Probably not much to discuss about it, but...

Article here. And here. And here.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 5, 2009, 5:49pm.

Our military has a real crisis on it's hands. The suicide rate is at a level never seen before and the shooting/fragging of soldiers by soldiers hasn't been seen since Vietnam.

I was close enough to the shooting at the mental health clinic in Iraq this spring, that my people were ready to respond.

Right before we left, the unit relieving us had a suicide by an old, experienced NCO.

I just want to cry when I see this.

Here is an earlier piece from NPR about military suicide rate. The rate is the highest in 30 years.

A Knoxville reserve unit announced a new call this week.

It's heartbreaking to see what is happening inside the military.

My heart breaks for the young men and women who are suffering from the trauma of the war and all the strain it puts on them and their families. I agree that this is a real crisis for our military and our country. I feel for you Sarge. I cannot imagine how hard this is for you, but I pray you and your fellow soldiers are given the help and care you need and deserve.

The UKTimes is pushing a much harder line on the shootings than anything I've seen in American news sources. Article

Which seems kind of an odd sort of coverage.

Edit - Main Article

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 5, 2009, 7:54pm.

I had family stationed at Ft. Hood some years back. My folks and I would drive up to visit him from our sleepy central Texas town. Seeing "Ft. Hood" plastered all over the news has brought back a lot of memories. But they're bittersweet since they're accompanying images of this horrible tragedy.

There is no denying it--the United States military, especially the Army, is falling apart from within. Volunteers make great soldiers, but they are not superhuman. They fall apart after deployment after deployment, fighting in wars which do not seem to have end points.

Look, we can do this but there are only so many of us. The Army is half the size it was during the First Gulf War. There's the f*ck*ng peace dividend.

They fall apart after deployment after deployment . . .

Sources report that Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan had never been deployed. Rather, he was facing his first deployment in Iraq. According to one source, he had recently been transfered from Walter Reed, perhaps due to negative evaluations. A number of people have said that the convert to Islam had been known to make strong statements against American foreign policy, "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor," etc. He also is reported to have looked weirdly "happy" after the Little Rock Army base shooting.

I was speaking of Michael's point in post 2, not specifically about Hasan.

Shep Smith from Fox News was interviewing this guy's cousin on the phone earlier tonight. His cousin stated that he was not a convert. He also stated that Hasan had some problems with co-workers and had attempted to resolve these issues through legal channels within the military. Evidently they were giving him a hard time post-9/11.

What a sad day for Ft. Hood and the US Army. My heart goes out to all of those affected.

13>
It's interesting how quickly false reports get circulated as truth.

Something tells me there is going to be a lot of speculation and assumptions surrounding this guy. Maybe the truth is fairly obvious, or maybe it is not. In any event, I don't know that I trust the Army and/or the FBI to be completely forthcoming with the facts.

It's interesting how quickly false reports get circulated as truth.

No doubt it's a conspiracy--to malign Muslim converts and protect the good name of Muslims from birth. Or whatever.

In a breaking news story like this one, it's understandable. People want to know what happened, and news organizations will report what information they have or think they have. Earlier it was reported that Hasan had been killed, and that there were two other shooters. I assume that that confusion arose due to the fact that bystanders were shooting at Hasan.

Yet, we don't refrain from making judgments or stop to think that the information that we think we have may not be the information there is.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 6, 2009, 5:23am.

Among television journalists, I saw a laudable tendency to refrain from making judgments and to hold off on jumping to conclusions. There was also a sense that all information was provisional. On the internet, if you google "Hasan convert", you'll see that many of those who restated what ABC news had reported were quite quick to retract it when Fox interviewed the cousin.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 6, 2009, 7:21am.

Every time I see a casualty list in the news it takes another piece of me away.

Pounding headache this morning, nightmares last night. Should have taken a pill to sleep.

One of my jobs is EO advisor on top of everything else. It's a fine line to walk keeping the personal and professional seperate. Especially when dealing with individuals like this MAJ.

One of my guys over there was a muslim, but I never had any issues with his performance as a soldier. Or any personal behaviour that would have been a red flag to allowing him to carry a weapon. He was quite upset that an injury requiring surgery would force him to transfer out of the infantry.

Sigh...I don't know.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 6, 2009, 7:59am.

Major Hasan survives--hopefully there will be answers on why an individual acted so.

First, this is a horrible tragedy. The most important thing is to keep the victims in our thoughts. Random violence is sickening. For it to happen at an installation like this only makes it that much worse. These soldiers have been through enough, they ought to be able to feel that a base is a sanctuary or safe harbor from slaughter. I know this is rough for you, Sarge. The rest of us shouldn't forget that these are people you know. I hope you can deal with it over time. Please feel to skip my idle speculations....

I think there will be a tendency to see Hasan's beliefs as a motivating factor, and there will be subsequent chatter from some quarters about whether Muslims should be allowed in the military. I have no idea how Muslims in the military are treated, although I have heard/read testimony similar to Sarge's. I also know that converts to any belief can easily turn into zealots, and the anecdotal statements with regard to Hasan regarding his attitudes towards women suggest that this might be true in his case. It would also not be surprising to hear that there might be a certain amount of tension towards or harrassment of Muslims in the military. There have been stories of strongly evangelical soldiers in the military as well. I can imagine that someone indoctrinated in the belief that Islam is inherently evil or anti-Christian would not be happy to share close contact with a Muslim, and this would be manifest in subtle or not-so-subtle ways.

The fact to remember is that Hasan was, at best, emotionally unstable. Harassment -being treated as an outsider, or words and actions against someone who has set themselves apart as an outsider - can certainly aggravate one's psyche, unstable or not. I've witnessed enough workplace harrassment to see how this can affect someone's personality over time.

I'm sure being Muslim didn't help Hasan integrate into the military - or more specifically a new post at Fort Hood where he would likely be seen as an anomaly - but we* ought to be cautious about assuming religion as a motivating factor.

*Particularly the media, which is all over Hasan's alleged "Allahu Akbar" statements. If someone is on a rampage, it doesn't matter if they're shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "Hallelujah!". Was Tim McVeigh a fundamentalist or an atheist? I have no idea. Does it matter? No.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 6, 2009, 10:28am.

I know, Sarge, you don't like the draft, but universal conscription would relieve some of the pressure, as well as provide a lot of other benefits not related directly to the military.

I find it hard to blame the military situation on the Peace Dividend. I tend to put it on two never ending, unnecessary, mismanaged wars. However, you are on the front line and know far more about the mood of the troops and what they think than I do.

When something like this happens, I tend to not pay attention to the coverage until they actually have something to report. I won't draw any conclusions on this until people have facts to report.

Oakes, I don't think anyone wants be politically correct with regard to judgments of Major Hasan, I think they want to reserve judgment until all the facts are in. Even people with terrorist names deserve that much in this country.

What a tragedy!

I think they want to reserve judgment until all the facts are in.

I hope my above comments are seen as pure speculation. I agree that we don't yet really have a full picture of the situation. I would also suggest that any debate about motivations, etc. be conducted on a separate thread. I will be happy to move my comments should such a thread materialize.

My comment concerning the "Peace Dividend" after the First Gulf War I should clarify. The US Army took the biggest cuts in personnel after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

It was cut in half. Half.

At the start of the 21st century, the Army hadn't been this small since 1950, before the Korean War broke out.

We used to be able to put people out for cause. "Incompatible with military service", "Failure to repair/adapt", etc.

Now we need every soldier so badly, that unless you do something absolutely criminal, you stay in. Failing to meet standards is no longer cause to be discharged, kept from deploying, or denied graduation from schools needed to advance your career.

I've seen far too many people in uniform in the last eight years, who's abilities I do not trust. Honestly, there is one individual who I worked with in Iraq, that I wondered if I might have to "take out" to keep him from getting people killed. He is that incompetent, but everyone went regardless.

I saw soldiers who should have been medically excluded, but paperwork was "lost". Now these poor guys are facing disabling injuries for life because they were told that they were quitters and not team players.

Hopefully this clarifies my comment.

Look...we are soldiers. We will do whatever it takes. The same as firefighters going into a burning building or cops going down that dark alley after an armed perp. But it is taking a toll. Individually and collectively.

We need more people, to share the sh*t as it were. But it seems that so few are willing to pay the price. The politicians and our society.

I was tasked with assisting a recruiter once. I quit. Because I finally lost it with parents whose precious little princes were too good to serve. I told his "mommy" what I thought of her and what I thought of his lack of manhood to bring mommy to hold his hand at the recuiter's office.

I'm retiring next year. It's over for me physically. I can't do this anymore and it breaks my heart.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 6, 2009, 12:07pm.

Sorry if I ramble. Last night really shook me up. It's difficult to think clearly today. Sometimes I think I should take the meds the docs want me on. I'm also retiring because I am done emotionally and psychologically.

As far as the MAJ goes.

Did his superiors ignore actions and statements in his part that should have been red flags to avoid being labeled insensitive to Moslems? As an EO advisor I can tell you that being labeled such can be a career killer.

The fact that he sought counseling because he was having problems treating patients should have been another red flag.

Back in the old days I was shut down on the spot by an officer for just voicing an opinion concerning our Commander in Chief at the time.

A book I would recommend in times like these: The OxBow Incident. If you can't find it or don't want to read it, an excellent movie was made of it starring Hank Fonda.

No one wants to examine other causes to the highest suicide rate in 30 years. Just some questions:
how much of the current suicide tragedy is attributable to the break down of the family in America?
how much is a result of the "hollowing out of center" of our value structure in America?
how much is attributable to our lose of meaning and purpose (overall) in post judeo-Christian America?
no easy answers here.

