How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correc   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correctness

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


0 posted 11-06-2009 11:10 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
“But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on? “

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ#ixzz0W6qNBJmR


I have difficulty understanding how people could have known for at least six months
there was problem and do nothing serious about it.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


1 posted 11-07-2009 12:43 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I don't think anybody like to admit they made mistakes.  This guy was apparently trouble from very early on, and he was asking for discharge from very early on, and the army was ignoring him from very early on.

     It's one of those cases where I think there's more than enough idiocy to go around.

     Our armed forces have a history of downplaying the seriousness of stress disorders that goes back at least as far as world war I.  Your scholar, Mr. Davis, talks about the forces that held the Greek phalanx together in the Peloponnesian War.  The lack of some of these same forces damage unit cohesion today, lack of uniform origin, lack of similar occupation, sense of living or dying together depending on counting very clearly on the behavior of the other parts of the unit and so on.

     Once the Arm had selected this man for advanced training, it acted as though it couldn't back down without losing face or perhaps believing the man had taken advantage of its advanced training programs and was now simply trying to get away with putting one over on the army.  It might also have felt itself trapped in the terrible political correctness, John, that you mention.  "Deadly" was your word, and I certainly have to accept that.

     Or they may have simply thought the man a coward, attempting to avoid the rigors and dangers of war.

     We can let ourselves get locked into very limited ways of seeing other people.  Clearly, he was not suited for the military, and the military was perhaps "overly rigid" in their evaluation of his own assessment of that.  He was not suited to the military in spades.

     Whether he was a coward or not is not a simple question.  I suspect that he felt himself driven to the wall with nothing to lose.  When you really feel you have nothing to lose, the whole notion of hero or coward simply stops making sense any more.  I think he was beyond desperate.

     And I think the army is used to ignoring signals like this from its people because most of the time it can get away with it.  This is one of the things that happens when you feel you can treat people as if they were things and disposable, to be used up and discarded more or less at whim.  Many of these army troops were going back to Iran for second and third tours, and more.  There are, I'm told, a fairly high number of suicides among the troops, a high rate of depression, a high rate of PTSD and the organization has had to adapt to these things.  They have gotten used to functioning as though the situation of emergency was the situation that was normal.

      Now this guy will be charged, if he survives, and will deserve whatever punishment he gets, pretty much.  But if the armed forces actually succeeds in blaming political correctness for this repulsive set of events, they will be giving away an enormous amount of power here.  If they can look at this coldly and decide what parts of it they are doing wrong, they they have the power to make some changes and make the armed forces function in a more useful fashion.  Then they can figure out what parts were political correctness, and use a bit of the refreshing military frankness to deal with that more directly.

     But not before they figure out what their part in the fiasco is, so they can at least take some benefit out of a horrible tragedy.

Yours, Bob Kaven  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 11-07-2009 08:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree, John, that political correctness is the key here. Not only does one have to identify a problem these days, one must also look at the race, the creed, the religion or anything else that could give one an opportunity to scream prejudice and figure that into the equation and decide whether or not it's worth taking the risk to report it or take action. Thank our ACLU for that......
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 11-07-2009 03:51 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I don't think there's enough information available yet to form a useful opinion.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


4 posted 11-07-2009 04:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Grinch,

          Good point.  Thanks for making it.  I was probably a bit too quick, though I think I can stand by a lot of what I said anyway.
    
Dear Mike,

          The ACLU is neither liberal nor conservative.  I, for example, as a Liberal, tend to thing of the rights of the child as being paramount, while for the most part the ACLU in custody situations will go with parental rights.  That seems to be the underlying constitutional principle, and that's what they believe they're in the business of defending.  The reason that I can live with the ACLU is that I believe that, whether I agree with their stance on something or not, I also happen to think that they're doing their best to uphold constitutional principles against assaults by any comers, left, right or lunar.

     I did not want the George Lincoln Rockwell nazis to march through a Jewish section of Chicago in the late sixties.  I was upset when the ACLU took the other side in that brouhaha.  Constitutionally, though, they were right.  I didn't like it any better, but I understood the difference.

     Simply because the ACLU takes a position, doesn't mean it's right, but you can pretty much take it to the bank that they think they're taking the side of the constitution in the matter.  They show up in surprising places taking surprising positions, but not to win popularity contests on the left or right, only to defend the constitution.  I believe that in one of Rush Limbaugh's legal run ins on drug charges, the ACLU filed an Amicus Brief in support of the man.

