As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment storm the grounds of the Soldier Readiness Center in a show of force as they help in the apprehension of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan Thursday. (AP Photo/David Morris, Killeen Daily Herald)
We were all shocked yesterday afternoon watching coverage of the shooting rampage in Fort Hood, Texas. This morning, the tragedy hits close to home as it's been learned one of the 13 people killed, Army Pfc. Michael Pearson, 21, was from Bolingbrook. Pearson's mother Sheryll told the Tribune, "We thought it was going to be okay, because we thought it was another building. Mike won't be there because he already he got his inoculations ... He shouldn't be in that part of that building. Since we weren't contacted, we felt we were okay." The Trib's report continues:
But as they were driving home about 6:30 p.m., they received a call on their cell phone from Mike's sergeant at Ft. Hood. Mike, he said, had been shot three times--in the spine and chest. He said Mike had lost a lot of blood.About 10 p.m., an Army surgeon called to say that Mike hadn't made it. He said doctors had brought Mike back to life twice on the operating table but were unsuccessful the third time.
"His father is still in shock and very angry," Sheryll Pearson said. "We're all very angry."
There are still plenty of questions about what happened yesterday afternoon but details are slowly starting to emerge about Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who is being held for the shooting rampage yesterday that killed 13 (12 soldiers and 1 civilian) and wounded 30 people, including Hasan himself who is in stable condition. This morning, the AP is reporting that soldiers who witnessed the shootings claim Hasan, a devout Muslim, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" - the Arabic phrase "God is great!" - just before the shooting started. According to the NY Times, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone has said that though terrorism has not been ruled out, preliminary evidence suggested the rampage was not an act of terrorism; investigators are looking into reports that Hasan had expressed anger about plans to be delpoyed to Afghanistan.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Just in case we've forgotten, Islam is a peaceful religion...
And what exactly is your point?
There are about a billion or so Muslims in the world, and a few million in the USA. I don't recall of them doing violence. The Muslims I've worked with, and socialized with for many years, don't even get in fist fights. (That proves about as much as your bullshit above.)
As well, a short while ago, a Christian nut killed a doctor who was performing legal procedures in Kansas.
I though Christianity was the religion of peace, too?
You need to think more deeply about things, and stop letting others do your thinking for you. Your life will improve.
FWIW, I think the Christians are loons too. They've just calmed down a bit since the crusades.
But your simple-minded, propagandistic attitude, as displayed in that comment, is remarkable.
One more time: Exactly what point were you trying to make? Don't cop out now, cowboy. Don't say it halfway. Open the door fully into your insight and wisdom on this matter.
You know what? You're right. I shot from the hip on that one and didn't properly express my thoughts.
Apologies to any/all Muslims on Chicagoist.
IAWM... It ain't worth much, sorry.
(Hits imaginary "Ignore" button he wishes Chicagoist had)
Better yet, please stop watching Faux Noise, Rush Limpdick, Michael Moron (Michael Savage) Glen Bleech (Glen Beck) and all of those other right-wing 'pundits'-your mind will thank you for it.
After having spent a good portion of yesterday afternoon trying to track down the mother of my teenage children, who is a sergeant working some administration post at Ft. Hood, I'm not much interested in debating the merits of particular religious philosophies or in dealing with the morons who profess one as more or less violent than another. I will simply say that I wish the best for those affected by this tragedy and that I will say my equivalent of a prayer that nothing like this happen again either here or overseas ... though I know without a doubt it will happen again and again until the end of the human race.
You're completely right. I wish your family and and all those affected the best.
But did this have anything, really, to do with religion? It seems to me, from what I've been reading, that it was more of a mental breakdown.
Matilda, the Muslim angle cannont be ignored. There appears to have been a failure by the military to address Major Hasan's apparent support for suicide bombers and enemies of our military--support that he made clear in conversations and in internet postings.
Failure to get a guy with these attitudes out of the military is exactly that--a failure.
The "muslim angle" isn't the issue. The guy was clearly not mentally fit to serve.
