PDA

View Full Version : Terrorist attack or deranged act?



Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:00 AM
I see the shooting in Fort Bragg, from the start, was considered a deranged act:

---"Fort Bragg, N.C. — As reports began to filter of Thursday's deadly shooting at Fort Hood Army post in Texas, retired Gen. Robert Springer said he thought back to 1995 and a similar attack that happened at Fort Bragg.

“(It was) another example of someone that went, we use the term, ‘Off his rocker,’ at the moment and attacked his own troops,” Springer said."---


Now that we know more, it seems that it was after all, at least in part, a true terrorist act, the fellow had been talking with terrorists and had said he wanted to do some real harm.

The media keeps being very still about the later findings, but I think that a terrorist attack is very well what this may have been, even if there was other involved.

That same feeling of this shooting having been more of a terrorist attack is what I am hearing "on the street" and from law enforcement officers, but why is the national press not commenting on this?:confused:

Frank B
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:08 AM
If you get away from the liberal mainstream media and start perusing the financial information sources, you'll find the topic being openly debated, with most favoring terrorism as being the cause.

It's a shame that the military's political correctness in ignoring the warning flags has cost the lives of so many brave defenders of our freedoms.

Woodland
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:32 AM
I believe this is an isolated case of mania. This person obviously had a lot of emotional problems that had nothing to do with his religion. He was a time bomb!

It is how we treat mental illness now days. We try to mainstream people who have no business being mainstreamed.

The man's history shows a life time of being on the edge yet we allowed him into the military and we allowed him unlimited access to guns(I have no problem with sane people having all the guns they want)Someone dropped the ball and it was not the Muslims.

dressurpferd01
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:46 AM
To deny that this was a terrorist attack by a violent muslim extremist is to do a great disservice for the servicemen (and women) who died in the attack. The man had SoA (soldier of allah) printed on his business card. He was trying to contact Al Qaeda via email, he had contact with a radical Imam who was also the Imam of 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. How anyone can not see this for what it is beyond me.


The man's history shows a life time of being on the edge yet we allowed him into the military and we allowed him unlimited access to guns(I have no problem with sane people having all the guns they want)Someone dropped the ball and it was not the Muslims.

Do you realize he used his personal firearm in the attack? While on base only MP's have guns while walking around. Soldiers don't have "unlimited access to guns".

Huntertwo
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:04 AM
I believe this is an isolated case of mania. This person obviously had a lot of emotional problems that had nothing to do with his religion. He was a time bomb!

It is how we treat mental illness now days. We try to mainstream people who have no business being mainstreamed.

The man's history shows a life time of being on the edge yet we allowed him into the military and we allowed him unlimited access to guns(I have no problem with sane people having all the guns they want)Someone dropped the ball and it was not the Muslims.

OMG...Then why was he chanting "ALLAH" (sp) while firing off shots?

Why did he have over a dozen emails on his computer between him and a terrorist cell in Yemen?

My goodness people, wake up!

FancyFree
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:09 AM
OMG...Then why was he chanting "ALLAH" (sp) while firing off shots?

Why did he have over a dozen emails on his computer between him and a terrorist cell in Yemen?

My goodness people, wake up!

Exactly! I can't understand why some want to overlook obvious facts like that. It was a terrorist act. That he was also a crazy man was just an additional part of the equation.

Huntertwo
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:10 AM
That same feeling of this shooting having been more of a terrorist attack is what I am hearing "on the street" and from law enforcement officers, but why is the national press not commenting on this?:confused:


Why? Because the main stream media is pro-obama.

Do you think they are going to dare *out* the fact that a Terrorist act occurred on his watch after we haven't had one in 8 years?
No way!

