Did PC Enable The Ft. Hood Shooter ?

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.

It should seem evident to anyone that it certainly did. At a very tragic price. Here is an article by Michelle Malkin - Blind Diversity Equals Death - Michelle Malkin » P.C. in the U.S.A.: A deadly, bipartisan infection
And only if we thought that there is a chance that someone would actually act out something (unlike your friend) it would ultimately be better to err on the side of caution considering the consequences like at Fort Hood.
Heads should definitely roll because of it.

Hindsite always makes things seem as clear as crystal. Authorities get tips all the time. So many in fact they can't keep track of all of them. I know because I did that kind of stuff. Trying to figure out the guys who really are dangerous from ones who aren't is a monumental job and the authorities who do that kind of thing are short staffed anyway.

The bit I've listened to this horror it seems his former colleagues at Walter Reed considered him a coworker who was a huge problem (which had nothing to do with his race). A dud. Refusing to answer the phone when on call, coming in late habitually, etc. They wanted and felt the needed to get rid of him but.......PC being so pervasive it seems to be only hinted at that PC was the reason they didn't move hard on firing the bad worker/loser.

PC is bad. Superficially, it seems like a good idea. However, it binds action, thought and communication so well that it's easy for just about anyone with an agenda and a plan to implement just about anything. It's too bad.

Chris L

There's another big factor that enabled him... some time after 9/11, all the show-stoppers have been removed from the recruitment process to be able to fill the ranks. It used to be that having white supremacist tattoos would disqualify you on the spot... it is no longer the case and I have seen it with my own eyes. There was a very detailed article on the subject last year, I'll try to locate it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Hindsite always makes things seem as clear as crystal. Authorities get tips all the time. So many in fact they can't keep track of all of them. I know because I did that kind of stuff. Trying to figure out the guys who really are dangerous from ones who aren't is a monumental job and the authorities who do that kind of thing are short staffed anyway.

---

That's when statistics come very handy

Today on Talk of the Nation they had a very revealing and interesting segment on the "alleged" shooter and you can hear it here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Today on Talk of the Nation they had a very revealing and interesting segment on the "alleged" shooter and you can hear it here

---

.. or read it here: What Can We Learn From Fort Hood? : NPR

everyday more evidence of this maniac comes to light. many say they were afraid to report him. they fear being called a bigot, racist, and all types of titles that would severely impact advancement inside of the military.
PC has got to stop, especially inside military ranks. when i was in, if we saw a problem, we reported NOW. we did not take chances with our fellow service members. the MOST important thing you need in the military is to be able to absolutely trust the people around you at all times. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
you do not want to be in combat with someone who is a coward or cannot be trusted to give up their life for you and vice versa...
our men and women in the service deserve only the best and not have fears of being attacked within.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 59caddy

the MOST important thing you need in the military is to be able to absolutely trust the people around you at all times. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
you do not want to be in combat with someone who is a coward or cannot be trusted to give up their life for you and vice versa...

---

I am quite sure that the imam who was giving instructions to Hasan knew that very well indeed.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :shrug:

For sure. ----

The gift that keeps on giving...

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