Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buffalo Roam, Nov 5, 2009.
The man at your university is a potential idiot, me thinks.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Who gets to decide who needs them?
I don't think that rounding up people based on race or religion is a good option. I'd prefer to respect the individual rights of all Americans unless they behave in a manner that poses a threat to others. Then they should be tortured and executed.
Fine he could have shot himself but he didn't he chose to kill 13 and wound other's who have absolutely nothing to do with his fears of being deployed. I'm sure that psychiatrists see a lot of front line action!
His family was from jerusalem but he was born in the US.
I highly suggest you read the new thread "Zero Tolerance" and the Mod Notes I put in this very thread (they are in red, so you can't miss them). I am not issuing warnings anymore for blatant violators.
Make a mistake and it's small? I'll try to be forgiving. Make a blatantly racist statement, flame, goad or otherwise violate the rules, and you get a one day ban, MINIMUM.
Perhaps he was just crazy and snapped it does happen. Perhaps he was sick of hearing other peoples problems adn decided to just say no but in this case he said no with a Gun.
here is a question, compleatly hypothetical because i know nothing about the man. What if he had family in iraq and he had been hearing constantly from the jar heads how they were going to "go kill those towl heads". Now im speculating but not i would think by much based on the way SOME US troops have treated the iraqy (sorry if thats not the correct word) people and even comments made by my father in law and hes an Australian solder (who are SURPOSED to be a hell of alot more proffessional)
Well, to be certain, there is a link between his Muslim-ness and this violence. Not that being a Muslim made him go, but there is some evidence that other service members picked on him and that he was trying to avoid going to Iraq. There seems to be some serious failure on the part of the Army.
Should he have even been allowed to serve? Having been allowed to serve, is it wise to try to force Muslim recruits to go to Iraq? Should the Army have just granted his request and allowed him to resign his commission.
Why even speculate about something so specific when there is no reason to think it might be the case?
What could possibly be gained by such speculations?
These are good statements and from the available data likely fairly accurate. There is a big problem not just in the US military but in all Western military s ever since the Don't ask Do tell policy came into being I understand why they did this but I think it has given the power of I dint see it I don't want to know to the commanding officers as well. But this is just an observation.
Well he's of palestinian descent but let's say he does have family in Iraq. So what? I am sure he must have heard derogatory remarks about muslims and god only knows what else. But hey guess what? There is a war on and he is a trained psychiatrist. If we were at war with aussies you would hear kangaroo jokes all over the place. When it was with the germans they were all 'krauts' not 'germans'. He could very well have snapped but I am not sure I'm convinced that this is the case. Until they prove otherwise I will think of it as a terrorist attack.
But on the other hand he could have simply refused and faced the consequences which are the same consequences he is going to face now. So what good did killing people in the process serve?
If he was not Middle Eastern would you keep the same assumption?
an insite into other people rather than just labling them as evil might be a good start.
Its something i keep seeing people do over and over again, in the US its school shootings where kids are bullied constantly until they snap, here its the so called gang of 49 who suffered generations of cultural abuse and disadvantage and then specific abuse from people like the attorny general and these people wonder why they cant be rehabilitated. On a wider scale you have the treatment of palistinians specifically and muslims generally including the invasions of muslim countries and the bombings of wedings and people are surprise when things like 11th of sep happen.
Institutional abuse is no less damaging on a person because its wide spread, in fact its MORE damaging
Because defense-mechanisms are aroused in times like these, it's prudent to preface early comments with condemnation for the killings and sympathy for the victims, along with expressions of gratitude and sympathy for Our Troops, as is customary in a militarized society. Although that social pressure may be one of the many things I dislike about the implications of this attack, here's the obligatory aknowledgement of what's obvious to most human beings: the Ft. Hood attack was another tragedy of the sort likely to precipitate more tragedies, and I wish it had not happened. Reiterating the reality that being a Muslim, or being of Palestinian extraction has never been shown to cause people to be prone to becoming berserkers seems obligatory here too.
These basics acknowledged, the reporting of this story got my attention because I suspect it may have exposed something (not for the first time, but maybe more prominently than usual) about self-censorship in the media, and self-censorship in US society as a whole. I don't think it's reducible to a defined political or ideological structure. Conspicuous behavior in how this story was approached by the US media and its audience may reveal something about the psychological forces in motion.