JanM
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:56 AM
I agree it was a terrorist act by a muslim extremist. The fact that he was shooting wounded personnel again makes him doubly treacherous. His attorney is really pissing me off, just because you get a good, vigorous defense doesn't justify the attempts to gain sympathy for his client. Stating that the traitorous murderer is paralyzed from the chest down and incontinent would not stop me from volunteering to execute him. Unfortunately, the military death penalty is lethal injection, but the last military execution was many years ago, and he will likely die of old age first. I think another factor fueling his rage was revenge-apparently he had consulted an attorney about leaving the military after attending the military medical school, residency and fellowship programs and he was told that there was virtually no chance of a discharge. The first night Shephard Smith on Fox News was interviewing his cousin, and when Shephard (or however you spell it) said something about Hasan's salary being in the six figures the cousin slipped and said that Hasan was looking forward to making in the high six figures after he left the military--big oops there. I was amazed when I found out this supposedly devout Muslim was going to the shooting range for hours at a time and then going to the strip club next door for hours at a time and included many private lap dances. I don't know if Islam believes in a day of reckoning after death such as a Saint Peter at the golden gates, but if there is such a meeting I think we know how this will end-and I hope he enjoys that rotisserie in hell next to Hitler, the Columbine killers, and a few other serial killers. I think the supervising doctors at the military medical school and Walter Reed totally blew it-they should have thrown him out of the service when he was harassing his patients about converting to Islam and telling them their service in combat was wrong. I hope he lives a long, painful, and horrible life. I just wish he would have died and we wouldn't have another stupid show trial trying to blame everything but the person who did this cowardly act for what happened. I work for the military and when I think of what he did I want to shoot him and watch him bleed out for what he did to unsuspecting people who were just doing their jobs, and took the same oath he did.

Brandy76
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:00 PM
Osama bin Laden is probably nuts. And what he did was a terrorist act. Same thing with this waste of oxygen.

Is he nuts? Probably. Did he commit a terrorist act? Yes, indeedy, regardless of what Rachel Maddow, Evan Thomas, et al, say.

bumknees
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:09 PM
The man is deranged. He also imnsho is a terrorists. But it is not due to his religion. It is however related to his particular path of his religion Make sense? I know another who was at the same military hospital in DC,when this guy was. This particular guy Dr( not the ft hood guy) not only is Mulim but also Iranian who entered our military shortly after Iran went out of favor with the US. But yet he is a very good Dr and I would trust my life to him( I actually have).
Perhaps the Army di drop the ball BUT the guy had to be one hell of an actor to slip past the various evaluations that not only do 'regular' military guys have to go through but the ones that officers and DRs go through.
Is he nuts maybe ( if anyone has ever spent more than a few hrs at WAlter Reed would understand why) Is it the fault of the Islam religion in its true form no. Is it hte path he chose ot take with it yes.

Why dosnt the main stream media not cover the above because for what ever reason they have chosen to meld PC into realy and military life. Neither place it belongs... They also are puppets of the obama adminstration who has already declaired it not to be a terrorists act.

Personally I believe he should be tried in a military court ( which he is) but what ever the charge is the end is the same result. Execution... and the sentance be carried out quickly.
ETA Military exectuion is done 3 ways. Fireing squad, hangning and leitheal inection. personally woud love to see the first 2 over the last one..

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:27 PM
As to the questions about his connections with terrorists cells:

It is possible to be vicariously traumatized and still make bad choices - ever heard of PTSD? Do you know what that looks like? I'm curious as to why folks keep trying to separate mental health (the brain) from actions (the body)? It is really weird and very unscientific if you ask me...

If someone thinks he is Christ and God is telling him to find a gun and shoot every fat person they see, because they are sinning by eating to much, that person is deranged.

If someone follows a religious sect, e-mails with known terrorists, goes to religious meetings telling people he is going to kill in the name of their religion, tried to change his patient's religion to his, etc. hat person may be crazy, but is still in perfect use of it's rational faculties to know right from wrong and considered a terrorist, crazy or not, it is still a terrorist.

If that shooter in Fort Bragg is not a terrorist, then all those others out there, those in 9/11, are also not terrorist, but just crazy people.


I think there is a clear distiction between someone that snaps and is crazy from a terrorist, that does things with premeditation and over time.

I think the FBI missed this terrorist, with what we know now.
I hope they don't miss the next ones.

Emryss
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:34 PM
This may come as a shock, because I am one of the more liberal people on this forum, but I say: Treason.

Not terrorism, designed to scare and intimidate. Not specifically the act of a deranged person, either, considering his actions.

This man deliberately shot at and killed fellow soldiers in a military institution. That is treason.