     If the ACLU and shows up on the other side of the table in legal proceedings, Mike, it's not because they're Liberal, nor is it because they don't like Conservatives.  They could care less.  It's because whatever it is that you're doing is something that they see as dangerous to the Constitution, and they're willing to put in scant money and resources to try to let that be known.

     To my mind, the fact that the ACLU hasn't been after the Democrats more shows what wimps the Democrats have been in recent years (To be fair, they've been out of power for a while and so are still acting much too cautiously in terms of sticking close to the center and not stretching their power bases enough to draw some authentic wrath.  They've not tried any Supreme court packing or anything really outrageous yet.) than how Liberal the ACLU is.  The Republicans have been doing a lot of the legislation for a while now, so they've been getting a lot of ACLU attention.  What a coincidence!

Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (11-07-2009 04:38 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 11-07-2009 10:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I get the feeling from your post that you think I am against the ACLU because I consider them liberal when, in fact, I;ve never said anything about any political affiliation of theirs and that point has no bearing on my opinion of them.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


6 posted 11-08-2009 01:31 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"I don't think there's enough information available yet to form a useful opinion."

Would that work for a WASP male
or is he the only one that doesn't
get a pass?

As far as PTSD, Hasan was never over,
so maybe he got it from listening to stories
or maybe books or maybe some scary movies . . .
Is that how it works now?  Who knew.

PS

" "Deadly" was your word"

?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


7 posted 11-08-2009 04:15 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Would that work for a WASP male


It wouldn't matter if he was a green south African pygmy John - without sufficient facts any opinion formulated ends up as nothing more than pure speculation, and that's about as useful as a chocolate ashtray. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind speculating on unimportant things where little damage can be done, but in this case I believe that the people affected by what happened kind of deserve to know the truth about why this happened, not some random guess based on nothing more than speculation.

I think they deserve at least that much.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


8 posted 11-08-2009 05:29 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear John,

          PTSD is very often used to describe what was once called combat fatigue.  There were other names for the condition in other wars, as I'm sure you know.  You do not have to be in combat or even in the army to have PTSD, however.  Folks who've been in plane crashes and natural disasters show the disorder as well.  The range is much much greater than that.

     The basic mechanism of a lot of brain function hasn't been worked out very well as yet.  But in more general terms, people try to keep the gnarly bits cordoned off from their everyday regular selves in an effort to go on functioning as normal.  More and more energy goes into  keeping that barrier functioning.  The brain is essentially running two systems, one for the isolated pieces of experience and the other for everyday functioning, instead of a single system with the savings in energy.

     The stress on the whole shebang makes the everyday functioning tend to deteriorate during times of difficulty even more drastically than usual because there isn't enough energy to do both systems at the same time, and there is leakage between the two systems.  In many cases this shows up as flashbacks, or hallucinations.  Often the whole person feels exhausted and their general ability to function declines sharply.

     Treatment is designed to help get those sealed off areas plugged into the everyday functioning self again in such a way that the everyday self can process it and digest it through more or less normal means, such as dreaming, which seems to help folks integrate and digest experience and learning.

     Over the past 10-15 years a method called EMDR has emerged that seems promising.  It's much more behaviorally based than talking-based and can be especially useful if treatment is instituted as quickly afterwards as possible.  It's more effective than many PTSD treatments and is used in some places by the VA for treatment of combat vets.  It's also useful for treatment of Rape and incest survivors and survivors of child abuse and the like.

     Simply because the guy in this hideous shooting incident appears and may in fact be unsympathetic doesn't rule out PTSD in many of its forms.  Nor does it rule it in.  As Grinch has pointed out so evenhandedly, we don't have enough information here to do anything but man the usual positions in the usual entrenched positions and start blazing away with the machine guns before we have any notion of there actually being an appropriate target in sight.  

     I have come to understand that it's probably wrong to do so.  Colonel Peters, as a trained soldier and as, I believe, a West Point graduate should know as well as anybody that it's simply imprudent to start blazing away at your intuitions, and that what might be out there could as well be a school bus as a bunch of terrorists.  Shooting first and asking questions later is a good way to keep a Colonel from ever getting to Flag rank, if I understand my military history.  

