Gabriel

As for you, you are so desperately trying to connect this story to the psychological stress experienced by soldiers in combat. There is not yet one shred of evidence suggesting that Major Hasan suffered from psychological disorders or mental illness, let alone conditions associated with military/combat stress (you know he's never been deployed, right?). Please spare us your misinformation regarding psychology. Suggesting that military combat necessarily damages one's psychological state simply isn't true. To suggest such a thing illustrates that you know nothing about psychology on any level. Spare us your armchair expertise. And let's get back to the topic - Major Hasan and his motivations, and likely failures on behalf of the military and intelligence services.

STOP SAYING WE KNOW NOTHING! Why do you insist on spreading such lies? A lot has been learned about the killer. A lot of information has been unearthed about him that shapes a convincing picture of what his motivations were. This obsession among the left to walk on eggshells with respect to analyzing this man's motivation(s) is MADDENING. YOU know nothing, but please keep your mouth shut and don't extrapolate that condition to the rest of us. Some of us have actually been following this story and know a thing or two and have come to reasonable conclusions based on relevant information. That's not to say we won't learn more about this killer as time goes on, but to spread stupidity along the lines of "...right now we really know nothing" is the height of irresponsibility. EDIT - I think I'll just ignore Sin Bandelot from here on out. I joined this forum looking for intelligent dialogue with honest people. I'll stick to responding to those persons that qualify.

We don't need to talk to the gunman to clarify things. There is enough information about this case to already draw reasonable conclusions. I am not suggesting that the investigation be stopped now, but what I reject is the supposition that we should reserve judgement until "all the facts" come out. Enough information has been revealed about this killer for reasonable people to draw reasonable conclusions about who he is and what his motivations were. An interesting article about this story - "Inside the Gunman's Mosque" From Newsweek, written by Asra Nomani

So let me get this straight - you dispute that the motivation(s) for Major Hasan's mass murder was ideological/policial/religious? If you cannot realize this obvious truth (at this point it is hardly speculation to suggest that his extreme views are what compelled him to commit mass murder), well, then I guess that's your own problem. Lastly, I am not being "politically correct" by stating that being a Muslim IS NOT a risk factor for service in the American military. Over 3500 military servicepersons operate honourably in the American military. That being said, clearly "Islam" is not some static concept. Different Muslims observe differently, to different degrees and with different perspectives. Taken in the context of this story, though, the type of religiosity that Major Hasan subscribed to was a red flag, given everything else that is now known about him (specifically his extreme political opinions). It seems to me as if you know what you're saying makes no sense, but you're trying to save face and continue arguing instead of admitting that what I am saying makes perfect sense.

Stop lying about the story. The conflicting reports were only taking place during the first hours of this story breaking. You are posting links to information from the early hours of this story (during the hours of chaos) and portraying that as representative of what we now know about this case (and specifically about Major Hasan). Within less than 24 hours all of the misinformation had been clarified. Clearly you have not been following this story. Either follow the story, listen to press conferences, and read the most up-to-date information, or don't participate in this discussion.

Pliny, why are you not reading my posts? I never said anything remotely suggesting that the American military be wrathful upon its Muslim servicepersons. Why are you so deceitfully misrepresenting my words? I explicitly stated that an individual's religion is MEANINGLESS when investigating his/her criminal motivations outside of a complete context. Being a Muslim IS NOT a red flag. I cannot make this any clearer and I will not repeat myself. But when taken in the context of what we now know about this individual, his perspective of Islam is a piece of the puzzle in analyzing his motivations. He held extremist political positions, which are often connected with extremist religious positions. In no way does this case lead a rational person to believe that Muslims are now suspect. In no way does this case lead a rational person that we must be extra careful with Muslims. You are desperately trying to paint this as an issue of discrimination or prejudice against Muslims, when nothing could be further from the truth. With respect to whether or not he was medicated or not, you are the one who is speculating here. The perspective that he was an extremist (religiously and politically) and that his ideology was the primary motivation behind his mass murder is based on a lot of information that has already been unearthed regarding this case. There is no evidence to suggest that he was either mentally ill (he seemed 100% sound of mind to neighbours in the days leading up to the crime, as he began giving away his positions, so we know at the very least that this was a premeditated mass murder) or medicated. We'll see how accurate your "98% certainty" turns out to be. It seems to me that you are a dishonest poster who is not here to have a serious discussion. Rather, you accuse me of being prejudice when I took extra care to emphasize that Islam is not some sort of liability or risk factor in a soldier (because I anticipated the knee-jerk argument that you would propose). Get back to me when you want to have an honest and intelligent discussion.

