Shooting At Ft.Hood

[aimlesswanderer]

Given that there are about 100,000 deaths or injuries caused by firearms in the US every single year, it does not, sadly, surprise me when incidents like this occur. Since strict gun laws were enacted after the worst massacre in Australia's history, there have been none here. A coincidence? A large majority of Australians would think not.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1109-i4gj.html

And more on topic, a great great grandma and a great grandpa of mine came out to Australia in the mid-late 1800s sometime (Gold Rush!), and a great grandma was definitely born here. Despite this, when I meet people, the conversation sometimes (though not often, thank goodness) goes like this:

Them: "where are you from?" / "Your English is really good, where are you from?"
Me: "Australia"
Them: "No, where are you really from?"
Me: "Australia, I was born in Sydney"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "Yes, my mother and her mother were as well. Great grandma was born somewhere in Australia too"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "YES FRIKKIN REALLY!" *not normally quite so loud, and thankfully the conversation has only gotten this far a few times, but I found it intensely annoying.

Why does the conversation go like this you might wonder? Well, because I look Chinese, since that is where the vast majority of my ancestors came from. I don't speak anything but English. I don't 'dress Asian'. I don't believe in any religion, and certainly not a "funny" (ie non Christian) one. Yet people (invariably persons of Anglo-European background) sometimes have difficulty processing the fact that I am as "Australian" as they are, and my ancestors have quite possibly been here longer than theirs.

In Australia at least, before Muslims were the object of societies' suspicion, fear and paranoia, it was Asians who were the Great Fear. Asians forming ethnic ghettoes, Asian gangs/triads, Asians not assimilating, Asian drug dealers, too many Asian immigrants, Asians who couldn't speak English, etc etc. But the levels of hysteria and fear were far far lower than that directed towards Muslims and persons of "Middle Eastern appearance" now. All I experienced were a few comments like "go back where you came from", "**** Asians", all very low level and infrequent. But it did make me angry when it happened. The assumption that because I didn't "look Australian", that I didn't belong.

Major Hasan, being both Muslim and of "Middle Eastern appearance" (the double whammy to all too many people = must be a fanatical Muslim terrorist) would have conversations and experiences like mine (and many far less friendly) waaaaaaay more often. I can only imagine what effect this must have had on him, but I rather doubt it would be good. It could have built up slowly over the years, and then it just got too much. One too many remarks about "Muslim are all terrorists", "looks like a terrorist" or such, and then tragedy strikes - helped along by a ready supply of guns.

Just my view.

[Fisherking]

This morning I seem to be reading and hearing a lot of testimony about Hasan that is pretty damning.

This is one:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...astoriginalsL2

While at first I thought it ridiculous to blame the Army for his actions, it is becoming apparent to me that the policies of political correctness and sensitivity trading seem to be at the root of the problem.

Had this man been of just about any other religion and expressing such radical religious views I don’t doubt that something would have been done.

His ideas about his religion was a big part of the problem. Because so many would blame the whole religion, they turned a blind eye.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Given that there are about 100,000 deaths or injuries caused by firearms in the US every single year, it does not, sadly, surprise me when incidents like this occur. Since strict gun laws were enacted after the worst massacre in Australia's history, there have been none here. A coincidence? A large majority of Australians would think not.

Bah. Less than 15,000 people per year are actually murdered by others who use guns. Most of those are criminals involved in drugs or other dangerous activities.

The article you linked is simply trash and not even up to the standards of the average anti-gun person on The Org (he uses DC to point out how bad guns are? What a moron!). Suffice to say the majority of Americans don't cower in fear at the thought of firearms or liberty. Unlike, according to the author, Australia.

CR

[Fragony]

According to some accounts, the shooter's anti-mission feelings were known by some, but political correctness got in the way of reporting/acting on the warning signs. The Article.

The quote:

Well can hardly blame them because their fear was valid, they would have been kicked from school and probably face criminal charges.

[Ironside]

SO the general excuse from the blame others crowd is the guy's a pussy who couldn't handle some teasing and, even though he was never involved in combat but just by hearing it made him nuts and went off and killed a dozen folks.