     It's a wonderful thing that Colonel Peters makes such a good living writing fiction.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 11-08-2009 07:24 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 11-08-2009 07:54 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Yes, that much is certainly true.   It would be curious if it were not true.  We are a country that is profoundly uncomfortable with ethnic and religious differences and yet have tried to be widely open and welcoming to it,  I don't know that we started that tradition in the world, but I think that we may have been close to the first people to have made a point of it, and a lot of the learning processes and a lot of the mistakes, as a result, have been made right here.  When we are at our best, I think the world forgives us for them because they know that we keep doing it, and are working on that ongoing experiment.  To ask everybody in the country to feel comfortable about the process at all times is asking a bit much, I think.  Having the process enshrined in law is enough.  Being serious about the law is enough.

     To call the enshrinement of those expectations into law "political correctness" seems an apt description of exactly how bitter and difficult this internal struggle can feel for us sometimes.  It's never come easy for us, and I don't think it's about to start now.  The armed forces has been historically one of those places where this struggle has been fought and won, though it's been a bitter fight there, too.  A lot of Jews were disproportionately glad that Barry Goldwater got to be a General, Blacks when Colin Powell became the head of the JCOS and so on.  It's where a lot of these struggles go on, sometimes  for centuries, and it may be part of the reason why it's so important to the gay population today.  The armed forces are a special marker for minorities.

     It doesn't come as a shock to see the army as one of the places where the struggle for acceptance by muslims is easily spotlighted.  The armed forces have experience with dealing with minorities.  They're actually, I think, somewhat better about it than the rest of us, because they're used to making mistakes and understand there's no way of getting through these things without doing so, probably over and over again.  And that the first mistake is trying to know what you're talking about before you have the facts.

     And that's why, in the same article you quoted above, the Army Chief of Staff actually took some of those other factors into consideration.  

quote:


Army Chief of Staff George Casey warned against reaching conclusions about the suspected shooter's motives until investigators have fully explored the attack. He said on ABC's "This Week" that focusing on Hasan's Islamic roots could "heighten the backlash" against all Muslims in the military.




     Now that doesn't mean that political correctness may not be a factor.  I'd be surprised if it didn't have some part to play here, even if it were to be limited to that of a snap judgement on the part of the far right.  It's simply that there's such a thing as  settling for a fast answer because it's easy.  Sometimes it's easy and right; then everything's great, but when it's only easy, you're in trouble.  

     So, were there signs anything but an the easy answer needed to be considered?

     Well, there was the information I offered about PTSD in an earlier posting, but let's set that aside as not worth consideration for right now.

     In the article that you quoted, Mike, there were some things mentioned.

quote:


There had been signs in recent months that Hasan's growing anger with the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at odds with his military service, including his comments that the war on terror was "a war on Islam."




     Well, you know, that could prove to be difficult.  The British didn't particularly want to sent British/Jewish troops to fight in British Palestine.  It would have been, well, basically stupid.  It would have been a potentially agonizing conflict of interest, and they didn't do it.  It would have been asking for trouble, both in Palestine and, well, at home, too.

     Even while we had Japanese interned in concentration camps here in the United States, the Japanese mean, many of them, pushed to be sent overseas to fight.  The US agreed, but they didn't send them to fight the Japanese.  Why?  Oh, yeah, it would have been stupid.  Even if the Japanese had been willing, and many of them said they were, it would have put them into a terrible situation.  We sent them to Italy and the 442nd did a wonderful job.

     No doubt you can think of other examples yourself.

     To send Muslims to fight in a war that's been hyped as a crusade, and in many quarters has been talked about a war of Christians against Muslims for much if not most of the time it's been going on may or may not be ultimately a great thing to do.  But in the short term, I think it's designed to produced major conflicts in Muslim troops.  Call me a wild-haired guy who is just pulling this one out of thin air, but that's the way I'd call it.

     And that's if Hasan had all his poultry marching in rank and file to begin with, geese included.  Which fairly obviously, he did not.  Saying this is political correctness may be true in part, but it also sounds like some massive policy failure brought on by lack of personnel in the all volunteer army.  A sane policy would never have put really really healthy troops in a situation like that, would it?

     And now more from your article, Mike:

quote:

Others who knew Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, said he had wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries.



     Well, there is that, isn't there.

     That is, people who look up to you and count on you for advice because you're one of them and at the same time an officer in the army come to you and want to know what to about being asked to do something that's feeling well — what's that word? — wrong.  So probably 99% of them are total goof-offs trying to get out of this army and hoping for an easy touch from a Muslim officer that they wouldn't get from somebody of another faith?  Maybe there's one of them in that hundred that's actually got a real question?

