Sources Identify Major as Gunman in Deadly Shooting Rampage at Fort Hood

I'm wary of followers of Islam, and simply sorry for most of the rest, I guess..

 

No. Which bolsters what I said earlier: Muslims Americans should not be prevented serving in the military simply because they're Muslim. There are currently some 20,000 serving, often with distinction.

 

I had in mind the Lord telling his disciples it was He the enemy hated, not the messengers (disciples).

 

Hey, we should have rounded up all blacks in the 60's and put them in interment camps. After all, it's for their own protection.

Interesting that you differentiate between American citizens and Japanese. In fact, the Japanese interred were American citizens.

That would be you, since you don't differentiate between a native born American citizenwho is of Japanese ancestry, and a native born citizen of Japan. It's no wonder that you can't differentiate between a Muslim and a radical Muslim extremist.

You forgot about native born American citizens of Arab descent.

 

And often creating problems. Such as the Muslim NCO who fragged fellow troops in Kuwait. Or Muslim troops who have refused to be deployed to Iraq of Afghanistan.

 

You had to go back to an incident at the start of the Iraq War as a case for "often" creating problems?

How's about Capt Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq in June 04 when he tried to stop a suicide bomber from attacking a US compound? Or Spc. Azhar Ali who was killed in March 05 by an Iraqi roadside bomb? Or Staff Sgt. Ayman Taha who was killed in January 06 while trying to disarm enemy explosives?

Or, how about my neighbor, an American born Muslim, who just returned from a tour of duty Afghanistan, where he served his country proudly?

Any soldier who refuses service, regardless of ethnicity or religion, should be tried accordingly.

 

Does a not radical Muslim follow the teachings of the Koran?

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

Here are a few verses from the Koran to show the peacful nature of these "peaceful" Muslims.

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

 

I know where you're going with that, so I'll just save everyone some time. I'm going to say that nonradical Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran, and you're going to say that if nonradical Muslims don't agree with radical Muslims on the Koran, then the nonradical Muslims don't know what their Koran says. I will reply by saying that a nonradical Muslim can be trusted to know the Koran more than you do, to which you will reply by referring to me as a compromiser, liberal, muslim sympathizer, or some such nonsense. I'll respond by accusing you of not being able to differentiate between a Muslim and a radical Muslim extremist, afterwhich a moderator will say this thread has reached ten pages and denegrated from the original post, afterwhich they will close the thread.

 

The only way to know the difference between a Muslim and an extremist is after they have blown someone up. They don't wear signs around their neck. And it is a lie that it is just a few.

 

Maybe a solution would be to give muslims a questionaire with questions such as:

1) Do you support violence against anyone that is not muslim?

2) Do you love the American way of life?

3) Are you willing to follow American law or do you want Shirah law to be the standard?

Of course have them answer these with a lie detection machine and if they are anti USA, make them move to a country where they could live happily ever after.
This sounds a little harsh, but this religion is violent and the killing is going to keep on happening unless something changes.

 

Actually, he was last examined in September and there was no sign of emotional or mental instability.

He thought fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong; he said this was fighting against fellows Muslims and he didn't want to do it. He made many statements like this.

This is not mental illness, snapping, or stress. It was a deliberate, well-thought out action based on opposition to his own government and religious sympathy for our enemies.

 

I never said Muslim Americans should not serve in the military. However, when any of them speak or behave the way Hasan did, they should be investigated immediately. That's what I said.

 

That is very possible. Most of the chronic schizophrenics I saw had been psychotic for years. The picture that the media is painting of Hasan from this family and friends was a non-violent, Muslim who was originally loyal to the US when he joined the military.

However, more recently he had:
-been struggling at work
-become more devout in his faith
-become disillusioned with US foreign policy
-possibly made suspicious statements empathizing with suicide bombers
-been harassed in the military for his ethnicity
-been indirectly traumatized by the PTSD stories of his patients
-become fearful for an impending deployment
-been frustrated by repeatedly rejected attempts for a military discharge

Guardian: Major Nidal Malik Hasan: Soldiers' psychiatrist who heard frontline stories
BBC: Profile: Major Nidal Malik Hasan

First-episode psychosis and PTSD from indirect exposure are possible diagnoses. Regardless of whether he had a mental illness or was simply an Islamic terrorist, it does not justify generalizing his actions to punish the muslim community as a whole in direct opposition to the US Constitution.