When it comes to religion in the military I'm far more worried about the rise of Christian Extremism than the tiny percentage of Muslims serving and the tiny percentage of those who might be a danger.
But hey, clearly this is connected to Obama right?
"The "muslim angle" isn't the issue"
And you don't know this to be 100% true, either, not without all the facts in. Perhaps this guy was motivated primarily or secondarily by his interpretation of his religion. No one at this point knows either way except the murderer and any accomplices he might have had. Let's not let ideology outrun facts.
My only point is that no matter what--and despite the original post here--this incident says nothing about all the Muslims in the USA or the world. Some already as using this incident to further their ideas that Islam is a bullshit religion or whatever other prejudices are out there.
I hope by "Muslim angle" you are also considering to the fact (now being widely reported) that the Major was subject to several instances of harassment in the military because of his Muslim faith.
"Failure to get a guy with these attitudes out of the military is exactly that--a failure."
That seems to be the problem, above and beyond the guy's religion. As well, you don't know all the facts at this point about how pious the guy was, do you?
"Matilda, the Muslim angle cannont be ignored."
Neither can his mental state and various other factors at this point.
Here's the deal: Without all the facts in, the original poster--and many others in the USA---take this opportunity to fire a cheap shot at a religion that claims some billion followers. Even if this guy was primarily motivated to murder by his religion--a possibility at this point but not a proven fact--that does not automatically lead one to conclude that all Muslims are extremist.
That is the point I am making.
Let's not be silly or frantic here. Let's be smart and measured and wait for the facts to come out before we leap to conclusions. None of use have to be a Glenn Beck type person, do we?
Ward, I take the threat of Muslim extremism very seriously, and very much hope that we and our allies manage to kill or otherwise defeat those reactionary Muslims who would seek to drag the world back into some dark utopia only they can imagine. I have no problem with making rivers of blood out of as many members of the Taliban, for instance (unless, of course, we find a better way to keep that threat neutral). The important word, though, is "extremism," and it disgusts me when simple-minded people use such incidents as "proof" of biases and prejudices already well rooted before the incident in question.
Again, let's be smart and sober about this, lest we harm ourselves to the enjoyment of our real enemies.
You do realize that WASPs go postal more often than any other demographic in this country right? Do you even realize how ridiculous your comment is?
I guess when you go around the world killing brown people for multinationals and stretch your mercenary army too thin you've got to start taking just about anybody. I don't know which is worse, religious idiots of all stripes or the blindly patriotic.
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a military that treats mental illness as weakness and not a disease. By all accounts, the shooter was showing worrying signs (poor performance, expressing sympathy with suicide bombers online) and yet he was going to be deployed to a combat zone, which he'd repeatedly expressed fear and anger about. Hell, his online activities had him under investigation already.
If he'd been wearing a sign that said "Crazy now" it would have been less obvious that something was gonna give. Especially given his job, working with trauma psych cases, that's high stress, high burnout mental health work.
You're going to see more of this. Military suicide rates are at a record high. The mental health facilities and services offered by the military are piss-poor and repeated deployment into two, nebulous guerilla war zones has worn these folks down to the nub.
"has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a military that treats mental illness as weakness and not a disease."
And how exactly do you this to be 100% true at this point?
And if you do know, why are wasting time here and not out making a ton of money with your wisdom?
I don't mean to be a smart ass--really--but you have as many facts as we do at this point, and the facts are still painting only a vague picture about this incident.
Why do we as a society have such a hard time waiting for the facts?
Well now, you do mean to be a smart-ass, own your words.
But seriously, religion is not a prime mover (if you'll pardon the bastardization of Aristotle) in violence. Suicide bombers tend not to be the most devout. The 9/11 hijackers were lapse Muslims who went to strip clubs and blew their mad money on toys and games. The insurgency in Iraq is comprised not of religious fanatics, but tribal gangs and territorial claimants. Even Al-queda is more of a narco-criminal enterprise than some pious religious sect.
