Thread: Did PC Enable The Ft. Hood Shooter ?

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I have been thinking about this question and it maybe that it did. OTOH, I compare the reports on the young Asian man who killed many fellow students in VA and there were numerous red flags reported after the fact and IIRC some before the incident occurred.

IMO the fact that the Ft. Hood shooter was in touch with terrorists is a serious consideration and should have been enough for the appropriate authorities to check him out throughly. Hindsight is 20-20.

I wonder if seeing an individual who you know slightly or intimately who fits the 'profile' for someone who might do something like this .... do you report that to the appropriate authorities ?

I believe that the average person would think twice before they made such a serious move against someone. I would have to be sure that I wasn't misinterpreting someones behavior or intentions before I took that drastic a step. OTOH, if I really thought someone needed to be brought to the attention of the authorities or people might get hurt I wouldn't hesitate. The track record of various authorities in recent history shows that they tend to be reluctant to act as well.

I have a friend who hates Muslims .... all of them.... with a passion and blames all of them for terrorism and 09-11. He is a gun collector and shooter who stockpiles ammo and a very angry guy in general. He is also a good and close friend. I don't share his views. Should I dime him out ? I don't think so. I can't believe he would act out. BTW, I'm not looking for advice. That is a rhetorical question.

I think you answered your own rhetorical question, Jimmy. If you heed the red flags (regardless of PC, race, religion, gender, age), stuff like this can be avoided. Anybody could have done this, and if history taught us anything, it doesn't take a Muslim to kill a whole bunch of people for no reason (VA Tech kid, Columbine, McVeigh, etc.)

I realize the major difference here is that this guy was in the US Military, but unfortunately, here's what's going to happen: people are going lean on the fact that the shooter was a Muslim and subsequently say that Muslims should not be allowed in the military. However, I'll say that the military was ill-advised in this case especially, and to blame the man's religion is people's way of covering up some extreme laziness. Let's not forget that the Army promoted this guy to Major (which I believe is below Colonel, which is below General) prior to his going bonkers at Ft. Hood -- and that was in light of what they already know about the guy.

Generalization is an ugly thing, and only as a last resort should it ever be considered. Think of the Japanese internment camps.

The guy was an obvious terrorist and was not 'crazy', he did not just 'snap', it was planned and intentional.
No one in the Administration has referred to him as what he is 'a terrorist'. Why?

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

The guy was an obvious terrorist and was not 'crazy', he did not just 'snap', it was planned and intentional.
No one in the Administration has referred to him as what he is 'a terrorist'. Why?

The administration wouldn't be wise to say anything publicly that the defense could use to say that their statements prejudiced the jury. Too bad the policeman didn't throw a head shot in there too.

For sure. ----

The gift that keeps on giving...

Newspaper threatened with ‘another Fort Hood’ for criticizing Tea Party protest | Raw Story