 

How about spending 22 years working with a population of mixed mental disorders and diagnosis: This doctor was not psychotic.

In another thread, someone, KenH, I believe, suggested that the doctor had access to psychotropic drugs. Access does not imply use, Most people who have seen these drugs work know that they can make a powerful change for the better in some people, but they all have troubling side effects and require rather frequent re-evaluation and careful adjustments. Some new and rather promising approaches to certain disorders, such as depression, are finding that changing habits in thought processes from triggers of sadness, nostalgia, regret, negative-self talk, negative review of experiences or review of negative experience to positive though and focusing on the present, learning skills in crisis reconition and coping, and developing and sticking with routines which deal with scheduling hygiene, dressing, meals and good dietary habits, and exercise, and social skills and involment with others does much to lift and cope with depression. The anti-depressants may help to temporarily lift depression enought to give a person the chance to focus for brief periods of time on these other 'helps' until the depression lifts and the new coping mechonisms and habits take over to maintain stability while the drugs are gradually withdrawn. I think it could be said that many, if not all of these drugs, do alter reception and processing of normal thought processing and may make some people more open to suggestion...... either good or bad.

My concern is that a doctor who is practicing the art of his specialty in medicine in a practice where his personal view of most of his patients is that they are his enemy or the enemy of his religion, is in a position of where he can do as much or more harm as he does good...... and this covered by the professional trust so often extended to colleagues until something obvious occurs.

 

Regarding verbal abuse and racial or creedal derogatory remarks in a clinical setting...... it is highly unlikely that this was tolerated or took place among the clinical staff without serious and severe disciplinary action to those who dished it out.

On the other hand, patients frequently 'dis' or verbally abuse staff to see whos buttons they can push. It is the responsibility and ongoing process of professional clinical practice that one is able to take an inpersonal reception and considering the source....... not let their buttons be pushed nor build up resentment nor generalize from the clinical to the non-clinical population those experiences of abuse.

Anyone working in a psych clinical setting should anticipate that this will occur and have their own appropriate skills available and in use to prevent taking it personally or letting it impact. When a patient can be physically restrained and pharmacologically controled or sedated, verbal abuse can be their last resort of control but is successful only if it gets the angry reaction which means staff loss their own rationale to emotion.
---------------------
What I suspect, this man already had latent tendencies and religious beliefs and conflicts, and, at the age of 39, was processing a mid-life review or 'mid-life' crises where he's re-evaluating his current condition against the idealism which he held at a more youthful time in his life, and came to his own conclusions to do what he did. This does not negate the influence of any advisors whom he trusted.... in or outside his religion. Nor does it excuse his behavior or place blame for it on the shoulders of others. The reality and the fact remains and continues that his religion of islam, in its book and teachings, support the conclusions which he came to inspite of all civility of criminal law, professional oaths, or respect for life. His religion allows its supremacy above all other laws....... and, in its extreme positions, has no regard for life as it exists outside his religion.

 

The word is "internment," brainiac.

 

No, actually I only have to go back to Thursday.

And this has been an ongoing problem for the last few years where Muslim troops are involved. LINK

Yep, most Muslim soldiers do their duty without incident, and the idea that they be banned from serving will go nowhere. But if commanders can profile white, native-born Americans in the service to head off skinhead incidents, then you should have no problem with Muslim troops recieving the same scrutiny.

 

No problem. I just forgot to add the emoticon with the rolling eyes.

 

A threat? Why is it a threat that I would like to meet a true American and get his autograph?
I always follow the rules, unless I get cod-brained.
Get control of my emotions so I don't look more foolish?
Yeah. Wow. What a great response to my reply to a thread .
How about, you actually show how you disagree?

 

And how is that working for you?
I mean, not listening to the people who don't agree with you so that one might get a better understanding of a debatable subject?