Skip to main content

After hearing and reading about the bits and pieces of information gleaned from the press investigations of Dr. Hasan, I would like to post a possible scenario in which the Major's action could be plausible, at least to a distraught individual. For what it's worth here is what I think the motive was for the shootings.

Dr. Hasan joined the Army ROTC while at Virginia Tech.  He made a deal with the ARMY to put him through school for a six year stint in the regular Army upon his completion.  After 9/11 and after completing his training, he petitioned the Army to be discharged and offered to repay the Army for the educational expenses.

Dr. Hasan complained of discrimination based upon his religion
and became bitter about his treatment and the treatment of the Iraqi civilians during the US invasion and occupation of that country.

As a psychiatrist he heard the stories of the atrocities of both sides from the returning Soldiers. I am sure that there were many stories about what the solders did or observed resulting in civilian casualties.  Also, the Iraqi people were referred to by the soldiers in derogatory religious slurs.

When he received his orders for deployment he most likely was horrified that he would now be tacitly responsible for these same atrocities against the Afghanistan civilians in the war.

He was a devout Muslim and he would now be asked to fight against the Muslim's and this was a serious emotional conflict.  Dr. Hasan has written about how suicide was not justified in any situation, yet he was at a point that to be true to his religious beliefs he would have to take some decisive action.

It was obvious that he did not plan to return to his apartment after going on post Thursday and gave all indications, save for the lack of suicide note, of committing suicide but couldn't because of his stated beliefs about taking one's own life.  

The final result, in my opinion, was that Dr Hasan had to declare a Jihad against his own countrymen in the name of saving lives of his Muslim brothers. He knew that by shooting US soldiers he, himself would be shot and killed and by dying this way he could become a martyr in his faith, the only acceptable way of killing himself but not by his own hand.

This scenario would be logical in the mind of a man who could not find a legal way to be discharged from a war that he disagreed with on moral grounds and could escape his situation with glory in his religious beliefs.

Originally posted to AZ AF VET on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:09 PM PST.

Poll

What was Hasan's Motive for this action.

67%284 votes
15%65 votes
7%33 votes
4%19 votes
4%20 votes

| 421 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    "Let the strength of your words come from your deeds" Jerry Riopelle Singer

    by AZ AF VET on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:09:42 PM PST

    •  You're right on target in two ways: (8+ / 0-)

      One, it's essential that we find out why this happened, in the same way as it's essential to find the causes of disease.   The idiots who are ranting against your diary may as well be ranting against public health or forensic science.  

      Two, I think your hypothesis is plausible.  Ask any police officer about the syndrome known as "suicide by cop," where a distraught person start shooting at police in an attempt to get them to shoot him (usually it's a "him").  

      Three, I'm calling out "Ontheleftcoast" to delete the HR, for the above reasons, and anyone else who is even tempted to click HR for this damn well ought to think twice as well.  

      Brushing something under the rug does NOT make it go away.

    •  And three, about logical double binds: (5+ / 0-)

      A logical double-bind is "damned if you do, damned if you don't."  

      It's one of the surest ways to break a mammalian brain.  This works all the way down to the level of mice in the lab.  

      The mammal brain is hardwired to detect inconsistency in its environment.  Logical contradiction is a form of inconsistency.  When you insert "sense of self" in the loop, that is, when the individual (be it mouse or human) finds themselves personally harmed by the outcome of the logical contradiction, they break: they start exhibiting irrational and self-damaging behavior.  

      If your hypothesis is correct, this is what happened to the shooter.  

      And I think it is spot-on.  

      Note to those who prefer to sweep things under rugs, or who derive satisfaction from moral outrage or from thinking themselves better than others;  I know how that game works too, don't even try to go there with me or I'll shred your arguement faster than an NSA-grade document shredder.  

      •  Exactly so. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Fabian, allep10

        Long before brain biology was used to understand "mental illness," researchers believed the double-bind had a role in schizophrenia.

        The science is ongoing, but it is consistent with an understanding of being "between a rock and a hard place" as a factor.

        From what I've read about his background and events that transpired, it is almost impossible that he didn't feel internal conflict beyond what most of us can comprehends.

        Not to say that killing others is an appropriate response, but perhaps it is understandable in his complex circumstances.

        •  it's understandable as an outcome of.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, greengemini

          head-breakage.

          That doesn't make it right, nor should it soften the sentence upon conviction.  

          But it also explains some of the violent crime in society at-large: the rage crimes, the "suddenly snapped" crimes, and the huge amount of stress that doesn't translate to crime but causes illness and social dysfunction.  