How about the stress of long term uncertainty about the future and whether or not you will have one? Not everyone in the Army is emotionally capable of seeing their friends damaged and killed ever other year or so?

War is a bad, bad business.

I agree with the hollowing out of the center of our value structure. People are constantly beat down by the greed of the Chamber of Commerce.

What was our meaning and purpose before reaching post Judeo Christian America? Think carefully about who is to blame for losing it, if anything has indeed been lost.

Now another shooting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33726074/ns/...

Is this shooting retaliation for the tons of weapons the Israeli's recently hijacked? Is it part of a resurgence by the anti-Semitic, Semites living in the Middle East? Is OBL behind it?

During the Second World War, Japanese-Americans in the military did not have to serve against their kin in the Pacific. They had their own unit, which fought in Europe with such valor that it became he most highly decorated unit of the American Army, with 21 Medal of Honor winners.

The Israeli government exempts its own Arab citizens from conscription into the IDF, although they can serve if they wish.

So why don't we allow Muslim soldiers to decline to serve in situations where they might find themselves in conflict with fellow Muslims?

OldSarge:

What are the rules if any, about, say, voicing opposition to particular American military policies or American foreign policy in general, in either an explicit or implied way, if one is:

a) in the field?
b) on, say, an American base?
c) performing one's duty in an army hospital in the United States?
d) off duty or on leave?

Or can you, in effect, say anything, as long as you don't say it in an aggressive or inflammatory way, and as long as you don't disobey or recommend or encourage disobeying orders?

Given the rules, if there are any, is there an obligation to report people who violate them? In practice, as you might have implied, are there problems or difficulties in doing this?

32: Because we don't recognize being Muslim as a reason not to serve in a conflict that might involve fighting Muslims. Just as we don't exempt Christians in the armed forces from serving in a conflict that might result in their fighting against other Christians.

#32 Isn't a question, really, it's a proposal. "Let us do this ..."

geneg

You hit one right on the head. Every time I see a new list of KIA, it feels like my guts are full of ice. I say a prayer that it won't be another person I know.

I've also had a bad case of survivor's guilt. Why them and not me? I was lucky and blessed enough to bring all my people home. I think the worst thing that could have happened to me would have been bagging & tagging one of my "kids".

oakes

It all depends on what you say and the setting you say it in.

Is it prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Is it discriminatory?

Is it disrespectful?

Is it supportive of the mission?

Is there a PAO (Public Affairs Officer) present if there is media?

There are so many variables.

I wish I kept my media rules card, but threw it away when I got back from Iraq.

If you voice an opinion in a public forum, you must clearly do so as a private citizen, not as a member of the military. For myself, I just don't care anymore. What are they gonna do to me? Send me to Iraq?

Now I read an account by one soldier who made physical contact with the shooter and turned around and ran. WTF? Your job is to take down the enemy using whatever is at hand, even your bare hands. That's why we train in combatatives.

Yeah, I know there are those who will disagree with me on this one.

38
Sounds like a reasonable expectation for a soldier, to attempt to bring the guy down and disarm him. Seems preferrable to running the risk of being shot in the back.

But it was such a nightmarish situation, who knows what was going through the guy's mind. One news analyst I heard, ex-military, expressed concern that the sheer number of casualties suggests that some of the soldiers may have been taken down by friendly fire. I hope not.

You have a better chance of survival by fighting through an ambush than running away. This is why we train to do certain things that would not make sense to others.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 7, 2009, 7:14am.

> 33, 37 What are the rules if any, about, say, voicing opposition to particular American military policies or American foreign policy...?

Just anecdotal, I know, and skewed by childhood experience*, but my impression is that US military personnel are unusually free to state opinions--from General McChrystal to soldiers next to those embedded reporters. Must be a legacy of the US's early democratic traditions and the break with Great Britain, e.g., US military once elected its officers?

I remember decades ago in Canada that my army-officer dad used to marvel at US military folks' apparent independence from civilian masters. In that respect, he thought the Russian army was "more professional". (Back in Cold War era, this was a pretty shocking assessment for his young daughter!) A US exchange officer's joking comment really stuck with Dad: something like, "why should we take over (US Government)--we already get everything we want."

More recently, a lawyer-officer who represented interests of one US military branch "on the Hill" told me that when they disagreed with administration proposals (i.e., civilian masters'), they would promote their own preferences by responding to Congressional queries in hearings, for example. In my experience, it's not difficult to plant the right question with a sympathetic aide.

*Canadian military personnel (of my day, at least) didn't publicize advice and preferences, e.g. no lawn signs during elections. The one time my dad couldn't resist writing to the newspaper, he did so under my mom's name. In order to not trip up in keeping secrets and his advice private, he told his family next to nothing about military goings-on.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 7, 2009, 5:13am.

Thank you, margd and Old Sarge. I should say that not only do I know little about what the rules actually are, I'm not really sure about what I think they should be. My question was of course prompted by Hasan's alleged anti-American, pro-Jihad, or whatever you want to call them statements before the shooting. They would seem to have been red flags. But how many soldiers express, so to speak, opposition ideas, at least nominally and remain loyal soldiers? I have no idea. Obviously context is important, among other things.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 7, 2009, 2:20pm.

Here's an interesting question.

Anyone remember the last mass murderer high on marijuana?

The concensus amongst my fellow NCOs is unanimous. If you were close enough to make contact with the MAJ, you were close enough to fight back, not run.

OldSarge. Thank you for sharing your experience. I am glad you never lost a soldier of your own command, it would be very difficult to bear.

This Major/Drs' family and superiors both have mentioned people gave him grief after 9/11, based on the fact that he was of the Muslim faith. And it was reported that he was investigated by the FBI then sent to Fort Hood as a punishment because of a web post he made ( Probably a simplification of events )

I was just wondering what is the system of rules relating to that. Are all the US soldiers who make Youtube posts denigrating Muslims punished too?. Is there some military regulation in your army code about hassling people over their religious beliefs?. I know in the New Zealand army, if anyone said word one to a Muslim, or a Christian or anyone else, that could be taken as a criticism of their religious beliefs, they would be brought up on charges. What is your experience of how the US army handles denigration of Muslims in the ranks?. Is it viewed as too difficult to address because you are engaged in police actions against Muslim extremists presently?.
Pretty well impossible to train people to kill, and then insist they don't also denigrate their targets, I would think.

43 > While there is a definite correlation, it does not equal causation. It could be that the people taking these drugs already have tendencies towards these problems. Though I would agree it needs some serious looking into.

#43 That's certainly an interesting take on things geneg, but I think it's important to remember the difference between correlation and causation. Not having seen the original figures he uses in his article, I can't comment on the research methodolgy, but it's important to remember that people on anti-depressants are usually on them because they're depressed. I imagine people with depression probably have a higher rate of suicide, with or without anti-depressants (I have no figures to back that up, but common sense would sugest...) That of course doesn't explain the murderous tendencies displayed by these people as well, but given that other countries with high levels of anti-depressant use aren't showing the same level of mass murders I suspect there's more to this story than chemicals.

"Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her. Defense worker Natalie Nickerson writes to her sweetheart thanking him for his letter and 'souvenir'. This skull of a Japanese soldier bears the inscription: 'Here is a good Jap -- a dead one!'

From Life Magazine, May 22 1944

If the MAJ felt that he was being harassed by fellow soldiers, he had the means to register those complaints officially. No excuses not to. Everyone in the US military is aware of the policies concerning and means to deal with EO issues.

I am an EO advisor in addition to my primary duties and everyone in my unit knows who I am and what I am there for.

I cannot discuss it, but I am dealing with an issue right now concerning insulting and unprofessional behaviour by an NCO concerning another NCO's ethnicity.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 7, 2009, 7:44pm.

Yeah, I imagined you had rules covering the issue. So if people had been picking on him, he had some official recourse, it wasn't just swept under the table, and he ordered to just suck up the abuse. I guess it is all moot anyway, as no matter how much discrimination he might have had to suffer in the 8 years since 9/11, it would never justify murdering anyone, let alone his fellow servicemen. He must be really mentally ill.
I wonder just how many man hours your country expends on keeping aware of what its various servicemen and servants say online?. The FBI obviously investigated his comments on that one site, so I imagine they must spend millions of hours on Youtube, reading all the various posts soldiers make on the various topics related to the anti-terrorism effort.
If , for example a US ( or British for that matter ) soldier posted online the thought that "We should nuke London" , that would be a breach of discipline, right?. If a NCO saw where one of his own men wrote that, he would probably be supposed to report it, I guess. Though the FBI probably don't check or act when they write "We should nuke Riyadh" I am thinking. Or they have far more men than I realised!.

#3, etc.

That article says that they didn't begin tracking military suicide rates until the 1980s. How do we know that the rate is higher in this war than in WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Is the stress greater?

Oddly, this military base was a gun-free zone.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland...

Not so odd. Why would soldiers on an army base need to carry their rifles around unless they were actually training?

Not really a "gun-free zone" as what is the standard on all US military bases outside a combat zone. Unless your duties or mission require it, weapons stay secured in an arms room like all sensitive items.

Now I'm seeing articles in the media calling soldiers heroes who rescued wounded, treated wounded and saved others from being shot. All well and good, but they didn't attempt to stop this guy. He wasn't stopped until LEOs showed up.

Back in the 90s we had a shooting incident at Ft. Bragg, NC. A soldier opened up with a rifle while units were assembling in the early morning darkness to conduct PT. Through my network of friends I know about the soldiers who didn't run. They charged the shooter and stopped him before he killed more people. They were wounded themselves, but they stopped him. There is no such thing as an unarmed soldier. The soldier is the weapon, everything else is just a tool to assist in accomplishing the mission.