When the schizophrenic claims that the angels told him to start the fire do people question his religion or his neurological deficiencies? From all accounts, the Ft. Hood shooter was displaying classic depressive and suicidal ideation.
I just don't see religion as the reason behind this kind of violence. Again, blaming his religion gives us nothing but talking points for bigots and more fear of "the other". Addressing this as a symptom of a deeply disfunctional system of military mental health care. Already people are moving in that line of thinking, and it's sad that all these people had to die for that to happen.
A great Atlantic round up of how the military might adapt to address this.
NPR's coverage of this issue goes back years.
Those are very good points, I think, but you also have to consider that for the 9/11 hijackers who did do those things--and who were, mostly, educated members of the middle class--they did seem to think they were following the dictates of their religion (that is, their dark interpretation of it). Less-than-pure-and-pious people have done such things in the name of religion since humans formed societies. It's really nothing new.
You call it crazy, others call it religious, I guess.
But in any case, we still don't know, do we?
The thing is, you have this view of human motivation that is far too simple, I think. Motivations usually are multiple and tangled up within each other, despite what even the greatest philosophers--who, by trade, seek to simplify and create schemes and systems that are designed to be crisply defined--might put forth. And that doesn't even count for the process of rationalization.
Better teachers when it comes to explaining the machinery of human motivation are the artists, especially novelists and dramatists, and the historians.
"Well now, you do mean to be a smart-ass, own your words."
Actually, I don't. When I want to be one, you will know.
See, you misread my intent, which is pretty close to being wrong about my motivation. If you can't get it right here, why do you think you can get it right for the Ft Hood incident?
However well intentioned, attitudes expressed by Ingrid and jess nevins are the problem. You seem to think that we should ignore the fact that this was a clearly anti-American person who held extremist views.
It is likely the attitude of political correctness--and fear of offending anybody--that led the military to keep Major Hasan. God forbid that we should address the fact that he was a Muslim-American who supported suicide bombers and openly discussed his dislike for the U.S.
If we continue to put our heads in the sand with persons like Major Hasan, then history will eventually repeat itself and 13 more Americans will someday die.
But even with such attitudes, that does not mean we should seek to all but dismiss the entire Muslim community, whether in the US or the world. That would be beyond stupid, Ward. And this has nothing to do with being PC, either. Rather, it has to do with seeing reality.
The military is a huge organization undergoing significant stress because of the demands placed on it. That should be considered, too, as we await more facts about this incident.
"If we continue to put our heads in the sand with persons like Major Hasan, then history will eventually repeat itself and 13 more Americans will someday die."
How is one putting one's head in the sand over this? I don't understand your point.
Oh what a crock.
First off, you're fear-mongering. The idea that this one event is somehow predictive of future events based upon the religion of the individual is about as reliable as saying that everyone with brown hair should be watched because John Wayne Gacy has brown hair.
I don't care about offending Muslims, or Jews of Christians or any religion. I'm not a member and outside of some social decorum (I don't want to be Richard Dawkins shouting at the converted) I don't care what people believe.
This isn't about his religious beliefs. Most Muslims and Christians and Jews and Pagans and Ba'al worshippers, most PEOPLE don't commit horrendous acts of violence.
Incidents like this are rare, and blaming it on his religion is not going to help prevent this from happening again. The man was mentally unstable, whether he was a Buddhist or an Atheist, that's a problem. And it's a problem we can actually address, as opposed to making far-flung statements about "anti-american" sentiments.
But hey, blame it on his religion. Add to the bigotry Arab-Americans (religious and non-religious alike) already face and don't actually address the real issues at play here.
You'll have plenty of dead Americans that way for you to wring your hands about and blame on the "A-Rabs"
"This isn't about his religious beliefs. Most Muslims and Christians ..., most PEOPLE don't commit horrendous acts of violence. Incidents like this are rare, and blaming it on his religion is not going to help prevent this from happening again."
