For that matter, God help the Arabic-looking man who looks even vaguely like he's going to pull a gun when I'm around in a public space. He'll need surgery to get my proverbial sandal out of his proverbial rectum, and to be able to walk again after the severe beating I deliver. Me and every other redneck boy I know are all the anti-terrorism effort we need. Maybe.
I mean, really, do you think the next Muslim crazy to pull this is going to get off more than 1 or 2 shots? Maybe if he's really thought it through, and does it in a preschool or something. God help him if he does with healthy adult males around. [/QB]
posted
Does anyone else think as I do that the man is most likely simply insane?
I know it's a stereotype but it holds true for a lot of mental health workers I know that they have mental health problems themselves, and that's what got them interested in the field. There's a thin line, and all that.
It's obviously a stereotype, so it's not true for all of them by a long shot, but it's still something that seems to happen a great deal. The fact that the man is a psychiatrist makes me think there's a good chance he's always been barely sane himself, and so probably he just got worse and nobody noticed until it was too late. That's my stereotypical assumption.
I notice it's often true that different people use the same real-world event to confirm their very different prejudices. I suppose that means that my assumptions are about as valid as Lisa's. Hmmm. Nevermind. =)
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, that the man most likely just experienced a psychotic break. Tatiana also said:
quote:"I know it's a stereotype but it holds true for a lot of mental health workers I know that they have mental health problems themselves, and that's what got them interested in the field. There's a thin line, and all that."
I observed the same thing; in fact, when I was in college, some of the psych majors themselves told me they felt they had problems and were pursuing their studies to help figure themselves out.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive Candy, in your 6:35 pm post Friday (10/6/09), you implied Lisa is a troll we should not feed. Lisa is strongly opinionated, and I have often disagreed with her. But she is not a troll. Except when she is obviously being sarcastic, she seems to me to mean what she says. Furthermore, she has been an active part of this forum community for a long time, with over 10,000 posts. You barely have a hundred posts. Have some respect for your elders!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't think that it is a "cultural ill" - that's ridiculous to me.
Why exactly? Do you think that cultural ills are ridiculous in general or just in this case? And what would you define as a cultural ill in the first place?
A cultural ill - roughly defined - when a culture promotes a practice that is immoral, and even dangerous to itself, and to society.
I don't think that terrorism is a cultural ill when it comes to Islam. Radical Islam? Sure.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently Officer Kim Munley's partner, Mark Todd, also had a share in bringing down the maniac shooter. Todd was not hit like Munley was. She probably got in the first hits, and he finished him off with his beretta.
A few more notes:
According to Munley's husband Matthew, her nickname is "Mighty Mouse."
One of the people who were killed was a pregnant private. So technically there were 14 human deaths.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They may already be taking the fetus into consideration. If I'm not mistaken, Texas is one of the states that considers the murder of a pregnant woman to be two murders.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a possibility, PSI, but I think the Texas authorities would have said something to that effect. I guess we'll have to wait and see a list of the dead.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it's true that the state of Texas will prosecute the murder of a pregnant woman as two murders, I doubt they had that in the body count.
Besides, since he was active duty military and the murders were done on a military base, I think the crime will be tried in a military court. Thus, the laws of the state of Texas will not necessarily apply.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Report in U.K. Telegraph says Officer Munley has regained consciousness.
quote:Dr Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley in hospital, said: "She opened her eyes and said, 'Did anybody die?' That's what she said." Sgt Munley has now been told that Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 38 but her actions saved the lives of many others.
Hasan still had dozens of bullets left to fire from his two handguns, including a semi-automatic pistol.
Sgt Munley, a mother of two daughters, is just 5ft 3ins tall, but colleagues described her as a "fireball" and a "tough cookie." She is a member of Fort Hood's SWAT team.
When she saw Hasan firing she ran toward him and started shooting.
Witnesses said she fired twice and Hasan then turned and charged. Sgt Munley fired more rounds as she fell back, continuing to fire after being shot.
"Mighty Mouse" Munley is a lady I count as a true hero.
For that matter, God help the Arabic-looking man who looks even vaguely like he's going to pull a gun when I'm around in a public space. He'll need surgery to get my proverbial sandal out of his proverbial rectum, and to be able to walk again after the severe beating I deliver. Me and every other redneck boy I know are all the anti-terrorism effort we need. Maybe.
