Some thoughts on the incident at Fort Hood in Texas yesterday:
- I wish I could even be surprised anymore at how desperate the PC liberal mainstream media is to avoid any mention whatsoever of a perpetrator’s religion and ideology if they are obviously Muslim. This is the same press that routinely speculates on the suspicious religious motivations of any conservative event, from tea parties to voting for a Republican.
- There needs to be an investigation into the military. This guy posted anti-American screeds online, was “violently opposed” to American action in Iraq and Afghanistan, gave a speech this year where he defended suicide bombers as “heroic martyrs” and who expressed satisfaction when a Muslim soldier went on a rampage in Arkansas killing and wounding soldiers there. The fact that he was not observed constantly is proof that PC correctness is more important to our military than actually saving lives. This man was an obivous ticking time bomb that was left to fester because the military brass didn’t want to risk being attacked by Katie Couric for “profiling” a Muslim.
- Obama has proven once again how unbelievably amateurish and insensitive he is. His team lets the press know that Obama will address the shooting at the start of another meeting, so the cable news networks line up and put him live on TV. The moron then spends three minutes doing a light-hearted intro to the meeting as if nothing important was going on. Only after three minutes of banter does he somberly mention the Ft. Hood event. If people aren’t outraged over this, I don’t know what will wake them up.
- The same press that shouts “We must not RUSH TO JUDGMENT on him because he’s a Muslim” has NO PROBLEM rushing to judgment claiming that this is probably related to the stress of being an active duty officer in the evil American military.
- Has anyone else noticed that this occurred in a “gun free” zone of the base? Coincidence? I think not.
- The reaction to the event on pro-Muslim blogs has been predictably anti-American and pro terrorist. Well, not all of it has, but ENOUGH of it has to turn any reasonable person’s stomach.
- This is why I have no problem whatsoever being more suspicious of devout Muslims who express jihadist beliefs than, say Mormons. And I intend to continue to be suspicious of people like this killer.
- This man was a psychiatrist in the military. Does that bother you as much as it bothers me?
34 users commented in " Fort Hood fallout "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback“There needs to be an investigation into the military. This guy posted anti-American screeds online, was “violently opposed” to American action in Iraq and Afghanistan, gave a speech this year where he defended suicide bombers as “heroic martyrs” and who expressed satisfaction when a Muslim soldier went on a rampage in Arkansas killing and wounding soldiers there.”
I don’t know how you’re going to investigate military members more than you’d investigate a private citizen. And I’m not talking about privacy issues – that’s almost a nonexistant argument for a military member – I just mean the logistics of the entire affair. Individually perhaps, but I don’t think putting the entire military under greater scrutiny is feasible. Or necessary.
Where Hassan’s superiors failed is when he started to proselytize to people in the performance of his official duties. He should have come under a lot sterner review. There might have been some PC issues there. It’s most likely the fact that since he was in the medical field, his supervisors were a lot more lax. It’s just the way the military medical field is. They tend to just a shade above civilians wearing uniforms. The military needs these folks so bad they tend to look away about a lot of things. In this, I think there could be a culture change.
Cullen: Here’s what I’d do. The first time I got notice that an active duty military officer was posting anti-American screeds on the internet, I’d have him hauled into my office, demoted and drummed out of the military dishonorably for violating his oath of service.
That’s what I’d do. Seriously. If you’re in the military and publicly attack the military and side with terrorists, you’re done. Period. Dishonorably. Disgraced. Then I’d put him on a terrorist watch list.
That’s what I’d do. That’s why I’m not in politics.
At what point did they hear about him posting on blogs? I ask that seriously; I haven’t heard. I know that they had complaints about him in the performance of his job, but I don’t know when they knew that he was making anti-American statements.
As for making those postings, I think if his superiors knew about it, the case could have been made to drum him out. Conduct umbecoming, etc.
Unbecoming even.
Hmm… this is odd, and disturbing. I just posted a long comment and it simply vanished.
My understanding is that his superiors became aware of his internet ravings at least six months ago. A few months ago he gave a speech to like-minded Muslims where the called jihadist suicide missions “heroic martyrs”. This would seem to include the 9/11 attacks by definition.
If I hadn’t drummed his butt out of the military by then (and it should have been) his comments to a fellow officer this summer that he was “pleased” by the Arkansas Muslim attack which killed and wounded soldiers would definitely have been the final straw.