For what it's worth as an aside, while I agree with you completely on this point, I do wish you took a similarly reasoned approach to your opponents in discussions of other issues. A past tendency of characterizing those with opposing view as mindless zealots discredits your argument here.
I made a Rosh Hashanah resolution to try and be nicer in general. It's hit or miss.
Boingboing has a really chilling account from inside the shooting.
No, it is not likely at all. The Army finds excuses to drop people all the time. A friend of mine did his psychiatry rotation at Great Lakes. They would boot people out at the slightest hint of genuine mental illness, homosexuality, antisocial and other personality disorders, and anything else that suggested they would not be a good soldier (which is not nearly the same as a well-adjusted functional citizen, either). They had the attitude that they may end up serving with some of these folks in a deployment, so they did NOT bend the rules due to political correctness. S
So, no it is not likely. It is your determination, but that does not mean it is likely or that it is at all related to reality.
I see where you're coming from Ward, but I think we should look at the mental health aspect first.
If we look at the Muslim extremist issue first, then you could be ignoring the kernel of the problem. I don't think this is me being a bleeding heart liberal. Why would a Muslim extremist even join the US Army in the first place?
And not that it makes me any expert on anything, but I'm dating a Muslim guy now and he prays on Fridays and follows dietary laws, but other than that he's no different than anyone else here. And I hate the thought of any backlash that could arise from people wanting to take the hard line first.
I know! right Ward,
If we continue to ignore such things some muslim might go shoot up a holocaust museum, kill some church goers in Knoxville for being too liberal, shoot a Democratic leader in Little Rock, kill a doctor who performs abortions in Kansas, or even blow up a government building in Oklahoma..........
"Why do some liberals want to ignore facts and instead speculate about the bombers' supposed motivation? It's because they are consistent. They refuse to blame those who are actually responsible. As far as some liberals are concerned, people are incapable of doing evil on their own....And in the first few days after the tragedy, we stood in solidarity with the president in his call to bring these terrorists to justice, and to mete it out as quickly and as firmly as possible. But we will not join the president in seeking to gain political advantage at the expense of those who died or were hurt in Oklahoma. We're going to lay blame solidly on the criminals who committed this crime, and we will support whatever the American justice system determines they are due, and that's as far as it will go. Frankly I've been offended that we've spent the last week talking about people who weren't even there, who had nothing to do with what happened. Our focus should not be on the politicians, not on the media not on the pundits. We should be talking about the people of Oklahoma, forever scarred by this enormous tragedy. Our hearts and prayers are with them; they are the people who make this country work."
Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek magazine, 1995, responding to criticism that right-wing radio inspired the Oklahoma City bombing.
The shooter's obviously responsible but his motives remain unclear. Not that hard to grasp man.
Sometimes "I don't know" is the smartest thing a person can say.
Haven't we learned the trouble we can get in when our conclusions outrun the facts?
When you all have it figured out, let everyone know.
Ward, how is anything "clear"? This is at the "throw shit at the wall" stage. .. holy shit, hes a muslim .. oh crap, hes a psychiatrist! ... hold on, he was about to be deployed. get this.. he had coffee at 7-11 hours before, its on video. hmmm.. put it all together and you have mass murder. Myself, i'm only sure of one thing ... god is not great.
Nice summary, much better than mine.
For all those who think they have the answers to this incident, please tell me:
1. What kind of mental treatment did this shooter have? That is, when, where, how many hours, etc.?
2. How pious was this guy? Did he follow dietary laws, for instance? What sect of Islam did he follow? What kinds of religious things did he say to relatives, friends, co-workers, either on blogs or through conversations?
3. Why exactly did the guy join the Army? Where there multiple reasons he did?
4. Did he undergo a conversion process, or was he ever estranged from his faith, or return at a later date?
5. What kinds of friends did he have? Were they religious?
6. How long did he plan this incident?
I am sure I can come up with dozens of questions, and I am sure law enforcement is asking dozens/hundreds more before they reach any type of real conclusion about this guy's motivations. I have no doubt that serious investigators within the military want the most accurate picture possible of this guy--that is, to know in the deepest way possible the enemy--so they can work to prevent similar incidents.