Absolutely there are people in the military who should be charged with some form of complacency/negligence. This man wasn't subtle about his views. How could he not have been removed from his position given his explicit rejection of the military mission and his contempt for the actions of American military and American foreign policy? Combine that with his support of our terrorist enemies and his Islamic religiosity and you've got a problem. Yet he wasn't touched, and carried out this mass murder. I hope, for America's sake, that there is some criminal liability and accountability. Otherwise, this false message of this crime being "unavoidable" will prevail. Fox News and CNN have both reported extensively on the facts I've mentioned. They're both reported on interviews with Major Hasan's former classmates and teachers, who've explained the extreme views that Hasan often shared without inhibitions.

That's not the story from any legitimate news source. CNN or Fox will give you all the details of what I've already described above. Claiming this guy "snapped" is a lie intended to deflect from his true motivations.

Hi Michael, I don't care enough to ask. I know why they didn't permit my message. I know why it wasn't permitted TWICE. It's the result of biased moderators. There's policy, and there's real life. Cheers.

Hi Pliny, yes I am Jewish. Please allow me to be extremely clear. In no way am I recommending that any group of people be profiled unfairly. All I am advocating is common sense, that people be evaluated on a myriad of factors in order to determine their suitability for a given role. This is true for something as simple as a customer service representative at a back as much as it is for a military psychiatrist. I am not recommending McCarthyism 2.0 (the Muslim/Arab version). What I am saying is common sense. This killer expressed extremist and hateful views that disparaged the American government and military and supported the terrorist enemies. Him being a Muslim doesn't make him dangerous. Him being a religious Muslim doesn't make him dangerous. But in the context of his openly expressed opinions, he WAS dangerous. If he was some extreme left-wing atheist I would say the exact same thing. If he was some atheist ranting on about how American foreign policy is imperialistic (an extremist position) and that the American military and its government is guilty of war crimes (an extremist position), the same rules would apply. A man with those opinions CANNOT RESPONSIBLY be permitted to fill a role in the military. He should be removed immediately and send a bill for all that was invested into his development/training, and given a dishonourable discharge. To turn a blind eye is negligence and criminal... we have 13 dead and many more wounded as a result of complacency to MASSIVE red flags.

I think it is abundantly clear that naomi is not a serious poster - either completely devoid of honesty or intelligence (or both). All of his/her posts are entirely predictable and unworthy of further response, IMO. I have also read some of naomi's posts regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he/she is clearly a warped individual more concerned with developing a persona of being "even-handed" (in other words, morally justifying the crimes of our enemies) than with being honest, practical, and intelligent. Clearly naomi is trying as hard as he/she can to shape this into a debate about discrimination, which is completely irrelevant to this issue. His/her efforts are so transparent and pathetic. He/she is more than likely an arts student majoring in "human rights". As an aside, I feel there is a legitimate concern among all of us to warn and guard against prejudice "retaliation" attacks that certain idiots may attempt to execute against Muslims/Muslim communities. Muslims must be vigilant these days to protect themselves from the idiots who would associate these terrible acts with them and their communities. That being said, we cannot ignore the relationship between extremist views and fringe aspects of Islam. I also hope that relevant authorities are thoroughly investigating any and all mosques this guy attended, all websites he frequented, all of his close friends and his family members. I cannot believe for one second that he operated entirely alone, and hope some other would-be murderers are apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted.