Take them for what you will:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

Interesting that his Grandfather, who is presently living in the West Bank of Gaza, felt safe in both talking to a BBC affiliated reporter, and also saying his grandson thought the USA was a great country. The impression of the place we get from the media would make both those things unlikely, I would have thought.

Seems like he was unhappy with his life, prospects, lack of a companion, etc. How often have we seen men in the same personal situation murder their workmates?.

I always wonder why the mongrels don't just shoot themselves, rather than the innocent. Egotists to the end I guess.

The mongrels?

There's an interesting piece by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker (November 9, 2009) on the greater propensity of Americans to commit murder (compared to citizens of other "affluent democracies"). Here are two theories she discusses that purport to explain another instance of American Exceptionalism, this time in the area of the rate of carnage in civil society:

"Pieter Spierenburg, a professor of historical criminology at Erasmus University, in Rotterdam, sifts through the evidence in A History of Murder: Personal Violence in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present. In Europe, homicide rates, conventionally represented as the number of murder victims per hundred thousand people in the population per year, have been falling for centuries. Spierenburg attributes this long decline to what the German sociologist Norbert Elias called the “civilizing process” (shorthand for a whole class of behaviors requiring physical restraint and self-control, right down to using a fork instead of eating with your hands or stabbing at your food with a knife), and to the growing power of the centralizing state to disarm civilians, control violence, enforce law and order, and, broadly, to hold a monopoly on the use of force. (Anthropologists sometimes talk about a related process, the replacement of a culture of honor with a culture of dignity.) In feuding medieval Europe, the murder rate hovered around thirty-five. Duels replaced feuds. Duels are more mannered; they also have a lower body count. By 1500, the murder rate in Western Europe had fallen to about twenty. Courts had replaced duels. By 1700, the murder rate had dropped to five. Today, that rate is generally well below two, where it has held steady, with minor fluctuations, for the past century.

In the United States, the picture could hardly be more different. The American homicide rate has been higher than Europe’s from the start, and higher at just about every stage since. It has also fluctuated, sometimes wildly. During the Colonial period, the homicide rate fell, but in the nineteenth century, while Europe’s kept sinking, the U.S. rate went up and up. In the twentieth century, the rate in the United States dropped to about five during the years following the Second World War, but then rose, reaching about eleven in 1991. It has since fallen once again, to just above five, a rate that is, nevertheless, twice that of any other affluent democracy.

What accounts for this remarkable difference? Guns leap to mind: in 2008, firearms were involved in two-thirds of all murders in the United States. Yet Randolph Roth ( "American Homicide"), who supports gun control, insists that the prevalence of guns in America, and our lax gun laws, can’t account for the whole spread, and a few scholars have argued that laws allowing concealed weapons actually lower the murder rate, by deterring assaults. Some Europeans suspect that Americans haven’t undergone the same “civilizing process,” as if, unmoored from Europe, Colonial Americans went murderously adrift. Spierenburg speculates that democracy came too soon to the United States. By the time European states became democracies, the populace had accepted the authority of the state. But the American Revolution happened before Americans had got used to the idea of a state monopoly on force. Americans therefore preserved for themselves not only the right to bear arms—rather than yielding that right to a strong central government—but also medieval manners: impulsiveness, crudeness, and fidelity to a culture of honor. We’re backward, in other words, because we became free before we learned how to control ourselves.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not everyone buys these arguments, and (Eric) Monkkonen himself took a different, though equally conjectural, approach. At the time of his death, he had been working on an article called “Homicide: Explaining America’s Exceptionalism,” which hypothesized that four factors accounted for the centuries-long differences between American and European homicide rates: mobility, federalism, slavery, and tolerance. Mobility breaks social ties; federalism is a weak form of government; slavery not only rationalized a culture of violence among white Southerners (where the murder rate has been disproportionately high, as it has, and remains, in many of the so-called law-and-order states) but also infected American culture; and American judges and juries have historically proved less willing than their European counterparts to convict murderers, tolerating, among other crimes, racial murders and killings by jealous spouses."

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 8, 2009, 3:56pm.

By 1500, the murder rate in Western Europe had fallen to about twenty.

They have all the records needed to establish the murder rate in Western Europe in 1500? That's incredible. Literally.

I don't trust the statistics being used in these arguments. Who was compiling the numbers? How? From what sources? Convictions, or murders?

59: Any theory that does not account for the disparity between the homogeneity of many European countries and the heterogeneity of the U.S. is, in my opinion, severely flawed.

It seems to me that Monkkonen's "theory" recognizes heterogeneity. For example, "slavery" implies the existence of people with different legal statuses, and the group that lacked full access to the courts was subject to interpersonal violence from the group that did have access (which pertains to the "tolerance" of "racial murders").

But it also depends on what one means by heterogeneity. Certainly, European societies were -- and are -- heterogeneous (e.g. legal status, social class status, religious confession, and gender are a few forms of heterogeneity). If that is the case, then homogeneity can't be assumed to be the basis of the disparity between the US and European countries.

But let's take the heterogeneity argument as an important variable in the US case. One might ask, is the significance of this variable constant across time or is there variation? The US has been 'heterogeneous" in the 19th and 20th centuries (and the degree of heterogeneity is probably increasing), yet there is variation in the murder rate. Wasn't the US as "heterogeneous" in the period between 1991 to the present, when the murder rate dropped from eleven to five (per hundred thousand persons), as it was in the period prior to 1991?

I think the "civilizing process" argument can complement (or is even implied by) Monkkonen's "multi-variable" model (i.e., Federalism may contribute to the weak civilizing process; hence the persistence of the significance of the "culture of honor" -- and here one might compare the culture of honor of the American south with those found in societies that ring the Mediterranean). My own view is that the US should not always be compared to Europe (a comparison that feeds the "exceptionalism" discourse) but rather to other post-colonial nations, in particular South Africa and those found in Latin America. If a comparison were made between the US and those nations, and rates of interpersonal homicide, then I would conjecture that the US may not be so exceptional.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 8, 2009, 8:51pm.

#58
Yes, the mongrels that infest our modern world, the ( sad to have to say this, as I myself am one ) mostly MALE mass murderers that seem to actually be seeking suicide. They go somewhere in public, and using firearms 99% of the time, kill the innocent until they are either killed by the police or sometimes it seems like they just decide "Oh, that is enough innocent life destroyed, families ruined for all chance of happiness" and shoot themselves.
They often leave suicide notes before they set out.

So like I said, I always wonder why they don't just skip to the punchline and shoot their mongrel selves before leaving home that morning.

If these guys who go off half-cocked and kill a bunch of innocent people had relatively decent access to the warm, comforting regions of the female body, then they may not have acted as such monsters in the first place. At least that's my theory--the theory of pussy. It works wonders, really. If you're a guy and you don't have to worry about getting laid, that's easily 85% of life's problems miraculously lifted from your shoulders.

Not only does the modern beta male have to endure his desperate, sexless existence, but he must also deal with the increasing rationalization of society. Bureaucrats + Sexlessness = Desparation and Rage.

63: By heterogeneity, I mean the large amounts of cross-cultural variables present in U.S. society, to a degree not so much found in many European societies. Yes, in Europe you have social divisions, and gender divisions, and so on. However, most are ethnically much less diverse than the U.S., and where there is ethnic diversity, it has manifested, in many cases, a nasty streak of intercultural violence (see, for example, anti-gypsy and anti-semetic sentiment that has festered in Europe for the last couple centuries), often with murderous (and state sanctioned) results.

The U.S. has had lots of cross-cultural problems, witness, for example, the nativist movements in the 19th century, fighting against the alien Irish and eastern European newcomers. And that diversity, while I believe is a source of strength for the U.S., seems to come at a cost, and that is cross-cultural violence and unrest, entirely seperate from the issue of slavery.

What about the affect of the frontier, the wild west, which Europe lost long before America did. There's a sort of frontier attitude of self-sufficiency that I think leads to a more violent way of solving problems.

64> I think you may be unintentionally using a derogatory word:

From Wikipedia: Among humans, mongrel and mongrelize are derogatory terms for the mixing of races.

AHA. I missed your point. I am a New Zealander, mongrel is almost a term of endearment. =

Though, given I was referring to ONLY people who carry out mass-murders as a way of committing suicide, the worst kind of criminal, was I not allowed to in fact refer to them with derogatory phrasing?. Wouldn't it actually be wrong to do otherwise?.

"I wish the poor dear things would shoot themselves instead of the innocent" just has a funny lilt to it.

67: Although I don't remember where I read this, I recall someone making the argument that the "Wild West" was actually a fair amount safer than the large cities of the East during the 19th century, which were infested with ethnically based gangs and political organizations that were little more than gangs dressed up in a suit.

On the other hand, during its first eighteen months of existence, the leading cause of death in Deadwood was murder. Deadwood, during this time frame, averaged just over one murder per day.

69> Actually it sounds like you're saying that people of mixed ancestry are likely to be mass murderers, at least to my ears.

Codyed, I think there is something very near the mark in your idea. Those *Inappropriate phrase* fellows that murdered 3000 odd people on 9/11 . . . all of them were pretty ugly blokes, eh? . . . hard to think of them cutting a swath through the singles bars.
I never saw the picture of a stud as perp, on one of the sad newscasts where someone has gone into their previous place of employment and murdered their ex-workmates.

Bureaucrats + Sexlessness = Desparation and Rage. Very very true. the solution is simple, we need sexier Bureaucrats!.
=/

How to control a narrative in several easy steps.