The problem is that you can’t simply kick someone out of the military for holding an opinion. I’ve met my fair share of Marxists, communists, pacifists, satanists … pretty much every kind of ist you can think of.
Contrary to my earlier comment, the more I think about it, the more I believe there is little that could/can be done about someone making those kind of posts. It’s not illegal to hold those beliefs, even as a soldier. Where they had him, where they should have chaptered him out, was when he began to actively attempt to convert people he was counseling. If they knew about what he was doing online, they could have tied that to his work behavior, shown a pattern and used it to get him out.
And I say again, that’s why I could never be a politician. And as I also said, “if I ran the military”. If I ran the military you could do what I suggested because I ran the military.
The man was an obvious ticking time bomb. Whether the incompetence which allowed him to fester and explode was personal or institutional, it’s still obvious incompetence and needs to be fixed. My guess is that it is both personal and institutional incompetence. And since the current Commander-in-Chief is pretty much the embodiment of institutionalizing PC correct incompetency, I suspect we’ll see more focus on the concers of “profiling” than any change that might save actual lives.
Cullen: First, it is my understanding that the officer wanted out. Of course, the desire to take the education the service paid for and run, isn’t, in itself, a reason to “let someone out.” Second, there are so many methods to administratively can this guy that it’s not even funny. His evaluations were “poor.” And, if you know ANYTHING about military evaluations, anything below PERFECTION is considered to be “poor” and might affect your chance at promotion. A “poor” rating is cause, IN ITSELF, for discharge.
CC: I am as utterly disgusted as you regarding the weak-kneed reportage by the press and the incomprehensible address by Obama. That merely highlights that, as I have often stated, this guy isn’t “brilliant” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not convinced, frankly, that he’s all that smart. He’s dedicated to and driven by his agenda, but…smart? Not so much.
The more I read about this guy, the more pissed I get.
He was clearly unhinged and unsuitable for military service. This was known very early in his military career. He apparently, while still in (militarily paid for) school, harassed his co-workers and patients in an effort to convert them to Islam. Had this been a CHRISTIAN, he would likely would have been drummed out of the service. He gave a fundamentalist sermon (advocating for the beheading of infidels) at a professional conference. Again, if a Christian had done so, the outrage would have been felt at MY home.
But, the COWARDICE of our society to call a spade a spade and to be willing to call out extremists OTHER than Christians is despicable.
Islamic fundamentalists are INSANE by definition and NONE are suitable for military service, nor, for that matter, as members of ANY civilized society.
When I was stationed at Fort Polk, the medical officers there ran their PT tests around a track at the hospital. There was a cadiologist there who wanted out of the Army so bad he’d show up to PT out of uniform, carrying a box of donuts and would walk the PT test. The Army would not get rid of the guy. They had put a lot of money into him and they needed (need, I’m sure) cardiologists. It’s why they bring these specialists into the military as captains, majors and light colonels. So, here you have this guy begging to get out. I’m sure the command felt about him like they had many before him. Just another guy who tried to play Uncle Sam for a free education. They usually do their best to make these guys fulfill their active obligation rather than kick them out and have them repay.
That said, all of the other stuff going on here should have clued the chain of command in that this guy was bit beyond malingering.
I agree that there are many who malinger in order to get out (doing the “Klinger”). They usually are not only not let out, their lives in the military are generally made more difficult by those who proudly fulfill their oaths.
Rightly so, the chickensh!t bastards shouldn’t be allowed to game the system in that fashion.
But, this guy was insane. I’m not putting any (much) blame on the military personnel who supervised him, but the damn society in which we live where, as our AG says, we have turned into a “nation of cowards.”
He ain’t right about much, but, he’s spot on regarding that issue.
That’s interesting, Cullen. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around “why” this guy was still in the Army.
Obviously, you know a lot more about this than I do, and it makes a little more sense now. But, as you noted, this ain’t like Klinger in a dress.
The thing that has me ticked off the most about this is that all the other soldiers weren’t packing. It will NEVER happen, but if I were the King of the Forest, every soldier would wear their side arm at all times while on duty. The guy would not have squeezed off 3 rounds before his well-deserved death.
I know that is simplistic, and may complicate an MP’s job, yada yada yada. But I read an interesting piece about this today.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUxZjljMzcxZWU1YWY4MmM1YzVjYWUxOWYyYTZmOTM=
HA! Drax beat me to the “Klinger in a dress” comment. Sigh…
If I ran the military every damn member of the military would be armed all the time.
It is incomprehensible to me that we don’t just automatically do that. If you can’t trust your own trained military to carry guns, you may as well just disband the military and curl up in a ball and wait for the barbarians to rape and pillage to their hearts content.
Which is more or less what it seems we are doing anyway.
There’s no good reason to carry a weapon at all times. In fact, it’s far more of a hinderance. As a PAO, I had to drive all over the installation to conduct interviews, take photos, escort media, etc. Sometimes I had the ability to use a military vehicle, but I often had to use my POV. You cannot carry a military weapon in a POV. That would have been a big hinderance.
There’s a wealth of reasons like that for the PVT Snuffy not to carry his rifle 24/7. However, should there be armed security posted in more places throughout the installation? Absofuckinglutely.
What I meant to say is that there’s no good reason for a military member to carry his weapon at all times. Most of the guys out there in the military aren’t combat arms.
What I really wonder is how this guy got these weapons to these locations in the first place. You’re only allowed to carry civilian firearms on to military installations under very strict conditions. If he lived in military bachelor housing, he shouldn’t have had firearms at home. He should have had to check his firearms into his unit’s arms room. If bringing weapons onto the fort, he’d have to sign in through security. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for him to have brought the arms onto post, but it’s not the easiest thing to do.
It’s gotta be pretty emasculating for a heavy armor guy to be in that position. Used to throwing high explosive, anti tank rounds down range, probably a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan and can’t freaking respond to a single guy with a personal firearm.
What I believe is going to happen here is that all personal firearms will wind up being banned from all military installations.
Cullen, you are more than likely right. Personal firearms will probably be banned from all military installations.
And the bad guys will sneak them in…and mayhem will become commonplace. It sucks.
Cullen, when I say military personnel should be armed at all times, I don’t mean with rifles any more than I mean they should be driving tanks around.
They should all have a loaded and working sidearm. That’s plenty.
CC, you’ll probably be surprised to hear this, but the majority of military members don’t carry or qualify on pistols.
Every soldier and marine qualifies on sidearms. (I know this for sure as to marines. I’m assuming it to be true of soldiers — simply from boot camp, if for no other reason.)
Some sailors and airmen, more than one would think.
But, it isn’t necessary for every service member to be armed. All that is necessary is for there to be a rating wherein those who CHOOSE to become qualified (with applicable background checks) to carry a sidearm. Then, let them do so on any military installation.
“Deputize” them, so to say…
There would be few places where there weren’t service members ready, willing, and able to render aid when necessary.
Few soldiers qualify with pistols. Very few airmen. Fewer sailors. Marines are the exception.
Well, as to sailors…. They have the Gunner’s mates who all are qualified, they have the Ship’s Self-Defense Force (I had to qualify on a .45, a Remmington 870 shotgun, M-14 (heh), and M-60), Masters at Arms (permanent SP’s), and…of course…
Petty Officers of the Watch, a rotating assignment which every petty officer stands in port, and which it is necessary to qualify with a sidearm (a .45 when I was in).
I find it difficult to believe that people who have gone through this: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blbasicpolicies.htm in Army boot camp aren’t “qualified” unless you and I have a vastly different definition of “qualified.”
I’m not using it in the “military sense,” i.e., akin to an “expert,” but simply one who knows how to use and not use a sidearm.
That puts pretty much every sea-going sailor above the paygrade of E-3 as qualified with a sidearm, at least to the degree necessary to know how use it competently. (We qualified both at the shooting range and at sea on the flight deck.)
At least we were qualified enough that we were issued a .45, two clips, and charged with the security of the ship (under the orders of the Officer of the Deck, who generally wasn’t armed, the security being left to the enlisted folk.)
I was an Air Force imagery intelligence officer and was qualified on both pistols and the M-16. Qualified marksman on both as a matter of fact.
I would have been happy to blow Mr. Hasan away.
Crud….forgot my user name/password, so I can’t edit…
The above should read:
Well, as to sailors…. They have the Gunner’s mates who all are qualified, they have the Ship’s Self-Defense Force (I had to qualify on a .45, a Remmington 870 shotgun, M-14 (heh), and M-60), Masters at Arms (permanent SP’s), and…of course…
Petty Officers of the Watch, a rotating assignment which every petty officer stands in port, and which it is necessary to qualify with a sidearm (a .45 when I was in).
That puts pretty much every sea-going sailor above the paygrade of E-3 as qualified with a sidearm, at least to the degree necessary to know how use it competently. (We qualified both at the shooting range and at sea on the flight deck.)
At least we were qualified enough that we were issued a .45, two clips, and charged with the security of the ship (under the orders of the Officer of the Deck, who generally wasn’t armed, the security being left to the enlisted folk.)
I find it difficult to believe that people who have gone through this: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blbasicpolicies.htm in Army boot camp aren’t “qualified” unless you and I have a vastly different definition of “qualified.”
I’m not using it in the “military sense,” i.e., akin to an “expert,” but simply one who knows how to use and not use a sidearm.
Dadman, yeah….a LOT of air force members are qualified (to one degree or another) with, at least, sidearms.
I’ve never even been in the military and I’m damn sure “qualified” on a sidearm, as well as rifle or shotgun. And I’d take my chances with mortar and tank too, if necessary.
I was Army for 10 years. I had to actively seek (read: beg) to qualify on a pistol. You don’t touch a sidearm in basic unless you’re in a combat arms MOS. The majority of soldiers are not combat arms.
Air Force members, at least for the past 15 years, only qualify with rifles in boot. Sailors can qualify with pistols, but it’s just as common that they do not. I work for the Navy now and, unless they are a combat rate, MAs or, like you said, officer of the watch, they don’t ever use sidearms.
I’m speaking of enlisted troops, though. Almost all officers use sidearms.
Cullen, OK, fine our current military leadership is a bunch of morons. I get it.
I have been saying all along IF I RAN THE MILITARY. So I’ll say it again. If I ran the dang military EVERY member of the military would be qualified with a gun, rifle and shotgun, and all of them would wear their sidearms pretty much 24×7.
I don’t understand why we have military people running around unarmed. I’m having a major cognitive dissonance on this. They are SOLDIERS, they should be armed.
And if I ran things, they would be. Period.
And all I was trying to point out is that people’s idea of what the military is and what it really is are often very different things. Hence your cognitive dissonance.
However, I never said, nor will I ever say that anyone in the military is a moron. What I am saying is that every little section within the military has their own priorities and when something horrible happens it’s easy to see how those priorities can get skewed.
“nor will I ever say that anyone in the military is a moron”
Um, generally speaking. There are exceptions.
Cullen: As to sailors, it is the ENLISTED men (all enlisted above E-3 who are attached to a ship stand Petty Officer of the Watch duty and are “qualified” with (in Navy terms, i.e., can hit a target from 30′ away both slow and rapid fire) a sidearm).
And, as to the Army, you’re correct, they take rifle training in bootcamp (and, unless I’m mistaken, few are issued sidearms for actual combat unless they are officers, perhaps only those in command positions…not sure).
But, I get your overall point. Civilians generally have an unrealistic view of the soldier’s life — in every respect.
Yeah, I went a bit too far down that rabbit hole. I’d much rather focus on how much of a douche Hassan is and just what special part of hell he’ll be finding himself in.
Heh!
Agreed. Everyone we meet who whines about how “harassed” he was(only a civilian would buy that a MAJOR could be “harassed” on the basis of his ethnicity or religion with impunity in the military….that would be a CAREER ENDER), or how it must have been difficult for him — a muslim who would be counseling servicemen who might be killing gasp members of his religion (ain’t no Christians never killed them some Christians during wartime, don’t ya know…), or any of that other crap needs to be roughly upbraided.
This was an Islamic fundamentalist who, as I will tell anyone who will hear, is definitively insane, who decided one day that he wanted his 72 virgins instead of this poor existence where he couldn’t find a suitable wife.
That’s pretty much all there is to it.
My son just finished boot camp at Fort Benning a few months ago (Army Reserve). So, I asked him about firearms qualification now.
Every soldier qualified with an M-16, and he said (if I remember right), Infantry qualifies also with an M4. But nobody qualifies with a side arm at boot camp. He said that they may have in the past, but to his knowledge, not now.
His group was mostly Medics, and other combat support. He said, to his knowledge, (talking enlisted here) only a few soldiers qualify with a sidearm, and then at their AIT, not at boot camp. Mostly MP’s, etc.
That is surprising to me. I’m with Cosmic…and really with all commentors…I would allow ANY soldier to seek qualification, and to carry after passing a rigorous background check, etc.
Well, maybe not ANY…but say E-4’s & above, or after X number of years of service, etc.
Leave A Reply