Show me one post from one person who has suggested that Muslims need to be given special attention. Or better yet, why don't you just address American Woman's comments? How can you talk to her and ask her to defend allegedly discriminatory statements WHICH SHE HASN'T MADE? Address her point(s) directly, and don't deflect by asking her to respond to the posts of others. I've stated my position explicitly, already. Being a Muslim (devout or not) is NOT a red flag. It becomes PART of a red flag, however, when it is combined with and/or supports extremist ideologies/perspectives. Major Hasan made no secret of his extremist views of the war on terror (equating it to a war on Islam, typical of the extreme left and extreme Islamic terrorist supporters), and expressed concerns about battling what he viewed as "fellow Muslims" (indicating he had a stronger loyalty to the terrorist enemies than to American soldiers). All of this evidence (of which I've only shared a shred), COMBINED with his religious Muslim lifestyle are HUGE RED FLAGS and he SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION. This isn't discrimination, this is responsible human resource management. People are screened all the time on all sorts of variables with respect to their suitability for a given position. The army should be no different - if there are extreme circumstances which would reasonably suggest that an individual is a hazard/danger/liability (that's putting it lightly in the case of Major Hasan, given his extremist views), then the individual must be removed. To ignore the problem is negligence. I hope that people are held accountable for this tragedy, which was 100% avoidable. Common sense was thrown out the window and now thirteen people are dead with many more injured.

I agree with you partially - that this was a complete failure on behalf of the military, ignoring clear signs that this man was a dangerous religious/political/ideological radical. That's where my agreement with you stops. You clearly sympathize with this murderer and view him as the victim. "Why didn't they help this guy?" Are you sick? The question you should be asking, if you had any sense of morality, would be why didn't the military protect itself and its soldiers from this dangerous terrorist? Why didn't the military help itself, and its dedicated and honourable soldiers?You also blame the military for upholding this man's obligations. The military invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into this man to develop him into a high-level professional, and he wanted to bail and his side of the commitment. The mistake the military made was allowing this man to continue benefiting from his service, the military should have removed him from position and sent him a bill for all it had invested into his education. Your perspective is sickening. My heart is broken for the victims (as are the hearts of all moral people), and people like you whine about the murderer. Your perspective is insanity. You support our enemies. As far as I'm concerned, this tragedy was 100% avoidable, the warning signs were everywhere, and political correctness and the desire not to offend resulted in the murder of 13 people and the wounding of 30+ others. IN-SAN-I-TY.

Well, that wasn't the article I was attempting to reply to. Interestingly, though (and compatible with my argument of a pro-Liberal bias at the CBC), the article you've linked only has one mention of the Liberal party. How can an article discussing this billion dollars fraud not make stronger connections between the criminals (the Liberals responsible for this fraud) and the crime? Furthermore, perhaps you have reading comprehension issues: I specifically stated that the ARTICLE I attempted to comment on didn't make ONE mention of the Liberal party. How can a story regarding a billion dollars fraud NOT make a connection to the Liberal governing party and its appointed Minster of Health and subsequent Liberal-friendly consultants/contractors? It was insanity. I made no mention of criticisms of the Liberal party being permitted to get through the moderators into the comments section. It was the article's bias I was describing, and not the bias of the permitted comments with respect to the Liberal party. To be absolutely clear, the bias of the CBC with respect to its moderation of comments was illustrated to me by them not permitting a comment that criticized the CBC of being biased. Comments critical of the Liberal party are on occasion permitted, comments criticizing the bias of the CBC are strictly prohibited. My comment was worded just like this: "Notice how in this article there is not even one mention of the Liberal party, clearly illustrating the not-so-subtle political bias of the CBC given the fact that the Liberals of Ontario are wholly responsible for this fraud". That's exactly what I said,, perhaps phrased slightly differently, but no less diplomatically, and no less directly. The CBC will, in my experience, not permit any comments illustrating its bias. I made no comment about whether or not the CBC permitted comments that were critical of the Liberal party, in order to give the illusion of balance. Perhaps you should actually read posts before responding to them.

