIA)  Purple Hearts should be awarded to the wounded and killed. 

The major is not a psychiatric case, but a prisoner of war.

Report this

By Louise, November 6, 2009 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm, and a few more hmmm’s.

As one of the Commanders said yesterday, regarding troops on the base and packing guns. “This is our home. We don’t carry weapons around at home.” A concept probably foreign to all the wannabee warriors who love to pack guns around at home, and everywhere else for that matter, but wouldn’t be caught dead in a war. (pun intended)

One of the weapons was a rapid fire semi-automatic hand gun, using “cop-killer” ammunition. Definitely not military issue, but a favorite among the wannabees. And, everybody was wearing military issue, so it’s possible there may have been some “friendly” fire.

Hopefully all that will be sorted out. Not to set at ease the minds of those who’ve already closed their minds, but for the sake of clarity for the wounded and families of the dead. So, before any of you hurt yourselves trying to figure out what happened, I suggest we wait for more facts to come in.

By the way, the alleged shooter was going to be deployed to Afghanistan, not Iraq. So I suspect more than anything, and like so many others, he just didn’t want to go. Now someone who knew how to handle anger, and had someone close to share their frustration with might have dealt with their problem in a more rational way. But maybe not. I mean look what happened in Florida today.

However I agree, there are far too many “private” contractors performing formerly military functions. That’s another gift from Cheney the Dick. Started back when he was Secretary of Defense. (A scary thought.)

~~~

OzarkMichael

“Jihad ... Islamic terrorism. ... it is so predictable that I could set my watch by it…”

~~~

Ah yes, religious bigotry is indeed so predictable we could, actually did, set our watch by it. And here I thought the backward, narrow minded hillbilly from the Ozarks stereotype was, well a stereotype. I guess behind every perception there must be a bit of fact.

But don’t stop!

No indeed, don’t stop. Don’t think. Don’t even pretend to have as much sense as a ripe cantilope!
Because as the all to common, conservative, ignorance and stupidity floods our senses ... day after day we grow ever closer to letting right-wing wackos march themselves right off a cliff.

And that’s just got to be a good thing. smile

Meanwhile another angry, lonely man destroyed himself, by destroying life around him. How sad is that. Maybe the real problem is there are far to many angry, lonely men.

Quick Michael, go hug someone!

Report this

By elroy, November 6, 2009 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well OzarkMike, if it was a psyops the intended message would be exactly what you said:  “The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism. There. I said what we all know is true.” Rather smug, aren’t you.

Diamond, how can anyone find their way in this house of mirrors?  This post might interest you:  http://cryptogon.com/?p=12020.  It’s so hard to tell, are the initial stories the unspun truth, the truths that can’t be controlled, or the confusion of the moment?

Report this

By Shrapnel, November 6, 2009 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What I find absolutely astonishing in all the verbiage published since the guns went off yesterday, is the way almost everyone accepts the story of a Muslim psychiatrist killing thirteen and wounding thirty-one with a couple of handguns.  This story is so patently false you would have to be a small child to believe it.

Like puppets on strings, the neanderthals beat their chests and demand more blood from the Jihadis and justify the ongoing slaughter of civilians in illegal wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq.  These wars were started based on a pack of lies.  You all know that.  Do you think, perhaps, our noble leaders would take advantage of their total control of the crime scene to fabricate a scenario that supports their ongoing aggression.  Wake up people.  You are being lied to.  AGAIN!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 6, 2009 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

The themes of all the posts so far:

Blaming the man’s action on Bush. Blaming it on the Judeo Christian ethic. Blaming it on Israel. Blaming it on U.S. military bases. Blaming it on the initial rumors. Blaming it on some conspiracy by the CIA.

Did I miss anyone’s post? 

Oh yes,  some meaningless drivel like: Many of those who tried to enlighten were hanged from the lampposts.

It is absolutely amazing to me the lengths to which the Truthdiggers will go to keep from calling something by its proper name.

Not that i am so much smarter than you, but you guys can’t get right to the proximal cause, and you look stupid dancing all the killer’s motivation.

Well let me enlighten you and we will see what happens to me.

The motivation of these killings was Jihad in the way of Allah. It was Islamic terrorism.

There. I said what we all know is true.

Lets see what happens next, although it is so predictable that I could set my watch by it…

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, November 6, 2009 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

Would have to agree with diamond, the bullshit is pretty thick, time lines and such and those who were first to respond on an army base seems a little peculiar. But then again most everything but humping the bush is done by private contractors nowadays.

Even with that said, I thought that one of the reason’s we were fighting there was so things like this wouldn’t happen here. God has his ways, looks like the god of jihad won this round, although I doubt that the god of the crusade will even miss a step.

Report this

By gerard, November 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

Re:  “conscientious objection” as “the way the major should have done it.”  Nine out of ten average people have never heard of conscientious objection, or if they have, think it is a way of cheating.  Why do you think it is kept a deep-dyed secret?  Maybe because more people would use it? 
  Anyhow, there are certain requirements and limitations that have to be observed in order to achieve that status.  Proof of seriousness of intent is of primary importance, plus valid recommentations, past experiences of convincement.  Details available from Quaker organizations (American Friends Service Committee etc.) and Central Committee for Conscientioius Objectors, and a few other low-budget, not widely advertised organizations.  Go to Google.
  Rules change slightly now and then, so keep updated and follow the procedures carefully. Needless to say, the military will be of little or no help, so learn the details before you start the process.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Very powerful, glen wayne.

I was suspicious too, Diamand, espeically about handguns shooting that many people.  But there is now an acoount in the UNTimes of his preliminary giving away his possesions ahead of time that is convincing about his personal committment.  What he did was religous and logical, as religion and logic are currently understood.  Of course I don’t know if thre were others.

Report this

By DBM, November 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

How terrible is was to see that this guy had an Arabic name ... I just knew there would be whole lot of posts like the crap below saying that he should never have been trusted and other racist waffle.

After 14 years in the military, he finally sprung his trap, right?  Next thing you’ll be saying that someone would import a muslim Kenyan and keep the whole thing under wraps for 40 years before taking the White House ... oh wait ...

What a bunch of morons ...

Report this

By diamond, November 6, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

Sorry folks but my bullshit detector just went off and won’t stop beeping. A psychiatrist? First he’s dead, then he’s not? Eyewitnesses said more than one person was firing but now it’s ‘he acted alone’. And please, someone enlighten me: why would a man who has dedicated his life to helping soldiers recover from the trauma of war, a doctor, shoot soldiers? The whole story is a set up - for military or political purposes, created in God knows what sick mind. You can expect the mainstream media to go along with any crap the right puts out but I expect more from truthdig.

Report this

By Glen Wayne, November 6, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Many of those who tried to enlighten were hanged from the lampposts. —
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Lamppost Hangings     ePIe     November 6th, 2009

Swinging sac like shadows from the post block the light
of ‘those who tried to enlighten’ most.

Concentrate the light zap me, turn my body into toast.
High tech enlightenment.. without the flutter, without the post.

Pre-empt some post trauma…..Shrink wrap your PTSD
Plead shooter spree dreams…. from devil doctrine teams.
Plead normative non norms.. for the crazies in the dorms
Lockdown belief,.. for time is always brief.

‘Brevity and wit’....take time for a relaxing shit;
Is there no past tense for shit?
Fill in the blank I would have——myself,
if I had had time for pause but no ,
I was run down by the cause.

Don’t question. Don’t inform.
Slip a Pavlov on the form.  Tick.
Tic,
terminator training,
toggle off for on.

Howl at the wall.
Smile at the forlorn.
The fog is about to blow the horn.