          A rational culture would seek to eliminate or minimize logical double-binds.  

    •  Why the hr (4+ / 0-)

      I believe this is a reasonable topic to be discussed whether you disagree or not.

    •  And four, the lessons learned: (5+ / 0-)

      The military already learned the lesson about logical double-binds when it comes to principled pacifists.  Someone who is hardwired for pacifism can't be trained to be an effective soldier, because at the moment when everything depends on them pulling the trigger, they will hesitate, and that will ultimately cost lives.  

      For this reason, people who are, or who discover that they are, principled pacifists, can be exempted from the draft or discharged from the service without penalty.  

      This lesson needs to be extended to deal with the contingency of people who are in logical double-binds with other elements of their assigned duties.  It does NOT mean giving people an out any time they want it.   In some cases it may mean additional training to overcome a double-bind.  In some cases it may mean a different assignment.  But the bottom line here is, we have an obligation to do what is needed to have an effective fighting force, and if that means exercising a greater degree of selectivity regarding people and assignments, or if that means providing additional training of some kind, then let's do it.  

      This event is just the tip of a larger iceberg.  Under the surface are many who are conflicted over their roles, or who are psychologically distraught.  They may never commit any crimes as a result, but it is highly likely that they will be less effective soldiers than otherwise.  

      For the effectiveness of our military, and for the wellbeing of all of its members, we need to learn these lessons and find ways of implementing them.  

      •  G2geek, in WW2, Quakers were often (0+ / 0-)

        assigned as corpsmen/medics.

        Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:35:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  difference between 1AO and 1O. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cai, Flaming Liberal for Jesus

          1O = complete objection to participating in warfare in any way.  

          1AO = objection to duties that might entail taking lives, open to alternative duties in warfare that do not, such as medic.  

          The above dates back at least to Vietnam.  

          But another thing that was done with complete objectors in WW2 was to use them in medical experiments.   Fortunately we've gotten past that point.

          It is entirely likely that a lot of Quakers and others decided that the 1AO provisions, or their WW2 equivalent, were an acceptable way to fulfill both their duty to country and duty to conscience.  

          I was a complete pacifist at one time, but that changed over time, so I understand this one from both sides.  

  •  Well, his dozen victims (6+ / 0-)

    no longer have to worry about "the horror of war that he heard about from returning troops."

    Why don't you try reading the rules, Shankopotamus?

    by bugscuffle on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:14:27 PM PST

    •  Don't laugh. (0+ / 0-)

      The murder part of a murder/suicide if often to "spare" the victims from a worse fate.

      This is especially true if the suicide is a caretaker or sole income for the other(s).

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:47:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For the love of beer... (21+ / 0-)

    Please fix the spelling error in your title..
    And...I further a plea to put all this speculation on hold.

    Savez-vous quelque bien qui console du regret d'un monde?

    by DawnoftheRedSun on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:15:11 PM PST

  •  BTW, (10+ / 0-)

    he joined the military after the First Gulf War, and during the intense period of the Iraq sanctions and no-fly zone.  I am in no mood to explain this tragedy outrage.

    Why don't you try reading the rules, Shankopotamus?

    by bugscuffle on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:16:57 PM PST

    •  The Point Isn't to Excuse It But Prevent Others. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, mariachi mama, freesia

      Troop on troop violence has occurred in the field in the present wars, it was a big deal in Vietnam, and without knowing I'd suspect it was an issue in early America where we had natives in the military while the military was often fighting natives.

      I watched Barry Goldwater on Johnny Carson explaining the need to keep the conscientious objectors out of combat.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:26:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dr. Hassan should get the stiffest (12+ / 0-)

    penalty under the law. I'm sorry, but he was wrong to kill those people. He willingly signed up to join the Army, which paid for his medical school. The Army spent probably $200K+ to enable him to become a psychiatrist. And so I can understand, given the strong need for military doctors, especially psychologists and psychiatrists, why they wouldn't allow him to leave even if he repaid them back.

    I don't care if Dr. Hassan disagreed with US foreign policy, but that gave him no right to murder those other soldiers and civilians who were at Ft. Hood. He may have even sympathized with the enemy, per blog posts that caught the attention of law enforcement; but that still doesn't give him the right to murder others.

  •  this diary isn't helpful (9+ / 0-)

    calling the shooter a jihadist is just what the wingers are pushing today. Take it down or take the criticism.

    •  Well he did post comments on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, BlackSheep1

      blogs that caught the attention of law enforcement, so he very well could have been a jihadist.

    •  Just on Olbermann: He said he was a Muslim (4+ / 0-)

      first and an American second. He couldn't find a wife because he wanted her to were a hijab.

