Edited to a more updated quote.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/fort.hood.shooting.2.1294417.html

Now saying 12 dead, 31 wounded and 3 people involved.

Either a couple guys were sick of being sent back, or some home grown wanna be jihadist?

Suspected Fort Hood Gunman Identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan

One too many Hassan Chop jokes?

Umm, just because a guy has a middle eastern name doesn't mean that is the reason why.

This is a pretty horrible event, I hope we don't see the ramifications too wide-spread.

Oh.

-Everybody

I am still laughing 2 minutes later.

New report just said that they've already released the other 2 suspects, so apparently it was just the one guy.

The shooter isn't dead!

CNN is reporting Hasan is not dead, but in custody.

boo

yeah, now we're gonna have to pay for his death penalty

fucked up

And the millions of dollars for his defence and apeals. Must have been wearing body armour to survive this on a miltary base. Man I hope he gets an infection and dies.

Behead him!

Not really. Contrary to popular(?) belief, soldiers don't exactly walk around stateside with weapons, let alone loaded. SF/SP/MP whatever the army calls it does, but they're not likely to be hanging out in a deployment readiness area.

and it would more than likely be civilian security and not MP's.

This is still pretty amazing.


I'm assuming whomever took him into custody wasn't alone and wasn't unarmed.

my friend is stationed there but as bad as it sounds thankfully doesn't come back from iraq for a month

i can go cough on him if you want.

How you doing with that? You getting better?

much!

I like my stereotypical ethnic based racial theory

Cone told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith that the alleged gunman is rumored to have said "Allahu Akbar" - Arabic for "God is great!" - during the shooting

Wow, the guy from an Arabic country speaks Arabic? And believes in God? Doesn't mean this was a 'jihad'.

I mean come on, just because I yell "baruch atah adonai eloheynu melech ha'olam" while we're in a banking transaction doesn't necessarily mean you're getting ripped off. Just...probably.

Awesome. 34 year old civilian female cop, singlehandedly shoots killer 4 times AFTER being shot in both legs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't understand a lot of Virginians, either... but it's just a drawl, it's not a foreign language.

hey man, be easy. I mean it ain't like we're tenneseeans. :looks up a few posts in an accusatory manner...:

Neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News, in their East coast feeds Thursday night, noted the Muslim religious beliefs of the mass killer at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas, but ABC anchor Charles Gibson wasn't cowed by political correctness as he teased World News, “Fort Hood tragedy: An Army officer, a Muslim convert, is the suspect in a shooting spree...” Introducing his first story, Gibson referred to how Major Nidal Malik Hasan “an army officer, a Muslim, opened fire with handguns...” (With a range of frequency, during late afternoon/early evening coverage, CNN, FNC and MSNBC all identified Hasan as a Muslim.)

Cryptically, ABC's senior foreign affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, concluded a story on reaction at Fort Hood: “As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, 'I wish his name was Smith.'” So, a concern this will lead to groundless fear of Muslims?

The CBS Evening News avoided any mention of Islam or Muslim faith as Katie Couric provided this benign description: “Today, according to the Army, a soldier opened fire....He's identified tonight as Army Major Nadal Malik Hasan, a licensed psychiatrist and drug and rehab specialist from Bethesda, Maryland.” NBC anchor Brian Williams: “The soldier, identified as the initial gunman here, is an Army psychiatrist, Nadal Malik Hasan. He's an officer, a Major, and he was apparently armed with two handguns.”

NBC's Pete Williams insisted, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth noticed, “everything about his background is rock solid, and nothing extraordinary stands out about his background.”

(At another moment on ABC, Gibson he pointed out there's “confusion” over whether Hasan was convert or was born a Muslim. Brian Ross then offered that he “attended Damascus University in Syria and may be Jordanian -- likely not a convert if that's the case.”)