I agree with you 100%. This obsession among some people to never come across as possibly controversial, this ultra-sensitivity, is a huge problem among many in our culture. I have no regrets about rubbing many of my co-workers and managers over the years the wrong way. Complicity and apathy are pathetic character traits.

God forbid the chain makes a choice to not carry material that is sickening and offensive. Since when did companies have to be morally relativistic and cater to all opinions, and treat them all as valid and equal? It's a smart and moral business decision. Who the hell would want to read Mein Kampf, anyways? As if there aren't tens of thousands of more interesting and valuable books out there. What could anyone possibly learn from Mein Kampf that would be valuable?

I'd like to add a personal criticism about the CBC.ca website and its moderation. I made TWO attempts at a diplomatically worded critique of what was an obvious CBC bias towards favouring the Liberal party. it was during an article discussing the billion dollar ehealth scandal in Ontario. It was a long article and never made ONE mention of the political affiliations of the criminals who stole Ontario's money. The word "Liberal" wasn't ANYWHERE in the article. I pointed this out in order to call the CBC out on its pro-Liberal bias (which isn't even that subtle, sometimes), I tried twice, and the comments never made it past the moderator gatekeepers. Pathetic. As an aside, I see a massive about of reprehensible posts/comments all over the CBC website, anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist, etc, etc, etc. The moderation of comments at CBC is sickening. Just thought I'd share that anecdote with you, perhaps you folks also have stories regarding illustration of CBC bias with respect to the moderation of comments on its website or otherwise?

Just a quick opinion I'd like to share: I don't think the fact that Major Hasan was a religious Muslim should have raised any alarms. I mean that, I am dead serious. There is nothing about being a religious Muslim that I find concerning or worrying. When combined with his openly spewed anti-American rhetoric, however, it paints a clear picture of a liability and a person that needs to be swiftly removed from his position. He openly equated the war on terror with a war on Islam (and extremist and absurd position, and extremely worrying because he himself was a devout Muslim). He justified suicide bombings and spoke favourably of America's enemies. He expressed strong concerns about being deployed and having to fight against what he perceived were fellow Muslims (he perceives our enemies as his people!). All of this information (and there is MUCH more information painting a picture of this man as an extremist left-wing religious ideologue) should have had him removed from his position and investigated thoroughly long ago. This tragedy was 100% preventable. Allow me to reiterate my main point: being a devout Muslim is absolutely fine and should not worry anyone on its own... but when combined with extremist political opinions/perspectives, it paints a picture of a would-be domestic terrorist. Let's see this story for what it is, and look at the entire picture.