     Or maybe more of them than that have a real ethical question about the matter.  I think they're real American soldier, and capable of having real feelings about real things that are worth listening to with real concern, myself.  That's really all a lot of them need, not a jolt of electricity, or a dose of pills, but some serious listening and a decent comment from a guy who's actually heard what they've had to say.  That's what a lot of psychotherapy comes down to, the willingness to shut up and actually listen.  Much more difficult to do than you'd think.

     And if you actually do it right, both people walk out of the room different.  Not simply the patient, you know.  If you really listen, you really have to feel what the other person's saying, it changes you, sometimes forever.  It's not a mechanical process.  That's why a lot of psychotherapists end up with what they call secondary PTSD, simply from listening openly to all that stuff.  On some level, the brain doesn't know the difference between the stuff of dream and the stuff of reality.  They're processed the same way.  You should be having on-going supervision while you're doing therapy, especially if you're working with difficult folks.

     Sop all those real questions that those patients had have got to be real questions for Hasan as well.  The military is great at a lot of things, and military medicine is good for a lot of things.  Supervision of countertransference has never been one of them.  Nor, for that matter, has been dealing with depression.

     And once again from the AP article, Mike:

quote:

"I told him, `There's something wrong with you,'" Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, told The Associated Press on Saturday. "I didn't get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn't seem right."



     A lot of people seemed to notice.  It would be nice to see some people actually take responsibility for what happened instead of pointing fingers everywhere else.
Yes, political correctness.  Now, what else, specifically, so that we can do something about the issues instead of finding something to blame.

     Don't forget, that in this case the political correctness is essentially the fear of having a black mark in one's file for saying something that isn't popular but which is necessary to say.  The actual fact that (at this point) 13 soldier have died and 40 have been wounded points out that this is cowardice.  More than a platoon has been wiped out as a result of what amounts to cowardice by people who say that they are willing to put their lives on the line for each other.  Those who reported Hasan did their jobs.  Those who failed to pass those reports up the line with the proper endorsements may be guilty of "political correctness."  If so, they are also guilty of putting their careers ahead of the good of the service and ultimately the lives of their fellow soldiers.

     Conservatives are frequently the ones who talk about not needing extra laws to take care of crimes already covered.  If there is a crime here, it is cowardice.  Political correctness can be dealt with.  Cowardice in people who are in so many ways not cowards, is much more difficult, isn't it?

With considerable confusion, Bob Kaven


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


11 posted 11-08-2009 08:12 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"The US agreed, but they didn't send them to fight the Japanese.  Why?  Oh, yeah, it would have been stupid."

Japanese Americans did serve in the Pacific behind the lines as interpreters and translators.
The reason they weren’t then at the front, (unescorted), was the legitimate concern that they might be mistaken
for infiltrators.  That wasn’t a problem with German Americans who served in significant numbers
fighting and dying against the Nazis in Europe.  In neither case was there a concern they would
turn weapons on their own fellow soldiers.

If you wish to argue otherwise as regards Japanese Americans you will also then
legitimize the internment camps.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 11-08-2009 10:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

If you wish to argue otherwise as regards Japanese Americans you will also then
legitimize the internment camps.



     I do not wish to justify the concentration camps.  

     I fail to see how I'm obligated to do so by your construction of events.    "If you wish to argue otherwise, then. . ." links together two non-causally related events as though there were a link between them.

     If our government had wished to do so, it could have sent large enough forces of Japanese Americans against the Japanese in the Pacific that confusion of forces would not have been an issue, or used them in actions that were limited in scope so that the correlation of forces would not have been a problem.  It was very nice to have interpreters running around, escorted; but they were escorted for much the same reasons that or Indian code speakers were escorted.  To control the possible leak of intelligence by shooting the translators before they fell into enemy hands.  The risk of having linguists close to the lines is that of the revelation of intelligence resources, not the protection of intelligence of replaceable assets.

     It is nice of you to try to put a smiley face on a regrettable necessity of war, though.  I doubt either the Indians, the Neisei or the Sansei would have had similar illusions about their actual situations.  They were unlikely to have the luxury of being so naive, and their caretakers would have been likely to remind them, given the actual feelings many troops had about anything Japanese.  Don't you think?

     I might also suggest that there weren't any units made up entirely of German Americans, though there were of Japanese Americans and of Black Americans.  As I recall, both those racially restricted units had white officers, though I may well be mistaken about that.  I would, in fact, be greatly cheered to learn that there were many more Black and Japanese American Officers in command positions than I had been aware of.  If you've run across such information, I'd appreciate knowing.  It'd make me believe that America was further along at the time that I thought.  I also believe that America was probably as far if not further — lest I be misunderstood — than other countries in that conflict.