LOL, thats a lot of bull squeeze to swallow to think all this brought him to this point. At the same time the blame others crowd completely refuse to believe that Islam had nothing to do with it.

Oh well, enjoyed the reminder why sometimes common sense has no place in intellectual circles. I hope the moon barker gets lined up in front of a firing squad regardless of how the bleeding hearts think he's a victim.

Considering that he had at least about 8 years to plan out his evil plan and ended up with massacre+attemted suecide by military, we can either conclude that he was very incompetent on that area or radicalized over the years. Considering that all accounts points at option B, a very interesting follow up question is why he started to radicalize, as in there lies the answer on how to prevent this in the future.

Without using the bull squeeze as you put it, why would he go nuts by simply getting redeployed in a combat zone? He would not kill muslims, so his faith was not in danger. And why would he stay in a organisation that kills muslims if radical Islam was his only motivator?

Going amature shrink

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would guess that he got extremely freaked out by the idea of going to a combat zone due to what he heard. In an attemt to justify it, he turned deeper into Islam to give him an excuse for this, while still keeping a loyalty to the military. When getting order to redeploy, he couldn't keep it together anymore and caused this tragedy in an attemted suecide.

But we'll see what the proffesionals can piece together in time

[Fragony]

Does it matter really why he snapped, I'll start caring about that if it turns out there is any sort of organization behind it. Right now it's just a madman, people aren't going to get any satisfactory answers and should stop looking imho, religious nut or not in the end just a nut. What I find shocking is that all the signals were right in their face all the time and they didn't do anything, not because they didn't see it but because they were afraid to speak out because of pc-mania. In a way leftist lemmings have the blood of these soldiers on their hands this wouldn't have happened without the suffocating social control that is political correctness.

[Idaho]

Given that there are about 100,000 deaths or injuries caused by firearms in the US every single year, it does not, sadly, surprise me when incidents like this occur. Since strict gun laws were enacted after the worst massacre in Australia's history, there have been none here. A coincidence? A large majority of Australians would think not.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1109-i4gj.html

And more on topic, a great great grandma and a great grandpa of mine came out to Australia in the mid-late 1800s sometime (Gold Rush!), and a great grandma was definitely born here. Despite this, when I meet people, the conversation sometimes (though not often, thank goodness) goes like this:

Them: "where are you from?" / "Your English is really good, where are you from?"
Me: "Australia"
Them: "No, where are you really from?"
Me: "Australia, I was born in Sydney"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "Yes, my mother and her mother were as well. Great grandma was born somewhere in Australia too"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "YES FRIKKIN REALLY!" *not normally quite so loud, and thankfully the conversation has only gotten this far a few times, but I found it intensely annoying.

Why does the conversation go like this you might wonder? Well, because I look Chinese, since that is where the vast majority of my ancestors came from. I don't speak anything but English. I don't 'dress Asian'. I don't believe in any religion, and certainly not a "funny" (ie non Christian) one. Yet people (invariably persons of Anglo-European background) sometimes have difficulty processing the fact that I am as "Australian" as they are, and my ancestors have quite possibly been here longer than theirs.

In Australia at least, before Muslims were the object of societies' suspicion, fear and paranoia, it was Asians who were the Great Fear. Asians forming ethnic ghettoes, Asian gangs/triads, Asians not assimilating, Asian drug dealers, too many Asian immigrants, Asians who couldn't speak English, etc etc. But the levels of hysteria and fear were far far lower than that directed towards Muslims and persons of "Middle Eastern appearance" now. All I experienced were a few comments like "go back where you came from", "**** Asians", all very low level and infrequent. But it did make me angry when it happened. The assumption that because I didn't "look Australian", that I didn't belong.

Major Hasan, being both Muslim and of "Middle Eastern appearance" (the double whammy to all too many people = must be a fanatical Muslim terrorist) would have conversations and experiences like mine (and many far less friendly) waaaaaaay more often. I can only imagine what effect this must have had on him, but I rather doubt it would be good. It could have built up slowly over the years, and then it just got too much. One too many remarks about "Muslim are all terrorists", "looks like a terrorist" or such, and then tragedy strikes - helped along by a ready supply of guns.

Just my view.

