[Cruzandercerberus]

http://www.cnn.com/2...ings/index.html

Quote

(CNN) -- A soldier opened fire on a military processing center at Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday, killing 11 people and wounding 31, officials at the Army base said.

The gunman also was killed, Col. Benton Danner said.

Two other soldiers who were detained have been released, but another person of interest is in custody, said Christopher Haug, chief of public affairs at Fort Hood.

The gunman, slain by emergency personnel, was identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, a law enforcement source told CNN.

Licensed in Virginia, Hasan was a psychiatrist who previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center but more recently was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to professional records.

Hasan was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq "and appeared to be upset about that," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said.

Religion of peace strikes again.

[Wildstriker]

Because if a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant goes crazy, it's totally okay to say all Protestants are religious nuts.


Maybe in a perfect world.

It's too early to tell what the man's motives were anyway. For now I am withholding judgment, aside from the fact that this crime in itself is inexcusable.

[Cruzandercerberus]

He was a recent convert to Islam. Fighting deployment to middle east. And he shot a bunch of troops in the middle of outprossessing to deploy.

Do I have to draw you a picture?

[Wildstriker]

Cruzandercerberus, on 05 November 2009 - 09:59 PM, said:

He was a recent convert to Islam. Fighting deployment to middle east. And he shot a bunch of troops in the middle of outprossessing to deploy.

Do I have to draw you a picture?

I would rather have investigators 'draw me a picture' rather than someone reacting impulsively, even if you may indeed be correct.

[firefeng]

Cruz said:

(CNN) -- A soldier opened fire on a military processing center at Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday, killing 11 people and wounding 31, officials at the Army base said.

The gunman also was killed, Col. Benton Danner said.

Two other soldiers who were detained have been released, but another person of interest is in custody, said Christopher Haug, chief of public affairs at Fort Hood.

The gunman, slain by emergency personnel, was identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, a law enforcement source told CNN.

Licensed in Virginia, Hasan was a psychiatrist who previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center but more recently was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to professional records.

Hasan was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq "and appeared to be upset about that," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said.

Given some of the family/friends I know who've come back from Iraq as damaged goods - some of whom still eye the local Hispanics suspiciously as "sandniggers" and "Muslims" in insightful juxtaposition to your flowery views of Islam - and given that he's a military psychiatrist who no doubt has experience with Iraq veterans, something tells me that this has little to do with his religion. Considering the gunman is still alive and "in stable condition" (contrary to this earlier report), I imagine we'll know soon enough.

If you'd like to draw us a picture, perhaps you could start with your views of Islam before you were deployed to Iraq.

[Wildstriker]

Any religion has the potential to be destructive; it's the reason why they are so popular. Barring rational thought, no one would want to join an ecumenical religion where they must concede they could be wrong; that would be outrageous and would simply not adhere to the human condition of strengthening the 'in group'.

Conversely, perhaps this might anger my fellow Atheists, I also recognize that there are undeniable benefits religion has had in the realm of the arts and architecture especially during the Renaissance, the preservation of ancient Greek philosophy by Islamic centers of study, the philosophies of various Christian theorists like Augustine and the ontological and ethical contributions of those like Kant, and the charity and positive activism that many young religious people today take part in.

I am a firm believer in right and wrong, good and evil, even if they are social constructs, they are still tangibly real. What this guy did, regardless of his religious belief, was completely wrong and evil.

[Cruzandercerberus]

firefeng, on 05 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

If you'd like to draw us a picture, perhaps you could start with your views of Islam before you were deployed to Iraq.

Before, didn't care. After a year living immersed in the culture, Islam is a barbaric stone age cult of self-destruction and ruin.

You could say this had as much to do with religious belief as it did not wanting to go to Iraq. I'm sure if he's Muslim though he wouldn't be happy about being put in a position that may involve having to wage war on other Muslims. You know, his "In group" He probably enlisted before the War on Terror too.

Regardless of the fact that cowards in political office don't want to admit it, we are still at war with Islam.

[firefeng]

Wildstriker said:

Conversely, perhaps this might anger my fellow Atheists, I also recognize that there are undeniable benefits religion has had in the realm of the arts and architecture especially during the Renaissance, the preservation of ancient Greek philosophy by Islamic centers of study, the philosophies of various Christian theorists like Augustine and the ontological and ethical contributions of those like Kant, and the charity and positive activism that many young religious people today take part in.

Religion has far more tangible benefits than mere aesthetics, be they artistic or philosophical. A society gripped by hedonism and despondency isn't one long for life.

Cruz said:

Regardless of the fact that cowards in political office don't want to admit it, we are still at war with Islam.

Actually, it's far more likely we're at war with brown-colored savages in underdeveloped countries, with Islam being merely coincidental to the present population against which open warfare is allowed. I'd not expect to find too many Muslims among the bass-ackward South American nations under our heel, after all.