From the latter part of the story narrated from Washington, DC by Raddatz on the Thursday, November 5 World News on ABC:

MARTHA RADDATZ: Fort Hood's 1st Cavalry Division is currently deployed to Iraq, making this all the more tragic. This woman's husband is among the soldiers in Iraq.

WOMAN: He's really upset. He's freaking out. Yeah, it says [reading from PDA], “I'm freaking out here. I have no idea what's going on. The guys keep asking questions. Can someone please tell us something?” I don't believe for a second that a soldier could do this to another soldier at Fort Hood. I just, I don't believe it.

SECOND WOMAN: It's very, very stressful and we don't know what's going on.

RADDATZ: And on Capitol Hill late today, a moment of silence. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said the shooter was about to be deployed.

SENATOR HUTCHISON: The shooters were military people. And of course that's very troubling.

RADDATZ, ON SCREEN AT ANCHOR DESK: As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, "I wish his name was Smith." Charlie.

At least he's white (seriously). Story I read last night said they were still investigating motive and everything, and were not ruling out that it may have been a "terrorist attack," but they seemed to think it was going to be not that, and instead was just a crazy person going on a shooting rampage because he was crazy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-sh...tory?id=9030873

Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda
Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used 'Electronic Means' to Connect with Terrorists

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News...................................

Just because a guy with a background in the Middle East and Islamist beliefs contacts a known terrorist supporter just before launching an insane, terrorist-like rampage doesn't mean his attack was a 'jihad'.


sw?

Not for the average 'open-minded' leftist

All Muslims are not terrorist's.




But almost all terrorists are Muslims.





religion of peace, ftw.

It still sounds like it won't (and shouldn't) be classified as a "terrorist attack."



http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/10/fort.h...ting/index.html

So, I know very little about military court or even jurisdiction or whatever, but he's gonna get the death penalty and be executed within 2 years probably, right? Because it'll be a military trial/appeal? His one and only defense would seem to be "extreme emotional distress," which I have to think will fail hard.

Just got this in the mail.




German View of Islam


This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.


The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.


The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.


And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?


History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:



Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.



Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.



Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.


Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

Happy birthday Marines.... Semper Fi

Ahh I thought we'd lost you, glad to see we haven't. They can never leave forever!

This is pretty dumb and ignores the differences between an enemy that is a nation and an enemy that is a network of semi-autonomous terrorist cells. Also, it really has no point, meaning the author doesn't actually make any statements or draw any conclusions. The only interpretation is that the author is attempting to justify some anger or hatred toward all Muslims that he feels as a result of his own racism.

Muslim isn't a country, like pre WWII Germany or Stalin's USSR. What do you really think that the people of Egypt or Oman, for example, should be doing about the terrorists in Afghanistan? And why do you think they have any more requirement to do those things than, say, the people of Switzerland, or Norway? Is it because they have the same religion?

Also, I apologize for taking the bate and taking this thread in a stupid direction. This should be about a tragic event, our sadness over the loss of life, and our anger at a crazy person who may or may not have been corrupted by a fanatical portion of a religion.

I mean...you're kind of right, but it could probably be argued that Muslims run a number of countries, so it's conceivably worse than just one nation of Nazis.

But the argument was that we should be mad at all Muslims because, like the passive Nazis, they don't fight against the rise of the fanatical Muslims. And my argument is basically, "Why should I be mad at Muslims in Indonesia for not stopping a handful of radicals in Pakistan?" Or rather, "Why should I be MORE mad at the Muslims of Indonesia than I am at the Hindus of Northern India or the Christians of Latin America or the monks of Tibet?"



Edit: I'm not going to discuss this any more in here. If someone wants to make another thread, I'll participate.

I'm not advocating hatred towards all Muslims or saying that the Muslims in Indonesia are responsible for any given suicide bomber in [whatever country that isn't Indonesia]. I'm just semi-agreeing with the sentiment that it's hard to believe the religion is all about peace and love when the majority of countries under Muslim control do some really fucked up shit, especially to women. Yes, I understand that they've bastardized the religion for political gain in many cases, but it is what it is. Maybe they need to start separating into factions like the Christians...you know, make the extremists the Catholics of Islam.

