More apologist crap.

[AZhitman]

To construe the murders at Fort Hood as anything other than an act of terrorism, committed by a radical Muslim, who was inspired to jihad by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Anwar al-Awlaki region, is to whitewash one of the worst cases of terrorism since 9/11... and perhaps a WORSE one, considering its insidiousness and the accompanying violation of TRUST.

Yet, that's what authorities have done.

Unfair to the families of those lost. Unfair to the good, peace-loving Muslims in our midst. Unfair to the future concept of "workplace violence", and unfair to the judiciary that must now operate within a totally different set of parameters.

Or am I the only one pissed about this? Can someone explain to me why that worthless scrap of meat is still breathing my good goddamn air?

[szh]

Uh ... need more info or link? I am not sure what apologist issue you are referring to ...

BTW, more importantly, I agree with you. Although I was not sure about it in the beginning, everything since then has pointed to premeditated actions, perhaps driven by words from an extremist in the Middle East.

But, whether or not it was terrorism is somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. He was a murderer - with many repeat offenses - and needs to suffer the consequences of his actions. Texas is a capital punishment state and needs to exercise that option.

Z

[vikesfankevin1986]

I vote kill him...then again I vote kill him for an murders and rapists, or really anyone that brutally attacks someone.

[heliochrome85]

i say make him attend every justin bieber concert, and force him to watch Courtney Love "sing."

No sense in sending the guy off nicely.

[IBCoupe]

To construe the murders at Fort Hood as anything other than an act of terrorism, committed by a radical Muslim, who was inspired to jihad by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Anwar al-Awlaki region, is to whitewash one of the worst cases of terrorism since 9/11... and perhaps a WORSE one, considering its insidiousness and the accompanying violation of TRUST.

Okay, Greg. Let's construe it as exactly what you say it was. Now what? We still have the extreme violent acts of an individual who holds extreme ideological beliefs; that allows no greater conclusion.

Where do we end up if it's "whitewashed?" Is our greater understanding of the world, of the United States, and of Islam any different than if it's not? Is this really what we should be upset about?

[heliochrome85]

To construe the murders at Fort Hood as anything other than an act of terrorism, committed by a radical Muslim, who was inspired to jihad by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Anwar al-Awlaki region, is to whitewash one of the worst cases of terrorism since 9/11... and perhaps a WORSE one, considering its insidiousness and the accompanying violation of TRUST.

Okay, Greg. Let's construe it as exactly what you say it was. Now what? We still have the extreme violent acts of an individual who holds extreme ideological beliefs; that allows no greater conclusion.

Where do we end up if it's "whitewashed?" Is our greater understanding of the world, of the United States, and of Islam any different than if it's not? Is this really what we should be upset about?

i happen to agree with greg though. to lessen his act by whitwashing the truth is a disservice to those who were murdered that day. it isnt about our understanding about islam or the world. its about defending the truth of what happened that day. you know where this was also done? The death of Pat Tillman. And again, the Government was wrong then to change the facts.

i can understand why Obama and his administration may want this issue to go away, but sometimes these things need to be talked about as a reminder of what is a very real cancer in our military forces: mental health. For me, the story is that this person was emotionally unbalanced and the system failed to remove the threat. The same exists amongst the vets of the most recent armed conflicts. PTSD is a very real threat, and every day, across this country, vets face the same violent pressures that this man faced and unfortunately, no one cares.

Is the death of a soldier on an army base at the hands of a deranged member of the armed forces any sadder than the death of an army wife at the hands of her emotionally destroyed veteran husband/boyfriend?

thats the national conversation i hope results. but sadly i know it wont.

[IBCoupe]

The distinction between Ford Hood and Tillman was that the changing of facts in Tillman affected liability. If the government changed the facts, the government was no longer responsible for Tillman's death, and couldn't be sued for it. If the government changed the facts, none of Tillman's comrades could face consequences in civil or military courts.