     I still do not believe that sending Muslim Troops to fight Muslims in a war that has been (unfortunately) characterized (by our own side, no less) as a crusade, and which has been continued to be hyped as such by many of the far right religious elements in our society without a firm clearing of the air by either the Bush Administration or the current Obama Administration is a really really really great idea.  No no, I still do not.

     I believe you've meant well by your comments here, but I know they don't convince me for reasons that I've detailed above.  And if they don't convince me, you may have trouble convincing at least a reasonable minority of the Muslim troops involved that there isn't something to the potential paranoia they could be feeling.

     A lot of the Muslim-American community, by the way, seems to agree with you, if what I've seen on TV and heard on the radio has anything to it.  I think that says a lot about the country and the basic good-will we've generated.  That needs to be acknowledged, and I do acknowledge it here.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 11-08-2009 10:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, Bob, Bob....

You had me smiling all through your last reply...in a very good way. I was in complete agreement with your comments and the ways you laid them out. I was already planning on the glowing reply I was going to reward you with.

Conservatives are frequently the ones who talk about not needing extra laws to take care of crimes already covered.

....and then you have to, for no reason I can see, cap it off with a politically biased generality. Why didn't you quit when you were ahead??
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


14 posted 11-09-2009 04:01 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

          Probably because I don't always agree with you.  But it's nice to see that we can be on the same page once in a while.

     I think I'll most keep Bob, Bob Bobbing along, though.

BK

[This message has been edited by Bob K (11-09-2009 12:23 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


15 posted 11-09-2009 06:25 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Grinch,

It's a duck.


.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


16 posted 11-10-2009 01:53 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program,” reports the Washington Post.

Hasan went a different way. He opted to give a bizarre PowerPoint presentation in which he defended suicide bombing, explaining that non-believers should be beheaded, be burned alive, and have boiling oil poured down their throats (presumably not in that order). He argued that all Muslims should be discharged from the military.

One slide concluded: “We love death more then [sic] you love life!”

According to the Post, the medical staff in attendance was deeply disturbed by the incident. But there’s apparently no record of anyone’s reporting it to authorities. That would be insensitive and discriminatory.

The following year, intelligence officials discovered that Hasan had been sending e-mails to Anwar al-Aulaqi, a prominent American-born radical cleric now based in Yemen with ties to al-Qaeda.

The FBI concluded it was no big deal and dropped the matter. “Investigators,” reports the Post, “said Hasan’s e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.”

Ah yes, his “academic research,” which was laid out so rigorously in his PowerPoint presentation.

Hasan also reportedly expressed joy over the murder of an Army recruiter in Arkansas. His views were not a secret to his colleagues, nor apparently to his patients, whom he tried to proselytize.”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjZjA5YjMxYmM2ZmNhZjQ3ODQ4MzQ0OWVmYmFhZjE=&w=MQ   ==

.

It’s a duck.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 11-10-2009 02:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Definitely quacked....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


18 posted 11-10-2009 05:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
"The FBI and other federal authorities are reportedly still trying to figure out Maj. Nidal M. Hasan’s motive for opening fire at Fort Hood.

Let’s take a look at Hasan’s June 2007 50-slide presentation to senior Army doctors to see if we can unravel this mystery."


http://weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp


.

You can view the presentation through this site.  Notice it didn't take six months to find it.

"@philipaklein   If Hasan's slide presentation were authored by a neocon, it would be branded "Islamophobia." 11/10 1:53 P.M. - http://bit.ly/46jutx "

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


19 posted 11-10-2009 06:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I didn't find it very much of a mystery that the man was against deployment of Muslims in Iraq; as you point out, he made no secret of the fact.

     The mystery to me is why the Military insisted on retaining him, and insisted that they thought it would be a bright idea to send him there given everything he had said and done to make sure they knew otherwise.  Unless you're also accusing him of stealthy duplicity at the same time, in which case I would have to tell you that I beg to differ.

     Not only was the man a fairly obvious example of trouble on its way to happen, but from some of the reports earlier in this thread, there were many reports of exactly this that were submitted.  Who submitted them and to whom would be useful information, if it didn't endanger confidentiality and security.  At any rate, at some point these reports evidently either stopped being passed up the line (by whom would also be interesting to know) or fell upon deaf ears.  (Whose? and why were they deaf?)