I mean, really, do you think the next Muslim crazy to pull this is going to get off more than 1 or 2 shots? Maybe if he's really thought it through, and does it in a preschool or something. God help him if he does with healthy adult males around.
[/QB]
I took that as sarcasm.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I say, send Hasan to Gitmo.
Why on earth would we send an America citizen to Gitmo? We have a system of justice for our own citizenry, complete with trial by jury, court appointed attorney if need be, innocent until proven guilty, and an appeals process.
We also have facilities designated for convicted criminals, why would Gitmo be an option in this case?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Radical Islam? Sure.
Ok, I think I can agree with your definition for a cultural ill. How are we defining radical Islam though?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Radical Islam? Sure.
Ok, I think I can agree with your definition for a cultural ill. How are we defining radical Islam though?
I feel like that's the crux of the problem. It is really hard to distinguish that culture from the rest of Islam, or from the rest of religious Islam, or whatever...
I mean, I'm an Orthodox Jew. Am I a RADICAL Orthodox Jew? I dunno, maybe. How do you define it? Is religion my highest goal in life? Yes. Do I see the world very differently than most non-Jews? Yes. Do I see the world differently than most Jews? Yes.
Look at me and Lisa. We're both Orthodox Jews. Say you had an interest in distinguishing the two of us. Our beliefs will probably be a lot more similar than most non-Orthodox (and even Orthodox Jews) - but our politics, our perspectives are often entirely different. Anyone who knows the two of us on this forum (I guess I'm saying, anyone who knows me, since she's pretty much a celeb...), knows that we are different. But what sort of category can you place us in to distinguish us?
I can't even begin to know enough about Islam to answer that. All I know is that the dangerous radical Islam is embedded in the peaceful one.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would define radical Islam as the one that one that decides religion is a good reason to kill people.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, Dr. Maniac Hasan is not a civilian, he is a major in the military, thus is subject to military tribunal. Not to the federal court system. Since he took up arms in common cause with terrorists and enemies of our country, I think he should be classed as an enemy combatant. He belongs in Gitmo.
C. Edmund Wright penned a delightfully sarcastic skewering of Diane Sawyer of ABC for saying it was dreadfully upsetting "that the mass murderer from Fort Hood was not named Smith. One can only imagine how thrilled she'd have been had he been named something like, oh I don't know, Palin." Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/memo_to_abc_theres_a_reason_he.htmlPosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he's not an enemy combatant. He is, quite simply, a traitor. It's actually pretty cut and dried.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are reports he yelled "Allah Akbar," or something to that effect, as he opened fire.
Tom, being a traitor is one thing. Murdering 12 American soldiers and a civilian employee of the military for a total of 13 dead (14 counting the unborn human in the pregnant woman), and wounding 38, is more than just treason. If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't you ever read Dante's Inferno? Treason was the 9th circle, right next to Satan himself.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he's a traitor. His act of treason was mass murder or, if you like, acting on behalf of our nation's enemies by killing our soldiers in an ambush.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
When you say "just" a traitor, what do you mean? I mean that he's a U.S. soldier clearly guilty of treason, which trumps pretty much anything else from a legal standpoint.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel like that's the crux of the problem. It is really hard to distinguish that culture from the rest of Islam, or from the rest of religious Islam, or whatever...
Ok, but the original assertion was something like Muslims have a cultural illness (that promotes immoral or dangerous behaviour) and your response was that this is ridiculous.
On the other hand, you seem to have stated that radical Islam does have a cultural illness and that it is really difficult to distinguish that subset from the rest.
If you find it difficult to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of Islam, how do you know that the cultural illness is in fact restricted? How do we know for example that it is not in fact the peaceful variant of Islam that is "radical"?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the penalty for treason is death and the penalty for murder is death, what difference does it make which death penalty you give him? For that matter, what difference does it make which prison he's housed in before he's executed?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There are reports he yelled "Allah Akbar," or something to that effect, as he opened fire.
