Disqus - Latest Comments for Polimom

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

JeffersonDavis — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:46:04 -0000

"the man had been absolutely broadcasting that, as a Muslim, he had major problems with his entire situation. He was radicalized and extremist in his views, and he was right out there with it. But he was kept in his role, even though he was clearly unfit for duty"

Amen, Polimom. But you can't just stop at blaming the Army. You must think a bit bigger on this one. I blame our apologetic culture. The Army KNEW all of this about Hasan. Yet, they were in CYA mode trying not to violate their "sensitivity training". They were afraid of losing their own commissions and/or getting busted down do actually do anything about it. We have become too daggone wussified in this country. If their is a threat that so happens to be a Muslim, neutralize the threat.

Our sensitive egg-shell walking citizenry needs to wake up to the fact that MUSLIM EXTREMISTS want us dead! The last time I looked - there weren't a lot of Vikings, Hindus, Martians, Christians, Atheists, or any other group that wants our people and our culture to die at their hands. Peaceloving Muslims should be alotted any and all considerations, but they too need to be understanding to the fact that they might get a second look now and again when our nation is being attacked by people who just so happen to dress or look the same way. Profiling? You bet you butt.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

ThurmanHart — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:18:45 -0000

I spent six years in the Navy and have probably have as many members of my extended family who have served as who haven't. Several of them have spent time at Ft. Hood.

The overwhelming amount of information coming out about his religious views, and how he viewed the war, etc., goes back years

Yes, but none of it really matters. Unless or until he shows a willingness to act on his views, or confides in someone that he either fantasizes about or is planning to hurt someone, then it doesn't reach a level of relevance beyond a simple wait and watch type activity. In short, even in the military, you are free to believe that America is wrong and/or is committing atrocities that are unforgivable. You are free to say that the political leadership is wrong or even evil. What you can't do is act against the United States. People in the military retain all of the rights of expression that everyone else in the country does.

I'm saying he should not have been retained at all. I've even read (not sure where it was) that he'd offered to pay back the $ that had been spent on his education -- and that was, again, long before he was under any kind of pre-deployment stress. If that's true (and I don't know that it is), then he, too, saw a major major problem coming down the pipe.

I've heard this, too. However, generally speaking, members are not allowed to buy their way out of a contractual obligation. It's the old bandwagon argument again - if you let doctors buy their way out; then how do you keep enough doctors around when the going gets tough? Beyond that, is it fair to let doctors buy their way out, but not auto mechanics?

Oddly enough, the only people I've actually seen get out of their contract were athletes who graduated from the service academies. But they didn't buy out their contract, they were released for the convenience of the military.

I agree. Do you think I'm blaming Islam? I'm not. Only an idiot would think all followers of Islam are violent fanatics. But this man is a zealot -- a fanatic who thinks the US is making war on his religion. Pretending his religion (or rather, his twisted version) didn't set this tragedy up is to bury one's head in the sand.

No, I don't think you are. But I think the way to understand it is that this man is a zealot because he is mentally unstable. The key to that is exactly what you said, it was a twisted version of religion that he used for justification (or so it looks to me).

There are dangerous versions of every religion, sadly.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

Polimom — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:09:53 -0000

ThurmanHart -- I gather from your comment here that you've deployed, and/or are otherwise involved with the military. Yes? No?

"In general, the military is reluctant to take someone off of active duty because of what they say. Rightly or wrongly, there is a fear that doing so will only encourage others to make the same sort of statements, whether they are heartfelt or no."

Yes, there's some truth to that. The slackers are always looking for an excuse. OTOH, Hasan didn't just start yammering about infidels and suicide bombers since being sent to Fort Hood. The overwhelming amount of information coming out about his religious views, and how he viewed the war, etc., goes back years. Not days. Not weeks or months. Not since he went on pre-deployment status. It was all the way back in 2003 (I think) that he first asked to get out of the military.... and he was told that it would be extremely difficult, due in part to the education : time-commitment problem, and because of the (well-known) shortage of Arabic speakers in the military.

Your point about how the might have handled him is too short-ranged. I'm saying he should not have been retained at all. I've even read (not sure where it was) that he'd offered to pay back the $ that had been spent on his education -- and that was, again, long before he was under any kind of pre-deployment stress. If that's true (and I don't know that it is), then he, too, saw a major major problem coming down the pipe.

"I also think it is wrong to blame Islam for his actions."

I agree. Do you think I'm blaming Islam? I'm not. Only an idiot would think all followers of Islam are violent fanatics. But this man is a zealot -- a fanatic who thinks the US is making war on his religion. Pretending his religion (or rather, his twisted version) didn't set this tragedy up is to bury one's head in the sand.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

Polimom — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:56:29 -0000

Ah -- yes, because we've seen so many psychiatrists going postal due to compassion fatigue. It's just amazing that anyone would consider any other explanation.
[/snark]

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

Almoderate — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:41:01 -0000

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/...