LexInVA
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:41 PM
This was just the latest in a string of attacks from within the armed forces by people who were labeled as potential threats due to their personal conduct and dismissed because they were wrapped in the protective blanket of reverence for anyone wearing a uniform. It has happened before and it will happen again as long as the armed forces refuse to live in reality.

mroades
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:46 PM
I think both...it really bothers me that we will pay to feed and defend this man, regardless of his motives. And i am a liberal <gasp>

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 02:05 PM
I want to respond to your post, but I am having trouble following your response. Are you saying that he cannot be suffering from any mental illness?

No, I am saying that, mental illness was not enough to say he also is a terrorist.
He is that and any mental illness should not be used to excuse what he did.

deltawave
Nov. 26, 2009, 02:34 PM
What difference does it make what we call it? The term "terrorist" has connotations now that it never did before, and I'm not sure the term really means anything anymore other than "scary Muslim". :no:

Terrorism USED to mean any sort of behavior intended to intimidate and horrify. So yes, I'd say the events at Ft. Hood would fit that description, but this sort of behavior goes on at abortion clinics, and it's not called "terrorism". I don't like the use of the word "terrorism" the way it's currently used, and I hate the use of "terror" (as in "war on terror") even less--war IS terror, how can there be a war on it? :rolleyes:

Kaleigh007
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:00 PM
Why did the military not take action on this guy? Because like a lot of other organizations and businesses they were afraid of being Non-PC(the horror) and profiling(another horror) and attacks like this will continue until America stops listening to the libs and starts acting with common sense. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim and they hate all of us,even the kombya singing liberals, they want them just as dead as the rest of us.

pAin't_Misbehavin'
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:18 PM
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim.

Wow. Where in the world did you get the idea that all terrorists are Muslim? Is that some talkradio catch phrase, or do you really believe that?

deltawave
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:27 PM
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim and they hate all of us

Wow, hatemonger much? Listening to AM radio, are we? :no:

Heard of Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph? The latter two call or called themselves "good Christians". :rolleyes:

enjoytheride
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:30 PM
Well I can't believe someone just blamed Obama for the shooting.

deltawave
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:31 PM
Doesn't surprise me one bit. :sigh:

JanM
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:54 PM
From what I've read the honchos at Walter Reed did recognize that he was not good with patients, was probably never going to be a good doctor, and instead of removing him from the service they sent him to Fort Hood, and to almost certain deployment that he would have been incompetent during because of his dislike for the mission and the people he was working with. In teaching they call it "passing the trash" because instead of taking action about someone who is a problem you simply send them along without warning the people who are going to get stuck with them. I think many people at Walter Reed wish they had acted differently, but that doesn't help things now.

slc2
Nov. 26, 2009, 04:13 PM
I don't think it was 'Either Terrorism or Mental Illness'. I think it was much more complex than either one or the other.

I do think this guy was mentally in very bad shape in some way. I think he was depressed, angry and confused, and started on a downward spiral several years ago. I don't actually think he was 'mentally ill' in the sense of having some deranged, delusional thought pattern that caused him to turn on his own, such as seeing demons and trying to destroy them, like psychotic people do - nothing so far suggests that. I don't think he was psychotic or manic.

I think it's hard for people to imagine, but I think people really can do very, very destructive, crazy things, and not be 'mentally ill' in the strict sense. In fact, I think that quite often, it is the less deranged and mentally disorganized people who can keep a thought in their head and plan more, but still have irrational thoughts, who are the most dangerous.

There is some level of 'not normal' in his prior behavior, even in his culture, which I don't get the impression his family were terrorists or extremists or fundamentalists. Not all Muslims from middle eastern countries are terrorists or have strict beliefs.

Many are well educated, upper class, sophisticated, or just practical hard working middle class people, and very well integrated in to american life and contribute greatly to our culture and practice their religion much as most Christians do, ie, using it as a general guide to be a decent, hardworking person who cares about God, their community and family and follows basic societal rules, and staying away from extremism. Extremists are in the minority in American and all Muslims.

But I think that some comination of things, in whatever proportions, made him no longer satisfied with his 'normal' path in life.

I wouldn't discard the possibility that he was very depressed. I don't think of anything like that as an excuse for his violent attack. People do incredibly horrible things under the influence of depression, which can make people just as irrational as psychosis. Depression causes irrational thinking too. Sometimes it is directed at self, sometimes at others.