Tom, being a traitor is one thing. Murdering 12 American soldiers and a civilian employee of the military for a total of 13 dead (14 counting the unborn human in the pregnant woman), and wounding 38, is more than just treason. If he had hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, would he still just be a traitor?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF TREASON!? Even Canada has the death penalty for treason in time of war it doesn't matter if you murdered 100 people or 5 if its treason its TREASON! Up to and including betraying state secrets and spying.
If hes a traitor then its the death penalty nothing to it, the difference is treason gets him the firing squad while criminal guilty depending on which state is other more grisly means.
Gods! You make it sound like "just treason" isn't significant or important on its own!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Not to argue your point, but I believe it translates as "adversary." Its an important distinction.
Actually, the best translation would probably be "misleader". The verb soteh means to deviate, like off a path.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If you find it difficult to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of Islam, how do you know that the cultural illness is in fact restricted? How do we know for example that it is not in fact the peaceful variant of Islam that is "radical"?
I don't. But I draw from the examples I DO know. I know Jews, I know other cultural groups that have had the same "cultural ill" argument leveled against them, and it never really pans out.
I don't have many Muslim friends - I recently became close with one guy who I think in a very liberal Muslim and is probably not representative of many others.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally stated by Lisa: Actually, the best translation [of "Satan"] would probably be "misleader". The verb soteh means to deviate, like off a path.
Then the New Testament Greek equivalent would be "apostate."
Now, I can't pass up a chance here to spar with Lisa. Thayer's Bible Dictionary (what I have bundled with my multi-Bible software) defines Satan as: "adversary, one who withstands." The NASB (which I regard as generally the most scholarly translation) has "adversary" in the margin.
It seems to me that enemy and adversary are pretty close synonyms. Deviate or apostate sounds a little more like traitor. But when speaking of the Devil, who began his career as Lucifer, the highest of the angels, and then fell by conceiving of sin and steadfastly refusing to give it up so he had to be cast out of heaven (see Rev. 12:3, 4, 7-9; Ezek. 28:13-17; Isa. 14:12-20), the most natural definition is enemy. He made himself the enemy of God. The Revelation 12 passages (especially v. 4) does present Satan as a "misleader." ("His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven."--stars is symbolic of angels in Revelation. See v. 9)
As for deviate, that makes it sounds like such a person should be called a deviant. Sorry Lisa, but in our language, deviant usually connotes something else. Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I know this thread's taken a long, wide turn away from the orginal bent but ... all my friends there are fine, but one of them has several friends that were killed. I think he's doing all right (mentally, he wasn't involved at all in the incident itself) but still pretty depressing.
posted
Sorry to hear that Hobbes. Despite the size of Ft. Hood, it is still in many ways a large family. That is one of the reasons many people seek a career in the military. The massacre was an assault against family, for many people. And that is why Hasan's actions were such a betrayal.
But praise the Lord for "Mighty Mouse" Kim Munley, and her partner, Mark Todd. When Hasan was brought down, he still had "dozens of bullets left in his two handguns."
And Blayne, give it a rest. Sure Hasan was a traitor. But he went even further and became an active enemy combatant. He didn't just leak secrets to the enemy, he became the enemy. Why isn't that clear?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The name Satan means "the enemy." Hasan became the enemy.
Alright Dr. Hassan is a major in the military, he could be incarcerated at Gitmo, but it wouldn't be in the same sections as the Al Qaeda operatives or suspects, it would be where all the other soldiers are held as there is a prison there for that purpose. I just get the vibe from you that Gitmo is "Muslim Prison."
Further Satan does not mean the enemy, when Jesus says that he was going to die, and Peter says in effect, "No master, you don't have to die." and Jesus turns to him and says, "Get thee behind me Satan, for thou art an offense unto me." He was not saying that Peter is the enemy and must be removed, he was saying that Peter was getting in his way and becoming an obstacle because he was trying to persuade him not to do as his father had commanded.
IMO I agree with Tom, he's an American soldier whose sworn duty he has betrayed. He is a murderer, and a traitor. Further investigation will determine whether he had accomplices, his motives, and his fate.