An interesting perspective aimlesswanderer. Alas you won't get much intelligent engagement from those on this board who have made up their minds that it "all those crazy moooslims" or "don't blame the poor guns".

[Banquo's Ghost]

What I find shocking is that all the signals were right in their face all the time and they didn't do anything, not because they didn't see it but because they were afraid to speak out because of pc-mania. In a way leftist lemmings have the blood of these soldiers on their hands this wouldn't have happened without the suffocating social control that is political correctness.

After some calm and reasoned posts, you have fallen prey to your anxieties again. Several of the major school shootings have been committed by people who, after the event, we have wondered aloud why the signs weren't acted upon. Interning all goths, emos and young men who write bad poetry seems to be the answer there.

In other words, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Contrary to your assertion, I think you'll find radical Muslims are reported to the police and authorities far more often these days. Whereas I think there may well be a good reason to look hard at how these reports are dealt with (some I'm sure, are not pursued energetically because of political correctness, particularly in relation to community "leaders" such as imams, but many more are pursued very energetically against innocent persons - at least, this is the European reality) I also think that the sheer volume and often trivial nature of these reports actually overwhelm the security services. Prejudice, not political correctness, is the culprit here.

Arresting people for wearing a beard after the hours of darkness may well satisfy you, but is likely to end up missing the real dangers. Unless it is found that this fellow was actually part of a plot, the only blood on anyone's hands is staining him.

The paradox that interests me is that so much appears to be made of his unwillingness to serve in Afghanistan. If he was ethically against the war, he could have made a stand by refusing the order. He would have served jail time, but kept his conscience intact. If he was afraid of injury or death, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and avoid that risk by actions that guarantee his death - either there and then, or at the end of a rope/intravenous drip.

A rampage against fellow soldiers speaks of something more malign. I have seen video footage of him doing some shopping hours before the killings and he appeared calm and engaged. Terrorists sure of their cause often appear like this once the plan is in motion - but equally, a psychological trigger can unleash the insanity otherwise repressed.

It's baffling. And to those who ask why his reasons need to be understood, let me say that the relatives need this information. When you lose a loved one, the worst thing is to be left without knowing why. Even if it turns out that he just went mad, one can move on. "Dunno" and a shrug of the collective shoulder causes years of anxiety as to whether it could have been prevented.

[Fragony]

I am not trying to make anything more out of this than it is, lone shooter, religious nut, but the signals were somewhat stronger here don't you think. Nobody is going to be anxious about reporting about a goth with silly behaviour, that is not my anxiety that is simply how it is.

Arresting people for wearing a beard after the hours of darkness may well satisfy you, but is likely to end up missing the real dangers.


que, am I confused or just confusing

[Banquo's Ghost]

I am not trying to make anything more out of this than it is, lone shooter, religious nut, but the signals were somewhat stronger here don't you think. Nobody is going to be anxious about reporting about a goth with silly behaviour, that is not my anxiety that is simply how it is.

I'm not sure that the signals were stronger in this case. As always, it's easier to read the omens after the event.

Arresting people for wearing a beard after the hours of darkness may well satisfy you, but is likely to end up missing the real dangers.


que, am I confused or just confusing

Sorry, Fragony - it's a reference to an old comedy sketch about an over-zealous policeman.

[Fragony]

I'm not sure that the signals were stronger in this case. As always, it's easier to read the omens after the event.

In this case that is just rediculous, he was an advicer for the Obama administration on 'certain sensitivities' this is a major fail, anybody not seing this comming or refusing to see it comming should feel kinda silly by now.

[KukriKhan]

It's baffling. And to those who ask why his reasons need to be understood, let me say that the relatives need this information.

And another reason is that the Army needs to know. The whole idea of having an organized military is the artificial (learned) construct of "on-off" killing. Directed, managed violence. Killing only when ordered to, and stopping immediately when ordered to. Without that kind of precise control, you don't have an army, you have an armed mob.

Taking matters into your own hands is prohibited. Somehow this shooter lost (or never internalized) that trained prohibition. The army needs to know why - what step in his training got skipped, what error in leadership occurred, what detail of indoctrination got overlooked.