      Either he was stressing his religion more and more because he wanted out of the service and thought maybe that would do it (Klinger in Mash) or he did sincerely believe.

      While I can understand his conflict in being sent to the middle east, he was a doctor and not in the infantry. Doubtful he would have to take a life of another Muslim.

      I know I've expressed my suppositions about this, but what ever his reasons, now is not the time to explain his actions based on our own individual feelings about the war and racism.

      None of us  know exactly why he did what he did.

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by auapplemac on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:52:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What does it matter? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    houyhnhnm

    Crazy guy kills people, details at 11.  It's always the same except for the nominal justification, which is always delusional so who cares?

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:25:10 PM PST

  •  Can someone please explain why this isn't (9+ / 0-)

    considered an offensive diary? I'm sorry, but jumping to the conclusion that a jihad (not capitialized BTW) of the sword was declared by Major Hasan is just wrong. It is nothing more than idle speculation and hateful at that. I'm dropping the pastry until someone can convince me I'm wrong.

    I stand by the truth, that way I don't have to be near any Republicans.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:25:30 PM PST

    •  I'm sure it is offensive to some. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, jeff in nyc

      It may also be true.  Which is more important to you?

      There are also some other reports that bolster the diarists case.  (I'm not sure if they have been confirmed yet.)  Namely, the existence of a blog post where the shooter compared suicide bombers to soldiers who jump on grenades to save their comrades, and a report that he shouted "Allah Akbar" before he commenced firing.  (The base commander reported the latter.)  As I said, I'm not sure either of those have been confirmed by investigators yet.

      And while all Muslims are by no means terrorists, I think the fact that there is a connection between Islam and most of the terrorism that occurs in the world today should be obvious to anyone willing to see it.  Bin Laden didn't quote from the Quran in his videos because that was the only book he happened to have available.

      •  Here is a link on the allahu akbar comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jeff in nyc
      •  Maybe the fact that we don't know (0+ / 0-)

        should be enough to prevent a rush to judgement? I'm actually offended as much by the idle speculation as the prejudice. We simply don't know what really happened. And what is the harm in waiting to find out? Will we be any better off knowing what caused this tragic event today, tomorrow, or next week? Why are we in such a hurry to assume the worst. He may not even have been on a jihad, he might have simply used it as cover.

        But it is also quite clear the community doesn't agree with my view. The tip jar has gained a few tips and only my hide rate. Apparently time alone will remove this diary.

        I stand by the truth, that way I don't have to be near any Republicans.

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 06:18:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Was said to have yelled, "Allahu Akbar." n/t (0+ / 0-)

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by auapplemac on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is pretty offensive and stupid. (4+ / 0-)

    "Everybody lies... except POLITICIANS? House, I do believe you are a romantic."

    by indiemcemopants on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:26:43 PM PST

  •  I'm pretty tired of hearing this line (7+ / 0-)

    He was a devout Muslim and he would now be asked to fight against the Muslim's and this was a serious emotional conflict.

    I've seen it in several places, used as an excuse/reason.  Last time I looked, medical doctors in the military don't fight against anyone.  He's not combat arms, he's not going to be put out there with a rifle and told "the enemy's over there."  His job is to treat the sick and wounded - of any creed.  Yes, they also treat enemy combatants and civilians.  So, you know what?  The whole "fight against other Muslims" is a bogus reasoning, and if he made that, it's just another excuse for someone with a lot of other problems.  

    I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

    by Norbrook on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:27:44 PM PST

    •  Here is what Army psychiatrists do..... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mango, SnowCountry, greengemini

      in combat zones.  Work with people who break down after they are in war and patch them together with effective counseling so they can return to combat.  This leads to less severe PTSD in most cases.  I am sure Dr. Hasam was having some problems with doing his job.  

      I have speculated in a similar way to the diarist about the motivations of this individual.  I don't find the speculation by the diarist particularly heinous- pretty logical given those facts we have heard.  

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:44:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know what they do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fabian

        I was stationed at Walter Reed.  But, using the "fight against Muslims" as a reasoning is very, very specious.  It's also not a good idea to speculate wildly - as has been going on far to much in the media and here.  

        I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

        by Norbrook on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 07:16:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The mental gymnastics... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mango, bugscuffle, bruddaone, waiting

    that some on this site will perform in order to avoid confronting inconvenient facts that do not fit their worldview is a continuing source of amazement.

  •  And if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, bruddaone

    the computer forensics find what I think they'll find, I'll have no qualms about calling him an Islamist terrorist.