As a health care professional, he had more than the usual access to knowledge and to help. Though it is certainly true that many very sick people of all faiths slide past the 'point of no return' to destructive behavior, even despite having knowlege that should prevent that...and even having supervisors that at least have slightly more than the average change of noticing they are going downhill.

In the sense that any time one turns on others and does violence like this, of course, in the ordinary way, the guy is 'nuts'. It's 'nuts' to shoot ordinary people, friends.

But I think this guy got more depressed and angry and mixed up as time went on - I think this took years. He was lonely - he wanted to get married and he was getting kind of past the age to do so even in his culture.

He was late to work, forgetful, preaching to patients, and disrupting classes.

I think there was a degree of warning that he was breaking down.

I think there was a degree of warning that he was turning away from a normal life.

Extremists love people who are on a downward spiral. They wean these people away from normal thinking when they are weak and vulnerable and suggestible.

They sooth people and comfort them. They give them a warm shoulder to cry on, and redefine their troubles to them. And they know very well that 'completely loose cannons', people who are so sick they can't keep their mouth shut, can not be relied upon, and they know which ears to whisper in.

They don't have to tell people to do specific things. And I think often they don't. I think these organizations and people are often very, very 'fluid'. I don't think they have to do much more than pick the right people, those who are on a downward spiral, who are losing, confused, unsuccessful. These people are like open flowers waiting to be watered.

There was no 'warning of violence'. The only clear 'warning of violence' is, in fact, violence. There is no way to 'predict violence' because when these things happen, it is always because there was no clear warning, the person broke down suddenly.

I do think he COULD have been 'helped', whatever kind of 'help' might have prevented this. But how, and by whom? People conceal their problems, even when their problems are very severe. And on what authority would the army act on 'hunches' and 'feelings that something is going to happen'? It's a very difficult problem.

With more information, it might seem that someone did not fulfill their duty to spot this slow development to a crisis point. With what I've read so far, I was not completely sure that actually happened. There were hints, suggestions that someone MIGHT have. I'm not sure if those hints were valid.

There were also indications that he tried to leave the army. I don't think people in the armed services are free to just say, 'No, I don't want to do that, it makes me upset'. I think they have to do it. Evidently he sought legal counsel to do so, and the information he was given was incorrect.

I don't think he should have been in the army or involved in patient care. I think he should have had conscientious objector status, and been put to work doing something appropriate for conscientious objectors. I think deploying him brought this to a head. With his prior record, I honestly would not have wanted to be deployed with him and I don't think anyone else who knew him and wanted to be deployed with him either.

I think deployment put him in a position where he was not only more vulnerable to any extremists who might have encouraged him, but also where he was put into a 'corner' where he was going to explode.

If the shooter is considered to be mentally disorder and a Muslim who allowed himself to continue in a downward spiral til he exploded, that's one thing. If he's someone who was 'recruited' by extremists that's another. If he's someone who is 'just a Muslim' and we become a nation who believes no Muslim can serve in the military reliably, this as an issue could explode, and become something like the Japanese being interred during WWII, except that anyone who has Islamic sympathies would be removed from the army, or even, deported to a supposed country of origin.

Beam Me Up
Nov. 26, 2009, 04:56 PM
What difference does it make what we call it? The term "terrorist" has connotations now that it never did before, and I'm not sure the term really means anything anymore other than "scary Muslim". :no:

Terrorism USED to mean any sort of behavior intended to intimidate and horrify. So yes, I'd say the events at Ft. Hood would fit that description, but this sort of behavior goes on at abortion clinics, and it's not called "terrorism". I don't like the use of the word "terrorism" the way it's currently used, and I hate the use of "terror" (as in "war on terror") even less--war IS terror, how can there be a war on it? :rolleyes:

You said it better than I could.