[Vuk]

Well, at least we established that religion was only a minor element. Definately not his motivation.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...errorists.html

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...roats-cut.html

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...errorists.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...roats-cut.html

Wow, color me shocked.
This article must have been written by Zionists.
Thanks Louis, but this will prove nothing to most in this thread.

[Fragony]

That changes things

[Fisherking]

And another reason is that the Army needs to know. The whole idea of having an organized military is the artificial (learned) construct of "on-off" killing. Directed, managed violence. Killing only when ordered to, and stopping immediately when ordered to. Without that kind of precise control, you don't have an army, you have an armed mob.

Taking matters into your own hands is prohibited. Somehow this shooter lost (or never internalized) that trained prohibition. The army needs to know why - what step in his training got skipped, what error in leadership occurred, what detail of indoctrination got overlooked.

I don’t know what he may have learned in this regard in ROTC if he was ever required to drill, but Medical Officers don’t receive much actual military training and only a little indoctrination.

The mans warped views of Islam seem to go back as far as anyone has repotted on.

His mother died in 2001, he held her funeral at a Mosque in New York that was also the Mosque used by some members of the 9-11 plot. It was know as a radical institution. Why? He lived in VA.

His outbursts in medical school and at Walter Reed Medical Center all pointed to someone who sympathized with the radical elements of Islam.

He had expressed the view that anyone of a religion not Islam was an infidel and that infidels should be burned.

His deployment would have placed him in little danger and never required that he be armed unless in self defense and as a last resort.

He would have been near a population which shared his faith and in a position to help people likely both military and civilian.

I am a little puzzled about his speaking to an Imam about not being able to find a wife.

It seem he never did, despite being an Army Major and a Physiatrist.

I am wondering why he didn’t have gold diggers lined up at the door.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

After some calm and reasoned posts, you have fallen prey to your anxieties again. Several of the major school shootings have been committed by people who, after the event, we have wondered aloud why the signs weren't acted upon. Interning all goths, emos and young men who write bad poetry seems to be the answer there.

In other words, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Contrary to your assertion, I think you'll find radical Muslims are reported to the police and authorities far more often these days. Whereas I think there may well be a good reason to look hard at how these reports are dealt with (some I'm sure, are not pursued energetically because of political correctness, particularly in relation to community "leaders" such as imams, but many more are pursued very energetically against innocent persons - at least, this is the European reality) I also think that the sheer volume and often trivial nature of these reports actually overwhelm the security services. Prejudice, not political correctness, is the culprit here.

It's a very good point that there are always tons of warning signs revealed after the shooting. People just tend to pass those over. The officers who didn't file reports because the were worried about political correctness clearly didn't really believe that he was going to go postal.

But your last statement I disagree with. People have to be able to report activity without worrying about themselves. If you get a bunch more reports because of prejudice, you need to hire more security people.

However, given how it was evidently pretty obvious he was a radical muslim, it seems silly to blame political correctness for the whole thing. Unless you want to suggest that the army is a liberal bastion of sensitivity. The fact is, people find it very hard to believe that someone they know would go crazy and start shooting people. It seems he was pretty unlikable, people probably just avoided him for the most part.

Although political correctness and why people hate it is probably a subject for another thread.

An interesting perspective aimlesswanderer. Alas you won't get much intelligent engagement from those on this board who have made up their minds that it "all those crazy moooslims" or "don't blame the poor guns".

It's hard to be intelligently engaged by people who don't exist

[drone]

Interning all goths, emos and young men who write bad poetry seems to be the answer there.

You make this sound like it's a bad thing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A rampage against fellow soldiers speaks of something more malign. I have seen video footage of him doing some shopping hours before the killings and he appeared calm and engaged. Terrorists sure of their cause often appear like this once the plan is in motion - but equally, a psychological trigger can unleash the insanity otherwise repressed.

It's baffling. And to those who ask why his reasons need to be understood, let me say that the relatives need this information. When you lose a loved one, the worst thing is to be left without knowing why. Even if it turns out that he just went mad, one can move on. "Dunno" and a shrug of the collective shoulder causes years of anxiety as to whether it could have been prevented.