    Why don't you try reading the rules, Shankopotamus?

    by bugscuffle on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:30:35 PM PST

    •  Exactly....n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bugscuffle
    •  how'bout you spell that out for us. (2+ / 0-)

      Islamic terrorist?   The short version of the FBI definition of terrorism is "the use of violent or coercive means in furtherance of ideological goals."

      Are you telling us that this guy acted in furtherance of an ideological goal?

      If so, spell it out.  Make a case, not just an assertion.  

      •  13 dead, 30-plus wounded's a pretty damn (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bugscuffle

        straightforward use of violent or coercive means, IMNVHO.

        furtherance of ideological goals?

        He's not deploying, now, is he?

        Pretty damn simple. At the very least it's an act of mutiny and/or treason. It's not beyond the limits of reason to consider that maybe it was also a political statement -- although by preference he'd've cut and run for the border of Mexico or Canada and fought extradition for desertion.

        Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:43:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  evading deployment is not ideological. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Flaming Liberal for Jesus

          It's self-interest in one form or another.

          But going on a shooting rampage while surrounded by soldiers is a pretty damn good way of making sure you end up dead.  

          Three days before he did this, he gave away all of his personal belongings.  That's a classic sign of a pending suicide attempt.

          Mutiny is organized, and treason is aiding a foreign enemy.  Neither of those fits this.   This is multiple counts of murder and attempted murder.  

          The man's head snapped and he went nuts.  That is not an excuse, nor is it justification for a less severe punishment than would apply otherwise.   If I'm not mistaken, he can be put before a firing squad for this, and if that's what the UCMJ calls for, then so be it.  Otherwise, life without parole.  

          BTW, I am not one of those "soft on crime" types.  I've helped send three people to prison: a violent stalker, a strong-arm robber, and a burglar.  I spend some of my time working in something that aids the prosecution of extremists of all stripes.  

          This guy deserves to pay the full penalty for his crimes, but it's important that we understand, accurately, what those crimes were and what the motives were.  

    •  baloney (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, greengemini

      And the worst kind of baloney, at that: FOXNews baloney.

      No, i'm not too interested in standing up for that dirtbag. If he really wanted to keep from being deployed so badly he could have done the honourable¹ thing and shot himself in the foot. Instead, he opted to go out by making a "statement" to his fellow muslims (the ones being killed and maimed, that is) and hoping for death-by-cop—which is always a sad fucking situation.

      But, terrorist?! WTF are you talking about? Was he planning the next "9/11"? No, i think not. This was nothing more than the next shitty, run-of-the-mill-by-now mass-murder in America with the added spice that it involved a muslim and the military. He was a disturbed individual. A terrorist he most certainly was not.

      ¹ Hey—it's a hell of a lot more honourable than killing your fellow soldiers.

      "They're telling us something we don't understand"
      General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

      by subtropolis on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 06:22:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is no "logic" to mass murder (3+ / 0-)

    Do the right thing and delete.

    Light is seen through a small hole.

    by houyhnhnm on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:36:14 PM PST

    •  that's just downright idiotic. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, mango

      The reason we need to understand why he did it, is the same as the reason we need to understand what causes a disease and how it is spread.  

      Prevention and treatment.

      Your wish for the diarist to delete, is the same kind of obscurantism that tries to block funding for public health.  

      •  This is idiotic (0+ / 0-)

        This scenario would be logical in the mind of a man who could not find a legal way to be discharged from a war that he disagreed with on moral grounds and could escape his situation with glory in his religious beliefs.

        We need to understand how to identify potential mass murderers before they blow a bunch of people away.  That's the public health aspect.

        We don't need to understand why he did it.  There is no why.

        Light is seen through a small hole.

        by houyhnhnm on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 06:26:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fabian

          The "how" depends on the "why."

          Ever hear the word "motive"?    

          Crimes have motives.  The "why" is the motive.  Understanding the motives is integral to preventing the crimes.   This is Detective 101 stuff.  

  •  Punishment posting? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, mariachi mama

    I posted this in another thread but it seems to dovetail somewhat into your analysis.

    There seems to be emerging a history of him being the victim of anti-Muslim discrimination combined with a deepening of his faith. There are news reports of him previously equating Bush's "global war on terrorism" with war on Islam, which in the context of Bush's original "crusade" comments is not unreasonable.

    We are told that he had bad performance reports from Walter Reed - could this have been a result of him expressing his views rather than his clinical performance? CBS reports that after posting to Fort Hood, his car was vandalised and a Muslim bumper sticker ripped off.