The high murder rate in US is, at least in part, due to the radical individualism practiced by many Americans. Many Americans are incredibly self-centered, not other oriented at all. Our philosophy is I got mine, now leave me alone. Why else are we so adamant about our guns? We need to protect ourselves from the guy down the street who obviously doesn't understand how important I am. Life is all about me. When someone pisses me off or gets in my way, I can settle the issue myself, me and my .45.

We have no real sense of community, of belonging to something bigger than ourselves. It's all about me.

Why can't we have a decent heallth care system? Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

Why can't we have high speed rail between cities? Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

Why can't we have light rail or subways or street cars?
Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

Why can't we have bike lanes and paths in our cities.
Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

Why can't we raise taxes to improve our infrastructure?
Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

No one in America has a nose.

74: How does this explain the high murder rate when the U.S. did have much more susbstantial community? The era of church socials, bowling leagues, ladies clubs and so on and so forth that dominated the first half of the last century was also accompanied by a pretty high murder rate. How does that add up?

We could pay for a single payer health system for fifty years with the money we've wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wars are good. Gives US an opportunity to be tough with someone else's life.

Social programs and entitlements are bad.
Someone who doesn't deserve it will benefit.

This is the political logic of the Republicans. and then, somehow through God only knows what illogical processes, (mostly related to ignorance and radical individualism, the individualism that says just because you know stuff doesn't mean you know what's going on) they coopt the ultimate other-centric philosophy and turn it into the ultimate self-centric philosophy.

76: We could pay for a single payer health system for fifty years with the money we've wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe. Medicare costs have been many, many times what they were supposed to be when the plan was proposed and passed. Predicting how much a government program will cost in five years is a hazardous endeavor, fifty years is simply impossible.

Those are views.

We, in US, spend as much as ten times for medical treatment, drugs, doctors visits, etc. of any other industrial nation. removing the profit motive from or at least allowing the government to negotiate rates with the insurers would reduce the costs dramatically. We pay so much for health insurance today because no one has a sense that real money is involved. Create a single negotiating entity that holds all the cards and we'll get better outcomes at a fraction of the cost. The people will demand it. The government is answerable to US. Insurance companies are responsible to the share holders.

BTW, this is a situation the insurance industry has brought upon itself through its predatory practices. As God so often says, their blood will be on their hands.

79: Ten times? I'd like to see the data for that. I've seen up to about double the percentage of GDP, but nothing that shows we spend anywhere near ten times.

I also have serious doubts about the government's ability to severely cut costs through negotiation. The government has a decidedly mixed record of negotiating lower prices. Sometimes it can (such as the rates the government itself pays for things like telecommunications and shipping), but on others it pays a lot more than a private company. Expecting price cutting efficiency on the part of the government seems to me like a fair amount of wishful thinking.

It ain't happenin' any other way. That should be obvious. I'll try to track down some evidence for the ten times assertion. I didn't pull it out of my hat.

Right now, it's off to the dog park. Oh, boy!!

Not defending the USAs quaint medical system ( Quaint as in, you citizens have given up your lives to rapacious companies AND you look down on us socialists who control our own health as a social good. ) but there are reasons why you guys pay more for your health, that wouldn't change under any medical system you can imagine.

For one, much of the medical progress made in the word is made in your country. That, taken with the fact that your AMA is involved in much of the progress and so OKs treatments for use quicker than they get OKed for use in other countries, means the cutting edge treatments are available to US patients first.

Everything new costs more, it is an economic fact. Hard for a cancer patient in Mozambique or Taiwan for that matter, to pay for the same treatment a cancer patient in the USA pays for, the USA treatment will be much more advanced in the normal case.

Another one is the ease with which you guys can take lawsuits against people and companies. Because they are State owned, our systems are set up to a stricter standard in the first place, and mostly we are not allowed to lodge frivolous lawsuits.

Things that happen here where the hospital is in the wrong, nine times out of ten they have broken a State law, not a civil one, and the State prosecutes them, the patient has no right to sue because the state abrogates the right of punishment to itself. Often the punishment will include paying the reasonable costs of any patients effected by the mistake. NEVER some multi million dollar jackpot/award.

Really, half your extra costs are because you get a higher standard of treatment, and so, pretty understandable. The other half is due to your dysfunctional "I SUE YOU!" legal system, but how could that ever be fixed?. Lawyers are the mainstay of your economy, right?.

Now I see news reports that intelligence agencies had the MAJ under observation and were possibly investigating him, but maybe didn't tell the Army. Good soldiers are dead, murdered.

Disgust doesn't even begin to describe how I feel.

There is a danger in easy law-suits. It definitely leads to a lot of second guessing, and is well on the way to rendering us a dysfunctional society. As it turns out, the sensibility of something can be detrimental to its determination in law. One of the problems with being a "nation of laws" is that, indeed, the law, sir, is an ass (sometimes).

Lawsuits are about accountability, at least that's my take. StormRaven, I believe works with the law and may correct this assumption if it is erroneous. If it is, I would like to know what law suits are for. At any rate, if those who are supposed to represent medical accountability would do that, we would need fewer law suits.

Lawyers are one of the mainstays of our society.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 9, 2009, 4:12pm.

Second gunman apprehended.

EDIT: Nevermind. It's an old report.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 9, 2009, 7:22pm.

That is interesting, though I guess it is something innocent , like soldiers hearing the firing arming themselves and running to help, and then prudently being arrested by MPs while everything was unclear.

The sad thing, is it is never going to be truly explained. This American obsession with covering up untidy details ( i.e. The truth ) will kick in, and an official story agreed, and anything that doesn't fit will just have "never happened". It is insulting to the intelligence of the people of the USA, in my opinion.

Case in point being the shabby way they tried to spin the death of the genuine hero Pat Tillman. Which made me so furiously angry.

The truth was far more noble than the initial lie they tried to feed the citizens he went to war for.
By mistake, the sort of mistake that happens to all armed forces, he found himself under friendly fire. With other people, people he saw it as his duty to try to save, one of whom wasn't even his countryman, but someone attached to his group. And even though he must have known the danger it put him in, he did his duty and stood up under fire, to try to communicate the mistake that was happening.
You could not ask for greater bravery, more selfless service, a more honourable man, and the filthy spin doctors tried to make up some more palatable lie.

When that sort of thing is allowed, it is the most terrible insult. They should tell the full truth, anything less is to sully the deaths of those poor soldiers with lies.

This American obsession with covering up untidy details ( i.e. The truth ) will kick in, and an official story agreed, and anything that doesn't fit will just have "never happened". It is insulting to the intelligence of the people of the USA, in my opinion.

You just called "covering up" an "American obsession." So, I'm sorry, remind me, what or who is that insulting?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 9, 2009, 9:46pm.

That is a play of semantics on your part, you striving to BE insulted.

If a fact is a fact, and can be pointed out, the only thing possibly insulted is a false pride. It isn't slander if the unfortunate fact someone points out about you is plain truth.

Pat Tillman was a brave man. I can accept the circumstances of his death. These things happen on a battlefield, it is not a tidy place. The damage control by the Army afterwards is what disgusts me, as if damage control was needed.

"Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of readiness to die." G.K. Chesterton

Yes. And he continues:

A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. . . he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine. No philosopher, I fancy, has ever expressed this romantic lucidity with adequate lucidity. . . But Christianity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the grave of the awful suicide and the hero, showing the distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying. And it has held up ever since above the European lances the banner of the mystery of chivalry: the Christian courage, which is a disdain of death; not the Chinese courage, which is a disdain of life. (Orthodoxy, pp. 153-54.)

I think he ought to be the person your recruiters use as an example and role model for your potential recruits.
Anyone who wouldn't be sobered, and humbled and after careful thought, inspired by his life and his death, and aspire to be like him, well, why would you want them in your countries service. In one way it was terrible that his life was lost. In another way, the man, his life and his death too, exemplified all the ideals you guys have had over the years.

Anyone who thinks the Chinese disdain life, has never had a Chinese family to friendship, because it is absolutely the most nonsensical and wrongheaded statement I have ever read.

Their literature is full to bursting with Horatios that held the bridge longer than Horatio did. And so is their history.
And mothers that died in their tens of thousands during the second world war, just as tenaciously defending their children as any western mother would.

The single greatest problem the human race faces, is communication barriers. All people are actually one people, if we only knew one another.

It's about Chinese philosophy, not Chinese people. Read Chesterton.

All people are actually one people, if we only knew one another.

Is that why you, a foreigner, posted in a group dedicated to fallen American servicemen and servicewomen that America had an obsession with coverups?

Yes, exactly why, and because you seem mentally ill-prepared to understand such a simple idea, I will explain it, typing slowly.

Those killings were a tragedy, that must affect and distress any right thinking person who read of them. The attempts already made by some right wing news organisations to stigmatize all American servicemen of the Muslim faith are also affecting and distressing to any such person. And the fact that on previous performance it is likely that the truth of events will be "doctored" is also to be deplored.

And SPECIFICALLY because all people are one people, and because New Zealanders, amongst others, are both culturally and by descent Americas cousins and allies of long standing, your concerns, and welfare ARE mine. Guess what, Americas best interest IS everyone elses concern, specifically because all people are one.

If my friends' government makes a point of lying to him, well sport, I reserve the right to point it out.

Now, this is the third time you have made this point. For you to make it again after this, my explaining my motives, when it is clear to anyone with half a brain that you DELIBERATELY chose to take offence when not only was none intended but I immediately said as much, would be really childish of you, immature.

Guess what I expect you will do?.

Flag the message as a violation of the TOS?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 10, 2009, 2:27am.

>83

I saw eary reports about the radical ties of Hasan yesterday. I wanted to wait for the NPR report for a more balanced coverage.

Here is the NPR story.

This is very disturbing to me. I am sure it is so to the service family.