I think the line between 'terrorist attack' and 'Virginia Tech-like shooting' is very blurred here. An interesting case.





Also, I want Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, who is the Imam and 'spiritual counceller' of three of the 9-11 attackers and of this Hasan, hung for treason.

[Fisherking]

However, given how it was evidently pretty obvious he was a radical muslim, it seems silly to blame political correctness for the whole thing. Unless you want to suggest that the army is a liberal bastion of sensitivity.

The answer to this might shock you. But yes to a certain extent it is. Most especially when the Democrats are in power.

The top brass is very political and the Secretary of the Army is a civilian.

Those people make all the rules, remember. And you might be surprised at how much political correctness affects the Armed Forces.

[Prince of the Poodles]

This guy is spot on:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/08/for...radarajan.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'Going Muslim'
Tunku Varadarajan, 11.09.09, 12:00 AM EST
America after Fort Hood.

"Going postal" is a piquant American phrase that describes the phenomenon of violent rage in which a worker--archetypically a postal worker--"snaps" and guns down his colleagues.

As the enormity of the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan sinks in, we must ask whether we are confronting a new phenomenon of violent rage, one we might dub--disconcertingly--"Going Muslim." This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans. This would appear to be what happened in the case of Maj. Hasan.

The difference between "going postal," in the conventional sense, and "going Muslim," in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological "snapping" point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage--the camouflage of integration--in an act of revelatory catharsis. In spite of suggestions by some who know him that he had a history of "harassment" as a Muslim in the army, Maj. Hasan did not "snap" in the "postal" manner. He gave away his possessions on the morning of his day of murder. He even gave away--to a neighbor--a packet of frozen broccoli that he did not wish to see go to waste, even as he mapped in his mind the laying waste of lives at Fort Hood. His was a meticulous, even punctilious "departure."

We are a civilized society. One of our cardinal rules of coexistence is that we (try always to) judge people only by their actions and not by their identity, whether racial, religious or sexual. This is our great strength as a society, and also, in the present circumstances, our great weakness: How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst, there are a few (perhaps many more than a few) who are so radicalized that they would kill their fellow Americans? Must we continue to be neutral in handling all people from different groups even though we know that there are differential risks posed by people of one group? The problem here is a heightened version of the airport security problem, where we check all people--including Chinese grandmothers--regardless of risk profiles. But can we afford that on a grand, national scale? (And I mean that question not merely in a financial sense, but also in terms of the price we'd pay in failing to detect a threat in time.)

This being America, we will insist on going a long way to preserve the appearance of equality, and that is no bad thing in terms of moral principle. But like all values, the appearance of equality is not infinite in its appeal--especially if it flies in the face of common sense and self-preservation. A short time after the shootings at Fort Hood, President Obama asked us not to jump to conclusions. To many Americans, this was a grating request, of a piece with the political correctness that was responsible--it has emerged--for the hands-off treatment by the Army of Maj. Hasan. How else could he have been left in the position of treating U.S. troops, given the stories we've now heard about his incendiary statements and apparent incompetence?

This is the same mindset that led the FBI to deny the possibility that the Fort Hood massacre was linked to terrorism even before they could have had any idea that was the case. We don't have to be paranoid about Arab males; we just have to avoid the opposite: Being fearful of coming across as Islamophobic, and thereby failing to look straight at a situation.

This is part of a larger--and too-hot-to-touch--American problem, which is the privileging of religion, and its frequent exemption from rules of normal discourse. Muslims may be more extreme because their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes. President Obama was as craven as a community college diversity vice-president when he said that no one should jump to conclusions. Everyone did, and he lost credibility with people who cannot stand civic piety in the face of the murderous kind.

Muslims are the most difficult "incomers" in the ongoing integration challenge, which America has always handled with pride--and a kind of swagger. We're the salad bowl/melting pot. Drive through Queens to see how we do this.

America differentiates itself on integration from Western European countries, which are far more cringing and guilt-driven in their approach. But can the American swagger persist if many Americans come genuinely to view Muslims as Fifth Columnists? The integration compact depends on a broad trust that the immigrant's desire to be American can happily co-exist with his other forms of racial/cultural/religious identity. Once that trust doesn't exist, America faces a problem in need of urgent resolution.