Are you seriously suggesting that any part of this killer's motivation(s) for his crime was the result of mental anguish he experienced vicariously through the stories/testimonies of his patients? You are clearly implying that the stress of this man's responsibilities were at the root of his motivation(s) for mass murder. How can you be sol blind? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you either a) have not been following this story or only follow left-wing sources of information. Here are some facts about the individual which paint a clear picture of this man's motivation(s) being rooted in an extreme ideology: 1. Fellow students of the killer have stated that the killer openly spewed venomous anti-American opinions - morally equating suicide bombers with American soldiers who jump on live grenades to save their comrades. He wasn't subtle or shy at all about equating the war on terror to a war on Islam. 2. He expressed grave concerns about being deployed and fighting "fellow Muslims" (he perceives our enemies as his fellows). 3. He tried to bail on his commitment to the military, to avoid his obligation - suggesting he is dishonourable. 4. His cousin has stated that the killer stated he felt discriminated against based on his ethnicity/religion/heritage, despite the fact that was a Major (outranking 95% of soldiers) and a high-level professional. Needless to say, officers of his calibre are given a high amount of autonomy and treated extremely well. I cannot believe that lower level soldiers would dare disrespect this man. Clearly his family is attempting to deflect from the true motivation(s) for the killer's crime. 5. He gave away many of his possessions in the days leading up to the crime, demonstrating that his crime has been planned for awhile and that he had no expectation of surviving. The bottom line is that there is NO QUESTION that this man committed mass murder based on his political and religious perspectives. He was a domestic extremist, he planned out his attack, and he was sound of mind. Please spare us your excuses for his crime. Stop trying to subvert reality - we want to know who this man and why he did what he did, and you want to lie to us and tell us that he was bullied or stressed and "snapped". Lastly, my parents are Russian immigrants, and I fully support the government's decision in your anecdote to at the very least consider the possibly of a conflict of loyalty. I don't think hen should have been prohibited entry, but there is nothing wrong with a government taking into consideration one's culture//heritage/background when evaluating one's suitability for a position - especially in a combat role. Clearly "red paranoia" was overboard during those times (especially considering that the vast majority of Russian expatriates during those years were Jewish, and held no sympathy for the Soviet Union) but let's not be so politically correct that we ignore how significantly a person's culture/heritage/religion affects their character. Nobody is suggesting that the military bar Muslims from entry. What people should be suggesting, however, is that the military needs effective procedures for dealing with people who are high-risk liabilities. If a soldier begins to spew venomous anti-American rhetoric, he/she needs to be carefully looked at and likely removed from his/her position. It could very well have nothing to do with religion, at all. It could be a left-wing extremist who views American foreign policy as imperialistic, equates the President with our dictator enemies, or any other slew of extremist opinions that suggest a danger to the military. In this case, there were MANY red flags (the FBI was even watching this guy, apparently they were waiting for the body bags before doing anything) that we ignored in the name of political correctness/freedom of speech.

I speculate that this man was in perfect mental health, and was motivated to commit this mass murder based on warped perspectives shaped by his religion/politics/culture. Topaz - He tried to bail on his obligations for service. After MASSIVE investment from the American military into his education (with other expenses covered - benefits, accommodation, wages), he tried to slip out of his side of the commitment. He is a weasel who tried to milk the system. Please spare me the lies that he "offered to pay" in order to get out of his service. He clearly was in NO position to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were invested into him. I cannot wait for swift justice and execution of this animal.

It's clearly a very tragic and disturbing story. As more information becomes available through the media, it's apparent that the killer's religious/ideological/cultural perspectives were his motivation for his mass murder. He viewed the war on terrorism as a pseudonym for a war on Islam, and drew moral equivalence between American soldiers and suicide bomber terrorists. The sad thing is that I see many people who share this man's perspectives all over the place. Just peruse these very forums and one will quickly find posts that justify terrorists, support Islamic extremists, make absurd claims of an imagined American imperialism, etc, etc... There are many sick people out there, and many of them live among us.

Agreed - definitely not worth the effort. He's not a serious contributor.

Do you really believe that? You honestly think there aren't strong traits to Canadian culture that separate us from most of the world (in either a positive or negative light)? I'm not really sure how a Canadian can say such a thing. I'm also unsure how anyone can take you seriously in a thread about Canadian culture when you say something so vacuous and plain wrong.

Hi Pocketrocket, Perhaps some of us like to examine things on a deeper level than your post, which has about as much depth as a Labatt beer commercial. Furthermore, I didn't see anyone in here bitching and moaning about Canadian identity, merely we're trying to examine it and understand why it has become what it is, and perhaps where it's going. Excuse me if I don't simplify my understanding of Canadian culture to the content of your post. Lastly, what does the examination of Canadian culture have to do with worldwide perception of Canadians? I don't see how other nations' perceptions of Canada, or perceptions of their own cultures, factors into this thread.

I'm confused with what you're suggesting here - how does Canada's late creation of the CCRF lead to notion of "visible minority" (a term I usually can't stand, that reeks of left-wing victimization). Could you please elaborate on this? To Dave, I'm also uncertain that Canada's dealings with our Native populations are superior to that of America's dealings with its Natives. Although the Native issue is one I'm very unfamiliar with.