"Meanwhile, Awalki, the radical American imam living in Yemen, praised Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday. The posting said American Muslims who condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion."

""Nidal Hassan (sic) is a hero," Awlaki said. "He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 10, 2009, 6:52am.

Is this going to make the position of even moderate Muslims within the US army (and others) untenable for the foreseeable future?

I can't answer that with any degree of certainty or accuracy.

All I know for sure is that I have watched with distaste what is happening inside my Army since the 90s and am glad that I am retiring next year.

Something is wrong when an organization like the US military adopts "mission statements" like it's a Fortune 500 company.

The whole "Warrior Ethos" and "Army Values" thing disturbs me too. What is wrong when we have to display such reminders about what we do above and beyond our daily actions?

I'm sick and tired of having to adapt to the people we get. It's supposed to be the other way around, you either adapt to the Army or get out.

As for Pat Tillman being an inspiration? I had to educate my young soldiers to who Audie Murphy was. That should have been done in basic training.

Sad, very sad. Every Marine knows damn well who Chesty Puller and Smedley Butler were.

I read an article on Pat Tillman several weeks ago that said he was about to rotate home and he was very unhappy with the clusterfuck that was Afghanistan and was going to spread that news far and wide. He was apparently quite an unhappy camper.

Chesty Puller sounds vaguely obscene.

Chesty Puller was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, and a legendary future (see wikipedia for a bio and some very amusing quotes attributed to him). His son, unfortunately, found the old man a tough act to follow. He lost both legs in Vietnam. His book Fortunate Son is heartwrenching.

I don't believe the military have ever had a single, rigorous policy for dealing with service members who are deeply opposed, in principle, to carrying out the military's mission, or who have active sympathy for the enemy, or who for other reasons are believed to be untrustworthy, and yet who do not fall into the Conscientious Objector category or one of the other categories that would allow them to be prematurely discharged.

One approach would be just to separate them from the service. This has the disadvantage of providing an easy out for someone who simply wants out before his term of enlistment. This happened to a friend of mine in the early 1960s, after the Army discovered he had become a Red. Ironically, this man did not want to leave the Army, as he actually enjoyed his job.

Another approach would be to assign them to a boring job in some distant, unpleasant, unimportant outpost for the duration of their term of service. This was done to some Trotskyists during the Second World War: Irving Howe mentions this in his memoirs. (He was sent to the Aleutian Islands.)

Another approach, during a war, would be to assign them to a combat unit, perhaps in hopes that when the contents of their S2 (intelligence) file gets known to their squad leader, nature will take its course. I suspect that this was the plan for me during the Vietnam war.

In a world where common sense ruled, such people would best be dealt with by whichever was more appropriate of approaches 1 or 2. It's crazy to expect a devout Muslim who sympathizes with the radical Islamists to act like a normal member of the military under current circumstances. Unless one of the hypotheses raised by the fellow referenced by Cody is true, this horrible episode sounds like the product of a combination of ineptness and political correctness.

LTG "Chesty" Puller

http://www.marines.com/main/index/winnin...

http://www.nettally.com/jrube/chestpul.h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Pull...

Unfortunately, leaders like this would no longer survive, nor be welcome in our military today. I know that plenty of folks would find the likes of Puller abhorrent, but you do not win in a war by being nice or kind to the enemy.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 10, 2009, 3:34pm.

Wow, thanks very much for those links. One thing stands out in them, he held himself to the highest standards.
This made me smile, it wouldn't even occur to most people in authority that it was the correct thing to do, would it?.

"While on duty in Hawaii and inspecting the armory, Puller fined himself $100 for discharging a .45 caliber pistol, although the charge for his men was only $20".

The argument now seems to be whether or not Hasan was a terrorist. I don't think the answer matters. It is purely semantic. It looks like we know pretty much most of what we will ever know about the case. Hasan was in contact with Islamic radicals and tried to contact Al Qaeda. But it also appears that he was not a member of a cell, or received help or money from others, etc. Clearly he was strongly influenced by his interpretation of Islam, and was opposed to American foreign policy. He was also quite mentally disturbed. And so on. These last two facts were observed by many previous to the massacre. Call him a terrorist or not.

But what is meaningful is that anti-anti-Muslim political correctness cost thirteen Americans their lives. Given the reaction and interpretation of most of the media--completely opposed to most of those at the base, I should say--I have no doubt something similar will happen again.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 12:20am.

To follow up on the NPR link given by richardbsmith earlier, another NPR story, fingering the fear of being discriminatory in Hassan's strange failure to be disciplined for radical anti-American views and consorting with American enemies.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

In an semi-to-not related story, a reservist Lance Corporal yesterday hit an Orthodox Priest with a tire iron and chased him around the block trying to hit him again, believing the Greek-speaking, no doubt bearded cleric to have said "Allahu Akbar," the apparent sina qua non of the Islamic terrorist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/us/11b...

So, resolved: We live in a country with both crazy anti-Muslim prejudice and, what mainstream reporters are discovering to be the case with Hassan, crazy bending-over-backwards to avoid the charge of prejudice.

Agreed?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 1:39am.

105

But what is meaningful is that anti-anti-Muslim political correctness cost thirteen Americans their lives.

Bullshit. What caused their deaths was an irrational, crazed gunman, abetted by inept investigators and lazy bureaucratic buck-passers. You seen to completely gloss over the effect that sustained harrassment may have had on an already disturbed mind. This wouldn't be the first time a person lashed out in a workplace as a result of real or perceived harrassment.

106

Agreed?

I will agree that he ought to have been removed from the service for the contacts he had with radical, anti-American clerics. It appears from the NPR story that the fear of being perceived as discriminatory was one of the lesser elements in the break down in communication:

For one thing, Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program.

Second, some of Hasan's supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn't have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be "discriminating" against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.

Third, the officials involved in deliberations this year reportedly were not aware, as some top Walter Reed officials were, that intelligence analysts had been tracking Hasan's e-mails with at least one suspected Islamic extremist since December 2008.

And finally, Hasan was about to leave Walter Reed and USUHS for good and transfer to Fort Hood, in Texas. Fort Hood has more psychiatrists and other mental specialists than some other Army bases, so officials figured there would be plenty of co-workers who would support Hasan — and monitor him.

But I suppose we are free to make whatever facile conclusions we wish, as long as they support our own narrowly conceived agendas.

Just call when the "crazy anti-Muslim prejudice" kills thirteen, or three-thousand. And no doubt, if you think you hear someone with a beard yelling "Allahu Akbar!" you'll sit quietly in self-righteous uncertainty until you're blown to smithereens. Or offered some grape leaves.

You seen to completely gloss over the effect that sustained harrassment may have had on an already disturbed mind.

Excellent. Harassment--anti-Muslim? anti-psycho?--was at least a partial cause of the massacre. Tell that to the families. No, really, I dare you. Go up to one of the family members, preferably another soldier. Say that and see what happens.

Excellent. Harassment--anti-Muslim? anti-psycho?--was at least a partial cause of the massacre. Tell that to the families. No, really, I dare you. Go up to one of the family members, preferably another soldier. Say that and see what happens.

Just because it's not palatable, doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. Ultimately you need to be able to honestly assess and judge things without being labelled as 'anti' anything. Did this guy flip because he was 'bullied'? Who knows but it could have contributed and likely did. Did he flip because he was a Muslim? I doubt it but when he did go over the edge, the criminal side of the Muslim part of our society gave him a convenient banner to rally to. It is the criminal side. There are many, many decent individuals who would never do this kind of thing.

I think society has become so dumb-ass politically correct that people are forced to bend over backwards by the organisations that they serve to avoid saying anyone is unsuitable or not good enough to do a job. I would assume that the individuals who feel it's OK to harrass a member of society for any reason at all, be it sexuality or religion, are not behaving in the spirit of the military. They deserve criticism and a degree of blame. But if there are doubts about someone's ability/suitability to serve, then the military should be able to speak out without being labelled anti-Muslim, sexist, racist etc. That's the issue for me nowadays. I get pissed off when I can't express a contrary opinion for fear of demonising a group of people. I'm not American, I disagree with a lot of what the US political body does on the world stage but I'm not anti-American. I'm not Christian, I disagree with a lot of the opinions and beliefs of the Church in its incarnations but I'm not anti-Christian. I disagreed strongly with the decision made by the UK to invade Iraq and the spurious reasoning that politicians used to justify it but I'm not anti-military. I couldn't have a greater respect for the job, often thankless, that the individuals in our armed forces do for us. Until we can be free to disagree with ideas without being accused of prejudice, organisations will still be treading on eggshells around people who are not competent and when those organisation are military, there will be great risks involved. If you're not up to scratch, you shouldn't be in a job - any job, from a lab tech to a secretary to a general and it should be OK for an organisation to say that up front.

It is absolutely dreadful. I don't thing the crime had something to do with religion. The murderer just went mad. It is horrible. I really do hope it doen not happen ever again.

> 109 Oakes

"Go up to one of the family members, preferably another soldier. Say that and see what happens"

My mother told me long ago this is how mass hysteria starts.