Have we reached that point of breakdown in trust? Not yet, I think, and not by some distance; but a few more murderous incidents of the Maj. Hasan variety--a few more shouts of "Allahu Akbar" as Americans are shot dead--will push many Americans on to a dangerous cusp.

I will end on a practical note. The PC--political correctness--problem is an obvious and thorny issue that the U.S. Army, at least, has to tackle. The Army had a self-identified Islamic fundamentalist in its midst, blogging about suicide bombings and telling everyone he hated the Army's mission; and yet, they did, or could do, nothing about it. In effect, the "don't-jump-to-conclusions" mentality was underway long before this man killed his colleagues.

So, first, it should be part of the mandatory duty of every member of the armed forces to report any remarks or behavior of fellow service members that could be construed as indicating unfitness for duty for any reason.

Second, there should be a duty to report such data up the chain of command, regardless of the assessment of the local commander.

Third, there should be a single high-level Pentagon or army department that follows all such cases in real time, whether the potential ground for alarm is sympathy with white supremacism, radical Islamism, endorsement of suicide bombing or simple mental unfitness.

Let the first lesson of the Hasan atrocity be this: The U.S. Army has to be a PC-free zone. Our democracy and our way of life depend on it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

However, given how it was evidently pretty obvious he was a radical muslim, it seems silly to blame political correctness for the whole thing. Unless you want to suggest that the army is a liberal bastion of sensitivity. The fact is, people find it very hard to believe that someone they know would go crazy and start shooting people. It seems he was pretty unlikable, people probably just avoided him for the most part.

Not silly at all. Senior officers desire to be promoted. Having red flags in one's personnel file on "hot button" issues like cultural diversity bias is perceived, warranted or not, as a sure way to stagnate one's career advancement. So putting yourself on paper in a formal complaint is considered not worth the risk. The warnings were there, multiple warnings, but everyone passed the "hot potato" instead of addressing the potential problem. I'm sure the Army feels that if they listen to all the whiners who don't want to be deployed because of xyz, then there will be no one willing to go. If that is the case, then no matter how they handle it, the mission is doomed to failure.

An interesting perspective aimlesswanderer. Alas you won't get much intelligent engagement from those on this board who have made up their minds that it "all those crazy moooslims" or "don't blame the poor guns".

It's hard to be intelligently engaged by people who don't exist

Unintelligent insults that don't warrant a reply and should be removed.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nope, his religion definitely had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

[Centurion1]

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer View Post
Given that there are about 100,000 deaths or injuries caused by firearms in the US every single year, it does not, sadly, surprise me when incidents like this occur. Since strict gun laws were enacted after the worst massacre in Australia's history, there have been none here. A coincidence? A large majority of Australians would think not.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1109-i4gj.html

And more on topic, a great great grandma and a great grandpa of mine came out to Australia in the mid-late 1800s sometime (Gold Rush!), and a great grandma was definitely born here. Despite this, when I meet people, the conversation sometimes (though not often, thank goodness) goes like this:

Them: "where are you from?" / "Your English is really good, where are you from?"
Me: "Australia"
Them: "No, where are you really from?"
Me: "Australia, I was born in Sydney"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "Yes, my mother and her mother were as well. Great grandma was born somewhere in Australia too"
Them: "Wow, really?"
Me: "YES FRIKKIN REALLY!" *not normally quite so loud, and thankfully the conversation has only gotten this far a few times, but I found it intensely annoying.

Why does the conversation go like this you might wonder? Well, because I look Chinese, since that is where the vast majority of my ancestors came from. I don't speak anything but English. I don't 'dress Asian'. I don't believe in any religion, and certainly not a "funny" (ie non Christian) one. Yet people (invariably persons of Anglo-European background) sometimes have difficulty processing the fact that I am as "Australian" as they are, and my ancestors have quite possibly been here longer than theirs.