I will add that many killers (both the calculating terrorists and the likely troubled crazies) have used religion as a justification for terrorism (often including the abortion terrorists DW mentions). It's not a valid reason in any circumstance, of course, but it's not restricted to any one religion.

deltawave
Nov. 26, 2009, 05:01 PM
I'd go so far as to say that religion is at the root of virtually ALL of these sorts of human atrocities. :sigh: And Muslims have no special claim to fame, when you look at the sweep of history.

dalpal
Nov. 26, 2009, 05:21 PM
I tell you what blows my mind...how many more times are we going to hear AFTER the incident that someone was unbalanced and had issues that made people uneasy? How many more terrorist incidents are going to occur before people realize that they have to take these signs SERIOUSLY.

I think it was terrorism and I don't understand why people want to sugar coat it. He chanted "God is great" as he shot people in cold blood (the 9/11 terrorists did the same thing), he killed as many people as he possibly could in cold blood (same as the 9/11 terrorists), he didn't have a favorable opinion of this country (same as the 9/11 terrorists)..so why is he any different???

I am sure he was looking forward to sacrificing himself to Allah in the name of Jihad....so I am thrilled that he survived, yet maimed/incapasitated. That may be evil of me, but I can't help it.

All those young kids, moms, dads, husbands, wives...dead, while they were signing up to defend our nation/US....at the very least, we should call what happened to them by the corrrect name...not some freak, isolated incident by a deranged man.....let's call it, what it was...TERRORISM. It's a shame that 9/11 only woke this country up for a short time period....now we've gone back to complacient, couldn't happen here attitude.

Just this past year, several terrorist suspects were rounded up here in NC...and what came out of people's mouths..."I just can't believe this happened here...this is just a quiet little town..they seemed so normal" Well DUH, how many terrorists are going to walk around with machine guns strapped to themselves, announcing what their plans are to the next door neighbor. The 9/11 terrorists looked and lived a normal Joe life in a quiet community as well...they weren't out causing any problems with neighbors...heck, no...they didn't want to alert anyone to their real motives.

Sorry for the rant....but I just wish we would wake up and realize that yes, terrorism is possible AGAIN on American soil..whether it be home grown or foreign.

Huntertwo
Nov. 26, 2009, 05:28 PM
Very good post Dalpal -

People indeed do need to wake up and stop sugar coating this cold blood terrorism attack.

He wasn't just a deranged individual, or a maniac who just snapped.

This was plotted and calculated.

As I stated before - He was conversing to Al Queda through over a dozen emails in Yemen.

Chanting "Alla". What part aren't people getting? :confused:

houndsRus
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:07 PM
Gosh I miss the Cold War.... if this thread is reflective of how educated, thoughtful, economically successful Americans are thinking....

I work every day listening to people's trauma: suicide, rape, murder, failed abortions, child sexual abuse, and on and on.... It is very difficult work. It is very hard to listen to and hold compassionately all the suffering which comes into my practice. Some nights all I have to cling to is my faith.

Now, I put myself in the place of that army psychiatrist. Listening to horrific things I can't even imagine and listening to people condemn my faith, that thin shred I cling to some nights as I try my best to hold all the horrible suffering and death I've heard about all day... Doing that over and over, every day. Doing it in a military culture that is only barely beginning to understand that war breaks people emotionally just as severely as it does physically....

It is very easy and very dangerous to judge people and situations out of context. One who does any research on the psychodynamic function of religion one comes to know how there is no such thing as religious violence. There is only the use of religion as an excuse for violence. Violence has deep and complex roots in psychosocial dynamics across cultures.

My hope is that we can begin to use these horrible actions to deepen our understanding of these things, not fuel more reactionary divisiveness.

ol'Hound

Paragon
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:14 PM
Why? Because the main stream media is pro-obama.

Do you think they are going to dare *out* the fact that a Terrorist act occurred on his watch after we haven't had one in 8 years?
No way!

And Bush's own terrorist attack killed thousands.

RAGE RAGE RAGE OH MY GOD IT'S ALL ABOUT OBAMA!

Are we going to measure penis sizes now, too?

dalpal
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:18 PM
Gosh I miss the Cold War.... if this thread is reflective of how educated, thoughtful, economically successful Americans are thinking....

I work every day listening to people's trauma: suicide, rape, murder, failed abortions, child sexual abuse, and on and on.... It is very difficult work. It is very hard to listen to and hold compassionately all the suffering which comes into my practice. Some nights all I have to cling to is my faith.