The facts you and Greg are so fixed on interpreting a certain way are those facts related to the internal motivations of the man involved. What could this possibly affect? If we disagree with your interpretation, those soldiers are no less dead, and that man is no less liable. You may very well be right about his motivations, but what does it matter?

If we say that he was just another crazy extremist or if we say he was just another crazy psychologist, are our opportunities for exploring the issues of military mental health affected?

Cliff's note: So what?

[stebo0728]

Ft Hood was the first act of war on our home soil in DECADES. Yes we are at war with radical islamic terrorism, plain and simple. The problem is, the enemy is not one congealed nation or army, its more spread out, and hiding in little nooks and crannies all over the world. This makes it much more dangerous.

[heliochrome85]

Ft Hood was the first act of war on our home soil in DECADES. Yes we are at war with radical islamic terrorism, plain and simple. The problem is, the enemy is not one congealed nation or army, its more spread out, and hiding in little nooks and crannies all over the world. This makes it much more dangerous.

i could go down many avenues with you on this, but one question lingers

is there non radical terrorism?

[heliochrome85]

If we say that he was just another crazy extremist or if we say he was just another crazy psychologist, are our opportunities for exploring the issues of military mental health affected?

yes they most certainly are. rather than a conversation on mental health, we have a conversation of the insideous nature of islamic terrorism. this man was clearly deranged, no less deranged than the christian radicals who shoot up Abortion clinics. the people are still dead yes, but the title we assign to their acts is inherently guiding in terms of the resulting conversation over the acts.

maybe im not understanding your point of view?

[IBCoupe]

You know, Stebo, we could probably save a lot of money if we stopped trying, in futility, to wage wars on ideas.

My point, Helio, is whether or not he was your average violent crazy person in the military or if he was a violent crazy Muslim doesn't change the issue you're worried about: violent crazy people in the military. Knowing his motivations doesn't make it any different.

[stebo0728]

You know, Stebo, we could probably save a lot of money if we stopped trying, in futility, to wage wars on ideas.

My point, Helio, is whether or not he was your average violent crazy person in the military or if he was a violent crazy Muslim doesn't change the issue you're worried about: violent crazy people in the military. Knowing his motivations doesn't make it any different.

Well to be honest I look at it this way. The radical islamic sector did not have us in their sights until we started engaging in military action in their area. Its like we kicked over a hornets nest, and now the are swarming everywhere. Usually when you do this, its a shame you kicked over the nest, but now for the good of everyone at the picnic, you have to get out the RAID can.

[IBCoupe]

Or you move yourself away from the angry hornet's nest. Then you don't have to worry about the negative side-effects of RAID, the chance that you're still going to be stung, or the questions about the wisdom of kicking over hornet's nests in the first place.

[stebo0728]

Or you move yourself away from the angry hornet's nest. Then you don't have to worry about the negative side-effects of RAID, the chance that you're still going to be stung, or the questions about the wisdom of kicking over hornet's nests in the first place.

Ever kicked over a hornets nest? They tend to chase you for a good long while. Agreed we should vacate the area, but the question now is how to settle this thing back down, or can that even be done now?

[IBCoupe]

Right, but if you're going to get stung either way, an effort to get away makes more sense than an effort to destroy the swarm. As I said before, we could save a lot of money by not waging wars on ideas. Or, in this case, on tactics linked to a certain idea.

The hornets, in this case, suggest that we stop meddling with their nests. Won't make them any more happy with us, for sure, but it might give them fewer incentives to sting. But they're just hornets, so what do they know?

[stebo0728]

Right, but if you're going to get stung either way, an effort to get away makes more sense than an effort to destroy the swarm. As I said before, we could save a lot of money by not waging wars on ideas. Or, in this case, on tactics linked to a certain idea.

The hornets, in this case, suggest that we stop meddling with their nests. Won't make them any more happy with us, for sure, but it might give them fewer incentives to sting. But they're just hornets, so what do they know?

Right so what do we do if we are going to "get stung" regardless of what we do now? Take a proverbial jump into the pond with a breathing straw? What do we do then when the hornets decide to fly down our breathing tube?