Regardless of religion, Hasan was a shrink and had been working with soldiers who suffered from PTSD, and it's been speculated (though not yet diagnosed) that Hasan was suffering from "compassion fatigue."

Perhaps I would see it as more of a religious/terrorism issue if the lone military gunman killing his fellow soldiers were a more isolated incident. But we've had enough non-Muslims with no terrorist associations doing this for this particular case of it being a Muslim to actually be an exception rather than the rule.

But my point stands that there is clearly a much larger problem in the screening of our soldiers. Aside from any mental health issues that Hasan may or may not have had, the federal government was well aware of his status. Another soldier at Fort Hood in particular was sent back out after being determined to be suicidal.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

ThurmanHart — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:38:48 -0000

In general, the military is reluctant to take someone off of active duty because of what they say. Rightly or wrongly, there is a fear that doing so will only encourage others to make the same sort of statements, whether they are heartfelt or no. That directly impacts operational readiness, perhaps to the extent that it would destroy the Army's ability to accurately predict when it can deploy any given unit.

Deployment, particularly during wartime, is a difficult maneuver, and soldiers progress through the standard stages of grief. This includes a very real anger and depression stage. It is during those times when something horrible is most likely to happen through either lashing out (anger) or lashing inward (depression). Normal procedure is to try and help soldiers through this - not remove them from active duty. Again, the focus is on unit preparedness, and that, in part, depends on unit cohesion to help pull soldiers back from the brink.

I agree with you that Hasan's behavior should have raised all sorts of red flags. However, it needs to be noted that Hasan bought a civilian gun, and he would not normally have been given a firearm as part of his duties. In fact, the most the Army would have done would have been to keep him stateside while they re-evaluate him. As long as he continued to say that he did not have any active plans to hurt anyone, the protocol would have been to kept him active and busy.

I don't think it's PC or beancounting that kept Hasan in the Army. It was simple standard operating procedure.

I also think it is wrong to blame Islam for his actions. Obviously, he found a strain of Islam that allowed him to focus his sick mind on violence towards those around him. But he would have used something else, just as easily, just as the Manson clan believed that Helter Skelter held secret messages about a race war. Hasan evidently turned his back on everything he once believed in and tried to commit "suicide by cop." That's pretty much the textbook definition of being crazy - or, at least, if it isn't crazy, then nothing is.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

Polimom — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:57:47 -0000

But of course, it could just be plain old incompetence. I truly want to believe that it's not the latter, but until we know more, it's certainly looking like a lot of people screwed up what should have been a no-brainer.

Yes. It's the likelihood that plain old incompetence ultimately set those people up to die that has me so angry.

Re: Report: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Knew Hasan Was Trying To Contact Al Qaeda

Polimom — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:46:53 -0000

I disagree, Almoderate. Unless you're going to classify religious extremism as a mental health issue, then Hasan's religion is absolutely relevant.

Furthermore, the Army is largely at fault for the deaths of those poor people at Fort Hood last week, and I've been growing angrier the more details come out.

Yes, other shootings happen. But in this particular case, the man had been absolutely broadcasting that, as a Muslim, he had major problems with his entire situation. He was radicalized and extremist in his views, and he was right out there with it. But he was kept in his role, even though he was clearly unfit for duty!!!

He was extremely dangerous in the position he was in. He should NOT HAVE BEEN THERE! The people who worked with him, as well as at least some of his supervisors, and reportedly the FBI (and now the CIA?) knew about him. There are very serious questions that need answered.

Some are speculating that it was PC run amok that led to Hasan being left on duty. Myself, I think it's a far more banal reason: beancounters weigh the cost of keeping and educating someone, and want "x" years paid back. It's not an unreasonable request under normal circumstances, but these were not normal.

Hasan is directly responsible for this horror, of course, but the Army bears a very strong secondary responsibility. Heads should roll over this.

Re: The Other Shooter: The Banality of Terror

Polimom — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:23:36 -0000

Ah. Well, okay then. That clears things right up.

Re: Fort Hood Twitter Atrocity

Polimom — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:57:39 -0000

There also a very real phenomenon that is caused? evoked? by the one-step-removal of a camera lens. As a photographer, I've long-since noticed that events that would normally horrify me as a spectator are neutralized through the lens. I've photographed graphic, horrifying scenes in nature that I could never, ever have simply watched.

I suspect this disassociation is at play as well in other arenas -- like Fort Hood.

Re: The Other Shooter: The Banality of Terror

Polimom — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:24:58 -0000

DQ, I'm having all kinds of trouble with your response. Who is "we" who are leaving "lots of people to rot"? This pathetic creature is luxuriating in the victim mentality. "Poor poor pitiful me!"

And what does your last sentence mean? "Unfortunately, they... go and kill the wrong people."