113>
A fair number of conservatives in the USA are in a hysterical mode, especially since November 4, 2008. Historian Richard Hofstadter termed it a "paranoid style" of politics, which can be seen at various points in American history. Hofstadter argued that this style of politics came from the marginalized groups (people undergoing some sort of dispossession), who found an explanation for their social state in some other group: in the 19th century the Catholic immigrant was targeted and today the Muslim is the object of fear and loathing. A critic of Hofstadter, Michael Rogin, argued this paranoid style (which he termed "political demonology" in Ronald Reagan The Movie) actually emerged from the center of American politics: in other words, it didn't come from the "lunatic fringe" but rather from the political and social elite (from respected people holding authoritative positions). I think both are correct: the obsession over Islam (like the obsession over communists, who apparently lurked under every rock in the 1950s) has taken root at the center and at the margins in the USA. For example, the broadly spread rumour that President Obama is a "secret Muslim" was taken up in the far right blogosphere and was perpetuated on cable TV by a respected journalist at CNN (Lou Dobbs). Much of the conservative public sphere (that is, FoxSpace and talk radio, but also more "legitimate" entities such as the Wall Street Journal and the National Review) dedicate energy to finding ways in which the Obama administration is "soft on Islam" and advocate "tough talk" and perhaps another "crusade". Blustery speech and transgression of norms of civility seem to bring a certain form of jouissance to those who speak this language and those who consume it. I believe it is this factor that lies beneath the repetitive cathexis, and ambivalence, of such groups towards certain objects: a desire to speak of things that simultaneously evoke hatred. In the recent past the objects were communism and feminism, today it is Islam.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 8:54am.

Excellent. Harassment--anti-Muslim? anti-psycho?--was at least a partial cause of the massacre.

No, the harrassment wasn't even a partial cause, the cause was the disturbed Major. Harrassment quite likely contributed to his state of mind, but then, not all harrassed workers go on a shooting spree.

What's pathetic to me is that thirteen people die and all you care about is validation of your own fucked-up sense of self-righteousness.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 8:53am.

107 - What caused their deaths was an irrational, crazed gunman, abetted by inept investigators and lazy bureaucratic buck-passers. You seen to completely gloss over the effect that sustained harrassment may have had on an already disturbed mind. This wouldn't be the first time a person lashed out in a workplace as a result of real or perceived harrassment.

Let me just make one small comment regarding harassment in the military. I spent a few months shy of a decade in the US military. Maybe OldSarge or some of the other vets can weigh in and either disagree or affirm my thoughts. At any time if an individual was being harassed, there were multiple avenues available to air their grievances. I have seen it time and time again where a person felt they were discriminated against for race/religion/national origin/sex/etc.... and went to their commander, first sergeant, inspector general, or some other entity to lodge their complaint. In most cases, the chain of command went out of their way to investigate the problem and if needed, to hand out punishments. To say that this Army officer was the subject of constant harassment is, in my opinion, spoken by someone who is not familiar with how PC the military has become in the last couple of decades. Uncle Sam goes out of his way to ensure nobody has their feelings hurt. I cannot begin to tell you how many hours of training I have had to endure to ensure I don't become a sexist/racist/homophobe/suicidal/anti religious bigot. Even when working in a Muslim country, I had to ensure that I dressed appropriately when in civilian clothes out on the town. Believe me, the military goes out of their way to consider the feelings and beliefs of others.

Whether this guy was a "terrorist" or not will depend on what the definition of terrorist is. To say that he was mentally unstable is, in my opinion, a given. Sustained harassment? I don't think so. He was in the service long enough to know how the game is played.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 9:39am.

116

I'm not sure about how harrassment cases are approached in the military. I know from numerous incidences of acquaintances in the private sector that a harrassment charge is a kiss of death - it becomes you against the company, no matter how vile the perpetrator has acted. A so-called "open door" policy can slam shut pretty quickly when anyone actually gets the ball rolling on a complaint. I hope that it's better in the military.

Anecdotally, I recall stories over the past few years of the stigmatising and harrassment of soldiers who claimed PTSD as a result of psychological trauma in Iraq, and also the freezing out of military women who have reportedly been raped. It sounds like a "don't-rock-the-boat" mentality, but I'll take your word for it that your experience has been otherwise.

Even when working in a Muslim country, I had to ensure that I dressed appropriately when in civilian clothes out on the town. Believe me, the military goes out of their way to consider the feelings and beliefs of others.

Do you really think the motive was to prevent hurt feelings, or a commonsense awareness of the potential to cause unnecessary antagonism towards the soldiers?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 9:54am.

113
For example, the broadly spread rumour that President Obama is a "secret Muslim" was taken up in the far right blogosphere and was perpetuated on cable TV by a respected journalist at CNN (Lou Dobbs).

Yet another great patriot who has decided to "go commando", therefore having no sense of responsibility for his crackpot pronouncements or their repercussions...

network-janitor

You are correct. As I have stated before I am a school trained EO advisor and it is my duty to advise & work with my commander on any issue. This is another resource for soldiers outside the regular chain of command.

A thought-experiment: suppose a Christian fundamentalist soldier, known to be a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh, flipped out and murdered thirteen Muslim soldiers.

Guess what the liberals would say then.

120 > Hate crime. Certainly not terrorist.

120 A thought-experiment: suppose a Christian fundamentalist soldier, known to be a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh, flipped out and murdered thirteen Muslim soldiers.

You must be reading Homeland Security reports Doug. Isn't that what keeps Janet up at night?

>106

A follow up NPR story on the way in today. This more and more seems to me not to be an issue over Islamic faith and patriotism than it is over failed psychiatric treatment and evaluation. It reminds me of the failures leading up to the Virginia Tech shooting.

This is a link to the audio from this morning.

Guess what the liberals would say then.

Probably the same thing thing Hasan's colleagues said - psychotic. Lots of evangelicals/fundamentalists hang on Limbaugh's every word (hell, his demographics depend upon it), but those going on a killing spree are relatively few. Not that Limbaugh's inflammatory words help, any more than those of any random radical cleric.

Of course, finding thirteen Muslim soldiers clustered together when they number around 4,000 in the entire military may present a difficulty.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

As long as we keep being entangled in wars in repressive Muslim countries, we ought to recognize the value of Muslim soldiers as a useful part of the military as emissaries of (pardon the expression) liberal values, as translators, etc. It would be pretty tough winning over the hearts and minds of a populace that knows Muslims are not welcome in the U.S. military.

Being able to track and remove the Hasans (as well as any other undesirables) while maintaining a sense of duty, loyalty, and camaraderie is what presents the challenge.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 12:41pm.

Ok ... so, if a right-wing soldier went mad and killed a lot of his colleagues whom he perceived as enemies (because of their religion, politics, sexual orientation, color), liberals would just say, "An isolated incident ... he was psychotic ... we must not use this tragedy to demonize conservatism ...". I see.

That is not what I am saying, if the point is 125 is directed at me.

Equating Rush Limbaugh with a terrorist cleric would also go down quite well at Fort Hood.

Here is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's latest column:

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.

As usual, she gets it almost exactly right, along with getting in some really good lines.

Equating Rush Limbaugh with a terrorist cleric would also go down quite well at Fort Hood.

Doug, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

What an extraordinarily nasty and bigoted quote!

Amen.

Just out of curiosity, Oakes, do you think there there could possibly be a national tragedy of such magnitude that Ms. Coulter wouldn't be willing to exploit it for a few "really good lines."

As per post 114, Coulter is a good representation of the paranoid style of the contemporary American right. As a pundit, she doesn't need to worry over fine distinctions such as whether all Muslims (a billion worldwide) or a group of less than 20 Muslims were responsible for that attack on the WTC. Presumably, a more sober analyst, less interested in shock value and arousing the political libido of FoxSpace males, would not wish to convey that all Muslims are guilty by association with every act any particular Muslim person might commit (which would have to include "good acts"). What is curious about the contemporary discourse of conservative public figures is that they are caught in a definitive, performative contradiction: while decrying the "victimology" of, say, "Muslims" or an "African American president," they paradoxically assert that they are the victims of Muslims and Obama! I suppose victimhood (or the false claiming of it) is in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe American conservatives like Coulter and those who are cathected to her words wish to be coddled and resent it when others receive such treatment: in other words, do our American conservatives just need a hug?

Because conservatives like Coulter fail to recognize their participation in the discourse of victimhood they disparage as PC nonsense, one can ask about the identity of the "truer victim" in the current situation. Are the American conservatives the "true victims", as they are beset by a world filled with religious "others" and a liberal President who fails to fall apart in the face of tea parties, traditional right wing propaganda, and Dick Cheney's Vaderian spittle? Or are Muslims who didn't participate in the events of 9/11 or the shooting at Ft Hood the true victims of the political-libidinal excesses of the immoderate conservative "mind"?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 4:58pm.

Why am I reminded of Shirky's reference to Bion in "A Group Is It's Own Worst Enemy"?

The first is sex talk, what he called, in his mid-century prose, "A group met for pairing off." And what that means is, the group conceives of its purpose as the hosting of flirtatious or salacious talk or emotions passing between pairs of members.

You go on IRC and you scan the channel list, and you say "Oh, I know what that group is about, because I see the channel label." And you go into the group, you will also almost invariably find that it's about sex talk as well. Not necessarily overt. But that is always in scope in human conversations, according to Bion. That is one basic pattern that groups can always devolve into, away from the sophisticated purpose and towards one of these basic purposes.

The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time. If you cared about Linux on the desktop, there was a big list of jobs to do. But you could always instead get a conversation going about Microsoft and Bill Gates. And people would start bleeding from their ears, they would get so mad.

If you want to make it better, there's a list of things to do. It's Open Source, right? Just fix it. "No, no, Microsoft and Bill Gates grrrrr ...", the froth would start coming out. The external enemy -- nothing causes a group to galvanize like an external enemy.

So even if someone isn't really your enemy, identifying them as an enemy can cause a pleasant sense of group cohesion. And groups often gravitate towards members who are the most paranoid and make them leaders, because those are the people who are best at identifying external enemies.