Now, I put myself in the place of that army psychiatrist. Listening to horrific things I can't even imagine and listening to people condemn my faith, that thin shred I cling to some nights as I try my best to hold all the horrible suffering and death I've heard about all day... Doing that over and over, every day. Doing it in a military culture that is only barely beginning to understand that war breaks people emotionally just as severely as it does physically....

It is very easy and very dangerous to judge people and situations out of context. One who does any research on the psychodynamic function of religion one comes to know how there is no such thing as religious violence. There is only the use of religion as an excuse for violence. Violence has deep and complex roots in psychosocial dynamics across cultures.

My hope is that we can begin to use these horrible actions to deepen our understanding of these things, not fuel more reactionary divisiveness.

ol'Hound


I don't see it that way. Sure, we've all had bad things happen to us in our lives. I've had my fair share..but I'm not going to contact a terrorist group via email, I'm not going to walk into a place filled with innocent people and gun as many as I can down.

Did the system fail him..maybe. I'm not sure why you miss the cold war or why this thread makes you feel that Americans are are uncompassionate people because some of us find this man a heartless, cold blooded killer.....sure I have compassion...for the many families who are celebrating without their loved ones tonight on Thanksgiving. Not because their son/daughter/husband/wife died overseas in battle.....but because this man opened up fire on them as they were getting ready to leave....a fellow solider.

I'm sorry, but when one signs up for the military, surely one is told that they may have to go serve if there is a war. Why did this man feel that the US should pay for his education and yet just discharge him and let him go work in private practice.

Sure, I have compassion for the victims......personally, I think we are TOO compassionate when it comes to the perps. Let's just continue to let them all out on probation because surely they would never do this again.....tell that to Eve Carson who died at the hands of two thugs, one who was on probation and both had long rap sheets. Let's just continue to hug and love those who kill innocent people and tell them that it's okay, you just made a mistake.

I applaud you for the work that you do....but just because I feel compassionate in my belief does not make me less of a human being than yourself.

slc2
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:45 PM
I think that most people who are confronted with PTSD every day, who treat horribly traumatized soldiers and support sick, mixed up people - I think most of them don't go nuts and shoot 13 people.

People who counsel those with PTSD are often discouraged, angry, frustrated, driven to drink - it is a very, very stressful job. It's a burnout job. It's very tough. And there is something else going on to make someone snap and start shooting.

If this guy is mentally ill, it doesn't mean his behavior is 'excused' - the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' where the person walks out the door a free man, is a very, very unlikely successful plea for any crime these days, in fact, it's rather rare and always has been - 'guilty but insane' or just plain old 'guilty and the mental illness had nothing to do with it', or 'guilty, mental illness a factor in some respects, and oh, did i mention guilty', or 'plain old guilty' is far more likely.

The thing most people don't understand is that a mentally ill person has the same legal rights as anyone else - he can refuse medical treatment for example. But all mentally ill people have the same sort of 'duty' to society/law, to abide by the laws of the land. Mental illness NEVER 'excuses' a person from a crime in and of itself.

What the usual result is for a mentally ill offender whose mental illness is considered in the sentencing, is 'locked up in jail for a long time'. Sometimes it means 'locked up in a regular jail where you can refuse medication', sometimes it means 'locked up in a mental hospital designed to retain criminals where you refuse medication'.

Further, if someone were deemed to be 'not guilty by reason of insanity', it would generally result in them staying in a locked mental hospital for far, far longer than they'd stay in jail.

Often, when a person commits a crime largely due to a mental illness, they go to jail, get little or no treatment (by their own choice), are released when their sentence is over, and offend again because they are still untreated and unsupervised.

dalpal
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:19 PM
Pacific....I know, and it makes me so angry. We (our society) is so wrapped up in protecting the rights of those who show threatening behavior...that innoncent people end up dead. It just is not fair. Same scenerio with the college kid at VT a few years back....had a paper trail, had shown disturbing behavior, he had been reported....but his rights were protected and those he killed, weren't protected. :sadsmile::no:

slc2
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:02 PM
The current situation is NOT the way it is in order to "protect the rights of the dangerous". The current situation is like it is because no one wants to pay for what it would cost to take care of them.

The state laws about 'dangerous to self or others' were written to reduce the state's bill for mental health care, further, today's practice is to not even hospitalize the dangerous to self or others, and since the cost of medication went up, to not 'require' them to take medication.

I once heard a psychotic patient tell his doctor, 'I think They are trying to kill us all'. The doctor muttered, 'I believe you're right'. The patient was talking about his voices, the doctor was talking about our crazy broken system.

There were a whole lot of strange bedfellows who got together to make it the way it is today, but the avowed purpose of those state laws, as freely admitted by the individual who architected those laws, was to reduce costs. Don't kid yourself. None of this came into being to 'protect anyone's rights'. When sick people don't get care, everyone suffers - the people themselves, many others if violence erupts.

dalpal
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:24 PM
The current situation is NOT the way it is in order to "protect the rights of the dangerous". The current situation is like it is because no one wants to pay for what it would cost to take care of them.

The state laws about 'dangerous to self or others' were written to reduce the state's bill for mental health care, further, today's practice is to not even hospitalize the dangerous to self or others, and since the cost of medication went up, to not 'require' them to take medication.

I once heard a psychotic patient tell his doctor, 'I think They are trying to kill us all'. The doctor muttered, 'I believe you're right'. The patient was talking about his voices, the doctor was talking about our crazy broken system.

There were a whole lot of strange bedfellows who got together to make it the way it is today, but the avowed purpose of those state laws, as freely admitted by the individual who architected those laws, was to reduce costs. Don't kid yourself. None of this came into being to 'protect anyone's rights'. When sick people don't get care, everyone suffers - the people themselves, many others if violence erupts.


Well, the result is the same. We just had a henious crime here in NC...made national news. Five year old child sold for prositution by her own mother, raped and killed by one of the mother's drug buddies. He rapes and kills a five year old child but yet he gets protection from the general prison population??? Why?

It just makes no sense to me, we wonder why criminals are repeat offenders....well, because there are no real consequences. I bet if Spay/Neuter was the consequence of raping a five year old child...the pediphile might think (now I say might) before he/she did it....what's a slap on the wrist, few years in jail, then they're out and ready to abuse the next child. Look at the horrible cases like Jessica Lunsford and little Shaynia Davis...those innocent children dead because their killers kept getting slaps on the wrist. Now Shaynia's is even getting protective custody.

Sorry, this is a hot spot with me.....and it continues over and over again......Regardless as to WHY, the perps rights are protected while the innocent victims are left to suffer.

And even if this monster gets the death penalty for killing Shaynia, he'll sit on death row for upteen years before it ever happens. ..probably the same will happen with the Fort Hood shooter.

I just have absolutley no sympathy for anyone who murders another human being in cold blood. And it really does make my blood boil that this country continues to be so damn soft on crime. Godforbid, we call the Fort Hood incident a Terrorist attack...because that might actually get people's attention....Nope, let's just call it a mentally ill psychiatrist (How's that for irony) who went off the deep end...that way everyone can just let it go.

annikak
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:39 PM
I think all terrorists (all kinds) are mentally ill. It makes no sense to kill another human being to me.

Liberal as I am (and I live with a non-liberal:eek:) this was Treason. I agree. He was in the armed forces, which says he is aligned with our country. It's what they DO! Protect us, keep us safe separate from their political views.

And it's interesting- here some are saying that we should have done something about it before this happened as there were signs, yet...we have those that say NO PROFILING! No watch lists, nothing like that. But I am not sure (sadly) that we can have it both ways.:(

Arathita
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:59 PM
Why did the military not take action on this guy? Because like a lot of other organizations and businesses they were afraid of being Non-PC(the horror) and profiling(another horror) and attacks like this will continue until America stops listening to the libs and starts acting with common sense. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim and they hate all of us,even the kombya singing liberals, they want them just as dead as the rest of us.

This is hate mongering at it's finest. Thank you for the insight.

You should address the military as to why they passed him on from assignment to assignment. The military dropped the ball. The military is very conservative by nature so why you are blaming the liberals for inaction on the part of the military does not make logical sense. I believe bush was president for much of his career, no? So is Bush at fault? By your logic, should I blame Bush for not diagnosing and acting upon this man's mania?

"All terrrists are Muslim" is the most ignorant statement I have heard in ages. If you believe this you are an illogical extremist as well who is disconnected with real world events.

The contact with Al Quaeda was part of an assignment. Simple fact finding will help you understand this.

The man was mentally unbalanced and was recognized as such for years. He latched on to religion but was not a part of a network, it appears. If he killed in the name of Jesus Christ would you feel differently? I think it would be too much to ask you to wait until all of the facts in the case come out. Facts might get in your path.

FancyFree
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:18 AM
Are we going to measure penis sizes now, too?

I'm so thankful for off topic day. It's like Idiot Revelation Day!

Paragon
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:48 AM
I'm so thankful for off topic day. It's like Idiot Revelation Day!

I agree entirely. I don't believe in putting people on ignore, because that's just silly, but it's certainly informative.

bumknees
Nov. 27, 2009, 08:12 AM
Why did the army not do anything? Guessing because WRAMC can/should be concidered a 'hardship' duty station. Again anyone who has been there for more than a normal apointment(sp) would understand why.

Why would the army just transfer him to another location? Guessing they perhaps thought/believed that what ever 'stress' he was feeling at WR would lighten away from the place. Again WR is very difficult duty station place to be.

It is not unusual for a person to be transfered to another duty station in the hope to reducing behavior that is not necessarly a good thing at one but would be ok at another. Ie a Commanding officer of a Aircraft carrier has a diffrent personality than one who is in command of the local COmmissary. Behavior on one is not necessarly acceptable with the other.

Just as an AF pilot has a whole diffrent attitude than a Naval pilot. The AF pilot believes the naval pilot is borderline sucidal where as the naval pilot believe the AF pilots to be wusses... Why because the naval pilot will most likely at some point land on a moveing runway where as chances are the AF pilot will not.

So it is possible that the Army believed that this guy's lack uster service would be better at ft hood than at WR. Again WR being a very high stress duty station. While a very good one that normally requires a certian ranking graduation from college to get concidered. Good/ desired/ most coveted but with that comes high stress, high burnout rate, the desire to get out/transfer asap... Very few Drs spend their entire military career at WR the stress levels are to high for top proformance

greysandbays
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:19 AM
This is hate mongering at it's finest.



I'd reckon shooting up a bunch of unarmed folks who thought they could trust you would have taken that prize.

But that's just me...

I guess you'd think he was just spreadin' the love?

Kaleigh007
Nov. 27, 2009, 10:31 AM
Hate mongering??? Surely you jest? I'm not the only one that brought up the questions I posed in my post. It has been all over the news for God's sake. I'm the idiot? I think not but I do think you should look in the mirror when you call someone that.

slc2
Nov. 27, 2009, 10:43 AM
We can be tolerant of other opinions. We do not need to agree, but we can be tolerant. Everyone has their different opinions for a reason.

I seriously doubt that anyone who is upset and angry about a shooting at an army base is wrong. I also seriously doubt that anyone who is trying to understand what went wrong and analyze what was in the news, rather than be more angry, is wrong. People just have different ways of dealing with these events.

JanM
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:08 PM
I think one factor in the whole thing is that this person was not performing his duties at Walter Reed-apparently he wouldn't answer pages while on call, had many patient and family member complaints about his noncaring attitude, and was basically doing very poorly as a therapist. He never should have been sent to Hood because they were unwilling to do anything about him at Reed. I'm sure that many people now wish they had done things differently, but there is nothing anyone can do now except give him a fair trial, and apparently he will died of old age at Leavenworth someday since no one has been executed in the Military system for many years. I am dreading the trial to come with all of the excuse making and attempted mitigation of his actions-and I don't think he is mentally ill in the legal sense. I believe the legal definition is that the person didn't know right from wrong and that he didn't know what he did was wrong. This man may be sick but he should have killed himself first-but like the Columbine murders and all the others they want to hurt or kill the maximum number of others possible.

bumknees
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:42 PM
While there has not bee na execution since 1961 in the military for some reason they thought to change the guidelines in the late 90's early 2000's
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf

The revision excludes hanging and fireing squad and now only leathal injection . Shame..

Apparently there was a case who was supposed to be exicuted but his sentance was commuted to life with out possibility of parole and that was for rape and murder of someone..