     If the major was a time bomb, and I think it's clear that he was, somebody both knew that he was and refused to remove him for reasons that are at least in hindsight not good enough. . . .  There are always folks like the Major about.  There are sometimes things that can be done to identify them in advance, and prevent some of the explosions that follow in their wakes.

     One of these might include not sending muslims troops to fight muslims, by the way, especially in muslim territory.  We spoke of this briefly above, as I recall.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 11-10-2009 07:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

At any rate, at some point these reports evidently either stopped being passed up the line (by whom would also be interesting to know) or fell upon deaf ears.  (Whose? and why were they deaf?)

That's the question of the hour, Bob...and do you think that perhaps accusations of prejudice could have stayed their hand?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


21 posted 11-10-2009 07:57 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

" There are sometimes things that can be done to identify them in advance, and prevent some of the explosions that follow in their wakes.

     One of these might include not sending muslims troops to fight muslims"


Or Christians to fight Chistians
or . . . .
or . . .
or . . .

Just who is it fighting and dying in Pakistan,
Muslims against Zen Buddhists?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


22 posted 11-11-2009 06:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear John,

         If you're trying to suggest to me that we should require anybody to fight anybody, you've got the wrong guy.  I lucked out on the lottery in my draft year and qualified for a deferment for asthma, and despite both I demanded Conscientious Objector Status instead.  Because my lottery number was so high, I wouldn't have had to serve after I got it, which I did, but I worked for years afterward in a CO type job.  I'm a fairly convinced pacifist.  

     There is a fairly serious Muslim prohibition on Muslims warring upon other Muslims, and logically or not, they do take it seriously.  That doesn't mean that the Iranians and the Iraqis haven't fought wars, some of them pretty awful, and that there haven't been other muslim wars.  But many of them are doctrinal and are specifically about religion.  Does that make them better —  not to me.  But if you're devout, it can make a very large difference.

     And, frankly, if you're living in the middle of a society that is not treating your religion in a friendly way, then this will often bring out this sort of turning in from the folks who've been isolated and picked on.  How did you feel as a marine returning from Southeast asia at the end of an unpopular war and not exactly welcomed?  Did this make you wish to reach out and embrace those who were giving you a tough time, or did it force you back more into the company of those who had shared the experience with you in the first place?

     This is basic sociology.  This is basic humanity.

     Beyond that, Christianity doesn't have the same sort of prohibition that Islam has in these matters, not as absolute certainly, and the Government has made provision for most Christians and many of other faiths actually to opt out in the way that you are being so scornful about, as if it didn't exist.  It is the very same
Conscientious Objector program that I spoke about earlier.  In previous wars, it was possible to apply for such status even from within the military and to get it.  Sometimes proper legal representation was needed, and sometimes you might have to go to jail or suffer penalties, but that status was available, if you felt it was important enough.  

     With Major Hasan, we don't at this point know what counseling he got and what options he explored or was able to explore, but we do know that he was very much against this war on moral principles.

     What we don't know is how much of this could have been headed off if he'd gotten the proper support and counsel in an attempt to get CO status or in an attempt to work through some other solution.

     I hold Major Hasan responsible for his actions.  He is as responsible for essentially wiping out a platoon of soldiers at Fort Hood as he would have been responsible for wounding and killing a group of Muslims in a foreign country.  I see these both as crimes.  

     I want to know why the Major had to be retained at all costs in the Armed forces, however.  Somebody was evidently willing to take a chance that something like this would happen.  Whatever happens to Major Hasan, and I believe there ought to be consequences, I think we ought to make sure that we don't encourage this sort of situation to happen again.  At least two people knew that Major Hasan was a ticking bomb and they were perfectly willing to let him go off without  taking action to stop it.  The Major himself was one of them, and he did everything but take out ads in The New York Times.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven    
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


23 posted 11-11-2009 02:57 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Just what is the track record for Vietnam
vets, all those murderous crazy baby
killers; did they do this sort of thing; I forget?

Japanese Americans in WWII got
mentioned; when and where did any of them on a base blow away a bunch of American soldiers?

Could Hasan have just walked off base
and not come back, or go to a newspaper?

It's a duck.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 11-11-2009 04:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

yep, that's a thought. Wonder if Kerry is around somewhere today at a Veteran's Day gathering talking about those baby killers and murderers. From some of Obama's words during his campaign run he would probably back him.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Ralph Peters vs. Deadly Political Correc   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors