About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Judge Napolitano, sitting in for the recuperating Glenn Beck bravely discusses the real cause of this 'tragedy': Nadal Malik Hasan was a . . . psychiatrist.



Post 1

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Psychiatrists and psychologists have high suicide rates. There are people that think it must be some sort of stress associated with the job or assume that they are 'catching' the depression from their patients. But it is neither.

The majority of the people that go into the mental health field at that level are drawn by their own issues. Either they have resolved their issues and that was such an impacting event for them that they want to stay with the field, or they have not resolved their issues and hope to learn more from the inside.

I can't imagine a terrorist that isn't nutty by some reasonable definition. You can't make it a goal to go kill innocent people and not be a little nutty. And you can't imagine that the people being killed are not innocent just because they might not be muslim.

But no matter how nutty a person is, if they are capable of planning, and they do make plans, and their plans involve killing innocent people in a way that is explained by ideology... they are terrorists.

To me, being mentally deranged and being a terrorist seem to be perfectly compatible - but maybe that is just me, I have a hard time seeing anyone who is a fundamentalist as not at least neurotic, even if they don't make any plans.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 4:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The judge should be ashamed of himself.

Mark Steyn was all over this yesterday, pointing out the dishonest editing in early articles (Newsweek), and the fact that PC culture is actually to blame for these murders.  Steyn coined "pre-traumatic" syndrome to illustrate to what lengths people will go to excuse this crime. 


Post 3

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Only one shooter?? (Hard to believe.)

What I'm finding fishy is that this "lone gunman" armed with two pistols killed 13 people and wounded 31. That's at least 44 shots, not counting any that missed. And each pistol holds, what, 6 or 8 shots?

That means, on a military base, the guy had time to reload 6 or 7 times.

And what are his victims doing in the meanwhile, while he is out of operation and shots are ringing out, standing around? And why does it take so long to run to the gunfire - especially with long pauses to reload?

I was an army brat and lived on and spent time on army bases. At least in those days, there were MP's all around. Armed. They are not deaf. And the sound of gunfire carries.

Reaction time: Seconds.

Perhaps I haven't read the exact scenario or sequence of events? Has anyone?

.....
Would the military cover up an embarrassing Islamofascist attack from within on a domestic military base?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil:

I don't know the truth of this, but one of the (plausible) explanations I've heard so far was the fact that everyone -- including the shooter-- was in uniform, in a densely crowded place where surprisingly few are actually routinely armed except the MPs and civilian cops. The shooter could have simple taken advantage of the confusion in some densely crowded spaces. After the initial confusion, how unusual would it have been to see another armed man in uniform running down a hall with a sidearm drawn? So, is that the shooter, or someone looking for the shooter? How would anyone freshly on the scene know?

So, even if the MPs responded fast, it could still take them some time to figure out who/where the shooter was.

Though, if other reports are true, then you'd think the first assumption would be "the guy screaming Allah Akhbar and firing off rounds at troops." But, we weren't there. Surely, there were folks there who saw the shooter and who were certain, but not until that was also an armed someone who saw the shooter and was certain was anyone in any position to effectively do anything to stop him -- and, apparently, that civilian woman cop and her partner did just that, when they were certain--but until that time, the shooter was able to take advantage of a lot of confusion in a crowded place. The confusion was understandable, if everyone is wearing the same or similar uniform, and also has a plausible expectation of seeing other armed personnel in uniform with weapons drawn in that situation. I don't envy the responsibility of those who had to make quick decisions, friend or foe, under those circumstances, nor would I second guess them. "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" thankfully wasn't the option that the authorities chose.

Is there any substantial difference between "a wigged out nut" and "a wigged out terrorist nut?" As tragic as this incident is, 300 million other people did no such thing that day. This was 6-sigma fringe lunacy, terrorist or pushed over the edge unstable guy, hardly makes a difference. If it was part of some widespread deep seated terrorist plot that is taking decades to unfold, then it is a widespread deepseated plot that so far is a way far distant second to highway mayhem, which never makes it past P8 of the local paper.

We kill more of each other rushing home from the really, really good Italian Ice on the other side of town and so on(ie, for no compelling reason whatsoever other than our freedom to do so) than every terrorist organization in existence.

The aspect of this I find intriguing is, we have a 'volunteer army.' He seems like he accepted the medical training, and the degree, and a career in the military, and all of that, but ... yes, but...clung to his personal politics. Clearly a bit too hard. OTOH, the whole point of having all those folks in uniform is to insure precisely our right to do that.

Six-sigma fringe lunacy, that's what it seems like so far.







Post 5

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't present day guns load by clips, not singles? drop one, add one - done and more firing...

Post 6

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes Robert, reloading a semi-automatic pistol just takes literally a couple of seconds.



The pistol he used I believe is the FN Five-Seven, which has magazines that carry up to 20 rounds.

It's not hard to believe at all one gunman could kill that many unarmed people.




Post 7

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't have a chance to listen to Steyn, but Peters had the jihadi nailed:

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, itís an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit ó well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."


Post 8

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe so, John and Robert - maybe he could a) have large magazines and reload fast, and b) there were fifty or more targets right nearby in front of him. I just don't know that much about weapons and b) bothers me - even if one can be prepared to fire that fast, are there that many 'sitting ducks' around? Unless you are in a closed and locked place [like the school shootings, where if I recall fewer got shot], they are probably scattering in all directions after the first shot.

I certainly don't want to be a 'conspiracy theorist' without hard evidence. But I'd feel more comfortable if I knew on what website there was a moment by moment recap of what took place in what sequence and especially where. (One thing that made me suspicious was the slowness in reporting that he was a muslim. His name should have been a possible clue.)

Has anyone seen such a blow-by-blow recounting of the when and where details?
(Edited by Philip Coates on 11/07, 12:36pm)


Post 9

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
are there that many 'sitting ducks' around? Unless you are in a closed and locked place [like the school shootings, where if I recall fewer got shot]


At Virginia Tech the gunman killed 32 people, much more than the number that died at Ft. Hood. Ft. Hood wouldn't be all that much different than a college. Large numbers of unarmed people packed into various buildings on a spread out campus. I'm not aware of any information that's been released yet on the reconstruction of the crime scene. They're probably still working on that as you can probably imagine there's a lot of evidence to gather and witnesses to question.

Post 10

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay I found it. 400 people. Makes sense now. ===>

"A US soldier, dressed in army uniform, enters the Soldier Readiness Center, armed with two non-military issue pistols, including a semi-automatic. Over a period of about 10 minutes he kills 12 soldiers and one civilian and injures 30 other people. About 400 people are at the centre..."

-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8346315.stm

Post 11

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You probably won't find many places in the USA with stricter gun-control measures than military bases. 

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mark Steyn at NR


The Nothing-to-see-here media continue to do a grand job. Chris Matthews:

We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.

That's almost certainly true in your case, Chris.

As for yelling "Allahu akbar" as you open fire, Michael Tomasky, one of the American lefties on the Guardian's payroll, explains it for us know-nothings:

The fact that Hassan reportedly shouted the above is meant, I suppose, to imply that he was an extremist fanatic.

I'm not sure that it does. My understanding is that it's something Arab people often shout before doing something or other. It's used in many different situations. It doesn't mean the guy is an al-Qaida mole any more than my drinking a cup of tea would mean I was a tea partier.

Shouldn't that be "teabagger," as you chaps say? Still, it's good to know if someone shows up shouting "Allahu akbar" it's just a sign he's about to "do something or other." No need to dive under the table.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.