Fort Hood

Remove all ads!

Fair enough, but in a case like Hasan's, what reason is there to let him live? I understand that he deserves a vigorous defense, but outside of a defense lawyer, I find it sickening that people will come up with lame excuses for his crimes. But sure as stink in a skunk, we'll have people lighting candles and crying if the US manages to convict him.

 

What excuses are you talking about? I think you have confused reasons for excuses. There is quite a big difference between them. Saying that Hasan was/is insane and his spree should be treated the same way as other loonie killing sprees. LKD, I think you should really examine your opinions cause it seems like you are living your life by building up incredibly evil straw men and then get pissed off at them and knock them down.

 

He killed several people while shouting "Allahu Akbar". That's no pie in the sky straw man. That's a fact. And the fact that I don't buy the idea that he was "sick" or "not responsible for his actions" doesn't mean I'm erecting a straw man -- it means I believe that people should be responsible for their own actions.

 

Who is saying he shouldn't be responsible for his actions? From what I have seen people have been saying that this seems to have been a shooting like Columbine or any of the other sadly numerous shootings lately and not a terrorist strike per se but the act of a deranged lunatic who happened to be of Arabic descent instead of white and bullied or Korean and spurned or whatever the problem was with that guy. You keep on attributing opinions to others and when you are called on it you say that you didnt mean "you" but those "others" that there are lots of those "others" who say and believe what you attribute to them.

 

My posts must be unclear -- I do not often attribute to posters on this board things that they have not said. However, I do attribute such opinions to those who obviously have them -- them you can just turn on your television and see for yourself.

 

I can't believe you think that prison's are more comfortable than what even 10% of American's have to live in. My brother was in a jail (yes, I get that it's not a prison) for an extended period and pretty much all he did was peel eggs, work-out, and essentially work as slave labor for the county. That just seems like it rocks.

As far as this case goes, I can see why people would jump to terrorists conclusions, but it has far too many similarities to other shooting rampages than to automatically jump to terrorism.

Profiling is another tricky issue as well. It's gotten to the point where if somebody looks like foreigner, I'll probably like them more, because they tend to be better people all around. A Korean guy once told me I was "too nice to be an American" and I've heard similar things since then. A huge percentage of my friends at college are Muslims as well as having African, or Middle Eastern descent. If I was asked to profile those who looked most likely to commit crimes from the people in my peer group, loner or dousher white guys would probably be questioned the most.

And wow, that paragraph doesn't flow well, but I think you'd get the point.

Just because a tiny minority of a group commits certain acts, doesn't mean you have the right to label them all as hazardous to society.

 

Eh. I really don't see people crying or getting upset over this guy's death - unless he turned out to be a sympathetic character, but I doubt it at this point.

You shouldn't take opposition to the death penalty as support of the killer. I don't care at all if he dies. There are some times when I hear about crimes in America when I hope the bastard gets the death penalty, and if I heard they'd died in horrible agony I would cheer (well, that's for special cases only. I try not to make a habit over cheering about people dying in horrible agony ).

All the same, I would prefer the death penalty be abolished because I don't feel that an institution should have that sort of power. If it's not an option it can't be abused at any point, and that would be well worth letting the scum of the earth live, imo.

... is that the same as urinating on the graves of the victims? Because y'know, I think that's absurd.

As Drew said - there's a wide variety of reasons for opposing the death penalty. It doesn't have to do with having sympathy for the people on death row. In fact, I'd say (at a fairly wild guess, I admit) that reason would be in the minority.

 

It's a straw man because no one here is arguing that he is not responsible for his actions due to mental illness. You are rebutting an argument that no one is making.

 

Drew, several people have already said he's "insane". In the legal sense, that means he's not responsable for his actions and shouldn't go to jail. Of course, that plea usually doesn't work, and many of the mental wards they get sent to are as bad if not worse than prison, but if you say he is "insane" in any context dealing with a court, you are saying he's not responsable for his acitons.

 

I read the same thread you did and not a single person suggested that Hassan meets the legal criterion for insanity. I think we can all agree that Jeffrey Dahmer was insane. I also think we can all agree that he knew killing people and eating them was wrong when he did it.

 

Dahmer was undoubtably a sociopath, which doesn't meet the definition of legal insanity. Most murderers ranting about God or gods, however, end up being schizophrenics of one type or another, and are not responsable for their actions. And this all started with comparing him to a christian shooting people while yelling "Jesus is great!"