Im afraid no amount of diplomacy is going to work, even if we tuck tail, and cut our losses. Perhaps at some point they will forget about us and go back to just "stinging" Israel, but until then do we just continue to watch them amass their forces, and attack us and others, and watch them wear the "victim" mantle to infiltrate and subjugate western culture?

[IBCoupe]

Or, we could leave the nest alone and swat down the hornets that do come after us. And here's where I'm going to ditch the metaphor: through proper policework. We're trying to wage war on criminal acts. That's not what the military is for.

When did playing defense cease to be an option? When we identify problems with our offense, why is the solution "more offense?"

[heliochrome85]

Or, we could leave the nest alone and swat down the hornets that do come after us. And here's where I'm going to ditch the metaphor: through proper policework. We're trying to wage war on criminal acts. That's not what the military is for.

When did playing defense cease to be an option? When we identify problems with our offense, why is the solution "more offense?"

excellent point made. very excellent.

made this grumpy guy smile.

[heliochrome85]

Or, we could leave the nest alone and swat down the hornets that do come after us. And here's where I'm going to ditch the metaphor: through proper policework. We're trying to wage war on criminal acts. That's not what the military is for.

When did playing defense cease to be an option? When we identify problems with our offense, why is the solution "more offense?"

If you haven't already, please go out and find a copy of the movie "The Fog of War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgA98V1Ubk8[/youtube]

[heliochrome85]

You know, Stebo, we could probably save a lot of money if we stopped trying, in futility, to wage wars on ideas.

My point, Helio, is whether or not he was your average violent crazy person in the military or if he was a violent crazy Muslim doesn't change the issue you're worried about: violent crazy people in the military. Knowing his motivations doesn't make it any different.

i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. i still think that portraying him as solely one thing prevents discussion of the other things he may have been. The title you give his acts directly affects the subsequent impact his actions have on the nation. If I call him a terrorlst, he becomes part of this grand islamist plot to strike at the heart of the country. If i call him a crazy soldier who went nuts and shot a bunch of people, then he highlights the issue im talking about. No it doesnt change that those poor soldiers are still dead, but it places their deaths in context. Either as part of a terrorlst act, or the latest victims in a series of crimes spanning decades.

[themadscientist]

Am I the only one who sees the Ft. Hood shootings as justification for allowing concealed carry on base? Had any one of the people in that office be legally carrying knucklehead would not have killed as many people and would likely be dead.

I just can't bring myself to live my life in fear like my countrymen increasingly seem to. I am not particularly interested in why some whack job wants to try to kill me, religious dogma or good ole fashioned crazy. Step up quick so I can take you out and get to Starbucks for my Venti white mocha by 10:00.

[stebo0728]

Am I the only one who sees the Ft. Hood shootings as justification for allowing concealed carry on base? Had any one of the people in that office be legally carrying knucklehead would not have killed as many people and would likely be dead.

I just can't bring myself to live my life in fear like my countrymen increasingly seem to. I am not particularly interested in why some whack job wants to try to kill me, religious dogma or good ole fashioned crazy. Step up quick so I can take you out and get to Starbucks for my Venti white mocha by 10:00.

Same argument can be made for the Virginia Tech incident, and I agree with both arguments.

[AZhitman]

The distinction between Ford Hood and Tillman was that the changing of facts in Tillman affected liability. If the government changed the facts, the government was no longer responsible for Tillman's death, and couldn't be sued for it. If the government changed the facts, none of Tillman's comrades could face consequences in civil or military courts.

No. You misunderstand on occasion, and this is one. There's no fear of "liability" in the PT case. None. We have friendly-fire troop deaths in every conflict. The end result is the same as if he were killed by the enemy, and the end result is the same if he slipped and fell off a Humvee and suffered a fatal brain hemorrhage.

The facts you and Greg are so fixed on interpreting a certain way are those facts related to the internal motivations of the man involved. What could this possibly affect? If we disagree with your interpretation, those soldiers are no less dead, and that man is no less liable. You may very well be right about his motivations, but what does it matter?

