Me thinks the dear doctor was set up.

I not a fan of any of the sexist abrahamic religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and yet I don't think we can blame a religion or a culture for the shootings. I think terrorism is caused by our murder of innocent people in predominantly Muslim nations i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq and the general mistreatment of people who live in Palestine by the entire planet, but mainly by Syria ironically. More about geography and economics than race, culture or religion.

After all, we see hardly any terrorists from Saudi Arabia - okay, Osama Bin Ladin and most of the terrorists who carried out 9/11, but we won't be attacking Saudi Arabia anytime soon because it's just too rich and powerful a nation so we pick on the poor and the powerless and bomb rural areas. If we wanted to kill the leaders of these nations, we'd just hit their government buildings.

We're fighting unjust wars and expected no protest and are shocked when the victims fight back. It's folly and sin. It's much like involuntary civil commitment. You lock up someone who hasn't committed a crime and expect this to make that person safer to society.

I think that considering the nefarious nature of psychiatric treatment, it is entirely predictable that a psychiatrist would become violent and then you add the fact that his people are actually being treated wrongly, he tried by legal means to leave the military and he's on drugs that inspire self confidence, remove inhibitions, and create a false sense of euphoria and you have a perfect storm.

The anti Arabic sentiment I see brewing here and in the national media is horrifying.

I heard people briefly talking about the situation and they were saying how these people with "mental illnesses" are just "sick" and how if they knew someone crazy like that they could tell right away and how these people with mental illnesses don't see the world like 'you and me' and their view of the world is messed up and how could they possibly let someone like that get away and not notice. They then went on to say how it's not good to stereotype Muslims and we should respect all Muslims and their culture and judging and entire culture by the act of one person is wrong and to make sure not to offend any Muslims. Meanwhile, they had just judged the entire mental illness culture around them. It's ironic how people make extra sure to respect other's cultures, but no one blinks an eye about publicly insulting people with mental illnesses because everyone assumes that no one around could possibly have a mental illness. They associate mental illnesss with murderer or psycho, instead of someone who has anxiety, depression, panic, distorted, anxious thoughts or delusions. So many people don't even know what mental illness is. People can be really hypocritical, how they say making stereotypes about a race or culture is bad, but it's perfectly fine to insult people with mental illnesses. Luckily, though, mental illness is becoming more in around other crowds. It really depends on who you're talking to, but it's still really shocking how some people will say these things about mental illness, acting like they know about it when they know nothing and not even realize how what they are saying is so mean because it's about "crazy" people.

so glad the mainstream media are all over this. oops, i just checked - they are all apologizing for hasan and explaining how we americans are the guilty ones.
msnbc reports:
"The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter
‘He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,’ says neighbor."
whoops! for some reason, that story got pulled! i am sure there is a story behind that story getting pulled!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33766545/ns/us_news-washington_post/

from War in Context:

http://warincontext.org/2009/11/09/the-fort-hood-massacre-and-questions-of-terrorism/

Editor’s Comment — If an investigation and Hasan’s own testimony eventually lead to the determination that the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terrorism — meaning, it was a premeditated attack whose victims were selected for political rather than personal reasons — then there already appears to be enough evidence to draw one conclusion: Hasan was a US Army major who became a terrorist and not a terrorist who joined the army.

If it is determined that this was an act of terrorism, then the next question will be: at what point did Hasan make the transition from being someone with profound misgivings about the wars; someone who suffered the indignities of being a target of anti-Muslim bigotry; to someone who wanted to use violence not merely to vent stored up rage but in order to send a message.

At this point, in spite of mounting anecdotal evidence that the killings were an act of terrorism, there is no unambiguous signature — a fact that suggests that not only in this particular case far more remains unknown than known, but that the linguistic clarity through which we are now so used to applying these terms “terrorist” and “terrorism”, point to something far more complex and far more difficult to define than the glib use of these words imply.

As a psychiatrist, one might expect that Hasan’s understanding of the workings of the human mind will make his own testimony unusually illuminating.

Unfortunately, we live in an era where the treatment of tortured psyches has been reduced to an often perfunctory practice in dispensing brain-numbing drugs. This was a physician who appears to have had no inkling how to treat himself. His case may ultimately present more questions than answers.

I cannot comment on this although I wish I could.
I'm very scary of all these informations so I will wait.
However I don't know if waiting will bring the truth. I don't think so.
I just hate to see Peter Breggin at this story.
I'm on the verge to e-mail him.

Isn't it possible that Hasan is all of the above? IE, a "radical Islamist" with an ideology, a tool of the psychiatric profession (per Breggin), AND an individual genuinely suffering from stress and internal conflicts, such as the fact that he was about to be sent abroad to fight Muslims in a war he was against?

When we start to demonize people, we lose sight of a larger reality. Sounds like this guy was trouble waiting to happen any way you slice it, and once again the government dropped the ball (as it did when it stopped investigating the 9/11 guys who took U.S. flight-training courses). But he's also a complex human being who just MIGHT have been redeemed at any step along the way. Now it's probably too late for him, and definitely too late for those he killed.

Philip wrote:
"...Maj. Hasan is far from alone in his hatred for the US..."