But hey, you all go ahead and score all the cheap political points you want to. It is fun, after all, a nice little parlor game.
You heard matilda, kids. Out of the pool - no more comments until 100% of the facts are dredged up, so...never.
In fact, no more talking about anything you don't know everything about, which defeats the purpose of discussions, so lets just cut to the chase and all keep our mouths shut.
Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, wasn't it?
Give me a break, cowboy.
And don't be so melodramatic next time, either.
No, actually it is what you argue for. It's no different from the shouting heads on the right who just have "some questions" about any given issues. Keep moving them goalposts. Again, own your words. If you're looking for absolute truth, turn to philosophy or gurus.
I base my conclusions on science. Religion, culture, tradition, all outgrowths of the human brain. Violence is a disease, a treatable one. Focusing on the fact this guy was muslim is like noting that a patient dying of tertiary syphilis also has some blackheads.
"t's no different from the shouting heads on the right who just have "some questions" about any given issues."
Uh, no, it's directly the opposite from those shouting heads who offer nothing but cheap conclusions and scant facts.
"f you're looking for absolute truth, turn to philosophy or gurus."
All I'm looking for is a solid base of facts before reaching a conclusion about what is, like most things, a complicated issue. I cannot believe this needs repeated explanation.
"I base my conclusions on science. Religion, culture, tradition, all outgrowths of the human brain. Violence is a disease, a treatable one. Focusing on the fact this guy was muslim is like noting that a patient dying of tertiary syphilis also has some blackheads."
That's all fine and dandy, but this truth remains: You, like everyone else--including the investigators who are looking into this--still don't know exactly what motivated this murderer.
If you already know exactly what motivated this guy, why then are not in the service of the investigation?
I agree. There's something just unfortunate about a bunch of bored people arguing online about a massacre they know little about a day after it happened. I know I blather here too but I'm not touching these "debates."
All I'll say is that yesterday it was sad to realize this:
When Columbine happened 10 years ago it was a horrifying thing to me. It hijacked the rest of my day. It was one of those nightmare things that you know simply the knowledge of will affect you and make you more jaded about people, life, our violent country. I couldn't stop thinking about what it was like for those kids. Of course now, it's even more horrific knowing in detail what it was like for the kids in the library who were basically shot and executed by those laughing maniacs. Ten years later these types of massacres have (or seem to have) become so much more common that I heard about this yesterday, thought it was horrible, and then just went back to work. It doesn't shock anymore.
Actually, kids are safer today than they have ever been in history. Take a look at the statistics. Youth violence is on the decrease across the board.
What you're succumbing to is a media-induced panic attack. Horrifying events are rare, but the 24/7 news cycle needs fresh blood. Sensationalism always trumps solid reporting.
Statistical illiteracy leads to irrational actions.
Even the example you gave of Columbine, the image of the "trenchcoat mafia" crazed laughing killers gunning down kids who believed in God, the narrative of "nerds revenge" turned out to be far more complicated
The fear-mongering media wants to blame the easiest, most succinct target it can. Already the mouth-breathers at fox are asking if Muslims should get "special debriefings" in the military.
Stop being scared. These horrible events are rare and making them even more rare requires careful action, close inspection and a scientific approach. None of which come when we think the world is collapsing or go numb.
You missed my point entirely, but that's OK. Godspeed to all and have a nice weekend.
Sorry you're going to continue living in fear.
Dear god, did you even grasp what mikey1 was even trying to say?
Apparently, you did not.
That the fear-loving media has left him numb to the uncommon nature of these horrible events.
Stop being afraid of rare and uncommon events, focus on making things better. That's the best thing anyone can do. Dear God, indeed.
Where on earth did you get the idea that 1) I think these incidents are common; and 2) That I live in fear of such incidents?
I look forward to you showing me where in my comments I said or implied such a thing.