"What could this possibly affect? What does it matter?" Really? Criminal Justice 101. Have a seat, welcome to class.

To prevent, we must understand. If we categorize this as simple "workplace violence", that absolves all his contacts from liability. This was not a "lone gunman". Just like Mohammed Atta was not "a lone nutcase flying a plane".

I resent the the insinuation that anyone's trying to "interpret" the facts "a certain way" - as if I'm trying to "spin" this story for some sort of effect or gain.

Let me turn it around - What do we have to gain by calling this anything other than an act of terrorism borne of radicals and committed in a most heinous manner - by infiltration and deceit?

In other words, what is your opposition to calling a spade a spade?

I'm sitting here feeling guilty... I thought, of all people I'd be arguing this point with, I thought it'd be Tariq. I have much to learn.

So what?

Yeah. That speaks volumes.

[IBCoupe]

Am I the only one who sees the Ft. Hood shootings as justification for allowing concealed carry on base? Had any one of the people in that office be legally carrying knucklehead would not have killed as many people and would likely be dead.

I just can't bring myself to live my life in fear like my countrymen increasingly seem to. I am not particularly interested in why some whack job wants to try to kill me, religious dogma or good ole fashioned crazy. Step up quick so I can take you out and get to Starbucks for my Venti white mocha by 10:00.

Didn't he shoot two armed military guards?

[IBCoupe]

No. You misunderstand on occasion, and this is one. There's no fear of "liability" in the PT case. None. We have friendly-fire troop deaths in every conflict. The end result is the same as if he were killed by the enemy, and the end result is the same if he slipped and fell off a Humvee and suffered a fatal brain hemorrhage.

While it's true that I can misunderstand things, I don't believe it's the case here. Some of Tillman's family and some in the public have put out the theory that the killing was intentional. That it was a fragging. If the government says it was enemy fire, there's no risk of an investigation that could reveal that it was intentional.

"What could this possibly affect? What does it matter?" Really? Criminal Justice 101. Have a seat, welcome to class.

To prevent, we must understand. If we categorize this as simple "workplace violence", that absolves all his contacts from liability. This was not a "lone gunman". Just like Mohammed Atta was not "a lone nutcase flying a plane".

I resent the the insinuation that anyone's trying to "interpret" the facts "a certain way" - as if I'm trying to "spin" this story for some sort of effect or gain.

Let me turn it around - What do we have to gain by calling this anything other than an act of terrorism borne of radicals and committed in a most heinous manner - by infiltration and deceit?

In other words, what is your opposition to calling a spade a spade?

I'm sitting here feeling guilty... I thought, of all people I'd be arguing this point with, I thought it'd be Tariq. I have much to learn.

I don't have any opposition to "calling a spade a spade," Greg. I have an opposition to the implication that whether it's a spade matters at all.

Greg, you're saying that he was a radical and was "inspired" by other radicals, but inspiration does not amount to instruction. If you think there was a conspiracy to commit these acts, that's one thing, but that exists with or without the conclusion about his motivations.

To show a conspiracy, showing that two people are similarly crazy doesn't do the job. Membership in an organization would help in your investigation, but you're not saying that he had any recognizable membership. Actual contact with other people that involved communication about the act is probably your best bet, and it looks like we almost had that.

Once again: if he's a radical Muslim or if he's just a crazy guy with a gun, what's changed?

Something TV won't teach you: motive doesn't need to be proved. It's a nifty tool for indicating a likelihood of guilt, but it doesn't prove anything in and of itself, and it's not a necessary thing to show.

Yeah. That speaks volumes.

So does the fact that you haven't actually addressed what I've said.

There's no benefit to saying he was a violent, radical Muslim. There's no benefit to drawing conclusions about his motivation. It puts us in no different place.

[AZhitman]

So does the fact that you haven't actually addressed what I've said.

There's no benefit to saying he was a violent, radical Muslim. There's no benefit to drawing conclusions about his motivation. It puts us in no different place.