And I don't think you need to worry about creating another thread for this...it's pretty much on-topic, and it's not like we're offending the families of the people that were killed by going on a slight tangent. They're probably not reading this thread.

Interesting article on how this was covered.


http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...3d-1c320ab707c7


Political correctness will be the death of Western civilization because unlike our earlier forms of pluralistic tolerance, PC is wilfully blind to the lack of reciprocal tolerance in other cultures. Indeed, the more others hate us, the more PC denies their hatred.

The most disturbing aspect of last week's Fort Hood shootings -- aside from the horrendous loss of life, of course -- has been the triumph of political correctness in the analysis of Maj. Nadil Hasan's motives. Many "experts" have assiduously avoided the obvious cause: Hasan's fundamentalist, radicalized Muslim views.

A man runs into a room of unarmed people and starts firing away while shouting " Allahu Akbar" ( "Allah is Great"). He has had frequent arguments -- many of them extremely heated -- with several fellow officers in recent years over the alleged stupidity and immorality of the West's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He expressed public agreement with the Koran's exhortations to kill infidels, justified suicide bombings, attended a radical Virginia mosque, sought permission from superiors to have Muslim-American soldiers exempted from service in Middle Eastern wars and, among other things, attempted to make contact with al-Qaeda recruiters.

Yet many analysts and commentators have ignored this evidence and put forward, instead, shallow war-psyche diagnoses they seem to have copied from M*A*S*H episodes. Most centre around the theory that Hasan snapped under the pressure of his forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.

But even if Hasan was driven to mass murder because he could not bear the idea of serving in a war zone, the cause of his breakdown was his Muslim-ness, not battle stress. The implication of those making these excuses on Hasan's behalf has been that the thought of facing deadly fire in combat was too much for the major.

But, of course, that is not it at all. He couldn't face the notion of having to serve in an army he saw as persecuting his fellow Muslims, so he struck back at that army before it could ship him out to a place he believed it should not be. His belief in the teachings of Muhammad trumped his sworn duty in the U.S. Army.

Still, the first instinct of White House and U.S. Army spokesmen, as well as most CNN, CBC, BBC, MSNBC and other analysts, has been to deny any connection between Hasan's murderous deeds and his faith.

Imagine if a fundamentalist Christian soldier had shot up a room full of unarmed Muslims while shouting "Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour." Imagine he had a fascination with Old Testament stories of how God smote his followers' enemies. His pastor had advocated a new crusade to rid the Holy Land of non-Christians. He had hung out at a survivalist camp for a cultish group of white supremacists who claim a Heaven-sent mission.

These self-same commentators who are struggling so mightily now to overlook the religious aspects of Hasan's crime would be first in line to insist that Evangelical Christianity was inherently violent and demand something be done to rein in this hateful theology.

This hypocrisy among the chattering classes, though, is to be expected. Denial of the obvious in the name of tolerance is in their blood by now.

What is more dangerous is the extent to which political correctness has infected institutions that should know better, such as the U.S. Army. In the week since Hasan killed 13, American military spokesmen have spent most their time admonishing their fellow countrymen not to take revenge on Muslim Americans, as if there were large mobs gathering with torches and pitchforks.


It is one thing to be tolerant of others' views and beliefs, so long as those others are respectful of your creed and ideology in return. That has long been a hallmark of our pluralistic democracies. It is still. No matter how bad human rights commissions, Toronto Star columnists or special interest cause pleaders may claim discrimination is in Western societies, tolerance is and always has been at its greatest in the West.

The trouble with political correctness is that it doesn't require that others be respectful in return.

When others with different beliefs attack us, political correctness goes further. It takes tolerance to a culturally suicidal degree by denying that others hate us despite our respect for them.

lgunter@shaw.ca