I think that it's a mistake to brand somebody a loser, simply because they don't like one. The US is a wealthy country and it has a large and well-armed military, but that doesn't equate to moral supremacy. Not in my book, anyway. If the US is as powerful as it believes it is, then it might be wise if it devoted some of its energy to the question of assessing what it has done to alienate so many people.

In any event, as far as Hasan is concerned, we only "know" what we're told. Personally, I believe very little of what I'm told, these days. As it stands, he's a "sleeper" who's woken up and killed some people. That appears to be the official line, anyway.

I think that there are some who believe that people may be controlled through fear. Hasan may be one of them. The US administration, in college, is another. Personally, I am not afraid of Islamic extremists, and there are many reasons why that is so. Foremost amongst these is the fact that I don't believe they're less human than I am, and I don't believe that what they believe is without consequence. That means we're motivated by the same things. And that makes them easy to read.

Matt

Does an individual willing to strap a bomb to them selves or decide to go on a shooting spree killing and injuring innocent citizens genuinely suffering from stress and internal conflicts.

I would certainly hope so; but once you bring a "Jihad" mentality into the equation, it creates a conundrum of sorts. Does faith and corresponding actions (even at this radical extreme) qualify as a mental illness. (If so, then maybe are bombs should be made up of pharmaceutical chemical restraints, instead of more certain and explosive devices)

There is little doubt there many diverse opinions and arguments both for and against the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in the general so called "Muslim" world.

What is the rational solution to this declared "Holy War"? Do we as America just pull back from Iraq and Afghanistan at this juncture, hoping for the best outcome. We know this would leave us with no assurances of peace; while catastrophic cost in both life and liberty are looming on every horizon.

What would happened if this was "NAZI" Germany we were referring to here instead of Muslim extremist with an argument of inaction. It would realistically not be regarded as a ridiculous assumption to say I would be typing this comment in "German" today.

Though even in those turbulent times (what we most consider today to be just and necessary war) there was some fairly strong public opinion and influential elements opposed to America getting involved in that war also.

I would suppose that some here truly believe that if America backed down and stopped all military actions against this "Jihad"; it would stop or curtail further violence and attacks upon Western Civilization and Culture by these extremist.

I wonder what it will take for those against overseas actions against extremism to wake up to the reality of this war. No matter how unpleasant, futile, costly, and never ending this effort may appear.

Will it actually have to take a nuclear or bio-chemical weapon causing mass causalities on American soil for attitudes and opinions to change toward this relentless enemy.

Or will a full scale nuclear conflict involving Israel be enough to open every eye to this juggernaut of opposing cultures and philosophies in our world today.

Terrorist inflicted violence upon Western and American targets has been going on for decades now. I assume "911" and related attacks around the world were not enough for many to conclude we have a determined, committed, and relentless enemy to deal with now.

Maybe those that maintain the massive conspiracy theory mentality and it was "Bush's War" will never accept that there are times when War and Violence are the less desirable, but an absolutely necessary measure to ensure each of us that always precarious possibility and fragile opportunity for some reasonable as-semblance of peace/safety from these often brutal and totalitarian oppressors/aggressors.

My opinion continued to be; This Hasan walked like a "duck", talked like a "duck", took the actions of a "duck", and was swimming in the duck pond with other "ducks"; He's what you call a "DUCK".

Yet there will always be those that call him a "pig" in spite of the evidence.

MsPiggy wrote:
"...Yet there will always be those that call him a "pig" in spite of the evidence."

And he would almost certainly be deeply offended by that!

Tub-thumping jingoism notwithstanding, there is no "War on Terror". The term itself is a paradox, as you have noted yourself, more or less, and was coined, I believe, by the cretin, Shrub. Shrub is also a firm proponent of the idea that one is either "with us or against us". Remind me: how old are your leaders? Mentally speaking?

Getting back to the point, one may not have a war against a concept. Terror is not personnified (neither in the person of OBL, nor O'Bama), and thus there is nothing to war against. Terror is experienced. One may choose to experience terror, or not. If one is not terrified, one will not need to identify the thing that is causing one's discomfort, and one will not need to seek to destroy it. Believe me, it is that simple.

My reality and my culture/civilization are not threatened by Islam. Shrub, O'Bama and Brown's may be, but if that's so, then they should be honest and say "my way of life is threatened," and not include others in their conflict. These people have never sought an understanding of my world view, and thus they should be very careful about speaking on my behalf, nor should they imagine that it is inevitable that I am threatened by the same things that they are threatened by.

Anyway, the argument concerns the failure of a series of official bodies to recognize that Hasan represented a risk, and not the War on Terror [sic]. Alternatively, if Hasan was capable of being influenced by authority figures (eg, his Immam), then one wonders about his objectivity (and therefore his professionalism), more generally.

A pretty poor show, all round.

Matt

"they were saying how these people with "mental illnesses" are just "sick" and how if they knew someone crazy like that they could tell right away"

People will tell themselves any lies they can, smear anyone they have to in order to avoid the existential truth that we have no control over the universe.

Sherry (who found "A Serious Man" comforting)