In Australia at least, before Muslims were the object of societies' suspicion, fear and paranoia, it was Asians who were the Great Fear. Asians forming ethnic ghettoes, Asian gangs/triads, Asians not assimilating, Asian drug dealers, too many Asian immigrants, Asians who couldn't speak English, etc etc. But the levels of hysteria and fear were far far lower than that directed towards Muslims and persons of "Middle Eastern appearance" now. All I experienced were a few comments like "go back where you came from", "**** Asians", all very low level and infrequent. But it did make me angry when it happened. The assumption that because I didn't "look Australian", that I didn't belong.

Major Hasan, being both Muslim and of "Middle Eastern appearance" (the double whammy to all too many people = must be a fanatical Muslim terrorist) would have conversations and experiences like mine (and many far less friendly) waaaaaaay more often. I can only imagine what effect this must have had on him, but I rather doubt it would be good. It could have built up slowly over the years, and then it just got too much. One too many remarks about "Muslim are all terrorists", "looks like a terrorist" or such, and then tragedy strikes - helped along by a ready supply of guns.

Just my view.
An interesting perspective aimlesswanderer. Alas you won't get much intelligent engagement from those on this board who have made up their minds that it "all those crazy moooslims" or "don't blame the poor guns".

im asian too. to be specific i am about 1/4 chinese. It is very easily noticeable. I dont get very much abuse. The worst is from my japanese friend but i give as good as i get........

really idah so you one of them liberal hippies who want to legalize crack cocaine and make it part of our government rationed meals along with our welfare check and rising deficit.

[A Very Super Market]

Hippies...... do...... crack.......?

Political correctness is silly. A radical muslim is a greater risk factor than a geriatric retirement home resident. The argument for political correctness is non-existant. It is essentially to judging all humans as equals when they are not equal. I'm reminded of a controversy a while back when a firewoman was fired because she didn't pass the fitness exam. Her response was to deride the test as unfair because it was measured by elite male firemen. How exactly is this supposed to represent our advancement as a society? No one is calling for gender roles to revert back the housewife and man, but it's merely a fact of life. No one simply decided one day that weiners made you stronger. It was learned through experience.

In the same way, it is foolish to cry "unfair" when a radical muslim of Middle Eastern descent decides to go on a religion-fueled rampage. Yet there is no need to panic and discharge every muslim soldier, because it was clear that it was the circumstances that bred this. The man was inherently unstable, and in an enviroment where he viewed everyone (And they demonstrated themselves) as against his cause, it was bound to happen. Does that mean it's okay to let radical muslims join the army? Absolutely not, as it goes against common sense.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nope, his religion definitely had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

Actually, the article you posted implied that his religion did have something to do with it

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Page 7 all you're willing to commit to is "his religion was tied to it somehow"? Man up and say something more ;)

[Major Robert Dump]

The army is a bastion of liberal sensitivity when it comes to minorities (except asians and funny religions, like jehovahs witnesses) and their feelings

Having an EO complaint brought against you stays on your record, even if you are found innocent. The entire investigation process is hard on the accused, while virtually nothing happens to the accuser if the accusations are found to be without merit. Promotion boards for minority NCOs sometimes ask if the soldier has ever been discriminated against, and if they have, they get promotion points for it.

IT's as if people are encouraged to complain and make EO complaints. It's an open-door policy gone wrong. I just finished one that was an absolute nightmare and without merit, and still some female NCOs think we made the wrong decision by finding the guy innocent. What happened? A young female bragged and bragged that she was gonna get a tit job when she took leave. EVERYONE KNEW because thats all she talked about. I knew about it on my first day at the uniot because I heard her talkign about it. So she comes back from leave with new goods, showing them off to people, basking in the attention, and a male soldier who she doesn't like asked her how the surgery went and if she likes her new look, and she freaked out and pressed an EO charge on him because "he is creepy and mean." He wasn't flirting, he wasn't asking anything that wasn't public knowledge, but apparently she felt that because she didn't like him there were simply some public facts that could not be discussed with him without being offensive. Had I not heard her talking about this on my first day there, this man would have been hung out to dry for harassment.

At my Transportation Officer course I had two Saudi International students. They were royalty captains. They were totally chauvenistic, lazy and arrogant turds. They openly spoke about how the females who burped and cursed and drank would be whipped in their country. They flagged us with their rifles all the time. They were late all the time. They claimed to be offended during live-fire exercises with OPFOR because our iraqi-model MOUT assault was playing a call to prayer song, and when the range OIC said he wasn't going to change the song, they took the complaint up the chain with the help of several bleeding heart officers (some of them female -- which really dumbfounded me).