---------
I'm actually very hopeful that Hassan will be able to in some way distance himself emotionally from the event and give us a rationale for why he acted as he did. After a basic think back I can't recall any instance of a shooter committing a mass killing and surviving to talk about it. I hope a solid suicide watch is in effect.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, you need to go deeper. When Jesus called Peter Satan, he was addressing Satan who was using Peter at that moment to try to turn Jesus aside from His purpose. God does this with Lucifer and the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, and the Devil and the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. These are all examples of God addressing Satan through the human instruments he is using.
I just hope that liberals do not succeed in invoking "political correctness" to the extent that Hasan is treated as a victim to be pitied, and the real victims are disregarded, the way liberals are prone to do.
Justice is real, and it does matter.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that enemy and adversary are pretty close synonyms.
Yes, but "adversary" isn't the best translation. A better translation is, I am assured by people who actually speak the language, "tempter" or "misleader."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Lambert: You are right that Jesus addresses Satan, through those who he is possessing, but there is no evidence that Peter was possessed at that time. Peter was doing the natural human thing of essentially saying, "Perish the thought!" When his master whom he loved talked about dying at a young age. Jesus who like anybody else had to come to grips with the mission he was given responded almost violently to Peter's words as to be honest, Jesus certainly had the power to avoid what was coming, but thinking that way is the precursor to doing it and he was smart enough to crush even approaching a place where he could make a mistake like that.
There is nothing wrong with trying to love those who are the enemy, did you not read Ender's Game? What Hassan did was absolutely terrible, but I don't really care much for the whole, "Who is the biggest victim here? Who should we all be paying attention to?!" If I knew a family member or one of the slain I'd spend the crux of my time on this matter doing what I could for them. I am not in that situation and so I spend my time focused on the perpetrator. Love dictates that I judge aright, and right now I am not completely convinced that Hassan is a blood thirsty murderer who served in the armed forces and decided that would be an ideal place to work for years while he brought his shooting plan to fruition.
Justice is real, but vengeance is God's not man's.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think anyone is trying to minimize Hasan's crimes. It's just that some of us, when we say 'traitor', that's a large umbrella under which a lot of things can fall.
For example, let's say that Hasan had been actively spying on the United States for some fanatical Islamic terrorist group, and he fled the US with all the secrets he's spied out and returned them to his controllers. After thorough debriefing he took the field against our soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, killing many of them
He would still be a traitor, in addition to being many other things as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Sure if men do not concern themselves with justice, then the entire society collapses.
Last I checked the Ten Commandments say what you should and should not do, it does not apportion the appropriate response to breaches of protocol. It was also never designed as a comprehensive outline of all that ought to be done. Where are the bits about taking care of the poor? Or defending the helpless? Where are the rules against prejudice? Its convenient to say the 10 commandments have got it all, but they don't.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies". The founders considered this important enough to put it in the actual Constitution; AFAIR it's the only crime so defined. Firing at soldiers in uniform, while wearing the same uniform, in time of war (loosely speaking; Congress has declared no state of war), seems a clear-cut case. Now, what is the purpose of getting indignant about how this is even worse than treason? Treason is the worst crime in the book already. Quisling and Benedict Arnold will still be well-known names when Osama and Saddam are footnotes in histories of the early twenty-first century.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell, Quisling was so bad he's an actual word now. That's about as bad as it gets.
ETA: And Quisling got a word named after him in only a matter of generations, no less. That's an impressive anti-accomplishment, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God also holds man responsible if he fails to render justice. That is part of the duty appointed to governments. If a society fails to see that justice is done, then that whole society becomes unjust, and therefore is condemned itself.
Contrary to what you imply, rendering justice is not vengeance. Rendering justice is fulfilling what Justice requires. And God has told us what Justice is. He wrote it down on tables of stone with His own finger.
Sure if men do not concern themselves with justice, then the entire society collapses.
Last I checked the Ten Commandments say what you should and should not do, it does not apportion the appropriate response to breaches of protocol. It was also never designed as a comprehensive outline of all that ought to be done. Where are the bits about taking care of the poor? Or defending the helpless? Where are the rules against prejudice? Its convenient to say the 10 commandments have got it all, but they don't.
They're not in the 10 commandments, but they are in the rest of the Bible...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the whole point of that particular section of the Constitution was to limit the definition of treason in order to exclude things that were considered treason according to British law.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