Early in this story (as others have remarked about here) before we learned that the attacker had survived and is a Muslim of Palestinian descent, an early headline assured the public that the attack was "not terrorism". This struck me as an odd or hasty conclusion, being broadcast along with conflicting reports about the number of attackers, etc. As more details emerge (of the attackers background, that he was screaming in Arabic during the attack, etc) the early pronouncement "Not Terrorism" is more incongruous- not that we can agree or disagree with it yet, but that it came so early. Why?
I expect Major Hassan's rampage is going to be very challenging to the many popular assumptions about "Us" and "Them" in the aftermath, and that the militaristic collective mindset that is infecting the USA will struggle mightily to obscure an open reckoning of what the long-term response our nation's psychological combat-stance is producing in the world outside and in.
The assumed perimeter of our psychological national security in a militarizing era has certain psychological defenses. Like any nation in protracted warfare, we have been constructing (or attempting the construction) of a clearer division between ourselves and our enemies. "Us" and "Them" are important concepts to promote in warfare. Major Hassan's rampage (ironically considering his former profession) invaded the psychological perimeter of USAmerican militarism. We can expect reactions to the attack on many levels- inflammation of islamophobia and ethnic bigotry, and a subtle challenge to popular assumptions about the apartness of the "terrorism" we fight from ourselves. Wild attackers, acting without the apparent consent and support of nations have provoked the wars we fight. But to continue the wars we are fighting, we must proceed on the assumption that their madness is alien to our own society, controlled by sinister forces that We are no part of, and that We must make war upon Out There, where the soldiers of Ft Hood deploy.
Major Hassan has done a horrible thing. But swirling around that event, there's something connected with our conflicted inner and outer War Effort in the USA. Our militaristic collective mentality is challenged and even threatened by the implications of this attack. I am concerned that in order to repress a deeper understanding of the origins of violence, and motivated by an escape into militarism, our society may pass over another in a long series of recent opportunities for learning where we've gone wrong. The "War on Terror" mentality (a militarism that I suspect has taken on a life of its own) must separate Major Hassan's rampage with those of foreign enemies in every way possible, because a loss of containment would undermine the Cause; raise too many psychological and philosophical questions about the origins of rampage, of terrorism, and of war.
Wars require a simple, fear-infused narrative to subsist on. If we in the USA begin to suspect that we're fighting a war against insane outbursts of rage- rage that has identifiable triggers, then we're going to understand immediately that we do not have here an appropriate mission for the military in a War on Terrorism. Was Major Hassan's attack comparable to a desperate and suicidal attack on our forces in Iraq or Afghanistan? It's not an easy question to explore from a War on Terror mindset.
I'm saddened on many levels about this attack. Not only for the immediate victims, but also because a little bit of the ugly truth was revealed at Ft Hood, and now I sadly expect it to be obscured for the sake of our still-cherished US exceptionalism.
Soldiers are not jarheads. Jarhead is military slang used to denote a member of The United States Marine Corps and not derogatory when used within the
Department of the Navy. Members of the Navy are refered to as squids among other things. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He was one of "us", Hype. He was as much one of us as McVeigh, Bundy and Manson. Evil comes in all shapes and sizes.
Outside of his actions, in this case, there are some red flags that should have gotten the right amount of attention.
"He was one of "us", Hype."
Yes, and that's why we had the early headline "not terrorism". We've got to keep it separated, or our wars won't make sense any more.
It's related to the nanny-state aspects of our national insecurity too, when we wring hands and say that we've got to watch each other more closely now. That's not the deeper lesson in this- that's running from it (which is what I'm worried my country will do).
When military watchdogs go after comrades with doubts about these wars, the whole game is up. Present policy is "Don't ask, and don't tell the doubters they can cut and run- ship 'em forward". There are far too many USAmericans with doubts about what we're doing to start overtly separating soldiers with strong opinions.
To be honest, I personally think it should atleast be three, it's one thing if part of your message implies rascism to some degree, but when you blatantly post a rascist message that is that offensive, than id think it would be more. Oh well,
Separate names with a comma.