In short, I do think the comparison has been made, if not overtly.

Furthermore, while I don't think it's a correct comparison, I do think it's a legitimate topic. I don't believe for a second that this guy was insane by any real definition of the term, but it is something that needs to be looked into.

 

Ding! Insane, but not legally insane. Had I thought Dahmer was legally insane (and therefore not responsible for his actions) I would have said so, just as anyone who honestly believes Hasan fits the legal definition of insanity would have done.

I'm going to call you on this one. If you want me to believe that that an argument that Hasan fits the legal definition of insanity has been proffered, the lest you can do is provide me with a direct quote. Twisting a statement into meaning something unintended by the speaker doesn't change the speaker's intent.

"Insane" means insane. "Legally insane" means legally insane. Everyone here is aware of the difference between insanity and legal insanity, so the best possible interpretation for the word "insane" is "insane". If the speaker meant "legally insane", the speaker would have used that term. Doing a bunch of mental gymnastics and deliberately twisting an argument doesn't change the original intent of the speaker.

 

But that's what this guy was ranting: "Allah Akbar." Nevertheless, let's cut to the chase here: LKD didn't craft his thread about Hasan, but another excuse to attack "liberals for endangering our way of life." Take a look at the opening post.

 

Hmmm, mindreading, are we? I would term it more as "people not responding appropriately to attacks on our way of life."

As I see it, the whole "insanity as an excuse for evil acts" argument, or any other argument that tries to justify what terrorists do, is not an appropriate response. In any event, I never said anyone here has made the argument for Hasan. I have yet to see it made in the media -- yet. But mark my words, people around the country will start making it, just as there were people who tried to minimize the 9/11 attacks by making excuses for the perpetrators there.

And that's not merely a liberal phenomenon -- there are plenty of cases where conservatives have made BS excuses for the evil acts of one of their own. I'm sure you guys can find examples with ease.

 

I'm willing to concede such people exist, but they must make up a tiny fraction of the population.

Well, then pick one who doesn't have anything to do with any religion, like the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho - was he a terrorist?

Who has made excuses for the 9/11 perpetrators? I assume you mean the ones that are standing trial now, like KSM - not the actual perpetrators, as they obviously could never stand trial.

 

So you are attacking an opinion that has not even been spoken yet?

What excuses? Again you seem to confuse explanations for excuses. I can see why a bunch of people would develop such a hate towards the US that they would hijack three airplanes and crashing them into buildings. There are many explanations, none of them excuse the act, they only explain them. Understanding and excusing are not one and the same LKD, you seem to constantly mix the two up. Explaining and understanding why for example the 9/11 bombers did what they did can go a long way to making sure it never happens again maybe even by adressing some of the reasons why they were upset enough to kill themselves to hurt an enemy. Oh wait, that is appeasement isn't it? Our side can never be wrong, it is the evil people who are in the wrong and anyone trying to understand them or see it from their point of view are excusing their actions. You seem to see any attempt at understanding the vile as excusing the vile.

The debate around the Fort Hood shooting is about whether it was an islamic terrorist attack with political goals and maybe even part of some greater scheme or whether it was a lone lunatic who snapped and decided to kill a bunch of people. Neither side are excusing the murders.

 

Yes, my friend, I am mind reading. Take a look at your opening quote:

Just like you, I was an English major. You always set the main thrust of your topic in the opening, whether the reader is aware of it or not. You know how to craft a pocket essay just as well as I, LKD.

 

joaqin: I agree with this:

You're right -- they should not be one and the same.

But this:

Not so much. I have seen it time and again in the school system and the justice system, where the "reasons" morph into "excuses" and people get away with the most amazing crap.

Chandos, most here know I despise liberals, but of course I am more than willing to point out a conservative fallacy that leads to the same nasty location as the one I opened up with, the fallacy that a person's previous good deeds can be used as an excuse for his current evil deeds. Both sorts of extremism, coupled with a lack of common sense, can lead to disaster.

And, no sarcasm here, I defer to you in terms in English craft -- I was NOT an English major, I wish I had been. I am an Education* major, with a major in English, minor in Social Studies. Big difference in prestige, with all of it going to you, my friend! My fantasy is to one day go back and get a Master's in English Literature. But that takes $$$$. And I am way off topic!

*Those who can, do, those who lack the cojones, teach. Le sigh.

 

LKD - Well, you certainly know how to open with a well-defined theme and develop it over series of equally well-defined subpoints, as proven on this thread.