Meanwhile, I get threatened by the school commandant for jokingly giving them pork rib MREs (i had others ready for them), for bringing islam into our classroom discussions on ROE and geopolitics, for asking them if they were Shias (oh that one pissed them off, quite funny, i did it on purpose).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I think there is an underlying reason that there are more black female Sergeant Majors than any other demographic, despite only making up less than 10% of the overall force.

So yes, it is a bastion of liberal thinking when it comes to "protecting and elevating" certain people. That's why homos in the military would be such a nightmare.....i think the soldiers would accept them....i just think the EO complaints would go through the roof.

And Mormons.....oh my god. Don't even think about talking about the book of Mormon with them if you aren't a mormon or looking to convert....they will nail your ass to the wall in a heartbeat.....we can't help it if its a funny story

[Strike For The South]

The army is a bastion of liberal sensitivity when it comes to minorities (except asians and funny religions, like jehovahs witnesses) and their feelings

Having an EO complaint brought against you stays on your record, even if you are found innocent. The entire investigation process is hard on the accused, while virtually nothing happens to the accuser if the accusations are found to be without merit. Promotion boards for minority NCOs sometimes ask if the soldier has ever been discriminated against, and if they have, they get promotion points for it.

IT's as if people are encouraged to complain and make EO complaints. It's an open-door policy gone wrong. I just finished one that was an absolute nightmare and without merit, and still some female NCOs think we made the wrong decision by finding the guy innocent. What happened? A young female bragged and bragged that she was gonna get a tit job when she took leave. EVERYONE KNEW because thats all she talked about. I knew about it on my first day at the uniot because I heard her talkign about it. So she comes back from leave with new goods, showing them off to people, basking in the attention, and a male soldier who she doesn't like asked her how the surgery went and if she likes her new look, and she freaked out and pressed an EO charge on him because "he is creepy and mean." He wasn't flirting, he wasn't asking anything that wasn't public knowledge, but apparently she felt that because she didn't like him there were simply some public facts that could not be discussed with him without being offensive. Had I not heard her talking about this on my first day there, this man would have been hung out to dry for harassment.

At my Transportation Officer course I had two Saudi International students. They were royalty captains. They were totally chauvenistic, lazy and arrogant turds. They openly spoke about how the females who burped and cursed and drank would be whipped in their country. They flagged us with their rifles all the time. They were late all the time. They claimed to be offended during live-fire exercises with OPFOR because our iraqi-model MOUT assault was playing a call to prayer song, and when the range OIC said he wasn't going to change the song, they took the complaint up the chain with the help of several bleeding heart officers (some of them female -- which really dumbfounded me).

Meanwhile, I get threatened by the school commandant for jokingly giving them pork rib MREs (i had others ready for them), for bringing islam into our classroom discussions on ROE and geopolitics, for asking them if they were Shias (oh that one pissed them off, quite funny, i did it on purpose).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I think there is an underlying reason that there are more black female Sergeant Majors than any other demographic, despite only making up less than 10% of the overall force.

So yes, it is a bastion of liberal thinking when it comes to "protecting and elevating" certain people. That's why homos in the military would be such a nightmare.....i think the soldiers would accept them....i just think the EO complaints would go through the roof.

And Mormons.....oh my god. Don't even think about talking about the book of Mormon with them if you aren't a mormon or looking to convert....they will nail your ass to the wall in a heartbeat.....we can't help it if its a funny story

Hmmmm very interesting MRD. I've heard the exact same story told to me by a friend of mine (not the same examples obv but very much in the same vain)

[Centurion1]

^ yeah there is a reason. for example at the naval academy they want more minority students so that the face of the officer corps reflects the enlisted. And the minority students are allowed to have lower grades and sat scores. Fair, no but neither is affirmative actions. Yeah really good way to run the military. being stupid doesn't get some office thing messed up , people can DIE

As ive said a million times the worst thing to be in america is a poor white kid.