Report this
Arabian Sinbad's avatar

By Arabian Sinbad, November 6, 2009 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Sad as this tragic incident might be, I am appalled at those who find it unusual that such violence took place on a military base.

What is a military base! It’s place were people are trained to kill and be ready to accept that they will be killed. In other words, it’s a place where a culture of violence and death is promoted and glorified in the name of patriotism or sacrificing for one’s country.

Moreover, such places are full of victims who have been psychologically and physically scarred as a result of violent wars half way around the world. Obviously, the gunman in this case is one who can equally be called a victim and a victimizing.

What should be surprising for people is that such violence does not happen with more frequency considering the culture of war-mongering and violence our country has been experiencing for a close to a decade now.

I agree with those posters who are hinting that the solution lies in ending wars and bringing soldiers home; first to be rehabilitated and second to be involved in nation-building which is badly needed at home.

Report this

By DaveZx3, November 6, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

gerard, November 6 at 1:55 pm #

“There are a lot of other places they could have sent him, right?  And the Middle East is not the only place where psychiatrists are needed? And military rigidity is not the only—or even the most sensible—way of dealing with problems?  And was it worth the Hood experience just to make that point clear, among others”?

All you say is too sensible.  I was in the military, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing regarding the admin of it.  Hopefully the actual combat is a little more planned.

Some bonehead might have actually believed it would do the major good to experience a little combat.  he was squawking so loud that a little “put up or shut up” might have been deemed to be in order. 

But remember one thing.  The Army does recognize ones right to conscientious objection, which is the way the major should have done it.  You simply refuse to go under conscientious objector status (ie: you don’t want to kill your family members) or whatever. 

You will be court-martialed, lose your job and commission and be removed from the service under other than honorable conditions, in addition to some jail time, possibly.  If you really believe in something, all those things are the price you pay.  A small price, really.

He chose to kill 12 and wound 31.  I do mean chose, as it was obviously premeditated.  Now he gets to go to jail for life.  I don’t know how he got to be a psychiatrist.  You think a psychiatrist could have worked those things out in his head a little better. 

Just goes to show you that the plumbers house is full of leaks.

Report this

By Rodney, November 6, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s about time Obama end both of these wars. Bush and Cheney delibertly passed on both of these wars so someone else could take the blame for their failure and they can wash their hands clean from all of the shit thsy started. The real tragedy of these wars will be felt 20 years from now when all of these soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome drain the life out of the veteran’s adminstration health care system. Bush and Cheney will be dead or still lying and blaming others. It boils down a Christian army fighting wars in Muslim and Arab countries for control of the world’s oil, and to keep regimes that we control in power. That’s who we are and what we have been about along with the British for hundreds of years. Democracy at the barrel of a gun. The chickens are coming home to roost in the military by men who want so serve this country but the bigoted and racist policies of this government sometimes conflict with their religous beliefs and morals. Torture is now okay. Indefinite detention is now okay. All done against Arabs and Muslims. Killing innocent people with drones is a normal daily activity. If drones were dropped in US cities we would be fighting WWIII. All done against Muslims and middle east countries. Add Israel to the mix and you can see why Arab Americans find it difficult to be both a Muslim and a proud American. Obama needs to stop these racist and immoral wars. I’d rather that Obama serve only one term and end these wars that we will never win,than to continue eight years of wars that they the Obama Adminstration will now own, Bush and Cheney can wipe there hands clean from failure as there will be no happy ending to either of these wars. It’s a war not a football game. People who cheer victory at the end of a war are not God’s children but rather God’s fanatic’s.

Report this

By montanawildhack, November 6, 2009 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

InTheKnow,,,

Thanks for the kind words….Some of these guys have really been riding my hump…. And not in a good way…...

Bojan1,,

The violence in Spain, France, Russia and China is not terrorism….Those are Internal disputes and people are simply voicing their opinions through violence…  You’re welcome…And remember that Jesus still loves you even if your head is up your ass….

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.