The third pattern Bion identified: Religious veneration. The nomination and worship of a religious icon or a set of religious tenets. The religious pattern is, essentially, we have nominated something that's beyond critique. You can see this pattern on the Internet any day you like. Go onto a Tolkein newsgroup or discussion forum, and try saying "You know, The Two Towers is a little dull. I mean loooong. We didn't need that much description about the forest, because it's pretty much the same forest all the way."

How will we know who we are if we don't know whom we hate? How will we know who we are if we don't know which part of our own identity we believe to be beyond reproach?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 5:10pm.

We live in a country with . . . crazy anti-Muslim prejudice.

Try saying that inside Fort Hood right now. It would take a bit more courage than calling Ann Coulter a bigot on an LT thread. Don't you think?

Oakes, grow up and stop trying to exploit the grief of others.

I do not know if this has been mentioned yet, but the good Major was charged today. 13 murders.

I keep seeing hints that the MAJ could receive the death penalty. Pure bullshit.

The Army hasn't executed anyone since WW2. They sure as hell won't put this guy to death. Life at Leavenworth is what he will get.

Well, maybe he can break that streak.

Is there a possibility that he could be tried by the State of Texas as well? They don't seem to have a problem executing people.

Being sent to Levenworth for this guy could BE a death sentence...

Texas has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case. It is pure Army.

The only way that the state of Texas would have been involved was if this happened off post and involved civilians.

Headline: "Man arrested for 'anti-Christian' mall disturbance: Kiosk employee allegedly tore a crucifix from someone's neck," by Emily West for the Danville Express, November 10:

Police arrested 22-year-old Abdul Walid Hamid of Hayward on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 4, after he reportedly tore a crucifix from a person's neck and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.

Hamid, an employee at a mall kiosk near Starbucks, has been charged with battery, terrorist threats (editor's note: that's a bit silly) and grand theft.

According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head. Witnesses said he shouted anti-Christian comments, said police. (Courtesy of, where else, Jihad Watch.)

Is this an iconic example of crazy anti-Christian prejudice, or a backlash against the backlash?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 12, 2009, 11:18pm.

Is this an iconic example of crazy anti-Christian prejudice, or a backlash against the backlash?

Neither. It's an example of you combing through the internet for goofy shit.

I learned a long time ago to steer clear of anyone who works in a mall kiosk.

Of course. It's perhaps random and silly. But no doubt, if a Muslim had been beaten up in the same way in the days after the massacre, it would have been cited as part of the backlash, bigotry, etc., etc. Indeed, the fact that someone was recently mistaken for a Muslim and beaten up was cited as evidence for the prevalence in this country of "crazy anti-Muslim prejudice".

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 12:15am.

143-
Are you exploring a sociological phenomenon or suggesting a course of action?

A recent report reveals that Hasan had "SOA"--standing for "Sword Of Allah"--on his business cards. The SWA next to it apparently stands for "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala" or "Glory to Him, the Exalted." I love the "Psychiatrist" directly underneath.

143

Could you kindly point out in message 106 (to which I assume you are referring) the reference to a prevalence of "crazy anti-Muslim prejudice". That's a pretty sigificant word you've interposed into the post.

145
Maybe you missed the part about Hasan being psychotic.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 12:48am.

Maybe you missed the part about Hasan being psychotic. (146)

Clearly he was strongly influenced by his interpretation of Islam, and was opposed to American foreign policy. He was also quite mentally disturbed. And so on. (105).

For the record, and to repeat, I think it is close to meaningless to argue about whether or not Hasan was a terrorist--at least without evidence that he received money or encouragement from a cell, etc. The semantic argument is a stand in for other issues. It's true, I suppose that lone individuals can be terrorists. But I think in any such case--Muslim, abortion-clinic bomber, sane, insane, etc.--the word carries much less meaning.

That of course is independent of the larger question of whether or not, say, Islam or any other religious or political belief is lovely and fluffy, neutral, dangerous, or wicked. As well as of course whether many people are being dangerously or excessively PC about same, etc.

Tough audience.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 2:28am.

'terrorist threats' is probably a misreporting of 'terroristic threats', a lawyerly phrase that refers to situations where the threat itself (rather than the act of carrying out) causes significant disturbance or danger. The classic example is the "We planted a bomb" phone call.

It's still silly in this case, but not as silly as 'terrorist threats'.

This was in my inbox this morning, listed as unclassified so I can share it, having removed all sensitive information:

"Subject: Tasking: Report Incidents Regarding Middle Eastern Soldiers - HQDA
is Tracking thru April 2010

Team:

The FT Hood incident has left leadership with many questions regarding how
and why this occurred, coupled with the goal to ensure that Muslim Soldiers
do not experience a backlash as a result.

HQDA is requesting that we collect as much information possible to prevent
another occurrence, and we need your assistance in gathering the
information.

I am tasked to provide weekly updates of any incidents, problems or
complaints regarding our Middle Eastern Soldiers. Please report all
incidents same day of occurrence or weekly (every by COB every Thursday) for
the next six months (enddate: April 2010). NEGATIVE REPLY IS NOT REQUIRED.

If you have a "yes" response to an incident, indicate what your Command is
doing in response to the incident/actions. As more information unfolds
regarding the incident at FT Hood, we need to be extremely vigilant with
respect to the safety and security of our Soldiers."

The originator of this message has this beneath their signature block:

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the one's we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
- President Barack Obama, Commander in Chief

I find this curious as I have never before seen a quote by a current CinC placed like this in an official email. Not wrong, just curious.

I have also never before seen an official message like this before, even after previous incidents within the Army.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 6:51am.

What do you think of it, how do you react on it, Sarge?
I like it, but then, I have never worked on the battlefields. I think it evokes different things among different persons. I see it as a small sign of the much wanted change.. I can also imagine someone cursing and swearing when reading this. Or crying without end. Or blowing new bubbles.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 7:32am.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to think other than following the directive until told otherwise. This is from outside my regular chain of command and is related to my additional duties as an EO advisor. I'm sure some long winded, death by powerpoint briefings are to follow soon.

Whether I agree or not is unimportant, I have a job to do in addition to my regular duties.

I'm off to meet my new troops today. Whoever came to the unit while we were in Iraq. I know I'm going to have to put one of them in his place already, the kid is a smartass and a punk. Sigh...I'm getting old for this crap.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 13, 2009, 7:44am.

OldSarge's mention of a death by power point reminded me of this. I apologize if a touch of unrelated humor is not appropriate for this very serious topic.

I noticed they used Muslim and Middle Eastern interchangeably. Does that show a lack of understanding or just casting a wider net?

I like the "Negative reply is not required" note. The military has some ways of streamlining communication that would be nice to copy in civilian life.

According to Time magazine, the weapon used by the suspect was not military issue, as one might have assumed, but was purchased at a civilian store near Maj. Hasan's apartment: "Guns Galore", 7,000 in stock. Worse, the pistol was an armor-piercing model designed for the military and never intended for civilian sale: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugar... .

In this case at least, I'm not sure it's "worse." Often these things play out that someone who shouldn't have access to guns went and got one and killed people. But, I mean, even we lived in a country with strict gun control, army officers would be allowed access to guns. So the fact he used a non-military weapon is somewhat immaterial—except that he might have done more damage if he'd had an army riffle or, say, a grenade, so it's good he didn't.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 2:28am.

156>

I'd have thought it much 'worse'. I imagine there are strict controls on the distribution of live ammunition at military bases, precisely in order to avoid it getting into the 'wrong' hands.

The fact that the Major used a weapon which could have been obtained by a regular civilian suggests that it may be easier or at least as easy to get access to guns and ammunition as a civilian as it would be if you were a professional within a military environment. That is very bad indeed.
If that is so, then a stricter control on civilian weapons might help.
Surely this is worse - we'd expect a military man to find it more convenient to take advantage of military resources, not civilian ones if he's about to murder someone.

Perhaps one of the military contributors can clarify - Is the distribution, use and return of live ammo strictly monitored, especially when not in the theatre of war, in order to avoid this (or similar) events?

One of the "rights" American citizens possess is the right to be shot by a hand gun purchased at places called "Guns Galore." Taking away that right would open the door to tyranny. Wear your vest.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 8:36am.

158> I assume that was just a sarcastic joke.

But just in case it wasn't I'd like to point to all the countries in which citizens do not have the right to bear arms, and in which there are is no tyranny. Or perhaps the point is meant to show that Americans are prone to tyranny if they have no right to bear arms, which seems pretty insulting to Americans.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 8:54am.

>157 Yes it is strictly controlled. Very strictly.

>155 There are several things wrong with that article. The first being the author's obvious bias.

"the increasing militarization of the U.S. civilian gun market"

Weapons originally designed for military use have always been available in the civilian market in one version or another. There is nothing new here.

"capable of piercing the body armor worn by soldiers on the battlefield"

This is true but only put in the proper context with certain data. Body armor is rated by levels of protection. Level III is for standard soft vests as worn by law enforcement and military. It will stop most pistol rounds up to a certain caliber. Level IV is usually done with the addition of hard plates and will stop rifle rounds up to a certain caliber. See the following:

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_P...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/tech...

I've never fired this particular pistol, nor the P-90, so I cannot give an opinion on it's handling and characteristics. I do know that there have been media scares in the past over certain models of firearms that in reality were either total pieces of crap (the TEC-9) or totally unsuitable for real world usage (the Desert Eagle in certain calibers).

157- I'm not sure about the Army, but in the Navy personnel onboard a ship aren't issued weapons unless they're standing a watch, the ship is at security alert or for gun qualifications. Anyway, Hasan, being a non-line officer, wouldn't be issued a weapon by a sergeant in charge of an armory without some kind of authorization from his chain of command. At least, its unlikely.

It's a little bit different in the Army.