There's somebody who would be right to go and kill?

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

kathykattenburg — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:15:45 -0000

Merely noticing how differently an event can be interpreted.

Well, after about six years of political blogging, I'm used to that. It doesn't surprise me that Michelle Malkin thinks female Democratic House members are violating Republicans' rights by demanding the right to use their allotted time to speak w/o being shouted down. Malkin also thinks that women's reproductive health is "the gender card." I don't really have a lot of respect for the legitimacy of her views.

Re: Forensics Key To Shootings

Polimom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:48:08 -0000

There are quite a number of questions. For me, the biggest is why, when there were so many warning signs from this man, he was still on active duty -- much less about to be deployed.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

Polimom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:42:57 -0000

Funny. I was struck by how differently the scene is viewed, depending upon one's perspective. You seem to have covered the view from the left, Kathy. But the view from the right is much different (link).

A parade of female Democrats are using the House resolution process to play the gender card on Pelosicare and eat into general debate time through unanimous consent requests. GOP Reps are objecting. Chair John Dingell shutting up GOP reps. Repubs want an extension of an hour on debate to balance the female Dem circus.

No judgment being passed by me here. Merely noticing how differently an event can be interpreted.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

JeffersonDavis — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:28:04 -0000

Thanks for the concern, Polimom.....

A thousand miles from Fort Hood, but I wish I were there when it went down. Like to have had a crack at Mr. Hassan during his rampage. This particular Major must have had his fingers crossed when he took his oath. He's a scumbag, and no amount of punishment is justice enough.

As for the "grand plan", I was referring to how any item on a liberal agenda gets implemented - not necessarily a specific item. First innoculous demands under a guise of liberty or equality. Then comes the courts when they can't bend the will of the people. Not too uncommon, really.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:33:49 -0000

Serious. I'm being obtuse? Seriously. I understand fully well why someone might suspect terrorism. Everyone who spoke about it yesterday mentioned terrorism. It would be incomprehensible not to think about terrorism.

But this site led with a title claiming terrorism. Yes, I know - "possible." Every responsible reporter said, "Nothing can be ruled out, not even terrorism." This site leads with the idea it is terrorism. See - one way includes terrorism but urges caution because it isn't known. The other way heightens fear and urges people to be afraid. It's known as fear-mongering. I know you understand this, because I've read enough of your writing to know you do.

But I'm being obtuse? It is irresponsible to leave that title. Even Fox News knows when to issue a retraction.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:23:37 -0000

ThurmanHart, are you being deliberately obtuse? Seriously. Reports of several shooters, implying a coordinated event. On an Army base that deploys soldiers to two wars. And you ask why somebody might suspect possible terrorism?

Jeesum!

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:19:13 -0000

Oh, hey, the "possible" thing. Well, it was "possible" that the Russians had invaded us, too. Why not put that in the title? The only thing that was known was that an attack had occurred, and the responsible way to report it would have been to say "an attack has occurred." Why immediately go after terrorism? Why tag it as war? Oh, "possible." Yeah. Well, not to worry then.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

ThurmanHart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:15:33 -0000

So sorry that insisting on honesty, facts, and good reporting is "wearing out the rug." Publishing things comes along with a tiny bit of responsibility. Unfortunately, that seems to have been missed by a few people.

I'll give it a rest right after the families of the dead get over their soldiers being killed. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:09:22 -0000

ThurmanHart, you're kind of wearing out the rug on this. The first reports on the story, if you'll look back at yesterday, were of several shooters. At one point, we were told that two were in custody and one was dead. I think the title was precisely right, given the early reporting, right down to the "possible" -- which you seem to be consistently overlooking.

It was written at a point in time, with the current information, on a breaking story. Give it a rest already.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

kathykattenburg — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:47:32 -0000

I will add my relief to that. Polimom can back me up that I was worried about you, JD. :-)

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

CStanley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:07:11 -0000

Thanks...you too, Polimom.

Re: Details Emerging About Accused Fort Hood Massacre Shooter Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:10:22 -0000

sparkles43 -- you are perhaps correct. It may be that I'm jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, and that this had nothing to do with his religion after all. However, I'm certainly not condemning all Americans of that faith; on the contrary, I fear for them.

Editing to add, before I forget again -- Joe, this is a great round-up. Thank you very much!

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:20 -0000

"Giving gays a hard time and discouraging their committed relationships simply doesn't accomplish anything."

Actually, Dr J -- though I share your general views, I would say that discouraging their committed relationships does, in fact, accomplish something. It perpetuates the marginalization -- the forced subculture, if you will -- of otherwise traditional people who wish to contribute to society, and be part of it.

With all due respect to JeffersonDavis, this is where I feel the social traditionalists are missing the boat.

Re: Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX

Polimom — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:55:58 -0000

Glad to see you CStanley. Really.