    It has to be asked whether his "increasing radicalism" was the result of both his personal treatment and from what he had heard from his PTSD patients. The latter may well have reinforced his views of a "war on Islam". We also have to consider the posting into the more violent of the two theaters which was the very thing that he had expressed the most opposition to. What led the army to make that decision. When I heard about that, the term "punishment posting" came to mind. That is, deliberately posting somebody to a tour of duty that in anathema to them. Faced with that he had applied to be relieved of the duty but I understand was refused and he had hired a lawyer to oppose it.

    Could he ultimately have come to the conclusion that it was his duty to stop as many soldiers as he could from being posted to Afghanistan in order to save fellow Muslims? At the same time, knowing he would likely be killed in the exchange, he would avoid being posted himself.

    None of this excuses his actions but in understanding the process leading up to them, they can be avoided in other cases. On here there have been numerous diaries about the increasing evangelism in the US armed forces and the degree to which some senior officers have been endorsing it, also of the attacks on Muslim Americans as terrorists, before this incident and the extent to which the Right used Obama's Muslim names to attack him last year.

    In short, it should be seriously examined whether those responsible for this incident include more than the person in a coma in hospital but also to the halls of the Pentagon and the GOP and, it must be said, to the previous administration as well.

    Where I would disagree with you is your use of jihad in this context. It suggests some form of alignment with a movement or the AlQaeda connection that the FBI and the right appear to be promoting. I also think your suggestion of "suicide by police" is a little simplistic.

    "Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism." Sir Gerald Kaufman, British MP and son of Holocaust survivor.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:56:06 PM PST

  •  He justified suicide bombing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, greengemini

    And by accounts, he argued that America was at war with Islam, he became angry when a fellow Muslim soldier at Ft. Worth suggested the Taliban were not good Muslims, he fell under the mentorship of a radical spiritual adviser.

    •  if that's correct, that's a piece of the puzzle. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      "...he fell under the mentorship of a radical spiritual advisor."  

      This needs to be examined further, as it may be an important piece of the puzzle.

      Fact is that all kinds of religious extremists have been swarming the US military for years now.  The influence of religious extremists in the US Air Force is a well known problem: keyword search "Army of God" and a few other relevant terms and you'll find plenty on this.  

      The use of religion to camouflage or justify various forms of subversion of soldiers, has got to be stopped.  The worst of it is the extreme right wing "Christian" groups, because they are most numerous.  Going after any part of this, e.g. Christian or Muslim, will enable going after all of the rest of it.  And while we're at it, the various racial "identity" movements (mostly white) need to be dealt with as well.  

      For those who want to make a 1st Amendment claim, that doesn't fly: in case you forgot, part of the tradeoff with military life is accepting a degree of constraint upon civil liberties that is considered necessary in the role of a professional soldier.   (Or would you like to see Generals and Admirals in uniform, campaigning for presidential candidates too?)

      •  UCMJ provisions barring political acts exist for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        a damn good reason and go back to the Revolutionary War (1776).
        We've had big-time military who've done unethical political grandstanding and some who've been busted fundraising / churchifying in uniform, and IMNVHO the book ought to be thrown at every stinking one of 'em from w on down.

        Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:48:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen to that! (0+ / 0-)

          Every single one.  

          Obama needs to issue a zero-tolerance policy for all of this stuff.  All forms of proselytizing or campaigning while in uniform, and membership in any organization that subverts good order & discipline in the ranks.  

          If you want to see the example that takes the cake, keyword search "OathKeepers" and go check out their site (keep a puke bucket handy).  I've known about them for a few months longer than any of the media or blogs including this one, but now that the cat's out of the bag I can mention them openly.  I can tell you with 100% certainty that they are being watched closely.  A couple of us around here are going to be high-fiving when those people get busted.  BTW, re. your other comment about "mutiny or treason," OathKeepers is precisely what is meant by "fomenting mutiny."  

  •  People kill people every day.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian

    for all kinds of reasons. I would imagine that all that take it that far have a nice cocktail of emotional distress going for them. Even he might not know right now, why he did it. I've been into the suicide end of this kind of thing, and had a brief glimpse into the homicidal side. I am not a Muslim though, so I guess my experience is meaningless.

  •  Hasan was a physician (4+ / 0-)

    And therefor a non-combatant. His entire time in the war zone he could have made the decision to not carry arms. The idea that he was "going to war" against other Muslims is nonsense. He was going to provide help to people who needed his care. He was there to heal, not fight.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 06:44:13 PM PST

  •  Everyone knows it's Marilyn Manson's fault. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl



    When did Vietnam become Nixon's War?

    by ben masel on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 06:53:51 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site