>160-161 This makes perfect sense, and thanks for confirming my suspicions. It corresponds with my friends' experience in the UK

I'm not trying to hammer out an argument that there need to be tighter gun controls for civilians (although I think there ought to be ) instead I'm trying to disprove the idea that the Major could have got hold of live ammo easily in virtue of his position. That claim seems obviously false to me.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 9:28am.

The MAJ would have been isssued a weapon prior to deployment. He would have also trained and qualified on it. He would have been required to do so for self protection in theater.

Only Chaplains do not carry a weapon in the US Army. Their assistants, an enlisted soldier, function as their body guards when necessary.

164> But would he have been issued with ammunition prior to actually shipping out to the theater (apart from when on exercise/at the firing range)?

I may have misunderstood the situation in the UK, I don't imagine it's much different, but I'm just curious how it's done.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 11:23am.

164
Thanks for clearing that up OldSarge. I always thought we needed more inter-service training. I think the Navy's small arms quals should probably be brought up closer to Army standards.

Third-Cheek, in #158 Theoria is absolutely correct. We in America have, no, we covet, the right to be shot and killed with a handgun. We just don't look at it that way. We see it as my right to kill whomever I wish with a handgun. Of course that requires a shooter and a corpse, we all imagine ourselves as the shooter, but only because the corpse wanted to make us a corpse first. It's just more fun in this fantasyland world of ours to be the big bad shooter than the corpse.

No on ever accused Americans of being smart. If they did they are sadly misled.

I'm still not entirely satisfied. Would Hassan really have been unable to get military weapons? For example, surely he was able and encouraged to use Ft. Hood shooting ranges. Does a major have no opportunity to borrow a gun from one building and take it to another, etc.?

167>

On the other hand, it's not sooooo crazy in the US - the following was a very controversial case in the uk (note that farmers in the UK are allowed guns for killing 'vermin'):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/20...

He appealed the case, and I think his sentence was reduced.

Fans of Dickens will be amused by the name of the farmers house.

Anyway, this is off-topic. Sorry.

168> you may be right, hopefully someone can clarify.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 2:02pm.

Do we know how many of the victims were actually wearing body armor at the time?

>170

Zero, no?

>165. That is a negative. You aren't issued ammunition until you arrive in theater.

>168. That is a negative also. All weapons systems and ammunition are under rigid controls in a garrison environment. You can't just go sign out a weapon because you feel like going to the range on your own.

>170. None, they were in an office, not a training environment or in the field.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 3:27pm.

It sounds increasingly unlike a problem specific to the military environment - presumably the perpetrator could have gone to a bar popular with military personnel on leave and done much the same thing, it's just that he wouldn't be sure they'd be about to go into theater.

I wonder how he was able to take a weapon with live ammo into the base. Presumably personnel pass through some kind of scanner and search on their way in to check for weapons/explosives/drugs etc?

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 3:54pm.

While I can't comment on details, it all depends on what the current threat level is at a military base. That will dictate personnel and vehicle search criteria.

That is a negative. You aren't issued ammunition until you arrive in theater.

Reminds me of that scene in Enemy at the Gates, where the Soviet troops "arrive in theater" and most don't even get a gun. Mostly they grab one when the guy next to them dies.

175>

It's normal - what would you want with ammo if you aren't in theatre or at the range...

The way things are reported in the UK, you'd imagine something similar (to Soviet military bureaucracy) was happening with the British forces in Afghanistan at the moment: It finally appears to have sunk into the government's brains that they ought to provide money for a few more helicopters. Before that, at the onset of the Iraq war, there weren't enough bullet proof jackets to go around.

> Off-topic: By the way Tim, well done with the booksearch thing!

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 16, 2009, 4:52pm.

What I can't understand is we have this entire industry dedicated to enabling murder. This industry is supported by the biggest, baddest lobby of them all, the Constitution. In some places it is mandatory that you own at least one of these murder devices. Yet, when someone is murdered with one of these things, we spend thousands, sometimes millions to find out who did it and then put them in prison for doing what we want them to do. Shoot someone.

Makes sense to me.

If we are going to allow people to own handguns (when was the last time you took your .38 special to the creek to shoot rats?) and use them (otherwise, why own one), then why do we get angry when someone gets shot?

Of course there is the possibility (ever closer under an Obama administration) that we may need our .38 specials to fight back against the most heavily equipped, highly trained fighting force on earth.

Defeat tyranny, shoot someone today!

In some places it is mandatory that you own at least one of these murder devices.

?

Kennesaw, Georgia for one.

And before anyone asks, yes soldiers may have privately owned firearms on base under the rules and regulations set forth by the base Provost Marshal.

> 155 (on source of the murder weapon) contd.

Here's an interesting factoid: “According to the Government Accountability Office, over the past five years people on the terrorist watch list bought guns or explosives more than 850 times.”

http://www.closetheterrorgap.org/images/...

People like Pierre Trudeau and Farley Mowatt have been denied entry to the US. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorist ties have been shipped off to third countries for rough questioning. But once in the US, terrorist suspects can buy guns or explosives fairly easily, it seems!

Rough questioning? Rough questioning? Not hardly! Torture!

182>

And I thought they would just shake them vigorously while asking them where the bomb is at in an authoritative tone.

Pierre Trudeau, the Prime Minister that was?. Or someone of the same name?.

I wonder how many blokes, that in their time have been violently vocal supporters of the Irish cause*, are on that watch list?. Lots of them would of course, believe firmly in a mans right to bear arms, to protect themselves from the King. :P

* To be clear, I think that of course, Ireland ought to be ruled by the Irish. I also think violent means devalue a cause.

My Uncle, who was of Irish descent, used to give substantial sums directly to the IRA. Had you accused him of supporting terrorism he would have poked your running lights out. He was supporting Ireland for the Irish. As far from terrorism as it could get.

I think, like everything else, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Or, at least, what is politically expedient.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 23, 2009, 4:20pm.

>185 "Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder". Sure it is, it's reflected in the dead eyes of all those innocent non-military civilians, Irish and English, who were deliberately sacrificed by groups like the IRA for the cause. I accept that many Irish had good reason to be angry at the British government for the partition, for Bloody Sunday, and other things, but none of those reasons justified deliberately planting bombs in areas heavily populated with civilians. Your Uncle was wrong, even if he felt he had his reasons. Furthermore, such paramilitary groups were often engaged in parallel activites usually associated with organized crime like the mafia, and still are. That's where your Uncle's money went.

186 - and lets not forget that some of those groups are still trying to set the whole bloody conflict off again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_irel...

They also murdered two British soldiers, about to deploy to Afghanistan, earlier this year. Should add that I'm of Irish descent and do believe that Ireland should be for the Irish. But the problem is that there is an equally violent lobby that believe that the 6 counties of Ulster that elected not to join the Republic at partition should remain British - and the Loyalist terrorists are just as violent and ruthless as the Republicans.

> 184. Yep. Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau was deemed to be a communist in his early days. Certainly, he was an activist!

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/i...

Terrorism is terrorism, plain and simple.

Back in high school I would encounter other teenagers soliciting money for "the cause" in Northern Ireland. They learned to avoid me because it usually ended in punches thrown when I told them in no uncertain terms that I don't contribute to murderers and terrorists.

Yeah, even then I knew who was who.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 23, 2009, 6:40pm.

187>

I've been following it on the news. Pretty depressing. Hopefully it doesn't reflect a real resurgence of the troubles, but I guess the economic crisis will provide plenty of discontent to supplement the ranks. Recent stories about British soldiers torturing and abusing prisoners isn't going to help any.

Mesazhi i redaktuar nga autori, Nën 23, 2009, 6:47pm.

Not necessarily on topic, but you see the snippet in US News and World Report, OS?

And completely off-topic, here's a little something for you that's been running through my head recently. If you like Bonamassa, you might dig it.

189.

We have, or had, some blokes up up in the "peaceful" province of Bamyan in Afghanistan. Ostensibly doing reconstruction work, mostly with the goodwill of the native councils. A reporter with them stopped by a joint US/UK firebase in the area, stayed the night. He went into an elaborate command post and watched the US C.O. watching some blokes on screen, digging a hole next to a road.
A very long discussion took place, "are we 100% sure they are up to no good". All sorts of orders and stuff were passed back and forth, it was recorded, filed, orders clearly given etc. Then they blew the guys up of course. Apparently this happens a dozen times a week there, in or nearby a "peaceful" province.
Pretty stark contrast to the Taliban explosion in a market place a day or so before, that killed a dozen civilians.

The thought crossed my mind that they wouldn't hold a moments debate, would ask for no orders, if they ever got their hands on weapons like we have.

Northern Ireland seems to be one of those places that pessimists gave up on long ago ... and then, lo and behold, the pessimists were surprised. The Provos finally decided they could advance their cause more effectively by taking part in the democratic process ... leaving to future generations the incorporation of the Six Counties into the Republic.

But there were some die-hards.

Now what the IRA need to do is what the majority of Republicans did in the Irish Civil War ninety years ago -- bite the bullet, and hunt down and crush the die-hards.

The Brits are too feeble, too bound by legality, to do this. You can be sure the Provos know who the "dissidents" are, and could eliminate them in 12 hours if they wanted to.

But, like the Pakistani military and the violent Islamists, the leaders of the for-now moderates actually agree with the goals of the extremists, or at least find the extremists useful. So we will probably continue to have low-level terrorist acts for years to come.

If the extremists didn't exist, Sien Fien would have less value to the political process. "Talk to us, because we can be talked to you know". They are considered partners in the peace process, but after a few years of peace, why it becomes status quo, why do you need to make a process out of it?.

A cynical man would wonder if these extremists had some help arising.