[Wildstriker]

firefeng, on 05 November 2009 - 10:27 PM, said:

Religion has far more tangible benefits than mere aesthetics, be they artistic or philosophical. A society gripped by hedonism and despondency isn't one long for life.

Those were only examples and I am way too lazy to type out the rest. I agree to a certain extent that religion keeps the masses in check. But, I have to disagree in that one does not need religion to live a meaningful life if they have the proper aptitude of reason.

Edit:
Cruz, we used to regard the people living in South America as savages, but we never referred to our problems with them as a problem with Catholicism. If you were right, then we would be at war with nations like Turkey or Indonesia.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Turkey is and has a tradition of being Secular. The turkish military has overthrown the government multiple times when it has gotten away from their secular roots. If Mustafa Kemal Ataturk rather than Osama Bin Laden were the gold standard of leadership in other Muslim nations we wouldn't have any more problems.

As for indonesia.

http://www.usembassy..._warning02.html

[Wildstriker]

Cruzandercerberus, on 05 November 2009 - 10:40 PM, said:

Turkey is and has a tradition of being Secular. The turkish military has overthrown the government multiple times when it has gotten away from their secular roots. If Kamal Mustafa Ataturk rather than Osama Bin Laden were the gold standard of leadership in other Muslim nations we wouldn't have any more problems.

As for indonesia.

http://www.usembassy..._warning02.html

Except Turkey makes Islamic education mandatory for school. The trick is to take that same text in the Quran and shape it to fit the ideals of secular society and also control which versions are taught. Turkey also has a separate cultural history from the other Arabic states, hence its interest in joining the EU.

[Cruzandercerberus]

That's because of Ataturk again. They are not Arabs. He created a secular turkish nationalism and european culture that is stronger than the influence of Fundamentalist Islam. In fact the entire Turkish state came about because Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, banned beards and religious clothing, and otherwise told goat raping fundamentalists to fuck off and die.

Quote

"Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities."

~Mustafa Ataturk

And this is also why eventually Islamic rule will fail in Iran, and other nations which do not largely self identify as Arab.

[firefeng]

Wildstriker said:

But, I have to disagree in that one does not need religion to live a meaningful life if they have the proper aptitude of reason.

"Meaningful". "Proper". Very interesting words there, insofar as you have very little that can actually be justified. You're skirting awfully close to faith there, boy-o, with reason substituting as both dogma and deity. In the meantime, you're welcome to point out any society that has flourished secularly. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Greeks, and even they didn't wholly abandon their gods.

Wildstriker said:

Cruz, we used to regard the people living in South America as savages, but we never referred to our problems with them as a problem with Catholicism. If you were right, then we would be at war with nations like Turkey or Indonesia.

South America never had the complicating factor of Israel to contend with. Our incursions into South America never, so far as I know, incited a religious response where the indigenous people declared us the enemy of Catholicism and made war upon us under that guise. It bears noting that we war against Islam only because the indigenous people we're shooting claim we are, when in reality we're just shooting undercivilized brown-folk. Likewise, our hostile incursions into South America are classifiable as belligerence towards communism/socialism because that's how the locals frame it and we allow it (given the convenience it had during the Cold War), save for the propaganda that went into the War on Drugs and has since waned in recent years. In both situations, you may fight the battle by displacing or destroying the primary ideological foundation with which the local population most strongly identifies, but ultimately the ideology is irrelevant because you are warring with third world savages, not the ideologies themselves. Our transgressions anywhere in the world are wholly dependent on our ability to demonize the local culture; what that culture may be is just a matter of coincidence.

Such a tactic is far more likely to put up the backs of the locals than it is to break them.

[Wildstriker]

Cruzandercerberus, on 05 November 2009 - 10:53 PM, said:

That's because of Ataturk again. They are not Arabs. He created a secular turkish nationalism that is stronger than the influence of Fundamentalist Islam. In fact the entire Turkish state came about because Ataturk destroyed the Caliphate, banned beards, and otherwise told goat raping fundamentalists to fuck off and die.

Ataturk's rise to power, along with the rest of the Young Turks, was to combat Abdul Hamid II's use of Pan-Islamism to rule over the Ottoman empire and quash dissent. However, it would be wise to take note that the current party in power in Turkey is an Islamic one that would presumable peacefully leave office if they were voted out in elections. It would also be wise to take note that secularism in Turkey has actually caused people to embrace Islam in a more private manner.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Wildstriker, on 06 November 2009 - 12:05 AM, said:

Ataturk's rise to power, along with the rest of the Young Turks, was to combat Abdul Hamid II's use of Pan-Islamism to rule over the Ottoman empire and quash dissent.