You would do better if you reacted to what people really wrote, not words you put into their mouths, dear girl.
Regarding Fox, one of the nastiest things was said on there before anybody even knew anything about the guy, just his name at this point:
Fox News host Shepard Smith asked Senator Hutchison on air: "The name tells us a lot, does it not, senator?"
Hutchinson's response? "It does. It does, Shepard."
Neither Smith nor Hutchison had any information to suggest that Major Hasan's name offered even the slightest shred of information regarding the incident at Fort Hood.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161052
Timothy McVeigh...name tells you a lot don't it?
Being surprised at the depths of Fox stupidity is like chasing the rabbit down the hole.
A distinct trend I have noticed. When we point out (many) hateful signs at the Teaparty rallies, it is always "Oh,there are always a few kooks in any crowd." When somebody shoots an abortion provider, we are told "not to make too much of an isolated incident" and "don't condemn a movement on the actions of one nut."
But, here there is clearly "a Muslim angle." Or, it is "clearly an anti-American person who held extremist views." And, of course, they get as far as they do because of the ever-present "political correctness" tying the hands of otherwise effective Americans. Any suggestion of untreated mental illness (even psychiatrists can suffer mental illness), stress, or other factors (concerns of his supervisors during residency, fears of being deployed, desire to get out of military, religious harassment) are quickly dismissed.
This is an unfortunate trend on both sides of the political divide, as can be seen here any day of the week. One of the above commenters who uses Ft. Hood to suggest rampant anti-Americanism among Muslims frequently reminds us that tea baggers with Hitler signs and shot guns are a radical fringe among reasonable people. Another commenter who above stated that religion rarely is the prime motivator of violence was equating all abortion opponents with clinic bombers motivated by radical Christianity just a few days ago. You very rarely encounter any kind of consistency of reason. Arguments shift to best present a preferred point of view. This cheapens the argument and makes discussion little more than a useless game in which the guy who talks longest and loudest wins.
I'm going to wager it was a deficiency of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine and not his lunar focused religious proclivities.
Therapy and medication are much more useful than suppositions about magical motivations.
Well, one important thing is that the shooter survived and can be interviewed by law enforcement and medical personnel. This is rare, as often in these events the shooter does not survive -- indeed, they often do not intend to survive, leaving many unanswered questions. So, presumably at some point we will get some real information as to his motivation.
More is coming out about this guy. He reportedly said that the war on terror was a war on Islam.
More comments from him will become known in the coming days.
Sure, he may have been mentally ill. However, failure of the military to address his earlier actions and statements--by booting him--is still failure.
And the military has to examine itself to find the reasons for that failure. Among the reasons could be political correctness and fear of offending people.
Only with thoughtful examination of this failure will tragedies like this one be prevented.
Those comments were made in a comments section of a website supposedly, anonymously I presume. They know that because the FBI has seized his computer. I don't see how the military should have know about that.
What would you like to see done, Ward, assuming this guy was motivated at least partly by his interpretation of Islam?
As well, remember that the Constitution prohibits a religious test, and this would seem to include commissions for officers (not sure about enlisted).
Seriously I am interested in your ideas in the event of the above hypothetical.
Matilda, you ask what I would like to see done. What I ask is that the military take certain statements and actions seriously so this tragedy is not repeated.
What I mean is that when someone in the military expresses support for suicide bombers, then that person should be discharged from the military. It doesn't matter what religion he is.
And when a person expresses the belief that the war on terror is a war on a specific religion, then that person should be discharged from the military. Again, it doesn't matter what the specific religion is.
There is plenty of precedent to back up what I am saying. What it takes is a military leadership that is not paralyzed by political correctness.
"And when a person expresses the belief that the war on terror is a war on a specific religion, then that person should be discharged from the military. Again, it doesn't matter what the specific religion is."
So you mean like this guy?
Ah yes, Boykin. Nice one. Our own little wanna-be crusader.
Ward: Can't say I disagree in general, but the devil's in the details, right?