Yes, I did. You just don't LIKE my explanation. I considered substituting "understand" for "like", but you're smarter than that, so I'm having a tough time figuring out how you can't see the difference.

There IS a benefit to accurately identifying his motivations AND his affiliations, if only to assist us in developing policy for prevention. Again, this is Criminal Justice 101 stuff.

If we followed your theory, you'd have us scurrying off designing "mental health care" policies for troops like him - which would do absolutely no good. The reality is, he was cold and calculating, with a bigger picture in mind. He wasn't "trapped", he wasn't "bullied", he wasn't "driven to madness". He was an infiltrator, an infidel, and a treasonous dog.

p.s. No need to tell me "what TV won't teach me". I don't watch TV. Ever. Except a football game on occasion.

[IBCoupe]

There IS a benefit to accurately identifying his motivations AND his affiliations, if only to assist us in developing policy for prevention. Again, this is Criminal Justice 101 stuff.

Identifying his motivations does not affect our ability to identify his affiliations. Identifying his affiliations, in contrast, could help identify his motivations.

That a guy hates the color purple does not mean that his murder of Willy Wonka involved complicity or conspiracy with the AAPA (the American Anti-Purple Association). However, his membership in a club of people who hate the color purple might indicate that he killed Willy Wonka because the man was purplelicious.

You're seeing coincidence (read: "happening at the same time") and believing causality. This might be the difference between Criminal Justice 101 and law school.

If we followed your theory, you'd have us scurrying off designing "mental health care" policies for troops like him - which would do absolutely no good. The reality is, he was cold and calculating, with a bigger picture in mind. He wasn't "trapped", he wasn't "bullied", he wasn't "driven to madness". He was an infiltrator, an infidel, and a treasonous dog.

Thanks for trying to design my ideal policies, but I'm better at it, being that I've got a better handle on my ideals. You know what else might have worked? Better psychological screening to keep him out of the military in the first place.

The reality is that neither you nor I am psychic, and for all we know, religious extremism was a cover for some greater Texan independence plot. Maybe he had a microchip in his head, and this was d!ck Cheney's latest plot to bring about the demise of free-thinking people. But, you know what? All of those possibilities are entirely immaterial. It does not further any understanding or any policy or any prosecution of the case.

Had the guy been Mormon, what would Criminal Justice 101 tell you about following a theory that there was a conspiracy? Nothing's different.

No need to tell me "what TV won't teach me". I don't watch TV. Ever. Except a football game on occasion.

Substitute "a football game" with "Family Guy re-runs" and I'm right there with ya.

[AZhitman]

This is where I step off, as I think we're making a mountain of a molehill.

Let me get back to the simplistic question: If we've identified his affiliations, and we really don't need to over-analyze his motivations ("to kill a bunch of people" is sufficient), then why is there opposition to calling this an act of radical Islamic terrorism?

Are we trying to avoid stirring up emotion? Are we being apologist? IS THERE a concerted, underground Islamic effort to quietly and insidiously infiltrate our schools, our politics, our judiciary, our media and even our military? Tin foil hat firmly in place - But seriously: What if?

LOL @ Purplicious.

[IBCoupe]

Agreed.

Logically, given the evidence presented by the man himself and his past statements and his affiliations, there's not much of a reason to oppose the label.

The reason there's opposition is because Islam's already getting a bad enough rap. And I think we can tell that Americans already have a hard enough time telling the difference between "Muslim" and "Violent Radical Muslim."

[AZhitman]

I know, and it sucks.

I guess this comes down to me being a little "old school" in my way of thinking. I can't sit here and act like I support dismantling public policy (beyond maintaining and defending the Constitutional protections already in place) in order to counter something as nebulous as a "bad rap".

Everyone's from somewhere, and fairness isn't (and never has been) in my lexicon. Some will have to work harder than others to achieve the same ends. Some will encounter obstacles that others never see. That's life. Adapt if it's worth it. If not, planes fly out as well.

I've heard that there's actually a whole other half (or more) of the world that's very understanding and accepting of Islam.