Exactly and to this day the Caliphate does not exist. One of the major goals of Islamic Fundamentalism is to re-establish the Caliphate. The Sunni faith has not an unquestioned leader since Ataturk's time. There is also an absance of a legal system based on Sharia. The ruling party may be Islamic in name. But they are not islamists.

[Wildstriker]

firefeng, on 05 November 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

"Meaningful". "Proper". Very interesting words there, insofar as you have very little that can actually be justified. You're skirting awfully close to faith there, boy-o, with reason substituting as both dogma and deity. In the meantime, you're welcome to point out any society that has flourished secularly. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Greeks, and even they didn't wholly abandon their gods.

Kind of. But you also should realize I never made mention of 'society' living on reason and reason alone.

[firefeng]

Wildstriker, on 05 November 2009 - 09:21 PM, said:

Kind of. But you also should realize I never made mention of 'society' living on reason and reason alone.

Healthy societies have never existed on religion and religion alone, either. However, my point was that secularism leads to despair, not reason. Reason is just the godhead of secularism, though distorted to align with atheistic principles.

[Cruzandercerberus]

firefeng, on 06 November 2009 - 12:45 AM, said:

secularism leads to despair, not reason. Reason is just the godhead of secularism, though distorted to align with atheistic principles.

Why so verbose? Progress, change, and Marxism/socialism work fine. And they sound better when spat through a bullhorn as a term of abuse.

[cidbahamut]

Cruzandercerberus, on 05 November 2009 - 10:27 PM, said:

Before, didn't care. After a year living immersed in the culture, Islam is a barbaric stone age cult of self-destruction and ruin.

I always figured it had more to do with the crappy third world environment they lived in.
Then again you're the one with first hand experience so maybe you can clue me in as to how much of it is their religion and how much of it has to do with living in rubble and not having all the comforts of modern society.

[Keylime]

To kind of rerail this topic.

I personally think this incident stinks. Not just the 'oh this is a horrid tragedy' thing, but something seems off about this. These are just my take and thoughts on the subject, so lets examine the facts first.

Facts known to date.
1. He is a Major in the U.S. Army.
2. He was a military psychiatrist.
3. Total casualties are 43, 13 dead and 30 wounded.
4. Incident took place on a large military base.
5. Was soon to be deployed over seas.
6. He a muslim.
7. Weapon used was a Fabrique Nationale Five-seveN.
8. The FBI supposedly had him under surveillance due to his supposed radical beliefs posted on a blog.

Weapon facts.
The FN Five-seveN is a pistol that fires an intermediary cartridge in 5.7 x 28mm bullet and has a 20 round magazine. Ballistic qualities of the 5.7mm include high velocity (1,950 ft/s), no fragmentation of the round on impact since the hollow point round is restricted to a Class III firearms license, ballistic properties on impact show very little tissue damage (i.e. the round will pass through flesh fairly cleanly compared to hollow point rounds and high caliber rifle rounds), and there is very little curvature of the bullet on impact meaning the round will almost pass straight through a fleshy target.

Other facts.
The civilian police we the first responders to the attack, rather than the base MPs. The attack took place at a recruitment center that was on base. Military bases or weapon free zones. Meaning that soldiers on base, aside from MPs are not permitted to carry a firearm anywhere on base other than the firing range. Weapons are kept under watch of the platoon armorer and can only be issued to a soldier by the armorer. Ammunition is stowed safely away from soldiers and is kept under constant watch.

Deductions.
Considering the the ratio of dead to wounded the attacker more than likely was not a first rate marksman. Considering that the 5.7mm round is a small, high velocity round with a low damage profile the gunman would have had to fire a high volume to shots to inflict as much damage as he had. For hypothetical sake lets say on average he had to fire 5 shots per kill victim and 2 shots per wounded victim. This would mean he and to fire roughly 65 shots for the victims he had killed and another 60 shots for the victims he had wounded. This would mean he had to have fired roughly 125 rounds of ammunition, meaning he would have had to change magazines a total of six times. If he was well trained he could probably swap in a new magazine in 2-3 seconds, if he was not so well trained or didn't carry the magazines in a easily accessible place the it would take anywhere between 3-6 seconds. Now the recruitment center I've been to did not have very many large open spaces, except the lobby. There were also several armed MPs and a lot of small rooms. So unless he took out all the MPs immediately it is very unlikely that he should have been able to cause so many casualties considering that someone could have easily bull rushed him and then disarmed him, or killed him. But instead a civilian police woman fired the take down shots against the gunman. So what happened? Why did the MPs not bring down the gunman after the first dozen shots, why did no soldier on scene try to disarm him, and why were the police first to respond to the shooting?

Conclusion.
I'm not going to immediately shout GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! And then don my tinfoil hat. I don't know what is going on here but to me this whole incident does not click with what the facts are saying. I think something else is at play here and hopefully it will come to light in the following investigation.